Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (1 Viewer)

[magnifier661]

You are referring to murders committed by tyrants, dictators, and juntas against peaceful societies.

Governments are the antithesis of societies.

The populace of China, the largest concentration of atheists on the planet, is also one of the most peaceful, selfless and harmonious. Nearly all violence committed there is by the government and against society.

American society is highly religious in comparison, and is perhaps the most violent, selfish society on Earth.

Straw man! LOL

 

[magnifier661]

I'm sorry you feel that way. It's a narrow-minded viewpoint, but it belongs to you, nonetheless.

It's MARIS man. Of course he only uses this argument when it applies against something he's against. Then when used against his belief; there was some reason why it doesn't work. Can't you see the pattern?

 

[MARIS61]

Straw man! LOL

Look up straw man and get back to me.

As for your claim about communist countries, none exist. My guess is you are referring to certain socialist republics.

There has only ever been one true communist government. Democratic Kampuchea was communist for about 4 years in the late 70's. You probably know it as Cambodia.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

 

[magnifier661]

Look up straw man and get back to me.

As for your claim about communist countries, none exist. My guess is you are referring to certain socialist republics.

There has only ever been one true communist government. Democratic Kampuchea was communist for about 4 years in the late 70's. You probably know it as Cambodia.

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion.[1] The deviation in an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in the path of reasoning that links the premises to the conclusion. In contrast to a formal fallacy, the error has to do with issues of ratiocination manifest in language used to state the propositions; the range of elements that can be symbolized by language is broader than that which the symbolism of formal logic can represent.

First just in case you didn't know what this meant. And here is straw man:

straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

So in other words, you used the fallacy of religious leaders abusing their power to create catastrophe, yet you have an excuse or ignore the reasoning that leaders from the communist party abused that very same power to create catastrophe in the name of atheism.

Next...

 

[MARIS61]

You've dodged answering every single challenge put to you for 20 pages now, cutting and pasting crap that doesn't have anything to do with your thread title.

None of your 8 (so far) points relate at all to it, and you refuse to engage in debate about it.

Why not just change the thread title to something related to what you want to debate rather than continue this charade?

 

[magnifier661]

You've dodged answering every single challenge put to you for 20 pages now, cutting and pasting crap that doesn't have anything to do with your thread title.

None of your 8 (so far) points relate at all to it, and you refuse to engage in debate about it.

Why not just change the thread title to something related to what you want to debate rather than continue this charade?

I haven't dodged a thing. If you want to think that you are making some insane point; than that's all up to you. I still haven't received answers for point #3, #6 and #7. If you think you did; then you live in a world all about MARIS. So just saying "I know, therefor it's true" doesn't qualify it to be a correct answer. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Cause if that's the case; than Christians or other theist would have a very logical rebuttal just on their personal testimonies.

In this thread; there is only one question. Is Atheism a sound belief? And with your definition; and the definition from Webster Dictionary; it really isn't. But go at it as long as you wish. If you feel the need to win some personal battle you have with God; then by all means fire away. What I do believe is, I have a being that had the power to create the entire universe, backing me in this thread. I like my chances.

 

[MARIS61]

So just saying "I know, therefor it's true" doesn't qualify it to be a correct answer. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Cause if that's the case; than Christians or other theist would have a very logical rebuttal just on their personal testimonies.

Thank you for admitting and confirming beyond all rational objections that god does not exist.

 

[magnifier661]

Thank you for admitting and confirming beyond all rational objections that god does not exist.

Fortunately; that hasn't been presented as evidence by the "theists" in this thread.

 

[MARIS61]

In this thread; there is only one question. Is Atheism a sound belief?

And yet you have not the courage to bring evidence of any kind to refute it.

(Don't feel too bad. Nobody else can either. You can't disprove reality, you can only hope to deceive by diversion and dishonesty.)

 

[MARIS61]

Fortunately; that hasn't been presented as evidence by the "theists" in this thread.

