What Atheism is NOT!

[Spartacus FPV]

You don't know what a straw man is!

Hey niftydrifty, I just figured out why you're so incoherent:

do theologians believe God is an imaginary person? why do you need strawmen arguments? why do you need to misrepresent points made by religious people in order to rebut them? it's incredibly weak.

I was operating under the assumption that you knew what a straw man was. No wonder you kept asking "do theologians believe God is an imaginary person?" Of course they don't, and NO ONE was suggesting that Christian theologians did believe that. What was suggested was that the Christian theologians were wrong.

this one. (From: "Is the Bible the word of god?")

Imaginary people can't write books.

it's an example of a strawman. btw, I asked you a question, which you conveniently dodged.

It was rivrrat's opinion that the god Yahweh is imaginary. Her stating that opinion was in no way a straw man because she was not claiming that Christians believe their god is imaginary.

You see, a straw man is when you say that something is the opponent's position, that isn't; and then you beat up on it.

She was NEVER saying that was the Christian position, that was simply hers. When Cephus ridicules religion, and gives his opinion on it, his opinions aren't straw men.

A straw man would be like if he said "Christians believe that the earth was created yesturday." When instead he would use their actual belief (6000 years for young earth creationists) and then ridicule that.

I hope you now understand what a straw man is:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

So when next you formulate another ridiculous list, make sure the people you're linking (which is useless, use quotes) are saying that "this is the Christian position."

 

[Cephus]

Well, one thing is quite evident after having read most of this thread. Atheism is most definitely a religion, and it's followers try never harder to convert the unwashed among us.

Said like someone who has clearly not read and especially not comprehended the thread. Well done.

 

[Cephus]

Call him a Zombie, I don't really care. It's just that you'll have a a lot of explaining to do when you meet him. :mrgreen:

I'm not remotely worried.

I... don't do that... nor do any other Furs I know.

But you have to admit that the people who do talk to the press do. Every single story done on furry has been about the screwed up morons humping plushies and screwing in fursuits. There are just as many Star Wars geeks but they get good press, the 501st Stormtroopers do a ton of good for charity and get a lot of good press. I only know of one story ever that was remotely good press for furry and that was a local piece about people in fursuits bowling for charity.

Sorry, so long as the fur community lets the lunatics and perverts speak for their fandom, they'll be tarred with the same spooge as those who rightfully deserve it. That's why all the really good people have long ago abandoned the fandom entirely.

I don't think their beliefs are irrational or silly. I respect moderate Islam.

But you don't think they're right, any more than I think your beliefs are right.

 

[justone]

Re: You don't know what a straw man is!

Article 1. There are basic axioms and principals of logic.
As any one can see in logic a proposition that is TRUE T cannot be false F. And what is F cannot be T. RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_classical_logic
(T or F may have modifications like in modal logic, but I do not want to get anybody to be confused by extra details. Whatever are modifications, T is opposite to F. As well I would encourage everyone to look up more of formal sources, I do not want to overwhelm and overcomplicate.)

One would ask, are the propositions below are T or F?:

1. Atheism is NOT a religion, or faith-based position.

2. Atheism is NOT scientific, nor are any claims being made either way regarding the supernatural.
3. Atheism is not an arrogant position.

Atheists have no faith based beliefs

As we all know, logically one cannot prove a negative, nor should anyone expect one to.

All the propositions above are negative propositions.

Should we believe they are TRUE? And if they are not True – what are they? - in logic they are False.

It is a negative claim/proposition: ‘logically one cannot prove a negative.’’

Does the claimer have a proof that his statement is True?

If he does, he can prove a negative proposition.
If he does not, his proposition is not T, but False. It is his mere belief.

It is called LIAR paradox. It is called FA = False Argument (even by atheistic liberal philosophers), in a few cases even liberals call it GAP in arguments.

Atheists only prove that they are liars, capable only of making false arguments. Since they have no real arguments to support their claims, when they try to support, we may safely conclude their claims are all False.
Atheism is a religion. Atheism is an arrogant position. Etc. Atheists have proven it voluntarily.

Article 2.

