Listen folks, here's the rule of Priority...

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, God
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Argument:

Praying and thanking god for accomplishments is an irrational behavior which is unjustified and ridiculous in any context, especially public context.

Clarifications:

First, I'll use the abbreviation GTG in order to refer to people who show "gratitude towards god". This is simply to speed things up

I also wanted to make sure that you understand that I strongly support the freedom of speech. Although I seem to be speaking in a tone that may "suggest" that those people don't have the right to show gratitude towards god, it's honestly not the case. They are entitled to it 100%. Everyone has the right to believe in what they want to believe, and say what they want to say. It's a different story whether those beliefs are rational and should be deeply embedded in our culture.

Last, but not least, here's a little refresher regarding the Burden of Proof Fallacy (Click Here), just so we're all on the same page

Evidence/Proof:

At the very beginning of this thread I have made the mistake of trying to make a point by trying to prove what god would / would not do. This way I pretty much set myself up for a very difficult debate, where I would have a huge burden of proof regarding a subject that can be extremely complicated. Because of that I decided to take a different approach to prove my point

Now, you could say that I can't prove that GTGs are irrational because I don't have any evidence that 1) God doesn't exist, and/or 2) God doesn't interfere in our daily lives. You could also say that because I initially brought up the issue, the burden of proof lies on me.
This is not the case at all. It's called the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
Technically, all I have to do to prove my point is to show that the burden of proof is on GTGs. After all, the source of this whole issue and outrageous claims are the GTGs - I'm simply the challenger of their claims.

To put it all into context, let's assume for the sake of the argument that I'm a Wall Street investor and that I believe in a creature called "Money Gnome". Let's say that I assert that whenever I'm in financial trouble, I rapidly snap my fingers in order to "alert" the Money Gnome that I'm in need of financial luck. Let's also say that on some days the stocks went up in value and that I made a decent amount of money.
After that I constantly kept snapping my fingers in order to make more money, while at the same time I annoyed the hell out of my co-investors.

Although I'm entitled to free speech and can act in any way that's not obscene (such as sex in public, acting aggressively and threatening others in public, etc) my behavior would be considered irrational by pretty much everyone (except possibly children, because most of them can't reason well at a young age, and they may find the idea of a "Money Gnome" rather interesting and fascinating in the first place).

Also, all my co-workers would/should claim that I'm being irrational, childish, and annoying. After all, I couldn't blame them as I have no proof or any shred of evidence whatsoever that my assertions are true.
My assertion should remain irrational before I can prove it or provide some reasonable evidence that at least "hints" that "Money Gnome" exists.
The proof of burden is NOT on my co-investors to show that there is no Money Gnome. Therefore my behavior and claims are irrational and ridiculous.

So, in this scenario we don't really need to care whether god exists, and whether he interferes in our daily lives - It's completely irrelevant. All we need to care about is that there is no evidence to justify that type of behavior. It's "freedom of speech", but it's irrational.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Anyway, why do I need to prove anything? Isn't it obvious that public gratitude towards god is ridiculous? From a common sense perspective?

No.

Well, in that case you seem to not be familiar with common types of logical fallacies, especially the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
It's simple as this: Any assertion is irrational that can't be proven or has no reasonable evidence, even though one can't actually disprove the original claims.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
(I already see that you used "protective" wording as to shield yourself and make it more difficult for me. "All" and "Any" make it almost impossible to prove things in ANY debate. However, I'm eager to continue and see where we'll be going... Step on the throttle, partner! )

It's not "protective wording." I use "any" and "all" because any single counter-example would destroy your argument. In other words, I use "any" and "all" because you must use "any" and "all."

That couldn't be further from the truth. Your statement is one big fallacy.
I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist and/or doesn't interfere in our daily lives, in order to prove that GTGs are irrational. Let's say that for a FACT god DOES exist and that god DOES actually help some people who pray and thank him. That doesn't make any difference whatsoever - the claims are still irrational as there is no shred of evidence.
For example, if a judge locked up a person without any evidence that he committed a crime, the judge would be acting in a manner that's described irrational and unreasonable. This is even the case if the person actually DID commit the crime. The judge could insist that the person can't prove that he is innocent, however, this would be unreasonable as it's really the other way around - the court has to prove that the person committed a crime. The burden of proof is on prosecutors, as they are putting forward a claim that the person committed a crime: Innocent until proven guilty.

In case of GTGs: Irrational until proven rational.

Since GTGs are claiming that god interferes in their lives, their claims are irrational due to lack of evidence. Whether god actually DOES interfere is completely irrelevant.

