Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why atheist and not agnostic?

Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is actually a very good question and I've heard it brought up before. Here's my justification for being an atheist and not an agnostic.

I do not claim to know everything, so I cannot say that I know that God does no exist. However, the likelihood that God exists as people describe him is so infinitesimal that I do not believe that it deserves to influence my beliefs.

Look at it this way. It is obvious that the idea of God and the root of all religions comes from early humans' need to explain the world around them. It is also very obvious that all of the religious stories and holy books were written by humans, who made human mistakes and inconsistencies in their writings. So providing that one acknowledges that none of what religion teaches was influenced by God, and was rather the creation of humans, then the chances that those humans JUST SO HAPPENED to describe God exactly as he exists without actually knowing of him are so small that I feel that they border on the nonexistent.

So perhaps you could call me an atheist minus 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 10:35:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, hello topic just below me, didn't see you there. Well don't I feel silly.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:10:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I do not claim to know everything, so I cannot say that I know that God does no exist.

Doesn't matter. You're an atheist so long as you don't believe he exists.

So perhaps you could call me an atheist minus 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

No, you're just an atheist.

You may fall a smidgeon short of being a gnostic strong atheist, but you are definitely an atheist.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:46:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:10:43 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I do not claim to know everything, so I cannot say that I know that God does no exist.

Doesn't matter. You're an atheist so long as you don't believe he exists.


So perhaps you could call me an atheist minus 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

No, you're just an atheist.

You may fall a smidgeon short of being a gnostic strong atheist, but you are definitely an atheist.

Ok, but the point of this was to explain to religious people why a person could choose to be an atheist and not an agnostic. I actually consider myself a strong atheist, because there is no fvcking way that God exists. However, I still cannot claim to know everything. Do you get what I'm saying? No atheist could possibly be 100 percent sure, but they can be sure to the point where the remaining doubt is not worth considering.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:10:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:10:43 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I do not claim to know everything, so I cannot say that I know that God does no exist.

Doesn't matter. You're an atheist so long as you don't believe he exists.


So perhaps you could call me an atheist minus 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

No, you're just an atheist.

You may fall a smidgeon short of being a gnostic strong atheist, but you are definitely an atheist.

I think he's answering the question of why be a non-agnostic atheist as opposed to an agnostic atheist.

I think it has to do with how "strict" we are taking our agnosticism which has to do with how "strict" we are making our knowledge, specifically with regards to justification.

If you want to place requirements on justification such that it is logically impossible to achieve (regarding God), then we're all agnostics and the label is moot except to have an academic discussion about whether or not it's appropriate to label knowledge and agnosticism in such a manner.

If you want to player requirements on justification such that it is practically impossible to achieve (regarding God), then we're all agnostics and the label is moot except to have an academic discussion about whether or not we can breech that barrier of practicality.

If you don't believe the label is completely and utterly useless outside such academic discussions, then you must concede that it is practically and logically possible to attain such justification (regarding God), then we can have practical discussions about what constitutes such justification and how it was achieved.

Regarding this latter position - which I think is most reasonable - I agree with the OP, in the sense that, even for gods which remain in the realm of logical and physical possibility, the liklihood is so small as not to be considered by any rational being. Hence non-agnosticism instead of agnosticism.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:32:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't it quite a stretch to make claims that it's unlikely there is any kind of God, when we have no knowledge of how life came into being?

In other words, there is a problem we can't solve yet, but one possible explanation isn't considered.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:44:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:32:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Isn't it quite a stretch to make claims that it's unlikely there is any kind of God, when we have no knowledge of how life came into being?

Nope.


In other words, there is a problem we can't solve yet, but one possible explanation isn't considered.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 12:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm the same way. My personal philosophy on it is that I cannot be 100% sure of anything, not even that I'm not 100% sure of anything, but if there's a high enough probability or improbablity of something then chances are it's true or false, respectively. So I can't 100% know God doesn't exist, but I believe he doesn't.
My legend begins in the 12th century
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 12:25:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:32:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Isn't it quite a stretch to make claims that it's unlikely there is any kind of God, when we have no knowledge of how life came into being?

