A question about fallacies

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
JazzTheist's picture
Because he is not affected by

Because he is not affected by your tactics.

arakish's picture
Cognostic: "Seriously, Why is

Cognostic: "Seriously, Why is this troll still here?"

JazzTheist: "Because he is not affected by your tactics."

Or maybe because its too afraid to admit defeat so it continues to spew the same bullshit it is so full of it can no longer smell it.

rmfr

Stone Jade's picture
"I would also have the same

"I would also have the same grounds to accuse dark matter of being a special pleading fallacy to explain something dubiously unnatural."

I don't buy this argument you keep repeating about dark matter. This level of space science is relatively new and particularly difficult and expensive to study. There's lots that we still don't know about space. Heck, we just discovered the first planet outside of our solar system in 1992. If we attributed all of the unknowns in space to God, all astronomers would be theists. That's called the God of the Gaps. We have hundreds of examples of times in history when humans attributed the unknown to God, and it was then found that there was a natural explanation. We have lots of evidence that we should keep looking for natural solutions and very little evidence that we won't be able to find an explanation. Reason and evidence tell us NOT to attribute this to God. This is not special pleading.

JazzTheist's picture
No no. It would be Science of

No no. It would be Science of the Gaps if you insist that galaxies aren't a result of supernatural intervention just because we've already come up with the idea of dark matter.

The reason why is because insisting that everything must have a natural explanation is an unfalsifiable stance; whereas the possibility of a supernatural explanation is actually falsifiable. If a physical law is discovered to explain what we observe, then the supernatural explanation is falsified.

arakish's picture
Or it is confusing the God of

Or it is confusing the God of the Gaps Fallacy with gaps in True Knowledge and True Truth.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"No no. It would be Science

"No no. It would be Science of the Gaps if you insist that galaxies aren't a result of supernatural intervention just because we've already come up with the idea of dark matter."

Nonsense sorry, there is no objective evidence for anything supernatural, and your claim is again the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Occam's razor applies, you are adding an assumption you can't evidence, science does not validate things by assumption, sufficient objective evidence is required.

"The reason why is because insisting that everything must have a natural explanation is an unfalsifiable stance; "

Straw man fallacy, we now for an objective fact that natural explanations exist, as does the natural material universe, you are the assuming something more exists without being able to demonstrate any objective evidence. Hitchen's razor applies to YOUR claim, no one needs to make a contrary claim.

" whereas the possibility of a supernatural explanation is actually falsifiable. If a physical law is discovered to explain what we observe, then the supernatural explanation is falsified."

How many things have we explained thus far that are properly evidenced to have a supernatural cause? It's none isn't it. Until you can produce some evidence for one why would I believe you the supernatural exists?

Sheldon's picture
"It would be Science of the

"It would be Science of the Gaps if you insist that galaxies aren't a result of supernatural intervention just because we've already come up with the idea of dark matter."

No it wouldn't, and Occam's razor would apply to your extra assumption that the natural material universe, and natural phenomena (both of which can be objectively evidenced) requires the addition of unevidenced supernatural forces. You're simply trying to dodge the fact you can demonstrate no evidence for anything supernatural by claiming no one can prove it doesn't exist, this is the very dentition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

JazzTheist's picture
You are correct. The fallacy

You are correct. The fallacy works both ways.

It's wrong to say that something is true because you can't disprove it. For example: ''my wife loves me because there's no evidence indicating that she doesn't.''

It's also wrong to say that something is false because you can't prove it. For example: ''I don't believe that Caesar existed because there's no physical evidence.''

CyberLN's picture
JT, you wrote, “It's also

JT, you wrote, “It's also wrong to say that something is false because you can't prove it. For example: ''I don't believe that Caesar existed because there's no physical evidence.'' l

Those are two distinctly different things. To say ‘I don’t believe...’ is very, very different than saying it is false.

JazzTheist's picture
Which begs the question: do

Which begs the question: do you believe that Caesar existed? If so, why?