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/joyce/LOGIC-Chapter-III.HTM :

§ 3. Quality of Propositions. In every proposition P must be either affirmed or denied of S. This alternative determines the Quality of the proposition, which must be either (I) affirmative, or (2) negative. This division is ultimate. Some logicians have, it is true, endeavoured to reduce all propositions to the affirmative form by writing S is not-P. But the difference cannot be thus bridged. S is not-P is, of course, equivalent to S is not P. But they differ the one from the other: since in S is not P we deny the positive concept P of S, and in S is not-P we affirm the negative concept not-P of S. The negative and affirmative forms remain radically distinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic
A proposition may be universal or particular, and it may be affirmative or negative. Thus there are just four kinds of propositions:
• A-type: Universal and affirmative or ("All men are mortal")
• I-type: Particular and affirmative ("Some men are philosophers")
• E-type: Universal and negative ("No philosophers are rich")
• O-type: Particular and negative ("Some men are not philosophers"). Atheists claim that negative cannot be proven. It would be nice if they could refer to a source, to something that exists in rules, axioms, principals of logic or follows from the axioms.

As we can see atheists themselves have no problems of making negative (Atheism is not a religion) and ‘’proving negatives’’ (It is True that atheism is not a religion), but they say they cannot make the negative statement God does not exist, because it would be illogical to make and prove it, nor such a proof is required. Some Negative claims are:
God does not exist.
It is not raining outside.( see justone's famous example)
Atheism is not a religion.
There is no other G-d but JC
Evolution cannot be logically proven.
The Sun does not turn around the earth (Galileo’s claim)
Absence of G-d cannot be proven.
Theory of relativity is not correct according my findings.

All these negative statements are allowed to be proposed and are allowed to be negated (proven to be false) in logic (formal or informal) in the same way as positive ones.

So far I have not seen an axiom or theorem or principal of logic/math proving the maxim: ‘’logically one cannot prove a negative, nor should anyone expect one to.’’(Not even mentioning that it is a double negative = violation of the rules).
There is no reference except for militant atheistic sites and books, like Dawkins. The claim has been void of a proof within logic. The statements that do not have a proof are blind beliefs of atheism.

( One must not be confused by argument from ignorance, - there is God because there is no proof that he does not exist. In a more formal form: Proposition P is True, because there is no evidence it is False. P = ‘’God does not exist” is True, because there no proof that he exists – is exactly the same argument from ignorance ALWAYS used by atheists.)



Negative has been proved all the time. Actually science is moving forward by proving negative: The sun does not turn around the earth (Galileo’s claim). ‘’No amount of experiments can prove me right’’ (nothing can prove positive),’’ but one experiment can prove me wrong’’ (prove negative). – A. Einstein. E=MC^2 – is a positive statement. One experiment can prove that E IS NOT EM^2.

The goal of making up rules that cannot be found in the sources is to shift the burden of proof on Christians. Shifting burden of proof in a logic debate is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

What we, poor Christians should do? Nothing, as I have said, but just to count on common sense of the open minded part of the public.


When one is asking me ‘’prove that you exist’’, the common sense question would be – why are you asking? Those who know that I exist would not be asking. Those who doubt or deny my existence can ask. But before I answer, I have to know, what should I answer, what are doubts, what makes one ask such a question? It is one thing when one thinks that I am a Jewish Zombie, - than I would have to agree, I do not exist. It is a totally different thing, when my existence doubted because I allow evil. And the third thing would be - because one has never seen me. Thelost1 atheist claims that when everything has the first cause, intelligence cannot be a first cause of intelligence; the militant ones claim there is no first cause… Etc.

Whatsoever, when one come up and asks, one already has a position and a claim, it would be logical not to play shifting burden of proof and changing rules of logic game, but to see what are arguments of the claim, and what is the form the of the claim.

It is like I would go and say I am not making a negative claim that evolution is NOT the reason of species, but I claim that all I know ‘’logically one cannot prove a negative, nor should anyone expect one to.’’ I see no evidence for evolution; prove to me that evolution IS the reason. Would it be logical or fair or honest?


Militant atheists are not interested in an intelligent debate, but only in emotional, close minded bushing and eliminating Christianity. Their religion is based on hatred and war against infidels of their beliefs in the same way as Islamo-fascism, that’s why whenever Islamo-fascism is debated they arrive to attack Christianity, thus to take the side of Juhadists.

That is the minimum that can be said. More can be said and considered, but justone cannot have all time of the world.

Let them to continue with their hate fest, as follows:

 

[niftydrifty]

Re: You don't know what a straw man is!

Hey niftydrifty, I just figured out why you're so incoherent:

I was operating under the assumption that you knew what a straw man was. No wonder you kept asking "do theologians believe God is an imaginary person?" Of course they don't, and NO ONE was suggesting that Christian theologians did believe that. What was suggested was that the Christian theologians were wrong.

