Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do people say they're agnostic and not ag

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:40:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Because agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are stupid terms. Belief requires knowledge. Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are just cowards.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
BblackkBbirdd
Posts: 919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:05:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:40:46 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Because agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are stupid terms. Belief requires knowledge. Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are just cowards.

How are agnostics cowards? Agnostic just means you don't know for sure if Gods exist, this isn't cowardice. Also, atheism isn't a belief it's a lack of belief.
Thirdly belief requires no knowledge:
"Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
synonyms:opinion, view, viewpoint, point of view, attitude, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgement, thinking, way of thinking, thought, idea, interpretation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, notion, impression, sense, feeling, fancy, hunch
More a religious conviction.
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:40:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?

And yet, here they are in religion forums being anything but neutral. Odd.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:44:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:40:54 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?

And yet, here they are in religion forums being anything but neutral. Odd.

If you're referring to me, I am an atheist. I have an opinion on the existence of deities. Besides, many theist will freely tell you "religion" is man made. So, pffft! :-P
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:59:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Its just a term used in the US mainly. In atheists countries people dont even use the terms. They just say " atheist".
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
7/5/2014 2:04:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:44:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:40:54 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?

And yet, here they are in religion forums being anything but neutral. Odd.

If you're referring to me, I am an atheist. I have an opinion on the existence of deities. Besides, many theist will freely tell you "religion" is man made. So, pffft! :-P

Good, then lay out the evidence that lead you there. I for one find that atheists move between atheism and agnostic atheism a bit like a drunken old leech does between bars.

Please regale us with the evidence that drove you position of vast superiority and insight overturning millennia of religious thought with such grace and aplomb.

Let me remind you of Chris Hitchens.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

BY all means lay out this extraordinary proof that should make the worlds religions retreat into the holes of stupidity.

Or, give the standard excuses and propaganda than we may appropriately dismiss you, as we have .... everyone how has made the same claim tirelessly since it was first published somewhere on an atheist piece of propaganda and ... rebutted - successfully. Which is ... cause and effect ... why we still have religion today!

While you are at, you could explain why so many agnostic atheists, like Richard Dawkins no less, are so clearly ... not neutral.

These claims are so fascinating.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 2:28:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 2:04:03 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:44:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:40:54 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?

And yet, here they are in religion forums being anything but neutral. Odd.

If you're referring to me, I am an atheist. I have an opinion on the existence of deities. Besides, many theist will freely tell you "religion" is man made. So, pffft! :-P

I can confidently state Zeus, FSM, and Mythra are myths. I'm still on the fence about invisible pink unicorns though. Do you have opinions on the existence of deities?

Good, then lay out the evidence that lead you there. I for one find that atheists move between atheism and agnostic atheism a bit like a drunken old leech does between bars.

Please regale us with the evidence that drove you position of vast superiority and insight overturning millennia of religious thought with such grace and aplomb.

As we have discussed before, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Do you claim your god exists? I make no such claim other than to say I think the existence of the Christian god is unlikely based on the evidence that has been presented for him. If you would like to present such evidence, then we can have a discussion on the existence of your god. I am curious what evidence is compelling to you.

Let me remind you of Chris Hitchens.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Very good, we agree! (see my signature) Feel free to present your evidence.

BY all means lay out this extraordinary proof that should make the worlds religions retreat into the holes of stupidity.

Or, give the standard excuses and propaganda than we may appropriately dismiss you, as we have .... everyone how has made the same claim tirelessly since it was first published somewhere on an atheist piece of propaganda and ... rebutted - successfully. Which is ... cause and effect ... why we still have religion today!

While you are at, you could explain why so many agnostic atheists, like Richard Dawkins no less, are so clearly ... not neutral.

These claims are so fascinating.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:10:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 2:28:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 2:04:03 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:44:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:40:54 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?

And yet, here they are in religion forums being anything but neutral. Odd.

If you're referring to me, I am an atheist. I have an opinion on the existence of deities. Besides, many theist will freely tell you "religion" is man made. So, pffft! :-P

I can confidently state Zeus, FSM, and Mythra are myths. I'm still on the fence about invisible pink unicorns though. Do you have opinions on the existence of deities?

Good, then lay out the evidence that lead you there. I for one find that atheists move between atheism and agnostic atheism a bit like a drunken old leech does between bars.

Please regale us with the evidence that drove you position of vast superiority and insight overturning millennia of religious thought with such grace and aplomb.

As we have discussed before, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Do you claim your god exists? I make no such claim other than to say I think the existence of the Christian god is unlikely based on the evidence that has been presented for him. If you would like to present such evidence, then we can have a discussion on the existence of your god. I am curious what evidence is compelling to you.

Let me remind you of Chris Hitchens.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Very good, we agree! (see my signature) Feel free to present your evidence.

BY all means lay out this extraordinary proof that should make the worlds religions retreat into the holes of stupidity.

Or, give the standard excuses and propaganda than we may appropriately dismiss you, as we have .... everyone how has made the same claim tirelessly since it was first published somewhere on an atheist piece of propaganda and ... rebutted - successfully. Which is ... cause and effect ... why we still have religion today!

While you are at, you could explain why so many agnostic atheists, like Richard Dawkins no less, are so clearly ... not neutral.

These claims are so fascinating.

So your 'evidence' is the inability to actually use evidence or intellect to tell the difference between Zues, who has been fully falsified, and God ... who has not.

Its called the guilt by association fallacy, and is, exactly as predicted, standard atheist propaganda, and one that has been destroyed numerous times (not least of which is by pointing out how is examines neither the evidence for Christ OR Zues).

http://www.kingdavid8.com...

As you can see, when the 'comparisons' are made, even in short, the differences between the claims themselves are wide, and the evidence is support of one is overwhelming - its why rational people can separate religion and mythology. Not ... apparently, dogmatic atheists.