CyberLN's picture
Great response, JT! Atta way

Great response, JT! Atta way to avoid responsibility for the error you made in equating non-belief and assertion!

JazzTheist's picture
Answer my question: do you

Answer my question: do you believe that Caesar existed or not?

(Disclaimer: my bad; should've offered a rebuttal to your claim first. Well...non-belief and disbelief are very close to each other; a sufficient amount of non-belief would lead to disbelief.)

CyberLN's picture
“Well...non-belief and

“Well...non-belief and disbelief are very close to each other; a sufficient amount of non-belief would lead to disbelief.)”

A sufficient amount of non-belief? How much is that? How would you measure it? How are non-belief and disbelief different?

JazzTheist's picture
''How are non-belief and

''How are non-belief and disbelief different?''

Wait, you're admitting that they're different now? I was arguing that they were essentially the same.

CyberLN's picture
No, you argued that saying

No, you argued that saying one does not believe something is the same as saying it is false. Do I need to copy that quote here? That’s why I asked what you think the difference is between disbelief and non-belief. Some definitions indicate the latter two are the same thing, some don’t. I wanted clarification.

JazzTheist's picture
Let me refresh your memory a

Let me refresh your memory a little. I said that a sufficient amount of non-belief would lead to disbelief (believing that something is false)

To elaborate: non-belief originates from lack of the evidence that you want. As time passes and your experiences confirm predictions drawn from your non-belief, you'd go further into disbelief.

CyberLN's picture
You wrote, “Let me refresh

You wrote, “Let me refresh your memory a little. I said that a sufficient amount of non-belief would lead to disbelief (believing that something is false)”

The parenthized piece...you did not include that the first time around yet seem to admonish me for not assuming it and requesting clarification. Interesting.

You also wrote, “To elaborate: non-belief originates from lack of the evidence that you want. As time passes and your experiences confirm predictions drawn from your non-belief, you'd go further into disbelief.”

How on earth do you know that I do that?

David Killens's picture
http://www.humanities.mq.edu
Cognostic's picture
Troll.....

Troll.....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jazzy

@ Jazzy

do you believe that Caesar existed? If so, why?

Because the existence of Julius Caesar (To whom I assume you are referring) has fulfilled the historical necessities to establish him as a bone fide historical figure: Your "nothing written for 900 years" is a lie as I am sure you are aware.
In addition there are coins, inscriptions and other archeological items that bear out the fact of his existence.

There lies the difference between a bona fide character and a figure for which there is no evidence at all outside the book that claims his existence.

Just in case you think I am biased: here's a confirmation from a rabid christian site:
Tracing ancient history is about examining sources and the manuscripts behind them, as well as the nature of their content and claims. In regard to Julius Caesar, the key sources are his own accounts of the Gallic Wars, the speeches of Cicero, Sallust’s account of Catiline’s War, Suetonius’s section on Caesar in Twelve Caesars, and Plutarch’s section on Caesar in Plutarchs’s Lives.

In some ways, Caesar’s autobiographical account gives us more to consider than the accounts of Jesus do. It provides direct testimony about events Caesar participated in. Sallust and Cicero were Caesar’s contemporaries as well, so there are reliable outside sources closely tied to the time of these events. Two of the most important sources for the emperor’s life, however, Suetonius and Plutarch, write in the early second century. That’s more than 100 years after the time of Caesar.

Manuscript support lies behind these sources. And this is where things get especially interesting. Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth century—a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time.www.thegospelcoalition.org

I suspect you jumped to the conclusion, and didn't understand it, without reading the whole article.

Edit for quotes from previous poster.

arakish's picture
JazzTheist: "Which begs the

JazzTheist: "Which begs the question: do you believe that Caesar existed? If so, why?"

Because there is OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of hundreds of documents that date back to the times of the Caesars. All of the Caesars. Remember, Julius was not the only Caesar.

There is absolutely NO evidence Hey-soos (Jesus) ever existed except for the Bible.

Someone needs to do more research.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Firstly it's an objective

Firstly it's an objective fact humans existed, so the probability of Caesar existing already has the advantage that we know it is objectively possible. We don't know it is objectively possible for the supernatural to exist, as again no one can demosntrate any objective evidence for anything supernatural.