It was rivrrat's opinion that the god Yahweh is imaginary. Her stating that opinion was in no way a straw man because she was not claiming that Christians believe their god is imaginary.

You see, a straw man is when you say that something is the opponent's position, that isn't; and then you beat up on it.

She was NEVER saying that was the Christian position, that was simply hers. When Cephus ridicules religion, and gives his opinion on it, his opinions aren't straw men.

A straw man would be like if he said "Christians believe that the earth was created yesturday." When instead he would use their actual belief (6000 years for young earth creationists) and then ridicule that.

I hope you now understand what a straw man is:

So when next you formulate another ridiculous list, make sure the people you're linking (which is useless, use quotes) are saying that "this is the Christian position."

LOL. if it has been suggested that theologians (or believers) are wrong (your words), it is being done with statements by your pals that don't resemble what theologians actually say.

thanks for playing.

have any atheists at DP actually beaten up on religion with statements actually made by theologians? or do they only use strawmen?

 

[Donkey1499]

Re: Someone with integrity, a breath of fresh air.

Brains..... BRAINS....

No seriously. Anything else to disagree about? Or are we good?

When I begin to act silly... that usually means either I've given up or I don't have anything else to add, or in this case it means we're good. :mrgreen:

 

[Donkey1499]

I'm not remotely worried.

*Speaking is a raspy, Yoda voice* You will be.... you will be....

But you have to admit that the people who do talk to the press do. Every single story done on furry has been about the screwed up morons humping plushies and screwing in fursuits. There are just as many Star Wars geeks but they get good press, the 501st Stormtroopers do a ton of good for charity and get a lot of good press. I only know of one story ever that was remotely good press for furry and that was a local piece about people in fursuits bowling for charity.

Sorry, so long as the fur community lets the lunatics and perverts speak for their fandom, they'll be tarred with the same spooge as those who rightfully deserve it. That's why all the really good people have long ago abandoned the fandom entirely.

There were other reports done at that one Con in Pittsburgh this year. Two news agencies from the city did a report. One only showed the nutjobs, while the other actually did some good journalistic work and showed what the fandom is really all about. The one that was negative, I think the local Fox station did it... hmm... :thinking

And they don't like being called perverts. They prefer furverts. lol

But you don't think they're right, any more than I think your beliefs are right.

Actually, I find there's a lot in common with Islam and Christianity; besides Abraham, of course. So it's not that I think they're wrong, I just think they're style of worshipping Jehova/Allah is different.

But for a different example, do I think bhuddists are wrong? Not necessarily. I don't really know much about Bhuddism, except that they believe in the philosophies taught by an obese, chinese man who sat under a fig tree for a long time... There's nothing wrong with philosophy, especially if it's taught by a wise individual.

 

[niftydrifty]

we're more than 80 posts into this thing. has anyone else noticed at this late stage that Lachean hasn't offered evidence or examples for the claims he made in the OP? and yet he demands evidence or backup for ALL claims others make (those that disagree with him, that is). it's a great way to "win" a debate, just stay on the offense, by being offensive.

curious that Lachean even recently said this:

"THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THOSE MAKING THE CLAIM."

and this:

"Quote a standard that I profess that I have contradicted!"

and this:

"A hypocrite is someone who acts contrary to their professed standards, what standard have I broken?"

um, that the burden of proof is on Lachean to support his own claims? Lachean might say that he wasn't asked. regardless, it's a curious omission. an obvious, glaring example of Lachean not living up to his own standards.

Lachean also recently said this:

"If they call you a hypocrite, ask them to quote you saying something contrary to you professed position. My money is on their having nothing."

Only a hypocrite would do this. only a dogmatic hypocrite would not notice that he's doing it. only an arrogant dogmatic hypocrite would be so certain about "their having nothing."

I'm really happy for Lachean that my appearance in this thread has prompted him to look up words and terms. an opportunity has arisen in which he might (still) learn something. so far, it seems that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think. or can we?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What a CLAIM is not!

has anyone else noticed that Lachean hasn't offered evidence or examples for the claims he made in the OP? and yet he demands evidence or backup for ALL claims others make (those that disagree with him, that is). it's a great way to "win" a debate, just stay on the offense, by being offensive.

curious that Lachean even recently said this:

and this:

and this:

um, that the burden of proof is on Lachean to support his own claims? Lachean might say that he wasn't asked. regardless, it's a curious omission.

