Another emotional outburst… calling me a liar because I claim to disagree with some dictionary definition.
Does EVERYONE agree with the definition of a woman as 'an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex. ’
Your claim is like saying: “Anyone who doesn’t agree with this stupid definition is a liar!”
Think please.
Even though I still ANSWERED your Question within the same post, you felt the need to argue that I didnt answer you candidly.
I said:
“Even though I’ve answered you several times: the question is silly!
It’s like asking repeatedly: show me a square circle?”
“There exist no PHYSICAL test, equipment or Objective test to force the spiritual into the physical. Every evidence of the spiritual is SUBJECTIVE to the individual persons Experience!”
Prior to this, I had answered this same question.
The answer:
"It doesn’t dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.
There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being and there exist no physical proof of God because He is not subject to the natural/physical laws. Since there exist no physical proof, then the ball is in your court"
Of course, to you, I was presenting dishonest straw man, implying that objective evidence exists but that I would not accept it, and without presenting anything.
I said objective evidence is not possible for spiritual things, you state the contrary.
There are two ways to make a proof.
The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.
It is your turn to prove that no spirit dimension or deities exist (please don’t forget to recognise that Christians say they are spirits)
In your wisdom, every non objective evidence is a figment of imagination. It just shows how myopic your reasoning is. It looks like you just read a book on Fallacies in Arguments and in every opportunity, whether true or not, you just want to show you’ve been to the library. Keep it up!
Of course, you didn’t create anything: but you didn’t realize that i just modified your quotes and presented it to you!
So, let me see if I understand you correctly….no Xtians would say their god IS a physical being, but it WAS a physical being in the past, correct? If the latter is the case, was that god still not subject to natural/physical laws? All of them? Just some of them? None of them? Only occasionally? If their god did indeed exist in the physical world, can you provide proof for that? Don’t Xtians also think their god currently manipulates the physical world? How is that possible if their god exists outside of it? If their god does manipulate the physical world, shouldn’t there be some way to prove that?
It’s just so confusing! I hope you can help with these questions.
LOL, Absolutely not. You have confused the social construct of gender with biology.
This would be a different thread though./ No need to reply, just know there is debate on the subject of gender identity.
I looked up the word claimant in the dictionary (I used Webster’s) that you intimate should not change (e.g. woman should refer only to biology). You might want to do the same.
Since there is no physical proof, we can rule out prayer, miracles, prophecies, personal experience, and other physical manifestations of your so-called God thing. Without physical evidence for your god claim, your god and non-existence are identical. Thank you for playing, do not pass go, and do not collect $200. All you have done is support the atheist position,.
@X0B35
(Hand waving in the air in the back of the room)
So let me see if I have this correct.
Are you saying that if I was a dog with both male and female genitalia living in 2D, and my master dressed me as a cat and treated me as such, and then I died and millennia later when archaeologists dug up our tomb, they could not possess a lack of belief in my being a non-binary dog and would have to conclude that I was a divine chupacabra which had misidentified itself?
Gee, everything you have posted is starting to make perfect sense now…thanks so much!
.
.
Edit (Andy Devine was not a homophobe)
I didn’t call you any names, and I certainly made no slanderous remarks?
Well that’s an unevidenced subjective claim of course, but if it were valid, then they quite demonstrably would lack theistic belief.
I have made no such claim.
No, your ad hominem assertion had nothing to do with that, here it is again then:
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a statement of fact about a post or claim that you choose to find insulting, and the personal insult of an ad hominem fallacy, but then your posts demonstrate no understanding of informal logic, so this is no great surprise.
I never called you anything, I pointed out that your claim was a lie, here:
Since the definition of atheism I used is not mine, it is the dictionary definition, compiled from common usage, ipso facto your claim was a lie, and what’s more it is you who is using personal opinion alone to define atheism, not me.
No I didn’t call you anything, I pointed your claim the definition was mine, was a lie. It is the dictionary definition, and thus reflects common usage. You do know how dictionaries are compiled don’t you?
I never said everyone, ( see above where I have emboldened “most people”, most is not everyone is it?) and I never brought the definition of woman up at all, you did, do you not know what the word most means, or that dictionary definitions reflect what most people think a word means? Again your anger and frustration because the dictionary doesn’t define a word in a way that reflects what you believe is manifest, but it is also irrelevant to the dictionary definition.
Oh dear…another preposterous lie, I never called you a liar, and I only pointed out you had lied when you falsely claimed the dictionary definition was mine, nor have I called you stupid, so a whole raft of lies in there again.
I never called you a liar, I pointed out your claim that it was “my definition” was a lie, which it of course it was.
You are the one insisting your personal subjective definition is right and the dictionary wrong.
Here then is the dictionary definition of the word atheism.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As I explained, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. Do you know what this fallacy means? I have hyperlinked an explanation for you here again. The burden of proof lies with your claim. I have made no claim.
