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

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 5 | bottom


@Raised by Horses

I like it! Do you mind if I borrow it?

5/26/2011 6:55:09 AM


No logical reason to employ logic?

Fail from beginning to end.

5/26/2011 7:02:05 AM

Raised by Horses


Go right ahead. I just borrowed it from somewhere else, in any case. Can't remember where from, though.

Notice that in this case, the premises fall flat because they rely on the ambiguity of the wording (the different meaning of the word 'nothing' as denoted by context). There are a lot of ways to construct fallacious arguments containing valid conclusions derived from false premises, but word ambiguity is probably the best one there is.

5/26/2011 7:16:26 AM


"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?)"

Vulcans abandoned religion, as they considered the concept as illogical. Klingons destroyed their gods (they were considered more trouble than they were worth).

'We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.'

-Gene Roddenberry, Creator of "Star Trek"

5/26/2011 8:12:51 AM

Um, no. Logic is an absolute. It transcends the entire omniverse regardless of the contents or context of the omniverse.

Your stipulation that logic is tangent upon a certain condition is perhaps the most incorrect thing you can say about any given subject... Good Job!

5/26/2011 8:53:01 AM


I don't think I've ever seen the word "logic" mentioned so many times in something so illogical.

5/26/2011 9:27:49 AM

You make no sense!!!! AHHHH!!!!!!

5/26/2011 9:35:47 AM


I think I've had a stroke! This post is complete gibberish to me!

5/26/2011 10:39:42 AM


Aren't you cute? You try and fail in such a spectacular manner that you make Wile E. Coyote look successful.

5/26/2011 10:40:17 AM


That might be the worst argument I have ever seen!

Which god, by the way? Ganesh? Brahman? Athon? Thor? Allah?

5/26/2011 10:52:23 AM


Logical contradiction in your first premise. What does God existing or not existing have to do with logic?

5/26/2011 11:04:11 AM

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

5/26/2011 11:09:30 AM


Does not compute.

5/26/2011 11:10:42 AM


Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.

5/26/2011 11:27:24 AM


Wow, and I thought I got silly when I've had too much to drink.

5/26/2011 11:42:04 AM


1) This premise needs validation. Actually, I tend to think that if God does not exist, there's more of a logical reason for relying on logic when there's an absence of the supernatural (which seems to defy logic).

2) Sure.

C) (Couldn't you have written 3?) You need to prove that your initial premise is true.

Also, your screen name is Jesus.Christ? Yeesh, someone's got an inflated ego.

5/26/2011 11:44:15 AM


1) If Chimpanzee does not exist there is no reason that The Monkees exsist
2) The Monkees exist
C..eh how about 3)Therefore Chimpanzees exist. QED

Actually that is a much better argument.

Ok I've got it now.
1) If fish does not exist then wibble
2) Wibble exists
3) therefore fish exist QED

That's better

5/26/2011 12:43:47 PM


Actually, I think this logic makes sense, if you look at it properly. To do that, you must first start with chugging a bottle of scotch......

5/26/2011 1:45:41 PM


My brain is full of fuck.

5/26/2011 1:55:54 PM

Old Viking

Logic may never recover from this assault.

5/26/2011 1:56:45 PM

i read about the afterlife

Prove the basis of your argument.

5/26/2011 2:34:59 PM


I find your lack of logic, highly illogical.

5/26/2011 2:46:44 PM


I need a thorough proof that if God exists, logic is valid. Until then, stop using logic because you are terrible at it.

5/26/2011 2:53:09 PM


The assumption that one needs for this argument to be complete is that God is required for logic to operate. This raises 2 questions:

1. Why does logic neccesarily flow from God and not as a result of its inherent characteristics?

2. Where the fuck is your God?

As you can see, the onus is back on you Jesus.

5/26/2011 3:41:58 PM

Fundies Make Me Sick

You are not Jesus. You've committed blasphemy with that username. Have fun in Hell.

Also, the absence of God doesn't invalidate science or logic or reason so since your first point is wrong, everything else you say is wrong too. You fail.

5/26/2011 4:09:06 PM

1 2 3 4 5 | top: comments page