What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[just a believing guy]

Other people have had NDE's that don't involve Jesus, Mary, or God the Father, instead seeing figures from their own cultures, and they feel their experience was as real as any other NDE.

Near-Death Experiences and Hinduism

http://listverse.com/2016/01/31/10-surprising-near-death-experiences-that-may-change-your-beliefs/

These Hindu experiences don't fit into Hinduism very well for the reasons I've already presented.

 

[Dave Ellis]

These Hindu experiences don't fit into Hinduism very well for the reasons I've already presented.

Doesn't matter, they still exist and Jesus was nowhere to be seen.

If there was an objectively true afterlife and near death experiences gave us a legitimate look at that afterlife, we would expect all people to have similar experiences.

Instead we see that most people have visions of stuff already in their brains. Christians don't see Muhammad, Hindus don't see Jesus, Muslims don't see Vishnu. They tend to see things they happen to believe in.

That suggests it's hallucinations generated by the persons brain.

 

[Cute Tink]

Lacking belief is not what Athiesm is by definition.

Atheism by definition is.....

In the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

 

[Dave Ellis]

These Hindu experiences don't fit into Hinduism very well for the reasons I've already presented.

And just like any religion, someone that wants to can drum up an apologetic to explain how it fits perfectly into Hinduism.

 

[Cute Tink]

10th Doctor

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[David Brider]

10th Doctor

Be fair, the Eleventh is kinda cool. And the twelfth. And the second. And the sixth. And...

(I may be slightly biased. You could never tell, could you..?)

 

[zippy2006]

I admit that I often have problems with these finicky little phisophical distinctions between "not having a belief" and "having a belief that not" and all that.

I agree.

But in the simplistic way that I see it, all you have to do is ask a person "Do you believe in deities?"... and if the answer is "no.", point out that this then is the only existing general definition of "atheist": "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods" (M-W)

And I will just point out that such a definition is not the same as mere lack of belief. In common parlance, "I don't believe in X" often means "I believe that X doesn't exist." Very few people limit themselves at the "finicky little philosophical distinction" of mere lack of belief, and if they do wish to limit themselves at that point then they often use a less ambiguous phrase, such as lack or absence of belief.

I think the reason for this is rather intuitive. By the law of the excluded middle, "I don't believe in X" tends to mean, "I believe in ~X." Of course belief statements and truth statements are a bit different, and the LEM applies to the former more than the latter, but the general point still holds:

• I don't believe in unicorns -> I believe unicorns do not exist.
• I don't believe in second chances -> I believe second chances do not exist.
• I don't believe it will rain tomorrow -> I believe it will not rain tomorrow.
• I don't believe the Giants will win the Superbowl -> I believe the Giants will not win the Superbowl.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you generally trust a dying oxygen deprived brain of giving you reliable information?

Must. Resist. Obvious. Joke.

 

[David Brider]

The problem seems to be, then, that you're misusing the word "fallacy". It doesn't just mean something you disagree with - it refers to an argument that uses faulty logic to reach its conclusions.

Fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny'sID]

The problem seems to be, then, that you're misusing the word "fallacy". It doesn't just mean something you disagree with - it refers to an argument that uses faulty logic to reach its conclusions.

Are you kidding me? You are really saying I can't disagree with something that is fallacy? Thanks for making my point so crystal clear.

And for those unable to keep up...What was that point?

I'm now convinced this is a combination of unable to keep up with a simple conversation, and such a dire need to find fault, that you chose to miss the obvious, then milk it for everything it's worth.

But bring on the excuses if you must.

 

[David Brider]

Are you kidding me? You are really saying I can't disagree with something that is fallacy? Thanks for making my point so crystal clear.

And for those unable to keep up...What was that point?

No; I'm saying that the fact that you disagree with something doesn't make that something a fallacy.

 

[bhsmte]

No; I'm saying that the fact that you disagree with something doesn't make that something a fallacy.

I thought you made that very clear in your post. I wonder what the problem could be?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No; I'm saying that the fact that you disagree with something doesn't make that something a fallacy.

Of course not, and?

Actually, I'd better help you with that..

Doesn't make it not a fallacy either. True or false is often in the eye of the beholder.... Both views were given and clearly mine was thought to be false, just as I considered the opposing view false. I think your fishing for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[David Brider]

Of course not, and?

Actually, I'd better help you with that..

