logical falacies as applied to God

[kx000]

Again:

How can we talk about logical fallacies in reasoning about God unless we already know the truth about God?

If we don't know what the right reasoning about God is, we also don't know what the fallacious reasoning about God is.

Sup

How can we know that these examples from the OP:

I believe God exists in your life because i have seen him in mine.

Correction, God DOES exist in your life, if you let him, because he does in mine because I let him.

If God exists then he wouldn't do X

Wipe out the human race

If God exists he would do X

Watch as the world heads twoards end time.

God does not exist because religion has done bad things.

Religion is man made.

anyone who believes in God is delusional.

Very real possibility, and I would be at the top of the list.

God does not exist because if he did then i will go to hell.

He does, and you might, I dont think you will, Signal. You seem very honest. I think there is faith in you, but you want to know and you want to know, you know?

I believe in God cause my church says so.

I believe the church has failed because God says so.

- are false?

We can not

Logical fallacies do not apply automatically, regardless of the stances and practices of the field of knowledge from which the premises are taken that we are assessing for right/fallacious reasoning.

 

[NMSquirrel]

anyone who believes in God is delusional

Very real possibility, and I would be at the top of the list.

a good argument for God..

and your post has nothing to do with the OP.
it would be in your best interest to learn what we are talking about.

 

[kx000]

a good argument for God..

and your post has nothing to do with the OP.
it would be in your best interest to learn what we are talking about.

I know exactly what your talking about, but it is irrelivent because there is no test for God, except people.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I know exactly what your talking about, but it is irrelivent because there is no test for God, except people.

we are not talking about a test for God.
we are talking about arguments used for or against God that qualifies for a Logical fallacy.

 

[wynn]

Logical fallacies are really only issues of validity, not of soundness.

If that would be so, then testing arguments for logical fallacies would be useless.

We may not know whether the premises being used are true or not, which limits whether we can say an argument is sound or not, but we can always assess the validity of an argument.

To what use then?

They're not "false" - they're just using fallacious logic... i.e. the conclusions given do not follow directly from their premises.

If we don't know whether the premises are sound or not, we cannot assess validity.

If we do not know what the premises refer to or whether they are true or not, we cannot assess whether they lead to a particlar conclusion or not.

See my last comment here.

If God exists then he wouldn't do X

If God exists he would do X

anyone who believes in God is delusional.

These are actually just claims, not arguments.

Granted, the arguments are implied in them, though.

I believe in God cause my church says so.

If one takes this to be the claim "God exists because my church says so" then the argument would be fallacious: an appeal to authority. Just because someone in a position of authority says something does not make it true. It may be... but it may not be. There is nothing that requires the conclusion ("God exists") to be true from the premise ("my church says God exists").

Not every appeal to authority is a fallacious appeal to authority.
If here at this forum, we appeal to the authority of, say, SEP or the Merriam-Webster dictionary, this is not fallacious.

Similar could hold true when it comes to God. Perhaps there is a scripture that is authoritative in matters of God.


The problem especially with reasoning about "God" is that the term has so many definitions. Many other terms in religious discourse also have many definitions.
Traditional logic is useless in such situations where the defintions are not clear or are multiple.

It's easy enough to envision such a defintion of "God" and "church" that makes "God exists because my church says so" true.
If "church" is defined as 'powerful institution that can alter people's minds'
and if "God" is defined as 'important concept', then it follows that "God exists because my church says so".


Jesus is the only source of love. Those who do not believe in Jesus, do not love.
This could be a slippery slope, or it could simply be the truth, the argument being both valid and sound.

I believe God exists in your life because I have seen him in mine could be sound and valid, provided that one person's testimony is obligatory for others / belief in God is transitive from one person to another (these is a frequent assumptions that theists make).

If we don't know who exactly Jesus is and what he can do, if we don't know the nature of obligations arising from testimony, then we cannot assess the validity of those arguments.


The OP seems to be assuming that abstract logic trumps theology.
But does it?

 

[Sarkus]

If that would be so, then testing arguments for logical fallacies would be useless.

And with that you class mathematics as being useless.

To what use then?

So that if and when we establish the truth of the premises we can state with confidence that the conclusions of the (valid) logic are sound.

If we don't know whether the premises are sound or not, we cannot assess validity.

Yes we can:
P1 -> Alfred is a Pentarfulg.
P2 -> All Pentarfulg live in the USA.
C1 -> Alfred lives in the USA.

The conclusion (C1) follows from the premises given (P1 and P2).
The logic is valid.