You don’t simply get to assert this, you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence. I could as easily claim all mermaids are invisible, and cannot be detected by any empirical means, then insist you disprove they exist. Would you really accept this as evidence for mermaids? I think not, thus the bias of your position is as manifest as your irrational repetition of this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You brought your claims here, you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for them, or I will remain disbelieving.
Another lie, I did not make any claims about what is and is not possible for spiritual beings, since I don’t believe they are possible until someone can demonstrate they are. Again existence is defined as what is objectively real. If you can offer nothing approaching objective evidence for your deity, then I don’t believe it is real, why would I?
No it isn’t, since I have not claimed they don’t exist, only that I don’t believe your unevidenced claim they do, and you are again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to try and irrationally reverse the burden of proof.
I started with objective evidence as that is how existence is defined.
Existence noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
If you insist your deity exists outside of your imagination, then demonstrate something to support your claim? FYI you also apply this to all the deities you don’t believe are real, and not just deities either. There is no objective evidence that unicorns exist, one assumes you don’t believe unicorns are real?
Again you are skirting into ad hominem insults, and again you brought your beliefs here to a debate forum. You are the one applying a standard to your deity you don’t to others, so calling me myopic for applying the same standard for belief to all claims is also pretty hilarious.
By all means point out anywhere where I have falsely claimed you have used a common logical fallacy, otherwise this rhetoric is pretty weak.
Ad hominem fallacy, again. Please leave the personal insults alone. If you disagree with a claim or argument then say why.
Your posts are riddled with known fallacies in informal logic.
Pease explain very specifically where Cognostic’s post violated any principle of logic, as I can see none?
You asserted there could be no objective or physical test for your deity, hence as Cognostic pointed out, any claims by theists that a deity intervened in the physical world, miracles and prayers for example, would be false by your own rationale.
It is your claim that is pure rhetoric, as your posts including so many logical fallacies are by defection irrational, and your only response to this fact is to use ad hominem fallacies when they I point it out. Priceless…
Oh dear oh dear, read his post, your questions have zero relevance, and again you have simply posted a knee jerk response that doesn’t seem to understand anything he posted, and simply consists of a string of questions that are straw man fallacies. You really need to read more carefully before responding. If you want to start a thread on gender dysphoria and identity then do so, you introduced the concept merely to challenge the fact that dictionary definitions reflect common usage, and not what you personally want words to mean. just as you did with the word atheism.
Ad hominem again…please stop using petty personal insults.
Good answer, and I would add that even assuming he can do this, then he would need to demonstrate how this remotely evidences any deity, as it strikes me as another god of the gaps polemic, another of the appeals to mystery religious apologetics seem to love.
Also, you might notice I posted that quote to you before, when I made the complaint. So not only did you make the statement you’ve since denied making; you presumably didn’t even read my complaint before you replied to it (as you would have seen that you did in fact say it)!
It should be completely obvious the X0B35 had no understanding of logical discourse at all by this point. One inane assertion after another. Continual attempts to address two different prongs of a dilemma at the same time. It’s like arguing with a 13 year old.
Please explain in there what is immature or unintelligent? It seems to me you have simply evaded a question, because you know the answer does not support the superstitious and unevidenced conclusions you are making. However a more salient question that you can’t answer is why anyone should believe your unevidenced assumptions deities demons and angels are hiding in an unseen dimension? This is pure fantasy on your part, and again you have admitted you have only your own subjective opinion to support this assumption.
Every time he makes a claim, and someone challenges it, he immediately assumes they are making a contrary claim, just as with his erroneous claims about atheism, he doesn’t seem to understand that one can withhold belief from a claim, without making a contrary claim. Though to be fair this is a very common error among many of the religious apologists who come here.
Leaving aside the evidence for this extra dimension, your assertion that deities angles and demons are hiding in there is pure unevidenced assumption. You have admitted yourself you can offer nothing but a bare subjective claim to support it. You might as well be claiming it’s full of unicorns or dragons for all the credence the claim carries.
I am an atheist I don’t think this, I believe what is supported by sufficient objective evidence, if I disbelieve something this does not necessarily mean I making a contrary claim, since this will carry an epistemological burden of proof, that I may not be able to satisfy. Atheism makes no claims, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, though atheists as individuals may of course make claims.
@X0B35, instead of telling atheists what they must think and believe, you’d be better served to listen to them when they explain what they think and believe, sulking or getting angry because the dictionary definition doesn’t match your personal opinion about what a word means is simply asinine.
Lets try a simple test to expose the bias of your claim.
Christian means an irrational clueless bare faced liar. who pretends they are talking to imaginary sky fairies. Now if it’s ok for you decide what atheism means, and ignore the dictionary definition, and what atheists themselves tell you they do and do not believe, then explain why that claim has no validity?
