• 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!

Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
No I am using deductive reasoning. The same that is applied to baby's as atheist. If I am wrong then the logic is wrong. I figured you would be able to follow.
Click to expand...

Deductive reasoning must be sound, aka the premises must be true. You have done nothing to establish the soundness of your points thus it is inductive speculation. You started with agency which is sound. However you made the jump to the highest form of agency, God-like, as an assumption rather than an argued position.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Shad said:
Deductive reasoning must be sound, aka the premises must be true. You have done nothing to establish the soundness of your points thus it is inductive speculation. You started with agency which is sound. However you made the jump to the highest form of agency, God-like, as an assumption rather than an argued position.
Click to expand...
What else do you call immortal and infallible shad?
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Shad said:
How do you know this? Provide your evidence.
Click to expand...
Immortal is subject to death, if a baby does not understand death then they cannot believe a parent is subject to death.

Similarly a parent cannot be subject to flaw if the baby does not understand flaw.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Curious George said:
Immortal is subject to death, if a baby does not understand death then they cannot believe a parent is subject to death.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur

Your assuming that, and assuming a baby has a concept of life forever, which is unsubstantiated to the point of absurdity.

Curious George said:
Similarly a parent cannot be subject to flaw if the baby does not understand flaw.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.

Your assuming a child looks at its parents as flawless, and I assure you that babies cry because of a lack in their needs parents supply.


So your just wrong and spouting out what ever comes into your mind, without any critical thought put into it.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
Non sequitur

Your assuming that, and assuming a baby has a concept of life forever, which is unsubstantiated to the point of absurdity.



Non sequitur.

Your assuming a child looks at its parents as flawless, and I assure you that babies cry because of a lack in their needs parents supply.


So your just wrong and spouting out what ever comes into your mind, without any critical thought put into it.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I know you are quick to call out non sequitur, but you are wrong here. There is no need to say live forever given the definition of immortal. Nope, I am assuming that baby's do not look at their parents as flawed. Flawless is simply without flaw.
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Curious George said:
You make good points, perhaps defining things as just "not something" is logically problematic.
Click to expand...

I don't see why. Babies are apolitical. It's a useless tag to apply to them, but they are.
Babies are not theists, so they're technically atheists. But in my experience, 9/10 times people say 'babies are atheists' they are trying to use it as some sort of evidentiary point. It's a useless tag, and evidence of nothing, in my opinion, same as 'apolitical babies'.

Lion cubs are apolitical and atheistic. That's even more ridiculous a label to use, but it's not logically inconsistent (only practically meaningless).
The Pope's underpants are also apolitical and atheistic. It's stupid, right? I would completely agree it's stupid. It's not logically inconsistent though.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
lewisnotmiller said:
I don't see why. Babies are apolitical. It's a useless tag to apply to them, but they are.
Babies are not theists, so they're technically atheists. But in my experience, 9/10 times people say 'babies are atheists' they are trying to use it as some sort of evidentiary point. It's a useless tag, and evidence of nothing, in my opinion, same as 'apolitical babies'.

Lion cubs are apolitical and atheistic. That's even more ridiculous a label to use, but it's not logically inconsistent (only practically meaningless).
The Pope's underpants are also apolitical and atheistic. It's stupid, right? I would completely agree it's stupid. It's not logically inconsistent though.
Click to expand...
Why aren't they theists, they accept a God like figure?
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
lewisnotmiller said:
I don't see why. Babies are apolitical. It's a useless tag to apply to them, but they are.
Babies are not theists, so they're technically atheists. But in my experience, 9/10 times people say 'babies are atheists' they are trying to use it as some sort of evidentiary point. It's a useless tag, and evidence of nothing, in my opinion, same as 'apolitical babies'.

Lion cubs are apolitical and atheistic. That's even more ridiculous a label to use, but it's not logically inconsistent (only practically meaningless).
The Pope's underpants are also apolitical and atheistic. It's stupid, right? I would completely agree it's stupid. It's not logically inconsistent though.
Click to expand...
Yes, consistent with this logic, babies believe in a god or gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top