Unless you know what a Pentarfulg is, you wouldn't know whether P1 and/or P2 are true or false.
You could therefore not say that C1 is sound.
But nonetheless the argument remains valid.

At such time as you know both P1 and P2 are true, you can say that the conclusion is also sound.

If we do not know what the premises refer to or whether they are true or not, we cannot assess whether they lead to a particlar conclusion or not.

Whether they are true or not, yes we can.
It's called logic.
Logic is not hugely concerned with reality - just the relationship between conclusions and premises.

If we don't know to what the premises refer, then one would surely ask for clarification?

Granted, the arguments are implied in them, though.

But in the way they were written it is not possible to say what those implied arguments are.

Not every appeal to authority is a fallacious appeal to authority.
If here at this forum, we appeal to the authority of, say, SEP or the Merriam-Webster dictionary, this is not fallacious.

Sure, but on such things as, say, definitions, then you're not really appealing to authority by turning to a dictionary but rather going to the source itself.

Similar could hold true when it comes to God. Perhaps there is a scripture that is authoritative in matters of God.

And it should also be understood that a non-fallacious authority needs to be relevant and sufficient, with the more significant the claim the higher the authority required. For example, is a book written by man sufficient alone to prove the existence of God? Should we not require something more, lest we start claiming that Orcs and Elves also exist?

Using scripture as support for God's existence can also fall under question-begging... one knows it as scripture because it comes from God, and one knows it comes from God because the scripture says it does, etc.

The problem especially with reasoning about "God" is that the term has so many definitions. Many other terms in religious discourse also have many definitions.
Traditional logic is useless in such situations where the defintions are not clear or are multiple.

It's easy enough to envision such a defintion of "God" and "church" that makes "God exists because my church says so" true.
If "church" is defined as 'powerful institution that can alter people's minds'
and if "God" is defined as 'important concept', then it follows that "God exists because my church says so".

Sure, one needs to be careful of the definitions that people use. Logic requires consistency in such... as should every other area... if it is to be efficient. If one person uses a different definition then of course claims of fallacious logic can be incorrect, but this is not a fault of the logic but of the lack of communication between the person making the argument and the one trying to understand/interpret the argument.
So be careful not to blame the tool if the people aren't using it effectively.

Jesus is the only source of love. Those who do not believe in Jesus, do not love.
This could be a slippery slope, or it could simply be the truth, the argument being both valid and sound.

It could be. But there are surely many premises missing from the argument even for validity... such as "Jesus only provides/enables love for those who believe" etc.
I.e. given the premise ("Jesus is the only source of love") there remains the possible conclusion that he provides it to all people whether they believe or not. Therefore the sole conclusion "Those who do not believe in Jesus, do not love" is fallacious.

Soundness on such matters can only be determined once the truth of the premises are established.

Logic can not tell you which premise is correct... only if the conclusion follows from the premise or not.
So if your interest here is to see if logic can tell you which premise is true or not, you will unfortunately be disappointed.

I believe God exists in your life because I have seen him in mine could be sound and valid, provided that one person's testimony is obligatory for others / belief in God is transitive from one person to another (these is a frequent assumptions that theists make).

If we don't know who exactly Jesus is and what he can do, if we don't know the nature of obligations arising from testimony, then we cannot assess the validity of those arguments.

If the premises are laid out and understood accurately then the validity of the argument can be assessed, even if you don't know who God is, who Jesus is.
That is the point of valid logic - the conclusions should stem from the premises given in the argument. If they don't then the argument is invalid and needs adjusting - whether that is additional premises, or a complete overhaul of the conclusion.

Sure, it can happen that many premises are assumed yet not stated, and it relies on the person viewing the argument to make the same assumptions. But one can not blame the viewer for not seeing what is not there.

The OP seems to be assuming that abstract logic trumps theology.
But does it?

They are not comparable... one is a field of study, the other is a tool that can be applied to that field of study.

I think the OP was rather just trying to understand what common logical fallacies arise within the theist / atheist debates. Possibly because they have seen arguments called out on one side or the other as being logically fallacious, and they are trying to understand why.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I think the OP was rather just trying to understand what common logical fallacies arise within the theist / atheist debates. Possibly because they have seen arguments called out on one side or the other as being logically fallacious, and they are trying to understand why.

It is my belief that the scientific method can be applied to discussions about God, but most of the conversations about God here at sciforums tend to degenerate into an exercise in logical fallacies from both sides.
It is like they start their argument with the conclusion and argue for that conclusion using any and all fallacies to support that conclusion.

notice i did not exclude myself in that statement.

