The 3 classical theistic false claims

Cherea · May 13, 2013

#1 --- appeal to consequences (if there were no god, life would be meaningless; if there were no god, we'd rape and hack each other with manchetes)

#2 --- circular logic (god has a plan, but works in mysterious ways; god is good, but tests your faith; etc.)

#3 --- backward logic (my indicator fits perfectly into my nostrils, therefore there is a god; things exist, therefore there must have been a creator; etc.)

Any more?

Cherea · May 13, 2013

On second thought, I might want to add the I-am-spiritual-not-religious god: god has not traits, does nothing, demands nothing, etc.

But it must exist.

Driftwood Gypsy · May 13, 2013

I'm transitioning from a Gnostic Militant Atheist to an Eclectic Agnostic Yogi....
I don't believe in some sentient, patriarchal, Old Testament god watching us from a cloud ready to punish our sins.
I think if there is an onipitent sentient superior power, it has far better things to do than worry about who we marry.
Do I believe in a higher power? If you mean like nature, space, evolution, love, etc. sure.

1) this claim is funny, and scary. I often ask people, "you need the fear of a vengeful god to be a good person?" "I'm good just because it's the right thing to do." It's like people really truly believe we are barbarians without a conservative patriarchal deity to scare the crap out of us.
2) outright BS.
3) These are the saddest kind; the ones who never questioned god.

Cherea · May 13, 2013

ThePoetSappho said:

3)the ones who never questioned god.
Click to expand...

I guess we could call them presuppositionalists; wherever there is causation or pattern, presuppose god/intelligent design.

Edit: I should start a thread on things such as 'nature'; which, to me, is attributing unity where there is none. A cloaked theism. Stay tuned for more goodies!

guerillabedlam · May 13, 2013

Appeal to authority: Believe based upon their parents beliefs and/or simply due to tradition.

Cherea · May 13, 2013

guerillabedlam said:

Appeal to authority: Believe based upon their parents beliefs and/or simply due to tradition.
Click to expand...

Ah! That's pretty good!

TopNotchStoner · May 13, 2013

Cherea said:

#3 --- backward logic (my indicator fits perfectly into my nostrils, therefore there is a god; things exist, therefore there must have been a creator; etc.)
Click to expand...

A perfect example. This dude went full religitard. NEVER go full religitard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A"]Atheist Nightmare - YouTube

Cherea · May 14, 2013

TopNotchStoner said:

A perfect example. This dude went full religitard. NEVER go full religitard:
Atheist Nightmare - YouTube
Click to expand...

lol! And then they say sucking a cock will earn you a trip to hell.

FlyingFly · May 14, 2013

TopNotchStoner said:

A perfect example. This dude went full religitard. NEVER go full religitard:
Atheist Nightmare - YouTube
Click to expand...

Haha, and comments are great as usuall:

Gary Yu 2 tygodnie temu
Why does the banana fit so well in my asshole? I guess god made us gay for a reason.

John DeMicco 1 tydzień temu
So, oranges are the work of the devil.

Click to expand...

FlyingFly · May 14, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PZ6xtdfgc"]Family Guy defines religion - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16PpvdpMXo"]Christianity in a nutshell - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4"]Family Guy: If Christianity Never Existed - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPAlyl9cu8I"]Creating the Asian family guy - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkPgYbdQ1kQ"]Family Guy - Dinner with Jesus - YouTube

Vanilla Gorilla · May 14, 2013

Empiriscism, the idea that nothing is innate, all knowledge is learned.

If you had grown up with absolutely no human contact and of knowledge of other humans. When grown up what would be your sense of self, what language would you create, what or who would you worship?

In an arid climate, sun god bad, moon god or water/sea god good. In a colder climate sun god good moon god bad. As soon as there were too many of us it was, forget about the sun, do unto others and god looked like us

Okiefreak · May 14, 2013

Cherea said:

#1 --- appeal to consequences (if there were no god, life would be meaningless; if there were no god, we'd rape and hack each other with manchetes)

#2 --- circular logic (god has a plan, but works in mysterious ways; god is good, but tests your faith; etc.)

#3 --- backward logic (my indicator fits perfectly into my nostrils, therefore there is a god; things exist, therefore there must have been a creator; etc.)

Any more?
Click to expand...

Cherea said:

#1 --- appeal to consequences (if there were no god, life would be meaningless; if there were no god, we'd rape and hack each other with manchetes)