But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:10:56 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 2:28:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 2:04:03 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:44:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:40:54 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:34:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

They want to be a neutral in matters of alleged deities?

And yet, here they are in religion forums being anything but neutral. Odd.

If you're referring to me, I am an atheist. I have an opinion on the existence of deities. Besides, many theist will freely tell you "religion" is man made. So, pffft! :-P

I can confidently state Zeus, FSM, and Mythra are myths. I'm still on the fence about invisible pink unicorns though. Do you have opinions on the existence of deities?

Good, then lay out the evidence that lead you there. I for one find that atheists move between atheism and agnostic atheism a bit like a drunken old leech does between bars.

Please regale us with the evidence that drove you position of vast superiority and insight overturning millennia of religious thought with such grace and aplomb.

As we have discussed before, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Do you claim your god exists? I make no such claim other than to say I think the existence of the Christian god is unlikely based on the evidence that has been presented for him. If you would like to present such evidence, then we can have a discussion on the existence of your god. I am curious what evidence is compelling to you.

Let me remind you of Chris Hitchens.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Very good, we agree! (see my signature) Feel free to present your evidence.

BY all means lay out this extraordinary proof that should make the worlds religions retreat into the holes of stupidity.

Or, give the standard excuses and propaganda than we may appropriately dismiss you, as we have .... everyone how has made the same claim tirelessly since it was first published somewhere on an atheist piece of propaganda and ... rebutted - successfully. Which is ... cause and effect ... why we still have religion today!

While you are at, you could explain why so many agnostic atheists, like Richard Dawkins no less, are so clearly ... not neutral.

These claims are so fascinating.

So your 'evidence' is the inability to actually use evidence or intellect to tell the difference between Zeus, who has been fully falsified, and God ... who has not.

Its called the guilt by association fallacy, and is, exactly as predicted, standard atheist propaganda, and one that has been destroyed numerous times (not least of which is by pointing out how is examines neither the evidence for Christ OR Zues).

http://www.kingdavid8.com...

Interesting, but you do realize this is not evidence for your god, right? His existence is not dependent on Zeus, is it?

As you can see, when the 'comparisons' are made, even in short, the differences between the claims themselves are wide, and the evidence is support of one is overwhelming - its why rational people can separate religion and mythology. Not ... apparently, dogmatic atheists.

But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 9:23:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...

ROFL!!!! Guess who fundamentally missed the point.

Yes ATHEIST, the fallacy used to support my position IS FALLACIOUS as well - that is the entire point of demonstrating it - and the fact that you will IMMEDIATELY reject the use of the fallacy against YOUR position ... but we are supposed to accept it as 'proof' against ours?

Perhaps you should try the fallacy of special pleading out there cowboy. You know, where its fallacious for us to do it, but ... er, NOT you? Hmmm ....

Sometimes its like stealing candy from babies.

Just another unthinking propagandist.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 9:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:40:46 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Because agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are stupid terms. Belief requires knowledge. Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are just cowards.

What's faith, then? Isn't faith belief without knowledge? Isn't that the definition of faith? How about cognitive dissonance. That's a well documented occurrence in humans. People get stressed when they believe two contradicting things, and those ideas clash. By definition these people have belief without knowledge. Belief without knowledge is easy, knowledge without belief is hard.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:23:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...

ROFL!!!! Guess who fundamentally missed the point.

Yes ATHEIST, the fallacy used to support my position IS FALLACIOUS as well - that is the entire point of demonstrating it - and the fact that you will IMMEDIATELY reject the use of the fallacy against YOUR position ... but we are supposed to accept it as 'proof' against ours?

Perhaps you should try the fallacy of special pleading out there cowboy. You know, where its fallacious for us to do it, but ... er, NOT you? Hmmm ....

Sometimes its like stealing candy from babies.

Just another unthinking propagandist.

I never compared your god to Zeus as you suggested (you actually did that). It's always a slippery slope with you, isn't it?. You mistakenly percieve some sort of attack or fallacy, then you proceed to berate whoever is unfortunate enough to have been trying to have a civil conversation with you.

Here's a thought, try pretending that your a reasonable person.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:42:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

I am an agnostic theist.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:30:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:07:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:23:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...

ROFL!!!! Guess who fundamentally missed the point.

Yes ATHEIST, the fallacy used to support my position IS FALLACIOUS as well - that is the entire point of demonstrating it - and the fact that you will IMMEDIATELY reject the use of the fallacy against YOUR position ... but we are supposed to accept it as 'proof' against ours?

Perhaps you should try the fallacy of special pleading out there cowboy. You know, where its fallacious for us to do it, but ... er, NOT you? Hmmm ....

Sometimes its like stealing candy from babies.

Just another unthinking propagandist.

I never compared your god to Zeus as you suggested (you actually did that). It's always a slippery slope with you, isn't it?. You mistakenly percieve some sort of attack or fallacy, then you proceed to berate whoever is unfortunate enough to have been trying to have a civil conversation with you.

Here's a thought, try pretending that your a reasonable person.

You may want to go back and explain why you mentioned Zues and a bunch of other mythological issues.

Here's a better thought, pretending that atheism is rational while it lashes out at people. It really all you guys got in the end - the ability to be jerks on the internet.

But is pointedly NOT reasonable to be all over the place and pretend that the entire world hangs on whether or not you are wrong.

There is no God because ... South Park got it right.

That people like you don;t like me? Counts very highly in my book.

What counts even more is the stunning inability of the supposedly logical to ever lay out a logical case for atheism - but this somehow makes them superior enough to have absolutely no qualms expressing that superiority - or bashing anyone who points out that atheists are merely human.

I'm sorry you are wrong and cannot make a case, but that has nothing to do with my character and everything to do with yours.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:30:15 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:07:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:23:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...

ROFL!!!! Guess who fundamentally missed the point.

