Atheist and Logical Fallacies

[cdowis]

CRITIC

atheist argument #1 "I don't understand, therefore it is false"
I do not understand why the Smiths went to revivals while at the same time JS was being persecuted by the very same people. "Yeah, right!"

RESPONSE

This logical fallacy is called ==>> **Argument from Personal Incredulity** Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how they work. **One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter**

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

CRITIC

atheist argument #2 "If I were god, I would do things differently == world peace, no disease, no natural disasters, etc."  
"The god of the Bible did very bad things, and I am morally superior to that kind of god."

RESONSE

This is a variation on, **Argument from Personal Incredulity**.  See above.

CRITIC

atheist argument #3 "There are so many gods, religions to choose from.  That per se is an indication that god is a man made construct."

RESPONSE

See below, argument from ignorance

CRITIC

atheist argument #4 "Nobody knew of the first vision until many years later. Therefore it was a fictional story created in hindsight"

RESPONSE

This is an "unproven assertion" which leads to **Argument from Ignorance**
Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

[Nofear]

Indeed, fallacy #1 has a related pitfall for materialists. The idea that the universe can be explained in purely material terms does not mean the universe is explainable with our current understanding of the material. We sometimes like to think our science is mostly sufficient. Cue infamous Lord Kelvin quote, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement." I am mostly a materialist, but the science I know and the theology I know both tell me that we are no where close to understanding enough of the material world to make such a claim.

 

[HiJolly]

"A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking" 
                       --  Arthur Bloch 

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

CRITIC

atheist argument #1 "I don't understand, therefore it is false"
I do not understand why the Smiths went to revivals while at the same time JS was being persecuted by the very same people. "Yeah, right!"

RESPONSE

This logical fallacy is called ==>> **Argument from Personal Incredulity** Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how they work. **One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter**

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

CRITIC

atheist argument #2 "If I were god, I would do things differently == world peace, no disease, no natural disasters, etc."  
"The god of the Bible did very bad things, and I am morally superior to that kind of god."

RESONSE

This is a variation on, **Argument from Personal Incredulity**.  See above.

CRITIC

atheist argument #3 "There are so many gods, religions to choose from.  That per se is an indication that god is a man made construct."

RESPONSE

See below, argument from ignorance

CRITIC

atheist argument #4 "Nobody knew of the first vision until many years later. Therefore it was a fictional story created in hindsight"

RESPONSE

This is an "unproven assertion" which leads to **Argument from Ignorance**
Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

I don't think I've ever encountered an argument or assertion from anyone that isn't fallacious with respect to formal logical reasoning. Reasoning is relative to a framework of assumptions and ideas, and not much can really be said about the objective truthfulness of a framework. My personal opinion: we all appear to be doing the best we can to make sense of our personal experiences and for some reason we like to give others a hard time when their interpretation differs from ours. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

My personal opinion: we all appear to be doing the best we can to make sense of our personal experiences and for some reason we like to give others a hard time when their interpretation differs from ours. 

I agree and the people of whom I speak are  scornful of those lessor, ignorant beings who are believers.  Why don't you listen to Dawkins sometime, who gives the pretense of superiority but full of baloney logic.  You will notice in any videos about the Mormons, he only talks with low hanging fruit -- his atheist pals, or ambushing a musician who happens to be Mormon.

Edited September 22, 2017 by cdowis

[SmileyMcGee]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I agree but the people I speaking of are  scornful of those lessor beings who are believers.  Why don't you listen to Dawkins sometime, who gives the pretense of superiority but full of baloney logic.

I'll pass. While I don't mind hearing him explain evolutionary theory, I don't care for his thoughts on religion.

My point wasn't to defend "new atheists" in their critique of religion but to suggest that, against your standard for sound reasoning implied in your opening post, we all seem to be full "baloney logic."

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, SmileyMcGee said:

My point wasn't to defend "new atheists" in their critique of religion but to suggest that, against your standard for sound reasoning implied in your opening post, we all seem to be full "baloney logic."

Sorry, but you are just blathering.  You don't know what I do outside this forum.

Edited September 22, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

I don't think I have ever seen a critic phrase argument version 1 in the way you are suggesting.  Do you have an actual quote from a critic?