+orinjayce: Hear hear!

Agreed

+Superior Scream Hold on now, the ungodly bible & koran misidentifies God as some male ignoramus getting most everything wrong. The real God has been identified by the 100% secular natural sciences, reason & logic as the laws of nature together with forces of physics, the real big bang creator & law of nature ruler of universe. These laws & forces compose the one & only all natural candidate for the role of the genuine God.

+ungertron We already have a word for 'universe'. 'god' comes with baggage.

Azirahael "The real big bang creator & law of nature ruler of universe." is not the universe, the laws of nature together with the forces of physics big bang created, evolved, maintain & law of nature rule the universe. That's a scientific fact. The word God is absolutely the most important word and the most important reality in all existence because without the laws of nature together with forces of physics composing God there would be no universe.

+ungertron Previous statement still applies. by defining the universe as 'god' you can say 'there is a god, science proves it.' but what good does it do? If i define the word 'tomato' as "the laws of nature together with the forces of physics big bang created, evolved, maintain & law of nature rule the universe." Then i can say the 'universe is a tomato.' And it's logically accurate. But does it do any good? 'Tomato' has meaning to most people. as does 'god'. I therefore contend that you are causing yourself problems by defining reality as 'god'. Because other people have different understandings of 'god'. and not gaining anything.

Azirahael Reality is not God. God big bang created, evolved actualizes, maintains and rules all reality. The source of all absolute truth is God AKA laws and forces that are continually actualizing all future reality that is inspiring, informing, enlightening & correcting the soon to be obsolete partial truth held by the secular sciences. Laws of nature & forces of physics existed before the universe - the universe started 13.77 billion years ago. Laws & forces launched the big bang and that is a provable scientific fact. Read the books "A universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss with after-word by Richard Dawkins and "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow for the details. It is a free country and you do have every right to be wrong. Now if you have a new form of cosmology that is better than the standard cosmology in the two books above then give me the references.

+Tom Reeves. That has the same structure as: Premise 1: Dogs are furry Premise 2: A cat is furry Conclusion: A cat is a dog

+tobo86 Yep. I've watched many debates where theists in particular rely on syllogisms (usually to prove the existence of God). Everything may sound logical and reasonable, from the premises to the conclusion, but in the end, they still haven't demonstrated anything tangible. That's why I think philosophy defines what's logically _possible_, whereas science is necessary to prove what's actually _real_.

+Tom Reeves Recently, I was arguing with a theist who insisted that he had a "logical proof" of his god. Of course, right from the start, I objected to his premise (which was complete bullshit, it really was). All he did was keep repeating it, without ever once demonstrating that it was true, while insisting that his "logical proof" was "valid." No matter what I said, I couldn't get him to demonstrate that his premise was true. I couldn't even get him to respond to my objections. He seemed to think it was enough to just keep claiming it.

+Bill Garthright Sounds like the playground equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, "Na, na, na, na... I'm right, you're wrong... na, na, na, na." Perhaps you should find more mature theists to debate :-)

+Tom Reeves: "sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, 'Na, na, na, na... I'm right, you're wrong... na, na, na, na.'" This is surely the finest tool ever made by master craftsmen

What if both premises are false, and yet the conclusion is true. I love those.

Just use "incredulity" instead so it's less direct and comes of more formal and less... "I wana insult you" kinda way

I personally think Matt is the entire reason TAE is even on the map. The other people are smart, interesting, lucid folks. But Dillahunty is one I consider to be of singular wit and exceptional speaking ability.

Personally my favorite episodes are when he's accompanied by Jeff Dee or Tracie Harris. They have a way of cutting down arguments at completely different points from Matt after letting the opposition get some ground, quite intentionally I might add.

it's funny because TAE means shit in our language. haha

+Steven Schneider better to explain what it is instead of naming it

+Peter L Uh, yes I know. That was kind of why I was bringing this up. Thanks though.

Indoctrinating with atheism at your school?

What’s your view on absolute knowledge? Always an interesting topic, I find.

Were they Democrats? Because Democrats never lie or commit logical fallacies.

FiniteAutomaton That's a good point actually.

+UnrationedRationale while I have no need to defend Evolution as an atheist, I do have a position on Evolution that is unrelated to my atheism and that position may require defense. If some theist brings up evolution in a discussion about my atheism then I generally point out that the two are not interdependent and move on.

All atheists only tool consists entirely of logical fallacy. Refute me. I dare you to try.

The Rational Channel the specific version of argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, is most common I've seen. But also among the pseudoscience community and the climate change denying community.

France S Nobody says that, the conclusion is not WRONG because the premise is fallacious. It is NOT RIGHT. Because correctness need to be demonstrated. If the premise is fallacious, assert the conclusion is true is not even wrong--it doesn't even make sense. Matt is all about having good reasons to arrive at truth...if you walked into something true by accident, but couldn't reason or explain it without a fallacy, then you DON'T have good reason to make other people believe i's true, and other people don't have to believe you. But I am sure it fall on deaf ears...

+Mark Siefert: The great ball that's currently in the court of the atheists is about the value of honesty. If there's ever to begin a global shift in consciousness where religion loses its primary grip, it's to put this ball in the court of the theists. As you say, the person who just doesn't care that their argument is fallacious.

+Mark Siefert Yes, this is in fact the biggest problem when debating with Theists, you see, what you have to appreciate, which I'm sure you do, is that they believe in this magical God/Supreme/Eternal being who can do anything and for whom a thousand years is like a day etc, so little wonder then that when you try to point out all of the blatantly obvious inconsistencies and factual conflicts within the Bible and within even what they are saying and how it doesn't make any sense, they can just fall back on things like 'the natural man cannot understand the things of God' and the age old 'God works in mysterious ways' get out clause. As Atheists who are also Skeptics, we value logic and rational thinking because we don't accept the idea of a God that is above it or who can bypass it or that there are any exceptions to the application of logic and rational thinking, if someone does believe there could be such exceptions, then of course they won't care that their argument is fallacious and this as I say is the big problem, until they can see that there is no justification for believing in this being who transcends logic and what is rational, they won't care about it at all, they won't think it matters like you do, this is how I was when I was a 'Born Again Christian' and it was only when I began to strongly question God's actual existence and the divine authority of the Bible that I began to care about whether the things I was telling others and what I was living for made any sense, prior to that, I just went along with the idea that although I might not understand it intellectually, God understands it and all I have to do is trust him. Believers will tell you one thing one minute and then in the next breath they will say something that completely knocks out what they said before and they will seem to just forget that, if you try to point it out, they will then try and twist it and claim that you didn't understand what they meant, this is why Matt quite rightly gets Theist callers into his show to clarify point by point, stage by stage, what exactly they mean before they get to their conclusion because as he said himself, if he doesn't do that, by the time they have finished, he will then have to go back to that point where there is a problem that undermines their conclusion and they will then claim 'no...that's not what I meant'. What actually happens a lot of the time on The Atheist Experience though is that they often don't get to finish their case because Matt and the other hosts will pull it apart right from that point where it's in error rather than waiting till they finish and he is absolutely right to do that, the day someone can get past all of that and finish their conclusion is probably the day when either they will have a caller who is presenting a very clever, seemingly watertight case for something that is false....or they will have finally got someone on the show who can at least Philosophically demonstrate that their 'A God exists' proposition is correct.

go watch stefan molyneux video about what is wrong with athiest a lot fallacy in their spread the word

+Houstonmade1994 Fuck off, basement-boy.

I’m personally theistic, but an argument like you mentioned isn’t valid. I’m sorry you had to witness that. But, there’s intelligent atheists and stupid atheists, same with theists.

And?

If there is not a god which god does not exist and how do you know?

+Kombo Breaker Holy shit! I did not know that one. Thanks for teaching me something new, and wonderful. As a "student" of Quantum Mechanics I really really like this one ;)

ippos_khloros explain?

"Everything" refers to objects or beings that "exist" inside the realm of REALITY because we cannot observe or even know about any "thing" outside the realm of reality Since people asserting the existence of a god , assert along side it the fact that it is outside the realm of reality , then "God" (Whatever that may be) cannot be judged with the same criteria as "everything" that exists inside the realm of reality

Valid and sound

@@yusufhelal1387 you're invisible magical man in the sky does not exist in reality

@@yusufhelal1387 God is invisible, so we can never see his back parts (Exodus 33:23)

OrangeDiamond33 I know this message is 2 years or so old, but I think there is a good reason a lot of people have the habit of "uuum"s and "aaahs"; when speaking to people or answering questions, many (with me at least) tend to assume I didn't understand a question or something else they said if I don't nearly immediately start replying, when in fact I am just heavily considering what they say or trying to find the perfect words to express most accurately, the concepts I'm trying to convey....the people don't seem to realize this, and continue talking, or get annoyed with me because they don't think I'm listening (this has mostly been family members and old friends), So filling any possible silences in a conversation with umms and ahhs seems to let the other person know that you're listening. Of course when you're the only one who is speaking it doesn't give any advantages.

+originaljayno If he leaps from life to life, setting right what once went wrong and changing history for the better, it follows that there is a benevolent force guiding his jumps, thus proving that there is a god and he is good. QED.

+amazingbollweevil to think he once was....

+amazingbollweevil Heh, heh. Of course, he'd be stuck with some pretty terrible material to work with, if that were the case. On our side, at least he can use the truth.

+DarkBungleX Fuck the kid gloves. This is not difficult stuff to understand. And I don't find discussions with people who take offense in knee-jerk fashion to the word "ignorance" to be productive at all.

+Hasse Mephisto an unjustified assumption is not a fallacy since there is no reasoning involved (with fallacies being defined in terms of reasoning gone wrong). you don't need to know the name of the fallacy, just what the fallacy is about.

Prove that the Universe had a cause.

It's not an argument of any real strength, but it is a valid argument as written.

hahahaha

I think this went over most of your heads (laugher aside. We're hanging tight). This is the argument given in many cases (it's not a straw man if it's the argument given to you) Above all it's just funny. Sometimes jokes really are funny even if they need to be explained

+ahouyearno Heh, heh. When I call someone an idiot on KZfaq - which, admittedly, isn't a very nice thing to do (and doesn't advance a debate very much!) - they frequently respond by claiming an ad hominem fallacy. Of course, it's not. I don't argue that they're wrong because they're an idiot. I'm just calling them names (while, usually, arguing against what they're saying, too, elsewhere in my comment). And if I want to be a real jerk, I can point that out. Sadly, I can't always resist. :) That's a pretty simplistic example, but I thought I'd mention it. I really like your idea. I have no education in philosophy, and it doesn't interest me very much, but religious people keep claiming that they have a "logical proof" of their god, so I think it helps to have some knowledge of this stuff. Just recently, I was arguing with a guy who claimed that his "logical proof" was "valid," despite the fact that his premise was complete bullshit. Of course, "bullshit" probably isn't a recognized philosophical term, while "valid" apparently has a rather specific meaning. Oh, well. I've learned a little bit here, at least. :)

Bill Garthright oh yeah you're right. Wrongly claiming ad hominem fallacy is very common too.

Or an atheist might have fallen for a particular ideology

Yeah so why would so many people think they were getting information from divine spirits if there was nothing supernatural? I think the ancient egyptians really did have their "gods" but they were fallen angels. Above them, yes, but not the God of creation. We have our gods today, those above us that we believe and follow. Government, scientific consensus, the United States is our God now that people will give their lives for. They are martrys for their God the United States. Sacrifices of blood just like in ancient times.

Yes people are very easily deluded with beliefs. The gospel is all about belief. Who do we believe and follow? So we're all born into a belief and God wants to know if we want the truth. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Do we want the truth, or do we want to be atheists mostly? What if the truth hurts? Do you want the truth no matter what? If you do, then the bible says that God will give you saving faith. Happened to me. I don't know your heart. Most people don't want the truth, they want what makes them comfortable. Mormons want to be Mormons and Catholics want to be Catholics and atheists want to be atheists. Agnostic seems like the more open version of atheist, one with a heart that would accept the truth no matter what it was. Just by calling yourself atheist on something that you really can't be sure on, sounds like hardening your heart right there.

+youweechube and behind him... many many happy little trees....

Because people aren't motivated only by self-interest. Yes, someone who helps someone else feels good for doing so, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to help.

+Dylan Ost and its a really common fallacy, its real tricky wich is why apologists use it A HELL OF A LOT and i mean a lot, all the time

+luke V Wow. You're right. I run into it all the time. I guess I just never knew what it was called.

FiniteAutomaton and that is the prime example of a equivocation fallacy the runner up to that is when they equivocate the common usage of theory with the scientific one but yes the faith equivocation is the most common usage of that fallacy in religious debates

charl

I second that!

Why don't you just make/save a mp3 (or other audio format) out of the Yotube videos for private / personal use? Would save Matt any additional work and time ... Unless he really wishes to market a separate product with these (which I doubt, otherwise they wouldn't be on KZfaq but behind some paywall on other websites. So just supporting patreon and enjoying is okay, I hope.)

You87 I second that as well!

Just for laughs, I’ll argue that with you. I don’t accept either premise! Not everybody has a last name, and not all last names are Dillahunty. 🧐

Well if you give me a billion years then I guess it could happen. Why? What magic does a billion years do? What proof do you have that a billion years can do anything at all? You're argument is, we don't know what a billion years can do so MAYBE it can create incredibly complex living things. That's a very weak argument. Billions of years is just your God, but billions of years can't save you, also it's a lie from the Father of Lies.

Hmmmm... I think he was criticizing the statement.. my thoughts are that you've just shifted the way in which god predicts future events from simple magic to something more physical. It still wouldn't invalidate arguments where you ask "if god knows, why didn't he stop the heart attack in that child? He knew it would happen before it happened." Yeah, I think you may have just come up with a way of -predicting- the future based on information instead of simply seeing it.

@@hackeritalics God allows suffering if you haven't noticed.

Informal Logic A handbook for Ciritcal argumentation by Douglas N. Walton is a good introduction to logic, types of dialouge and fallacies.

As George Carlin once said: the government doesn't want critical thinkers, they want obedient workers. Smart enough to press the button but dumb enough to accept their ever increasing shittier circumstances

renerelire www.don-Lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

...and it’s crammed with theists!!

I think the earth is flat. It's funny because the logical fallacies are all globers have. Appeal to antiquity, appeal to authority, bandwagon.... no actual proof the earth is moving or has a curve. Amazing but true! We just believe it because that's what we're taught as children. We're ALL indoctrinated with the globe. It actually takes a ALOT to break out of it. It's extremely strong brainwashing.

Dunning-Kruger effect. What you're describing isn't a logical fallacy. It's merely being baffled with bullshit.

Well not really. I know a bit of computer programming, programmers think I'm OK, my workmates think I'm a genius.

T1mel1ne - ???

It's not then being blinded by bullshit is my point, they are overestimating my knowledge based on their own

T1mel1ne - Oh. Well, it depends on the motivation. What I posted is the back half of a WC Fields proverb. Religious apologists gamble on their audience knowing nothing about anything, so they insert tiny kernels of fact and then pad them with five feet of outright lies. Either way, it's not a logical fallacy; it has nothing to do with logic. It's just a form of ignorance.

+JimmaJamma2006 In my head, the Beastie Boys throw this down. Gnarly.

others lay eggs.