Appeal to consequences isn't per se a fallacy. In fact, it's central to the philosophy of pragmatism. Seem reasonable to me to judge a belief by its likely consequences. On reason I'm a Christian is that I think following the teachings and example of Jesus, as I understand them, make me a better person than I would be otherwise. If there were no god, life wouldn't necessarily be meaningless, but we'd have to find alternative meanings. The one I've found, Progressive Christianity, works for me. Atheists can lead meaningful lives and be decent, moral people if they find alternative sources of meaning and morals. Humanism and naturalism are possibilities, maybe even the dreaded Platonism, but no elaborate systems are necessary. There are some forms of atheism, though, that strike me as poor prospects for meaning and decency: the more nihilistic kinds--like, the Stiner/ Nietzsche variant you champion. I haven't been around you to see how you live, but the message I draw from those philosophies is that no rules or morals should inhibit individuals, at least the superior types (wealth creators, job creators, ubermenschen, etc.) from taking what they want. Ironically, this philosophy seems to be prominent in the Republican Party, despite the professed Christianity of its base. I can't prove that these beliefs and values are wrong, but it's my experience that the people who follow them, the Bernie Madoffs of this world, create more net misery than good. Besides, they're just nasty. Max Stiner, for example, spent a good deal of his life as a professional deadbeat, staying one step ahead of his creditors. Nietzsche ended up a syphilitic madman making love to his horse. To each his own.

#2 --- circular logic (god has a plan, but works in mysterious ways; god is good, but tests your faith; etc.)
This is not necessarily illogical, as long as there's some independent basis for thinking it might be true.

#3 --- backward logic (my indicator fits perfectly into my nostrils, therefore there is a god; things exist, therefore there must have been a creator; etc.)
Again, not necessarily illogical, if the alternative is a multiverse from nothing.
Click to expand...

TopNotchStoner · May 14, 2013

Cherea said:

lol! And then they say sucking a cock will earn you a trip to hell.
Click to expand...

HA! What makes it even more hilarious is Kirk Cameron sitting next to him smiling like the idiot that he is.

FlyingFly said:

Haha, and comments are great as usuall:
Click to expand...

lol Yeah, the comments are always hilarious on videos like that. I'm not sure if the atheist comments or the religitard comments are more hilarious. Regardless, I love trolling christians on youtube. They make it so easy.

bird_migration · May 14, 2013

thepoetsappho said:

i'm transitioning from a gnostic militant atheist to an eclectic agnostic yogi....
Click to expand...

lol!!

themnax · Jun 7, 2013

remove all distractions and illusions, and you will realize two things;
first that there are things you don't know
second, that what you don't know, is not bound by what you thought you knew about it.

(this is equally true, no matter what or how much, you believe or don't believe)

tubahead · Jun 7, 2013

Okiefreak said:

Cherea said:

#1 --- appeal to consequences (if there were no god, life would be meaningless; if there were no god, we'd rape and hack each other with manchetes)

Appeal to consequences isn't per se a fallacy. In fact, it's central to the philosophy of pragmatism. Seem reasonable to me to judge a belief by its likely consequences. On reason I'm a Christian is that I think following the teachings and example of Jesus, as I understand them, make me a better person than I would be otherwise. If there were no god, life wouldn't necessarily be meaningless, but we'd have to find alternative meanings. The one I've found, Progressive Christianity, works for me. Atheists can lead meaningful lives and be decent, moral people if they find alternative sources of meaning and morals. Humanism and naturalism are possibilities, maybe even the dreaded Platonism, but no elaborate systems are necessary. There are some forms of atheism, though, that strike me as poor prospects for meaning and decency: the more nihilistic kinds--like, the Stiner/ Nietzsche variant you champion. I haven't been around you to see how you live, but the message I draw from those philosophies is that no rules or morals should inhibit individuals, at least the superior types (wealth creators, job creators, ubermenschen, etc.) from taking what they want. Ironically, this philosophy seems to be prominent in the Republican Party, despite the professed Christianity of its base. I can't prove that these beliefs and values are wrong, but it's my experience that the people who follow them, the Bernie Madoffs of this world, create more net misery than good. Besides, they're just nasty. Max Stiner, for example, spent a good deal of his life as a professional deadbeat, staying one step ahead of his creditors. Nietzsche ended up a syphilitic madman making love to his horse. To each his own.

#2 --- circular logic (god has a plan, but works in mysterious ways; god is good, but tests your faith; etc.)
This is not necessarily illogical, as long as there's some independent basis for thinking it might be true.

#3 --- backward logic (my indicator fits perfectly into my nostrils, therefore there is a god; things exist, therefore there must have been a creator; etc.)
Again, not necessarily illogical, if the alternative is a multiverse from nothing.
Click to expand...

What you are describing in #1 is not in anyway what one would call deductive logic which is fine given your stance on pragmatism, but to say that it isn't necessarily a fallacy is not quite right. In standard logical languages it is a fallacy. You would basically be saying, If A then B. I don't want Not B. Therefore A. Even in your own example, just because you want the benefits of religion, I am not saying God, because it seems as though all of the benefits you listed can be gotten from religion regardless of whether any of the beliefs that religion holds are true, does not mean that god exists. Buddhism would probably fit that characteristic. You can get most of those benefits from Buddhism, but Buddhism doesn't necessitate the belief in a god.

Same things with #2 and #3. They are fallacies in the standard deductive logic. What you are describing is a different kind of logic than the one implied in the first post. You are basically rejecting the notion of truth and deduction, which is of course what pragmatism does. I never bought into the idea though that the job of philosophy is in anyway to be pragmatic or show me how to lead my life. Its job is to uncover the theoretical underpinnings of any given subject. What works the best does not lead to those theoretical underpinnings. It just gives me a good feeling in my tummy.
Click to expand...