No more of a stretch than saying a man who lives in the sky created life when we have no knowledge of how life came into being.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:32:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Isn't it quite a stretch to make claims that it's unlikely there is any kind of God, when we have no knowledge of how life came into being?

In other words, there is a problem we can't solve yet, but one possible explanation isn't considered.

But if people already made up the very concept of a god without evidence, what are the odds that they were right? Isn't it more likely that the answer is something else that we have not considered yet?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Look at it this way. It is obvious that the idea of God and the root of all religions comes from early humans' need to explain the world around them.
Genetic fallacy Ma'am.

It is also very obvious that all of the religious stories and holy books were written by humans, who made human mistakes and inconsistencies in their writings
Nah. What's obviously mind-rotting is your writing, not all the holy books.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:06:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Look at it this way. It is obvious that the idea of God and the root of all religions comes from early humans' need to explain the world around them.
Genetic fallacy Ma'am.

The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also very obvious that all of the religious stories and holy books were written by humans, who made human mistakes and inconsistencies in their writings

Nah. What's obviously mind-rotting is your writing, not all the holy books.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically. This means you were not able to handle it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:32:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is actually a very good question and I've heard it brought up before. Here's my justification for being an atheist and not an agnostic.

I do not claim to know everything, so I cannot say that I know that God does no exist. However, the likelihood that God exists as people describe him is so infinitesimal that I do not believe that it deserves to influence my beliefs.

Look at it this way. It is obvious that the idea of God and the root of all religions comes from early humans' need to explain the world around them. It is also very obvious that all of the religious stories and holy books were written by humans, who made human mistakes and inconsistencies in their writings. So providing that one acknowledges that none of what religion teaches was influenced by God, and was rather the creation of humans, then the chances that those humans JUST SO HAPPENED to describe God exactly as he exists without actually knowing of him are so small that I feel that they border on the nonexistent.

So perhaps you could call me an atheist minus 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Thus making you an agnostic-atheist!

And for the BILLIONTH time: agnostic and atheist are NOT mutually exclusive terms!

Why have apprehension one way or the other? If you know that any specific God does not exist then why can't you be a gnostic-atheist? Is there a possibility for there to be God that you don't know about? Sure...but you DON'T know about him!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.
It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.
I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

This means you were not able to handle it.
I pointed out a logical fallacy. It invalidates the argument I attacked. Comprehend things better sir.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:40:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.
It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.
I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

This means you were not able to handle it.
I pointed out a logical fallacy. It invalidates the argument I attacked. Comprehend things better sir.
My how well your "poor" internet connection works, Ma'am!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:06:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Look at it this way. It is obvious that the idea of God and the root of all religions comes from early humans' need to explain the world around them.
Genetic fallacy Ma'am.


Ok. But what i said still makes sense. There is plenty of evidence for this.

It is also very obvious that all of the religious stories and holy books were written by humans, who made human mistakes and inconsistencies in their writings
Nah. What's obviously mind-rotting is your writing, not all the holy books.

Ha, you're really going with the "he puts one of your's in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue" approach to comebacks. Where did you get mind-rotting from? Something can have mistakes in it and not be mind-rotting. It's just clear from the way that holy books are written that they come from a human perspective and their knowledge of how the universe functions ends with the ability of humans to comprehend things.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:00:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:32:32 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/9/2012 10:33:24 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is actually a very good question and I've heard it brought up before. Here's my justification for being an atheist and not an agnostic.

I do not claim to know everything, so I cannot say that I know that God does no exist. However, the likelihood that God exists as people describe him is so infinitesimal that I do not believe that it deserves to influence my beliefs.

Look at it this way. It is obvious that the idea of God and the root of all religions comes from early humans' need to explain the world around them. It is also very obvious that all of the religious stories and holy books were written by humans, who made human mistakes and inconsistencies in their writings. So providing that one acknowledges that none of what religion teaches was influenced by God, and was rather the creation of humans, then the chances that those humans JUST SO HAPPENED to describe God exactly as he exists without actually knowing of him are so small that I feel that they border on the nonexistent.

