Reductio ad Hitlerum?

[Max]

Maybe someone with a firmer grasp on fallacies in logic with this one. On another board there is a discussion regarding atheism/agnosticism and the differences between the two positions. I'm just going to give brief bullet points for what has transpired.

1. My original position was that agnosticism is irrational.

2. Someone pulls the, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" card

3. I come back with "until evidence arises, logic dictates us to assume absence."

4. The same person counters with "God exists to tons of people," and "What's harmful about a person saying they've talked to God, and they end up doing great things because of it? I'd consider that a good thing."

5. My reply was stating that subjective proof/rationalism isn't the same as objective proof/rationalism. I then gave a couple examples of subjective proof/rationalism, one of which was the holocaust.

6. Someone different nitpicks by saying that " Hitler wasn't a religious zealot. He didn't act on a religious principle. He was just nuts."

7. That led to me quoting Mein Kampf, and also explaining that subjective rationalism isn't restricted to religion, nationalism is another way it can manifest.

8. That brings us to this:
"To be fair, although Hitler was a big Christian, faith was only a small part of his motivation. A big part of his ideology - that of the country at the time, really - was the nationalistic paranoia that formed after Versailles. There's a German word for the specific phenomenon I'm thinking of - it was the feeling among Aryan Germans that the Jews had not given WWI their all and had secretly sabotaged Germany's war effort, leading to the humiliating treaty terms. That was a big catalyst for the anti-Semitism that pervaded Germany later (although Hitler was no doubt a big part of that himself).

Plus, Max automatically loses by way of Reductio ad Hitlerum"


So... first, I didn't bullet point, because I don't know how on these forums. Second, did I make the mistake of reductio ad hitlerum? I've never heard of that one.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe someone with a firmer grasp on fallacies in logic with this one. On another board there is a discussion regarding atheism/agnosticism and the differences between the two positions. I'm just going to give brief bullet points for what has transpired.

1. My original position was that agnosticism is irrational.

2. Someone pulls the, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" card

3. I come back with "until evidence arises, logic dictates us to assume absence."

4. The same person counters with "God exists to tons of people," and "What's harmful about a person saying they've talked to God, and they end up doing great things because of it? I'd consider that a good thing."

Right here is where he drops into fallacy. "God exists to tons of people" is an appeal to popularity fallacy since he is arguing that God exists objectively and is not just a popular delusion. Then he uses a second fallacy, which is the appeal to consequence: arguing that something must be true if it is desirable.

5. My reply was stating that subjective proof/rationalism isn't the same as objective proof/rationalism. I then gave a couple examples of subjective proof/rationalism, one of which was the holocaust.

6. Someone different nitpicks by saying that " Hitler wasn't a religious zealot. He didn't act on a religious principle. He was just nuts."

Being nuts and being religious are two ways of saying the same thing: they are both a loss of connection with objective reality.

7. That led to me quoting Mein Kampf, and also explaining that subjective rationalism isn't restricted to religion, nationalism is another way it can manifest.

To be more specific, Hitler believed that the purity of the white race (which was created in God's image) was being diluted by association and inter-breeding with lesser races (which evolved from apes), hence his characterization of other races as "half man, half-ape monstrosities". But to be fair, you should point out that religion was more of a facilitator of his sick ideology than a creator.

8. That brings us to this:
"To be fair, although Hitler was a big Christian, faith was only a small part of his motivation. A big part of his ideology - that of the country at the time, really - was the nationalistic paranoia that formed after Versailles. There's a German word for the specific phenomenon I'm thinking of - it was the feeling among Aryan Germans that the Jews had not given WWI their all and had secretly sabotaged Germany's war effort, leading to the humiliating treaty terms. That was a big catalyst for the anti-Semitism that pervaded Germany later (although Hitler was no doubt a big part of that himself).

Actually, Hitler became a rabid anti-semite after spending time in Vienna and associating with other anti-semites. What religion did was give his prejudice the power of religious conviction. That is what religion often does: it gives Divine Approval to whatever someone might believe, whether it be good or bad. The problem is that when it's something bad, it allows someone to wash away any doubts he might have about his course of action, no matter how heinous.

Plus, Max automatically loses by way of Reductio ad Hitlerum"

So... first, I didn't bullet point, because I don't know how on these forums. Second, did I make the mistake of reductio ad hitlerum? I've never heard of that one.

