fallacies in debate

[Biggieboy]

so I found a video that I found quite interesting and wanted to share:



the video talks about creationism fallacies, but I'm sure they apply in every debate. Let me know what you think

[Enzo]

Half of those arguments weren't Creationist at all but some decent arguments demonstrating the likeihood of an intelligent Creator.

[Biggieboy]

Half of those arguments weren't Creationist at all but some decent arguments demonstrating the likeihood of an intelligent Creator.

oh really? please state which ones.

[Mangalore]

Half of those arguments weren't Creationist at all but some decent arguments demonstrating the likeihood of an intelligent Creator.

there are decent arguments?

[XIII]

there are decent arguments?

Of course. Actually, more than decent.

[Valden]

I know I'm not one to normally praise wikipedia, but seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

There is a far more comprehensive list of logical fallacies here than in the video you present, which is, to put it mildly, biased.

[Biggieboy]

I know it's originally about creationism, but the fallacies still count right?

Nvm, it's not appreciated apparently.

[chriscase]

I know it's originally about creationism, but the fallacies still count right?

Nvm, it's not appreciated apparently.

They actually do have a point. Critical thinking and exposure of logical fallacies can be discussed quite thoroughly without ever getting into WLC. Honestly if I'd had to watch that puss whilst learning critical thinking I might have just thrown in the towel right then and there.

[Enzo]

I like how the video starts right of the bat with the foundational bias then presents a foundational bias through the lens of Scientific Naturalism in regards to all possible arguments that could be made in support of the existence of God. And there's strawman argument while making a strawman out of the Creationist movement and there's an ad hominen attack while calling people creepy or telling someone to get a spine. Its like telling you what you shouldn't do while actually doing it.

[basics]

Biggieboy,

Here we have the typical wise man using his own bias to make an argument about creation bias. What does God say of him. Well it goes something along the lines, " thinking himself wise, he became a fool, " why? Because by the long list of mockery he tries to make a case when clearly that shows how much he doesn't know about God and creation anymore than a shorter version would. The more the mockery the greater the argument in his eyes.

Put it this way, does he really think that coming out with all that nonsense is going to change the minds of all them that are born again. The very reason they are born again is because they once believed pretty much what he does but something outside of the natural changed that so all he is doing is taking plaudits from all them that are already on his side. Being wise, he cannot see that and that perhaps is a reason out of many why God calls him foolish.

So, what are his motives? He cannot convert those that God has changed leaving the religious as his main area of attack. But this is not new. This has been going on since the fall of man which he does not believe in, obviously. No, he delights in the evolutionary policy where nothing can become something all by itself, something my growing list of scientists say is impossible for just as many reasons as he has fallacies. That he is so wise as to believe that nothing can make something by itself kind of makes him look a little more than just foolish.

[Divine Augustus]

Biggieboy,

Here we have the typical wise man using his own bias to make an argument about creation bias. What does God say of him. Well it goes something along the lines, " thinking himself wise, he became a fool, " why? Because by the long list of mockery he tries to make a case when clearly that shows how much he doesn't know about God and creation anymore than a shorter version would. The more the mockery the greater the argument in his eyes.

Put it this way, does he really think that coming out with all that nonsense is going to change the minds of all them that are born again. The very reason they are born again is because they once believed pretty much what he does but something outside of the natural changed that so all he is doing is taking plaudits from all them that are already on his side. Being wise, he cannot see that and that perhaps is a reason out of many why God calls him foolish.

So, what are his motives? He cannot convert those that God has changed leaving the religious as his main area of attack. But this is not new. This has been going on since the fall of man which he does not believe in, obviously. No, he delights in the evolutionary policy where nothing can become something all by itself, something my growing list of scientists say is impossible for just as many reasons as he has fallacies. That he is so wise as to believe that nothing can make something by itself kind of makes him look a little more than just foolish.

The fact is there is no way you can prove that your god exists and there is no viable way to disprove he does not exits. There is also no way to prove what religion is more right or wrong.

But there are ways to disprove religion many upon many considering the fact religion in itself is a fallacy

[Valden]

The fact is there is no way you can prove that your god exists and there is no viable way to disprove he does not exits. There is also no way to prove what religion is more right or wrong.

But there are ways to disprove religion many upon many considering the fact religion in itself is a fallacy

You respond to a post centered around the quote "thinking himself wise, he became a fool" with a list of massive, indemonstrable assertions, and from that you draw the conclusion that religion is a fallacy.

Either you just proved basics' point, or (I'm being charitable) you have a very developed sense of humour...

[Divine Augustus]

You respond to a post centered around the quote "thinking himself wise, he became a fool" with a list of massive, indemonstrable assertions, and from that you draw the conclusion that religion is a fallacy.

Either you just proved basics' point, or (I'm being charitable) you have a very developed sense of humour...

