Yes we all saw this lie the first dozen times, though it’s especially funny now, as you won’t be responding to anyone for a while champ. FYI pointing out that a post or claim is duplicitous, with unequivocal evidence, is not a personal attack. Maybe you could learn the difference during your second enforced sabbatical for trolling? Though after these months of explaining it to you I wouldn’t bet the farm on that.
Ironically of course your post doesn’t address any of my arguments or post content, and is by definition an ad hominem fallacy. As I said perhaps your enforced time out is fortuitous, and you can use the time to understand the difference between highlighting mendacity in a post, and posting a fallacious and purely personal attack, like the one you posted there?
Lots of luck, his last 6 month break yielded no epiphany by him on that front, as his arguments are still as relentlessly irrational now as they were on his first visit.
Well this lists HERE is all he will need, and few days will be more than enough to avoid his endless use of such fallacies. Again I wouldn’t bet the farm on his arguments being substantially less irrational though, but we live in hope, even us atheists.
Whilst i’m not a fan of people being banned, cancelled etc… especially with others possibly saying similar or worse to him… i’m fairly sure the conversations would make no progress anyways.
I lost count of how many times i was asked questions regarding positions i did not take and then the blatent dodging of questions thrown back.
Its staggering that apologist after apologist that has come passing by cannot answer very basic questions.
It also amazes me how they claim they care about truth then happily to use logical fallacies and ignore us when called out on it. Then he turns around and insults us. He’s knows he’s wrong, but he hasn’t found a youtube video yet to tell him how to react to this.
I do feel we need to be careful though, the whole banning people is not really productive in my opinion, it stifles conversation (even if they’re talking utter bollocks).
For me, its not something I’d do unless someone massively crossed a line or was being outrageously disruptive.
It makes us all look thin skinned and that is not me in the slightest.
It is remarks like this that lead to me view this site anyway, as primarily anti-theist rather than simply “not hold a belief in God”.
This forum seems to be dominated by a small number of people, regular participants but a small group.
There’s a general poor understanding shown of philosophy and science, much of what is said is pretty superficial and predictable and shows little open mindedness.
The past few weeks I’ve seen purportedly educated people say things like something can come from nothing, the presence of laws can be scientifically explained without recourse to other laws, I’m confident there’s no evidence for God but I don’t know what evidence would look like if there was any, science reveals reality, we can’t prove the gospels false but will behave as if we can, there’s no evidence for the supernatural because we know only the natural exists and we know that because there’s no evidence for the supernatural, science can answer philosophical questions, the only relevant questions are scientific questions and on and on and on.
Ironically this is a straw man fallacy. This site is simply a medium for debate, and the atheists here regard religions in ways as different as their experiences of it, what we share is the lack of belief in any deity.
Ironically in response to @TheMagus assertion you make irrational claims, then when they are pointed out you insult us, you made an irrational claim, then insulted us? Just bizarre…
Straw man fallacy, and of course not being able to prove something false doesn’t mean it isn’t, and that claim would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Straw man fallacy, I am dubious a single poster here has claimed “only the natural exists”. I won’t say it is a lie, unless you repeat it without providing an example.
Straw man fallacy, again I don’t believe anyone has said this. if you repeat it without an example then I will be calling it a porky pie,
That’s a lie, you just can’t help yourself can you. Should we be surprised you failed to address the facts of the post, and resorted to petty duplicitous insult.
You literally said, [quote]"We can see too from observation that the universe had a beginning, winding the clock back to the initial “big bang”. [/quote]
I’d go careful trying to the moral high ground here.
And you was asked very simply, can you prove that god had any direct influence on scripture and if a god can interact with the natural world, demonstrate and evidence that claim.
There is no need to, your duplicity is on display for anyone to see. Whilst I have no truck with dishonesty, your misrepresentation was and is a dishonest lie, and it is there for all to see, all they need do is read the discourse form the start to see I only mention duplicity when it is plainly evident in the post.
I’m not against anybody. You are deflecting again. I called you out on using logical fallacies and mocking us so this makes me anti-theist?
This is funny. I don’t think you have truly studied any of these in depth. You keep referring to ancient philosophical debates, yet you don’t know which philosophers were involved or the general outcome. You make scientific and epistemological statements that make no sense. Don’t project your ignorance on us.
You: This thing is evidence.
Me: You are using logical fallacies to claim something is evidence, therefore, that thing isn’t evidence.
You: Ignores this and claims it is evidence anyway.
What am I missing here?
I just don’t think you understand how evidence works. You can’t prove unfalsifiable things false. You can never prove that Bob didn’t see the flying spaghetti monster. You can find problems with any holy book, but you can never prove that the invisible stuff isn’t real. This is why telling people about contradictions is largely irrelevant. If they already believe in a bunch of invisible things, it’s easy to excuse away any contradictions. Mathew made up a number of prophecies and just said that Jesus fulfilled them. Matthew 2:22-23 said that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. However, there is no mention of this in the old testament whatsoever. The word Nazareth or Nazarene isn’t there. Does this prove that Jesus didn’t have super powers? No. There is no way of proving the gospels “false” just like there is no way to prove any holy book false. This is the kind of intellectually dishonest tactics that theists use to try to convince uneducated people to join.
You didn’t come up with the idea of god yourself. How did someone convince you it was real? It is easy to make things up which is what we assume people did if they don’t have evidence for their claims.
Very well, lets start again you and I and see at which point we begin to diverge, do you want to state your opening position or shall I? the theme is evidence and falsifiability and proof so on, yes?