There is no such fallacy. He is arguing that any argument which involves Hitler is automatically fallacious: that is in itself a fallacy.

[Twoyboy]

Sounds like he's slightly confused about Godwin's Law. The so called law states that when an argument degenerates into one party comparing another party with Hilter/Nazis then that party loses and the argument is over. It's really just a trick to keep badly moderated forums civil.

And it doesn't apply, because you never compared anyone to Hitler, you merely used his ideology as an analogy.

Also:

2. Someone pulls the, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" card

Sure it is. If I spend a year searching for the hidden chest of gold in my backyard, and don't find it, that's plenty evidence that it isn't there. Similarly, if we have millions of people living over hundreds of years on the look out for proof of the divine, and we don't see it, it more than likely doesn't exist.

[Darth Wong]

One way to respond to the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument is like this:

"Actually, if you've looked in places where evidence should be, then absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

The entire Flood and Exodus stories from the Bible are false, and we've looked in all the places where evidence should be for them. And these are so central to Biblical mythology that if they aren't true, then the whole thing is obviously nothing more than the primitive goat herder mythology that it seems to be.

[Feil]

Agnosticism is the only rational view. It's also useless, because all agnosticism is is the admission that you are not certain. Any thinking materialist accepts that it's impossible to know for sure that God doesn't exist, or that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, or that the dinosaur about to eat your opponent's head doesn't exist. And any thinking theist understands that there's a possibility their god doesn't exist. The key to the argument is not the ability or inability to prove the existence/nonexistence of God, it's the ability or inability to provide evidence of God.

And, in the absence of evidence, a rational person will conclude that God, just like the Tooth Fairy and the dinosaur eating your opponent's head, doesn't exist.

[Darth Wong]

Agnosticism is the only rational view.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that logic does not recognize any "truth value" other than 0 or 1.

[Mobiboros]

Agnosticism is the only rational view. It's also useless, because all agnosticism is is the admission that you are not certain.

Isn't Agnosticism the position that you can't know that god(s) exists? It's not just "I don't know" it's "I don't know, and it's impossible to know.". Or at least that's what i've read on the subject.

If you just say "I don't know", then you're just an open minded atheist.

[Feil]

Agnosticism is the only rational view.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that logic does not recognize any "truth value" other than 0 or 1.

Maybe next time you should read my whole post in stead of deciding that I was a fence-sitting idiot who thought that the inability to be certain should mean taking the Wikipedia Stance? Maybe I took insufficient care to avoid provoking knee-jerk hostility to the "Durr, we can't know therefore I am smarter than you all because I refuse to take a stance!" style of agnosticism, but my point - that Agnosticism is fundamentally true but philosophically useless - is in itself an admission that logic recognizes truth in degrees of probability.

[Darth Wong]

Agnosticism is the only rational view.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that logic does not recognize any "truth value" other than 0 or 1.

Maybe next time you should read my whole post in stead of deciding that I was a fence-sitting idiot who thought that the inability to be certain should mean taking the Wikipedia Stance? Maybe I took insufficient care to avoid provoking knee-jerk hostility to the "Durr, we can't know therefore I am smarter than you all because I refuse to take a stance!" style of agnosticism, but my point - that Agnosticism is fundamentally true but philosophically useless - is in itself an admission that logic recognizes truth in degrees of probability.

Maybe you should grow a fucking brain, shit tard. I wasn't accusing you of being a fence sitter; I was accusing you of making an incorrect statement. What the fuck part of my sentence had anything to do with you being a fence sitter, moron?

[Themightytom]

Agnosticism is the only rational view.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that logic does not recognize any "truth value" other than 0 or 1.

Am I retarded that I can't understand this statement? if logic DOES recognize "Truth value" other than 0 or 1 wouldn't that be agnosticism?

my understanding is 0 would be atheism, 1 would be theism, the only option I could think of would be the "logical" assertion that there is no way to know which sounds like agnosticism.

Or are you saying that logic would recognize validity in both atheism and theism.

[Rye]

Agnosticism is the only rational view. It's also useless, because all agnosticism is is the admission that you are not certain. Any thinking materialist accepts that it's impossible to know for sure that God doesn't exist, or that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, or that the dinosaur about to eat your opponent's head doesn't exist.

