Did your time debating philosophy encompasse informal logical fallacies?
That’s a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
They claim it supports their belief, but it is as we can see just another appeal to ignorance fallacy.
A demonstrably false claim, the threads of this forum, and the earlier one are littered with atheists addressing such vapid claims in exhaustive detail.
Atheism is neither a belief nor a claim, it needs no support, you are again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
A very common misconception among theists who come here.
Belief noun
1.an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Note the word especially, I’ve emboldened it to emphasise your error, as beliefs can be and often and are based on knowledge. They can also be based on vapid unevidenced superstition like theism.
Priceless.
Deriding stupid irrational rhetoric, doesn’t negate thinking about it. You are simply letting your ego get in the way. Most of the atheists regulars here have always been happy to be corrected on an error, or admit if they lack knowledge in any field.
The theists who come here are far more strident and arrogant in their views.
A demonstrably false claim, and again this forum is littered with atheists explaining they don’t believe or claim any such thing. You could also consult a dictionary.
I’m crushed…seriously your strident ego is not knowledge, or intelligence. And the fact you can’t even understand a basic word definition speaks for itself.
Atheism is just the absence or lack of belief in any deity or deities.
The problem arises from your stubborn ignorance of that fact. Atheists and atheism are not the same thing. I’m an atheist, Stalin was an atheist, and that’s pretty much where we part company on just about everything.
Almost as if I have a mind of my own, and atheism has no dogma or doctrine to decide how I think.
Really? That’s news to me. Define your idea of good and evil
Good- everything that creates happiness, satisfaction, feeling of being respected, loved without unfair loss to anyone or without injustice or crime, or without creation of anything evil.
Evil- everything that create dissatisfaction, feeling of being disrespected, hated, with unfair loss to anyone or with injustice or crime.
That’s quick definitions from me without much thinking.
I’d say the opposite of true was false. The best I could say of those words you’ve used, is they’re synonyms of false.
No offense intended, but this typifies your use of language. You don’t seem careful or accurate enough, and in some cases your definitions are demonstrably at odds with the dictionary, and when this is pointed out, you offer strident subjective opinion, that’s when you bother to acknowledge the fact at all.
We also seem to have had a few posters of this lik on here lately, all claiming to be agnostics, and in every case misrepresenting the dictionary definitions of both agnosticism and atheism. Neither of which are created by anyone here, but by common usage, and therefore commonly understood meaning.
So you are using an adpopulaum fallacy and attributing it to believers. Another reason your post is vapid.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ATHEIST AND THEISTS.
They are all human beings. That about sums it up… Okay lets hear this… ahemmm… withholding judgment…
Theism is belief in God. NOT GOD CLAIMS. There are 30 thoursand Christian sects out there all making different god claims. Right off the bat, first sentence, you have dug a hole. Now… how deep are you going to go???
!A. [quote=“Phoenix101, post:15, topic:985”]
Theists have support to believe in God and that support is miracles, mysterious occurrences and supernaturals and personal experience also
[/quote]
Awwwwwwww Fuck me… We have already hit rock bottom. If there was fucking support for the existence of a God, we would all fucking believe in the same god. GOD IS A NON-FALSIFIABLE CLAIM. What is a mysterious occurance “I don’t fucking know… it’s a mystery until someone explains it.” Explaining one mystery (An event) with a greater mystery (A god) is fucking batshit crazy. I swear you can not dig this hole any deeper. You call this shit clarification?
1C.
Wrong again banana breath. Pull that fucking stick out of your ass so you can hear better. Atheists do not IGNORE IT. Atheists ask for evidence. Obviously the theist believes something happened. What is the explanation and how can we find out. Given that we can not “find out” due to a complete lack of evidence, the best response to anything mysterious is “I DON’T FUCKING KNOW.” and not “GOD DONE IT.” You don’t get to insert a god into a gap of knowledge. God is not even a possibility until you can demonstrate it is a possibility. It can not even be considered without evidence.
1D
AND HERE IN LIES YOUR PROBLEM: You haven’t got a fucking clue what “BELIEF” is. Basic set theory, Knowledge is a subset of Belief. I have already told you that.
Knowledge never stops being belief unless it is knowledge that you do not know about or reject for some religious reason, like evolution. (You can lest the frigging theists to knowledge but you can’t make them think.) Look dimwit, I drew you an introductory to philosophy picture and colored it pretty for you. Does this fucking hole have an end???