Yes ATHEIST, the fallacy used to support my position IS FALLACIOUS as well - that is the entire point of demonstrating it - and the fact that you will IMMEDIATELY reject the use of the fallacy against YOUR position ... but we are supposed to accept it as 'proof' against ours?

Perhaps you should try the fallacy of special pleading out there cowboy. You know, where its fallacious for us to do it, but ... er, NOT you? Hmmm ....

Sometimes its like stealing candy from babies.

Just another unthinking propagandist.

I never compared your god to Zeus as you suggested (you actually did that). It's always a slippery slope with you, isn't it?. You mistakenly perceive some sort of attack or fallacy, then you proceed to berate whoever is unfortunate enough to have been trying to have a civil conversation with you.

Here's a thought, try pretending that your a reasonable person.

You may want to go back and explain why you mentioned Zeus and a bunch of other mythological issues.

You can go back and read my words from the original post to you. If you don't get it with the words that are there, then you're probably not going to get it through an endless conversation where you're insisting I am attacking your god.

Here's a better thought, pretending that atheism is rational while it lashes out at people. It really all you guys got in the end - the ability to be jerks on the internet.

So far, you're the one lashing out.

But is pointedly NOT reasonable to be all over the place and pretend that the entire world hangs on whether or not you are wrong.

There is no God because ... South Park got it right.

I have never watched Southpark....but if you say so.

That people like you don;t like me? Counts very highly in my book.

I don't know you. I only know your are highly biased. I don't like that.

What counts even more is the stunning inability of the supposedly logical to ever lay out a logical case for atheism - but this somehow makes them superior enough to have absolutely no qualms expressing that superiority - or bashing anyone who points out that atheists are merely human.

Are you trying to be reasonable now? Good! Keep trying! Although, you should probably lead with reasonable instead of spittle slinging bias.

I'm sorry you are wrong and cannot make a case, but that has nothing to do with my character and everything to do with yours.

lol, okay! You must think I am twelve. Is this an attempt at "double dog dare" manipulation? You have the burden, unless you no longer claim your god exists. It is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be "my case" to make. I can refute your case, if need be, but I have no burden to make one against your god.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:22:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:04:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:30:15 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:07:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:23:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...

ROFL!!!! Guess who fundamentally missed the point.

Yes ATHEIST, the fallacy used to support my position IS FALLACIOUS as well - that is the entire point of demonstrating it - and the fact that you will IMMEDIATELY reject the use of the fallacy against YOUR position ... but we are supposed to accept it as 'proof' against ours?

Perhaps you should try the fallacy of special pleading out there cowboy. You know, where its fallacious for us to do it, but ... er, NOT you? Hmmm ....

Sometimes its like stealing candy from babies.

Just another unthinking propagandist.

I never compared your god to Zeus as you suggested (you actually did that). It's always a slippery slope with you, isn't it?. You mistakenly perceive some sort of attack or fallacy, then you proceed to berate whoever is unfortunate enough to have been trying to have a civil conversation with you.

Here's a thought, try pretending that your a reasonable person.

You may want to go back and explain why you mentioned Zeus and a bunch of other mythological issues.

You can go back and read my words from the original post to you. If you don't get it with the words that are there, then you're probably not going to get it through an endless conversation where you're insisting I am attacking your god.

Here's a better thought, pretending that atheism is rational while it lashes out at people. It really all you guys got in the end - the ability to be jerks on the internet.

So far, you're the one lashing out.

But is pointedly NOT reasonable to be all over the place and pretend that the entire world hangs on whether or not you are wrong.

There is no God because ... South Park got it right.

I have never watched Southpark....but if you say so.

That people like you don;t like me? Counts very highly in my book.

I don't know you. I only know your are highly biased. I don't like that.

What counts even more is the stunning inability of the supposedly logical to ever lay out a logical case for atheism - but this somehow makes them superior enough to have absolutely no qualms expressing that superiority - or bashing anyone who points out that atheists are merely human.

Are you trying to be reasonable now? Good! Keep trying! Although, you should probably lead with reasonable instead of spittle slinging bias.

I'm sorry you are wrong and cannot make a case, but that has nothing to do with my character and everything to do with yours.

lol, okay! You must think I am twelve. Is this an attempt at "double dog dare" manipulation? You have the burden, unless you no longer claim your god exists. It is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be "my case" to make. I can refute your case, if need be, but I have no burden to make one against your god.

You act like you are 12, why not treat you that way.

I realize this does as a shock, but pointing out you have no evidence for an evinced based position and that all your 'arguments' (when you actually make them), are straight rip off from some atheist web site and have not been thought through and poorly supported is not an insult - its the reality of what you, when you actually do, present in support of atheism.

But please, if you feel you have been unfairly slandered rather than accurately criticized, please demonstrate which claim you think is NOT formulaic and heard repeatedly from atheists?

That is, if we we could get you to make and support a claim.

But yes, most 12 year olds think that being wrong is the worst possible thing that can happen to them. So if you wish to be afforded an uncritical view of your position ... then present something that isn't easily brushed aside as standard atheist propaganda.

It not a personal insult, hard as criticism of for atheists to separate, its an assessment of ... whatever it s you think you are doing here - which sure a hell is NOT supporting atheism is it?

Once again, that reality is not a insult - and the pointed, again, pot shots like, "Gee pretending you are reasonable," are just what 12 year olds are left with in the end. Which is the extent of your argumentation.

But really, I should be slathering you fawning praise rather than dismissing an exceptionally weak argument for exactly what it is - a weak ... its not even a position is it? Much less a supported one.

That really is not my fault. Its yours.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:33:58 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:40:46 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Because agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are stupid terms. Belief requires knowledge. Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are just cowards.

