Koyaanisqatsi

If only that were your goal.

Ok...

No.

Oh, this pointlessness again. What a completely meaningless waste of time. Worse is, you clearly think this is a salient point.

Let me guess...Straw Man number 143: fallacy of the complex question (aka, "have you stopped beating your wife?").

See if you can follow this so that you discard this non-argument the way you would the first time you discover you've been confidently discussing the new Star Wars movie at a press conference, only to have someone inform you that the topic was supposed to be the missile shield technology from the Reagan years.

Debate and argumentation is, indeed, propositional, which means that you offer something for consideration or acceptance, aka, assert for the sake of the argument.

So, that's your first mistake.

Your second mistake was to confuse debate, with denial. Atheists do not actually engage in debate (or argumentation, for that matter), propositional or otherwise.

We simply correct the cognitive damage done by cult indoctrination.

Unlike your straw man, this is demonstrable, not simply declarative. Do you understand the difference between what is demonstrable and what is merely declarative? For example, a cult member comes in here and states something asinine, like, "The burden of proof that God does not exist is on the atheists' shoulders."

We then correct their damaged thinking by pointing out that only the cult member is making any kind of qualitative positive claim requiring a burden of proof.

You see, cult members have been brainwashed into believing that fictional creatures from ancient mythology factually exist and, further, that they require no evidence to support this claim.

They then come in here as part of their cult programming, attempting to "witness" or otherwise proselytize/defend the faith, shredding every single basic law of logic and reason, just as you have here.

You wished to discuss the question of propositional logic and then proceeded to define the opposite of propositional logic (which would be something like declarative nonsense, in case you're wondering) in order to attempt some sort of smug little straw man evasion in the hopes of stalemate based on the fallacy of the complex question.

Now, you're probably an intelligent man, so why would you have done such a thing? You have access to the internet and can type, so I assume you can read and have the ability to at least search online for a dictionary to look up the term "propositional," yet you did not in order to stuff this pointless straw man with a fallacy as old as the hills.

Why?



Stuff that straw man...

No. Again, please apply a modicum of critical analysis to discover the qualitative difference between what is demonstrable and what is merely declarative.

Don't worry, you're apparently not capable of comprehending such a qualitative difference or deliberately attempting to equivocate the difference, which.

Seeking stalemate through this fallacy is good work if you can get it, but, as stated throughout, pointless, so enjoy stuffing that straw man and post when you've got something salient to discuss.

This kind of redirectional, circuitous stupidity is just tiresome.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Godless Dave

No, we just have to believe that other people believe God exists.

Echo

I do not understand how this is any different than what goes on every day in courtrooms, police stations, and scientific laboratories.

When I read scientific journals, I see scientists debating whether an alleged thing exists or an alleged event occured, and when I tune into the Court channel I see prosecutors arguing that there is evidence that "thing X"( an alleged diary, an alleged videotape, an alleged conversation) exists/occurred and defense attorneys arguing that there is insufficient evidence to establish that "thing X" exists/occurred.

Why do I have to first believe "thing X" exists in order to conclude that there is insufficient evidence for its existence? That seems most ridiculous.

Koyaanisqatsi

It is, Echo. WJ has no salient observations to offer, so he's attempting a semantics stalemate based on equivocation.

It's a pointless waste of time, but he seems to enjoy it.

Watch. He'll only address little snippets of my post (or just ignore the previous one in favor of this one) and come up with an incredibly lame excuse for not addressing everything I posted on a point-by-point basis, since he's not capable of doing so without revealing his tactic.

This marks the four hundred and fiftieth time I've destroyed this fallacy, so I guess drinks are on me.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

That or just never come back here to face his own discordant music.

Like gnats to a light bulb; they keep hitting the light even die trying, never actually seeing it.

WJ

Mmmmm, guys, guys, guys, it seems like you're all into semantics?

Think about it this way. Put your...denial, propositional logic, debate skills, win or lose strategies, and all the other words you're using to justify your belief, into a logical formula in order to prove your case (your marketing of Atheism). Then, see if it works. If it doeasn't, then ask yourselves where should you go from there.

Make sense?

Otherwise, what's your point relative to the thread topic?

BTW, I have the luxury of marketing God if I want to; you don't. God doesn't exist, remember? But if you argue against it, you must assume some thing about the concept itself. Logic anyone?

So, the more you talk about it, the more you are trapped in an oxymoron. No?

Walrus

jj

Atheism requires no justification, it is a simple statement of the evidence.

Theism requires justification, because there is no evidence that can be tested, verified, or falsified.

So what is this "justified" bit about?

Don't confuse the subjunctive, please. "if god exists, then he is evil" is not a statement of requirements or a justification for atheism, it is an observation based on the person's perspective in life.

WJ

JJ!

"Atheism requires no justification, it is a simple statement of the evidence."

That could not be true. if a belief system didn't require justification, what would it be based on?



"So what is this "justified" bit about?"


That's a good question. I've asked other atheist's numerous times: what kind of evidence are you expecting? (If God appeared before man, how do you think you would know it?)


"....requirements or a justification for atheism, it is an observation based on the person's perspective in life."

That is a very, very interesting statement! Does that kind of mean that truth is Subjectivity? It certainly has the makings of such.

Walrus

jj

Oh, goodie! Another sophist attack, I see. Let's go from the top... There is no, zero, zip evidence for a deity or deities. Ergo atheism is a default position. There is no reason, need or cause to posit one, and no evidence to suport such a supposition.

So, your nonsense about "this cannot be" is simple hogwash, born of your own imagination. it can be, it is.

As to justification, well, atheism needs no justification, it's the default position. I think I said that, yes?

If god DOES come down and s/he/it demonstrates deific performance, then there is a reason to question the default, but until then, there's no evidence to look at. (Note, "god" not need "come down" there are many ways that a deity COULD show its presence, but none of them happen.)

Your final, resolutely dishonest accusation of subjectivity is both illtaken and profoundly offensive, and I call on you to retract it completely and without any kind of qualification whatsoever, and to admit that you had no reason to ever utter such a provocative troll.

Your entire "argument" is nonsensical, and you should apologize for wasting everyone's time, while you're at it.

Datheron

WJ,

So lemme guess, you haven't taken a basic course in logic?

Why should we do any such thing? Rather, it is the theist that should do this, and does do this many-a-time. We just pick apart the arguments given.

If you didn't notice, your statement itself is already off-topic; the thread was meant to discuss the prospect of evil from God and commits an argumentative fallacy.

Yes; we must assume of the thing itself, but that does not suddenly make that assumption true. You're committing the very same fallacy.

Suppose that I ask you to prove that there are an infinite number of primes. This is done very quickly and efficiently via proof by contradiction - i.e. assuming that a premise is true and deriving a contradictory position from it, therefore rendering the position false. It is a standard in logical debate and argument, and it's really sad that even with all the disclaimers in this thread and others informing people of this fallacy, they still fall on deaf ears.