!.E. Opinions are like assholes, we all have them and they all stink. Yours are particularly rancid as you freely admit they are based on absolutely squat. Its a FUCKING MIRICLE I have reached the end of #1. I am expecting the rest of ;your shit to simply be a repeat of the same bullshit you have already said.
2A. Please point towards the possibility of God, spirit, supernatural … NO ONE IS FUCKING IGNORING ANYTHING. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. You have stories. That is all. I have a psych ward full of people with stories. You want to meet people who talk to God, who have been to heaven, who commune with evil spirits, who have daily conversations with Jesus himself? I can arrange it for you. Your fucking claims mean absolutely squat without valid, verifiable evidence. You have nothing.
2B. I could care less what theists believe. People believe in UFOs. I can introduce you to people who have been abducted by aliens, who have seen monsters, who have magical ESP powers that somehow don’t work in Las Vegas. Hell I can introduce you to Jesus himself. I know at least 4 of them. The Russian Jesus, The Australian Jesus, The Korean Jesus, and the Puerto Rican Jesus. I am sure there are more. These guys are real and they are out there. Oh… There is a Japanese Jesus too. All you got to do is google them. And they are all REAL!
LIKE I SAID, SAME OLD SHIT AS ABOVE. YOU WANT A HANKY TO CRY IN. Man up and show your fucking evidence of fuck off. Your assertions are as lame as this post.
You don’t understand my reply in any point. You are that fucking dense.
Not true at all. Atheists can believe in NDE, possession, souls, etc… AND STILL BE FUCKING ATHEISTS. Atheists are people who do not believe in GODS. Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? Atheists can believe in reincarnation, chakras, magic, and all sorts of woo woo. You are confusing Atheism with skepticism now. A-theist: A person who does not believe in God.
Already responded to in #4. You don’t have a fucking clue what Atheism is.
Oh Fuck, I am so sick of the utter and complete stupidity of this post; however, I am so close to the end now that I am going to try to push on. YOU WOULD NOT KNOW A FUCKING FALLACIOUS INCONSISTANCY IF IT JUMPED UP AND BIT YOU IN THIE ASS.
This post proves it.
And you are WRONG. How many atheists need to tell you that you have your head up your ass before you question what that brown stuff is on your nose?
7B. What in the fuck do you think points towards the existence of a god? So far all you have even aluded to is a God of the gaps fallacy.
7c. Intelligent design? Demonstrate the universe was designed. What in the fuck is intelligent about crib death, disease, or ignorant fucks who visit atheist sites professing to know something about God?
I’ll be sure to let Socrates, Mozart, Einstein, Empedocles, Nikola Tesla, Michelangelo, Lord Byron, Pythagoras, and the resto of the ignorant pieces of shit who the world tags as creative , know that they are not actually creative. “To be creative you need to contained, balanced and behave like a knowledgeable people,” FUCK DID YOU MISS THE BOAT ON THIS ONE.
The best thing about your post is that someone else is going to read it and get a good laugh our of the comments following it. If life is a box of chocolates, yours have apparently been sitting in the sun too long and have long since melted away.
As I keep telling people here who repeatedly fail to understand this, atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT. It doesn’t involve presenting any assertions of its own, it simply consists of the proper discoursive practice of refusing to treat unsupported mythology fanboy assertions uncritically as fact. As a corollary, it is the antithesis of “belief”.
Moving on …
This remains to be seen …
Wrong. For many reasons.
Including, but not limited to:
[1] We don’t think mythological assertions dictate how reality behaves, and can point to several million peer reviewed scientific papers backing up our suspicion in this regard;
[2] We don’t think apologetic fabrications count for more than evidentially supported postulates, unlike mythology fanboys;
[3] We understand that regurgitation of unsupported mythological assertions doesn’t count as “evidence” for those assertions.
I suspect the regulars here can add numerous entries to the above list, but in the interest of brevity, I’ll move on …
Oh, you mean taking account of observational data? You’ll be the first mythology fanboy to do this. All too many of your ilk reject observational data, when it fails to support mythological assertions …
Oh this is going to be good … a mythology fanboy pretending to be “scientific”. Several of us have seen this comedy spectacle before, in case you’re wondering …
Contratulations on displaying some self-awareness.
