Atheists...Logical Review (Part 2)?

Question

Yes...I know you all have been patiently waiting.

Here is our next subject for review:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071207110625AAjqSYd

I would think it is easy to see the askers thinking is trying to create a false correlation. Let me give you an example. I really like red Porsches... I think it is just a very classic look. Can you logically conclude that I like all models of cars in red? Or can you conclude that I like any other models of cars in red? In fact...I do not, red would probalby be one of my last choices. Could the asker just be curious...sure...but is the thinking logical?

I am not saying rational...I am talking about logical. There is a big difference. This question is making a false correlation...if you don't believe so...I would like to know why.

Reasonable question...Yes. Valid question...Yes. Logical question...No.

Acid Zebra: are you not having fun anymore? I still am.

Simon: You can not make any logically correct conclusion on my taste in colors of cars just by me saying I like red Porsches. You can try...but you will/could be wrong. You said I like red sports cars...no I don't...just Porsches. Otherwise I like a titanium color..sometimes black...it really depends on the car. You can't logically deduce anything else by my statement...except that I like red Porsches.

Answer 1

you are right on this one, that question was not logical at all

Answer 2

I'll be doing Buckethead's "Electric Tears." All In the Waiting: A great introduction for the style of album it is, mellow yet captivating. 9/10 Sketches of Spain: A soft track in an interesting mode, the slight incorporation of electric rather than acoustic guitar keeps me listening. 8/10 Padmasana: Though an interesting piece, the phaser(?) on the rhythm guitar gets a little tedious, and the track's length could be cut down by taking out some of the repeteated measures. 6/10 Mustang: The delay and harmonics work magnificently together to build a great intro, followed by one of the most simplistically cool muted rhythm guitar parts I've ever heard. 8/10 The Way to Heaven: Just an overall interesting song, the solo work with the slightly distorted guitar is supported by a powerful rhythm part. Another 9/10 Baptism of Solitude: A pleasent break in a major key in the largely minor-dominated album. Cool solo work over the refrain is powerful. 8/10 Kansas Storm: Great incorporation of delay (again) in this rhythm part developes a classic sound, another episode in the major key hiatus of the album works well. 7/10 for repetition. Datura: A cool slow work with effects breaks from the major into a slow developing minor composition. Beautiful passage at about 3:11 in. 8/10 Mantaray: Similair to Datura, effects build a psychedelic minor composition, followed by a simple majority after about 2:08 in. 7/10 Witches on the Heath: A soft rhythm with bluesy solo work on top, the slight distortion is incorporated well. 7/10 Angel Monster: The first few notes sound exactly like Padmasana's, and after 0:21's transition there isn't too much to talk about. 6/10 Electric Tears: Without much soloing you're allowed to focus on the chord structure, which works well seperately, but in following the previous tracks is annoying. 6/10 Spell of the Gypsies: A nice outro for the album, the major is amazing in contrast to it's predessesors. The part 1:35 in left me feeling how I did when I first heard Behind Blue Eyes' chorus. 9/10 Alltogether a great work when you're in the mood for something soft. 8.5/10 P.S. Wow... believe it or not that only took me 20 minutes or so. Haha I'm gonna go outside for a while.

Answer 3

It's a comment on credibility.
Nobody takes fairies, Father Christmas, Alien visits, Ra, Zeus etc etc very seriously.
Only a very, very few would support their existence. The question is "why not?".
They have a long history (very long in some cases) they are very well documented and in the past have been considered very credible.
You may have other explanations, but most atheists would argue: lack of evidence for their existence.
That self same lack of evidence that afflicts all present day religions.
One could illustrate this by asking any modern religious adherent "I believe in Jupiter, my faith tells me this is true. It was written down as the word of the gods 3000 years ago. Why do you not believe?"
Most would reply "My story is true because my book is the word of god, so yours cannot be" Backed up with a lot of quotations from their book.
They cannot offer real evidence because there is none. Therefore, why is their belief more valid than any other "faith" based system that requires one to believe in something extremely unlikely, because believing somehow makes it true.

Answer 4

Yes it is logical.


You give a bad example.

Also any theist is capable of debunking this by saying that they do believe in leprechauns, or whatever. The questioner is not rigidly defining a limited list of options, as you are in your example - that you must like all red cars.

The questioner is asking a drinking question. ie why do believers have a different criteria of belief for god as opposed to other mythological creatures, but the fact that it has been asked multiple times before in many different ways does not make it a logical fallacy.

Oh, and by the way it would be reasonable to conclude that you like red sports cars. Your feelings over a red Corvette as opposed to a red Aston Martin could not be inferred, but you would be free to offer the information up.

Answer 5

The way to go about analyzing this argument would be to start with the basis - many Christians claim they believe in God based on faith. You could interpret this question to be asking why Christians lack faith in other things, like leprechauns or unicorns. This appears to be a valid, logical question - most Christians cannot point to any actual reason for believing in God, just that they have faith in him. It stands to reason that there is no reason to not have faith in other things for which there is no proof. Thus, outsiders may wonder why Christians don't have faith in (or believe in) those other unproven things.

Seems quite reasonable to me. We do have to remember the limited scope of the question, however, and the assumptions, namely that people cannot point to an actual reason why they believe in God.

Answer 6

I believe so, yes.

The asker is saying there is no proof for either god or santa, for instance, and is saying that logically, one is not more real than the other because the lack of evidence is the same.

I think the real question is "Why do you dismiss something as equally scientifically plausible as something you hold unprovable truth in?"

Answer 7

I think the question could have been explained more thoroughly. They just threw it out there without giving any reason what-so-ever. It could have been logical, but the person failed to make it so.

Answer 8

I disagree. I think it's logical, however sophomoric. It's an inquiry that simply takes an obvious trait that she's observed in theists and exaggerated it to parallel her own perspective.

Answer 9

yeah, totally not logical at all. my delusions of imaginary beings are not influenced by some other quack's delusions of imaginary beings. have you ever heard two crazy people try to argue about whose perception of reality is the right one? oh wait, you have... nevermind. later folks...

Answer 10

his logic is sound since you can't prove your god, you also claim we can't disprove him even though we can, and we can't disprove santa or zeus yet your believe in an invisble skyman yet not the others. both are just as ridiculous. he's pointing out the ridiculousness of you believing in an imaginary skyman.

Answer 11

It also assumes that arguments for the existence of God are equally applicable to anything invisible. That's like saying, "If you think that eating fruit is good for you, then why don't you eat plastic fruit?"