No, its the whole point. You keep insisting that I support my claims. What claim haven't I supported?

You haven't posed a claim to me. If you had, I would have answered. Unlike you I provide whatever is necessary for my claims. If you disagree, quote a claim. Nothing that you have is one.

What is a clear omission, my claim? The fact that I haven't made one? You're upset because I haven't made a claim regarding the supernatural? Thats the whole point!

I don't have a positive belief for good reason, your failures to acknowledge your burden of proof. And I do not have a negative claim, like "god does not exist" because that would be illogical. One cannot prove a negative. And there are many such claimed gods for which no one can fulfill their burden of proof. Just ask them.

an obvious, glaring example of Lachean not living up to his own standards.

How? Which claims are going unsupported. What I said about the burden of proof, and not being able to prove a negative are basic logic. These aren't my claims.

What have I said that you need proof for? The rules of logic? The definition of a straw man? :lol:

HOW am I to know what claim it is that I haven't proven if you consistently refuse to tell me what it is?

What kind of ridiculous game are you playing? "You're a hypocrite!" 'How?" "Because you don't live by your own burden of proof standard!" "For which claim?" "Why should I tell you, hypocrite. You don't believe that I have such a claim, how dogmatic of you!" You're a moron!.

This is just more of you not providing examples for your non-sequitor accusations. If you refuse to obey even the rules of logic and debate, why should anyone take your rants seriously?

Lachean also recently said this:

Only a hypocrite would do this. only a dogmatic hypocrite would not notice that he's doing it. only an arrogant dogmatic hypocrite would be so certain about "their having nothing."

Its because you have nothing. Its because after asking you a dozen times for you to quote an example to support your claims of straw men, or hypocrisy, you never present ANYTHING.

I'm really happy for Lachean that my appearance in this thread has prompted him to look up words and terms. an opportunity has arisen in which he might (still) learn something. so far, it seems that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think. or can we?

Yeah okay, coming from the guy who cant distinguish an opinion about Christianity for a straw man of the Christian position. Something else that you have not provided an example of after repeated requests.

 

[niftydrifty]

LOL. read the OP. you made claims (about things religious people have done at DP), without giving examples. just as I said.

what kind of game am I playing, indeed. :roll:

What claim haven't I supported?

start out by giving some examples of the things that folks have said. specific things. the onus is on you to do so. that is, unless you don't feel you have to. a hypocrite would think so.

I really thought you had a lot more going on, and I was looking forward to our true debate regarding Dawkins. if you're really this dense, it's going to be an easy "win." way too easy.

it's no wonder you appreciate him.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You must be joking.

LOL. read the OP. you made claims (about things religious people have done at DP), without giving examples. just as I said.

start out by giving some examples of the things that folks have said. specific things. the onus is on you to do so.

You have never asked me for examples of my claims in the OP until now, which is why I am not a hypocrite. Now that you have I will, because I am not one. Here goes:

1. Atheism is NOT a religion, or faith-based position.

2. Atheism is NOT scientific, nor are any claims being made either way regarding the supernatural.

5. Being a skeptic, or demanding evidence/logical reason in order to change ones mind does not make them militant, or an "atheist fundamentalist."

I would treat an atheist no different from a fundie. (From the thread "Vote for Atheists?"

Well, one thing is quite evident after having read most of this thread. Atheism is most definitely a religion, and it's followers try never harder to convert the unwashed among us.

Atheists do not KNOW there isn't a god, they BELIEVE, hence they have faith there isn't a god.

"Its a religion" and "we're militant in trying to convert other people." Allistor McGrath in his book the Dawkins Delusion, along with many of Dawkins' critics calls him and us so called "Atheists on the attack" militant.

3. Atheism is not an arrogant position.

I'd say it's way past arrogance

The silenced majority argued against this claim at great length.

4. Atheists are capable of believing in things greater than themselves.

Does Cephus have testable, verifiable evidence that there is no higher power???

And what power, ‘’greater than themselves ‘’ could it be?

Both from "Religion, Morality and Competence" Of course an Atheist can believe in something greater than himself, like the whole of our civilization, the greater good, this galaxy or this universe for that matter.

6. It is not "better to be an agnostic" or "more open minded."

You're an atheist, you're not supposed to believe...now if you were agnostic then maybe we could talk, because an agnostic hasn't made up his mind.

