crazyml
Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
quote:
An answer of "I don't know", or "neither" to the question "Do you believe God exists or not?" is equivalent to the statement "I do not believe god exists". Don't you think? No, one expresses uncertainty and the other certainty, so they are in fact very different.
Ok, for my part I think I've misread the question "Do you believe God exists or not?" to be the same as "Do you believe or not that God exists?" rather than "Do you believe that god exists, or do you believe that god does not exist?"
But logically. If I answer "I don't know" I am definitely saying that I don't believe god exists, I am not saying "I believe god does not exist"
If I answer "neither" the logic is the same - I am definitely not saying that I believe god exists, I am definitely not saying that I believe god does not exist - I am saying I do not believe that god exists.
quote:
quote:
Firstly, how is it a false dichotomy? Because you are both assuming only two effective answers, dismissing the uncertainty answer by lumping it in with the negative certainty answer, therefore falsely giving only two possible answers when several exist.
With my somewhat improved reading of the question "Do you believe God exists or not" there are only two answers - it's a closed question - but you should be allowed a third - which is "neither".
Logically there are only three possible answers to the question...
1) Yes I believe god exists
2) No I believe that god does not exist
3) Neither - I neither believe that god exists or that god does not exist.
Bear in mind that "I don't care" is the equivalent of 3 - The respondent neither believe that god exists or that god does not exist - on account of not caring...
quote:
quote:
Nextly, how is it a fallacy - since, logically, not believing that something exists and believing that something doesn't exist really, really are two different things - whether the difference is important or not is moot I'll grant you - but the difference is there There is a slight difference, but the argument is a fallacious for the following reasons <keep in mind that you are using a trick question to force agnostics/irreligious to give a misleading answer>.
1. Fallacy of composition - assuming that because some of those who can answer "I don't believe god exists" are atheists, the same must be true of all those who could answer that way.
I have never intentionally made such an assertion - if anything I've been arguing the opposite. If you can point me to where I've bungled I'll happily correct if I can.
My whole point is that "I don't believe god exists" is NOT, to me, a sign of Atheism - it's a sign of agnosticism. It's the OED that, in my totally unqualified opinion, that has got it wrong.
The OED says "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods" - It does not say "A person who believes that God/gods do not exist" so the OED's definition - not mine is the one creating the fallacy of composition.
quote:
2. Fallacy of necessity - because your first premise <all atheists can answer "I don't believe god exists">, and your second <a given person, let's say myself, answered that way> does not automatically lead to the conclusion you have drawn <that all those who answer that way are atheists> because you have forced them into that answer with the "wife beating" question.
Again, I absolutely did not intend to state that "all those who answer that way are atheists" - quite the opposite. But, that really is the logical meaning of the OED definition. I think the "wife beating" question is off the table as a result of my comments above.
quote:
3. An appeal to probability - You are postulating that because some people who answer the question with the first answer are atheists, all of them must be. This might be the case if the question were formed so as to allow for the other options as an answer.
I am not postulating that, certainly not intentionally. The OED definition does though.
quote:
4. An association fallacy - the assumption that because both atheists and agnostics could answer the question the same way, they must be the same. Again, this fallacy would be negated by asking the question in a manner to allow the agnostics and irreligious to answer more precisely.
I draw no such association, because I do not make that assumption.
quote:
5. A faulty generalization in several ways - accident <ignoring the exception to your assumption>, cherry picking <suppressing certain facts, such as that due to the rigged question, agnostics/irreligious are forced to give an imprecise and misleading answer>, a false analogy <because agnostics/irreligious give the same answer as atheists they must be atheists>, a hasty generalization <basing your conclusion on insufficient evidence, generated by the question preventing the proper evidence from being generated>, and finally a package deal fallacy <assuming that because agnostics/irreligious are often grouped with atheists as non-theists, they must always be grouped together in all circumstances>
and finally, this all makes the entire argument
I make no such claims.
quote:
6. A red herring - because the argument presented to challenge my assertion is fallacious in so many ways because of the rigged question, it doesn't address my point as it is drawing an irrelevant conclusion, namely, that because some of the people you are fallaciously classifying as atheists have no belief one way or another in god's existence, all atheists can be said to share that lack of a belief, which is patently not so.
I don't think it's a red herring, I don't believe the argument presented to challenge your assertion is fallacious (although I don't believe that it is not, on account of slightly losing track of your original assertion)
quote:
How's that? I really want to thank you for this exchange, it was very interesting and a lot of fun, we must do it again some time soon.
It was OK, but I think it collapsed with your first point, irredeemably. If we want to whittle this one down (and if you want to, I'm happy to try - although, if you want to just move on - it has been a looong day for both of us). I suggest we take your first point and bat it about a bit.
quote:
<Yes, I did have to look up the official names of the various fallacies involved.>
BTW, I aced my exam. It was almost all to do with the periodic table and I know that forwards and backwards and inside out - GO ME!! 
Go you!
_____________________________
Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.
|
RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 
Profile
Most of the fallacy stuff was originally directed at SMM's contention that agnostics were included in atheists and therefor that they were more or less equivalent, and in making my rebuttal I may have included you in places I shouldn't have. I haven't slept yet and I'm just too tired to deal with the inticacies of our debate, but I didn't want you to think I was blowing you off. I'm going to eat and maybe take a nap, and then revisit my replies and your responses and see if I messed up or what, and then will make a proper response, OK? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread