The logical fallacy of atheism

[serp777]

Agreed; you can make up any word, that doesn't make it a term.

Exactly, and God is such an example.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly, and God is such an example.

Does the word "God" have no meaning?

 

[Sonofason]

Congratulations on agreeing with him, even though you don't realize it.
get are only two states, you can believe in something or not. Everything else is just degrees of one of those states.

I'm curious, what difference do you see between holding off judgment on something, and not currently believing.
When in hold of judgment on something, it seems to me, that while withholding judgment, I'm not believing in it...

So yes, if you withhold your opinion on something, you are not currently believing in it...
If I'm not sure if there's a Bigfoot, then I don't believe in it, until I get enough evidence to believe in it. I can even get evidence that causes me to reluctantly believe in it, but that is still belief..

Your response here is a totally dishonest approach to this debate.

If you reserve judgement you are not only not believing that God exists, but you are also not believing that God does not exist. If you are reserving judgement you have no belief either way. And that is not an atheist position. It is an agnostic position, period.

If you are not sure if there is a Bigfoot, then you not only do not believe in a Bigfoot, but you also do not believe there is not a Bigfoot.

The atheist position is one which affirms the belief that no God exists. It is not simply not believing in a God. From what I can tell, things that do not exist don't have a belief in God either. And I'm quite certain that things that don't exist can not be atheists. That is the atheist lie, which they use to make themselves seem reasonable, when in truth, the atheist position is nothing close to reasonable. It is a position of pure blind faith.

 

[Sonofason]

Delusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.


Just something to consider as you experience Him.

If you could only share some of that evidence. But you can't. If you try, I will show you your errors.

 

[Willamena]

Lol what? Agreeing is the way we make definitions.

I would have to disagree. I think a person alone in the world can make definitions.

How do you think languages came about in the first place? People agreed on a common way to communicate. In what way is that irrelevant?

So people just got together around the campfire and said, "Hey, so the word 'bear' is going to mean this..." I tend to think language was a bit more creative than that (especially in not having to rely on itself for itself).

The last person on the earth wouldn't need language or definitions anyways...

Why not?

 

[Sonofason]

Complete nonsense.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but that opinion is based on pure conjecture.

Yes, after talking with many atheists, that is the conclusion I have come to.
And Yes it is my educated opinion, nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[serp777]

Does the word "God" have no meaning?

Not to me. I have no idea what God is. That's why we started this definition questionare in the first place.

 

[Willamena]

Truth determines belief? If only that were true.

Yes. Certainty has a degree of implied uncertainty. Truth has no degree of implied falsehood.

 

[serp777]

I would have to disagree. I think a person alone in the world can make definitions.


So people just got together around the campfire and said, "Hey, so the word 'bear' is going to mean this..." I tend to think language was a bit more creative than that (especially in not having to rely on itself for itself).


Why not?

A person alone could make their own personal language, I guess, sure. It wouldn't be a language that I or most other people used.

People agreeing does not have to occur in a formal setting. It probably started with someone pointing at something and making a sound. Then everyone gradually started to adopt it. By adopting that definition, they essentially agreed with it.

But a language by itself wouldnt be very useful. Why would you go to the trouble to define a bunch of terms to talk to people with that did not exist? The entire point of language is communicating with other people. If you were the only person in the world, you would probably eventually lose most of your language skill.

 

[Willamena]

Not to me. I have no idea what God is. That's why we started this definition questionare in the first place.

If that's the case, then you are being incoherent when you use the term "god" in a sentence.

Congratulations on your incoherent sentences.

(Note, I don't believe they are actually incoherent. I think the term "god" has meaning, whether you realise it or not.)

 

[Sonofason]

I disagree. Whether or not you believe in something has no impact on whether or not it is the case. We are not obligated to believe in things because they are the case. only because we find them to be the case.

What you just said does not contradict anything I've said here. If God exists, what you believe about that doesn't change the fact that God exists. But it would be reasonable to reserve judgment concerning the existence of God until you have reasonable cause to formulate an opinion on the matter. And I am suggesting that an apparent lack of evidence for the existence of something is not a very reliable means of determining whether or not something exists.

 

[serp777]

If that's the case, then you are being incoherent when you use the term "god" in a sentence.

Congratulations on your incoherent sentences.

(Note, I don't believe they are actually incoherent. I think the term "god" has meaning, whether you realise it or not.)

That's not being incoherent lol. I've been asking you what God means this entire time. That would be like saying you can't ever use a word that you don't have a concept for, even to ask what it means. We would never be able to learn language then.

But otherwise, yes, I do think God in sentences, and in some contexts, make the sentence incoherent because we haven't defined it at all. Plus i'm referring to something that other people might have a fictional concept of,even though i don't.

 

[Willamena]

What you just said does not contradict anything I've said here.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what constitutes evidence.

If God exists, what you believe about that doesn't change the fact that God exists. But it would be reasonable to reserve judgment concerning the existence of God until you have reasonable cause to formulate an opinion on the matter. And I am suggesting that an apparent lack of evidence for the existence of something is not a very reliable means of determining whether or not something exists.

Evidence gives us a reasonable cause to formulate an opinion on the matter. If you have no evidence, no opinion is possible.

Edit: If you have evidence contrary to a claim of existence, then an opinion is possible.

 

[Sonofason]

That's not being incoherent lol. I've been asking you what God means this entire time. That would be like saying you can't ever use a word that you don't have a concept for, even to ask what it means. We would never be able to learn language then.

But otherwise, yes, I do think God in sentences, and in some contexts, make the sentence incoherent because we haven't defined it at all. Plus i'm referring to something that other people might have a fictional concept of,even though i don't.

Since the specifics about what God is, is up for debate, why not agree on a most general definition for God. How about a real dictionary definition?

God - the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.

If that one doesn't work for you, how about:
God - Creator of the universe

 

[Willamena]

That's not being incoherent lol. I've been asking you what God means this entire time.

Really? Never noticed that, sorry.

That would be like saying you can't ever use a word that you don't have a concept for, even to ask what it means. We would never be able to learn language then.

It's more like using a word because you have a concept for it, and not just making up a word randomly.

But otherwise, yes, I do think God in sentences, and in some contexts, make the sentence incoherent because we haven't defined it at all. Plus i'm referring to something that other people might have a fictional concept of,even though i don't.

If you're referring to something that other people have a fictional concept of, and using the word "god" to mean that, it's going to come out in the context of your sentence.

 

[Willamena]

How about a real dictionary definition?

God forbid!

 

[Sonofason]

God forbid!

You're right, it's an absurd idea.

 

[serp777]

Since the specifics about what God is, is up for debate, why not agree on a most general definition for God. How about a real dictionary definition?

God - the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.

If that one doesn't work for you, how about:
God - Creator of the universe

No i don't agree with that definition. He could be the creator of the multiverse, or information and logic itself from which all possible multiverses arrive. He could be the tenth dimension, which defines the structure of patterns and mathematics.

Or he could be an outside observer, simply watching the mathematical nature of the reality around him come into existence.

Perhaps he is more like a force too, which is selective about what kinds of universes are stable and selectively chooses the evolution.

He could also just be something like a logic computer which allows the logical universes to perpetuate.

Or he could be the most unlikely version--a self pleasing Saddam Hussein in the sky who cares about mindless rituals and things like who we have sex with, or who we pray to, or etc.

His level of consciousness is unknown, as well as the nature of his existence, and any properties he may or may not contain. That seems pretty undefinable to me.

 

[serp777]

God forbid!

Well it's final then! The dictionary knows what God is!

Let's just pack up all of theology and religious philosophy. Thank God merriam webster knows what it cannot know.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

 

[Willamena]

Well it's final then! The dictionary knows what God is!

Let's just pack up all of theology and religious philosophy. Thank God merriam webster knows what it cannot know.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

it's not like the writers of dictionaries were philosophical or anything.