It is certainly not intelligence that leads a person to dismiss God. More often than not it is moral corruption. The psalmist summed it up thousands of years ago. ' The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.' Psalm 14:1

Yes, mhaze, I’m sure you’re very amused.

<<… I don't hate the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. I find it mildly amusing.>>

You are yet to provide an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy.

<<The fallacy meme is a tool.>>

It’s more a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fallacy

<<As I pointed out in a previous thread, just asserting that an argument using tradition is wrong because there's a 'Tradition Fallacy' completely misses the point and purpose of the Fallacy List.>>

Absolutely. However, you were wrong to claim that that is what I do, and I pointed out why you were wrong.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340176

And what is this "Fallacy List" (capitals)?

<<Correctly used, it should merely indicate to the user that an argument using tradition MIGHT be invalid if that's the sole basis for the argument.>>

Correct. I made the same point in the comment linked to above. It also highlights the fact that the reasoning, used to arrive at a given conclusion, is flawed.

<<Its the start-point for analysis, not the end-point.>>

Correct.

Don’t get too upset over my pointing out of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I was more having fun there with an off-topic swipe you took because you so frequently accuse me of misidentifying fallacies (and then slink off when it’s shown that I hadn’t misapplied any fallacies).

<<I wasn't proposing a pattern.>>

Maybe not, but you suggested that one existed. You suggested that Christian leaders have proven to be failures because of a carefully selected set of people. That’s an alleged pattern right there.

<<I suspect you (mis)interpreted that so as to allow the, again, isuse of the fallacy meme.>>

No, I knew what you were doing. I was being just as cheeky. But the fallacy was still there. And you don’t get to say “again” when you have not yet provided an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy.

You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something, presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I was just having a little dig at the notion that we 'know' about the universe, that we can give a kid a book that'll set them straight on how things work.>>

Okay, but, firstly, my assumption was reasonable given that you used to use that silly ‘dark matter’ analogy to suggest the possibility of a god’s existence. Secondly, I don’t think anyone has suggested that we can do that. Not when it comes to the origins of the universe, at least.

<<Its a conceit of this generation (probably all generations) that we've now got it worked out.>>

Got what worked out, and who thinks this?

<<So give a kid a book that offers an alternate view but don't pretend that we KNOW which view is correct, or that another view might arise that is more correct.>>

Oh, are you talking about the question of the existence of a god? Well, sure, the universe could have been created by the Great Juju up the mountain, too. But why waste time entertaining the possibility any more than we should waste time considering Russell’s Teapot? You seemed to have missed my point when I mentioned the teapot.

<<Perhaps you could ask yourself some difficult questions.>>

Yes, and they’re interesting questions you’ve raised. But I asked you what specifically you were referring to. Throwing questions back at me is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof, bordering on an argument from ignorance:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Your questions possibly mistake correlation for causation, so my second question would be: how have you accounted for, and ruled out, all the other possible environmental and sociological factors ? (You do know what they are, don’t you?)

<<There used to be a consensus (where have I heard that word before?) …>>

“Science has been wrong before” is another fallacious argument used by science deniers to dismiss consensus:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

<<Today's Christians aren't yesterday's Christians.>>

At no point have I suggested they were, nor did what I say rely on such an assumption.

--

runner,

Thanks for sharing that Psalm with us. My favourite is Psalm 137:9.

Words of wisdom from runner. George pell has to face court. That is enough for another deluge of religious believers to quit.

One other niggle, mhaze.

<<When science begrudgingly adopts a new understanding based on new facts we laud its flexibility and tend to ignore its previous failings. But when Christians adopt new understandings based upon new data they are told that they must continue to be saddled with the old failings of their like from 20 generations ago.>>

This is a false comparison (there’s another fallacy to add to your list (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/97/Faulty-Comparison)).

Science, by its very nature, is self-correcting. The scientific method helps to ensure this. Religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic and resists change until continuing to do so would mean the end of it.

Science asks questions so that they may be answered; religion provides answers that may never be questioned.

Here’s a little flowchart to help you understand the difference between science and faith:

http://i.imgur.com/t0tycry.jpg

Runner,

Thanks for sharing that Psalm with us. My favourite is Psalm 137:9.

Not surprising AJ. I would imagine you are not alone. Certainly secular/femimist doctrine see it as blessed tearing apart the unborn in womb. Your denial of God helps to ease your conscience on this one.