What's faith, then? Isn't faith belief without knowledge? Isn't that the definition of faith? How about cognitive dissonance. That's a well documented occurrence in humans. People get stressed when they believe two contradicting things, and those ideas clash. By definition these people have belief without knowledge. Belief without knowledge is easy, knowledge without belief is hard.

No it's not, not in the dictionary and certainly not in scripture (even more important).

Faith-
complete trust or confidence in someone or something. strong belief or trust in someone or something
In the religion's view, faith and knowledge are both required for spiritual growth.[8] Faith involves more than outward obedience to this authority, but also must be based on a deep personal understanding of religious teachings.

Faith is to move IN knowledge

Hebrews 11

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:12:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:22:28 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:04:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:30:15 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:07:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:23:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:41:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


But lets test your little fallacy.

Grass is green you see, and that is why God is REAL!

What you say? Not so fast? You cannot just pick anything true and compare it as if its a fait accompli? No crap.

Welcome to atheism, and 'evidenced' position that presents no evidence, and denies everyone else's evidence even exists. The logic of the ostrich ... and fallacy.

Tu quoque? Pot/Kettle = black...

ROFL!!!! Guess who fundamentally missed the point.

Yes ATHEIST, the fallacy used to support my position IS FALLACIOUS as well - that is the entire point of demonstrating it - and the fact that you will IMMEDIATELY reject the use of the fallacy against YOUR position ... but we are supposed to accept it as 'proof' against ours?

Perhaps you should try the fallacy of special pleading out there cowboy. You know, where its fallacious for us to do it, but ... er, NOT you? Hmmm ....

Sometimes its like stealing candy from babies.

Just another unthinking propagandist.

I never compared your god to Zeus as you suggested (you actually did that). It's always a slippery slope with you, isn't it?. You mistakenly perceive some sort of attack or fallacy, then you proceed to berate whoever is unfortunate enough to have been trying to have a civil conversation with you.

Here's a thought, try pretending that your a reasonable person.

You may want to go back and explain why you mentioned Zeus and a bunch of other mythological issues.

You can go back and read my words from the original post to you. If you don't get it with the words that are there, then you're probably not going to get it through an endless conversation where you're insisting I am attacking your god.

Here's a better thought, pretending that atheism is rational while it lashes out at people. It really all you guys got in the end - the ability to be jerks on the internet.

So far, you're the one lashing out.

But is pointedly NOT reasonable to be all over the place and pretend that the entire world hangs on whether or not you are wrong.

There is no God because ... South Park got it right.

I have never watched Southpark....but if you say so.

That people like you don;t like me? Counts very highly in my book.

I don't know you. I only know your are highly biased. I don't like that.

What counts even more is the stunning inability of the supposedly logical to ever lay out a logical case for atheism - but this somehow makes them superior enough to have absolutely no qualms expressing that superiority - or bashing anyone who points out that atheists are merely human.

Are you trying to be reasonable now? Good! Keep trying! Although, you should probably lead with reasonable instead of spittle slinging bias.

I'm sorry you are wrong and cannot make a case, but that has nothing to do with my character and everything to do with yours.

lol, okay! You must think I am twelve. Is this an attempt at "double dog dare" manipulation? You have the burden, unless you no longer claim your god exists. It is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be "my case" to make. I can refute your case, if need be, but I have no burden to make one against your god.

You act like you are 12, why not treat you that way.


I realize this does as a shock, but pointing out you have no evidence for an evinced based position and that all your 'arguments' (when you actually make them), are straight rip off from some atheist web site and have not been thought through and poorly supported is not an insult - its the reality of what you, when you actually do, present in support of atheism.

I don't need to support atheism. It is the default position.

But please, if you feel you have been unfairly slandered rather than accurately criticized, please demonstrate which claim you think is NOT formulaic and heard repeatedly from atheists?

That is, if we we could get you to make and support a claim.

But yes, most 12 year olds think that being wrong is the worst possible thing that can happen to them. So if you wish to be afforded an uncritical view of your position ... then present something that isn't easily brushed aside as standard atheist propaganda.

I would be happy to establish my point of view. Feel free to start a debate on the existence of your god.

It not a personal insult, hard as criticism of for atheists to separate, its an assessment of ... whatever it s you think you are doing here - which sure a hell is NOT supporting atheism is it?

Once again, that reality is not a insult - and the pointed, again, pot shots like, "Gee pretending you are reasonable," are just what 12 year olds are left with in the end. Which is the extent of your argumentation.

But really, I should be slathering you fawning praise rather than dismissing an exceptionally weak argument for exactly what it is - a weak ... its not even a position is it? Much less a supported one.

That really is not my fault. Its yours.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 9:17:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:38:30 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:33:58 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:40:46 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Because agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are stupid terms. Belief requires knowledge. Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are just cowards.

What's faith, then? Isn't faith belief without knowledge? Isn't that the definition of faith? How about cognitive dissonance. That's a well documented occurrence in humans. People get stressed when they believe two contradicting things, and those ideas clash. By definition these people have belief without knowledge. Belief without knowledge is easy, knowledge without belief is hard.

No it's not, not in the dictionary and certainly not in scripture (even more important).

Faith-
complete trust or confidence in someone or something. strong belief or trust in someone or something
In the religion's view, faith and knowledge are both required for spiritual growth.[8] Faith involves more than outward obedience to this authority, but also must be based on a deep personal understanding of religious teachings.

Faith is to move IN knowledge

Hebrews 11

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Scripture is worth about as much as a mad magazine to me, no offence meant. But, I notice what appeared to be you giving dictionary definitions for faith, without actually sourcing them. I googled your exact text, and found at least some of it appeared to be taken from various parts of the wiki page on faith. Now, the wiki page on faith starts out by saying this: "Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant. The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust, or belief."

So, either there was a very very unlikely occurrence where you just happened to write a few sentences identical to those from the wiki page, or you decided to cherry pick. I don't care either way. Because regardless of what you may think, one of the common use definitions of faith is belief without proof or knowledge.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 4:41:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 5:12:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I don't need to support atheism. It is the default position.

