What do we replace religion with?[W:675]

[RAMOSS]

Yes, they are. There is no 'blended spectrum'...


They all deal with belief. Two of the three make knowledge claims.


No, you can't. That is a paradox. -- Those people are likely either agnostics or atheists.

I have given support about it the different between agonstic/gnostic and theist/atheist. I have yet to see you supporting your claim, nor have I seen you provide a valid argument against my support, except dismissing 'holy links'. That is more than a tad arrogant, and also demonstrates that fact of your misuse of vocabulary.

 

[RAMOSS]

A paradox.


Theism.


Agnosticism.


I understand the meanings just fine.

Atheism = god(s) do not exist
Agnosticism = who knows if there are any gods or not (or whether we can even 'get to know them' in the first place)
Theism - god(s) exist


Inversion Fallacy. You are the one who denies logic and philosophy.

You throw thing out such as paradox, but it has been shown to you that atheism/theism and agnosticism/Gnosticism are orthogonal concepts. As such, all your attempts to claim various fallacies is not relevant. You still misuse terms too.

 

[gfm7175]

First, soylentgreen, Tim the plumber, and "others" in DP do not represent all atheists, while your claim was a more general one about "atheists being in denial about their denial." So the logical fallacy here about this statement now is either overgeneralisation, or you give atheists in DP undue power.

Well, the logical fallacies you would be looking for here would be either 'Hasty Generalization' or 'Compositional Error'... Angel is not making a compositional error here because he is not saying that ALL atheists are like that because some atheists are like that. At best, it could be a hasty generalization on his part, but I wouldn't really say he's even doing that in this case...

Second, even if the remarks of the above mentioned are taken into consideration, and even if Tim the plumber is the King of atheists, their unsupported statements here would also be nothing more than anecdotal evidence (the lowest kind of evidence, remember?). So the fallacy here is giving undue power to the weakest kind of evidence,

Fallacy fallacy. That is not a logical fallacy.

just like religion uses desert dwelling anecdotal evidence to try to support claims that their "god" concept exists.

Compositional Error Fallacy. Circular Argument Fallacy (fundamentalism).

Lastly, this is to show you that anecdotal evidence is frowned upon, no matter if atheists or the religious use them to support their statements. It is not just about the religious people, the same applies to non-religious people also.

True that it is generally a weaker form of evidence, but it is still evidence nonetheless...

Third, I nor any other debater should not work for you in finding the evidence for your statements, that is not how it works. If you want to claim that Tim the Plumber the atheist is in denial about their denial, then You go and find the weakest kind of evidence (the anecdotal one) that shows that Tim the Plumber may have done that. Why should I care to find the evidence here in DP for you, be it if it takes looking at comments made in months or years?

Why should Angel waste his time digging up and providing evidence for someone who seems likely to deny his evidence on sight... Anyone who knows anything about Phenomenology knows that 'reality' is unique to each individual, and that people can make the same observations (and use the same resulting data), yet come up with different evidence from it.

So, if you are interested, you put in the work... If not, then don't...

You may better understand this third analogy if I were to reply: No, Tim the Plumber is not in denial of his denial, and to support this claim of mine you go out there and search for data somewhere within a decade in DP or wherever else he may have made a comment. Would you work to make my statements stronger for me in return for basically nothing?

(hint: Do not answer that, for even then it would just be anecdotal evidence, the weakest kind).

Already addressed above...

 

[Daisy]

I gave up asking Angel for proof of the bible being true a long time ago.

 

[Daisy]

You have never asked me anything directly, little buddy, and never asked me anything about the Bible at any time even indirectly. You are rather shy around me, and you no doubt have good reason to be.

His MO is talking about people in the 3rd person...not directly to them...

 

[gfm7175]

I have given support about it the different between agonstic/gnostic and theist/atheist.

I saw the nonsensical chart you provided... It is impossible to be an agnostic gnostic atheist theist, but the chart you provided claims that it is possible. It argues a paradox.

I have yet to see you supporting your claim,

I have supported it with Logic, of which you continually deny. A paradox is a logical fallacy...

nor have I seen you provide a valid argument against my support,

I already have done so, and I just did so again. Ignoring the existence of an argument does not make that argument go away... It must be countered...

except dismissing 'holy links'.

I dismiss 'holy links' whenever they commit the False Authority Fallacy. Not every link is a 'holy link'...

