OK, so you aren’t serious. Thank you, that is useful information.
2 Likes
So are you saying you meant credibility to apply to atheism or atheists? Only your rather petulant denial would have more gravitas if your original claim made any sense, which of course it patently does not.
Ah, then it makes no sense at all, so it wasn’t poorly written, just idiotically conceived. My apologies then. That you don’t see the difference between atheism and atheists as it pertains to the claim is now clear, baffling perhaps, but clear.
Can I just say I shudder at the notion that any credibility I might desire were dependant on any of @Lucifer’s ideas expressed here, as I might as well go and put on my curly purple wig, red nose and big red floppy shoes right fucking now.
You do know I am an atheist right? My objection was to your ludicrous hyperbole, and sweeping claims, I was in no way making any argument for any deity.
No I was referring to your endless use of that fallacy, here then is an example:
There you go. Though I think again the silly use of credibility is down to your poor grasp of language, and your penchant for hyperbole. However it is clear that to assert theism is untrue because it has not been proved or demonstrated to be so is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Atheism on the other hand is merely and solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and so does not involve any claim per se.
No no, we just don’t understand what he’s saying, because we lack comprehension. To be fair i am struggling to comprehend what he means there, but I suspect it has more to do with your explanation than his.
That is not remotely a scientific fact, there are in fact two competing theories in Physics, Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newton’s theories on gravity. When Einstein’s theory improved science’s understanding of gravity, Newton’s theory wasn’t abandoned or discarded was it? This is another example of your ludicrous hyperbole I have tried to caution you against. Any theists with even a basic understanding of science and its methods would tear you a new one there.
Nonsense, this is both a false dichotomy fallacy, since we can’t know we are limited to just two choices, and it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy since a belief or claim is not lent any credence by the absence of an alternative.
It is a fundamental principle of logic, that nothing can be asserted as rational if it uses a known logical fallacy. You used used two common logical fallacies there. Again any passing theists who understood what you clearly don’t here, would have a field day tearing your absurd hyperbole appart.
2 Likes
Frankly, I thought cat herding was a myth. I would love to see his documents.
2 Likes
Ewwww… The Doyl Fallacy… I’ve never actually seen a real person try and use it. Are you a Bot?
It is the answer! Your sure of that. (Dude, you know way too much to survive on this site.)
1 Like
Gain credibility from whom, about what? Atheism doesn’t make any claims, or assertions, it has no doctrine or dogma, and involves no beliefs?
Atheists of course do, that seems to be a fundamental difference that is one more thing you are unable to understand. You seem to be acting on pure ego here, the hubris is manifest in your posturing, and your overt displays of (albeit misplaced) intellectual superiority. If you pat yourself on the back any harder you might injure yourself.
2 Likes
That occurred to me at one point yesterday I must say. More in hope than expectation of course.
1 Like
Three. There are three competing theories in physics. Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics (of which there are two variants, special and general relativity), and quantum mechanics. They are used each in their own domains, but Newtonian physics is a special case of both quantum mechanics (QM: molecular, atomic, and subatomic masses; Newton: masses of “everyday” size) and of relativity (relativity: high velocities and/or large masses and/or large distances, as well as for extreme precision; Newton: low velocities and intermediate masses and astrophysically moderate distances). QM and special relativity can also be combined into quantum electrodynamics (QED). But general relativity is not quantifiable. This is, of course, only a simplified overview.
5 Likes
I stand corrected, but not as corrected as Lucy, clearly. 
I will take your word for it… 
1 Like
aha! Is that the Holmesian fallacy you mean old fruit? I have never heard it called the Doyle fallacy…I have heard it as the Sherlock Holmes fallacy tho’.
" is a logical fallacy that occurs when some explanation is believed to be true on the basis that alternate explanations are impossible, yet not all alternate explanations have been ruled out.
The fallacy is an appeal to omniscience and an informal fallacy"
Am I right? Is it the Doyle fallacy in the US?
Lucy’s use of fallacious arguments is mind numbingly boring, and the arrogance with which they are delivered puerile and again…oh, Captain Cat just fell off me lap after viewing his latest rantings…its ok he was just bored and fully asleep…
2 Likes
Say hi to Captain Cat.
1 Like
Yes, Doyle. Sherlock, those are both common names. I’ve not heard the expression ‘old fruit.’ (I know 'Forbidden Fruit, Low Having Fruit, and Cherry Picking.) Any of those match up. Anyway… the response is yes. Just because an answer is the only remaining answer, does not give it any additional validity. It still needs to be demonstrated. This is true even if it is the best possible answer we could possibly think of at any point in time. Without the evidence backing it… we must claim… “I don’t know.” or just be honest and say, ‘This is the best answer we have at the time, but more evidence is needed?’ LOL - as I wrote that last line, the conclusion of most science studies raced through my mind. Isn’t this how most of them end?
2 Likes
Noun old fruit ( plural old fruits ) ( Britain, slang, dated, sometimes as a term of address) An old friend; an old chap.
It is very dated but then…so am !!
Note that calling somebody just a ‘fruit’ has an entirely different meaning and would or should get you banned from here in a trice.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t even chance ‘Old Fruit’ in the USA. The morality police are always looking for someone to yell at.
It was explained that Doyle actually believed, and used this fallacy. He was a bit of a fruitcake. It was called Doyle’s fallacy due to his own eccentric belief in fairies. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the mastermind behind the most famous and rational detective ever, had an extraordinary fascination for the spiritist world.
Doyle was very lucky and died with the firm belief that the Cottingley fairies were real.
Here is an example of Doyle’s logic as he shifts the burden of proof onto science to disprove his delusions.
There is nothing scientifically impossible, so far as I can see, in some people seeing things that are invisible to others. Victorian science would have left the world hard and clean and bare, like a landscape in the moon. One or two consequences are obvious. The experiences of children will be taken more seriously. Cameras will be forthcoming. Other well- authenticated cases will come along. These little folk who appear to be our neighbors, with only some small difference of vibration to separate us, will become familiar. Um… Yeah, sure! I’m not convinced.
1 Like
I think your problem here is that you accept bots are more intelligent than you (which I guess they are).
Not playing with the kiddies any more. Try to come up with something that doesn’t make you look dumb (but try it on someone else).
1 Like
What a great put down. Wow! That really put Sheldon in his place. I mean, you could have told him that everyone who ever loved him was wrong. You could have told him that you lost your box of crayons and so have no way to explain things to him. You might have told him that his birth certificate was an apology letter from the condom factory. But no… you went ‘dumb.’ That’s just ‘DUMB,’ and not very entertaining. This is after all a public forum. Your lack of imagination obviously does not extend into your ability to fling insults. I am sure you are wasting your time on this site and depriving some needy village of an idiot.
3 Likes
Congrats on yet another stupid comment.
Doyle (not Doyl). However, I’ll give you one tick. I should have made it specific to abiogenesis. Please feel free to list some other possible theories for life on earth (which are not based on fantasy, delusion or the type of story anyone could sit down and make up in half an hour like for example Deism).
Yes I imagine most bots today could kick your ass.
Stopped playing with you. You’re just too dumb.
Yes, way to go to prove you are still as dumb as your answers. Was that supposed to mean anything? If it was, it didn’t, other that your level of irational thought and deranged comment leads me to conclude, you need help.
It is truly amazing you would admit a “village idiot” can defeat you every time. Unless of course you can demonstrate anything you have said has defeated me.
As for insults, apparently your memory is so pathetically poor, you can’t recall you were the first to turn to insults.
But, let me prove to you who is the actual village idiot by ceasing to respond to your deranged ramblings. You’ve proved you have nothing to offer and I accpet it.