atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.
Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.
Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."
Believer--why not?
Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.
Believer--how do you know that?
Atheist: because there aren't any
Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.
Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.
(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.
(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.
(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.
(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.
(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.
(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
__________________
Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM
NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.
Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?
I asked him what's ridiculous about it:
I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.
Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?
4 comments:
You are dense.
1. This example of circular reasoning that your attribute to atheist does not work. What exactly was the evidence that the theist presented. Personal experience perhaps? If that is the case, well then yes...that is not evidence. Please remember, the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. As far as CARM goes. It has been shown already that Matt Slick is full of it and most of, if not all, his arguments have big issues with them.
you are aptly named stupid. you really don't understand the nature of argument and you really should be wasting people's time with your middle school understanding.
get through high school, learn something, they try flapping your unread gums.
you wouldn't know what circular reasoning is if it bityou in the ass.
Metacrock,
You have misinterpreted and made assumptions from the very beginning and that is where I think the miscommunication is. Yes I did initially start off by saying you were dense. And I must apologize and rephrase or rather extrapolate on my meaning. In the argument you were presenting, yes I feel that you were being dense. It had nothing to do with not understanding circular logic or that I believed that you should just give up belief. And as far as I can understand it, I have a pretty firm grasp on the subject of burden of proof. But we will get back to that in a moment.
On the topic of atheist circular reasoning. My statement was not about your beliefs. We hadn't even reached that part. I was basically showing that your argument or example was structurally unsound. Here is why.
1. To present an argument that atheist use circular reasoning you must provide examples of what you are talking about. Just saying that the atheist does not accept evidence with out eluding to the evidence that the theist is presenting. For example. I cannot be justified in saying theist use circular reasoning just because I feel they do.
Atheist: Here is the evidence for my non belief in god.
Theist:I don't except that answer, etc.
Using that argument worded in that way, then yes, the response does seem circular. First we have to have a guideline. In this instance the base is evidence. Then it must be determined what is acceptable evidence and what is not acceptable evidence. From there the argument can be started with clear guidelines on definitions and parameters. Would you not agree?
As far as CARM goes. I dont' read CARM that often but I do remember an argument that Matt Slick had with Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience, on the argument of TAG. I do know that Matt Slick when back and changed the writing in CARM after his premise had been dismissed as not viable. That in itself is not a bad thing because science itself changes theories based on evidence. But what makes it bad is that he maintained his position during the show and then went quietly to change the CARM site.
But anyway. This is my challenge to you. What argument do you have where atheist use circular reasoning or logic. Let's talk about it and see if it is true?
I appreciate that you think you are apologizing. so you know you were wrong at some level. I accept except I'm not sure what you are apologizing for because you essentially say "but you are dense" so you not apologizing.
Your assertions about how arrangements are to be presented are right if we were in an academic journal in a formal setting dealing with real arguments. we are not.
we are on a message board (blog same deal) dealing with the way atheists reason on message boards.
my presentation was informal and geared to the way conversions develop on a message board. because that's the way the fallacy is developed. so I want people to know it when they see it.
You have no come to terms with the facts of the argument. The fact is there are some good scientific evidences for miracle that get sloughed off without investigation on the basis of past denial of evidence, which itself is based upon the same prejudice.
claims of miracles in the old days were not scientific but neither was their rejection.
there is no basic scientific evidence that miracles don't happen. the only reason naturalists turn them down is because they violate the ideology fo naturalism. that's it period. there are not disproofs of miracles.
It's true that not all evidence of miracles is good. There are bad evidence but even the good one's are dismissed with no hearing.
when good evidence exists it's just refused. atheists dogmatically refuse to accept that it could be valid. They don't look at it they rule it out dogmatically because it violates their paradigm.
Post a Comment