The logical fallacy of atheism

[serp777]

Really? Never noticed that, sorry.


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


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.

Prove to me that you using a word automatically means you have a concept for it. I would be the counter example--I could not pick out a specific definition, or concept, of God.

And I don't know what those fictional concepts might be, so that point is wrong. I just know that people cannot know what they cannot know--that being the true nature of God.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Well, thankfully, we don't have to rely on you to know what God is. We have a book with greater wisdom, which we can depend on, every time.

Does this book tell us everything there is to know about God? Certainly not.

Does it tell us everything we need to know about God. Absolutely.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

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.

1. Your definition of atheism is wrong.
It is simply not having a belief in god or gods.

2 if I don't believe in Bigfoot, I don't believe in Bigfoot. There is not a third option.

If you tell me there is an even number of blades of grass in my lawn, and I don't believe you, it doesn't mean I think there are an odd number. It means you haven't given me a reason to believe what you're telling me is correct.

Though, I admit, I know my words are wasted on you, I didn't relist you were only trolling until you started with calling me dishonest when I'm not.
So go back to your trolling, I'll let the others feed you, and not myself.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

I will be the first to admit that not all dictionary definitions are good definitions. But sometimes, for lack of a better definition, the commonly accepted definitions must suffice.

 

[Willamena]

Prove to me that you using a word automatically means you have a concept for it.

I can't. However, if you use a term, you have employed its meaning, whether you like it or not.

I would be the counter example--I could not pick out a specific definition, or concept, of God.

Which is why you employ only a concept when you use the term in a sentence.

And I don't know what those fictional concepts might be, so that point is wrong. I just know that people cannot know what they cannot know--that being the true nature of God.

Your firm idea that they are a "fictional concept" is enough for a concept. The idea that god is something they cannot know is even firmer.

 

[Bunyip]

I will be the first to admit that not all dictionary definitions are good definitions. But sometimes, for lack of a better definition, the commonly accepted definitions must suffice.

Don't forget that dictionaries record word usages, they do not define words. The word 'atheism' has changed in its usage substantially.

 

[Willamena]

It is simply not having a belief in god or gods.

Frubals for that.

 

[Bunyip]

I can't. However, if you use a term, you have employed its meaning, whether you like it or not.


Which is why you employ only a concept when you use the term in a sentence.

You keep saying that, but it does not actually make sense. It does not change the fact that unless you define the term it is meaningless.

Your firm idea that they are a "fictional concept" is enough for a concept. The idea that god is something they cannot know is even firmer.

 

[Sapiens]

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

The evidence ball is in your court. Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence.

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.

Let me assure you that your conclusion is in error.

BTW: just what course of education did you take to establish a right to have an opinion that is of any value? "Talking with many atheists," is not such a course of education. After all, I've talked with literally hundreds of believers like yourself and have yet to even learn that I should stop banging my head against a brick wall.

 

[Willamena]

You keep saying that, but it does not actually make sense. It does not change the fact that unless you define the term it is meaningless.

There's this word. Let's call it, "Ump." And on first hearing it, you may garner some meaning from the sentence it's used in; from the context it's used in; from the person who used it. But then it's used again, and again,. And over time, this image of it will build from usage and context.

If you turn that around and use it in a sentence, it's not meaningless, not in any sense, not unless you meant to say something meaningless. You keep proposing that it needs a particular, but it still gets used in a sentence coherently without a particular.

I say it doesn't lack meaning, no matter how you insist it does.

 

[Sonofason]

Don't forget that dictionaries record word usages, they do not define words. The word 'atheism' has changed in its usage substantially.

No, I do not accept changes to definitions very well. That's how words lose their meaning. And I am not in favor of words losing their meaning.

 

[Sonofason]

Frubals for that.

Then, as far as I can tell, according to that definition, trees are atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

There's this word. Let's call it, "Ump." And on first hearing it, you may garner some meaning from the sentence it's used in; from the context it's used in; from the person who used it. But then it's used again, and again,. And over time, this image of it will build from usage and context.

The word 'ump' would be meaningless until you define it Willemena, you know that, I know that.

If you turn that around and use it in a sentence, it's not meaningless, not in any sense, not unless you meant to say something meaningless. You keep proposing that it needs a particular, but it still gets used in a sentence coherently without a particular.

Of course it is meaningless, you have not defined it.

I say it doesn't lack meaning, no matter how you insist it does.

Yes, but you make no rational case for your position. Unless you define a term it is meaningless.

 

[Bunyip]

No, I do not accept changes to definitions very well. That's how words lose their meaning. And I am not in favor of words losing their meaning.

They don't lose their meaning, their meaning just changes. Languages are living things.
The first usage of atheist was directed at early Christians by the way - they were called atheists because they did not believe in the Roman gods.

 

[Willamena]

Then, as far as I can tell, according to that definition, trees are atheists.

There is a case for that the whole universe is conscious, and so capable of opinion.

That case needn't be made.

 

[serp777]

Well, thankfully, we don't have to rely on you to know what God is. We have a book with greater wisdom, which we can depend on, every time.

Does this book tell us everything there is to know about God? Certainly not.

Does it tell us everything we need to know about God. Absolutely.

Well which book is that? The Quran, the Odyssey, the bible, the scientology manifesto, etc?

 

[Sonofason]

The evidence ball is in your court. Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence.
Let me assure you that your conclusion is in error.

BTW: just what course of education did you take to establish a right to have an opinion that is of any value? "Talking with many atheists," is not such a course of education. After all, I've talked with literally hundreds of believers like yourself and have yet to even learn that I should stop banging my head against a brick wall.

My dear friend, I have all the evidence of God that I need. It is God's gift to me. And it belongs to me. If you want evidence from God, like the evidence I have for God, then you'll have to speak to God about that. God is evidence of Himself. If I could pull God out of my pocket to show you, I would. But as it is, I can't. But that is no loss to me.

I don't earn my rights. I claim them. And if you in particular feel I don't have the right to have an opinion, then by all means, try to stop me from having one.

 

[Willamena]

The word 'ump' would be meaningless until you define it Willemena, you know that, I know that.

I don't disagree.

Yes, but you make no rational case for your position. Unless you define a term it is meaningless.

The rational case that we derive meaning from sentence usage, word context, etc.?

I kind of hoped it was obvious.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't disagree.


The rational case that we derive meaning from sentence usage, word context, etc.?

I kind of hoped it was obvious.

That isn't a rational case. You can't derive the meaning of a term from context alone. Why are you so resistent to the idea of defining terms? It is something that people have to do in almost any discussion/debate/argumen or exchange.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Atheist trees?

Implicit Versus Explicit Atheism - For Dummies

..or just do a search on this site, topic has been covered multiple times.