Atheists? Have you been feeling a bit "agnostic" lately?

reply to post by daskakik

It isn't that you are not explaining yourself, the problem is that you are basing your argument on a faulty premise and then applying "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" incorrectly.

Really? I mean... seriously? Short term memory, intentionally misleading, deceiving, trolling? I don't get it at all.

'Round and 'round we go, huh?

See, the thing about online forums is that when people make false assertions, the proof is still usually in the same discussion, if not on the same page a few posts away.

I'm still waiting for the intelligent ones to show up. Whoever the member was that I reconciled with, was a fellow indeed. The rest that have replied just to seem to be here to create semanticist arguments, and statements based on their inability to pay attention to the substance of my posts.

What was the point? The point for me is find mutual understanding that leads to agreement. Apparently and obviously for you and at least one other, the point is always disagree and to pay no attention to what the other guy is trying to say, just make stuff up. Barrack Obama syndrome.

reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis


Oh I now see why I couldn't understand your position. At first I thought you were under the impression that the big bang theory says that it came from nothing but as you stated you know that is not the case. Instead, you were assigning a position to atheism which as you said some people you have had contact with held. While you can demonstrate to those people who hold that position that what they are doing is a logical fallacy if you are trying to attribute that position to atheism then you would be guilty of building a strawman fallacy against atheism.

Put simply atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.(period) Nothing follows.

I guess in the same sense the position some hold that nothing came before god would also be a logical fallacy but I do not think we can apply that position to all theists just to those who hold that position.

Just as I do not need faith to not believe in leprechauns I do not need faith to not believe in deities in fact the word atheist in all likely hood shouldn't exist as we do not need the word a-leprechaunist to describe the lack of belief in leprechauns. I think the word atheist arose because in recent times the default position of society has been that everyone must believe so the need arose to define the position of those who do not believe.

PansophicalSynthesis
Really? I mean... seriously? Short term memory, intentionally misleading, deceiving, trolling? I don't get it at all.

The post you were repying to specifically stated "an argument".

'Round and 'round we go, huh?

Not really.

See, the thing about online forums is that when people make false assertions, the proof is still usually in the same discussion, if not on the same page a few posts away.

Yes it is. What is lost is that it is dynamic and what was said a few pages back or even just a few posts before may not be what the person is trying to express in their current posts.

What was the point? The point for me is find mutual understanding that leads to agreement. Apparently and obviously for you and at least one other, the point is always disagree and to pay no attention to what the other guy is trying to say, just make stuff up.

That is a 2 way street and you don't seem to want to agree much either. You want to continue to use the atheists you have met as the standard instead of discussing things with the atheists on the thread.

reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

If you are attempting to set this up into a subsequent trap that, "because no one here falls under the category of your example, thus you need to go away", you are again making another logical fallacy.

I was trying to clear up the confusion - in other words, be helpful. You're welcome.

Deleted my post

reply to post by Visitor2012

You're joking right?

No.

Hypothesis and theories aren't facts.

I never claimed they were.

And saying that you have evidence of something existing (irregardless of how overwhelming it is), is the SAME thing as saying you don't actually see it.

I disagree. We see the universe expanding yet that is evidence.

Evidence can only be a pointer.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.
red

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating wether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

As you can see above the word evidence takes on a different meaning much like the word theory when speaking of science(see my signature for clarification).

The words 'hypothesis' , 'theory' or 'Evidence' isn't synonymous with the word Fact.

Who said they were? You seem to be the one making the assertion someone has said that yet the post you responded to I certainly did not.

Just to be clear the big bang theory is the best explanation we have for what is observed much like our best explanations of gravity for which we also have theories which attempt to explain what is observed. The law of gravity does nothing to explain why it happens. Albert Einstein said gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time however it is a somewhat incomplete explanation of gravity, and yet we have direct evidence it exists as a force.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


If indeed those were your intents, then I apologize for my hypothetical possible presumption. Thank you for wanting to clear things up in a very confused atmosphere. I'm taking a break...

It's one thing to misunderstood, it's another to be so not pyed attention to and distorted that your identity is essentially stolen.

Grimpachi
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

 

Oh I now see why I couldn't understand your position. At first I thought you were under the impression that the big bang theory says that it came from nothing but as you stated you know that is not the case. Instead, you were assigning a position to atheism which as you said some people you have had contact with held. While you can demonstrate to those people who hold that position that what they are doing is a logical fallacy if you are trying to attribute that position to atheism then you would be guilty of building a strawman fallacy against atheism.

Put simply atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.(period) Nothing follows.

I guess in the same sense the position some hold that nothing came before god would also be a logical fallacy but I do not think we can apply that position to all theists just to those who hold that position.

Just as I do not need faith to not believe in leprechauns I do not need faith to not believe in deities in fact the word atheist in all likely hood shouldn't exist as we do not need the word a-leprechaunist to describe the lack of belief in leprechauns. I think the word atheist arose because in recent times the default position of society has been that everyone must believe so the need arose to define the position of those who do not believe.

tell all your friends, then.

they seem to loose the meme and want to call us idiots.