The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sonofason]

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

That case needn't be made.

Which is why I said, "as far as I can tell..."

I know that trees might know that God exists. But as far as I can tell, they do not. That doesn't mean they don't. But if trees have thoughts concerning the existence of God. I assure you, they believe in Him.

"And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."
(Luke 10:39-40)

 

[serp777]

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.



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.

No, i don't agree that I have to know the meaning if I employ a term. I've used terms that I had no idea what they meant, such as in computer science, in order to not seem like I was ignorant--like in a job interview.

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.

Okay then, the concept I have of it is that I don't the concept of it, and that most people don't have a correct concept of it either. Sure.

 

[Willamena]

That isn't a rational case. You can't derive the meaning of a term from context alone.

Then that's a failing on your part. Because, I sure can.

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.

I'm not resistant to it at all. If you read my posts, you'd see that. I just deny that a particular is necessary.

 

[Willamena]

No, i don't agree that I have to know the meaning if I employ a term.

According to some people, not only should you know its meaning, you should have to define it. Go figure.

I've used terms that I had no idea what they meant, such as in computer science, in order to not seem like I was ignorant--like in a job interview.

I would humbly suggest that that was a magnificent accomplishment. Well done!

Okay then, the concept I have of it is that I don't the concept of it, and that most people don't have a correct concept of it either. Sure.

Depends on what you think the concept is.

 

[Bunyip]

Then that's a failing on your part. Because, I sure can.

WOW. So you have a superpower - awesome!

OK, please demonstrate it for me.

Tell me what the word 'drelpquet' means by examining context alone - sounds like an incredible ability.

Here's the sentence:

I do not believe in drelpquet's.

Now tell me what a drelpquet is please?

I'm not resistant to it at all. If you read my posts, you'd see that. I just deny that a particular is necessary.

Yes and why are you doing that?

 

[Willamena]

WOW. So you have a superpower - awesome!

I do! It's called English.

OK, please demonstrate it for me.

Tell me what the word 'drelpquet' means by examining context alone - sounds like an incredible ability.

That's not a word I'm familiar with.

Here's the sentence:

I do not believe in drelpquet's.

Sorry, doesn't help.

Now tell me what a drelpquet is please?

No can do.

Yes and why are you doing that?

So, you're suggesting that a particular drelpquet would lend more meaning to the word drelpquet than what it already has? Produce a particular drelpquet.

 

[Bunyip]

I do! It's called English.


That's not a word I'm familiar with.


Sorry, doesn't help.


No can do.


So, you're suggesting that a particular drelpquet would lend more meaning to the word drelpquet than what it already has? Produce a particular drelpquet.

No. I am demonstrating that you are wrong - you can not figure out what a term means by context alone. And unless you have a definition for a word it has no meaning.

 

[Willamena]

No. I am demonstrating that you are wrong - you can not figure out what a term means by context alone. And unless you have a definition for a word it has no meaning.

Usage of a term implies a concept. Unless you have a concept, the term will be meaningless. If you use a term and intend that your sentence be coherent and meaningful, that means you have the concept. If you use nonsense words, you intend only nonsense.

 

[Bunyip]

Usage of a term implies a concept. Unless you have a concept, the term will be meaningless. If you use a term and intend that your sentence be coherent and meaningful, that means you have the concept. If you use nonsense words, you intend only nonsense.

And unless you define the concept it has no meaning.

How is it making sense to you to suggest that using a term somehow means that you don't need to define it?

 

[serp777]

According to some people, not only should you know its meaning, you should have to define it. Go figure.


I would humbly suggest that that was a magnificent accomplishment. Well done!


Depends on what you think the concept is.

The concept is that which I do not know.

 

[Willamena]

And unless you define the concept it has no meaning.

A concept has meaning; if it doesn't, you couldn't define it.

How is it making sense to you to suggest that using a term somehow means that you don't need to define it?

I never once suggested that there is no necessity to define it.

 

[Willamena]

The concept is that which I do not know.

What concept is that, then?

 

[Bunyip]

A concept has meaning; if it doesn't, you couldn't define it.3


I never once suggested that there is no necessity to define it.

This is just silly. You are contradictiong yourself.

 

[Willamena]

This is just silly. You are contradictiong yourself.

I'm not.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not.

Right, so there is no need to define a term - but you never said that there is no necessity to define it?

And you are not contradicting yourself.

 

[Willamena]

Right, so there is no need to define a term - but you never said that there is no necessity to define it?

And you are not contradicting yourself.

If you use a term, you better well have defined it or you'll find yourself in Serp's position of spouting brilliant bull manure.

 

[Willamena]

To define means to supply meaning. If you use a word or term intelligibly, that implies that you have defined it, even if only in concept. To ask, "What is god?" Is a request to supply content for something that's meaning does not extend beyond a label; but the very fact of others using it provides it with a wealth of contextual meaning that builds the concept.

 

[serp777]

What concept is that, then?

the concept that something is undefined

 

[Willamena]

the concept that something is undefined

A fine concept, often used. Sounds to me like you know it, though.

 

[RitalinOhD]

The atheist position is one which affirms the belief that no God exists. It is not simply not believing in a God.

Again, you are misrepresenting the term Atheist. It makes it quite difficult to have a debate when folks cannot grasp simple definitions of words.

Atheism makes no absolute judgement on whether a god exists or not. It is nothing more than simple lack of belief. That's it. That's all it takes. Until this simple concept can be grasped, further dialect is pointless. You don't get to make up your own definition for words that already have clear cut definitions.