Okiefreak · Jun 7, 2013

tubahead said:

Okiefreak said:

What you are describing in #1 is not in anyway what one would call deductive logic which is fine given your stance on pragmatism, but to say that it isn't necessarily a fallacy is not quite right. In standard logical languages it is a fallacy. You would basically be saying, If A then B. I don't want Not B. Therefore A. Even in your own example, just because you want the benefits of religion, I am not saying God, because it seems as though all of the benefits you listed can be gotten from religion regardless of whether any of the beliefs that religion holds are true, does not mean that god exists. Buddhism would probably fit that characteristic. You can get most of those benefits from Buddhism, but Buddhism doesn't necessitate the belief in a god.

Same things with #2 and #3. They are fallacies in the standard deductive logic. What you are describing is a different kind of logic than the one implied in the first post. You are basically rejecting the notion of truth and deduction, which is of course what pragmatism does. I never bought into the idea though that the job of philosophy is in anyway to be pragmatic or show me how to lead my life. Its job is to uncover the theoretical underpinnings of any given subject. What works the best does not lead to those theoretical underpinnings. It just gives me a good feeling in my tummy.
Click to expand...

What I'm describing in #1 is the basis for a guide to living that is not contrary to logic. Whether or not God "exists" concerns an ultimate reality that is impossible for humans to access directly. We make inferences and place bets according to the data available and the consequences of being right or wrong. I accept the God hypothesis because it isn't contrary to logic or data and it seems worth betting on for a productive, meaningful life. When one is enjoying sex, it seems pointless and counterproductive to be preoccupied with whether or not one's partner exists. From a strictly logical standpoint, Bertrand Russell was probably correct in saying that truth has nothing to do with consequences. From a pragmatic standpoint, he was out to lunch, because "truth" is unattainable for humans and life consequences are, for all practical purposes, the important thing. If finding theoretical underpinnings turns you on, go for it! Follow your bliss! But I wouldn't take them too seriously.
Click to expand...

TheGhost · Jun 7, 2013

Cherea said:

Any more?
Click to expand...

It's written in THE BOOK so it MUST be true.

And god's own word on top of that.

tubahead · Jun 7, 2013

Okiefreak said:

tubahead said:

What I'm describing in #1 is the basis for a guide to living that is not contrary to logic. Whether or not God "exists" concerns an ultimate reality that is impossible for humans to access directly. We make inferences and place bets according to the data available and the consequences of being right or wrong. I accept the God hypothesis because it isn't contrary to logic or data and it seems worth betting on for a productive, meaningful life. When one is enjoying sex, it seems pointless and counterproductive to be preoccupied with whether or not one's partner exists. From a strictly logical standpoint, Bertrand Russell was probably correct in saying that truth has nothing to do with consequences. From a pragmatic standpoint, he was out to lunch, because "truth" is unattainable for humans and life consequences are, for all practical purposes, the important thing. If finding theoretical underpinnings turns you on, go for it! Follow your bliss! But I wouldn't take them too seriously.
Click to expand...

That as said is where we differ. I have always found pragmatism to be a lot of feel good stuff. It is not that finding theoretical underpinnings is what turns me on. It just that finding theoretical underpinnings is what philosophy is. The goal to find bliss from philosophy is never the goal. It's job is not to tell me how to live. At one point in the history of philosophy, when it was more all encompassing, it may have been, but those days are past. Now we have the new age corner of the book store for that. Sure these questions may be interesting and useful, it just isn't philosophy.
Click to expand...

Cherea · Jun 7, 2013

TheGhost said:

It's written in THE BOOK so it MUST be true.

And god's own word on top of that.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! Big one. I don't know what to call it, but it departs from a self-validating premise.

Log in or Sign up

The 3 classical theistic false claims

Cherea Senior Member

Cherea Senior Member

Driftwood Gypsy Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Cherea Senior Member

guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

Cherea Senior Member

TopNotchStoner Georgia Homegrown

Cherea Senior Member

FlyingFly Dickens

FlyingFly Dickens

Vanilla Gorilla Go Ape

Okiefreak Senior Member

TopNotchStoner Georgia Homegrown

bird_migration ~

themnax Senior Member

tubahead Member

Okiefreak Senior Member

TheGhost Auuhhhhmm ...

tubahead Member

Cherea Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The 3 classical theistic false claims

Cherea Senior Member

Cherea Senior Member

Driftwood Gypsy Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Cherea Senior Member

guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

Cherea Senior Member

TopNotchStoner Georgia Homegrown

Cherea Senior Member

FlyingFly Dickens

FlyingFly Dickens

Vanilla Gorilla Go Ape

Okiefreak Senior Member

TopNotchStoner Georgia Homegrown

bird_migration ~

themnax Senior Member

tubahead Member

Okiefreak Senior Member

TheGhost Auuhhhhmm ...

tubahead Member

Cherea Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches