Why doesn't atheist logic work in the real world? Atheists claim when you apply their logic to a real world problem, it's "straw man logic"?
Of course, when you catch an atheist claiming Harry Potter exists because a book says so, that atheist would never call what she did "straw man logic."
Such as lacking a belief in a building being on fire doesn't change the fact that the building is on fire and we are only trying to save you. Shifting the burden of proof onto the fireman doesn't change the fact that the building is on fire. Claiming you don't see a fire doesn't change it either.
"What's "atheist logic"? Something you just made up, I'm sure." Are you agreeing that atheist logic doesn't exist, and agree every argument atheists have posed as for why they disbelieve in gods is invalid? Good.
@Pirate AM: Atheist logic once again, by the time you feel the heat or see the smoke it is too late, there is no escape and you are good as dead. The entire point is you're being told to leave before you burn to death and using the same lack of logic "I don't see it so it doesn't exist" doesn't change that the building is on fire.
"I think because you seem to be getting the logic wrong and they saying it's our's. " No, the problem is the "logic" does not work outside of the argument you put it in. That's the problem with all the troll logic here. The instant you move it to a new situation it reveals that it doesn't work so you patch holes and use self-sealing fallacies.
"Not our logic=not us=strawman" As usual, you don't know what a strawman argument is. You think claiming "I never said that" means a strawman argument. No, a strawman argument is when you provide an independent party a contorted view that is used to confuse someone who is not well versed in what the actual view is. It is impossible to strawman the person you're arguing with because you cannot convince the person you're arguing with they said something they didn't.
- Anonymous2 weeks agoFavorite Answer
Atheists don't have logic.
- CoreyLv 54 weeks ago
Nobody claims Harry Potter exists. That is retared. Just reading that gave me a headache, im not even going to bother reading the rest of your post because that is all it took for me to figure out that you are borderline retarded
- Anonymous1 month ago
No atheist says "I don't see it so it doesn't exist". That's a position you made up and ascribed to atheists. That's why your logical fallacy is the straw man. It's not their logic, it's your straw man's.
(Hm, looks like my answer mysteriously disappeared. Let me try leaving it again.)
- The_Doc_ManLv 71 month ago
Logic, when based on valid situations, is just logic. Neither religious nor atheist. Just logic.
The "Harry Potter" comment was actually an analogy. Just because the Bible says it is true doesn't mean that it is, any more than the Harry Potter books claiming that there is a place called Hogwart's School makes THAT true. That's not a "straw man" argument. The proper name for what is done there is reductio ad absurdam (literally, reduction to an absurdity).
The logic is that if you want to believe what you read in an unverified and unverifiable book, that is fine, but you then cannot deny what someone else reads in another unverified book.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Godless GazooLv 71 month ago
If you actually caught them doing that. Frankly I know you never have.
- PearlLv 71 month ago
cause its not true
- EntropyLv 71 month ago
Too long to respond to the whole thing. Try to pick ONE THING at a time. I'll pick one thing to respond to.
Do you not understand the Harry Potter analogy? The deal is that the only 'evidence' you have for God is that a book tells you he exists and what he did. You can't derive his existence from any other source. The Harry Potter analogy is meant to illustrate the absurdity of basing your worldview on a book.
The credibility of non-fiction works doesn't come from the mere presence of a book. It comes from the credibility of the work done outside of the book. The peer-reviewed papers, primary sources cited, and so forth. Or at a minimum the credibility of the author.
The Bible has none of these. It's authorship is mostly unknown. The people who wrote it were primitives who had none of the advantages of scientific method and information availability that we have. No physical observations back up it's claims. It makes no testable predictions. It claims miracles, but offers nothing but ink on paper as proof. It says miracles were done, prophecies fulfilled...yet validates none of them.
The question of "How do we know what we think we know" is one of the most critical in philosophy. Our answer to that question is critical. And just saying "Well, I read it in a book..." is a bad answer unless that book has real world backing. And neither the Bible nor Harry Potter do. The only difference between Harry Potter and The Bible is that J.K. Rowling isn't PRETENDING her stories are true.
- God of ThunderLv 71 month ago
What's "atheist logic"? Something you just made up, I'm sure.
- Anonymous1 month ago
You have a confused brain..... It's Theists that believe in written accounts of events. Atheists simply consider them unverified accounts. If a building was on fire, there would be physical evidence, which is not the case with religious icons.
- HughLv 41 month ago
This was a great read, truly fascinating.Source(s): Don't throw away the outside slices of a loaf of bread...they make ideal elbow and knee pads.