Example of lunacy that shows that "god" isn't real (atheists, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the whole purpose of this thread, to point out the logical fallacies of believers/religion. Thanks for pointing it out.
I believe we are in a system better described as life more than non life. Starting with just the traits in any biology book. That has some implications.
That spacetime exchanges information via the mechanisms in QED and we (the induvial) are but nodes of complexity within that system.
so salty ... seeing as how you think you have all that we need to know to win the claim game ...
please ... point out where the logical fallacy. Wait for it ... wait ... wait ... it coming ... I already hear it ...
also ... one (in fact a few here do) of your fellow atheist thinks that we don't even need evidence to have a belief ... infact, they think it shouldn't be used. how do you feel about that one?
logical fallacies are used more by people that don't know what they are talking about (or not using knows) then by people that do.
just saying.
the ones here most often mis applied here are composition fallacy and non sequitur. And since many people believe that "belief" doesn't need actual data ... logical fallacies are pointless at that point. The agenda become the point, not what position is more reliable.
we are moving toward a FFR satellite site. Not a "hey, lets look at various beliefs and see what ones make sense." if we are open and repeat it all the time ,,,thats cool. at least it open and honest.
With some of the Religious...it isn't so much that "belief doesn't need actual data"...it is more that they believe some Omnimax Powered God Being performed "miracles".
They know it "goes against current data", but they attribute it to a God Entity that can do things outside of known physics.
So critiquing & questioning the stories based upon "known data" is not applicable.
For Example: If an Entity has the power to make it rain 375 inches per hour for 960 hours...that Entity can *SNAP* get rid of the water, handle what was going on in a big boat, or any other issue.
Some Religious believe that a Omnimax God made the "impossible" happen....not that impossible things (relative to known data) just happened.
Of course...arguing these things may seem to be applying various "logical fallacies"...but that is because the "miracle" aspect they believe is not being taken into consideration.
The argument needs to be that the Omnimax God & those "miracle" scenarios are metaphorical and allegorical, not that the Religious are gullible morons that believe fantastical stuff that goes against known data.
I believe we are in a system better described as life more than non life. Starting with just the traits in any biology book. That has some implications.
That spacetime exchanges information via the mechanisms in QED and we (the induvial) are but nodes of complexity within that system.
so salty ... seeing as how you think you have all that we need to know to win the claim game ...
please ... point out where the logical fallacy. Wait for it ... wait ... wait ... it coming ... I already hear it ...
also ... one (in fact a few here do) of your fellow atheist thinks that we don't even need evidence to have a belief ... infact, they think it shouldn't be used. how do you feel about that one?
You keep repeating the "system better described as life" statement over and over. I once asked you "so what", and don't recall ever getting a meaningful response. You must thinks it is of some importance, but never have connected the dots, I suspect, because, there are no dots to connect.
It get the idea that what you are really doing is discussing the prohibited "P" subject without, like Pyrite Boy, ever using the "P" word.
I believe we are in a system better described as life more than non life. Starting with just the traits in any biology book. That has some implications.
That spacetime exchanges information via the mechanisms in QED and we (the induvial) are but nodes of complexity within that system.
so salty ... seeing as how you think you have all that we need to know to win the claim game ...
please ... point out where the logical fallacy. Wait for it ... wait ... wait ... it coming ... I already hear it ...
also ... one (in fact a few here do) of your fellow atheist thinks that we don't even need evidence to have a belief ... infact, they think it shouldn't be used. how do you feel about that one?
For many of the Atheists here, their Atheism is based upon what I called "The LOBBUNE Doctrine" (Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence)...a Logical Fallacy from the get-go: Argument From Ignorance.
They use "No Evidence" as evidence to make a determination as to what position they should take on the existence of a God Entity.
Now add the "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" they constantly employ...and that's a wrap.
For many of the Atheists here, their Atheism is based upon what I called "The LOBBUNE Doctrine" (Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence)...a Logical Fallacy from the get-go: Argument From Ignorance.
They use "No Evidence" as evidence to make a determination as to what position they should take on the existence of a God Entity.
Now add the "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" they constantly employ...and that's a wrap.
Your "arguments" (using that term very loosely) are infantile and foolish in the extreme. The babbling s of insanity (or pot), or, more likely, both. It is amazing the extent you will go to come up with nonsense in a failed attempt to support your lunacy, and attack rational thought. But such is the way of the stoner, so who am I to be surprised.
Your "arguments" (using that term very loosely) are infantile and foolish in the extreme. The babbling s of insanity (or pot), or, more likely, both. It is amazing the extent you will go to come up with nonsense in a failed attempt to support your lunacy, and attack rational thought. But such is the way of the stoner, so who am I to be surprised.
Lovingly yours,
Salty
actually not. Yeah a bit abrasive, and we (Gld and myself) do dig in sometimes and just hurl grandees without thinking. We are certainty guilty of that. I know I have questioned gld a few times and he clarified what he said. And I know when i go reread some of post, I am like "WTF is that crap."
But salty ... the argument is you fighting a deity only vs us only talking about beliefs that offer a mechanism, make predictions, and are consistent with observation.
it comes down to a mechanism, repeatable prediction, and consistent with observation. You ignoring that doesn't mean squat.
The god is less of an issue for him and me. Maybe we are wrong, but we were not stung by bad religious people. In part, because we were smart enough not to be. So we don't see it being religion but rather bad people.
We do not equate religion with bad. re relate what a person is doing and saying in order to determine what is bad and good. Or in this case, what is more reliable,, its basically human nature, not religion salty.
You may not believe what he believes. But to call it lunacy is just not true. We may be in a living system.
If it was so luny, we could list what he believes and compare it to what you are saying. If we are luney, we could be shown to be so in an open format where we can bring our evidence to bare. You could knock it down easily.
Your "arguments" (using that term very loosely) are infantile and foolish in the extreme. The babbling s of insanity (or pot), or, more likely, both. It is amazing the extent you will go to come up with nonsense in a failed attempt to support your lunacy, and attack rational thought. But such is the way of the stoner, so who am I to be surprised.
Lovingly yours,
Salty
You have no "argument". Just insults...and whining that almost the whole world is Religious, has been, and getting more so.
Whether the Theologies are "true" or not...they wield incredible power and influence...leaving you at the bottom of the "pecking order".
Ya know...you Militant Anti-Religionists already haveThe Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster...and you went through all the childish effort to invent them...so, just get behind one of them.
It will have way more mojo then the concept you currently embrace (unless you are looking to be among the most hated and least trusted...it's good for doing that)...and you'd 'fit in" better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