So perhaps you could call me an atheist minus 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Thus making you an agnostic-atheist!

And for the BILLIONTH time: agnostic and atheist are NOT mutually exclusive terms!

Why have apprehension one way or the other? If you know that any specific God does not exist then why can't you be a gnostic-atheist? Is there a possibility for there to be God that you don't know about? Sure...but you DON'T know about him!

As I said in a previous post, I'm actually a strong atheist, but not even the strongest atheist in the world can be 100 percent sure. I think that last sentence was misleading. It's not just me who is sure except for a tiny chance, it is every atheist. You shouldn't have to factor in such a small chance that God exists, but if we're being completely honest, everyone has to admit that there is no way to be ABSOLUETLY sure. But you can be pretty damn close.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.

Or The koran which is a rip-off of a rip-off, of a rip-off.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:08:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:00:12 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:32:32 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Thus making you an agnostic-atheist!

And for the BILLIONTH time: agnostic and atheist are NOT mutually exclusive terms!

Why have apprehension one way or the other? If you know that any specific God does not exist then why can't you be a gnostic-atheist? Is there a possibility for there to be God that you don't know about? Sure...but you DON'T know about him!
As I said in a previous post, I'm actually a strong atheist, but not even the strongest atheist in the world can be 100 percent sure.
Sure they can! Just like a gnostic-theist can be 100% sure.

I think that last sentence was misleading. It's not just me who is sure except for a tiny chance, it is every atheist.
I'd presume to speak for myself on this one if I were you.

You shouldn't have to factor in such a small chance that God exists, but if we're being completely honest, everyone has to admit that there is no way to be ABSOLUETLY sure. But you can be pretty damn close.
Again, one can say that one is 100% that no gods (conceptions) that one has ever encountered exist. You can speculate about those that you never heard of but then that's speculation either way.

If the only possibility lies in the fact that a god defined in such a way as to not contain a logical contradiction then that certainly falls short of what any god should be!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:11:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:54:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Ok. But what i said still makes sense. There is plenty of evidence for this.
Irrelevant. You committed a fallacy, and your argument is rubbish.

Ha, you're really going with the "he puts one of your's in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue" approach to comebacks. Where did you get mind-rotting from? Something can have mistakes in it and not be mind-rotting.
Mind-rotting... Clearly I wrote that because someone's mind actually rots from reading anything. Take a language lesson.

It's just clear from the way that holy books are written that they come from a human perspective and their knowledge of how the universe functions ends with the ability of humans to comprehend things.
Not all holy books. Understand? I made that clear to you.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:13:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.
Your writing style is horrendous. Wait until I am back to my country of residence, and we'll have a little formal debate Ma'am. Adios until then.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:15:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:13:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.

Your writing style is horrendous. Wait until I am back to my country of residence, and we'll have a little formal debate Ma'am. Adios until then.

(Red Herring fallacy)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:20:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:15:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:13:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.

Your writing style is horrendous. Wait until I am back to my country of residence, and we'll have a little formal debate Ma'am. Adios until then.

(Red Herring fallacy)
A logical fallacy is committed when you use it to refute an argument. I commented on your writing style not to refute your argument, but to evade further discussion. Nonetheless, wait for a little while sir, and we'll find out of the Quran is a rip-off and whatnot.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:27:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:20:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:15:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:13:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.

Your writing style is horrendous. Wait until I am back to my country of residence, and we'll have a little formal debate Ma'am. Adios until then.

(Red Herring fallacy)
A logical fallacy is committed when you use it to refute an argument. I commented on your writing style not to refute your argument, but to evade further discussion.

The Fool: its avoiding the argument. The Writing style is irrelevant unless you can't understand it. Evading the discussion is a Red Herring.

Nonetheless, wait for a little while sir, and we'll find out of the Quran is a rip-off and whatnot.