Actually you do child - and I insist on treating someone like a child when they act like one - the Case for Christ has been made. Scientific Apologetics already exists.

So no, you don;t get to run around being a nod screaming I am right ... by default. That is no default position in logic save, "I don't know."

Maybe there is in atheism, but that because its illogical.

I would be happy to establish my point of view. Feel free to start a debate on the existence of your god.


Then do so. Right here, right now. You have claimed victimhood, default only, and now actively disparage my God and religion? Typically atheist.

So put up or sit up. Pretty easy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:16:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 4:41:28 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:12:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I don't need to support atheism. It is the default position.

Actually you do child - and I insist on treating someone like a child when they act like one - the Case for Christ has been made. Scientific Apologetics already exists.

So no, you don;t get to run around being a nod screaming I am right ... by default. That is no default position in logic save, "I don't know."

Would you claim "I don't know" if I told you Russell's teapot was in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars? I cannot prove it is there, and you cannot prove it is not there, so by your argument, you must hold the agnostic position on the existence of the teapot. You cannot not provide any "proof" for your God anymore than I can provide "proof" for that teapot. Claiming there is proof is not equivalent to proof. I'm certain you are an a-teapotist. That is the default position just as atheism if the default on the existence of the Christian god. Russell's teapot illustrates the silliness of the argument 'agnosticism is the default position'.

One other thing, when I, and most atheist on this site, talk about my position I am referring to "agnostic atheism", and it seems you equivocate this to "militant atheism". If you could paint me ( and most every other atheist on this site) into the militant atheist position, I know it would make your argument much easier, but I have told you my position many times. Militant atheism (I think some are calling this strong atheism) is an unreasonable position (much like militant theism) and is not default.

Are you a militant theist? You have not provided any evidence, yet you continue to demand 'He' exists. Militant theism is no better than militant atheism from a logical standpoint.

Maybe there is in atheism, but that because its illogical.


I would be happy to establish my point of view. Feel free to start a debate on the existence of your god.


Then do so. Right here, right now. You have claimed victimhood, default only, and now actively disparage my God and religion? Typically atheist.

So put up or sit up. Pretty easy.

How have I disparaged your God? Disbelief should not be offensive, especially when I am talking with a believer who can establish 'His' existence with evidence. I await the objective evidence which has led you to believe in an invisible creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and who apparently exists outside time and space. By continually demanding I disprove your God, you're trying to force me into a claim I have not made, and it is a transparent attempt to demonize me and the valid position of disbelief. You claim your God exists, I don't believe you, so if you wish to continue down this path, you will need to provide your evidence.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 8:26:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:16:27 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:41:28 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:12:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I don't need to support atheism. It is the default position.

Actually you do child - and I insist on treating someone like a child when they act like one - the Case for Christ has been made. Scientific Apologetics already exists.

So no, you don;t get to run around being a nod screaming I am right ... by default. That is no default position in logic save, "I don't know."

Would you claim "I don't know" if I told you Russell's teapot was in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars? I cannot prove it is there, and you cannot prove it is not there, so by your argument, you must hold the agnostic position on the existence of the teapot. You cannot not provide any "proof" for your God anymore than I can provide "proof" for that teapot. Claiming there is proof is not equivalent to proof. I'm certain you are an a-teapotist. That is the default position just as atheism if the default on the existence of the Christian god. Russell's teapot illustrates the silliness of the argument 'agnosticism is the default position'.

One other thing, when I, and most atheist on this site, talk about my position I am referring to "agnostic atheism", and it seems you equivocate this to "militant atheism". If you could paint me ( and most every other atheist on this site) into the militant atheist position, I know it would make your argument much easier, but I have told you my position many times. Militant atheism (I think some are calling this strong atheism) is an unreasonable position (much like militant theism) and is not default.

Are you a militant theist? You have not provided any evidence, yet you continue to demand 'He' exists. Militant theism is no better than militant atheism from a logical standpoint.

Maybe there is in atheism, but that because its illogical.


I would be happy to establish my point of view. Feel free to start a debate on the existence of your god.


Then do so. Right here, right now. You have claimed victimhood, default only, and now actively disparage my God and religion? Typically atheist.

So put up or sit up. Pretty easy.

How have I disparaged your God? Disbelief should not be offensive, especially when I am talking with a believer who can establish 'His' existence with evidence. I await the objective evidence which has led you to believe in an invisible creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and who apparently exists outside time and space. By continually demanding I disprove your God, you're trying to force me into a claim I have not made, and it is a transparent attempt to demonize me and the valid position of disbelief. You claim your God exists, I don't believe you, so if you wish to continue down this path, you will need to provide your evidence.

http://www.eskimo.com...

As you can see propagandists, and as you and I have already had this SAME conversation, which has produced not even a slight change in the dogmatic claims of the guilt by association fallacy, Russell's tea pot can be and has been disproven.

You remain stuck in your dogma.

And EXACTLY as charged, if I were sake dot disprove it, which I have done numerous times, as have thousands upon thousands religious and irreligious people (which is why its a KNOWN fallacy):

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

That is right, its THE TEXT BOOK EXAMPLE, of the burden of proof FALLACY.

At any rate ... I would look at the evidence of the claims, just like the initial author and ARRIVE AT A SUPPORTABLE conclusion - one that I would be open to adjusting if new evidence were presented.

Guess what I would not do? I would not dump out a fallacy, even after it was explained to me as a fallacy, and then derisively act like I am superior when I use fallacy to insult someone else's faith.

So, thanks for providing an opportunity to demonstrate how logical people solve rather than obfuscate problems to reach SUPPORTABLE CONCLUSIONS.

