The Folly of Atheism

Yes it is possible the Easter Bunny also exists. But my guess is you probably don't actually believe in the bunny. Same old logic flaw you keep using. Here it is.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

 

Learn to attribute.

Anyway...I am not assuming anything...so the lecture you copied is of no value.

It is possible that gods exist. It also is possible that no gods exist.

 

What would be the fun in that. You are a constant source of amusement. How could anyone not be amused by the writings of someone who refuses to discuss Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy but believes it is possible that psychic snowflakes exist.

 

Oh, great. You amuse me...I amuse you. We are in a win/win situation.

I was hoping you would not go away, Ecco.

As I said...win/win. I doesn't get any better.

If you want to discuss Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy...go speak to a fellow atheist or a toddler. The toddler would be your better bet for an intelligent discussion, though.

Anyway...ANYTHING that has not been established as impossible...IS POSSIBLE.

Are you saying that a Psychic Snowflake is impossible? (You've answered "yes" to that question previously.)

So...why are you saying it is impossible?

 

Indeed, you have heard repetitions from me. Is that bad. You don't like word games and deflections. I have consistently and clearly stated my position and the reasons for my position. I have never stated "I don't believe anything, but". That's Frank Apisa's mantra.

On the other hand, your position, your belief, on the existence of humans on earth is, at best, vague. Something about an unspecified Creator?

 

I have said, "I do not do 'believing.'"

The only reason I say that...is because I do not do "believing."

I HAVE stated my position on this matter repeatedly...and can do so here again easily:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

So...where is that position you supposedly have repeatedly stated?

 

Yes, ignorance and how to exploit it is the theme here. On the one side you have the theist who uses ignorance as a vacuum into which he can wedge his dogma and on the other side the agnostic who uses ignorance as a vacuum into which he can wedge his dogma. Of course, both are very selective about applying this but hey, it's two sides of the same coin brother!

Theist - if you don't know everything then you don't know anything which means that you could be mistaken about what you believe.

Agnostic - if you don't know everything then you don't know anything which means that you could be mistaken about what you believe.

Atheist - if you want to convince me that you know something then demonstrate it, otherwise I don't accept your assertion.

 

I have. I have clearly stated them. Based on knowledge. I'm OK with the words beliefs as long as theists don't try to just apply the wrong one of two definitions.

My arguments are based on reality, not wishful thinking.

I do have a belief system. I'm not special. I know my views are supported by evidence.

I don't think other people are stupid and I've never said other people are stupid.

On the other hand, as shown once again in your above comment, you have no problem with referring to atheists as fools, foolish, irrational and hysterical.



We can clearly see that USFAN has no problem in making nonsensical and untrue comments. He must assign his own false views of atheists in order to argue against them. It's called setting up a strawman.

USFAN chides atheists for using derisive words, even when they don't. He does this to set himself above atheists. All the while ignoring and pretending that he doesn't do these things himself.

 

Oh dear, that's another side of the same coin isn't it; yet more Folly of Agnosticism.

Agnostics and theists chide atheists for using derisive words and try to set themselves above atheists all the while ignoring that they do it.

 

***

The BIGGEST folly of atheism is demonstrated right here.

That is the position of an agnostic...not an atheist, unless we are talking about the Internet debating atheist who wants to pretend that he/she used the descriptor "atheist" because of a lack of "belief."

Fact is, read the postings of the atheists in the forum...and it soon becomes apparent that they GUESS that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.

But...the folly of atheists abound...and it is fun to discuss them.

Which is what we are doing.

Good for all of us.

***Emphasis in William's quote is mine!

 

Nice try.

Complete miss.

 

"They"?
I've clearly and repeatedly stated my position. Here it is again.

• I am an atheist.
• Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. As such there is no need to assign them any more credibility than there is to assigning credibility to psychic snowflakes.

Examine away.

 

It is extremely rude to alter quotes without some kind of recognition of doing so Frank, please go back and add that you have added the emphasis.

 

I don't agree that a toddler would be intellectually superior to you. But if that's what you think, OK.

 

One...you do not KNOW all gods are the creation of man's imaginings. And even if you did...and could substantiate it...that would not mean that gods do not exist. Humans actually get things wrong occasionally.

It is POSSIBLE that gods exist; it is POSSIBLE that no gods exist.

You do not know...and just do not have what it takes to acknowledge that you do not know.

I'm sure you can do it, though, Ecco. Just think it through. Take it in small steps.

Deal with the question:

Is it at all POSSIBLE for gods to exist?

If you come up with the answer "no"...then you can easily see that you are just kidding yourself.

If you come up with "yes"...we can take the next small step.

 

It's not the first time he has done that. It's not the first time he's been called out on it.

 

Show me one that isn't.

 

You are absolutely correct, William.

I was wrong to leave that comment out.

I have corrected it.

Thank you for calling it to my attention so that I can be more careful in the future.

I apologize.

 

Apology not required.

 

Any of them could be.

You said, "Gods are the creation of man's imaginings."

That is an assertion...essentially that all gods are.

I am saying that I do not see how you can KNOW that.

If you want to say "It appears..." or "It seems..." fine.

If you want to stick with "Gods are..."...you've got a burden of proof there.

Ready to meet it?

- - - Updated - - -

I realize that.

People of substance do it anyway.

I screwed up...and an apology is what I thought should be offered.

 

That didn't answer the question.

 

Sure it did.

 

Funny isn't it. If you assert that, 'gods are the imaginings of human beings' that immediately gets pounced on but, if you assert that, 'gods are creators' then that is acceptable? I do not know of a single 'gods' that is not de facto an imaginary concept but, I do know of many 'gods' that are not 'creators'. Hey ho, it's just a meaningless Foag word game anyway. As an side, I have read that God might not have been a 'creator' of our Universe depending upon how you translate the Bible he might just be a being that separated the heavens and earth of an already existing Universe.

 

Over 2 billion Christians; almost 2 billion Muslims; over 1 billion Hindus all call their god the CREATOR.

If you want to play the game of separating the Heavens and the Earth...play it. But play it like a flute, because all of those religious people consider their god to be the CREATOR.

So, the notion of one idea of what a god would be...A CREATOR...is not as silly as some silly atheists would like to think.

I must say I am happy my comments here are having the effect they are.

The atheists are coming to understand that they do not run wild anymore...telling the theists how naive they are with their "beliefs."

Now you guys are being held to account for YOUR "beliefs."

And the flailing going on seems to indicate you don't like it.

 

Frank, you are the one endlessly chasing me around quoting me for attention like a child, did you not notice that over the last few days? I'm not playing your dumb word games any more, you are busted and, I am just mocking your position now, there is no debate left, your argument is bankrupt. It is telling though that the only people on here that give any credence to your nonsense are theists and, that is because they share your arguments; they are literally the opposite side of the same coin as agnostics. Your folly is that your insistence on playing word games to try to get the rise out of atheists is the exact same game that theists play. I don't play word games Frank, or try to tell other people what they are or what they believe. That is you Frank and, only you and the theists among all the posters on this thread. The ultimate folly is that you lack the the ability to listen to other people because all you want to do is preach your good news, 'hey every one, the good news is that you can be ignorant and give equal weight to all kinds of absurdity!'.