Conclusion:

Even though GTGs are entitled to their beliefs, they are still irrational.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Now, you could say that I can't prove that GTGs are irrational because I don't have any evidence that 1) God doesn't exist, and/or 2) God doesn't interfere in our daily lives. You could also say that because I initially brought up the issue, the burden of proof lies on me.

Of course the burden of proof lies with you. It's your argument.

c_logic wrote:

This is not the case at all. It's called the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
Technically, all I have to do to prove my point is to show that the burden of proof is on GTGs. After all, the source of this whole issue and outrageous claims are the GTGs - I'm simply the challenger of their claims.

Someone who makes the claim that god renders assistance in response to requests can easily argue that his position is nonrational, i.e. that a belief in a benevolent deity is not dependent upon rationality at all. To call it "irrational," then, is to beg the question that belief in a supernatural deity is subject to the tenets of rationality, when that point is itself open to debate. Your task, therefore, is to show that such a belief is "irrational" rather than simply nonrational. That remains your burden of proof.

c_logic wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Anyway, why do I need to prove anything? Isn't it obvious that public gratitude towards god is ridiculous? From a common sense perspective?

No.

Well, in that case you seem to not be familiar with common types of logical fallacies, especially the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
It's simple as this: Any assertion is irrational that can't be proven or has no reasonable evidence, even though one can't actually disprove the original claims.

I'm familiar with many types of logical fallacies. I see them all the time on this board.

c_logic wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
It's not "protective wording." I use "any" and "all" because any single counter-example would destroy your argument. In other words, I use "any" and "all" because you must use "any" and "all."

That couldn't be further from the truth. Your statement is one big fallacy.
I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist and/or doesn't interfere in our daily lives, in order to prove that GTGs are irrational. Let's say that for a FACT god DOES exist and that god DOES actually help some people who pray and thank him. That doesn't make any difference whatsoever - the claims are still irrational as there is no shred of evidence.

What sort of "evidence" are you referring to?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Of course the burden of proof lies with you. It's your argument.

Yes and no.
Me having to disprove the original claims? No, because that would be the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
Me having to prove that GTGs don't have evidence to make their behavior and claims rational? Yes.

joefromchicago wrote:

Someone who makes the claim that god renders assistance in response to requests can easily argue that his position is nonrational, i.e. that a belief in a benevolent deity is not dependent upon rationality at all. To call it "irrational," then, is to beg the question that belief in a supernatural deity is subject to the tenets of rationality, when that point is itself open to debate. Your task, therefore, is to show that such a belief is "irrational" rather than simply nonrational. That remains your burden of proof.

Not really, and I can easily refute your statement. It seems to me that you're trying to bring subjectivity to this matter. You're saying that if people say that "traditional rationality" doesn't apply to their claims because they (or their claims) are not "interested" in rationality per se, that they are exempt from irrationality. That's absolutely wrong.
It's very subjective to say that their claims/statements are "somehow" different and should be looked at differently. It would be unfair to other outrageous claims and it would make things inconsistent.
Just because they argue that way, it doesn't make their claims exempt from the same rigors that all other claims are subject to. Just because they might say that god is not logical and that the belief itself doesn't rely on logic, it doesn't make them exempt from rationality and logic. It's almost like using the very same statement to give more substance to the very same statement:
"My claim states that it's not subject to rationality, therefore it's not subject to rationality."

At the end of the day, a BELIEF is still only a belief, which is subjective and unsubstantiated. Since it's put forward as something with substance, it turns from a simple and subjective belief into an irrational statement/claim that should not be part of the mainstream culture. Having a huge fallacy be a significant part of one's life or culture is rather a sad thing and it clearly shows that humans have a very long way to go...
The problem is that people don't look at those things as cultural rituals (which is the case), but instead they look at it as something with substance or even fact, more so because such a large percentage of people have the same belief (see Bandwagon Fallacy).

As I said before, I do believe that people are entitled to act in religious and superstitious ways - I used to be very religious and superstitious myself a few years ago. Your statement above explains the nature and source of people's beliefs, however, when it comes to rationality in general, your statement is not relevant - it's subjective and it says that certain people are not subject to rationality because they "say so" or because their claims "state so". That's a fallacy.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Me having to disprove the original claims? No, because that would be the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
Me having to prove that GTGs don't have evidence to make their behavior and claims rational? Yes.

You clearly don't understand. When someone says "god renders assistance in response to my prayers," your response that "that's not rational" introduces a new element into the argument -- rationality. It is not incumbent upon the believer to argue that his belief is rational, because that's not part of his argument, that's part of your argument. Placing the burden on the believer to prove rationality would not only be burden shifting, it would be question begging (look that one up).

c_logic wrote:

Not really, and I can easily refute your statement. It seems to me that you're trying to bring subjectivity to this matter. You're saying that if people say that "traditional rationality" doesn't apply to their claims because they (or their claims) are not "interested" in rationality per se, that they are exempt from irrationality. That's absolutely wrong.