The Fool: why is there need for wait? Are you making a Threat. ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:28:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:27:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:20:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:15:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:13:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:35:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:22:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: it is a fact that the more we go back in history in any culture the more and more God are used for explanations.

It is also a fact that the more we go back in history, the more and more people thought the earth was flat.

Do you understand what the genetic fallacy is?

The Fool: This is not the genetic fallacy, you are not appling properly, because it is specifically relavent.

The Fool: Why do you feel the need to insult, why not just refute him logically.

Mirza : I did not insult. I called his arguments mind-rotting. (Excuse the mild words; I meant to say brainsmashing.)

The Fool: This means you were not able to handle it.

Mirza : I pointed out a logical fallacy.

The Fool: you asserted it. But you obviously don't know how it is applied.

Mirza: It invalidates the argument I attacked.

The Fool: No it didnt' you didn't demonstrate how it was appliciable.

Mirza: Comprehend things better sir.

The Fool: You mean do you comprehend things better. Make sure you know what the hell your talking about, if you are going to use fallacies. In this case it was completly relevant. That is there is no more a reason to consider, the bible anymore or less mythology then any other form of mythology. It was put together by the Eastern Roman Empire for political purposes. Secondly yours is just fraud spin off of the First True Orthadox Christianity. Educated yourself.

Your writing style is horrendous. Wait until I am back to my country of residence, and we'll have a little formal debate Ma'am. Adios until then.

(Red Herring fallacy)
A logical fallacy is committed when you use it to refute an argument. I commented on your writing style not to refute your argument, but to evade further discussion.

The Fool: its avoiding the argument. The Writing style is irrelevant unless you can't understand it. Evading the discussion is a Red Herring.

Nonetheless, wait for a little while sir, and we'll find out of the Quran is a rip-off and whatnot.

The Fool: why is there need for wait? Are you making a Threat. ?

The Fool: That sounds like Threat>.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:11:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 1:54:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Ok. But what i said still makes sense. There is plenty of evidence for this.
Irrelevant. You committed a fallacy, and your argument is rubbish.

Ha, you're really going with the "he puts one of your's in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue" approach to comebacks. Where did you get mind-rotting from? Something can have mistakes in it and not be mind-rotting.
Mind-rotting... Clearly I wrote that because someone's mind actually rots from reading anything. Take a language lesson.


I wasn't taking mind-rotting literally. I meant that mind-rotting, which implies something of vile content, does not equate to something that contains mistakes.

It's just clear from the way that holy books are written that they come from a human perspective and their knowledge of how the universe functions ends with the ability of humans to comprehend things.
Not all holy books. Understand? I made that clear to you.

I feel like you're dancing around everything I've said. You haven't said anything to dispute it other than crying "fallacy!"
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:32:38 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I feel like you're dancing around everything I've said. You haven't said anything to dispute it other than crying "fallacy!"
I don't have to dance with your fallacious arguments Ma'am. I point out the fallacy, you do the rest in understanding where you went wrong. I won't get much into anything because I have limited time.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:00:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:35:22 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/10/2012 2:32:38 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
I feel like you're dancing around everything I've said. You haven't said anything to dispute it other than crying "fallacy!"
I don't have to dance with your fallacious arguments Ma'am.
You don't have to BUT you ARE.

I point out the fallacy, you do the rest in understanding where you went wrong.
You didn't point out the fallacy you simply said "genetic fallacy" but didn't explain HOW it's a genetic fallacy.

I won't get much into anything because I have limited time.
Excuses, excuses!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:07:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:32:26 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Isn't it quite a stretch to make claims that it's unlikely there is any kind of God, when we have no knowledge of how life came into being?

In other words, there is a problem we can't solve yet, but one possible explanation isn't considered.

It's not considered because of its horrible track record. Every time a God has been posited as an explanation for something, it was completely false. Wolf God swallowing the sun? No, just an eclipse. God getting angry? No, just a natural disaster (I think you get my point). So just like how we can be confident that the sun will come up tomorrow, we can be confident that God explanations are false.