The Folly of Atheism

William, I still love ya, Buddy.

You have followed me from forum to forum to peddle this nonsense...and don't think I am unappreciative.

You entertain me...especially when you get all huffy...like you did in this post.

It is so cute.

I think that is another bit of the folly of atheism that is so endearing.

 

It is not a lecture. It is the logical flaw that you are guilty of indulging in repeatedly. And I don't have to give an attribution. You can find your failure in any list of logical flaws. It is pretty much a textbook failure that most educated people have known better than to repeat for generations.

 

Not what I'm talking about, obviously.

Not to me, it isn't.

I know of a single God who isn't.

 

5 Billion people times say to be nice 500 years is a crap load of money, time and raw resources on something that does nothing worth that output for our species its wasted and worst divisive. If they just had their faith privately and were sincere fine but its madness to (*)(*)(*)(*) away trillions of dollars of combined lost hours worshipping, building holy places, paying professional clergy and the ills to society faith causes on this. I covered this in another thread with one reply what are you afraid off the cost benefit argument to much for you theists its hard to argue when this deity system does nothing for humanity and until gods anti-up with a reason if they exist and care stop it. We would be far better off if the last 500 years was spent using half that effort on bettering our species and ending common strife such as the various sexism, racism, homophobia and extreme poverty with policies like global access to birth control. And think if we spent part of that advancing science and the creative aspects of humanity than kneeling in temples fearing an unrevealed god or goddess. Now what if we tossed out this hogwash one thousand or two thousand years ago when the Greek and Roman thinkers began exploring reality in the West and they tossed out deities over time say a few hundred years we could be colonizing the stars by now and be an interstellar species but no we wasted so much on faith and religion. I'm an Atheist and will be but not because I claim there are no deities but rather again without evidence we have no reason to waste our time on this concept when so much is wasted on them.

 

I really like that you posted this. I think it would be awesome to have a forum in which there is a moderator (or three moderarors who must agree) who has a firm grasp on the logical fallacies who can award points to arguments that are logically sound and detract points or delete arguments that are logical fallacies.

It's so disappointingly common among people who debate online to criticize personality or question the motives of the person they disagree with.

 

There is no logical flaw in saying:

It is possible gods exist...it is possible no gods exist.

Deal with it.

Not unless you want to be ethical in your postings.

There is no logical flaw in what I said.

Generations?

Careful of the edge, Jester!

 

You wasted lots of time saying that.

In any case, it appears to me you are an atheist because you blindly guess there are no gods...or blindly guess that it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one. It seems to me that most people who use "atheist" as their descriptor use it for that same reason.

I did enjoy the fact that you guess we would be out among the stars now if no religions had existed.

 

The ball is in the court of these deities unless they show up, openly threaten us or do things for us in return for said worship and spending of resources THEY DON'T MATTER. In fact we should and must as a species spend our time as if these beings don't exist since its both the most logical course and the one which will best use the combined resources of our species until there is in fact proof by them showing up and insisting on our worship and giving us sound proof.

 

Okay.

Until then the people insisting there are no gods, though, are being as illogical as those insisting there is at least one.

Which is my point!

 

Another Frank Apisa duck and dodge for all the world to see.

 

But, but, sputter, but then, from whence commeth the "already existing Universe"????

 

RE: imaginary gods

Based on a bunch of writings that say they are the true words of god.

IOW: Believe me when I say I am GOD because I say I am GOD.

That is the source of your Knowledge.

 

No duck and dodge there.

You asked me to show you one that isn't created by man.

I am saying ANY of them could meet that. Anything is possible until established as impossible.

This is just another example of you not liking an answer and pretending the answer wasn't given....FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE.

 

So, by your logic, saying any of the man-made gods could be a real god is your way of showing which is the real god.

"Young Frankie", asked the teacher, "There are three possible answers listed for the question. Which is the right one?" Young Frankie: "Any of them could be."

Is that how you passed third grade? By answering "Any of them could be." to a multiple choice question on a test?

 

You didn't ask me which is the real god, Ecco.

I don't even know if there is a god.

You did ask me to show you one god that isn't created by man.

I just informed you that any of them may be such a god.

If you want to act like a chump...be my guest.

I think it is cute when you do this kind of nonsense.

Oh...you were giving me a multiple choice test?

One you designed yourself?




Don't give up your day job!

 

It's turtles all the way down.

 

Without Christ we'd still be Romans, a people who watched others being eaten alive.

 

No, Christ did not bring down the Roman empire. Nor Nazi Germany. Nor the English empire. Nor the American empire. It is all just the implacable march of history.

 

Did you forget the logical flaw I posted so very soon. Do I need to repost?

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.

Or to put it succinctly it is a logical flaw to think that anything is true unless it is proved to be untrue. Or anything is possible until it is proved impossible. Of course if you want to explain why your thinking doesn't violate logic that will be a fun discussion if you can actually do it logically.

 

True to form, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

It is false because reality is not contingent upon our knowledge of it. Essentially, it is declaring a belief about reality that is not justified. In the absence of anyone who is prepared to discuss, clarify and justify such assertions I revert to lacking any such belief and that generally removes the troll from the arena.

The double headed coin thought experiment destroys the assertion.

 

Pointing out your inability to understand logic is hardly trolling. Amazing that in order to justify your " thinking " you are willing to deny logic.

 

There is no logical flaw in what I am saying.

I have not done that. What are you incorrectly supposing I am assuming is true simply because it hasn't been ESTABLISHED as false?

Of course it is not...which is why I would never do that. What are you incorrectly supposing I am assuming is true simply because it hasn't been ESTABLISHED as false.?

Actually, it is not a logical flaw to "think that"...but it certainly is a logical flaw to assert that as an argument.

If you are going to discuss logic, you ought really to be more careful in your wording.

ANYTHING that is not ESTABLISHED as impossible...is possible. It is a function of definition...not, as you incorrectly are supposing, a logical fallacy. It is like saying that a sphere cannot have any sharp angles.

A sphere, by definition, has no sharp angles; unless a thing has been established as impossible, by definition, it is POSSIBLE.

Can you think of ANYTHING that is IMPOSSIBLE...that has not been established as impossible?

I'd much rather have a discussion of that sort with someone who actually understands logic, but if you are determined to start such a discussion, I'll participate (probably while shaking my head) for a while.

 

What logic am I denying?

 

How in the world does a probability problem destroy logic?