No, they're not exempt from irrationality, they're exempt from having to prove that they're being rational. That's your position, so that's your burden.

c_logic wrote:

It's very subjective to say that their claims/statements are "somehow" different and should be looked at differently. It would be unfair to other outrageous claims and it would make things inconsistent.
Just because they argue that way, it doesn't make their claims exempt from the same rigors that all other claims are subject to. Just because they might say that god is not logical and that the belief itself doesn't rely on logic, it doesn't make them exempt from rationality and logic. It's almost like using the very same statement to give more substance to the very same statement:
"My claim states that it's not subject to rationality, therefore it's not subject to rationality."

Anyone who claims that a belief in god's beneficence is nonrational is not obliged to prove that it's not irrational. Anyone who claims that a belief in god's beneficence is irrational, on the other hand, is obliged to prove that it's irrational.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

You clearly don't understand. When someone says "god renders assistance in response to my prayers," your response that "that's not rational" introduces a new element into the argument -- rationality. It is not incumbent upon the believer to argue that his belief is rational, because that's not part of his argument, that's part of your argument. Placing the burden on the believer to prove rationality would not only be burden shifting, it would be question begging (look that one up).

I clearly do understand - as I stated before, you're bringing subjectivity to this matter.

What you're saying is this:
"It is not incumbent upon the believer to argue that his belief is rational, because that's not part of his argument"

Which can be translated to this:
"If somebody wants to keep their claim "personal" or doesn't want to actively argue their claim, it's not subject to irrationality."

According to you, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, it Does Not make a sound.
That's absolutely wrong. No matter what the context of the claim, it's still subject to being reasonable or unreasonable.

You are also forgetting a very important point Ironically, the claim "god renders assistance in response to my prayers" is part of their argument - in a subtle way. Even though they sometimes don't want to "debate it" with non-believers, they are still putting it forward as a statement of fact, not some "slight" possibility. Most of the time, however, they do want to convince others. Also, why do people go to church? To hear fairytales? No they go to church to hear the "facts" about their religion and claims that their religion makes. It's all supposed to have substance - that's why people are interested in the first place.

Anyway, all claims of fact are subject to being either 1. rational (i.e. There is evidence to back them up) or 2. irrational (they are subjective, they are made up, or they have no evidence whatsoever to back them up).

joefromchicago wrote:

No, they're not exempt from irrationality, they're exempt from having to prove that they're being rational. That's your position, so that's your burden.

The believers have placed the burden of proof on themselves (since they are the source of the claims, and since the claims are supposed to have substance), and that's why I keep insisting that their claims are irrational until proven otherwise. Of course, they are not obligated IN ANY WAY to prove anything. However, they must provide some sort of evidence in order to make their claims rational, otherwise the claims will simply stay irrational, even if they don't feel like debating.

For some reason you keep bringing up the term "nonrational", but it doesn't really apply. When I think of "nonrational", I usually think of someone being hungry or thirsty Why? Because being hungry or thirsty it's neither right or wrong, rational or irrational - it simply is.

On the other hand, believers rely on the statements of hearsay to form their religious beliefs and think of them as fact. Hearsay or personal "gut feeling" (i.e. Leap fo Faith) is just not good enough to back up a claim of fact. I know that you would like to say that this "situation" is somehow different that's it's "nonrational" and that an individual doesn't necessarilly put it forward as rational (although many people do). However, all claims of substance/fact are "equal" and must be subjected to the same type of analysis. There are NO exceptions.

Anyway, if you would like to prove your point further, I am very curious as to why the following statement is not irrational, especially since it's put forward as fact:

"Today I made a lot of money in the stock market. When I was a little kid my mother told me about the Money Gnome and how he helps people with financial matters. Because of that I would like to thank Money Gnome for helping me move closer to my financial goals. I knew that Money Gnome would not let me down"

joefromchicago wrote:

Anyone who claims that a belief in god's beneficence is nonrational is not obliged to prove that it's not irrational.

That's absolutely true. However, according to this logic things could get very interesting.

I guess I could murder someone because I don't like them and insist that I didn't act in an "unlawful" manner. I simply did it in a "nonlawful" context (the person annoyed me, so I honestly believed that the person had "to go") so the law does not apply to me. I could also argue that I don't feel like going to court and "defend myself" against the rigors of prosecutors.