That is more than a tad arrogant,

Nothing arrogant about it... It is simply following the axioms of Logic...

and also demonstrates that fact of your misuse of vocabulary.

Inversion Fallacy. This is your problem, not mine...

 

[gfm7175]

You throw thing out such as paradox,

Because it IS a paradox...

but it has been shown to you that atheism/theism and agnosticism/Gnosticism are orthogonal concepts.

No, they are not. There is no 'spectrum' involved. One is either certain in their belief or they are not certain. There is no "I 66% believe in God"... There is no "I believe in God and I don't believe in God"... Either you believe something, you don't believe something, or you are undecided about something, hence Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism.

 

[DDD]

Well, the logical fallacies you would be looking for here would be either 'Hasty Generalization' or 'Compositional Error'... Angel is not making a compositional error here because he is not saying that ALL atheists are like that because some atheists are like that. At best, it could be a hasty generalization on his part, but I wouldn't really say he's even doing that in this case...

No, it is a pure case of generalisation about all atheists without any data to support such a statement. This reduces the statement to a mere opinion, much like everyone else's (i.e., child's opinion = Angel's opinion).

#Atheists in Denial

Atheists, atheists of the last 10 years at any rate, are in denial concerning their denial of the existence of God.
In denial of denial.
A curious cultural tic.

Is this the upshot of moral diffidence? Intellectual cowardice? Or part of the general decline of critical thinking?
Nobody knows.

See, it is about all atheists, not a selected few. A pure logical fallacy.

Why should Angel waste his time digging up and providing evidence for someone who seems likely to deny his evidence on sight... Anyone who knows anything about Phenomenology knows that 'reality' is unique to each individual, and that people can make the same observations (and use the same resulting data), yet come up with different evidence from it.

Cause otherwise Angel's comments about "atheists being in denial about their denial" is a mere opinion, not a statement. It takes data to reinforce a statement, and I have no interest to support the position of my debater (i.e., it is their job).

So, if you are interested, you put in the work... If not, then don't...

Nah, I do not care if Angel's position is lowered to a mere opinion or not. Further, for such illogical statements, I hope he never finds data to support his positions for they are bizzare in my view.

 

[RAMOSS]

Because it IS a paradox...


No, they are not. There is no 'spectrum' involved. One is either certain in their belief or they are not certain. There is no "I 66% believe in God"... There is no "I believe in God and I don't believe in God"... Either you believe something, you don't believe something, or you are undecided about something, hence Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism.

IT's only a 'paradox' because you misuse the terminology. That is fraudulent.

 

[gfm7175]

No, it is a pure case of generalisation about all atheists without any data to support such a statement.

It's a generalization based on his observations (where his data derives from). While I think there's enough data elsewhere to make it a reasonably fair generalization, it could also be argued that the generalization was hasty, and I believe that he has since admitted such generalization...

This reduces the statement to a mere opinion, much like everyone else's

No, it's an evidence based statement which resulted from the observations he has made, and the data which he has compiled from those observations.

(i.e., child's opinion = Angel's opinion).

Ad Hominem Fallacy... Compositional Error Fallacy (specifically bigotry).

 

[gfm7175]

IT's only a 'paradox' because you misuse the terminology. That is fraudulent.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy... What is the 'correct' terminology?

 

[soylentgreen]

Who are you, the Grand Inquisitor? Tend your own garden, as Voltaire recommended. And own your own beliefs.

How laughable, a faux outrage because you have nothing else to offer.

 

[Angel]

How laughable, a faux outrage because you have nothing else to offer.

That's not "faux outrage," sir; it's faux courtesy, if it's faux in any sense. But as a matter of fact the only thing "faux" here is your faux atheism. But in all faux fairness, you're not alone in your faux atheism; it's become a pandemic in the last fifteen years.

 

[soylentgreen]

If a theist claims there is evidence but doesn't present it, then it's legitimate to point that out. If they try to convince someone else, that person may ask for evidence. However, if a person believes in God or the FSM and is willing to let others believe whatever they like, then a person would have to be a pathetic, immature assclown to constantly bully and ridicule such people.

I would not disagree, because i do not care at all what anyone believes. What i care about is the argument, reasoning and so called evidence that theists pretend they have. I care about theists trying to enforce their foolish morality by making it a law of the country.

Theists fail to understand that it is not the entity of their imagination that is the concern but the words and actions of those who imagine the entity.

