OT 4 More Things Atheists Should Stop Saying

1) See, here's the problem we're having: you don't have the first clue about (ir)rationality and logic. All you know is that they're bad things, and since you don't want to think anything bad about your beliefs, you're denying that they're irrational/illogical. What's funny is that you literally defined what you're doing as illogical when you said "Your desire to believe God exists as a reason for being happy, has nothing to do with whether or not God exists" (IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/4521946/thread). Irrationality and logical fallacies are literally defined as methods of thought that lead to beliefs that have nothing to do with the truth of that belief. So you already admitted to being irrational, to believing in God based on a logical fallacy, but because you don't know what either of those things mean, you're still denying it. It's like someone saying "oh sure, I stabbed the guy until he died just because he laughed at me, but I didn't MURDER him!" 

The fact that you refuse to read those links (even one) says all anyone needs to know about your lack of intellectual integrity/honesty, and at this point you're just trying to project your own ignorance on to me, pretending that I'm the one that doesn't understand something, despite not having said a single thing that you can show I didn't understand. Pretty much your (and SciFive's) entire schtick is a display of various psychological defense mechanisms to protect your ignorance. 

2) How about this, I'll give you one more chance to recognize what you refuse to recognize. What if I start a poll on the Politics forum and phrase the question like this: "Is it irrational to believe things only because you want them to be true?" with the options "no, that's a logical fallacy" or "yes, that's perfectly rational" and see what they respond. Not that I have tremendous confidence in what people over there know about logic/rationality either, but this is so basic I have to be optimistic enough to think most recognize that such a thing is blatantly irrational. 

Innocent of critical thinking?

———————-

Innocent until proven guilty.

1)"I have a Bachelors degree in Mathematical Logic, arsehole."

Mathematical logic isn't really the "logic" that people are referring to here, they're refering to making sound, reasonable arguments and not use things like ad homs, strawmans, pivots, and arguments from ad pop. You know, things that you like to constantly use.


2)"You try to fck with people’s heads. Going after billions and billions of people who dare to disagree with you is like a dog chasing a Lamborghini."

Not really, you do realize religion has been on the decline for quite some time right?

Would a logical fallacy not be where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, regardless of whether either conclusion or premises are true?

So this would be rational imo:
Premise 1: I believe things that make me happy
Premise 2: Believing in God makes me happy
Conclusion: I believe in God

I think the flaw in Movieliker's thinking is he doesn't actually hold Premise 1 in all instances, only on an ad-hoc basis when it comes to God (correct me if I'm wrong here, Movieliker).

2) That means nothing, being that over 80 percent of the world's population is religious.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations#Adherents_in_2010

Well feel free to refine it as you see fit

"Religiousity" is a tricky thing to measure, many people adhere to religion mostly out of societal standards and fear of being outcasted, or even worse (particularly in certain areas of the Middle East). If I were to survey all those people using a mind reading machine and ask them if they actually believe in this stuff, the number would almost certainly go down. And BTW, religion has been on the decline quite a bit in the US:

www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

Would a logical fallacy not be where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, regardless of whether either conclusion or premises are true?

So this would be rational imo:
Premise 1: I believe things that make me happy
Premise 2: Believing in God makes me happy
Conclusion: I believe in God

I think the flaw in Movieliker's thinking is he doesn't actually hold Premise 1 in all instances, only on an ad-hoc basis when it comes to God (correct me if I'm wrong here, Movieliker).

That's just an argument from ad pop fallacy. The world wide spread of Christianity has more to do with centuries of European imperialism and colonialization rather than how true and valid it actually is. Also you do realize Islam is going to eventually surpass Christianity, right?