@ Signal

Sarkus is doing a much better job at arguing my point than i could..
I tend to speak from my feelings, and try to use logic to justify it, (it doesn't always line up right..)
from my own experiences i have learned to trust my feelings, when i do, i end up being right more times than i am wrong. (sure,there may be logical fallacies in that,IE,Correlation does not imply causation,Gambler's fallacy?)
but it tends to work for me.


@ any
what would be the term for that?
(starting at conclusion and arguing for that conclusion?)

 

[wynn]

Sure, one needs to be careful of the definitions that people use. Logic requires consistency in such... as should every other area... if it is to be efficient. If one person uses a different definition then of course claims of fallacious logic can be incorrect, but this is not a fault of the logic but of the lack of communication between the person making the argument and the one trying to understand/interpret the argument.
So be careful not to blame the tool if the people aren't using it effectively.

A central element in actual interactions with theists is respect.
This includes
1. accepting the theist's statements as true
2. asking questions that the theist finds appropriate.


So a line of reasoning follows:

1. In order to find out about God, one needs to talk to theists (either in person or by reading their writings).

2. Not accepting the theist's statements as true and/or asking questions that the theist considers inappropriate, is against 1.

3. If one does not accept the theist's statements as true and if one does not inquire from the theist in ways that the theist considers appropriate, this means that one considers oneself to be an authority on (knowledge of) God.

4. If one does not accept the theist's statements as true and if one does not inquire from the theist in ways that the theist considers appropriate, it is irrational to talk to a theist about God at all.



Logical scrutiny dissolves whatever communication relationship there may be between the theist and the inquirer.
Logical scrutiny annulls respect for the theist.
Logical scrutiny makes it impossible to talk about God with theists.

 

[wynn]

@ any
what would be the term for that?
(starting at conclusion and arguing for that conclusion?)

Petitio principii or Begging the question


When it comes to the topic of God and related topics, petitio principii may not be a fallacy, though, nor other related fallacies, such as circular reasoning or appeal to authority (ipse dixit).


I know God because He revealed Himself to me.
I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.

If we define God as being someone who can and does directly affect the way a person thinks, feels and believes, and that God also personally dictated or inspired the Bible and that thus, the Bible has divine powers that one experiences upon reading or hearing the Bible, then we cannot dispute the above two claims. At least we cannot dispute them as long as we ourselves do not have revelation from God that could trump other revelations (or have refused such revelation).

 

[Sarkus]

A central element in actual interactions with theists is respect.
This includes
1. accepting the theist's statements as true
2. asking questions that the theist finds appropriate.

You're not serious, are you??
I fully agree with the need for respect - on both sides.
But the two things you cite as examples of respect are somewhat confusing...
There is NO need to accept anything unproven as true.
Whether someone wants to believe something as true or not is up to them, but one should not be required to accept their statements as true merely to have discussions with them.
Certain subjective things might be true to the one making the claim but there is no need to accept their interpretation as truth.

On the second point, why is disrespectful to ask questions of the theist that they might find inappropriate? Surely the theist also need to show respect and be willing to answer questions that others find appropriate??

So a line of reasoning follows:
1. In order to find out about God, one needs to talk to theists (either in person or by reading their writings).

Not all theology students are theist, but on the whole I would tend to agree.

2. Not accepting the theist's statements as true and/or asking questions that the theist considers inappropriate, is against 1.

Not at all. One should always raise questions that one feels appropriate. To be dictated to regarding what one is to find appropriate or not will limit any discourse. The person can always merely say "That is not appropriate, ask something else" to avoid any serious inquiry and to hide behind.
All you then end up with is preaching disguised as discourse.

3. If one does not accept the theist's statements as true and if one does not inquire from the theist in ways that the theist considers appropriate, this means that one considers oneself to be an authority on (knowledge of) God.

Not true. It merely means that one has not yet been made sufficiently aware of the nature of what they are asking, and nor are they willing to commit to what someone says as being true without understanding it.
If anything it means that they consider themself to be the authority on what it takes for them to accept something as truth.

4. If one does not accept the theist's statements as true and if one does not inquire from the theist in ways that the theist considers appropriate, it is irrational to talk to a theist about God at all.

Given you followed your line of thinking above, it would probably be irrational.
But given the issues I've raised above, you'll need to do more to convince me that it is irrational.

You seem to think such discourse be entirely one way with regard respect, with regard what is to be considered appropriate.
I don't understand why this need be the case.

