Total Posts:253|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is fundamentally incoherent.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:37:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Correction Grammatical error.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove, and only positive ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context, we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism Logically Meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's some pretty incredible equivocation you've got yourself there. My congratulations.
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:46:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Hi, your English a bit hard for me to understand easly but what I understand was existence and non-existence of God, both is the same distance for people. Evidence is needed when a person says "There is God", likewise evidence is needed when a person says "There is no God", but atheists are running away from this responsibility and they are only assigning theists with this responsibility.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:50:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:46:24 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...


Hi, your English a bit hard for me to understand easly but what I understand was existence and non-existence of God, both is the same distance for people. Evidence is needed when a person says "There is God", likewise evidence is needed when a person says "There is no God", but atheists are running away from this responsibility and they are only assigning theists with this responsibility.

You understand perfectly.

I'm not making any arguments of God's existence. I'm stating Atheism can not make a claim that is unprovable and demand other alternate hypothesis carry the burden. That is fallacious and in my opinion brain-dead reasoning.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
That's some pretty incredible equivocation you've got yourself there. My congratulations.

Thank you, I am interested in seeing any counters to the argument.
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.
Hitchens is the way!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
That's some pretty incredible equivocation you've got yourself there. My congratulations.

Thank you, I am interested in seeing any counters to the argument.

You are playing semantic games by equivocating different senses of 'extraordinary', whilst making an appeal to authority. It's playground trickery, no more.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:58:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your fallacy of choice is tu quoque. I have not made those claims. And you are just completely off topic presenting them under this thread.

Instead of answering the criticism of your Atheist claim you, merely criticize a theistic claim.

Claims I remind you I have not made in this thread.

Thank you for showing how fallacious and brain-dead an atheist can be.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:06:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
That's some pretty incredible equivocation you've got yourself there. My congratulations.

Thank you, I am interested in seeing any counters to the argument.

You are playing semantic games by equivocating different senses of 'extraordinary', whilst making an appeal to authority. It's playground trickery, no more.

The play on words with Ordinary and extra ordinary does not take away from the sentiment that the claim "God does not exist" is more the exception than the norm.

I make no appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be because Person A says this then this premise or claim is true.

The Russel teapot and Goeder examples have a slew of proofs attached to them. I use them as educational and examples to show the statement of Atheism to be unprovable. And Russel Teapot is a widely used Atheist example to support the validity of their claim.

Can you point out to me where this appeal is?
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:08:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

Where is the claim of theism? Does your alleged God even claim anything. Let me guess humans can make these claims, so you will call them God.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Yeah everybody knows , what is the proof of religion: dead goatherds.


Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

Ordinary people believe in ghosts also.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Is theism a claim ? Is religion a claim?

G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems

The bible is unprovable because it is not tr UE.

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

But religion can be proved false.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:10:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:08:43 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

Where is the claim of theism? Does your alleged God even claim anything. Let me guess humans can make these claims, so you will call them God.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Yeah everybody knows , what is the proof of religion: dead goatherds.


Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

Ordinary people believe in ghosts also.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Is theism a claim ? Is religion a claim?

G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems

The bible is unprovable because it is not tr UE.

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

But religion can be proved false.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your fallacy of choice is tu quoque. I have not made those claims. And you are just completely off topic presenting them under this thread.

Instead of answering the criticism of your Atheist claim you, merely criticize a theistic claim.

Claims I remind you I have not made in this thread.

Thank you for showing how fallacious and brain-dead an atheist can be.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:12:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:37:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Correction Grammatical error.

So you copy pasted this stuff. You should have typed it, you are sitting on a desktop PC right now. Not a smartphone.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove, and only positive ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context, we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism Logically Meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:16:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.

Theism is "to believe" in the existence of God.

Atheistm is "not to believe" in the existence of God.

But the difference is atheists usually behave like they "know" there is no God.

If you "know" there is no God, you "have" to prove it.

If you "think" there is no God, you "need" to prove it.

I think this is more detailed description of what the OP says.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:16:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:12:53 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:37:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Correction Grammatical error.

So you copy pasted this stuff. You should have typed it, you are sitting on a desktop PC right now. Not a smartphone.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove, and only positive ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context, we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism Logically Meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

The quote that I clearly attribute to Carl Sagan in "" was copy and pasted. While typing the rest of the argument I made mistakes. I am human I can sometimes hit the wrong keys or type the wrong word. Like I accidentally typed true instead of positive.

I fail to see how this is an argument against my logic or adds anything to the thread.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:17:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:06:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The play on words with Ordinary and extra ordinary does not take away from the sentiment that the claim "God does not exist" is more the exception than the norm.

