Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 81498

ARGUMENT PART 1 ( the atheistic view shown as a syllogism )
1) If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)
2) There is a logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)
C Therefore it is not the case that God does not exist or (God exists ( by negation.) Q.E.D.
This brings an atheist to the question - What is the logical reason for relying on logic ? And that brings them to see that they believe in what they have not proved (only faith).
They argue against God, because they want sufficient logical evidence, but they do so with the very tool they cannot or will not give sufficient logical evidence for. (Hypocrisy?)

(So, they ACCUSE Theists of doing that which they do, shame...shame...shame. How inconsistent?)

Jesus.Christ, iamjc.freeforums.org 117 Comments [5/26/2011 3:56:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 91
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4 5


sheep blue house monkey.
blah rhubharb wibble logic god blew whizzle.

Nope, still making more sense than that guy.

5/26/2011 4:01:36 AM

Anon2

1) If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic.

Failed right at the start.

5/26/2011 4:04:30 AM

Horus IX

Premise 1 contains a contradiction.

Please take a class in Logic. Preferably one in a University and not by William Craig Lane.

5/26/2011 4:10:04 AM

towey

jesus christ said that?

5/26/2011 4:24:40 AM

C_V


debate does not work that way. though apparently your brain does.

5/26/2011 4:30:06 AM

Serph-no-Okami

1) If God does exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Supernatural being capable of miracles that, by their very nature, defy common sense and logic)
2) Saying that there is a logical reason to rely on logic sounds a lot like a circular argument.
Therefore... you can't draw conclusions based on nonsensical premises. Q.E.D.

5/26/2011 4:34:58 AM

Pule Thamex

Cease the waffle and produce the evidence so that we may all believe what you say, you gibbering moron.

5/26/2011 4:49:59 AM

LAchlan

You win the prize for best gibberish.

5/26/2011 4:57:10 AM



This sounds like Tr*y Br**ks. Talk about torturing logic ... I can hear the screams from here.

5/26/2011 5:12:26 AM

Prager

As there is no basis for the first claim, the whole thing just falls apart.

5/26/2011 5:16:35 AM

David B.

"If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)"

Non-sequitur.
Ipso facto, merda taurorum.

Vale.

5/26/2011 5:20:13 AM

Doctor Whom

Waiter, I'll have the word salad with bullshit dressing, please.

5/26/2011 5:34:52 AM

Raised by Horses

"If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)"

Spectacular logic fail here. Frankly, I'm impressed.

Modus tollens? No, no no. What you're looking for is "circular reasoning" and "begging the question", with perhaps a dash of "plurium interrogationum" and "non-sequitor". Which admittedly is nothing new to you fundie types.

5/26/2011 5:41:24 AM

vaiyt

> 1) If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)

Non-sequitur.

> 2) There is a logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)

Circular argument.

C) Therefore it is not the case that God does not exist or (God exists ( by negation.) Q.E.D.

Baseless syllogism (and non-sequitur).

> This brings an atheist to the question - What is the logical reason for relying on logic ? And that brings them to see that they believe in what they have not proved (only faith).
They argue against God, because they want sufficient logical evidence, but they do so with the very tool they cannot or will not give sufficient logical evidence for. (Hypocrisy?)

Strawman.

5/26/2011 5:45:19 AM

Paler_Face

1) If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)

Non sequitor. The nonexistence of god does not need to result in logic no longer working.

2) There is a logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)

Isn't this a tautology? It's at least a circular argument.

Since both your premises are logically flawed, to say the least, any conclusions you base on these premises should be ignored, wich is what I intend to do.

5/26/2011 5:54:33 AM

nutbunny

1) If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic

I am not really getting what you're trying to say.

You are confused as well as confusing.

5/26/2011 5:57:21 AM



What is the logical reason for relying on logic?

Because relying solely on emotion will surely doom us as a species. Look at the crazy stuff men do just to get laid. Pure emotion and instinct, no logic at all. ;-) A happy medium, which is closest to reality, lies somewhere in between. [/snarky]

5/26/2011 5:57:43 AM

dionysus

1) If God exists then the sky is green.
2) The sky is not green.
C Therefore God does not exist Q.E.D.

See, if you start with a false premise you can make a valid argument out of anything. The problem is that valid arguments are not necessarily sound arguments.

5/26/2011 5:58:19 AM

Zeus Almighty

If Kali does not exist, there is no logical reason for relying on logic.
If Aphrodite does not exist, there is no logical reason for reyling on logic.
If Ahura Mazda does not exist, there is no logical reason for relying on logic.
If the FSM does not exist ....

5/26/2011 6:01:35 AM

Raised by Horses

@dionysus

Yeah, pretty much. The "ham sandwich" one is my personal favorite:

1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Ergo, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness!

5/26/2011 6:10:33 AM

Allegory for Jesus

1 is a false premise because there is no reason why God's existence gives support to the tools of logic, and no reason why God's non-existence would make those tools useless. You fail. Go back to elementary school. Go directly to elementary school. Do pass "Go", do not collect $200.

5/26/2011 6:15:28 AM

Doubting Thomas

Why would there not be any logical reason to rely on logic if there's no god? It seems that if you didn't have supernatural things to rely on, such as magic, the only thing left is logic.

5/26/2011 6:21:58 AM

Mister Spak

ARGUEMENT PART 2(the fundie view shown as a sylogism)
1) If god exists, then goddiddit
2) every conceivable question has just been answered.
C Therefore we don't have to look for answers.

Someone wants to talk to you about logic:


5/26/2011 6:27:51 AM

SpukiKitty

Welcome to the Word Salad Bar!

5/26/2011 6:44:45 AM

Horsefeathers

"ARGUMENT PART 1 ( the atheistic view shown as a syllogism )
1) If God does not exist, then there is no logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)
2) There is a logical reason for relying on logic. (Modus Tollens)"


You skipped the part between 1) and 2) where you show why 1) is necessarily true and why 2) follows from 1).

Not to mention that 2) is quite circular and poorly defined.

Try again.

"C Therefore it is not the case that God does not exist or (God exists ( by negation.) Q.E.D."

You're don't seem to be very good at this.

"This brings an atheist to the question - What is the logical reason for relying on logic ?"

Again, this is circular. Saying, "We rely on logic because it is logical to do so" isn't an argument. It's not even a meaningful statement. And why the hell are you asking me this when it's one of the premises of your argument above (which you never supported).

"And that brings them to see that they believe in what they have not proved (only faith)."

I don't have to prove it. It's your argument, jackass. See premise 2) in your own fucking argument. You made the claim, you prove it.

"They argue against God, because they want sufficient logical evidence, but they do so with the very tool they cannot or will not give sufficient logical evidence for. (Hypocrisy?)"

You should probably stop now.

"(So, they ACCUSE Theists of doing that which they do, shame...shame...shame. How inconsistent?)"

I surely hope this isn't the best you've got.

5/26/2011 6:55:02 AM
1 2 3 4 5