something got my attention while i was watching one of closer to truth's episodes, the opinion Walter Sinnott-Armstrong gave regarding the fallacies of the existence of god: he said " when people want to argue for a conclusion their arguments come along. people cite for conclusion first and they construct their argument later and thats when you typically get fallacies.
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Religious belief is based on faith, not reason. Pointing out the fallacy to a believer is a waste of time, unless they are questioning their faith and seeking guidance.
Mitch07102
Level 8
Aug 23, 2020
1
When one has already decided on something being factual without evidence, this way of working backwards to build evidence to justify it, is always going to be full of fallacious arguments and highly imaginative guesswork. It’s often what happens with the police in criminal cases..they decide who the guilty person is and then they built their evidence to fit that fact...instead of the other way round, finding evidence and following where it leads. In the criminal justice system here in the UK and elsewhere it has led to serious miscarriages of justice.
I know I’m a bit off subject here because you’re talking about how some people justify their belief in god ...but the parallels are there in the way the police can fit someone up if they believe in their guilt.
Marionville
Level 10
Aug 23, 2020
8
It is not off the subject at all. Logic and flawed logic are comparable in all cases.
And the crap ia also particularly true in politics.
The orange blob's chief of staff was confronted about der leader's assertion that mail in ballots leads to massive fraud: "there's no evidence for fraud."
He replied, "there's no evidence that there's not."
@HumanistJohn They have a way of standing logic on its head.
"highly imaginative guesswork" this is the statement of the day! i love it! big thanks.
@Basem Glad to be at your service! 
@HumanistJohn When arguing with a theist, I think it could be fruitful tactic with many, to point out how what they're doing is very much like the way Trump disregards and distorts facts to fit his aims.
@HumanistJohn I also picked up on that....wanting proof of a negative is classic religious argument. A bottomless pit.
You see that in how they challenge us as well. Well, your position does not account for..... sure we can make up answers too, but that is our specific complaint about theism... so you can’t fault us for Not making up answers. There are lots of things we don’t know, and may never.
TaylorWalston
Level 6
Aug 23, 2020
3
agreed.
Logjstically, you'd state you're premises first and then the conclusion, but there is nothing wrong with stating the conclusion and then the premises that led to it. Good paragraph structure would suggest the latter in a well written thesis. I think the problem with many fallacies of god's existence is that premises are false, narrow or depend upon the conclusion
Cyklone
Level 7
Aug 23, 2020
1
how can one establish a conclusion and run toward it? not to mention that the premises are false them selves.
Yes. "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal" is the very same argument as "Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal and Socrates is a man." The position of the conclusion is irrelevant. It also might be in the middle, such as "All men are mortal; therefore Socrates is mortal since Socrates is a man."
@LenHazell53 Exactly what I was trying to say but I obviously used too many big words. Thank you for putting it more clearly.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.