However, your apologetic attempt to project the above on us is going to end badly.
Oooh, gearing up for an ad hominem are we?
No. See my opening sentence in this post.
Crap. See my opening sentence in this post.
Oh, and your attempt to project the mythology fanboy modus operandi on us fails for several reasons, among these being:
[1] We bring facts to the table;
[2] We don’t have to resort to caricature and misrepresentation to point out the absurdity and iniquity endemic to mythological assertions, or the apologetics fabricated as a pretence of “evidential support” for said assertions, whereas we’ve seen plenty of mythology fanboys resort to deliberate and infantile caricature and misrepresentation of scientific postulates (creationists alone have dumped a truckload of these here and on other rationalist forums in the past);
[3] We don’t have to resort to cheap ad hominem to point out the manifest and observable failings of mythology fanboyism, we simply have to point to the requisite observational data. On the other hand, mythology fanboys routinely turn up here, accusing those of us who paid attention in class, of possessing a whole range of purported cognitive and ethical defects, just because we don’t treat unsupported mythological assertions as fact;
[4] Several of us here have entertained ideas that many mythology fanboys are clearly incapable of even fantasising about, and demonstrate in their output that they wouldn’t understand if they exercised the effort to learn about them;
[5] I and others here recognised long ago, that ideas are discardable entities, and that as a corollary, you are not your ideas. Unfortunately, mythology fanboys have been mistaught to treat certain ideas as “sacred” and beyond question, and as a corollary, regard any critique thereof as a personal attack. On the other hand I and others here will change our minds in a flash, if proper evidence is presented requiring us to do this.
Moving on …
Your fake “symmetry” here is precisely that - fake.
One reason being that a central principle of proper discourse, is that whoever presents an assertion is required to support it. The rest of us are obliged to do nothing other than sit back and watch the individual in question fail or succeed.
Furthermore, referring to [4] above in my previous list, I’m on public record as welcoming genuine evidence for a god type entity, on the grounds that said evidence will almost surely falsify all of our pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke. I don’t assert that a god type entity of some sort doesn’t exist, I merely point out that the cartoon magic men presented as purported candidates for the role in various mythologies are incompetent to occupy said role.
Ah, it’s specious quote time again, another favourite mythology fanboy pastime.
The full text of what quote correctly reads:
So already Bohr was preparing the ground with more rigour than is typically present in the output of mythology fanboys. Though of course examples tend to be conspicuously absent as illustration, which is a frequently encountered problem with pithy aphorisms, and the above quote, while sounding suitably sophisticated, neglects to take into account one impotant fact, namely that even difficult problems eventually submit to sufficient diligent analysis.
One recent example is neatly illustrative, centring upon complexity classes in computer science. There are two complexity classes of interest that are apposite here, namely P, the set of problems that can be solved by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time, and NP, the set of problems that can be solved by a nondeterministic Turing machine in polynomial time. Now, one hypothesis that was proposed in the past, was that the two sets were identical (i.e, P = NP). But when this hypothesis was proposed, it was recognised that proof thereof would be difficult to put it mildly. However, the negation thereof, P≠NP, was also initially seen to be potentially valid.
However, the two have interesting, but different, consequences, for the pursuit of computer science. P=NP would revolutionise cryptography, by providing clues to the solution of problems therein currently considered “hard problems”, while P≠NP would provide a formal basis for the recognition of specific problems as requiring new tools to conquer them. In that sense, in the absence of a proof either way, P=NP and P≠NP constitute an example that might fit into Bohr’s aphorism above.
But the moment a suitably talented mathematician provides a proof of either of the above two statements, we’re no long in the realm of “profound truth”, but the distinction between correct and false statements. That’s the point said aphorism misses completely.
I suspect I may be called upon to deal with more canards in the near future …
I read that first line, understood that this was a lame argument beginning with an incorrect definition of what an atheist is. And I did not read anymore of the OP.
@Phoenix101 I am an atheist, and I define myself that way not because I deny a god or gods, I have have not been convince done exists.
Sheesh, any argument fails when the beginning proposition is an obvious misrepresentation.
IMO a great majority of atheists came to the conclusion that they were not convinced a god existed because they exercised their brains and rational skepticism.
But I can not accept that statement because it implies ALL atheists. Some are ignorant dumbasses.
without thinking.