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

JB Mason

His "logic" has been roundly refuted, so I'll just say:



5/26/2011 4:12:37 PM



5/26/2011 4:28:09 PM


Shove your non sequiter, Cracker.

5/26/2011 6:46:03 PM


Needs to be made in a demotivational with the caption- Logic: you're doing it wrong.

5/26/2011 6:59:52 PM

Percy Q. Shunn

5/26/2011 8:48:48 PM


Obviously flawed premise is obviously flawed.

5/26/2011 8:56:17 PM


Point one fails utterly; It's a statement of opinion, not fact. The rest tumbles like a house of cards. Albeit, a house of feces-stained, soggy cards that a nutter's scribbled on, but...

5/26/2011 9:03:45 PM


The logical reason for relying on logic is that logic is logical. And by the way, the first premise is false. "There is no logical reason for relying on logic" does not follow from "God does not exist".

5/26/2011 10:24:52 PM


Premise 1 is completely false. The rest then naturally just falls in a heap.

At least I would assume it does, because I can't make head or tail of it.

5/26/2011 11:55:25 PM


5/27/2011 1:05:37 AM

Jubba the Mad

Thinking: You're doing it wrong.

5/27/2011 2:08:56 AM

Pointing out that you know what "Modus Tollens" is twice for no reason. Yup, be sure to flex that D- you got in Logic 101.

5/27/2011 4:54:33 AM


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

That is some industrial grade fail right there.
It fails on so many levels its almost a fractal failure.

5/27/2011 4:56:25 AM



"My brain is full of fuck."

Or with the mindrape 'J.C's Bizarro 'logic' represents here, the total headscrew in said quote can be summed up thusly:

'My fuck is full of brain.'

5/27/2011 8:49:37 AM


Godel's completeness theorem, bitch!

5/27/2011 8:40:29 PM


Mmm, word salad. Tastes like failure!

5/28/2011 1:50:22 AM


If there were a God, our brains would be much better at logic than they are.

As we can see from your little contribution, the human brain is not so great at logic. This is because the logical parts of our brains are a result of relatively recent evolution which necessarily build upon the less logical parts that were already there.

5/28/2011 7:26:21 AM



JC has been touting this argument for years, and is completely oblivious to any reasonable discourse.

He is a troll. On About.com's Agnosticism/Atheism Forum, he ran this argument for years. We finally gagged him for using a sockpuppet to make it look like he was finally winning an atheist over with his "logic".

He has been shown the glaring errors in his logic, not hundreds, but literally thousands of times (on about.com the thread ran to nearly 12 thousand posts).

What he does is act as if you are using any logical fallacy that you demonstrate that he is using.

If he can't find a way to do that, he ignores EVERYTHING that is said to him and just returns to his initial claims that atheists, (for nonsensical "reasons" known only to JC) cannot logically use ANY logical arguments until they FIRST demonstrate they have a logical reason to use logic, but without using any logic to demonstrate that point.

He then claims that only believers can logically use logic because the immutable laws of logic are held inside the mind of his god. By claiming *that* bit of fallacious nonsense, JC claims to have proven not only that believers alone have a logical reason to rely on logic, but to have proven that god exists because logic exists.

While it is glaringly obvious why his non-argument is fallacious -- probably the most fallacious thing you will ever encounter -- he won't back down and he will twist ALL attempts at rational discourse into alleged "proof" that atheists are illogical hypocrites and anything we say only proves that his god exists.

He ran this argument on About.com for almost three years, nearly 12 thousand posts, and he won't be affected by ANY effort to debate rationally.

Again, he is a troll. He is known to use sock puppet accounts to keep his threads going permanently.

So, I strongly advise this forum to gag him, unless you want this silliness to run for tens of thousands of posts over the course of years.

5/28/2011 7:31:02 AM


Accidentally posted this more than once, so I am editing it away -- I don't know how to delete it.

5/28/2011 7:32:01 AM


Accidentally posted this more than once, so I am editing it away -- I don't know how to delete it.

5/28/2011 7:32:36 AM


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

But you cannot prove a syllogism without using logic in the first place. So, it seems to me that for this step, you presume that God exists. You start from a presumption that God exists and end up with the conclusion that God exists - it doesn't matter what's between those steps. You've proven nothing!

5/28/2011 7:57:00 AM



Troll4Life, I'm looking at you.

5/28/2011 11:18:07 AM

The first argument is a non-sequitur......talking about logic.

5/28/2011 11:20:55 AM


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

JB: You skipped the part between 1) and 2) where where you show why 1) is necessarily true

JC: In 1) Your atheistic view, the antecedent, is assumed (for arugment sake). God is or isn't if you deny it you would be taking a theist view...

Moving on to the consequent - logic is an experie and you (as the atheist) either have or do not have a logical reason for relying on it. (which is it?)

JB: and why 2) follows from 1).

JC:It follows only if you are not affirming that you have no logical reason for relying on logic.

Now you do have a choice completely negate 2 which means you agree with the first premise and have no logical reason for doing so.

The other choice you have on premise 2 is to say there is some other logical reason (besides God, of course) for relying on logic.

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

JC: Circular? Not.
Poorly defined? perhaps?
What do you not understand?

What do you not accept as true?

5/28/2011 12:49:50 PM


@Jesus.Christ (if it is he):

"What do you not accept as true?"

'What's true, is true for you'

-L. Ron Hubbard, Founder of $cientology.

Is he right, J.C?

5/28/2011 1:56:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 | top: comments page