Sorry, ad populum, not authority. But a fallacy is a fallacy. Even if all but one person claimed the same, it is not the burden of proof of that one person to disprove the claims of everyone else.
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:17:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:58:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your fallacy of choice is tu quoque. I have not made those claims. And you are just completely off topic presenting them under this thread.

Instead of answering the criticism of your Atheist claim you, merely criticize a theistic claim.



Thank you for showing how fallacious and brain-dead an atheist can be.

I just showed you that theism is just as logically meaningless as atheism and a theist can be just as brain-dead as an atheist.

Claims I remind you I have not made in this thread.

I said noting about your claims. I assume all theists make the claim that God exists, just like you assumed that all atheists make the claim that God doesn't exist. My point was to show you that theism is exactly the same as atheism, since both the theist and the atheist make claims that are unprovable.

Your whole arguments proves that atheism and theism are logically meaningless. So? Why does a belief have to be logically meaningful? What does this have to do with anything? Show me an argument that proves god. Show me an argument that proves that god's existence if unknowable. Your argument simply doesn't prove anything.
I accept that atheism is logically meaningless. How can this change anything? How would this change anyone's belief?
Hitchens is the way!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:18:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Should I even bother ? how many times do we have to go over and over and over the same stuff.............

At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Yeah pretty much.......


Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

Strong atheism yes. Weak atheism no.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

You just made another dent in my faith in humanity, thanks alot.

If a group of kiddies believe in Santa claus, the burden is NOT on YOU to disprove the existence of santa claus. The justification for the existence of whatever needs to be backed up, ok ?

Now replace kiddies with adults and Santa with "God".


The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]


G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Russel's tea pot seeks to show that the fact that we can't prove the non existence of something does not give us justification to believe that thing exists.

The Pot is bought up in response to the retort......"hey, you can't disprove God exists"


Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Justified non belief will do.

I bet you don't believe that we all live in the matrix, yet you can't prove that we don't. At the very least, you think you have justified non belief.


Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:20:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:58:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your fallacy of choice is tu quoque. I have not made those claims. And you are just completely off topic presenting them under this thread.

Instead of answering the criticism of your Atheist claim you, merely criticize a theistic claim.

Claims I remind you I have not made in this thread.

Thank you for showing how fallacious and brain-dead an atheist can be.

who claims that gods exist?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:21:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:17:21 AM, Dwint wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:58:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your fallacy of choice is tu quoque. I have not made those claims. And you are just completely off topic presenting them under this thread.

Instead of answering the criticism of your Atheist claim you, merely criticize a theistic claim.



Thank you for showing how fallacious and brain-dead an atheist can be.

I just showed you that theism is just as logically meaningless as atheism and a theist can be just as brain-dead as an atheist.

Claims I remind you I have not made in this thread.

I said noting about your claims. I assume all theists make the claim that God exists, just like you assumed that all atheists make the claim that God doesn't exist. My point was to show you that theism is exactly the same as atheism, since both the theist and the atheist make claims that are unprovable.

Your whole arguments proves that atheism and theism are logically meaningless. So? Why does a belief have to be logically meaningful? What does this have to do with anything? Show me an argument that proves god. Show me an argument that proves that god's existence if unknowable. Your argument simply doesn't prove anything.
I accept that atheism is logically meaningless. How can this change anything? How would this change anyone's belief?

So you admit my argument is sound and even more so you admit it is correct. Thank you. The rest is irrelevant to he thread.

Posting the Theism argument is called a red herring. Learn to argue with out using fallacies and to defend premises with out shifting the burden and criticism elsewhere.

I understand why you think you are logical to do so. Your Atheistic belief is built on the same fallacies and faulty logic. But in all seriousness it does not make a good argument.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:22:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:16:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:12:53 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:37:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Correction Grammatical error.

So you copy pasted this stuff. You should have typed it, you are sitting on a desktop PC right now. Not a smartphone.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove, and only positive ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context, we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism Logically Meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

The quote that I clearly attribute to Carl Sagan in "" was copy and pasted. While typing the rest of the argument I made mistakes. I am human I can sometimes hit the wrong keys or type the wrong word. Like I accidentally typed true instead of positive.

I fail to see how this is an argument against my logic or adds anything to the thread.

You give this argument to me all the time. Even though I type on touchscreen smartphone . Which you must realize takes all day. So I paste when I have a lot of replies.

My previous conversation with you was from a smart phone. Take a look at mobile version of links.
http://www.debate.org...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:27:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:10:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:08:43 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

Where is the claim of theism? Does your alleged God even claim anything. Let me guess humans can make these claims, so you will call them God.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Yeah everybody knows , what is the proof of religion: dead goatherds.


Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

Ordinary people believe in ghosts also.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]

Is theism a claim ? Is religion a claim?

G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems

The bible is unprovable because it is not tr UE.

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

But religion can be proved false.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Your fallacy of choice is tu quoque. I have not made those claims. And you are just completely off topic presenting them under this thread.

Instead of answering the criticism of your Atheist claim you, merely criticize a theistic claim.

Claims I remind you I have not made in this thread.

Thank you for showing how fallacious and brain-dead an atheist can be.

You have made a claim here
Making Atheism logically meaningless.

I better see a proof for those claims and theism and religion by tomorrow.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:28:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:17:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:06:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The play on words with Ordinary and extra ordinary does not take away from the sentiment that the claim "God does not exist" is more the exception than the norm.

Sorry, ad populum, not authority. But a fallacy is a fallacy. Even if all but one person claimed the same, it is not the burden of proof of that one person to disprove the claims of everyone else.

Can you explain in more detail with where or how? I would like to make this argument stronger.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:33:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:28:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:17:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:06:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The play on words with Ordinary and extra ordinary does not take away from the sentiment that the claim "God does not exist" is more the exception than the norm.

Sorry, ad populum, not authority. But a fallacy is a fallacy. Even if all but one person claimed the same, it is not the burden of proof of that one person to disprove the claims of everyone else.

Can you explain in more detail with where or how? I would like to make this argument stronger.

I don't understand what you're asking me for; you made an ad populum fallacy by appealing to what is 'ordinary' (i.e. most common). That's it. You can't make the argument stronger because this is a fundamental stumbling block for it.

Additionally, as mentioned, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Russell's Teapot. It's actually a critique of arguments of the type you've made here; it is not up to someone else to disprove your incredible claim and the burden of proof still lies with you.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:37:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:28:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:17:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:06:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The play on words with Ordinary and extra ordinary does not take away from the sentiment that the claim "God does not exist" is more the exception than the norm.

Sorry, ad populum, not authority. But a fallacy is a fallacy. Even if all but one person claimed the same, it is not the burden of proof of that one person to disprove the claims of everyone else.

Can you explain in more detail with where or how? I would like to make this argument stronger.

Mhykiel baby answer the damn question. Don't run away like you always do.

You have made a claim here
Making Atheism logically meaningless.

I better see a proof for those claims and theism and religion by tomorrow.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:38:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:54:38 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theism is fundamentally incoherent:

Theism is the belief in the existence of deities
Theism accepts the claim "God exists" as being true.
Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.
Taking all of these into context we now have theists making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Making theism logically meaningless.

So, why is atheism logical? Because it craps on religious people and claims it has no burden of proof? And even if it doesn't, such a supercilious claim would then require atheists, who reject the body of evidence in favor of God, to be able god demonstrate enough familiarity with the major Apologetic claims of each religion on earth and then explain in a way that demonstrates that knowledge base and refutes it?

That sounds better than saying, "I don't believe in God, and here is why ..."?

You are all super genesis about religion instead? Which is why you all say, "We have no burden of proof," while pointed missing the fact that, as you demand evidence, you base your assumption on absolutely nothing?

Yes, very logical. A fully evidenced conclusion that rests upon no evidence, and requires, as stated, and level of expertise on religion that no atheist has.

Very superior. God help anyone who calls your position illogical ... you'll turn around and tell them that its THEIR position that is illogical - I mean, HOW DARE THEY?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:40:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:08:43 AM, debateuser wrote:

But religion can be proved false.

The kindly stop bleating about dead goats, and just STFU and actually do it.

That is EXACTLY the point M is making in the OP.

You have certainty. You have a claim that you brook no dissension from. And yet you lack even the pretense of attempting to make that certainty provably certain.

So, STFU and just do it.

You will immediately see why we are right.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:43:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:18:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Should I even bother ? how many times do we have to go over and over and over the same stuff.............

No one is forcing you to respond at all. You must have some deep seated issue to continue in an endeavor you question is worth the bother.


At 5/31/2014 3:25:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Yeah pretty much.......


Pretty much would be the majority of definitions out there.


Atheism accepts the claim "God does not exist" as being true.

Strong atheism yes. Weak atheism no.

implicit strong atheism



"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan

Ordinarily people believe in god/s so a disbelieve in god/s would require extraordinary evidence.

You just made another dent in my faith in humanity, thanks alot.

If a group of kiddies believe in Santa claus, the burden is NOT on YOU to disprove the existence of santa claus. The justification for the existence of whatever needs to be backed up, ok ?