Logical scrutiny dissolves whatever communication relationship there may be between the theist and the inquirer.
Logical scrutiny annulls respect for the theist.
Logical scrutiny makes it impossible to talk about God with theists.

So you think claims about God should be allowed to fall outside of logic?
You think someone should be able to set premises about religion/God and then reach conclusions that do not follow logically from those premises, and that we are to then accept those conclusions without questioning them??

The premises themselves, when raised, might be questioned as to their truth or not. But whether they are true or not, if the logic between the premise and conclusion is faulty / fallacious then why would we not call it out?
It would be irrational not to.

 

[Sarkus]

When it comes to the topic of God and related topics, petitio principii may not be a fallacy, though, nor other related fallacies, such as circular reasoning or appeal to authority (ipse dixit).

If you conclude that there is no fallacious logic then one should move onto issues of soundness... i.e. how can you know that the premises are true or not.

And if you conclude that the definition of God is true because a book supposedly inspired by God says so... you are back to circular reasoning... which while valid can not resolve issues of soundness.

 

[wynn]

You're not serious, are you??

I am serious.

There is NO need to accept anything unproven as true.

In the case of theism, one might have to accept something as true, even if one sees no proof for it and even without seeing any good reason to accept it.

Whether someone wants to believe something as true or not is up to them, but one should not be required to accept their statements as true merely to have discussions with them.
Certain subjective things might be true to the one making the claim but there is no need to accept their interpretation as truth.

Why not? Perhaps precisely this is the proper way to learn about God.
Experiences with theists tend to support this.

On the second point, why is disrespectful to ask questions of the theist that they might find inappropriate? Surely the theist also need to show respect and be willing to answer questions that others find appropriate??

For one, because the theist and the non-theist are not equals; and for two, because non-theists rely on theists to learn about God.

Not at all. One should always raise questions that one feels appropriate.

Perhaps this doesn't apply to theistic discourse. Experience with theists supports my stance.

To be dictated to regarding what one is to find appropriate or not will limit any discourse. The person can always merely say "That is not appropriate, ask something else" to avoid any serious inquiry and to hide behind.
All you then end up with is preaching disguised as discourse.

Or perhaps this is just the proper way to learn about God.

Not true. It merely means that one has not yet been made sufficiently aware of the nature of what they are asking, and nor are they willing to commit to what someone says as being true without understanding it.

If anything it means that they consider themself to be the authority on what it takes for them to accept something as truth.

Re bolded part: I have not yet met a theist who would not dispute that.

You seem to think such discourse be entirely one way with regard respect, with regard what is to be considered appropriate.
I don't understand why this need be the case.

Because the theist and the non-theist are not equals, and because the non-theist depends on the theist to learn about God.

So you think claims about God should be allowed to fall outside of logic?

I'm not talking about what claims about God should be allowed to or not.

You think someone should be able to set premises about religion/God and then reach conclusions that do not follow logically from those premises, and that we are to then accept those conclusions without questioning them??

This is what is happening; this is what theists usually expect.

The premises themselves, when raised, might be questioned as to their truth or not. But whether they are true or not, if the logic between the premise and conclusion is faulty / fallacious then why would we not call it out?
It would be irrational not to.

But by calling them out, we destroy all communication ties with theists.
Don't you agree?

I'm not promoting a theistic agenda. I am expressing my deep frustration over how things stand between theists and non-theists - ie. between the theist and the non-theist positions.
I consider the situation between the two to be completely hopeless.
I also consider the non-theists to be in a completely hopeless position, as far as God is concerned.
(And I consider myself a non-theist.)

Given you followed your line of thinking above, it would probably be irrational.
But given the issues I've raised above, you'll need to do more to convince me that it is irrational.

Are you so sure you can find out the truth about God on your own, without turning to theists for help?

 

[wynn]

If you conclude that there is no fallacious logic then one should move onto issues of soundness... i.e. how can you know that the premises are true or not.

And if you conclude that the definition of God is true because a book supposedly inspired by God says so... you are back to circular reasoning... which while valid can not resolve issues of soundness.

In the case of God, it might:
If God can and does influence how a person thinks and feels, to the point that a person thus becomes convinced they have experienced God - then how can we dispute that?


The mundane ipse dixit leaves the person where they've started; the mundane ipse dixit does not empower the person, change their consciousness or something other of that kind; the mundane ipse dixit is true circular reasoning that is fallacious.