From "Logical Fallacies: How to Argue"

7. Atheists are no less moral than any theists.

I inherently distrust those who reject love and compassion. The rejection of God, what ever the God concept may be, is exactly the the rejection of love and compassion.

I would not vote for a candidate I didn't trust, and I do not trust those who reject love and compassion, ie. Atheists and Humanists.

The so called "moral Atheist" or so called "moral-Humanist" is a hypocrite, as by embracing love and compassion they are serving the God that they reject, and are therefore not realy Atheist or Humanist, but simply confused.

Evidence enough? Or should I quote you newspaper articles of people distrusting atheist, how we are the most hated minority, how people really believe that we are immoral religious fundamentalists. People really believe this ****, as I am sure you do.

that is, unless you don't feel you have to. a hypocrite would think so.

I had no idea such obvious and frequent occurances warranted examples, which is why I felt that I didn't have to post examples in the OP. Now that you have posed the challenge to me, of course I now did feel the need. You know why? Because I am NOT a hypocrite!

This is what you claimed I had no evidence for? :rofl Did you really think it would be hard to find quotes of people suggesting these mischaracterizations?

What do you think motivated me to make this thread in the 1st place? You're so pathetic its no longer funny... What else ya got? You walking poster boy for atheism misconceptions.

I really thought you had a lot more going on, and I was looking forward to our true debate regarding Dawkins. if you're really this dense, it's going to be an easy "win." way too easy.

it's no wonder you appreciate him.

I agreed to a true debate with you on Dawkins? :rofl You don't even know what his arguments are, and if you had valid counter arguments to disprove evolution, or to prove god, you'd be rich/famous.

Yeah right, the only debate I am up for right now is with jallman. A much wiser and much less rude theologian.

 

[niftydrifty]

fact remains, you felt that you did not need to provide examples while demanding them.

thanks for playing.

your use of bold, underlining, little pictures and invective increases when you get nailed. it's kinda cute. in a "let's watch the fly trapped in the spider's web squirm" kinda way.

Oh it is so on, after Jallman thought. Don't want to divide my attention.

you're as forgetful as you are dogmatic, hypocritical, and arrogant.

I'm undefeated in true debates. I tend to pick topics that I know I won't lose. you're next.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What a delusional coward.

fact remains, you felt that you did not need to provide examples while demanding them.

No one asked me for examples, because they were so obvious. And then people starting making them on PAGE ONE of this thread. If someone were to ask me for an example, I would and have provided them.

You seem so opposed to giving examples to support your claim that I am:

• Arrogant
• Hypocritical
• Dogmatic

Which is utterly predictable. This is why I made this thread. Because people like you do what you do without reason, or justification. Using words that you don't understand, refusing to accept definitions or to explain how you aren't utterly WRONG.

Thats the difference between you and me. When asked, I back my **** up!

thanks for playing.

Thanks for wasting my time.

your use of bold, underlining, little pictures and invective increases when you get nailed. it's kinda cute. in a "let's watch the fly trapped in the spider's web squirm" kinda way.

Trapped? :rofl

I was able to explain and justify every claim you threw at me. You've got nothing, and I exposed you for it.

I use bold and outlining to make sure that you do not miss key aspects to your logical fallacies. When have you ever "nailed" me on anything? You haven't been right about ONE SINGLE THING.

you're as forgetful as you are dogmatic, hypocritical, and arrogant.

You're right, I did forget. As for the latter three non-sequitors, I have long since dispelled them. Call me what you wish, at least when I call you names they are true. Stings don't it?

I'm undefeated in true debates. I tend to pick topics that I know I won't lose.

How cowardly, at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit that I may be wrong about what I am debating. Its why I do what I do.

you're next.

The notion that you, a person who doesn't understand logical fallacies like straw men, the rules of logic like burden of proof and not being able to prove a negative, and refuses to support his claims, consider yourself a formidable opponent to me, someone who backs up his claims with examples, and knows when to admit when he is wrong, is simply laughable.

Considering you were wrong about everything you said in this thread, I have no concern. You do not even know Dawkin's arguments, and if you did have a counter argument, you'd be a famous biologist, or "The man who proved god."

If you think you've ever, or will ever defeat me regarding the issues discussed here, you're delusional. Everything you say is baseless tripe. You don't even know what a straw man :lol:

The "fact remains" that I support my arguments, and you refuse to. So unless you have any other claim for me to address, or so called "straw man" take your playground name-calling and self-proclaimed victories elsewhere.

