[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 93 KB, 600x410, westboro-baptist-church-signs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4721478 No.4721478 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, what's the name for the fallacy of asserting the truth of a claim based on your personal desire to find that claim true? e.g. "There is a god because I want there to be a god."

Scenario: Someone argued that the Westboro Baptist Church members aren't true christians because their behavior isn't christian-like. I identified that as a no true scotsman fallacy. Person then said that he prefers not to consider them christians because of their hatefulness.

>> No.4721481

circular reasoning

>> No.4721480 [DELETED] 

Ancedotal

>> No.4721483

Anecdotal

>> No.4721486

wizard's first rule

>> No.4721487

quantum herring

>> No.4721511

>Hey /sci/, what's the name for the fallacy of asserting the truth of a claim based on your personal desire to find that claim true? e.g. "There is a god because I want there to be a god."

Wishful thinking. I wud really like that P was true, thus, P is true.

There is also the moralistic fallacy, which is that becus P is wrong, it follows that it is false, or becus P is right, it follows that it is true.

All the other people ITT gave the wrong answers.

>> No.4721514

>>4721486
I never thought I'd find another Goodkind lover among /sci/

You sir, are my hero.

>> No.4721515

Confirmation bias: Interpreting information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

also

Belief bias: evaluation of the logical strength of an argument based on belief in the conclusion.

>> No.4721518

I'm looking for the term that deals very specifically with this one type of argument. I know I've seen it used in rationalist discussions about faith and logic.

>> No.4721521

>>4721478
Sounds more like he is employing a custom definition of xtian (i.e. no true scotsman fallacy) as a means to avoid certain embarrassing groups from being xtians.

>> No.4721523

>>4721515
This answer is also wrong.

>> No.4721527

>>4721523
likewise

>> No.4721532
File: 47 KB, 490x490, 1334014582647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4721532

>typical atheist requiring outside help to win in their online crusade vs Creationists

>> No.4721536

>>4721532
It is a good idea to get the terminology right. OP's request is legitimate.

>> No.4721541

>>4721536
Why not correct the problems with the outside world, instead of the comforting anonymous one?

>> No.4721553

>>4721541
what am i reading.jpg

>> No.4721559

>>4721511
One of those stupidly simple things that's too familiar to even pop into my head when thinking about rhetorical terminology. I suppose that's the most accurate answer.

>captcha: scientific getssys

>> No.4722046

No true sCotsman

>> No.4722058

>I identified that as a no true scotsman fallacy.

I always knew you idiots actually argued like this in the real world but I somehow tricked myself into believing no one was that autistic. I guess im under the same fallacy

>> No.4722071

>>4722058
>identifying fallacy in debate is bad

ok

>> No.4722077

Butthurt atheist wants to lump every christian into the same group.

Fuck I'm glad I'm agnostic. At least no-one will lump me in with you.

>> No.4722083

>>4722077
>Doesn't know that agnosticism implies athiesm

>> No.4722088

>>4722077
>At least no-one will lump me in with you

I hope you are trying to troll, or that you just recently discovered the internet, because you are in for a surprise.

>> No.4722092 [DELETED] 

It's called wishful thinking.

>> No.4722094
File: 55 KB, 618x700, 1331871525824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722094

Faith is something you have, not something you're suppose to understand.

For those who have it, don't endorse it. For those who don't, let them cherish it.

FFS people get your shit together.

>> No.4722095
File: 45 KB, 630x472, w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722095

>>4722077
>I'm glad to be agnostic, not because of particular convictions or logical reasons (hey, I can't even make up my own mind!), but because I don't want to be unpopular

Fixed that for you

>> No.4722114
File: 82 KB, 664x762, agnosticism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722114

>>4722077
Obligatory.

>> No.4722304

wishful thinking, however this isn't a logical fallicy but a cause for logical fallacy's to go unnoticed.

>> No.4722309

>>4722114
>Atheists trying to get more people to join their side...

Btw, I'm atheist.

>> No.4722388

>>4722309
>implying implications

>> No.4722869
File: 11 KB, 300x300, if you arent clubs youre diamonds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4722869

>>4722114

holy fuck that image spam is stupid. I thought self-righteous atheists were supposed to be rational thinkers. I'm gonna do some algebra here and show you how that conclusion is self-contradictory:


"People ask: is your playing card suit pointy diamond, or round clubs? and some say "well, my card has a roundpointy suit."

WRONG. Round: has curves. Pointy: has a pointed bottom.

round top and bottom: clubs. round top pointy bottom: hearts. pointy top and bottom: diamond. pointy top round bottom: spades.

Roundpointy is NOT a suit in playing cards! If you say your card is roundpointy, that means your suit has a pointed bottom, which means your card is a diamond suited card!

>> No.4722884

>>4721478
In your existence of God scenario, the fallacy is called the "Is-Ought Fallacy."