[W:973] Put a Fork in American Christianity

[gfm7175]

Do you know what the 'null hypothesis' is?

Yes, I do.

Can you show that you know the definition, and how the null hypothesis is tested for?

Yes, I can. I have done so countless times in multiple threads...

Please, define what you think the null hypothesis is, and show a real world example of a null hypothesis falsifying or helping verify a theory.

This has been done already.

I think you're asking the wrong DP Forum member these questions...

 

[gfm7175]

It's a term that has been used by people who can not show that their mystical beliefs are true,

People like Angel, ITN, and myself are NOT attempting to do this. This would be committing the Circular Argument Fallacy. We recognize the circular nature of our religion(s)... You, however, fail to recognize the circular nature of YOUR religion(s)...

when people want evidence.

People HAVE evidence... Evidence has been presented to them. They simply don't find that evidence to be convincing.

You can provide much evidence for Atheism. It is definitely out there. However, I don't find that evidence to be convincing.

 

[gfm7175]

No, religion is nothing more than a fiction.

There's quite a bit to unpack just from these eight short words, so let's get started...

First off, this is a self-refuting argument. By your own argument, Atheism is "nothing more than a fiction".

Secondly, you are attempting to prove your religion. Circular Argument Fallacy, specifically, fundamentalist Atheism.

Thirdly, in doing these things, you have argued yourself into a paradox, as follows:
1) Religion is "nothing more than a fiction".
2) Atheism is true.

Which one is it?

There is no reasoning as you have shown us all. You just make things up to suite your needs a perfect example of religion.

ANNNNNND when it rains, it pours. Here, you argue ANOTHER paradox, as follows:
1) You showed us all that you didn't make use of reasoning.
2) You 'make things up' to suit your needs, a perfect example of religion. ("making things up to suit my needs" requires use of reasoning)

Which one is it?

Ans no, i do not reason as you do because i have no eed to distort the meaning of words as you do.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You provided no counterargument.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one distorting meanings of words, not me.

Ans no, your version of philosophy is nothing more than a personal view.

It's not "my version"...

And how predictable. You call out a fallacy because you lack the wit to argue the point.

Inversion Fallacy. You are the one who isn't arguing the point.

I only call out fallacies whenever I catch you committing them. If you don't like me calling them out, then stop committing logical fallacies.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, let's look at the entry at "About":

Like the man said: your posts on this score, as captured in the exchange recorded above, are merely specimens of "graceless cult nonsense." That is to say, specimens of scientism in the service of militant New Atheism.

People like Angel, ITN, and myself are NOT attempting to do this. This would be committing the Circular Argument Fallacy. We recognize the circular nature of our religion(s)... You, however, fail to recognize the circular nature of YOUR religion(s)...


People HAVE evidence... Evidence has been presented to them. They simply don't find that evidence to be convincing.

You can provide much evidence for Atheism. It is definitely out there. However, I don't find that evidence to be convincing.

This thread is not about atheism, nor has anyone on it made an argument for atheism.

Science and theism are not incompatible.

 

[soylentgreen]

There's quite a bit to unpack just from these eight short words, so let's get started...

First off, this is a self-refuting argument. By your own argument, Atheism is "nothing more than a fiction".

Secondly, you are attempting to prove your religion. Circular Argument Fallacy, specifically, fundamentalist Atheism.

Thirdly, in doing these things, you have argued yourself into a paradox, as follows:
1) Religion is "nothing more than a fiction".
2) Atheism is true.

Which one is it?


ANNNNNND when it rains, it pours. Here, you argue ANOTHER paradox, as follows:
1) You showed us all that you didn't make use of reasoning.
2) You 'make things up' to suit your needs, a perfect example of religion. ("making things up to suit my needs" requires use of reasoning)

Which one is it?



Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You provided no counterargument.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one distorting meanings of words, not me.


It's not "my version"...


Inversion Fallacy. You are the one who isn't arguing the point.

I only call out fallacies whenever I catch you committing them. If you don't like me calling them out, then stop committing logical fallacies.

Firstly, No, all you are doing is the childish game of repeating back what some one says. Atheism is not like religion. Your religion is a fiction. Atheism simply points that out. You are making the deliberate dishonesty of starting from a position of there is a god without any reason given as to why.
Secondly, You are again attempting a childish mirroring. Yours is a religion and now in order to give it some credibility you lower evreything down to your level of fiction. Atheism is not a religion
Thirdly, That is not a paradox. It is a statement. Religion is a fiction so atheism is truly pointing that out. You again pretend you nonsense is a reality when it still in fact remains a fiction.