There is evidence we know what Caesar looked liked, and we have a complete history of his life. In turn, general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself, and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artefacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries.

I think it's safe to believe he existed, but I have no stake either way. The evidence is far more compelling than anything we for Jesus, and I don't disbelieve he existed as an historical human, nor am I entirely convinced he did. I certainly don't believe any of the supernatural claims assigned to him.

Sheldon's picture
"It's also wrong to say that

"It's also wrong to say that something is false because you can't prove it. For example: ''I don't believe that Caesar existed because there's no physical evidence.''"

Again contrary claims are not needed in order to disbelieve your claims that a deity and the supernatural exist. As you can demonstrate no objective evidence for them.

And I must say I'm getting dizzy from your endless attempts to reverse the burden of proof as if atheism is a claim or a belief, rather than the lack of a belief. Theism is a belief that makes a claim, can you objectively evidence it, no you cannot, thus I do not believe you, and ipso facto am an atheist.

No claim or contrary belief is needed...

David Killens's picture
Here is a hypothetical

Here is a hypothetical scenario Franco.

Imagine that on the way to the market you meet a stranger who tells you that he has six magic beans. He will exchange them with you for the cow you own.

Would you?

Simple common sense and a dose of skepticism would guide your actions into disbelieving the claims about the beans until you receive adequate assurances they are not fake.

This is not an appeal to ignorance, this is common sense and skepticism actually directing you towards discovering the truth and not being a gullible fool.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I always try to follow these

I always try to follow these encounters and process them in a way akin to a conversation.

Theist - There is a God
Atheist - I'm not convinced

The main fallacies committed (in my opinion only) is in regards to the burden of proof.

On the whole, most theists fail miserably in this regard.

You will see them mock, deride science, the scientific method, laws of nature and physics.
Yet, all of their proposals rely heavily on the aforementioned.

landlore's picture
What do You think?

What do You think?

I have personally noticed that most of the people in the Christian community usually look to the signs, miracles, prophecies, and vindication that are listed in the Bible, to propose their faith in God is valid.

They believe that there is a God existing, because of the existence of the book ( Bible ) that they believe God left for them. They see that it mentions future events in prophecy and foretells the coming of future events. It gives many details to past history in vivid details, with genealogies of men born from the first man Adam to thousands of years and generations, until Jesus Himself. They see the locations and descriptions of places, dates, times, vivid details of names and events that are written in chronological orders that seems to have an outcome of perfect exact confirming storyline that confirms itself.

Many, many things are written to give the indication that the messages are saying such and such an event took place and now this next event will occur. (* oncoming future foretelling ) and Christians believe that they find a find a great measure of truth, as they continue to read the book to the end. Christians see this as the vindication of their faith or a proof, that everything matches up in their minds as a storyline that has been presented to become the greatest, number one selling book on the planet to have ever existed in marketing. The Bible gives many, many warnings that involve human behavior concerning how people live and also their health practices and sexual behavior and result of cause and effect -

Christians look around and they see that every single last one of these things is found to be true today,
Perhaps there is no other book like the Bible. But, Christians see the Bible mostly as proof in a God as they feel close to Him and seek to communicate directly to HIm but it seems that He is waiting and does not show Himself to them directly.

If there is a God, His sense of time is certainly not the same as we experience time here on earth.,

arakish's picture
@ JazzTheist Troll. rmfr

@ JazzTheist

Troll.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
In regards to Jazztheist's

In regards to Jazztheist's comments regarding the validity of Caesar, I again ask, which one?
Every emperor in the west roman empire was known as Caesar? So who are we discussing?

There are literally dozens!

Furthermore, The reason people are Christian is in no small part due to the Emperor (Caesar) Constantine.

He did more for Christianity then vast swaths of others before and after himself.

Sapporo's picture
@JazzTheist do you believe

@JazzTheist do you believe that Julius Caesar is a divinity?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.