Really cause this is a claim made by many atheist. It merely states that the evidence need to support a claim must be of better value than the evidence contradicting it. In a inductive sense of course.

Regardless the following premises show that Atheist generally shift the burden of proof instead of providing any proof of their own. That is fallacious.

I know I use the word fallacious a lot in this thread. This is not a Fallacy of Fallacy, because I am not using the fallacies as cause to declare my conclusion true. I'm stating the fallacies are insufficient defenses of my criticism.



Now replace kiddies with adults and Santa with "God".


The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. [1]


G"del's First Incompleteness Theorem is a type of Liar's Sentence: "This statement is unprovable".

Russel's teapot: Is logically erroneous. It attempts to assert negative claims have no burden of prove and only true ones do. But all claims require proof. Regardless Russel's teapot is an illustration that being unable to prove a claim false does not follow that the claim is false. In fact it does not follow if the claim is true or false.

Russel's tea pot seeks to show that the fact that we can't prove the non existence of something does not give us justification to believe that thing exists.

Exactly what I said. The tea pot is analogy. And it only exemplifies that the inability to prove something true or false, does not make a claim automatically true or false. Hence meaningless.


The Pot is bought up in response to the retort......"hey, you can't disprove God exists"


So Atheist only have Rhetoric and analogies to throw burden of proof onto the other party. And can present none themselves. I already knew this.


Taking all of these into context we now have atheist making a claim they accept as true. This claim is unprovable. This claim can neither be proved true or false.

Justified non belief will do.


When someone makes a claim, and that claim has doubt cast onto it. Then the responce is:

A. Empirical Data - Do you have Empirical data "God does not exist?" NO
B. authoritative testimony - Legit in a court of law. And is what most Theist present (ie. Bible, Quaron..) But in a logical argument in this argument we know that would be a fallacious appeal. Are you citing an authoritative testimony, to support the claim "God does not Exist"?
or C: logical deduction or inductive argument. Are you presenting a counter argument to the premises or are you just mouthing off?

I bet you don't believe that we all live in the matrix, yet you can't prove that we don't. At the very least, you think you have justified non belief.


This is a RED HERRING. The validity or none validity of my belief living in a matrix does not bare on the meaninglessness of Atheism.


Making Atheism logically meaningless.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:45:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:33:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

I don't understand what you're asking me for; you made an ad populum fallacy by appealing to what is 'ordinary' (i.e. most common). That's it. You can't make the argument stronger because this is a fundamental stumbling block for it.

Additionally, as mentioned, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Russell's Teapot. It's actually a critique of arguments of the type you've made here; it is not up to someone else to disprove your incredible claim and the burden of proof still lies with you.

I disagree, Russell's Tea Pot is classic atheist form of argumentation. The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Magic Space Spaghetti Monster? Zues? (Who has curiously been disproven). And a host of others that atheists routinely dump into discussions of evidence.

Russell, an atheist, was stating an atheist opinion. You believe it is common, yet when asked about actual Apologetics and argumentation ...

Well, in decades of debating atheists virtually the only Apologetic work known to them is Mere Christianity, which is philosophy - and argument from morality.

The one I use most frequently is the fine tuning argument, one is which most atheists seem oblivious too.

Neither of those common theistic arguments actually falls into the claims of Russell about OUR argumentation. It is atheists who use magic floating tea post and Leprechauns to make their cases. And, as is noted in the OP, the position is fallacious.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 4:47:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 4:33:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:28:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:17:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 4:06:11 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:56:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:51:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:39:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The play on words with Ordinary and extra ordinary does not take away from the sentiment that the claim "God does not exist" is more the exception than the norm.

Sorry, ad populum, not authority. But a fallacy is a fallacy. Even if all but one person claimed the same, it is not the burden of proof of that one person to disprove the claims of everyone else.

Can you explain in more detail with where or how? I would like to make this argument stronger.

I don't understand what you're asking me for; you made an ad populum fallacy by appealing to what is 'ordinary' (i.e. most common). That's it. You can't make the argument stronger because this is a fundamental stumbling block for it.

Additionally, as mentioned, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Russell's Teapot. It's actually a critique of arguments of the type you've made here; it is not up to someone else to disprove your incredible claim and the burden of proof still lies with you.

I think I see where you are going. I used the ordinary to just twist Atheist dogma around. I think i could drop that segment.

I would debate the tea pot. Which is why I added Goedel in the mix. Goedel is a solid theorem. As the Russel Tea pot is an analogy. And analogy only are good in explanatory value as much as they match the topic. So I could drop the tea pot or make the criticisms of it's logic clearer.