I only want to deal with people willing to address the topic here. I have proven that people do indeed say what I claim they do. If you claim they are right, that you pejoratives are accurate, support your claims. Which is something you have proven incapable of.

 

[Cephus]

*Speaking is a raspy, Yoda voice* You will be.... you will be....

*yawn* That has about as much meaning to me as telling you that you'll stand before Krishna. Yeah, sure, whatever.

There were other reports done at that one Con in Pittsburgh this year. Two news agencies from the city did a report. One only showed the nutjobs, while the other actually did some good journalistic work and showed what the fandom is really all about. The one that was negative, I think the local Fox station did it... hmm... :thinking

That's still local news, all of the big national coverage has been uniformly bad.

And they don't like being called perverts. They prefer furverts. lol

I prefer to call them something that would be censored here at DP.

 

[niftydrifty]

Re: What a delusional coward.

No one asked me for examples, because they were so obvious. And then people starting making them on PAGE ONE of this thread. If someone were to ask me for an example, I would and have provided them.

You seem so opposed to giving examples to support your claim that I am:

• Arrogant
• Hypocritical
• Dogmatic

Which is utterly predictable. This is why I made this thread. Because people like you do what you do without reason, or justification. Using words that you don't understand, refusing to accept definitions or to explain how you aren't utterly WRONG.

Thats the difference between you and me. When asked, I back my **** up!



Thanks for wasting my time.



Trapped? :rofl

I was able to explain and justify every claim you threw at me. You've got nothing, and I exposed you for it.

I use bold and outlining to make sure that you do not miss key aspects to your logical fallacies. When have you ever "nailed" me on anything? You haven't been right about ONE SINGLE THING.



You're right, I did forget. As for the latter three non-sequitors, I have long since dispelled them. Call me what you wish, at least when I call you names they are true. Stings don't it?



How cowardly, at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit that I may be wrong about what I am debating. Its why I do what I do.



The notion that you, a person who doesn't understand logical fallacies like straw men, the rules of logic like burden of proof and not being able to prove a negative, and refuses to support his claims, consider yourself a formidable opponent to me, someone who backs up his claims with examples, and knows when to admit when he is wrong, is simply laughable.

Considering you were wrong about everything you said in this thread, I have no concern. You do not even know Dawkin's arguments, and if you did have a counter argument, you'd be a famous biologist, or "The man who proved god."

If you think you've ever, or will ever defeat me regarding the issues discussed here, you're delusional. Everything you say is baseless tripe. You don't even know what a straw man :lol:

The "fact remains" that I support my arguments, and you refuse to. So unless you have any other claim for me to address, or so called "straw man" take your playground name-calling and self-proclaimed victories elsewhere.

I only want to deal with people willing to address the topic here. I have proven that people do indeed say what I claim they do. If you claim they are right, that you pejoratives are accurate, support your claims. Which is something you have proven incapable of.

yawn. you've gone on and on again about this but you dodged the question that I asked you regarding strawmen. how convenient for you.

have any atheists at DP actually beaten up on religion with statements actually made by theologians?

I know what I'm talking about, Lachean. my wife has a degree in this stuff, and as such, I've read very, very widely in the field.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

How stupid can you be?

yawn. you've gone on and on again about this but you dodged the question that I asked you regarding strawmen. how convenient for you.

No I have not done anything of the such. Thats what you do, you ignored posts #23, #76, #84, #86 AND 88.

In the case of #'s 88 and 76, quoting an entire post and making an irrelevant counterpost is not addressing the content there'in.

have any atheists at DP actually beaten up on religion with statements actually made by theologians?

What a stupid question. Have you never heard of an evolution debate between atheistic evolutionists and dogmatic creationists? Have you never heard someone use carbon-dating to disprove young earth creationism? Are you that senile?

Of course we have, in every debate on evolution for example where we challenge creationism or intelligent design for example. Let me guess, you don't believe such debates have taken place, or that DP theologians have advocated for creationism. Want an example of a DP creationist and an evolutionist debunking him? How about a Biblical literalist regarding genesis?

I address every theological claim that is presented to me. Like galenrox's conception of god, should I quote that one for you? There are near an infinite number of examples of theistic claims being debunked by real science on this board.

And to say that there are young earth creationists (the earth being 6k years old) is NO straw man. These people exist by the MILLIONS.