Doesn't make it not a fallacy either.

Of course not.

What makes something a fallacy is it being a fallacy. What makes something not a fallacy is it not being a fallacy. You accused Dave Ellis of committing a fallacy, but have yet to clarify which statement of his was a fallacy, nor what the fallacy was.

Both views were given and clearly mine was thought to be false, just as I considered the opposing view false. I think your fishing for a problem that doesn't exist.

But this isn't about whether a view is true or false - it's about whether or not the reasoning to support that view is fallacious.

 

[David Brider]

True or false is often in the eye of the beholder...

Don't you believe in objective truth?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Of course not.

What makes something a fallacy is it being a fallacy. What makes something not a fallacy is it not being a fallacy. You accused Dave Ellis of committing a fallacy, but have yet to clarify which statement of his was a fallacy, nor what the fallacy was.

I was very clear, and if you cannot follow it after all that, you confirm what has been evident all along, you are refusing to see the obvious, or there is something off with you. Sorry that is the kindest way I can put it.

I went to the trouble to explain things thoroughly and it's not fully unexpected the excuses would follow, but you haven't and regardless of how hard you try, never will have a leg to stand on. But keep picking if you like.

We disagree, I stand with my opinion as correct and always will as I indicated early on, making the other opinion fallacy IMO. If it is not acceptable to you for someone to stand firmly with an opinion after hearing both sides, then we disagree there as well.

Tell you what, just keep posting the same question/accusation over and over again until you get it out of your system, it may help.

 

[bhsmte]

Can the hole get any deeper?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I was clear all along, your question has been answered, there was nothing confusing here, just you latching on to something that was evidently very important to you. Wish I could make excuses, but I'm certain it was much more than a misunderstanding.

I'm now convinced this is a combination of unable to keep up with a simple conversation, and such a dire need to find fault, that you chose to miss the obvious, then milk it for everything it's worth.

Having read your reply to me, along with the next couple posts you did, it's pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what a logical fallacy is.

So, it makes sense why you didn't tell me which fallacy I committed. However, on the other hand it's pretty funny how your post is written with such a smug tone when it turns out the person who isn't keeping up is you....

You said...

Then, I simply referred to that comment as fallacy, in that I disagreed, by following with this...

A fallacy is not something you simply disagree with, a fallacy is a specific type of logical flaw found in the structure of an argument.

Here is a list of both formal and informal logical fallacies: List of fallacies - Wikipedia

For example, saying "X is true because everyone knows it's true" is an appeal to popularity fallacy or an argumentum ad populum.

It's an error in logic to say something is true just because people think it is. It's possible all those people are wrong.

Likewise if someone says "X is true because I can't imagine another way it could have been done" is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine another explanation doesn't mean the one you've come up with is correct.

Hence, a fallacy is a specific type of logical error in an argument. You accused me of making one, and I asked you which one. Looks like up until now you didn't understand what a fallacy is.

What was my original view? If I post it, here, I'm afraid it will confuse you, but you can easily go back and read. Just backtrack following the subject, and if you have trouble let me know, I'll try to deal with that in another post.

What was "your end of the story"? It was the post I was replying to, I'll post it again to be sure...

This response was to the part you wrote originally accusing me of committing a fallacy. I did go back and read it, and it's apparently clear you didn't understand what you were accusing me of

The key to understanding this, for your future reference, is to simply keep up with what post follows the other. When I made the comment, I was commenting to something, and what could it be I was commenting to? the prior post directed at me.

Hope you got what you evidently needed from this complete waste of time.

Actually, the key to understanding this, for your future reference is to understand the words you are using when you accuse someone of something.

You accused me of committing a logical fallacy when I did not. When pressed on it, you said something is a fallacy because you disagree with the argument, which it is not.

You may disagree with my argument, however it was not a fallacious argument.

The person who hopefully got something out of this is you. Hopefully you've been educated on the basics of logic and logical fallacies, and you'll study up on the topic more. Being able to identify fallacies in an argument go a long way to protecting you against scammers and other false claims about the world.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Are you kidding me? You are really saying I can't disagree with something that is fallacy? Thanks for making my point so crystal clear.

And for those unable to keep up...What was that point?

But bring on the excuses if you must.

You can disagree with something all you want. In fact, if you're presented with a fallacious argument, you should disagree with it by default.

However, just because you disagree with something does not make that thing a fallacy.