Science is a false God

[metis]

Wasn't Satan created before Adam?

Supposedly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Huh???

When a creationist or a cultist has no argument, they find it best to manufacture one from straw or, failing that, attack others by implication.

He is implying you are a bad person, because you do not agree with him or embrace his cult views.

It is his way to win at an argument. It is transparent and not good at all, but it is the best he has.

 

[metis]

From your replies it seems that you take issue with the obligation to be good.

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote, but the answer to your question is no.

 

[Maximilian]

But the fact that there is less evidence for your deity than for invisible unicorns in my office is enough for me.

Your argumentum ad lapidem is irrational.

Aut disce aut discede.

 

[Maximilian]

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote, but the answer to your question is no.

Thank you for clarifying

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ultimately, that is not my burden of proof, it is yours. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

But the fact that there is less evidence for your deity than for invisible unicorns in my office is enough for me.

But he is doing his best to avoid his burden of proof. Is that not enough to establish his claims?

 

[Polymath257]

Your argumentum ad lapidem is irrational.

Aut disce aut discede.

What evidence have you given for your deity that amounts to more than the evidence for invisible unicorns in my office? I am discussing the quality of the evidence, not whether your position is absurd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your argumentum ad lapidem is irrational.

Aut disce aut discede.

And there goes another irony meter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you Jo Polanco?
Because Jo Polanco wrote those exact words here.

Plagiarism tells me that you have no answer of your own.

Plagiarism is dishonest.

I have caught 5 or 6 Christian creationists plagiarizing on this forum alone.

What is it about the conservative Christian belief system that drives them to such transparent dishonesty?

Did I miss his response to this?

I am curious now.

If this were pointed out to me, I would want to quickly establish the reasons for it, so that I would not be considered dishonest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there goes another irony meter.

I know. They are piling up.

Do they make a projection meter by any chance? We could start a pile of those too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. They are piling up.

Do they make a projection meter by any chance? We could start a pile of those too.

We could start a chain of theaters in no time at all.

 

[Maximilian]

What evidence have you given for your deity that amounts to more than the evidence for invisible unicorns in my office? I am discussing the quality of the evidence, not whether your position is absurd.

Here it is, again, so you can ignore it, again . . .

 

[ratiocinator]

Just as you are powerless to show that my friend, the invisible pixie named Eric, does not nor cannot exist.

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.​

Accordingly, Atheism is untenable.

You mean in the same way as you not believing in my pixie friend Eric is untenable?

Atheism is the result of not seeing any good reason to take any of the (many, many different, and often contradictory) god claims, seriously. Exactly like I'm guessing you don't take Eric seriously.

Atheism just like not believing in fairies, vampires, or the Loch Ness monster.

Perhaps you need to read this: Burden of proof (philosophy). You are claiming that a (specific) god exists - it's entirely up to you to provide a reason for people to take your claim seriously.

 

[Maximilian]

Atheism is the result of not seeing any good reason to take any of the (many, many different, and often contradictory) god claims, seriously.

You have been engaging in equivocation, a dishonest rhetorical tactic. The term “Atheist” conveys much more than that. After all, what do you call someone who believes God does not nor cannot exist?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have been engaging in equivocation, a dishonest rhetorical tactic. The term “Atheist” conveys much more than that. After all, what do you call someone who believes God does not nor cannot exist?

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god(s). That's it. Nothing more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have been engaging in equivocation, a dishonest rhetorical tactic. The term “Atheist” conveys much more than that. After all, what do you call someone who believes God does not nor cannot exist?

You, calling someone else dishonest. That is awesome.

 

[ratiocinator]

The term “Atheist” conveys much more than that.

atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. [my emphasis]

After all, what do you call someone who believes God does not nor cannot exist?

They'd also be a atheists but you can't assume that an atheist thinks some god is impossible. Another problem is you use the word "God" as if it referred to one, universally agreed upon, concept - it doesn't. There are many, many versions - some of which I do regard as impossible, either because of conflicting evidence or logical contradictions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here it is, again, so you can ignore it, again . . .

Once again, I have to remind you that you have ignored a great deal of other posters that have questioned you or supplied information and evidence, and, in turn, have supplied nothing in kind.

Is this mendacity how you plan to continue operations here?

 

[Polymath257]

Here it is, again, so you can ignore it, again . . .

So you are going to ignore requests for valid evidence? The only evidence you gave was a claim that Isaiah predicted the Babylonian captivity prior to it happening. The current evidence is against that interpretation of the text.

Which leaves you with no valid evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

You have been engaging in equivocation, a dishonest rhetorical tactic. The term “Atheist” conveys much more than that. After all, what do you call someone who believes God does not nor cannot exist?

A strong atheist as opposed to a weak atheist.