That argument is a fallacy; since no agnostic has heard all possible arguments for God's existence/nonexistence, he cannot claim it's either unknowable or even unknown by his own reasoning.

It also uses words like "know for sure" that do not make sense if you accept the principle behind the argument. It's impossible to know what "know for sure" means "for sure", since language relies on abstracts gained from imperfect perceptions, so such "sure" knowledge is purely invented in the sense the agnostic is using it. Such ontological fakery is not to be trusted.

There's also the issue of different types of agnosticism; is God unknown but justly not believed in? Is it unknowable full stop (and how do you know this)?

[Darth Wong]

Agnosticism is the only rational view.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that logic does not recognize any "truth value" other than 0 or 1.

Am I retarded that I can't understand this statement? if logic DOES recognize "Truth value" other than 0 or 1 wouldn't that be agnosticism?

No. Agnosticism says that everything below a truth value of 1 is equal. Ergo, you can't know anything which cannot be absolutely proven. It's very similar to solipsism, except that it restricts itself to religious questions for reasons that the agnostic himself doesn't even bother to explain.

my understanding is 0 would be atheism, 1 would be theism, the only option I could think of would be the "logical" assertion that there is no way to know which sounds like agnosticism.

When I say "truth value", I refer to the notion that any arbitrary idea is either true or false, 1 or 0. So agnostics say that you can't prove there is a God, hence the truth value of "God" is not 1. But they also say that you can't prove there is no God, hence the truth vale of "no God" is also not 1. Ergo, they argue that both positions are equal, by assuming that everything less than 1 is equal. That's the fallacy I'm talking about.

Or are you saying that logic would recognize validity in both atheism and theism.

See above.

[CaptainZoidberg]

2. Someone pulls the, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" card

How does that logically follow? If you can't find any evidence for something existing, then we can say beyond any reasonable doubt that it doesn't exist. If I say that an invisible unicorn is behind you, you'd probably be willing to use the absence of evidence for his existence as evidence for his absence.

4. The same person counters with "God exists to tons of people," and "What's harmful about a person saying they've talked to God, and they end up doing great things because of it? I'd consider that a good thing."

The debate is about whether God exists, not whether it's beneficial to believe in God (which also seems unlikely). He's just trying to move goalposts.

5. My reply was stating that subjective proof/rationalism isn't the same as objective proof/rationalism. I then gave a couple examples of subjective proof/rationalism, one of which was the holocaust.

6. Someone different nitpicks by saying that " Hitler wasn't a religious zealot. He didn't act on a religious principle. He was just nuts."

Hitler was a religious zealot, and although his Christianity didn't cause him to commit genocide

7. That led to me quoting Mein Kampf, and also explaining that subjective rationalism isn't restricted to religion, nationalism is another way it can manifest.

That's good. I wouldn't have thought of that.

So... first, I didn't bullet point, because I don't know how on these forums. Second, did I make the mistake of reductio ad hitlerum? I've never heard of that one.

No, you didn't do "Reductio ad Hitlerum", which is saying that X is bad because Hitler did X. What you did is said that X is bad because X, which was uniquely concentrated in Hitler, caused him to bad things.

[Themightytom]

I see. Nicely done, when you are ready to retire you should teach philosophy.

[Feil]

No. Agnosticism says that everything below a truth value of 1 is equal. Ergo, you can't know anything which cannot be absolutely proven. It's very similar to solipsism, except that it restricts itself to religious questions for reasons that the agnostic himself doesn't even bother to explain.

If this is the definition of Agnosticism, then I agree with you and withdraw my assertion.

[Darth Wong]

No. Agnosticism says that everything below a truth value of 1 is equal. Ergo, you can't know anything which cannot be absolutely proven. It's very similar to solipsism, except that it restricts itself to religious questions for reasons that the agnostic himself doesn't even bother to explain.

If this is the definition of Agnosticism, then I agree with you and withdraw my assertion.

That was Huxley's original assertion when he coined the term "agnostic" and basically created the category: that it is impossible to know whether there is a God, because anything which is not absolutely proven is not knowledge at all.

[TithonusSyndrome]

On the plus side of Godwin's stupid-ass Law, it has set a precedent that has delicious, if no more reputable, consequences for anyone debating theists; Blake's Law, which states that:

1. In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.

2. The person who makes this comparison will be considered to have lost the argument.

I'm waiting to stick my foot up some smug centrist's ass with this one.