In the mean time please not the bolded part above, as you atheists NEVER present ANY EVIDENCE, indeed spend all you time telling us why you don't have to, how indeed do you expect to actually influence positions that are held because of evidence? I deny your evidence therefor my ostrich mentality is the reality of your faith and evidence?

And this seems to be converting Christians in droves rather than embarrassing atheists and making them ... angry ... does it?

That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed with without evidence.

That which is repeatedly supported by known fallacy rather than evidence, should be mocked.

Both of those are Chris Hitchens in their essential.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:12:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 8:26:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/7/2014 8:16:27 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:41:28 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:12:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I don't need to support atheism. It is the default position.

Actually you do child - and I insist on treating someone like a child when they act like one - the Case for Christ has been made. Scientific Apologetics already exists.

So no, you don;t get to run around being a nod screaming I am right ... by default. That is no default position in logic save, "I don't know."

Would you claim "I don't know" if I told you Russell's teapot was in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars? I cannot prove it is there, and you cannot prove it is not there, so by your argument, you must hold the agnostic position on the existence of the teapot. You cannot not provide any "proof" for your God anymore than I can provide "proof" for that teapot. Claiming there is proof is not equivalent to proof. I'm certain you are an a-teapotist. That is the default position just as atheism if the default on the existence of the Christian god. Russell's teapot illustrates the silliness of the argument 'agnosticism is the default position'.

One other thing, when I, and most atheist on this site, talk about my position I am referring to "agnostic atheism", and it seems you equivocate this to "militant atheism". If you could paint me ( and most every other atheist on this site) into the militant atheist position, I know it would make your argument much easier, but I have told you my position many times. Militant atheism (I think some are calling this strong atheism) is an unreasonable position (much like militant theism) and is not default.

Are you a militant theist? You have not provided any evidence, yet you continue to demand 'He' exists. Militant theism is no better than militant atheism from a logical standpoint.

Maybe there is in atheism, but that because its illogical.


I would be happy to establish my point of view. Feel free to start a debate on the existence of your god.


Then do so. Right here, right now. You have claimed victimhood, default only, and now actively disparage my God and religion? Typically atheist.

So put up or sit up. Pretty easy.

How have I disparaged your God? Disbelief should not be offensive, especially when I am talking with a believer who can establish 'His' existence with evidence. I await the objective evidence which has led you to believe in an invisible creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and who apparently exists outside time and space. By continually demanding I disprove your God, you're trying to force me into a claim I have not made, and it is a transparent attempt to demonize me and the valid position of disbelief. You claim your God exists, I don't believe you, so if you wish to continue down this path, you will need to provide your evidence.

http://www.eskimo.com...

As you can see propagandists, and as you and I have already had this SAME conversation, which has produced not even a slight change in the dogmatic claims of the guilt by association fallacy, Russell's tea pot can be and has been disproven.

You remain stuck in your dogma.

And EXACTLY as charged, if I were sake dot disprove it, which I have done numerous times, as have thousands upon thousands religious and irreligious people (which is why its a KNOWN fallacy):

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

"You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove."

You have made the claim, so it seems obvious you don't understand what "burden of proof" means.... thank you for helping make my point.

That is right, its THE TEXT BOOK EXAMPLE, of the burden of proof FALLACY.

At any rate ... I would look at the evidence of the claims, just like the initial author and ARRIVE AT A SUPPORTABLE conclusion - one that I would be open to adjusting if new evidence were presented.

Guess what I would not do? I would not dump out a fallacy, even after it was explained to me as a fallacy, and then derisively act like I am superior when I use fallacy to insult someone else's faith.

Actually, that is exactly what you have done.

So, thanks for providing an opportunity to demonstrate how logical people solve rather than obfuscate problems to reach SUPPORTABLE CONCLUSIONS.

Your welcome, I am happy to be your logical example while you attempt to obfuscate my position. Actually, it is a real drain, trying to discuss anything with you!

In the mean time please not the bolded part above, as you atheists NEVER present ANY EVIDENCE, indeed spend all you time telling us why you don't have to, how indeed do you expect to actually influence positions that are held because of evidence? I deny your evidence therefor my ostrich mentality is the reality of your faith and evidence?

Should I present evidence of my disbelief? I have not denied your evidence, you simply have not presented any....

And this seems to be converting Christians in droves rather than embarrassing atheists and making them ... angry ... does it?

Nah, it doesn't make me angry when people don't understand what it means.

That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed with without evidence.

You have provided no evidence, therefore I must dismiss your god...

That which is repeatedly supported by known fallacy rather than evidence, should be mocked.

It is dogmatically beleaguered theists such as yourself which leave reasonable theists fighting against the 'illogical' title. You do realize your link attempting to refute Russell's teapot relies on the very fallacy you accuse me of: Burden of proof. Russell makes a claim, and he has the burden of proof. In the meantime the default position is non existence until evidence can be provided to the contrary. You, like Russell, claim something. You have the burden of proof. I have no burden to prove the teapot (god) does not exists nor is it reasonable for me to think it is probable since no objective evidence has been presented for it.

Both of those are Chris Hitchens in their essential.

Thank you for proving my point.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:16:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 9:12:04 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2014 8:26:34 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/7/2014 8:16:27 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2014 4:41:28 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:12:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I don't need to support atheism. It is the default position.

Actually you do child - and I insist on treating someone like a child when they act like one - the Case for Christ has been made. Scientific Apologetics already exists.

So no, you don;t get to run around being a nod screaming I am right ... by default. That is no default position in logic save, "I don't know."

Would you claim "I don't know" if I told you Russell's teapot was in orbit around the sun between the Earth and Mars? I cannot prove it is there, and you cannot prove it is not there, so by your argument, you must hold the agnostic position on the existence of the teapot. You cannot not provide any "proof" for your God anymore than I can provide "proof" for that teapot. Claiming there is proof is not equivalent to proof. I'm certain you are an a-teapotist. That is the default position just as atheism if the default on the existence of the Christian god. Russell's teapot illustrates the silliness of the argument 'agnosticism is the default position'.