There is no assertion in fact with religion.(Abrahamic) Religion is an overly generalized view and has absolutely no empirical evidence to support its claims. It is only metaphysical. To try an assert something in the metaphysical realm to something physical is basically a huge sign of neurosis/psychopathic within ones mind.

I.E There is no physical way to prove god existence.

The bible is not a source of wisdom just because others say it is. (Bias fallacy)

If you want to get all metaphysical about it wisdom is the consumption of knowledge and experience over the series of years/decades .


Religious claims of other religions being invalid is in itself a red herring and therefore subject to scrutiny someone has to put these theological debates to rest.

[Valden]

There is no assertion in fact with religion.(Abrahamic) Religion is an overly generalized view and has absolutely no empirical evidence to support its claims. It is only metaphysical. To try an assert something in the metaphysical realm to something physical is basically a huge sign of neurosis/psychopathic within ones mind.

I.E There is no physical way to prove god existence.

The bible is not a source of wisdom just because others say it is. (Bias fallacy)

If you want to get all metaphysical about it wisdom is the consumption of knowledge and experience over the series of years/decades .


Religious claims of other religions being invalid is in itself a red herring and therefore subject to scrutiny someone has to put these theological debates to rest.

How can you not see that you just did the same thing again?

[Humble Warrior]

The bible is not a source of wisdom just because others say it is. (Bias fallacy)

Wrong. Even a non Christian and a non-Believer can find a lot of wisdom in the Bible. Things that any decent person would find it hard to say `That`s not a wise point.`

In fact your sweeping assertion is foolish.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

You respond to a post centered around the quote "thinking himself wise, he became a fool" with a list of massive, indemonstrable assertions, and from that you draw the conclusion that religion is a fallacy.

You're the one being hypocritical here. He doesn't need to demonstrate what he said. He is simply challenging you to prove your beliefs (the onus is on you), and until then, maintaining scientific skepticism.

[Kissaki]

You respond to a post centered around the quote "thinking himself wise, he became a fool" with a list of massive, indemonstrable assertions, and from that you draw the conclusion that religion is a fallacy.

In no shape or form did he base anything he wrote on basics' post. He simply asserted that God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. You seem to think this somehow validates basics' quote -- I am kind of curious how.

[Valden]

In no shape or form did he base anything he wrote on basics' post. He simply asserted that God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven. You seem to think this somehow validates basics' quote -- I am kind of curious how.

Actually he asserted that religion is a 'fallacy' and that there is 'no way' to prove God exists, the latter a barefaced assertion, the former presupposing his omniscience, which i think you will agree is a myth. Here is the original quote to clarify this issue:

The fact is there is no way you can prove that your god exists and there is no viable way to disprove he does not exits. There is also no way to prove what religion is more right or wrong.

But there are ways to disprove religion many upon many considering the fact religion in itself is a fallacy

"thinking himself wise, he became a fool". This quote is clearly of ironic relevance to someone who made such sweeping assertions and presuppositions in response to basics post (he quoted it).

Hope that clarifies the issue

[Divine Augustus]

Actually he asserted that religion is a 'fallacy' and that there is 'no way' to prove God exists, the latter a barefaced assertion, the former presupposing his omniscience, which i think you will agree is a myth. Here is the original quote to clarify this issue:



"thinking himself wise, he became a fool". This quote is clearly of ironic relevance to someone who made such sweeping assertions and presuppositions in response to basics post (he quoted it).

Hope that clarifies the issue

Wrong saying there is no proof that god exists is a claim, a claim that has no empirical evidence to counter it, that means it cannot be fact but fiction.

Valden if anything you are the one being fooled and deceived, wisdom in a Kantian sense is an organized life, Science is organized knowledge.

My assertions are based on empirical physical evidence or lack thereof of God and religions stupid claims on superiority over others which is disgusting and sick.

Religion is a fallacy a red herring, contradictory and over generalization. I mean just read it

God (Abraham) numerously contradicts himself between the old and new testament i mean there is sites that show this people who know more about religion then you and i that agree for these theological foul ups.

Just because I'm a skeptic who dissents against ideologies that have no empirical evidence to back up its claim on superiority or validity over others.

[Kissaki]

Actually he asserted that religion is a 'fallacy' and that there is 'no way' to prove God exists, the latter a barefaced assertion, the former presupposing his omniscience, which i think you will agree is a myth. Here is the original quote to clarify this issue:

Well, you can certainly never prove a negative, so God's non-existence can't be proven. If God is real then it should be possible to prove this, yet some people maintain that God's nature is unknowable and therefore unprovable.

"thinking himself wise, he became a fool". This quote is clearly of ironic relevance to someone who made such sweeping assertions and presuppositions in response to basics post (he quoted it).

Hope that clarifies the issue

Well, it does somewhat. But I still don't see how that in any way validates the quote, "professing themselves wise, they became fools", as that is itself a sweeping and meaningless statement.