No evidence has been presented by theists in this thread.

 

[magnifier661]

No evidence has been presented by theists in this thread.

Well that's your opinion. Telling me I have none; doesn't mean I didn't present it. You are just refusing to see the forest through the trees. I have said countless times that this thread is just presenting evidence and the people reading it can make their own assessment. They are the jury; theists are the prosecutors; and the atheists are the defense. So if you think saying "We are wrong, because you say so" is the best evidence to present; then present as many as you wish.

Like I've said before. Nothing of significants have been refuted for point #3, #4, #6 and #7. The others; may have some decent refutes. I haven't read anything that completely convinces me otherwise.

 

[RR7]

Nothing of significants have been refuted for point #3, #4, #6 and #7. The others; may have some decent refutes. I haven't read anything that completely convinces me otherwise.

#6 is not a piece of evidence that can be refuted. You've been told this and you, again, ignore it. #6 is asking atheists to provide evidence. That is not evidence of god's existence.

 

[magnifier661]

#6 is not a piece of evidence that can be refuted. You've been told this and you, again, ignore it. #6 is asking atheists to provide evidence. That is not evidence of god's existence.

I keep repeating the thread title. "Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief. And reading through this thread; Denny even said; if you believe something; then you must provide evidence to support your belief. Then hoojacks posted the youtube clip that Atheism isn't a belief; and the comment on that very same youtube clip; argued that it was a belief. And this coming from an agnostic. Even Maris said that Atheism is a belief. His quotes "Atheists know God doesn't exist". If they know, then they must have great evidence why there isn't a God.

I am not proving atheism doesn't exist. I am arguing atheism isn't a sound "BELIEF". Big difference here.

 

[RR7]

Asking someone else for evidence is not evidence. Throw out #6.

 

[RR7]

Meh, keep it in, who cares. You have your 10 reasons why others are wrong, good for you. Good luck with your top 10 list.

 

[magnifier661]

Asking someone else for evidence is not evidence. Throw out #6.

sigh... Asking someone for evidence is not evidence; when I am trying to prove atheism does not exist. But whatever RR7. Like I said... If the defense refuses to provide evidence about God not existing; then that is entirely their choice. I'm not going to stop them.

 

[magnifier661]

Meh, keep it in, who cares. You have your 10 reasons why others are wrong, good for you. Good luck with your top 10 list.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. I am voicing my opinion, and have, what I believe, logical reasons why. I am not trying to make atheists as some villain. You might take it that way. I have said it like 20 times already. This is an open thread. Both sides can give as much evidence; or debate the evidence given. Others that read it can make up their own mind.

 

[RR7]

this isn't a fucking jury trial. You have 10 pieces of evidence why it's not sound. Calling on the other side to tell you why it IS is not evidence.

 

[magnifier661]

this isn't a fucking jury trial. You have 10 pieces of evidence why it's not sound. Calling on the other side to tell you why it IS is not evidence.

Not true at all. And my metaphor of a "jury trial"; doesn't mean someone is going to jail after. I am using this, because everyone has an idea of the court system. In debates; they call it "The House". It is like the same thing; but not too many people understand it.

 

[MARIS61]

Well that's your opinion. Telling me I have none; doesn't mean I didn't present it. You are just refusing to see the forest through the trees. I have said countless times that this thread is just presenting evidence and the people reading it can make their own assessment. They are the jury; theists are the prosecutors; and the atheists are the defense. So if you think saying "We are wrong, because you say so" is the best evidence to present; then present as many as you wish.

Like I've said before. Nothing of significants have been refuted for point #3, #4, #6 and #7. The others; may have some decent refutes. I haven't read anything that completely convinces me otherwise.

As you point out, it's all here in black and gray. Everyone can read for themselves how every single post you have made has been ripped to shreds and ridiculed as either being irrelevant to the topic or completely misunderstood and mistated by you.

Your claim that you want to learn is obliterated by your refusal to address rebutals honestly.