The divine ipse dixit, however, changes a person, by the power of being divine; the divine ipse dixit changes the person's consciousness, empowers them.
The divine ipse dixit is the one case of circular reasoning that is not fallacious.

Of course, those of us who have not experienced the effects of the divine ipse dixit cannot assess those who have or who claim to have.

 

[NMSquirrel]

If anything it means that they consider themself to be the authority on what it takes for them to accept something as truth.

because non-theists rely on theists to learn about God.

see how one plays into the other?

the non-theist questions the theist as they expect the theist to be the authority on God,(the theist is more than happy to oblige) what gets missed is the non-theist expects the theist answer to be objective, to be THE answer.

but this concept doesn't just apply to the theist, if you question anyone as if they are the authority, they will respond in kind.

In the case of theism, one might have to accept something as true,

accept it as the theist who communicates it thinks of it as true, (i believe you believe it)

to try and convince him/her they are wrong is an exercise in futility (both sides)

i think we are addressing the fallacy 'False dichotomy'
thinking there is only two options, IE the theist is either right or wrong.
one must hear a theists testimony and decide for one self.(more testimonies make for more data to gauge validity/soundness)

there are some theist here that you already have enough data to gauge the validity of their claims and dismiss as silly (being nice..) others you gauge worthy enough to continue to question them.

 

[Sarkus]

In the case of theism, one might have to accept something as true, even if one sees no proof for it and even without seeing any good reason to accept it.

One never has to accept something as true just because someone might tell you... especially if you see no proof or no good reason to accept it.

Why not? Perhaps precisely this is the proper way to learn about God.
Experiences with theists tend to support this.

Because you are relying on their subjective interpretation, complete with all the bias that they have. If someone is taught to identify an experience as X then that is what they well say it is, regardless of whether it really is X or not.

For one, because the theist and the non-theist are not equals; and for two, because non-theists rely on theists to learn about God.

In what way are they not equals when it comes to respect in discussions? Why are you putting them on a pedestal even before they have opened their mouths??

Perhaps this doesn't apply to theistic discourse. Experience with theists supports my stance.

Of course it applies to theistic discourse. If you want to ask a question, ask it, and don't let them spin you a yarn as to why it might be inappropriate. Surely they should be able to answer any question to your satisfaction... and if not, why be satisfied with "it is inapporpriate"?

Or perhaps this is just the proper way to learn about God.

If you think that, why not just sit in a church and be preached to?

Re bolded part: I have not yet met a theist who would not dispute that.

So you think a theist is an authority on what it takes for you to accept something as truth??? If you're finding theists say "but you must accept this as truth"... and you still aren't convinced... shouldn't this tell you something about the quality of their position and what they're trying to sell you?

Because the theist and the non-theist are not equals, and because the non-theist depends on the theist to learn about God.

Again, why are they not equals? I'm not talking about relative position with regard knowledge on a subject, but with regard positions in a debate.

And why can the non-theist not rely on the same God that the theist ultimately relies on??

I'm not talking about what claims about God should be allowed to or not.

You are arguing that using logic can dissolve a discussion and so shouldn't be used... thus suggesting that logic should not be used, and thus arguments can fall outside of logic.
If this is not your position, perhaps you need to explain further.

This is what is happening; this is what theists usually expect.

Then point out their illogic. Point out the weakness in their argument. Detail your concern with their view and why you can not accept it.
If you do accept it, then what is to stop you accepting at face value whatever a person you perceive as being in authority tells you about anything else at all?
An illogic argument is an illogic argument, regardless of the topic.
That is not to say the premises are therefore true or false, or even that the conclusion is therefore false, only that the premises do not lead logically to the conclusion.

But by calling them out, we destroy all communication ties with theists.
Don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.
If anyone's argument can not stand up to scrutiny then surely the onus is on them to strengthen it or retract it.
One's concern should not necessarily be with trying to retain a line of communication if all they communicate is logically flawed.
If anything the raising of the issue should help the theist strengthen their argument.
But ultimately it will come down to the willing of each party to stand up to scrutiny, and personally I am not concerned if they sulk away when their arguments are shown to be logically flawed - irrespective of topic.

I'm not promoting a theistic agenda. I am expressing my deep frustration over how things stand between theists and non-theists - ie. between the theist and the non-theist positions.
I consider the situation between the two to be completely hopeless.
I also consider the non-theists to be in a completely hopeless position, as far as God is concerned.
(And I consider myself a non-theist.)

If you're non-theist, what is there to be hopeless about with regard God?
Are you in a completely hopeless position about Zarg as well?