All i have done is point out that whatever has passed for reason with you is nothing more than self serving nonsense that does nothing to show a god has any reason to exist. You on the other hand continue a dishonest and childish approach of pretending that no ones thinking is better than your superstitious nonsense.

And yes it is your version. All theists make up their own version of this fairy tale.

And again you claim fallacy because you lack the wit to argue the point.

 

[Angel]

This thread is not about atheism, nor has anyone on it made an argument for atheism.

Science and theism are not incompatible.

This thread is inspired, motivated and pervaded by New Atheism. And there is no argument for New Atheism.

 

[gfm7175]

Firstly, No, all you are doing is the childish game of repeating back what some one says.

???

Atheism is not like religion.

Wrong. Atheism IS a religion. It is one of many religions.

Your religion is a fiction.

I am a practitioner of multiple religions. Which one of them is a fiction? How do you know this?

This is a continued Circular Argument Fallacy on your part. You are concluding with your initial predicate.

Atheism simply points that out.

And doing so is advocating belief(s).

You are making the deliberate dishonesty of starting from a position of there is a god without any reason given as to why.

Inversion Fallacy. This is what YOU are doing with YOUR arguments. Yes, I fully admit that the religion of Christianity (which I practice) is founded on circular reasoning. Like all religions, it starts with an initial circular argument. The difference between you and me is that I am aware of the circular nature of my religion, therefore I am not a fundamentalist. You, on the other hand, ARE a fundamentalist.

Secondly, You are again attempting a childish mirroring.

???

Yours is a religion and now in order to give it some credibility you lower evreything down to your level of fiction.

Yes, mine is a religion. No, I am not attempting to give it any more credibility than any other religion. --- Your last sentence is a continued Circular Argument Fallacy.

Atheism is not a religion

Argument By Repetition Fallacy... Argument of the Stone Fallacy (as you have provided no counterargument)

Thirdly, That is not a paradox. It is a statement.

Wrong. It is a paradox. Denying paradoxes do not make them go away. You must choose one or the other, otherwise you continue to argue irrationally.

Religion is a fiction so atheism is truly pointing that out.

False. Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it. Atheism is the belief that no god(s) exist. --- Also, continued Circular Argument Fallacy...

You again pretend you nonsense is a reality when it still in fact remains a fiction.

Misuse of the word fact... facts are not universal truths. Define "reality"... Hint: it isn't the same for everyone...

All i have done is point out that whatever has passed for reason with you is nothing more than self serving nonsense that does nothing to show a god has any reason to exist.

Continued conflation of "evidence" vs. "proof"... I am not attempting to "show" (prove) that any god(s) exist or don't exist.

...deleted 'you're lying', 'lack of maturity', and 'you're conceited' mantras...

Those mantras also continued your Circular Argument Fallacy...

And yes it is your version. All theists make up their own version of this fairy tale.

Continued Circular Argument Fallacy... And yes, different Theists hold different beliefs. So?

And again you claim fallacy because you lack the wit to argue the point.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who isn't arguing the point.

And again, I will stop listing your fallacies once you stop making them.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, I do.


Yes, I can. I have done so countless times in multiple threads...


This has been done already.

I think you're asking the wrong DP Forum member these questions...

Actually, you never defined it accurately , nor have you given any examples showing how it works. I have observed your definition of it is non-standard, and not how people who actually DO science use it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This thread is inspired, motivated and pervaded by New Atheism. And there is no argument for New Atheism.

and no one has been arguing for atheism, new or old.

 

[Angel]

and no one has been arguing for atheism, new or old.

A sign of wisdom, to be sure.

 

[soylentgreen]

???


Wrong. Atheism IS a religion. It is one of many religions.


I am a practitioner of multiple religions. Which one of them is a fiction? How do you know this?

This is a continued Circular Argument Fallacy on your part. You are concluding with your initial predicate.


And doing so is advocating belief(s).


Inversion Fallacy. This is what YOU are doing with YOUR arguments. Yes, I fully admit that the religion of Christianity (which I practice) is founded on circular reasoning. Like all religions, it starts with an initial circular argument. The difference between you and me is that I am aware of the circular nature of my religion, therefore I am not a fundamentalist. You, on the other hand, ARE a fundamentalist.


???


Yes, mine is a religion. No, I am not attempting to give it any more credibility than any other religion. --- Your last sentence is a continued Circular Argument Fallacy.


