|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2021 15:28:27 GMT
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). I don’t believe things that make me happy* Believing in God does not make me happy Therefore, I do not believe in God This is the logic theists often use to claim the reason atheists are not actually atheists because it’s about how their dislike about God rather than the so-call philosophical proofs of God. *based on the theist assumption that atheists are spirituality miserable Shouldn't your second premise be "Believing in God makes me happy" for the conclusion to follow? Assuming that's what you meant, it is a logically valid argument but it is not a sound argument as the atheist can fairly easily deny either premise.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:29:05 GMT
1) I know things exist when I can prove they exist. 2) If I cannot prove things exist (and I care about them) I base belief on logic. Could you expand on that - what is your logic as regards God? I spent time living as an Atheist, an Agnostic and a believer. Being a believer made sense to me. The other two didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:30:02 GMT
That would still mean believers out number non believers. Yes, an argument ad pop, I've already addressed this. It's not an argument. It's a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 6, 2021 15:33:11 GMT
I don’t believe things that make me happy* Believing in God does not make me happy Therefore, I do not believe in God This is the logic theists often use to claim the reason atheists are not actually atheists because it’s about how their dislike about God rather than the so-call philosophical proofs of God. *based on the theist assumption that atheists are spirituality miserable Shouldn't your second premise be "Believing in God makes me happy" for the conclusion to follow? Assuming that's what you meant, it is a logically valid argument but it is not a sound argument as the atheist can fairly easily deny either premise. I’m using my faith-based logic known as irony...that little thing the Apollonian thinkers forgot about...as Socrates found out.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:33:13 GMT
Yes, an argument ad pop, I've already addressed this. It's not an argument. It's a fact. You can still use facts in argument and it can still be fallacious, these two aren't mutually excusive. Saying "the majority of the world believes in religion" is factually true, but using it as some sort measurement for the validity of religion is fallacious (argument from ad pop)
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:36:21 GMT
It's not an argument. It's a fact. You can still use facts in argument and it can still be fallacious, these two aren't mutually excusive. Saying "the majority of the world believes in religion" is true, but using it as some sort measurement for the validity of religion is fallacious (argument from ad pop) I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:39:10 GMT
You can still use facts in argument and it can still be fallacious, these two aren't mutually excusive. Saying "the majority of the world believes in religion" is true, but using it as some sort measurement for the validity of religion is fallacious (argument from ad pop) I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. " Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:42:31 GMT
I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. 1) "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia then. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. 2) "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion." Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this. 1) That's good. I often disagree with academia. 2) Yes, I've already addressed this also being that over 80 percent of the world's population adheres to a religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:45:17 GMT
1) "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia then. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. 2) "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. " Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this. 1) That's good. I often disagree with academia. 2) Yes, I've already addressed this also being that over 80 percent of the world's population adheres to a religion. 1) You can disagree with them all you want, but you're not producing an actual sound argument against argument ad pop 2.) Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 15:59:39 GMT
Religious people have a LOT more children.
Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 16:03:15 GMT
Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman. Yeah again, this isn't a good argument for religion, quite the opposite, you're basically admitting the spread of religion has more to do with believers having more children and childhood indoctrination rather than it's actual sound validity. I've already addressed this.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:04:33 GMT
1) That's good. I often disagree with academia. 2) Yes, I've already addressed this also being that over 80 percent of the world's population adheres to a religion. 1) You can disagree with them all you want, but you're not producing an actual sound argument against argument ad pop 2.) Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making. 1) I'm not arguing with you. I'm just presenting facts. 2) No. I think it will stay where the believers greatly outnumber non believers.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 16:06:40 GMT
“Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making.”
My answer: “No. Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman.”
(The percentage of religious people on Earth.)
I’m talking about the MATH!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 6, 2021 16:08:48 GMT
I disagree. Certainly on it's own it wouldn't prove validity. But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. "I disagree." Well then you're basically disagreeing with all of academia. Are they some how wrong? Argument from ad pop is a very well known and established logical fallacy within academia, saying "I disagree" is almost like saying you disagree that the earth is round. "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion. " Religion has been on the decline for quite some time, I've already addressed this. "But it's one more stick on the back of the Atheists who suspiciously want to eradicate all religion.” That only applies to the atheists who actually want this which a fair guess would be a very small group of the windmills being battled by theists. Saying religion is popular is objectively true. But measuring religion only locates it. It can’t really address religion’s actions. It is the negative impact of religion that concerns most atheists beyond gripping about someone’s personal beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 16:09:08 GMT
1) You can disagree with them all you want, but you're not producing an actual sound argument against argument ad pop 2.) Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making. 1) I'm not arguing with you. I'm just presenting facts. 2) No. I think it will stay where the believers greatly outnumber non believers. 1. Yes you're presenting facts, but you're using them in a fallacious manner ("A lot of people believe in religion, therefore there must some truth to it") I've already addressed this. 2.) Did you not see the Pew article I sent you? Also the world is still majority religios only because so many countries are underdevoped and poor. Poor countries tend to be more religious (and yes the data is there to show that) because they have more children and they don't have access to the best education. Once these third world countries start to catch up, the religiosity of them will almost certainly drop.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 16:10:41 GMT
“Do you admit that percentage is going to eventually go down? That's the real point I'm making.” My answer: “No. Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman.” (The percentage of religious people on Earth.) I'll just copy and past what I said to movieliker: Did you not see the Pew article I sent you? Also the world is still majority religious only because so many countries are underdeveloped and poor. Poor countries tend to be more religious (and yes the data is there to show that) because they have more children and they don't have access to the best education. Once these third world countries start to catch up, the religiosity of them will almost certainly drop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 6, 2021 16:11:40 GMT
Religious people have a LOT more children. Ultra-religious Jews have 10 per woman. Yeah again, this isn't a good argument for religion, quite the opposite, you're basically admitting the spread of religion has more to do with believers having more children and childhood indoctrination rather than it's actual sound validity. I've already addressed this. And sadly, these folks, particularly in the US, are often mired in ignorance and poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2021 16:28:23 GMT
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? That would still mean believers out number non believers. And not too long ago, before humanity knew much about bacteria and viruses, the people who believed diseases were a divine punishment outnumbered those who believed that diseases had natural causes. Does this mean they were right?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:29:33 GMT
1) I'm not arguing with you. I'm just presenting facts. 2) No. I think it will stay where the believers greatly outnumber non believers. 1. Yes you're presenting facts, but you're using them in a fallacious manner ("A lot of people believe in religion, therefore there must some truth to it") I've already addressed this. 2.) Did you not see the Pew article I sent you? Also the world is still majority religios only because so many countries are underdevoped and poor. Poor countries tend to be more religious (and yes the data is there to show that) because they have more children and they don't have access to the best education. Once these third world countries start to catch up, the religiosity of them will almost certainly drop. )1) But of course, that goes without saying. 2) I looked up statistics on my own. And "religious" and "believer" are two different things. Many people in 1rst world countries (like me) don't belong to any organized religion. But they still believe. Intelligent and educated people can think for themselves. They don't need a church to tell them what to believe, think or do.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 16:33:53 GMT
That would still mean believers out number non believers. And not too long ago, before humanity knew much about bacteria and viruses, the people who believed diseases were a divine punishment outnumbered those who believed that diseases had natural causes. Does this mean they were right? No, of course not. But it doesn't mean everything they used to think is wrong either.
|
|