Since that makes all the difference in the world, I'm a free man - Now that was easy!

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

I clearly do understand - as I stated before, you're bringing subjectivity to this matter.

What you're saying is this:
"It is not incumbent upon the believer to argue that his belief is rational, because that's not part of his argument"

Which can be translated to this:
"If somebody wants to keep their claim "personal" or doesn't want to actively argue their claim, it's not subject to irrationality."

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

c_logic wrote:

According to you, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, it Does Not make a sound.
That's absolutely wrong. No matter what the context of the claim, it's still subject to being reasonable or unreasonable.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

c_logic wrote:

You are also forgetting a very important point Ironically, the claim "god renders assistance in response to my prayers" is part of their argument - in a subtle way.

I never said otherwise.

c_logic wrote:

Anyway, all claims of fact are subject to being either 1. rational (i.e. There is evidence to back them up) or 2. irrational (they are subjective, they are made up, or they have no evidence whatsoever to back them up).

And anyone who says that an assertion of fact is irrational is obliged to provide evidence to support that assertion.

joefromchicago wrote:

No, they're not exempt from irrationality, they're exempt from having to prove that they're being rational. That's your position, so that's your burden.

c_logic wrote:

For some reason you keep bringing up the term "nonrational", but it doesn't really apply. When I think of "nonrational", I usually think of someone being hungry or thirsty Why? Because being hungry or thirsty it's neither right or wrong, rational or irrational - it simply is.

If you don't understand the term "nonrational," then maybe you need to revisit your understanding of "rational" and "irrational" as well.

c_logic wrote:

Anyway, if you would like to prove your point further, I am very curious as to why the following statement is not irrational, especially since it's put forward as fact:

"Today I made a lot of money in the stock market. When I was a little kid my mother told me about the Money Gnome and how he helps people with financial matters. Because of that I would like to thank Money Gnome for helping me move closer to my financial goals. I knew that Money Gnome would not let me down"

That statement may indeed be irrational, but if I were to make that assertion it would be my responsibility to back it up with evidence. Rather than proving your argument is right, however, you would have the believer prove your argument is wrong.

A: I believe in the beneficent Money Gnome.
B: That's irrational.
A: Oh yeah? Prove it!
B: No, you prove that it's not!

Sorry, that is impermissible burden-shifting.

c_logic wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Anyone who claims that a belief in god's beneficence is nonrational is not obliged to prove that it's not irrational.

That's absolutely true. However, according to this logic things could get very interesting.

I guess I could murder someone because I don't like them and insist that I didn't act in an "unlawful" manner. I simply did it in a "nonlawful" context (the person annoyed me, so I honestly believed that the person had "to go") so the law does not apply to me. I could also argue that I don't feel like going to court and "defend myself" against the rigors of prosecutors.

Even your analogies are nonsensical. A murderer is not obliged to prove that he is innocent: rather, the state is obliged to prove that he is guilty. In your scenario, you are free to believe whatever you like. That doesn't let you get away with murder, but it also doesn't shift the burden of proof onto you to prove that your belief was justified.

Look, c_logic, you started this thread with an argument that was completely indefensible -- a fact which you eventually acknowledged. Rather than abandoning your indefensible position, you decided that the only way you could prevail was to make the other side argue that you were wrong rather than muster enough evidence to convince us that you were right. Your new position, however, is just as indefensible as your old one, albeit for entirely different reasons. But whereas the discussion of your first position was instructive (for you, at least), the discussion of your second position has been pointless and sterile. If your sole interest now is not to discuss the merits of your position but rather the parameters of the debate, then I have no interest in participating further in this thread. And so I say once again to you: buh-bye!

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
According to you, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, it Does Not make a sound.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Well, it's quite simple Earlier you stated that "It is not incumbent upon the believer to argue that his belief is rational, because that's not part of his argument."

Just because it may not be part of his argument (or if it's "kept personal") it doesn't mean that his statement of fact is not subject to irrationality. Just the way a tree that falls in the forest still makes a sound if nobody is around to perceive it, a statement of fact that's brought to life is still subject to being classified rational/irrational, based on the evidence that supports the claim. There are NO exceptions.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
You are also forgetting a very important point Ironically, the claim "god renders assistance in response to my prayers" is part of their argument - in a subtle way.

I never said otherwise.

Ok, let's recap

In your last post you admitted that "god renders assistance in response to my prayers" is part of their argument (and is presented as fact), and that there are two outcomes for statements of fact; they are either rational or irrational (*Lookup 1*, next quote below).

Taking these two things into consideration, how is it possible that a claim can be fact, and at the same time rationality doesn't apply to it?