Argument By Repetition Fallacy... Argument of the Stone Fallacy (as you have provided no counterargument)


Wrong. It is a paradox. Denying paradoxes do not make them go away. You must choose one or the other, otherwise you continue to argue irrationally.


False. Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it. Atheism is the belief that no god(s) exist. --- Also, continued Circular Argument Fallacy...


Misuse of the word fact... facts are not universal truths. Define "reality"... Hint: it isn't the same for everyone...


Continued conflation of "evidence" vs. "proof"... I am not attempting to "show" (prove) that any god(s) exist or don't exist.


Those mantras also continued your Circular Argument Fallacy...


Continued Circular Argument Fallacy... And yes, different Theists hold different beliefs. So?


Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who isn't arguing the point.

And again, I will stop listing your fallacies once you stop making them.

And once again you use fallacies as an excuse. It is a game of attack the player because you lack the wit toi deal with the argument. No fallacy on my part has been done.

 

[gfm7175]

And once again you use fallacies as an excuse.

I will stop pointing out your logical fallacies once you stop making them.

It is a game of attack the player...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra...

I have never once attacked you "the player"... I have only ever attacked your assertions.

No fallacy on my part has been done.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You have provided no counterargument.

Additionally, by way of this claim, you are denying Logic.

 

[soylentgreen]

I will stop pointing out your logical fallacies once you stop making them.


I have never once attacked you "the player"... I have only ever attacked your assertions.


Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You have provided no counterargument.

Additionally, by way of this claim, you are denying Logic.

I have provided counter arguments. You being unable to counter them do nothing more than attack me instead by claiming falsely that a fallacy has occurred. Calling fallacy is your basic dishonest fallback for any who counter your arguments.

And no argument of stone fallacy has occurred. Your statements are absurd. Your attempts to redefine words is self serving nonsense. Your only ability to defend your ridiculous definitions is to claim a fallacy rather than give any good reasoning for them.

 

[zyzygy]

And another one that also often emerges is this perennial classic: "Isn't atheism just another religion?"

It’s that question I’d like to address today.

First off, the question is usually posed as a sly put-down. Its pejorative. At worst, it is meant to somehow put atheists in their place (You think religion is so stupid? Well, your atheism is just another religion, so you are also stupid! Hah!), or to expose atheists as hypocrites (You condemn religious people but you atheists are not so different, so there!), or at best, it is meant to be snarkily clever (Bet you didn't think of that mister secular smarty pants!).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201607/is-atheism-just-another-religion

 

[zyzygy]

Atheism is not a religion

https://citybibleforum.org/city/melbourne/blog/atheism-not-religion

 

[gfm7175]

I have provided counter arguments.

Argument by Repetition is not "providing counterarguments"... It is a logical fallacy.

You being unable to counter them do nothing more than attack me

Argument by Repetition Fallacy. I have addressed this already...

instead by claiming falsely that a fallacy has occurred.

...continued denial of Logic...

Calling fallacy is your basic dishonest fallback for any who counter your arguments.

False. I only "call fallacy" whenever I catch someone committing a logical fallacy.

And no argument of stone fallacy has occurred.

Yes, it has... many times... including your very sentence after this one, which is a PRIME example of what the fallacy is.

Your statements are absurd.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You have claimed 'absurdity' without providing any counterargument (HOW are my statements absurd?)...

Your attempts to redefine words is self serving nonsense.

Inversion Fallacy. It is YOU who is attempting to redefine words.

Your only ability to defend your ridiculous definitions

Argument of the Stone Fallacy... You have provided no counterargument for what a better definition would be for each 'ridiculous' definition I offer...

is to claim a fallacy rather than give any good reasoning for them.

Stop committing fallacies and I will stop pointing them out. It's quite simple...

 

[gfm7175]

And another one that also often emerges is this perennial classic: "Isn't atheism just another religion?"

It’s that question I’d like to address today.

I'll address it... Yes, Atheism is another religion.

First off, the question is usually posed as a sly put-down. Its pejorative. At worst, it is meant to somehow put atheists in their place (You think religion is so stupid? Well, your atheism is just another religion, so you are also stupid! Hah!), or to expose atheists as hypocrites (You condemn religious people but you atheists are not so different, so there!), or at best, it is meant to be snarkily clever (Bet you didn't think of that mister secular smarty pants!).

No, Atheism is a religion because it makes an initial circular argument [no god(s) exist] and makes additional arguments which stem from and back to that initial circular argument. That is the very definition of religion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201607/is-atheism-just-another-religion

Holy Link dismissed on sight. Psychology Today does not define the word religion. False Authority Fallacy.

