Logical fallacies and irrational claims

Debate Room
41

Thank you very much for reading my book. It was a cathartic experience and–if not ridding me of my demons–at least help me put them in a cage.

Confronting these demons via my book was certainly helpful in addressing my alcoholism, flashbacks, and my post-traumatic stress disorder.

Another point is that I will be finished (if all goes well) with nursing school by Friday, and a lot of the religious issues described in the book don’t exist anymore, as the Internet “cancel culture” has actually fixed a lot of things, and has made institutions more focused on public relations. A lot of the garbage still exists, but there seems to be much less of it.

In any case, thank you again.

3 Likes
42

Considering that I’m a european in Europe, the following is speculation on my side. That disclaimer aside, I doubt that the issues don’t exist anymore among the rabidly religious. Rather, I suspect they have merely been subdued, for the time being. Just like some subdued racism seemed to make a “comeback” during the precidency of the orange guy. It wasn’t gone, it was just hiding in the sewers, waiting for an opportunity to resurface. You said it yourself:

A lot of the garbage still exists, but there seems to be much less of it.

I guess the key word here is “seems”. It seemed like the right to abortion was safe in the US, but in the turmoil created by the Orange, the forced birthers found the time was right, and rose again.

But of course, subdued religious hypocrisy in the medical field is arguably better than open religious hypocrisy.

2 Likes
43

I utterly love your choice of words, and I agree with you.

And yes, the religious hypocrisy interferes with patient care. I’ve been excoriated because I treat the partner of a gay or lesbian patient like a spouse, under the theory that a paramedic should be nonjudgmental . . . and I’m often told that I “lack common sense.”

As an example, see news story below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/langbehn-v-jackson-memorial&ved=2ahUKEwjChrXrrOWCAxVcRzABHVwICIcQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3wwgWfenryWJLZHyL7k9Go

In summary, a lesbian couple was together for 18 years, and they had several children. During a family vacation to Florida, Lisa Pond (one of the partners) had an artery burst deep in her brain, and ended up on life support at Jackson Memorial Hospital (where I often delivered patients, and did clinical hours for school).

The hospital would not let the lesbian partner visit because “Florida is an anti-gay state,” and it’s against policy. This is despite the partner furnishing paperwork for a durable power of attorney.

So, this woman died alone without a final visit from her partner and/or her children because Florida is an anti-gay state.

I was beyond angry when I heard about it, as I’ve seen shit like this all the time.

On one occasion, I argue that–possibly–as many as 11 people died because of this garbage. I ran a 911 call on a man who had a horrible motorcycle accident with bad head injuries. He was on life support, and the hospital refused to allow the partner to visit, as this patient’s relatives prohibited it.

Well . . . it turns out that the partner had durable power of attorney, and he was so angry that he–in a form of misplaced retaliation combined with overwhelming grief–denied permission for the hospital to harvest his partner’s organs and tissues for transplant.

And this probably cost lots of lives, as 1 brain dead person on life support can save up to 11 or 12 people, and usually less than 10% of people who need transplants actually get them.

Things like this are what has made me so antagonistic toward organized religion despite having many Jewish beliefs.

Please see below:

image
image766×431 89.5 KB

44

The whole MAGA motto of Make America Great Again means they want to go back to a time when racism, homophobia, and misogyny were the rule and they are doing their best to see that it happens. Trump has emboldened them and they have been chipping away at the gains minorities, gays, and women have made over the years.

4 Likes
45

Interviewers have asked maga folks when was the U.S. great. The answers run the gamut from the 1700 through the 1950s. When asked about the treatment of marginalized groups during those times, they all say, “uh, ya, except that.” But I don’t think they are sincere. I think most of them actually want only white males to overtly be in complete power. It makes me so scared for my grandchildren.

5 Likes
46

They want to return to a fiction version of the past.

4 Likes
47

I think many people seem to see the past through rose-colored glasses . . . I often do.

I like the idea of the simplicity of the 1950s. No Internet, people were more social . . . but then we had racism, school prayer, paranoia toward Communism, and so forth.

We often only remember the “good parts.”

1 Like
48

Since I just read a thread and OP by a theist using some logical fallacies, it sees opportune to highlight them here:

It was the old atheists make claims and hold beliefs, thus atheism is a belief nonsense.

  1. Atheists are people, they hold beliefs, but none od them hold any belief in any deity or deities.
  2. Atheism is a word that describes anyone who doesn’t hold any belief in any deity or deities, and this of course would necessarily include atheists who hold a belief no deity exists.
  3. Trying to equate atheists with atheism is a false equivalence fallacy.

"A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.”

Despite the fact this argument seems very much in vogue among religious apologists, it is a flawed and poorly reasoned irrational argument.

1 Like
49

Here’s a very obvious special pleading fallacy from Sherloc:

One assumes he has a good reason to imply a) there is any objective evidence (since he failed over many months to offer any, but also b) why would we need a special method for god claims? Obviously here again he failed to ever address this assumption that his beliefs unlike all others, are beyond understanding, one assumes he thinks he understands the evidence, yet again failed to explain his method, demonstrating only irrational argument and subjective bias.

Moreover he goes on to claim that the only group who don’t / can’t understand the evidence for a deity, are those who don’t believe in one, so another very obvious and hilarious No true Scotsman fallacy as well.

Here we see Sherlock again using a false equivalence, it is the same tired old canard, but in a nutshell, atheists make claims and hold beliefs, thus their lack of belief in any deity or deities is a belief. He the tries to expand that flawed and irrational claim into a “belief system”. Again the irrational and flawed reasoning equates atheism with atheists or what some atheisms say or claim. When @Old_man_shouts_at_cl points out that the definition is in any dictionary, he uses rhetoric by claiming there are many contradictory definitions, which is another false equivalence, as those do not reflect common usage, it is also very disingenuous as they are not contradictory, but just offer a less complete definition that unsurprisingly only defines atheism in the narrow way Sherlock wants to dishonestly label all atheists, the definition in common usage would include all atheists in any of the definitions he offered, a fact he never honestly addressed, and again quelle surprise.

Note the emboldened opening, so we are almost warned right out of the gate that what we are about to get is subjective rhetoric, he doesn’t disappoint, and again produces a false equivalence fallacy, this time between naturalism and atheism.

2 Likes