Are you so sure you can find out the truth about God on your own, without turning to theists for help?

Adequately define "God" and explain why I should be concerned about the truth.
And then explain how my life would be in any way different on a practical level knowing whether this God exists or not.
Then I might be able to respond to your question.

Currently the only person who I would trust to tell me the truth about such significant matters would be God Himself, and I haven't heard anything yet.

 

[Sarkus]

In the case of God, it might:
If God can and does influence how a person thinks and feels, to the point that a person thus becomes convinced they have experienced God - then how can we dispute that?

We can not dispute that they are convinced of it. But that is a far cry from us being convinced, due to there being other (and entirely natural) explanations (e.g. brain disfunction).

Of course, those of us who have not experienced the effects of the divine ipse dixit cannot assess those who have or who claim to have.

If we cannot assess, we can not accept as truth (or false). So they merely remain unsupported claims, and all that entails.

 

[wynn]

see how one plays into the other?

the non-theist questions the theist as they expect the theist to be the authority on God,(the theist is more than happy to oblige) what gets missed is the non-theist expects the theist answer to be objective, to be THE answer.

This is the non-theist's predicament.
A non-theist cannot know what is about God and what is not, and is as such fully left to the mercy of those who claim to know about God.

but this concept doesn't just apply to the theist, if you question anyone as if they are the authority, they will respond in kind.

Not true.
Not everyone automatically assumes they are what the asker implies.
If someone would talk to me as if I were a police officer, I would remind the person that I am not one.

thinking there is only two options, IE the theist is either right or wrong.

What else could there be, in the case of theism?

one must hear a theists testimony and decide for one self.

This is just your particular meta-theology.
The theologies of the major religions do not consider this approach acceptable.

there are some theist here that you already have enough data to gauge the validity of their claims and dismiss as silly (being nice..) others you gauge worthy enough to continue to question them.

That would mean that the individual's current discernment is sufficient to justly be selective among religions.
Again, the theologies of the major religions do not consider this approach acceptable.
Their stance is, essentially, "Accept us and abandon the others."

 

[wynn]

One never has to accept something as true just because someone might tell you... especially if you see no proof or no good reason to accept it.

Again, when it comes to theism, this may be the case.

Why not? Perhaps precisely this is the proper way to learn about God.
Experiences with theists tend to support this.

Because you are relying on their subjective interpretation, complete with all the bias that they have. If someone is taught to identify an experience as X then that is what they well say it is, regardless of whether it really is X or not.

We don't know if they are biased or not, or if and how their bias matters.

In what way are they not equals when it comes to respect in discussions?
Why are you putting them on a pedestal even before they have opened their mouths??

Because they are, at least nominally, making claims about God, and we as non-theists are turning to the theists for knowledge of God.
As such, we are in the lesser, subordinate position.

Of course it applies to theistic discourse. If you want to ask a question, ask it, and don't let them spin you a yarn as to why it might be inappropriate. Surely they should be able to answer any question to your satisfaction... and if not, why be satisfied with "it is inapporpriate"?

You've seen enough times what happens if one asks questions that the theists do not find appropriate.
Even someone as sophisticated as Lightgigantic resorts to ad hominems.
In person, it is even worse, and it is the same, regardless how high a position the theist has in their religious/spiritual organization.

Or perhaps this is just the proper way to learn about God.

If you think that, why not just sit in a church and be preached to?

I did say "perhaps."

So you think a theist is an authority on what it takes for you to accept something as truth???

Have you ever met any theist who doesn't think that?

The corollarium of being a non-theist who depends on theists to learn about God, is to blindly rely on theists.

If you're finding theists say "but you must accept this as truth"... and you still aren't convinced... shouldn't this tell you something about the quality of their position and what they're trying to sell you?

Such not being convinced might not spare me of eternal damnation.

Again, why are they not equals? I'm not talking about relative position with regard knowledge on a subject, but with regard positions in a debate.

If the theistic position is true, then the theists are superior.
Considering them equals would imply we have already discovered or taken for granted that the theistic position is not true.

And why can the non-theist not rely on the same God that the theist ultimately relies on??

Because the non-theist is a non-theist ...

I'm not talking about what claims about God should be allowed to or not.

You are arguing that using logic can dissolve a discussion and so shouldn't be used... thus suggesting that logic should not be used, and thus arguments can fall outside of logic.
If this is not your position, perhaps you need to explain further.

I didn't say that logic shouldn't be used in communication with theists. I am saying that using logic makes an end to the communication with a theist.
If one wants to learn about God, then one must give up logic when talking to theists.