Your outlandish premise has been thoroughly discredited by too many posters to list and you refuse to acknowledge defeat.

Plugging your ears and saying NAHNAHNAHICAN'THEARYOU is your response.

Too nice a day to waste any more time on nonsense, so I'm out.

Good luck with that "desire to learn" thing.

 

[magnifier661]

As you point out, it's all here in black and gray. Everyone can read for themselves how every single post you have made has been ripped to shreds and ridiculed as either being irrelevant to the topic or completely misunderstood and mistated by you.

Your claim that you want to learn is obliterated by your refusal to address rebutals honestly.

Your outlandish premise has been thoroughly discredited by too many posters to list and you refuse to acknowledge defeat.

Plugging your ears and saying NAHNAHNAHICAN'THEARYOU is your response.

Too nice a day to waste any more time on nonsense, so I'm out.

Good luck with that "desire to learn" thing.

If that's what you think is happening

 

[TripTango]

First just in case you didn't know what this meant. And here is straw man:


So in other words, you used the fallacy of religious leaders abusing their power to create catastrophe, yet you have an excuse or ignore the reasoning that leaders from the communist party abused that very same power to create catastrophe in the name of atheism.

Next...

By your quoted definition, that's not a straw man.

A straw man argument is one in which someone intentionally misrepresents an OPPOSING argument for the purpose of beating it down.

For example:

Frank: Most people agree that cats are smarter than dogs.
Sam: So, you think we should kill every dog, huh? Polls show that 99.3% of Americans think we should NOT kill all dogs, so you are clearly wrong.
Frank: Umm...
Sam: DOG MURDERER.

The straw man occurred when Sam characterized Frank's argument incorrectly, making the subsequent beat down of that "straw man" argument meaningless.

 

[magnifier661]

By your quoted definition, that's not a straw man.

A straw man argument is one in which someone intentionally misrepresents an OPPOSING argument for the purpose of beating it down.

For example:

Frank: Most people agree that cats are smarter than dogs.
Sam: So, you think we should kill every dog, huh? Polls show that 99.3% of Americans think we should NOT kill all dogs, so you are clearly wrong.
Frank: Umm...
Sam: DOG MURDERER.

The straw man occurred when Sam characterized Frank's argument incorrectly, making the subsequent beat down of that "straw man" argument meaningless.

Well that came right from wikipedia. Maybe that would explain wikipedia isn't accurate? What do you think?

 

[TripTango]

Well that came right from wikipedia. Maybe that would explain wikipedia isn't accurate? What do you think?

The definition you quoted was fine. It was your interpretation of it that was wrong.

 

[TripTango]

Well that came right from wikipedia. Maybe that would explain wikipedia isn't accurate? What do you think?

And, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is wrong all the damn time.

 

[magnifier661]

The definition you quoted was fine. It was your interpretation of it that was wrong.

So let's break down when I called MARIS using a straw man argument.

I said "Religion is catastrophic because religious leaders abuse their power"

Then MARIS said "You're right they are catastrophic". They are peaceful people.

Then I brought up that the communist countries have been responsible for over 250 million deaths. So that same abuse has been done from both the atheists and religious leaders.

Then he said the communists aren't atheists, so it doesn't count.

I argued that both sides have been just as responsible for being "catastrophic" on their abuse of power.

 

[MARIS61]

If that's what you think is happening

See?

 

[magnifier661]

And, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is wrong all the damn time.

Gonna have to agree with you on that.

 

[TripTango]

So let's break down when I called MARIS using a straw man argument.

I said "Religion is catastrophic because religious leaders abuse their power"

Then MARIS said "You're right they are catastrophic". They are peaceful people.

Then I brought up that the communist countries have been responsible for over 250 million deaths. So that same abuse has been done from both the atheists and religious leaders.

Then he said the communists aren't atheists, so it doesn't count.

I argued that both sides have been just as responsible for being "catastrophic" on their abuse of power.

So, where exactly was the straw man?