“You reject deities, too; we just have one less than you”. This is a “you too” fallacy called Tu Quoque. It is described here:
“Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
The second fallacy in the “One Less God” Red Herring is that of miscomparison of disjoint classes of data types: material vs. non-material (aka apples and oranges). The Atheist rejects the nonmaterial, so only material is left. All transcendence is rejected on this basis. So there can be only material inquiry into transcendent realities, a mismatch of 100%. Interestingly, in information transfer an impedance mismatch such as this produces a 100% reflection: a materialist can see only himself and his personal sensory inputs. He cannot observe that which he rejects, because he requires tools that are not appropriate for the type of observation. Material tools cannot work for non-material existences.
Those who accept transcendence are free to use non-material discernment and judgment in determining which non-material assertions are true. This requires the abandonment of materialist empirical methods, since the subjects are not material: they are outside and beyond material. Atheists self-eliminate from this arena and deny its presence, despite the rational refutation of Philosophical Materialism.
The OLG fallacy is another frequently-used dart to throw at non-Atheists. It is a false accusation, falling under multiple fallacy labels. Atheists will be found who will deny this, Denialism being a fundamental tactic of the logically inverted. But under the first principles, it is just another fallacious thought process. It is not valid, and its conclusions are false.
8 comments:
If it is possible to separate Atheism from Philosophical Mterialism, let's hear it. You make no case, you just cast aspersions from behind the skirts of anonymity.
You are the one proposing a case, and yet I haven't seen one credible argument. Try some evidence instead of talk.
Skirt Hider,
I demonstrated that OLG is a Tu Quoque fallacy. This requires actual thought, discernment, and judgment made on a rational logical basis. You have contradictory evidence? You have contradictory logic: Show it.
You've demonstrated nothing. Except name calling.
Stan, you seem like a sweet old man, it is unatractive to see you get mean. You had your chance to make your mark as a credible mean guy when you were 20, you blew it. Meaness doesn't suit a feeble mind.
Sweet, sweet old man.
There is a place on this earth were your dead body will lay, you could visit if you only knew where it was. God, he seems so human doesn't he?
Sweet old man.
Maybe you should focus on mending relationships that are real, atheism? who cares it's coming brother, it's coming sweet old man.
You are insignificant.
Sweet old man, full of fear and confusion. The sun will someday engulf this solar system. Where will you be on that day sweet old man?
Can you tell me?
Skirthider, that was surreal.
I think stan's just an idiot. I'm not sure I buy the whole atheist for 40 years thing either, cause he obviously has no idea what an atheist is. He could be retarded as well. I'm guessing he's a republican, and he's slightly racist.
This is a goof site right?
Usually I do not read article on blogs, but I would like
to say that this write-up very pressured me to try and do it!
Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, very great post.
Also visit my web site ... ac phoenix
Post a Comment