If you want an example of a theist making a claim, and a atheist debunking it:

On "Free Will"

My point is that God knows all decisions before they are made, but He still allows you to make that decision. So you decide whether or not you go to Heaven or Hell, but God knows before you consciously decide.

I hope that makes more sense.

But it doesn't. If God knows, without possibility of error, what decision you are going to make, then you have no choice but to make the decision God has forseen. So long as you cannot make a decision that God doesn't already known about, you have no true free will, just the illusion.

It's like the rat with electrodes in his brain controlling his actions. It doesn't know it's being controlled, for all it can tell, it has free will to make whatever decisions it wants, but it's still hooked up to a joystick and going wherever it's controller wants it to.

If there is a theological claim you would like me to address, present it.

If there is one you have presented that I haven't addressed, re-post it, quote it and tell me what post it was that I ignored.

If you're claiming that I, or no atheist has not ever addressed a real theist's claims, you're utterly delusional, and must have never seen the Science & Tech section of the forum, let alone the one we are in on Religion.

I know what I'm talking about, Lachean. my wife has a degree in this stuff, and as such, I've read very, very widely in the field.

:roll: Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority Noted.

Saying you know what you're talking about, rather than proving it, is useless to me. Talk is cheap, use examples.

 

[niftydrifty]

Re: How stupid can you be?

What a stupid question.

Of course we have, in every debate on evolution for example where we challenge creationism or intelligent design for example. Let me guess, you don't believe such debates have taken place, or that DP theologians have advocated for creationism. Want an example of a DP creationist and an evolutionist debunking him? How about a Biblical literalist regarding genesis?

I address every theological claim that is presented to me. Like galenrox's conception of god, should I quote that one for you? There are near an infinite number of examples of theistic claims being debunked by real science on this board.

And to say that there are young earth creationists (the earth being 6k years old) is NO straw man. These people exist by the MILLIONS.

If you want an example of a theist making a claim, and a atheist debunking it:

If there is a theological claim you would like me to address, present it.

ok, good to know, that arguments have been made outside of the straw man "invisible friend" variety. yknow, the kind of argument where someone claims that so and so is wrong by misrepresenting their position.

:roll: Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority Noted.

Saying you know what you're talking about, rather than proving it, is useless to me. Talk is cheap, use examples.

I made that statement to make a point. It was a joke. I wasn't being serious. that statement was an actual "argument" made by someone in a debate with me, whom you said you "support." can you believe it? what a dope! I'm glad you agree.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You still don't understand straw men

ok, good to know, that arguments have been made outside of the straw man "invisible friend" variety. yknow, the kind of argument where someone claims that so and so is wrong by misrepresenting their position.

Of course atheists have addressed ALL of the claims theists make, as well as providing their own opinion on their claims. You can't seem to distinguish the two, hence you confuse their opinions with straw men.

Claiming that "so and so is wrong" and calling their god imaginary or a delusion is NOT a straw man. A straw man would be if the atheist suggested that "Christians believe their god is imaginary, the man in the clouds, and no more real than Santa."

No one says that! Suggesting this over and over again proves that you do not understand what is meant by the "flying spaghetti monster argument." That not being able to disprove a notion doesn't make it any more credible. For proving a negative is logically impossible.

 

[Kasmos]

Re: How stupid can you be?

ok, good to know, that arguments have been made outside of the straw man "invisible friend" variety. yknow, the kind of argument where someone claims that so and so is wrong by misrepresenting their position.

Funny how Lachean, in BOLD, UNDERLINED, BIG FONT DIRECTED AT YOU stated that if you have a theological claim for him to debate to present it, and instead, you respond with the above and don't bring one up.

What... are you scared?? :lol:


(By the way, Cephus ripped president apart)

 

[niftydrifty]

Re: How stupid can you be?

Funny how Lachean, in BOLD, UNDERLINED, BIG FONT DIRECTED AT YOU stated that if you have a theological claim for him to debate to present it, and instead, you respond with the above and don't bring one up.

What... are you scared?? :lol:


(By the way, Cephus ripped president apart)

no. it will happen.

 

[Donkey1499]

*yawn* That has about as much meaning to me as telling you that you'll stand before Krishna. Yeah, sure, whatever.

Who the Hell is Krishna?
And I was just jokin' with ya anyways...

That's still local news, all of the big national coverage has been uniformly bad.

Unfortunately, that is true...

