Common Fallacies

[CynthiaCypher]

Had to go and look that one up....What has religious experience got to do with it? Indeed, what has criticism got to do with it? If the idea of any god is based solely on personal experience then I am surprised by his ubiquity. This is obviously a supposition on my part (balanced by your own, unless you know something that i do not) but I am not aware that the majority of those who believe have had a personal experience of the god that they believe in. That would open an even bigger geographical and cultural can of worms, surely. If someone tells me that they believe that they are Napoleon, must I not question them? Must I take their experience as truth (it is for them) and ignore the evidence before me that they - at least for me - are mistaken?

If I go to China and tell you of my experience of China, you cannot tell me China does not exist because you never seen China. You can question it but you cannot make an authoritative statement that it doesn't exist.

 

[crocusj]

If I go to China and tell you of my experience of China, you cannot tell me China does not exist because you never seen China. You can question it but you cannot make an authoritative statement that it doesn't exist.

I remember seeing a cool rejoinder for this one but I can't find it so I'll have to wing it. I can also go to China. If we lived a couple of thousand years ago and you told me you went to China I might doubt you but not now. Telling me you went to China is not an extraordinary claim so why would I doubt you?

 

[gnostic]

Christian - Special Pleading
Islam - Appeal to Authority

I think both Christians and Muslims often resort to Circular Reasoning.

They both believe that their respective scriptures prove themselves.

 

[Taka]

Appeal to consequencesis a common one I see among Judeo religions. For example, "Without god there is no objective moral standard, so god must exist!" or "Without god I think life has no meaning so god exists!"

Equivocation- "You believe your wife is faithful, but can't prove it, god is the same way!" They are equivocating the word belief to put themselves on equal footing with their opponent.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I remember seeing a cool rejoinder for this one but I can't find it so I'll have to wing it. I can also go to China. If we lived a couple of thousand years ago and you told me you went to China I might doubt you but not now. Telling me you went to China is not an extraordinary claim so why would I doubt you?

Of course you can. If someone doubted the existence of China, I would be happy to show them how to see China for themselves.

 

[crocusj]

Of course you can. If someone doubted the existence of China, I would be happy to show them how to see China for themselves.

Doubt is one thing but how could I see that which the non-existance of which I have no doubt. The experience of others of that which I cannot (as in cannot) believe can cut no ice simply because of - well, Napoleon. The natural world never ceases to stop surprising and amazing me, the supernatural does neither and if it did should I not question this specifically because reason suggests that I must.

 

[Looncall]

How about reification? That is treating something as a thing or substance when it is neither.

My favourite example is asking where the fire goes when the fuel runs out. A process (fire) is treated as a substance that can go somewhere.

I think that that is the origin of the idea of souls and various other religious notions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course you can. If someone doubted the existence of China, I would be happy to show them how to see China for themselves.

This is unlike Australia, which really does not exist.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Doubt is one thing but how could I see that which the non-existance of which I have no doubt. The experience of others of that which I cannot (as in cannot) believe can cut no ice simply because of - well, Napoleon. The natural world never ceases to stop surprising and amazing me, the supernatural does neither and if it did should I not question this specifically because reason suggests that I must.

You don't want to see if China exist, so you won't do anything to verify whether it exist or not! The question is already settle for you, and that's it.

 

[crocusj]

You don't want to see if China exist, so you won't do anything to verify whether it exist or not! The question is already settle for you, and that's it.

Not at all. It's about whether I trust reason or not. If reason suggests one thing and anecdote suggests another then why should I not go with reason, otherwise I would be flooded with a thousand different supernatural idealogies and - if their strength is personal experience - then they would all be claiming the high ground. I am merely nipping all that in the bud. The evidence for China is overwhelming, the evidence for a supernatural god, not so much.