 

[Angel]

And another one that also often emerges is this perennial classic: "Isn't atheism just another religion?"

It’s that question I’d like to address today.

First off, the question is usually posed as a sly put-down. Its pejorative. At worst, it is meant to somehow put atheists in their place (You think religion is so stupid? Well, your atheism is just another religion, so you are also stupid! Hah!), or to expose atheists as hypocrites (You condemn religious people but you atheists are not so different, so there!), or at best, it is meant to be snarkily clever (Bet you didn't think of that mister secular smarty pants!).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201607/is-atheism-just-another-religion

Not a single word in this post is your own. There's a Quote button above every posting window. If you're going to copy/paste as persistently as you do, you ought to wrap text not your own in the quote bubble. Otherwise the post is deceptive and dishonest.

 

[gfm7175]

Not a single word in this post is your own. There's a Quote button above every posting window. If you're going to copy/paste as persistently as you do, you ought to wrap text not your own in the quote bubble. Otherwise the post is deceptive and dishonest.

Nice catch.

I never really noticed (until the last few months or so) just how many people cannot form arguments of their own...

At this point, I've generally been refusing to address arguments which aren't one's own, writing them off as an "Appeal to False Authority" fallacy... Which is not only a logical fallacy; it is also intellectual laziness...

 

[soylentgreen]

Argument by Repetition is not "providing counterarguments"... It is a logical fallacy.


Argument by Repetition Fallacy. I have addressed this already...


...continued denial of Logic...


False. I only "call fallacy" whenever I catch someone committing a logical fallacy.


Yes, it has... many times... including your very sentence after this one, which is a PRIME example of what the fallacy is.


Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You have claimed 'absurdity' without providing any counterargument (HOW are my statements absurd?)...


Inversion Fallacy. It is YOU who is attempting to redefine words.


Argument of the Stone Fallacy... You have provided no counterargument for what a better definition would be for each 'ridiculous' definition I offer...


Stop committing fallacies and I will stop pointing them out. It's quite simple...

You have as you have just shown no ability to do other than attack the player.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Put a Fork in American Christianity

To sum up the thread...

"Christians claim X. Christians do Y instead. Put a fork in Christianity."

Yes, Christians are hypocrites (by self-admission). It comes from our evil sinful nature. We are naturally greedy and self-serving. We aren't better than anyone else is. We believe that Jesus died and rose again (to save us from sin/death). We believe that we will one day be restored.

The Christian faith has survived 2,000ish years (and before that through other names/forms), and it still survives to this day, and it will continue to survive.

 

[RAMOSS]

I will stop pointing out your logical fallacies once you stop making them.


I have never once attacked you "the player"... I have only ever attacked your assertions.


Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You have provided no counterargument.

Additionally, by way of this claim, you are denying Logic.

No, he isn't, He just isn't accepting your reasoning, since you can not show that it true and accurate. Unsupported claims are not good arguments.

 

[Angel]

...Unsupported claims are not good arguments.

Please remember this wisdom yourself in future, and spread the word among the Philistines and Bobbleheads of New Atheist persuasion.

 

[gfm7175]

No, he isn't,

Yes, he is.

He just isn't accepting your reasoning,

And that's fine. He's making use of different reasoning, reasoning which doesn't follow the axioms of Logic, obviously...

since you can not show that it true and accurate.

Not sure what more you want... An arbitrarily selected 'holy link' for you to deny because of one reason or another? I might as well just keep arguing rationally, appealing to Philosophy and Logic, and having you continuously deny those sources instead...

Unsupported claims are not good arguments.

Just because you think the claim is wrong does NOT mean that the claim is unsupported. Quit conflating the two, RAMOSS...

If you disagree with my arguments, then make counterarguments to them which aren't fallacious... Otherwise, you continue to commit the Argument of the Stone Fallacy...

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, he is.


And that's fine. He's making use of different reasoning, reasoning which doesn't follow the axioms of Logic, obviously...


Not sure what more you want... An arbitrarily selected 'holy link' for you to deny because of one reason or another? I might as well just keep arguing rationally, appealing to Philosophy and Logic, and having you continuously deny those sources instead...


Just because you think the claim is wrong does NOT mean that the claim is unsupported. Quit conflating the two, RAMOSS...

If you disagree with my arguments, then make counterarguments to them which aren't fallacious... Otherwise, you continue to commit the Argument of the Stone Fallacy...

The problem is you apparently can not understand the difference between supporting a claim , and continuing unsupported claims. For a claim to be supported there has to be verification.. that step is lacking.