I prefer to call them something that would be censored here at DP.

lol....

 

[Mr. D]

6. It is not "better to be an agnostic" or "more open minded."

Agnosticism is the position one takes when answering the epistemological question of what can be known regarding a claim. In that sense, we are all forced agnostics about the infinite number of things that people can conceive of. But whether or not we believe in that thing, regardless of if we know or not, makes us a theist or atheist.

Atheists are the first to tell you "I don't know, and won't pretend to." You can be an agnostic atheist, which means "I don't know, nor do I believe."

Please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The above did not make it clear to me. The difference you note seems to be a difference with little meaning. A clear definition would be nice for someone who thought he was an agnostic!

You certainly don't use commonly accepted definitions of the two words, so what are your definitions so we have your definition of terms?

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheist - a person who believes in the theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

[kal-el]

Please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The above did not make it clear to me. The difference you note seems to be a difference with little meaning. A clear definition would be nice for someone who thought he was an agnostic!

Well as far as I can tell, an agnostisim is a postion of knowledge. They don't know anything about God, so they just play it safe. An atheist, for the most part is a lack of belief in a God. For me though, as being a former Christian, I'd say I believe that there is no God, but that certaintly isn't the case for all atheists. To have a disbelief in something, first you must be presented with evidence it exists, then deny it. For instance, a caveman from 500bc wouldn't of ever seen a flashlight, so he'd be aflashlightist, as he wouldn't have a belief in one. Christians are not aware of the other thousands of gods, yet are atheists towards them. How does a Christian know that an ancient tribe in the Himilayas doesn't woship a God called uuba? If they never heard of it, they can't reject it, they just lack a belief in it.

But I think there are atheistic beleifs, just like their are theistic beliefs. Just like all theists cannot agree over the ideas of hell, limbo, whether Jesus was the messiah, etc.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Please explain the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The above did not make it clear to me. The difference you note seems to be a difference with little meaning. A clear definition would be nice for someone who thought he was an agnostic!

You certainly don't use commonly accepted definitions of the two words, so what are your definitions so we have your definition of terms?

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheist - a person who believes in the theory or belief that God does not exist.

I do not see how I am using an uncommon definition. I believe the problem in communication between us lies with the bold.

Atheists do not "believe that god does not exist." They do not believe in god(s). Which is a very subtle distinction.

To say that "god does not exist" suggest that if there were a god, it would be the mainstream monotheistic god, and that one is speaking in respect to that god. Atheism is rather a position regarding all supernatural claims, not just the one. Atheists do not have a belief in any god(s).

Since we live in a predominantly mainstream Christian society, the question is often posed "you don't believe in god?" But there is no reason to pick on the one god and ask why we do not believe in that particular god.

Those who identify themselves as atheists do not have any belief in any god. I know I am repeating myself, but its because the distinction matters. It is very different from the faith based negative claim "I believe that your god, Yahweh, does not exist." That is a claim no one should make, for it is impossible to prove a negative, and is an intellectually unsafe position to hold, or expect anyone to find compelling.

You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in. You can be an agnostic atheist as well, considering agnosticism pertains only to what can be known.

Agnostic theist: I do not know, but I believe.
Agnostic atheist: I do not know, and thus have no reason to believe.

Those claiming to know anything regarding the supernatural are either lying or crazy, or genuinely touched by the divine, yet haven't proven it.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: You are an atheist in respect to all of the gods that you do not believe in.

Those who identify themselves as atheists do not have any belief in any god. I know I am repeating myself, but its because the distinction matters. It is very different from the faith based negative claim "I believe that your god, Yahweh, does not exist." That is a claim no one should make, for it is impossible to prove a negative, and is an intellectually unsafe position to hold, or expect anyone to find compelling.

The distinction is important, but the reason people in this thread aren't making that distinction is that many atheists have taken a confrontational tone-- not only proclaiming their own lack of belief, but chastising and ridiculing others, not for their specific beliefs, but for having those beliefs at all.

Accusing someone of irrationality, or ignorance, or even stupidity for believing in a god (or other supernatural phenomena) implies a strong belief in the opposite.

Anyone who has attempted to defend theism in an argument has probably been accused of all of these things by people who identify themselves as atheists.

Those claiming to know anything regarding the supernatural are either lying or crazy, or genuinely touched by the divine, yet haven't proven it.

And the level of skepticism-- of outright hostility-- shown to people making those claims is far beyond what one would expect from a neutral position.