One other thing, when I, and most atheist on this site, talk about my position I am referring to "agnostic atheism", and it seems you equivocate this to "militant atheism". If you could paint me ( and most every other atheist on this site) into the militant atheist position, I know it would make your argument much easier, but I have told you my position many times. Militant atheism (I think some are calling this strong atheism) is an unreasonable position (much like militant theism) and is not default.

Are you a militant theist? You have not provided any evidence, yet you continue to demand 'He' exists. Militant theism is no better than militant atheism from a logical standpoint.

Maybe there is in atheism, but that because its illogical.


I would be happy to establish my point of view. Feel free to start a debate on the existence of your god.


Then do so. Right here, right now. You have claimed victimhood, default only, and now actively disparage my God and religion? Typically atheist.

So put up or sit up. Pretty easy.

How have I disparaged your God? Disbelief should not be offensive, especially when I am talking with a believer who can establish 'His' existence with evidence. I await the objective evidence which has led you to believe in an invisible creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and who apparently exists outside time and space. By continually demanding I disprove your God, you're trying to force me into a claim I have not made, and it is a transparent attempt to demonize me and the valid position of disbelief. You claim your God exists, I don't believe you, so if you wish to continue down this path, you will need to provide your evidence.

http://www.eskimo.com...

As you can see propagandists, and as you and I have already had this SAME conversation, which has produced not even a slight change in the dogmatic claims of the guilt by association fallacy, Russell's tea pot can be and has been disproven.

You remain stuck in your dogma.

And EXACTLY as charged, if I were sake dot disprove it, which I have done numerous times, as have thousands upon thousands religious and irreligious people (which is why its a KNOWN fallacy):

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

"You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove."

You have made the claim, so it seems obvious you don't understand what "burden of proof" means.... thank you for helping make my point.

That is right, its THE TEXT BOOK EXAMPLE, of the burden of proof FALLACY.

At any rate ... I would look at the evidence of the claims, just like the initial author and ARRIVE AT A SUPPORTABLE conclusion - one that I would be open to adjusting if new evidence were presented.

Guess what I would not do? I would not dump out a fallacy, even after it was explained to me as a fallacy, and then derisively act like I am superior when I use fallacy to insult someone else's faith.

Actually, that is exactly what you have done.

So, thanks for providing an opportunity to demonstrate how logical people solve rather than obfuscate problems to reach SUPPORTABLE CONCLUSIONS.

Your welcome, I am happy to be your logical example while you attempt to obfuscate my position. Actually, it is a real drain, trying to discuss anything with you!

In the mean time please not the bolded part above, as you atheists NEVER present ANY EVIDENCE, indeed spend all you time telling us why you don't have to, how indeed do you expect to actually influence positions that are held because of evidence? I deny your evidence therefor my ostrich mentality is the reality of your faith and evidence?

Should I present evidence of my disbelief? I have not denied your evidence, you simply have not presented any....

And this seems to be converting Christians in droves rather than embarrassing atheists and making them ... angry ... does it?

Nah, it doesn't make me angry when people don't understand what it means.

That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed with without evidence.

You have provided no evidence, therefore I must dismiss your god...

That which is repeatedly supported by known fallacy rather than evidence, should be mocked.

It is dogmatically beleaguered theists such as yourself which leave reasonable theists fighting against the 'illogical' title. You do realize your link attempting to refute Russell's teapot relies on the very fallacy you accuse me of: Burden of proof. Russell makes a claim, and he has the burden of proof. In the meantime the default position is non existence until evidence can be provided to the contrary. You, like Russell, claim something. You have the burden of proof. I have no burden to prove the teapot (god) does not exists nor is it reasonable for me to think it is probable since no objective evidence has been presented for it.

Both of those are Chris Hitchens in their essential.

Thank you for proving my point.

So know, your argument is up is down, black is white, left s right, and cats and dogs are getting along.

Evidence in support of atheism? Zero.

BS clams about someone using evidence, and then flipping it as if your opponent is the one that just did what you did? Who brought in Russell's Tea Pot again? Who has failed entry to make any case whatsoever?

And yet there you sit pretending that someone else used the fallacy.

You atheists are simply not honest.

Just say what your argument really is, "I will stand here swinging around in circles, because it no about being right based on evidence ... its about NEVER having to concede a valid point."

Ta dahhhh ... the magc of atheism's evidence. Sheer, brazen, obstinance.

Once again, that which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

That you stand there and deny evidence while giving none to examine while playing semantic games?

There isn't even a reason to take you serious. You arguments are devoid of value.

Have a nice life.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:35:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 9:16:24 AM, neutral wrote:


It is dogmatically beleaguered theists such as yourself which leave reasonable theists fighting against the 'illogical' title. You do realize your link attempting to refute Russell's teapot relies on the very fallacy you accuse me of: Burden of proof. Russell makes a claim, and he has the burden of proof. In the meantime the default position is non existence until evidence can be provided to the contrary. You, like Russell, claim something. You have the burden of proof. I have no burden to prove the teapot (god) does not exists nor is it reasonable for me to think it is probable since no objective evidence has been presented for it.

Both of those are Chris Hitchens in their essential.

Thank you for proving my point.

So know, your argument is up is down, black is white, left s right, and cats and dogs are getting along.

Evidence in support of atheism? Zero.

BS clams about someone using evidence, and then flipping it as if your opponent is the one that just did what you did? Who brought in Russell's Tea Pot again? Who has failed entry to make any case whatsoever?

Do you make the claim your god exists? (yes) Therefore, the burden is upon you. Prove it or not (I don't care which), but quit trying to shift the burden to me. You act as though I have made the claim, "your god does not exist", but I have not, and I am open to the possibility he might exist. It does not follow I should prove what I don't believe.

