What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Well actually if there's no fallacious reasoning in the argument, it is indeed not a fallacy.

True or false is never in the eye of the beholder. Your personal perspective has no bearing on what is objectively true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Ok, at this point you're just being flat out intellectually dishonest.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A fallacy is a false hood, and pretending I don't know what a logical fallacy is, a term I never used, along with your other recent posts/desperate attempts to weasel out of something that is so simple and clear just is has always was, is just too sad for me to bear.

I think were done here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A fallacy is a false hood, and pretending I don't know what a logical fallacy is, a term I never used, along with your other recent posts/desperate attempts to weasel out of something that is so simple and clear just is has always was, is just too sad for me to bear.

I think were done here.

No, it's not.

A logical fallacy is defined as: "A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid".

You're trying to weasel out of the fact you accused me of fallacious reasoning then looked foolish when it was exposed that you don't know what the term means.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Stop adding the word "logical" I don't care what a logical fallacy is. My comment did not include that. And that's not really so much for you, we are done, it's to be certain readers aren't misled with your add ons that I already covered once.

Haven't you dug yourself in deep enough? Please, stop doing this to yourself. I'm uncomfortable for you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Stop adding the word "logical" I don't care what a logical fallacy is. My comment did not include that. And that's not really so much for you, we are done, it's to be certain readers aren't misled with your add ons that I already covered once.

Haven't you dug yourself in deep enough? Please, stop doing this to yourself. I'm uncomfortable for you.

I agree, there's no point in discussing logic with you.

Later.

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

It's like you didn't understand what you wrote.

Having an absence of belief in the existence of deities is the same as lacking belief.

Athiests claim that God does not exist.

Some atheists make this claim.
Not this atheist though.

True Atheism is flat out rejection of external deity figure.

Ah, I see "true" atheists. And by true, you mean "the definition of atheism that I want to use".

What if I defined "true" Christians as biblical literalistic, young earth creationist opposed to gay marriage and supporting slavery?

Atheism is a response to a claim. Theists claim that some god exists. My response is: I don't believe your claim, and until you can provide evidence to support it, I will continue withholding my belief.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Any thoughts?

Profit? It doesn't. Benefit? I would say atheists benefit from a view of reality more accurate than their theistic brethren.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Profit? It doesn't. Benefit? I would say atheists benefit from a view of reality more accurate than their theistic brethren.

Are you referring to the reality of... It all started from nothing or something, somewhere, for no reason that we know of, over... Created, and for a reason, just as we have seen anything and everything come about with our own eyes, and have never ever seen it come about any other way?

Must be a matter of perception of reality, cuz I'm just not seeing it.

 

[The Times]

Atheism is a response to a claim. Theists claim that some god exists. My response is: I don't believe your claim, and until you can provide evidence to support it, I will continue withholding my belief.

Therefore Athiesm is nothing on its own merit and comes only into play as a response to the question in regards to the existence of God.

So Athiesm is a response, leading towards a counter claim to reject the existance of God.

Within the scientific community a claim or theory is to be taken as truth into evidence unless it is proven wrong.

The ball is in the Athiest court to prove that the Christian claim to the existance of God is wrong.

For Athiests to do so, they have the burden to prove otherwise and in so doing they are claiming that God doesn't exist.

I hope I have cleared up the smoke screen.

 

[bhsmte]

Therefore Athiesm is nothing on its own merit and comes only into play as a response to questio n in regards to the existence of God.

Do Athiesm is a response in a counter claim to reject the existance of God.

Within the scientific community a claim or theory is to be taken as truth into evidence unless it is proven wrong.

The ball is in the Athiest court to prove that the Christian claim to the existance of God is wrong.

For Athiests to do so, they have the burden to prove otherwise and in doing so they are claiming tgat Hod doesn't exist.

I hope I have cleared up the smoke screen.

No, you are hiding behind a smoke screen.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

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....



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.



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



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.

Hello.

Please forgive me. I was wondering if this post you made could be seen as a 'fallacy fallacy'?

Please let me know what you think

Thank you

 

[Dave Ellis]

Therefore Athiesm is nothing on its own merit and comes only into play as a response to the question in regards to the existence of God.

So Athiesm is a response, leading towards a counter claim to reject the existance of God.

Within the scientific community a claim or theory is to be taken as truth into evidence unless it is proven wrong.

The ball is in the Athiest court to prove that the Christian claim to the existance of God is wrong.

For Athiests to do so, they have the burden to prove otherwise and in so doing they are claiming that God doesn't exist.

I hope I have cleared up the smoke screen.

The scientific community doesn't accept every idea unless it's proven to be wrong.

Ideas are known as hypotheses which are not accepted as true unless they undergo a battery of tests and independent peer review. If it passes all attempts to falsify it, then it is tentatively accepted pending further evidence which may come along and discredit it.

God is a hypothesis, theists have not yet shown sufficient evidence to support the claim that it exists. Until there is some kind of solid evidence to examine then theism has not met its burden of proof, and we can not be justified in accepting the claim.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hello.

Please forgive me. I was wondering if this post you made could be seen as a 'fallacy fallacy'?

Please let me know what you think

Thank you

I'm not sure how you'd conclude that, what part in particular do you mean?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

The scientific community doesn't accept every idea unless it's proven to be wrong.

Ideas are known as hypotheses which are not accepted as true unless they undergo a battery of tests and independent peer review. If it passes all attempts to falsify it, then it is tentatively accepted pending further evidence which may come along and discredit it.

God is a hypothesis, theists have not yet shown sufficient evidence to support the claim that it exists. Until there is some kind of solid evidence to examine then theism has not met its burden of proof, and we can not be justified in accepting the claim.

Hello.

With the concept of burden of proof. What type of proof would you require?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I'm not sure how you'd conclude that, what part in particular do you mean?

fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you referring to the reality of... It all started from nothing or something, somewhere, for no reason that we know of, over... Created, and for a reason, just as we have seen anything and everything come about with our own eyes, and have never ever seen it come about any other way?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but no, I don't think it's got anything to do with my point.

Must be a matter of perception of reality, cuz I'm just not seeing it.

Indeed...you probably won't be able to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.

The fallacy of the fallacy is a bit tricky...

It means that you can be correct in spite of using a logical fallacy...but it doesn't mean that you are correct.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hello.

With the concept of burden of proof. What type of proof would you require?

Something that would conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god that can be examined and falsified should do I would imagine.

It's not really up to me though, the person who believes the claim should be capable of providing evidence sufficient to warrant belief. It's up to them to prove their claims, and if they can, I'll accept their claim.

 

[The Times]

The scientific community doesn't accept every idea unless it's proven to be wrong.

Ideas are known as hypotheses which are not accepted as true unless they undergo a battery of tests and independent peer review. If it passes all attempts to falsify it, then it is tentatively accepted pending further evidence which may come along and discredit it.

God is a hypothesis, theists have not yet shown sufficient evidence to support the claim that it exists. Until there is some kind of solid evidence to examine then theism has not met its burden of proof, and we can not be justified in accepting the claim.

Nonsense!

The belief in God is testified throughout generations and nations and this is based on experiencal claims that cannot be dismissed an hypothesis. The subjects of the claim of God existing are part and parcel of the insurmountable bed of evidence that keeps coming and coming and no one throughout history has been able to refute the claim of the existance of God.

An Athiest csn only make hypothesis in counterclaim without any merited evidence, because evidence is required by the Athiests to prove otherwise.