To religious people. Will atheists go to hell or heaven?

Post Reply New Topic

I always found it odd and ironic that believers use scripture to try convincing the hypocrites who do not believe while the hypocrites use atheist's rhetoric to try convincing the believers into disbelief.



Who has credentials and knowledge over Him? These discussions are best left to the children.

I guess if logic is rhetoric, though that is a gross misuse of language.

Hmmmmmmmmm...., I still have to rate actual knowledge over credentials of knowledge.







In what way? People just throw such single-word accusations out, but never back them up.

I qualified my critique:

You're implying that Believers are without logic. Because your limited exposure to religion is confined to evangelicals, it does not deny the contribution religion has made throughout the centuries. Explain why certain passages in the bible are illogical.


"But what about the millions who died during the bloody campaigns waged by religion"

Logical conclusions.

Ok, let's see, according to what you said, that also applies to the Qur'an, and other sacred texts from Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopaganism and even Scientology in the very same way, either that or your argument is a fallacy as well.



Im not that sure if you could be a better teacher on logic, scriptures I don't doubt it, but logic......

BTW, following God is a decision that can be made by pure logic.

It would take a massive amount of information, but all true logic does lead to God.

Seeing as logic is an a priori construct dictating language and argument forms, I'd say you just about shot yourself in the foot with this sentence alone.

It is not a "fallacy", though it may be false. However, a text cannot demonstrate anything about the outside world including its own origins without an establishment of its authority. Let's count the fallacies, shall we?
1. Argument from authority - The Bible is an authority.
2. Begging the question 1 - Is the Bible an authority?
3. Begging the question 2 - Of course it is an authority, it's the word of God.
3. Circular Reasoning - It's the word of God because it says it is and God wouldn't lie.
Alternatively, you may prefer,
4. Begging the question 3- It is the word of God because all the things it says are true, so why would that part be false?
A book doesn't constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate such a ridiculously extraordinary claim. The simplest explanation by far is that the book is the product of mundane actions.

Any meta-statement the book contains is a statement about the external world which the book itself is not sufficient to demonstrate any more than any statement about anything somewhat wrote down needs to be taken as true. The more mundane the statement, the more "likely" it is to be true, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", as the adage goes.


First, those were my words, specifically.
Second, fail. If the assumption that the Bible is the word of God is not presupposed, any argument predicated on this is, *gasp* begging the question of the truth of the premise. Bad argument.


Funny that you think that those whose business it is to think logically are less capable in this respect than you are.



No. This is fallacy "missing the point" dips**t.


This should be contrasted with your above quote:

Note the incongruety? No? Your argument depends on the idea that an argument which people accept is a sound argument, while this is not only blatantly false, it isn't even compatible with the idea that people are naturally imperfect at logical thinking (and as a consequence unable to detect invalid argument forms).

Honestly Ragtime, you don't have even the foggiest what you're talking about.

Of course it applies to all literature! How could / why should I say otherwise?


Well, the teacher may be competent, but that particular fallacy is not.
Whether I could teach basic logic is neither here nor there,
but I wish people on WP would at least adhere to noncontradiction while in the PPR area.
It would save Alex lots of disk space!

Notice that later in this same post, he says we shouldn't contradict himself.

Look a couple pages back when he denies that a philologist's examination of the Bible is right. The text reveals truths about its origin through its usage of language.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 03 Jun 2008, 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This thread is not a crash course on all the ways to misapply logic,
it's a question of whether or not religion says atheism deserves Hell.

I could argue against you all day on the intricacies of logic,
but I'm afraid that boredom is my Kryptonite!

Getting.....sleepy......

I must therefore desist before my head hits the desk.

Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Jun 2008, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lolwut? No. Actually, I don't give a crap about how people are convinced. The problem is normative: should they be convinced? You rarely adhere to basic principles of logical discussion; therefore, you're arguments are unconvincing to anyone who holds their beliefs to logical analysis. The only assumption is that there is something positive about logical beliefs, but if you don't believe this, there is no point in debating with you.

This sentence clearly demonstrates: you don't know what "logic" is.

at 4pm?

"Pure logic" does not demonstrate anything about anything because nothing is a priori true.

Here you demonstrate you can't distinguish between reasoning patterns and the propositions the relations between which are being manipulated.

No it doesn't. Sorry to tell you this.

This is fallacious too. Because the truth of the proposition "there is a God" is rejected by the atheist, there is no reason for them to respect it beyond the fear of uncertainty of their conviction. But because God is on an equal footing with an infinite number of different "Gods" of infinitely varying qualities, the idea that one should give any credence to the hypothetical whims of any one of them is absurd.