But by calling them out, we destroy all communication ties with theists.
Don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.

Is your experience with theists that after you have implemented logic, this improved and strengthened your communication with them?

If anyone's argument can not stand up to scrutiny then surely the onus is on them to strengthen it or retract it.

But the theist can (and they do) plead special position given that they are theists, and that therefore, the onus is not on them.
As theists, they are privileged, God's chosen children, and we, as non-theists, have no power or rights against them.
Again, considering them equals would mean we already (presume to) know the truth about God. In which case, why talk to them at all?

One's concern should not necessarily be with trying to retain a line of communication if all they communicate is logically flawed.

This holds well enough for ordinary matters, but not for theism.

But ultimately it will come down to the willing of each party to stand up to scrutiny, and personally I am not concerned if they sulk away when their arguments are shown to be logically flawed - irrespective of topic.

Or you just bought yourself a ticket to hell.

If you're non-theist, what is there to be hopeless about with regard God?
Are you in a completely hopeless position about Zarg as well?

Hell isn't a destination I would favor.

Currently the only person who I would trust to tell me the truth about such significant matters would be God Himself, and I haven't heard anything yet.

Because you're not good enough to receive a personal revelation!

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

If God can and does influence how a person thinks and feels, to the point that a person thus becomes convinced they have experienced God - then how can we dispute that?

Simple, we look for a naturalistic cause of the experience(and we've found many). If you then argue that god merely uses the naturalistic causes(which would mean that god is pretty lazy if you ask me) then we can conclude that since we observe nothing which(at this point) doesn't have a naturalistic cause that god only uses naturalistic causes. If that's the case then god is indistinguishable from nature and thus is irrelevant.

The mundane ipse dixit leaves the person where they've started; the mundane ipse dixit does not empower the person, change their consciousness or something other of that kind; the mundane ipse dixit is true circular reasoning that is fallacious.

Appeal to consequences, fallacious reasoning. You can't use this to support your argument.

You've seen enough times what happens if one asks questions that the theists do not find appropriate.
Even someone as sophisticated as Lightgigantic resorts to ad hominems.
In person, it is even worse, and it is the same, regardless how high a position the theist has in their religious/spiritual organization.

For any other idea or concept this would be taken as a sign of weakness, that the idea is unsupported and is likely not true. We see this in everything from science(take the recent explosion of quantum woo as an example of this) to politics and even which sports teams are the best. The inability or unwillingness to subject a concept to skeptical inquiry, which necessarily means opening it to all questions regardless of whether one thinks them "appropriate"(or giving well reasoned explanations as to why the question is inappropriate), is, in all other arenas, considered to be a sign of unfitness.

Why should theism be exempt from this?

You see, it's this tendency that we atheists are talking about when we say that theism gets special treatment.

Such not being convinced might not spare me of eternal damnation.

This is, again, an appeal to consequences. Specifically it's an appeal to force, an attempt at coercion. If coercion isn't an acceptable argument in other arenas(and it's not, we even have laws protecting people from it) then why is it acceptable when it comes to theism?

If one wants to learn about God, then one must give up logic when talking to theists.

And by giving up logic we give up our ability to discern whether what we've learned is true or not. Nothing else seems to work at doing that. So how then do you suggest that we make such a determination?

Is your experience with theists that after you have implemented logic, this improved and strengthened your communication with them?

It does with theists who aren't closed minded, and it tends to shut the others up after a while. I call that a win win. But again, I have to ask what you would tell us to use in place of logic?

But the theist can (and they do) plead special position given that they are theists, and that therefore, the onus is not on them.

And this is yet another reason to consider their position to be a weak one.

As theists, they are privileged, God's chosen children, and we, as non-theists, have no power or rights against them.

This only holds weight if one presupposes that they're right. Lacking that presupposition implies that they have no valid position. This isn't a case of one assumption verses another(if it were that would be relatively easy to sort out), it's a case of one assumption verses a lack of that assumption.

Again, considering them equals would mean we already (presume to) know the truth about God.

No it doesn't. I don't necessarily have to know the truth about a given subject to tell you when you're wrong. For example, I don't have to understand the truth about what gravity is to tell you that pressure from displaced aether isn't what causes it. Saying someone is wrong doesn't necessitate that you have the answers, just that you can tell that they're wrong, usually because their arguments and explanations don't reflect observation.

This holds well enough for ordinary matters, but not for theism

Why should theism be alone in getting this special treatment? What makes the concept of theism so special in this regard? And please don't appeal to the consequences again, that's not a valid form of argumentation.

