hezekiah jones

Originally posted by xian
i fall back on my previous statements ...

You don't appear to have much choice.

Many people of sound mind and reason: scientists, philosophers, laymen conclude in theism as many others do in naturalism.

How is "naturalism" opposed to "theism"? Can't "naturalists" also be "theists"?

Shadowy Man

This doesn't necessarily follow, unless you are stating that physicists and astrophysicists are incapable of thinking irrationally. Therefore everything that a physicist or astrophysicist believes must be on a sound rational basis.

Generally being of sound mind and reason doesn't mean that you always think rationally.


Note: I am not saying that theism is irrational, just that your claim that if a scientist believes in theism then it must be rational.

xian

no, it follows that if an atheist wants to summarily dismiss all theism as irrational as if he has a copyright on science and reason, then i summarily dismiss him as arrogant and as one having a superiority complex.

atheists who dismiss every theistic scientist as irrational have some personal, emotional problems with theism that are apart from logistical problems with it.

Dr Rick

Strawman.

We dismiss the theistic beliefs of theistic scientists as irrational. People, including scientists, can simultaneously hold rational and irrational beliefs. An irrational belief held by a scientist is no more rational than anyone else's irrational belief.

Rick

xian

you think that theists do not examine the evidence as objectively as you? You think your logical processes are more "tuned" than a theist? Who are you to stand on a pedestal of reason looking down on people that conclude other than you?

this is the problem I have with some atheists (not all atheists). They have the sort of cocky arrogance that flagrantly flaunt around like they are rationally superior to a theist simply because the theist reaches a different conclusion, given the same evidence.

Sorry, but I see that as pure arrogance.

Dr Rick

strawman



strawman

non sequitur

So you have never, ever felt that anyone else has an irrational belief?

I see your strawmen as not only fallacious but also flagrantly hypocritical; so are labels of arrogance coming from you.

Rick

xian

"Originally posted by xian
you think that theists do not examine the evidence as objectively as you?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lets look at your claim of strawman:

as you said earlier: "We dismiss the theistic beliefs of theistic scientists as irrational. "

which then you accuse a question as a strawman argument. This of course, is poor reasoning. A question does not build an argument then tear it down. At most, a question can be loaded, but in this case it is not. The question is fully relevant since the theist claims he arrives at his conclusions based upon evidence. The accusation "strawman" is in itself a red-herring designed to avoid the question.

The question remains:

you think that theists do not examine the evidence as objectively as you?"


You think your logical processes are more "tuned" than a theist? Who are you to stand on a pedestal of reason looking down on people that conclude other than you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a strawman, though I will concede it is a loaded question. However, the point will remain (but rephrased)

"Do you think your logical processes are more "tuned" than a theist who concludes in theism?"

That question will stand.


Now, lets look at my statement:

"this is the problem I have with some atheists (not all atheists)"

You responded with the fallacy of the complex question, attempting to join two unrelated points as a single argument.
again, a false analysis. A non sequitur takes three possible forms:

If A then B
B
Therefore, A

If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B

and finally the inconsistency non-sequitur is where The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true.

You are accusing this statement of being a non-sequitur, however as clearly seen this cannot be the case. I am making no affirmination of consequent, nor am I denying an antecedent. I am simply stating that I have a problem with some atheists, (i specifiy some instead of all as to avoid the fallacy of hasty generalization), and that problem is that they summarily dismiss theism as irrational. Thus, your accusation of non-sequitur is an invalid use of that fallacy, and is therefore incorrect.

My claim: some atheists dismiss theism as irrational

Your response: We dismiss the theistic beliefs of theistic scientists as irrational.

well...duh! thats just what I got done saying. So by your own words, you even affirm the claim. Therefore no argument is necessary, since my belief has been confirmed. But nontheless, you try to add the following "People, including scientists, can simultaneously hold rational and irrational beliefs. An irrational belief held by a scientist is no more rational than anyone else's irrational belief. " which is completely unrelated to what I originally said. I am not talking about theists who invent computer chips for intel...I am talking about the process of concluding in theism based upon the evidence.

So, you are right, there are fallacies here...but not by me.


sure i have, but i dont summarily dismiss people who conclude in naturalism as an irrational conclusion.

Strawmen?
*yawn*
I see you tossing around logical fallacy accusations like a caesar salad to be humorous.

Dr Rick

False analogy

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. A strawman can be presented in the form of an interrogative.

...a strawman.

Rick

xian

lol. you're a funny guy.

Mageth

you think that theists do not examine the evidence as objectively as you?

Dr. Rick didn't say that, and you have no idea what he thinks. Hence it's a strawman.

You think your logical processes are more "tuned" than a theist?

Ditto.

Who are you to stand on a pedestal of reason looking down on people that conclude other than you?

Ditto.

Let's objectively examine what Dr. Rick said:

We dismiss the theistic beliefs of theistic scientists as irrational. People, including scientists, can simultaneously hold rational and irrational beliefs. An irrational belief held by a scientist is no more rational than anyone else's irrational belief.

Dr. Rick said the theistic beliefs of theistic scientists are irrational. He did not comment on the relative lack of objectivity used by those theistic scientists in examining those theistic beliefs.

He did not rule out theistic scientists from holding rational beliefs, nor from objectively examining evidence, nor from exhibiting logical processes just as "tuned" as any other scientist.

Further, he did not rule out non-theistic scientists from making irrational beliefs; indeed, his comments were inclusive for all scientists. Hence, he's not claiming anyone's "logical processes" are any more or less tuned.

My only complaint with Dr Rick's statement is the "We dismiss..." part, as I'm not sure it's valid for him to make this claim for all non-theistic scientists.