Question

...
Richard Aberdeen

Does Richard Dawkins Violate the Basic Rules of Logic, Science and Reason?

Richard Dawkins has publicly stated many times that he doesn't believe in either God or the spaghetti monster (whatever that is).

  1. According to both Google online definition and Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, "God" is primarily defined in the modern age as Creator of the universe.
  2. On the other hand, few if any people living on earth likely believe that the spaghetti monster has created much of anything. 
  3. Is it really being wise or clever or even remotely honest, for a human being to make such an obviously logically fallacious statement; a boneheaded juvenile delinquent elementary school dunderheaded apples and oranges comparison for the ages, that more than likely would have gotten him banned from the Greek Academy for life?  Why is this man still allowed to teach at Oxford or any other university and, who would be foolish enough to throw away their hard earned money on any of his books or lectures?
asked on Monday, Feb 10, 2020 02:18:13 PM by Richard Aberdeen

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
2
bruce writes:
I don't see any relation between the two premises to the conclusion. Dawkins' referral to the FSM is a way to show that believing in something which can't be proven or demonstrated and is just a matter of faith makes God and FSM equal.
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 11:17:51 AM
...
2
Bryan writes:
Just claiming that Dawkins comment are fallacious because they hurt your feelings doesn't make it a fallacy. Oxford don't need to consult Bo on their hiring and firing criteria, why is this question here?
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 04:48:41 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Jason Mathias
2

The only violation of logic that I see here is in your reasoning. Your conclusion doesn't follow the premises, which is a Non Sequitur Fallacy

"On the other hand, few if any people living on earth likely believe that the spaghetti monster has created much of anything."

This is a Appeal To Common Belief Fallacy. Whether many people believe in the Spaghetti Monster, God or not has no barring on its logical accuracy.

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is an analogy used to show certain logical fallacies committed by some religious groups.  

#3 is Poisoning The Well Fallacy, and Ad Hominem Abusive fallacies

answered on Sunday, Mar 29, 2020 11:14:24 AM by Jason Mathias

Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Scott A. Shepler
2

Not a False Equivalence nor an Appeal to Extremes on Dawkins' part since "God" and the FSM both exist as non falsifiable premises, therefore both have equal weight to either exist or not.

An Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Anger fallacies are used by the questioner for Dawkins comparing the Western God to the faux religion of the FSM. I'd toss in an ad hominem attack as well.

answered on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 12:58:30 AM by Scott A. Shepler

Scott A. Shepler Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
account no longer exists writes:
NOTE: Comments here are limited to 250 characters. I suggest increasing the limit as trying to clear up confusion, asking questions, comparing fallacies may take more this 250 (I am now down to 56). Increase it please.
posted on Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 10:06:32 AM
...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:
I couldn't agree more. It is extremely difficult to rationally respond to anyone's position. This is why Bo Bennett kept asking where I got my definition for God, because there wasn't room for the entire definition, so I just used part of it.
posted on Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 05:16:22 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
I am guilty of writing overlong posts, and it's a good exercise to make your point in fewer words. I know some others who need to stop ranting about things they are ignorant of <cough>
posted on Friday, Feb 14, 2020 11:24:09 AM
...
Kenny
1

There can be no illogicality here because The Flying Spaghetti Monster is itself a god: the god of  the Pastafarians, whose deeply held beliefs must be treated with respect and sensitivity.
See https://www.spaghettimonster.org and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The FSM is not to be compared to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which atheists claim can substitute the word "God" in any context and make as much sense, eg  "I swear by almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn" or "So help me Invisible Pink Unicorn."
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

 

 

 

answered on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 08:58:34 PM by Kenny

Kenny Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:
If you want to believe that the entire universe either did or could have magically appeared out of nowhere from nothing, which is the bottom-line fairytale foundation of all atheism and agnosticism, who am I to stop you?
posted on Thursday, Feb 13, 2020 05:48:36 PM
...
0
VanDisease writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen]

How did you know that he believes that the universe appeared out of nowhere from nothing? What’s your basis?

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 25, 2020 10:19:15 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
That's a straw man, and telling people what they believe is arrogant. Atheism says nothing whatsoever about origins or indeed about oranges; it deals only with one thing.

Also scientists don't claim what you said, but your religion kinda does.
posted on Friday, Feb 14, 2020 11:20:15 AM
...
-1
Richard Aberdeen writes:
[To Bryan]

That's a lie.  If you say that you don't believe in God or gods, then you are claiming that the universe has no creative intelligence behind it.  Atheism is just another lie; another blind faith religion with no foundation in evidence.  As already noted, where is your evidence for magically appearing energy, motion, intelligence, life, mathematical design, the dual complex language of DNA ? ? ? 

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020 12:19:51 AM
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

According to both Google online definition and Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, "God" is primarily defined in the modern age as Creator of the universe.

This would be the simplest possible definition, which very few people subscribe. My searches of "God" resulted in far more detailed definitions that align with Christianity. For example, the source you referenced (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god) has a primary definition of the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe.

On the other hand, few if any people living on earth likely believe that the spaghetti monster has created much of anything.

This is an analogy. What you are doing are choosing ways in which God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are different; analogies look at the similarities between two things. One can compare apples and oranges, in that they alike because they are both fruits. Dawkins, and many other philosophers, use the FMS to compare to the Christian God that comes with a laundry list of supposed properties that are unfalsifiable and have no evidence... just like the noodly appendages of the FSM.

In short, if you Strawman Fallacy one's analogy, you are the one committing a fallacy. If you have any evidence of Dawkins or anyone saying something similar to "a creator of the universe is just as outrageous to believe in as the FSM" then they would be guilty of a Weak Analogy .

answered on Monday, Feb 10, 2020 04:53:33 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Shawn writes:
160 Errors of the God Delusion www.scribd.com/document/5. . .
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 06:12:48 AM
...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:
Definition of god (Entry 1 of 2)
1
God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a
: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 02:01:03 PM
...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:
The primary definition (a) from Webster, is that God is creator of the universe. This what I stated in my post. When someone says I do or do not believe in God, most modern people assume they either do or do not believe the universe is created.
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 02:05:21 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen] The definition you posted does not say "creator of universe." I don't know where you are getting this from. The primary def lists may Christian-god properties. This is the God most atheists (Dawkins included) compare to the FSM.
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 02:12:36 PM
...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:
It says "creator and ruler of the universe". I copied it verbatim from the online Merriam Webster dictionary. It gives primary definition (a) for God as "creator and ruler of the universe" (see my first comment above, copied from Webster)
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 02:35:14 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
The flying spaghetti monster illustrates how anyone can make up a creation myth unsupported by evidence, and no matter how ridiculous the parody may appear to you, it is indistinguishable from any other creation myth. No fallacy, no word games.
posted on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2020 04:46:05 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen] Clearly you did not copy it verbatum as you now added "and ruler," which makes the jump from a deistic god to an active, theistic one. Plus, you still ignored the entire first part of the definition. Anyway, this is a rabbit hole.
posted on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 06:31:14 AM
...
0
Richard Aberdeen writes:
I don't know why you keep saying it doesn't say "creator of the universe", when it very clearly does say "creator and ruler". It says more than this, but I didn't copy the entire link because it doesn't fit in the amount of letters allowed here.
posted on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 02:38:57 PM
...
0
Bryan writes:
Pastafarians believe that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". Apparently the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth.
posted on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 08:40:54 PM