-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A question for atheists who don't believe in God
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
In this case you are:
alceste said:
storm said:
That's a straw man. It was a short-lived deviation from the subject matter, though, and a properly frustrating straw man has to be persistent IMO, so it wasn't such a bad one.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Apparently you don't know what a strawman is, either. From the Wiki:
A straw man argument 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 substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
It should be noted that presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
Even if I was "coy," which I disagree with, I did not misrepresent your statement, or attempt to refute the misrepresentation. I asked a simple question.
A straw man argument 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 substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
It should be noted that presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
Even if I was "coy," which I disagree with, I did not misrepresent your statement, or attempt to refute the misrepresentation. I asked a simple question.
It's not. The strawman is an argument. That's no more a strawman than this is:
It was just an honest question based on observation.
McBell
Unbound
Thats not a strawman.That's a straw man. It was a short-lived deviation from the subject matter, though, and a properly frustrating straw man has to be persistent IMO, so it wasn't such a bad one.
It is merely an off topic question.
herushura
Active Member
God before monothesis ressembles "the sun/water/mothers/harvest/zodiac signs/moons/stars/seas/floods/dead/catastrophys/life/politics/innerthoughts/fire/skys
air. many of these meaning are still sketched in the god today
Alceste
Vagabond
Fair enough, but it actually did carry on from that point with more of the same in place of a rebuttal...
McBell
Unbound
Fair enough, but you had as much a hand in the off topic discussion.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I do not understand why Willamena wants to know the exact definition of what a God/ god/goddess is from those who do dot believe in such entities. Maybe she believes that by getting an Atheist to describe that in which they do not believe in, she can get a better understanding of why. Maybe that should have been the question in the first place.
As an atheist, myself, I have no problem understanding various reasons why someone might be an atheist. That's not what this thread is for, though. An "exact defintion" is not what is called for in the OP --what is asked (of those atheists who define their atheism as "not believing in God") is "What is it you're not believing in?"
McBell
Unbound
Then why does the term "god" not work for you?
Seems that you are in fact asking for a more specific definition of the term "god" from them.
As I said earlier, I'm asking for their interpretation upon which they base their disbelief. Naturally, the question isn't for all atheists.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Sorry, just seems circuitous to me. As in....
Joe "I do not believe in Martians"
Steve " So Joe, describe to me these Martians you do not believe in."
Joe "But, I don't believe in Martians"
Steve "Describe them to me."
Joe "Huh!!!"
Joe "I do not believe in Martians"
Steve " So Joe, describe to me these Martians you do not believe in."
Joe "But, I don't believe in Martians"
Steve "Describe them to me."
Joe "Huh!!!"
But surely if Joe is not believing in Martians, there is something he is not believing in? It could be an idea considered fallacious or mistaken. It could be a claim others have made for which its validity doesn't sit well.
What is a "Martian"?
Alceste
Vagabond
You know, you could always give some definitions and I'd be happy to tell you which of them I don't believe in. Otherwise I'm stuck with the dictionary:
the dictionary said:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
:bow:
:bow:
McBell
Unbound
I am a theist and I also do not believe in either of those definitions of "god".
Alceste
Vagabond
So do you have an alternative you can describe for me? If so I'll be happy to comment on whether or not I believe in it.
That's the worst dictionary I've ever seen. (*hugs her Webster's*)The point is to get at whatever it is others have for an image. My images, I could go on forever and none of them will be "God".