[Max]

Here's a gem:

I don't understand, however, how being religious and being batshit crazy are the same thing. Most people that are religious are capable of making rational and objective decisions, while people like Hitler generally aren't.

First of all, isn't that a black/white fallacy? Either you're crazy and make irrational decisions, or you're not? I'm pretty sure, for all the fucked up shit that Hitler did, he was able to make rational and objective decisions. Plus, I know religious people can make rational decisions, oh except when it comes to worshipping in some retarded sky pixie that there is absolutely zero evidence for. Gah!

[Darth Wong]

Here's a gem:

I don't understand, however, how being religious and being batshit crazy are the same thing. Most people that are religious are capable of making rational and objective decisions, while people like Hitler generally aren't.

First of all, isn't that a black/white fallacy? Either you're crazy and make irrational decisions, or you're not? I'm pretty sure, for all the fucked up shit that Hitler did, he was able to make rational and objective decisions. Plus, I know religious people can make rational decisions, oh except when it comes to worshipping in some retarded sky pixie that there is absolutely zero evidence for. Gah!

Hitler did make rational and objective decisions at times. His diplomatic and political maneuvering in the early part of the war was expertly handled. Irrational behaviour is not an all or nothing proposition.

[Max]

Ugh...

I can, however, recognize when bringing up Hitler isn't all that applicable to an argument. It's easily countered by mentioning one of the many religious people who dedicate their lives to helping people.

He obviously missed the point of my argument. I have no clue how to explain the same thing in a different way to him.

Also, I wasn't arguing whether or not it's beneficial; I was arguing that to those people, God exists. Whether there really is an invisible being pulling all the strings doesn't matter. The fact that that's the way they perceive it does.

He's basically restating #4 above. I guess it's his reasoning for why agnosticism is a more 'rational' position than atheism.

If a person truly believes the sky to be green, then it really is green to them.

And if they die truly believing in a lie, it doesn't matter because there is no consequence.

Wha?

On the internet, how does one deal with someone who doesn't seem to be reading your entire argument in an effective manner? I seriously think these two r-tards are reading bits and pieces and ignoring the rest. It's like they keep restating the same thing, even though I've explained it over and over...

[Darth Wong]

Ugh...

I can, however, recognize when bringing up Hitler isn't all that applicable to an argument. It's easily countered by mentioning one of the many religious people who dedicate their lives to helping people.

He obviously missed the point of my argument. I have no clue how to explain the same thing in a different way to him.

Simply point out that it's unfair to tie only positive actions to Christianity, while making excuses for negative ones. You used Hitler as an example.

Does he know what an example is?

Also, I wasn't arguing whether or not it's beneficial; I was arguing that to those people, God exists. Whether there really is an invisible being pulling all the strings doesn't matter. The fact that that's the way they perceive it does.

He's basically restating #4 above. I guess it's his reasoning for why agnosticism is a more 'rational' position than atheism.

The fact that many people believe in a delusion has no bearing on the question of whether it's a delusion.

If a person truly believes the sky to be green, then it really is green to them.

And if they die truly believing in a lie, it doesn't matter because there is no consequence.

Wha?

As I said, he is relying on the appeal to consequence, which is a fallacy.

On the internet, how does one deal with someone who doesn't seem to be reading your entire argument in an effective manner? I seriously think these two r-tards are reading bits and pieces and ignoring the rest. It's like they keep restating the same thing, even though I've explained it over and over...

That's how religious people argue. Get used to it.

[Max]

He said he was agnostic, but the fact that he keeps arguing in favor of imaginary friends makes me wonder...

[Darth Wong]

He said he was agnostic, but the fact that he keeps arguing in favor of imaginary friends makes me wonder...

Agnosticism is often philosophical refuge for those who want to believe, and who want an excuse to tell themselves that their belief is just as rational as disbelief.

Agnosticism doesn't mean he doesn't believe. It just means he's decided to argue that belief is just as rational as disbelief.

[Feil]

Ask him to explain the difference between something "existing to someone" and something being imaginary.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Ask him to explain the difference between something "existing to someone" and something being imaginary.

And if he thinks there are no ethical consequences to letting people hold beliefs that are dramatically noncompliant with reality on a whim, and all the risks of negligence and abuse that comes with it.