They MUST claim that their belief is rational, as all claims of fact are either rational/irrational (they certainly don't claim their belief is irrational). How can their belief be rational if there's no evidence to back it up? I know, we should "wheel in" the term "nonrational", but it's not going to happen just because the believers say so. "Nonrationality" doesn't apply to claims of fact.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Anyway, all claims of fact are subject to being either 1. rational (i.e. There is evidence to back them up) or 2. irrational (they are subjective, they are made up, or they have no evidence whatsoever to back them up).

And anyone who says that an assertion of fact is irrational is obliged to provide evidence to support that assertion.

1. (*Lookup 1*) Ok, so you agree that there are two categories for claims of fact

2. I don't have to actively prove/disprove anything myself - I'm the challenger of believers' claims. You need to revisit the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Anyway, if you would like to prove your point further, I am very curious as to why the following statement is not irrational, especially since it's put forward as fact:

"Today I made a lot of money in the stock market. When I was a little kid my mother told me about the Money Gnome and how he helps people with financial matters. Because of that I would like to thank Money Gnome for helping me move closer to my financial goals. I knew that Money Gnome would not let me down"

That statement may indeed be irrational,

So you're getting very selective and subjective... You're saying that outrageous religious claims (without evidence backup) are different, special, and OK, but outrageous childish claims (without evidence backup) may indeed be irrational...

Why are religious claims different? Just because many people believe it? See Bandwagon Fallacy.

joefromchicago wrote:

but if I were to make that assertion it would be my responsibility to back it up with evidence. Rather than proving your argument is right, however, you would have the believer prove your argument is wrong.

A: I believe in the beneficent Money Gnome.
B: That's irrational.
A: Oh yeah? Prove it!
B: No, you prove that it's not!

Sorry, that is impermissible burden-shifting.

Sorry, you've got it completely backwards - you need to revisit the Burden of Proof Fallacy. I'm the challenger of believers' claims. As a source of claims they are required to provide evidence to make the claims rational. (That is, if they want their claims to be rational - otherwise they will simply stay irrational. However, even though it's childish, people are entitled to irrational beliefs.)

joefromchicago wrote:

Even your analogies are nonsensical. A murderer is not obliged to prove that he is innocent: rather

Hold your horses You're missing the point. I'm saying that just because a person "says so" doesn't necessarily "make it so" when it comes to explaining the nature of their claims/actions - that's what the analogy is all about.

Earlier you said that "Anyone who claims that a belief in god's beneficence is nonrational is not obliged to prove that it's not irrational."

According to this logic, a person who says that they have the right to murder someone because they say so, they actually DO have the right to murder someone. According to you they can make the situation "nonlawful" rather than unlawful, if they simply insist. They can make up anything they want

Again, the following statement - which you rely on heavily to keep this debate going - is one big fallacy:

"My claim clearly states that it's not subject to rationality, therefore it's not subject to rationality."

joefromchicago wrote:

...then I have no interest in participating further in this thread. And so I say once again to you: buh-bye!

That's a very interesting closing statement. Based on this, and based on your several passive and dismissive one-liners above, it's obvious to me that you lost interest in this discussion mainly because you ran out of juice - you have not brought up any challenging issues in the last few posts. The only thing you did is attempt to make the believers' claims appear "special" and exempt from rationality, because the believers themselves "say so".

No go. All claims of fact are "equal" and subject to the same rigors to make them rational.

I have to admit that I also became disinterested in debating with you any further especially since you keep bringing up things that are subjective, irrelevant, and unimportant.

You accusation is that I'm tempering with the parameters of the debate itself, which is a ridiculous claim. There is no such thing because everything is at question in a debate, including the parameters.

It's almost as if you're exclusively trying to make this debate unclean and confusing, and ultimately make the challenger fail due to a "huge mess". You have NOT succeeded.

I also think that you got offended by my posts and your real purpose in this thread is to prove me wrong regardless of what I say. Giving me credit for anything at all would be a huge humiliation for you.
Of course, you will disagree with me on that too, but I honestly couldn't care less.

You have not given me any credit in any way, shape, or form. It's called being "hardheaded". On the other hand, I have given you credit a couple of times, saying that I might have acted in an overconfident manner while trying to convey my initial evidence.
Sometimes admitting that you're wrong can be a more important victory than being exclusively right all the time (nobody ever is, by the way which includes you).

I presented my new evidence while using sound judgment. I am confident that my evidence is very strong and that it proves my point. Whether you personally don't think highly of it is not important, and I will not lose any sleep over it.

Anyway, joefromchicago, it's been nice chatting with you. Buh-bye!

0 Replies

Listen folks, here's the rule of Priority...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know