Bad Arguments

[AV1611VET]

I know.

QV please: 38

 

[JayFern]

This is the kind of rhetorically-charged, fallacious reasoning that you have been basing your criticisms on and caused people not to want to engage.

This is a fallacy of denying the consequent: it demonstrates that you have predetermined conclusions and presuppositions which will not be changed by anything less than Christians recanting their faith and becoming atheists.



First of all, I have not begun to say anything about my faith because I believe the premises you put forward are faulty and the questions are loaded.



Please define what "evidence" is and the extent one would have to go to provide some that would be considered meaningful to you in any way, shape, or form.



As I said before, I have not begun to say anything about my beliefs because of loaded questions like this. Despite the loaded questions, it is becoming rather clear what little (i.e. nothing) evidence a Christian could provide that you would accept or which could cause you to adjust your presuppositions.



More Hitchens-Dawkins rhetoric of denigration that hinges upon a tu quoque fallacy. Perhaps if you have been so put off by Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and wish to vent anger and air sour grapes, you should consider another venue besides this one?

Whatever, if you're happy then I wish you good luck.

 

[Zosimus]

Someone who holds a position that is not logical or properly evidenced is the very definition of someone who is not thinking straight.

Please provide evidence for this claim, or admit that you're not thinking straight.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just asking a Christian a question about their religion is rude because everyone should know by now they do not have any answers so asking them a question is without doubt just being rude to them.

Christians on the other hand can be as rude as they like to atheist but that must never to be seen as Christians being rude.

A thousand poster proclaiming the glory of God, one poster saying there is no God and Christians claim they are being persecuted.

No, you can ask questions about sensitive topics without insulting people with a little tact and a willingness to listen.

You think I don't call out both theists and atheists when they are being crappy? I prefer discussions to remain polite and civil, because once the insults start getting thrown around progress in debates tends to stall big time. If you really want to convince people that their perspectives might be off, don't insult them or use a rude tone.

Sure, if you want to reduce an exceedingly complex issue to a battle between hardcore fundamentalists and extreme antitheists.

 

[Tzaousios]

Sure, if you want to reduce an exceedingly complex issue to a battle between hardcore fundamentalists and extreme antitheists.

Thank you, for Pete's sake!

Atheists who do this here and in the Exploring Christianity forum put up roadblocks to fruitful discussion in much the same way that arrogant, overzealous Christians do in insulting atheists' intelligence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you, for Pete's sake!

Atheists who do this here and in the Exploring Christianity forum put up roadblocks to fruitful discussion in much the same way that arrogant, overzealous Christians do in insulting atheists' intelligence.

Both extremes make the moderates look bad by virtue of how loudly they scream their ignorance. If either side wants an intelligent, fulfilling debate, one has to make attempts to be civil. Some people don't seem to get how important being decent and likable is to a debate; constant aggression makes ones points seem less valid.

Which is why I don't spare my fellow atheists from criticism, when I feel it is applicable.

 

[Zosimus]

2. Well, scripture says...- So? Obviously I don't view that source as having the weight you think it does. You might as well be saying "well, Green Eggs and Ham says", because a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity such as myself is never going to be convinced on anything based on what it says, unless perhaps I missed something big when I read it.

You said "...by an existing deity such as myself..."

How long have you been an existing deity? Have you ever been a non-existing deity?

 

[Loudmouth]

You said "...by an existing deity such as myself..."

How long have you been an existing deity? Have you ever been a non-existing deity?

". . . because a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity such as myself is never going to be convinced on anything based on what it says . . ."

The "such as myself" refers to "a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity".

 

[Zosimus]

". . . because a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity such as myself is never going to be convinced on anything based on what it says . . ."

The "such as myself" refers to "a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity".

No, actually the quote itself is what we call a Misplaced Modifier in which the author meant to say something, but the words (amusingly enough) mean something entirely different when read with an eye to what they really express rather than what the author intended.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Thank you, for Pete's sake!

Do you know what a minced oath is?

You might want to mind your language :o

 

[Linuxgal]

Some people don't seem to get how important being decent and likable is to a debate; constant aggression makes ones points seem less valid.

1 Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

 

[justlookinla]

1 Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And this has what to do with creation/evolution?

 

[Strathos]

One can not rule out the possibility that anything you can imagine might exist but does that mean it has to be believed until it's shown not to exist? that's the most [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-eyed brain damaged thinking I have ever come across.

I am not an anti-theist I'm an anti-crazy thinkingist.
It's been known for a very long time that the best form of defence is attack.
For a theist if your back is against the wall either answer a question with a question or attack the questioner.

I notice you didn't deny being consol...

Also, here's another bad argument:

"I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in other gods"

Absolutely untrue most of the time. For example, I don't believe in "Allah" because I believe that "Allah" is a flawed interpretation of the true God (Yahweh). I don't think atheists would hold that kind of position.

Alternatively, some people will say that they do believe in the existence of other gods like the pagan pantheons, except that they are actually demons/fallen angels. This is, again, a position that no atheist would take.