Hell isn't a destination I would favor.

Oh, I dunno about that. After all, all of the greatest thinkers in history are likely to be there. I'd be able to discuss recent advances in biology with Darwin, cryptography with Turing, and quantum electrodynamics with Feynman. I can deal with a little heat for that kind of company(I am from Minne-fucking-sota after all, bad weather doesn't bug me).

@The OP --

Ad hominem
An attempt to counter a claim by attacking the person making the claim rather than the substance of the claim itself.

anyone who believes in God is delusional.(false)

This is only fallacious because of how it's stated, not because of the content. One can say that the belief in god is delusional without being engaged in a fallacy.

Appeal to ridicule
An argument in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence.

"God exists! That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Therefore, God does not exist."

Two things here.

1. This does not mean that all ridicule is fallacious, only when ridicule is used in place of an actual argument. If I were to say "you're ideas are stupid and therefore wrong" that is a fallacious statement. On the other hand, "you're ideas are stupid and wrong for reasons x, y, and z" is not fallacious as I am not using ridicule in place of actual argumentation. In other words, if you can support your ridicule and don't use it as the only means of argument then it's not a fallacy.

2. Don't forget that reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy either.

Special pleading
Argument of the form: As are generally B. X is an A. But X is an exception to the general rule because of (irrelevant characteristic).
"Planets are usually round. The Earth is a planet. But Earth has life on it, and planets with life on them are flat. So the Earth is flat."

not sure how to apply this..

Simple. Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists so it must have a cause. God is that cause therefore god exists.

The conclusion here is completely exempt from the logic used in the premise as god exists but is posited as a first cause when the logic of the premise would necessarily require an infinite regress of causes.

Fallacies of presumption

Fallacies of presumption base an argument on one or more false (or at least unwarranted or unproven) assumptions. These assumptions are often implied rather than being explicitly stated

.
all christians believe X.

This isn't necessarily a fallacy. To say that all christians believe that Jesus was/is the messiah is, by definition, true. If you do not believe that then you do not fit the definition of a christian and therefore are not one, despite what you might want to call yourself. Of course, this is more and more likely to be true the more specific you get with the statement. To say that all christians believe in the virgin birth is a fallacy of presumption on top of being demonstrably false. But the statement in and of itself is not necessarily fallacious.

 

[Pineal]

Simple, we look for a naturalistic cause of the experience(and we've found many). If you then argue that god merely uses the naturalistic causes(which would mean that god is pretty lazy if you ask me) then we can conclude that since we observe nothing which(at this point) doesn't have a naturalistic cause that god only uses naturalistic causes. If that's the case then god is indistinguishable from nature and thus is irrelevant.

You can only say this might be the case. From the outside of that person, you really cannot tell what the causes are, if they fall under what is known, etc. Another way to put this is that while their argument or statements of experience need not carry any weight for you - given other explanations you consider more likely - this does not mean you necessarily know what is 'really' going on for them.

This only holds weight if one presupposes that they're right.

And even if they are right, this does not necessarily mean that they are God's chosen. Even the religions themselves bring up the possibility of people be correct about a certain belief but still damned or caught in Maya otherwise or in some way really quite a mess. Further even if they are right it does not necessarily grant them some kind of interpersonal authority. If whatever knowledge they have does not reach the listener/reader, does not work for them, it is limited, at the very least in that context and with that person at this time. Any theist who think that what they are saying should work (with everyone??!!) and the listener/reader is bad, lower on some spiritual scale, resistent, evil, damned, not chosen, is at the very least making even more assumptions, and clearly about themselves. The assumptions about themselves they will generally not find support for in their scriptures, since the scriptures will not mention them by name, and most have things like anti-christs and false teachers and profets as concepts.

Now my intuition: anyone presuming that the other person should have been convinced without experience is not dealing with their own terror of being wrong.

Two things here.

1. This does not mean that all ridicule is fallacious, only when ridicule is used in place of an actual argument. If I were to say "you're ideas are stupid and therefore wrong" that is a fallacious statement. On the other hand, "you're ideas are stupid and wrong for reasons x, y, and z" is not fallacious as I am not using ridicule in place of actual argumentation. In other words, if you can support your ridicule and don't use it as the only means of argument then it's not a fallacy.

Though the ridicule is not adding any substance. If you are saying it is wrong because of x, y and z, adding that the idea is stupid is unnecessary, so it's still pretty poor argumentation. It comes off as a way to imply an ad hom.