Grumpy

A simplified form of this fallacy is "You argue against my claim, therefore my claim has merit."

The technical name is "Being a Dipshit."

K

Nick:

I never heard that one. It's pretty good.

Jack the Bodiless

I think part of the problem is that most lists of logical fallacies bring up those which might occur in conversations between approximately reasonable people: "slips of logic", rather like spelling mistakes.

Whereas many theists, even if they are capable of using logic in areas which don't involve their faith, "lose it" when discussing religion, and employ fallacies so utterly boneheaded that they go off the scale of plausibility: it's almost impossible to imagine anyone being THAT stupid, and the compilers of such lists either can't take it seriously or can't think of a plausible-sounding analogy to illustrate the problem.

For instance, consider Christian presuppositionalism: stripped to its basics, it is "I am right, therefore you are wrong". The presuppositionalist feels that this is an irrefutable argument because he uses his own religious zeal as a foundation: according to him, he IS right, therefore you ARE wrong, therefore you lose. No sane person would mistake this for a logical argument, even a fallacious one. But no sane person is a Christian presuppositionalist.

An aside: does anyone know why the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is NOT referred to as the "No True Christian" fallacy?

K

Jack:

You have some very good points. I know I've often stared at them monitor incredulously thinking, "there really can't be someone who has the intelligence to read and yet still not understand what it means to take an adversary's assumptions for the sake of argument - especially after it's already been pointed out several times."

I believe it's called "No True Scottsman" because nobody wanted to hear all the cries of persecution if a fallacy were to be named for Christians.

sbaii

There is no point in getting in a debate with a fundie unless the fundie is willing to admit at the beginning that s/he has been propagandized and bludgeoned emotionally and/or physically probably since childhood into believing what s/he believes. SO their religion is based on emotion not on reason. I compare their beliefs like angels/ with beliefs from the Dark Ages. Until they are willing to join the 21st century, there is no point in wasting your time.

For non-fundie Xians, I just point to the need for an afterlife as the prime motivation. If they are not willing to let go even a little bit to the concept of an afterlife, then you are talking to a wall.

Starboy

K, I think there is an associated argument that is also a favorite of Christians. It goes like this:

"If I show that you are wrong than I am right."

This is a favorite of the ID and creationists crowd. I like to call it binary thinking.

Starboy

sbaii

I should add that I do believe the majority of people in the US have a live and let live attitude about religion. I make sure to let people know they can believe anything they want to as long as they don't require me to believe it too or declare that I am not a moral person because I don't believe.

K

sbaii:

All good points. Unfortunately, I have a tough time staying out of debates when it seems like incredible assertions are being made with scarce evidence. I must be a glutton for punishment.

Starboy:

Yeah, that's another tough one. At least they never pretend to understand that that's not an acceptable line of reasoning. Somebody recently started a topic in philosophy defending Pascal's Wager!

OCLonghorn

I agree. Live and let live is one thing, and there are some to whom it never occurred to even consider alternative to their belief system. But others CHOOSE not to consider other ideas. That is almost more frustrating to me.

I would rather debate with those with the thickest of heads rather than talk to someone like my sister who steadfastly maintains her xianity, but has no interest in justifying any of her beliefs (to herself).

She claims that I am just trying to be different with my non-belief, yet she admits that she has no idea why certain things should be how they are and has no interest in finding out.

At least the logically impaired are trying and those who haven't thought about it are brainwashed sheep. The other are just ignorant.

But then I come back to those who are intentionally logically impaired. They purposely spread propaganda which satisfies their intended audience's appetite for the familiar with no regard for the pursuit of truth. Now we are talking about intellectual dishonesty (most often for the purpose of personal gain - financial, social or otherwise), which is the most abhorrent of all.

fanatina

I used to think that. The last few years I think it's become much more a case of "Live like we live." Look at our elected officials. Look at the binary thinking (great term!) that the present administration is allowed to get away with ("Either your with us or against us", "They attacked us because they are evil, and they hate us because we are good"). School vouchers are going to be pushing more children into church-run schools as public schools are allowed to continue disintegrating, creationism is being "taught" alongside evolution in more and more school districts, the line between Church and State grows fuzzier by the day--do I need to go on?