And yet there you sit pretending that someone else used the fallacy.

You have.

You atheists are simply not honest.

Speak for yourself, Pal.

Just say what your argument really is, "I will stand here swinging around in circles, because it no about being right based on evidence ... its about NEVER having to concede a valid point."

You haven't made a valid point. If and when you ever do, I will concede it.

Ta dahhhh ... the magc of atheism's evidence. Sheer, brazen, obstinance.

This seem more descriptive of your position.

Once again, that which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

That you stand there and deny evidence while giving none to examine while playing semantic games?

There isn't even a reason to take you serious. You arguments are devoid of value.

Have a nice life.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 9:51:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/7/2014 9:35:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/7/2014 9:16:24 AM, neutral wrote:


It is dogmatically beleaguered theists such as yourself which leave reasonable theists fighting against the 'illogical' title. You do realize your link attempting to refute Russell's teapot relies on the very fallacy you accuse me of: Burden of proof. Russell makes a claim, and he has the burden of proof. In the meantime the default position is non existence until evidence can be provided to the contrary. You, like Russell, claim something. You have the burden of proof. I have no burden to prove the teapot (god) does not exists nor is it reasonable for me to think it is probable since no objective evidence has been presented for it.

Both of those are Chris Hitchens in their essential.

Thank you for proving my point.

So know, your argument is up is down, black is white, left s right, and cats and dogs are getting along.

Evidence in support of atheism? Zero.

BS clams about someone using evidence, and then flipping it as if your opponent is the one that just did what you did? Who brought in Russell's Tea Pot again? Who has failed entry to make any case whatsoever?

Do you make the claim your god exists? (yes) Therefore, the burden is upon you. Prove it or not (I don't care which), but quit trying to shift the burden to me. You act as though I have made the claim, "your god does not exist", but I have not, and I am open to the possibility he might exist. It does not follow I should prove what I don't believe.

And yet there you sit pretending that someone else used the fallacy.

You have.

You atheists are simply not honest.

Speak for yourself, Pal.

Just say what your argument really is, "I will stand here swinging around in circles, because it no about being right based on evidence ... its about NEVER having to concede a valid point."

You haven't made a valid point. If and when you ever do, I will concede it.

Ta dahhhh ... the magc of atheism's evidence. Sheer, brazen, obstinance.

This seem more descriptive of your position.

Once again, that which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

That you stand there and deny evidence while giving none to examine while playing semantic games?

There isn't even a reason to take you serious. You arguments are devoid of value.

Have a nice life.

Look at that, the COMPLETE flip of the burden of proof.

YOU are an atheist. You were asked what drove you to that conclusion, and here you are asking me to detail the entire collection of Apologetics for you rather than explain why you were, apparently logically and not emotionally, lead to be an atheist.

Claim? Atheism (supposedly logical).

Support: Zues and stuff - Russell's Tea Pt, erroneous shifting of burden of proof, and ... no evidence whatsoever. Umbrage I tells ya, that someone would dismiss this as asinine.

Rebuttal of probable counters: What!?! Christainity has been around for 2,000 years and people have attempted to support it? Whachu talking' about Willis!

Conclusion: Atheism is batty.

Again, you were asked two things:

#1 - Support your atheism - failed.

#2 - To demonstrate something that is not a straight up rip off of standard atheist propaganda - failed.

Ergo, MY conclusion - you are nothing but a dogmatic adherent to dead, pointless atheist propaganda - not that all atheists are mind you - but the mantra of magic tea cups and the erroneous shifting of the burden of proof is wearisome and frankly ignorantly boring.

Atheism need not be that way, but if some atheists choose to embrace deliberate ignorance and eschew evidenced based reasoning in favor of sloganeering? That is their life to waste.

Just stop asking us to treat you like your position, when its supported by drivel, with respect. Atheism? Sure. Atheism supported by ... nothing? Sorry, I agree with Hitchens on that one.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Your atheism is dismissed.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2014 10:29:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:17:20 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:38:30 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:33:58 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:40:46 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:13:53 AM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
..nostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Because agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are stupid terms. Belief requires knowledge. Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists are just cowards.

What's faith, then? Isn't faith belief without knowledge? Isn't that the definition of faith? How about cognitive dissonance. That's a well documented occurrence in humans. People get stressed when they believe two contradicting things, and those ideas clash. By definition these people have belief without knowledge. Belief without knowledge is easy, knowledge without belief is hard.

No it's not, not in the dictionary and certainly not in scripture (even more important).

Faith-
complete trust or confidence in someone or something. strong belief or trust in someone or something
In the religion's view, faith and knowledge are both required for spiritual growth.[8] Faith involves more than outward obedience to this authority, but also must be based on a deep personal understanding of religious teachings.

Faith is to move IN knowledge

Hebrews 11

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Scripture is worth about as much as a mad magazine to me, no offence meant. But, I notice what appeared to be you giving dictionary definitions for faith, without actually sourcing them. I googled your exact text, and found at least some of it appeared to be taken from various parts of the wiki page on faith. Now, the wiki page on faith starts out by saying this: "Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant. The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust, or belief."

So, either there was a very very unlikely occurrence where you just happened to write a few sentences identical to those from the wiki page, or you decided to cherry pick. I don't care either way. Because regardless of what you may think, one of the common use definitions of faith is belief without proof or knowledge.

Either way you were wrong, your statement was "isn't faith belief without knowledge", no it's not and of course the scriptures are important as to identify the usage of an element like faith. Faith is to move IN knowledge, as I stated.
wiki Faith
is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,[1] as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]
In the religion's view, faith and knowledge are both required for spiritual growth.[8] Faith involves more than outward obedience to this authority, but also must be based on a deep personal understanding of religious teachings.

Wiki Knowledge
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.