 

[soylentgreen]

Ah, that is where you are entirely mistaken, for I am not a theist. What even gave you that idea?


OM

Again i could not care less what you are. Which at this point would seem to be someone who is desperate to avoid the discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap about being or not being a theist.

And again, i question your definition of atheism would you care to address that or is denying your a theist going to be your continuous way of avoiding it.

 

[gfm7175]

I gave up asking Angel for proof of the bible being true a long time ago.

The Bible cannot be proven true in any way... Religion doesn't make use of proofs... It can only be believed as true on the basis of faith and supporting evidence.

There IS evidence for the truth of The Bible, however... Zyzygy denies the existence of that evidence, as if denial somehow makes that evidence cease to exist. He would be much more reasonable to simply "not be convinced" by said evidence, instead of outright denying its existence...

 

[soylentgreen]

That's not "faux outrage," sir; it's faux courtesy, if it's faux in any sense. But as a matter of fact the only thing "faux" here is your faux atheism. But in all faux fairness, you're not alone in your faux atheism; it's become a pandemic in the last fifteen years.

As it should. The days of living in fear of your imaginary creature are long done.

 

[Daisy]

The Bible cannot be proven true in any way... Religion doesn't make use of proofs... It can only be believed as true on the basis of faith and supporting evidence.

There IS evidence for the truth of The Bible, however... Zyzygy denies the existence of that evidence, as if denial somehow makes that evidence cease to exist. He would be much more reasonable to simply "not be convinced" by said evidence, instead of outright denying its existence...

I agree with that...the 2nd video deals with such a person who argues/denies the truth even after he's being told what the truth is...obstinate to say the least...

 

[Angel]

As it should. The days of living in fear of your imaginary creature are long done.

Sorry to hear about your former life of fear, citizen. Of course fear of an "imaginary creature" is pathological fear. In all faux sincerity I'm glad that's behind you now.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sorry to hear about your former life of fear, citizen. Of course fear of an "imaginary creature" is pathological fear. In all faux sincerity I'm glad that's behind you now.

I understand, you really cannot offer anything other than pointless banter. There is nothing you have offered or will offer that is convincing of a god.

 

[gfm7175]

I would not disagree, because i do not care at all what anyone believes.

I highly doubt that...

What i care about is the argument,

You rarely make non-fallacious arguments...

reasoning

You regularly deny logic...

and so called evidence that theists pretend they have.

Circular Argument Fallacy (fundamentalism)...

Define 'evidence'...

I care about theists trying to enforce their foolish morality by making it a law of the country.

Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically bigotry... Circular Argument Fallacy (fundamentalism)...

Also, you are being quite hypocritical here because ATHEISTS are also trying to enforce THEIR "foolish morality" (subjective terminology) by making it a law of the country (see abortion, see gay marriage, see anything else relating to sex, etc.)... If atheists are allowed to do so, why not theists?

Theists fail to understand that it is not the entity of their imagination that is the concern but the words and actions of those who imagine the entity.

You have opinions on how one ought to act... So does everybody else... This applies to all people.

 

[PoS]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Religion is irreplaceable.
I believe this is what Peterson is saying too.
Namaste.

Youre probably right. I believe that a large segment of the population is hardwired to believe in a deity or leader of some sort- no matter how ridiculous the belief is.

 

[Angel]

I understand, you really cannot offer anything other than pointless banter. There is nothing you have offered or will offer that is convincing of a god.

Did you miss my points? That's just as well. Points spell trouble for faux atheism, as for all bubbles.

 

[Angel]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Youre probably right. I believe that a large segment of the population is hardwired to believe in a deity or leader of some sort- no matter how ridiculous the belief is.

You're probably right about the hardwiring, but the ridiculous has been reserved, as in Theater of the Absurd, for those whose hardwiring is on the fritz.

 

[Omega Man]

Again i could not care less what you are.

Freudian slip? That’s the same as saying you do care what I am (or more precisely, what you think I am).

Which at this point would seem to be someone who is desperate to avoid the discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap about being or not being a theist.

Now you’re projecting, for it is not I who brought up the irrelevance of whether or not I am a theist. Hint: It was you.

And again, i question your definition of atheism.

Atheism = certainty. A belief that there is no God.

would you care to address that or is denying your a theist going to be your continuous way of avoiding it.

I’ve pretty much been consistent with that description, and haven’t avoided it whatsoever. Now, can we dispense with the straw arguments?


OM