The logical fallacy of atheism

[Bunyip]

No, a context gives a definition.

No it doesn't.

Define this term for me then:

Yesterday I went to see a _________.
If what you claim is true, you will be abke to fill in the blank.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe I was referring to those atheists referred to by 9-10ths_Penguin, the one's that he claims to have met that "do not claim that God doesn't exist, but claim that there isn't enough evidence for God to justify belief."

It would be unreasonable for an atheist to admit that they have a belief that no God exists. So they don't admit it. They're atheists, they're not stupid.

No, not stupid... just irrational liars, apparently. :rolleyes

How do you feel about leprechauns?

 

[Willamena]

No it doesn't.

Define this term for me then:

Yesterday I went to see a _________.
If what you claim is true, you will be abke to fill in the blank.

_______ is a thing you go to see.


Now this silly semantic argument can turn to what gets to be allowed to be included as definition.

 

[cottage]

Now in terms of here he is, there he is.... there is no tangible evidence for the existence of God as it would be understood in the most basic definition. However, to say that God does not exist because of a lack of evidence is a fallacy. That fallacy is called argument from ignorance. Therefore, the die-hard atheist is practicing a belief system because they believe there is nothing after death. A truly scientific mind would question both view points & contemplate how to test the theory. Just saying....

It works both ways. An argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is where it is said, for example, that just because there is no evidence for X it doesn’t mean that X doesn’t exist. ‘God’ or a life after death is not true because it has not been proven false.

If some affirmative existential proposition is being made then it is for the advocate to make the case. Not even the most dyed-in-the-wool sceptic can prove the non-existence of God. ‘There is no God’ can never amount to more than a contingent statement, since it is logically impossible to demonstrate the actual non-existence of that object (although propositions can be demonstrated as false), whereas if God does exist then logically it must be possible to demonstrate his existence. That is the crucial distinction. Therefore “God exists” bears the burden of proof.

 

[TheGunShoj]

No you couldn't be further from the truth.
I believe most atheists believe deep down that God exists, but they, for various reasons hate Him.

I hate this argument. It's one of the most vapid concepts I've ever heard.

So you are saying that within me I hold absolute knowledge that God exists. And with that knowledge would also come the knowledge of heaven and hell. So you are saying that even though I am 100% certain that God, Satan, Heaven and Hell exist that I would willingly choose eternal torment over eternal paradise? Do you realize how abysmally stupid that is?

 

[Ouroboros]

No it doesn't.

Define this term for me then:

Yesterday I went to see a _________.
If what you claim is true, you will be abke to fill in the blank.

"Context: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning." (Merriam Webster)

The dictionary is your friend.

 

[McBell]

No it doesn't.

Define this term for me then:

Yesterday I went to see a _________.
If what you claim is true, you will be abke to fill in the blank.

Where is the context?
a seven word sentence is not context.


nice try though.

 

[Willamena]

Well if you're like me and accept that God is not definable/unknowable, then logically everyone else who says they know and can define God is wrong because they cannot know what they cannot know.

There are no universally agreed-upon definitions.

To say that there is some universally agreed-upon definition and that it's the one that you personally understand is just to say that everybody is supposed to agree with you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Actually it is simply much easier for you to argue against something that is just as fallacious as your own position so you wish to cling to the definition that supports it. And then you also enjoy turning and warping an argument by making a claim that all Atheists hold the position you state they do.

Creating your own opponent in a way you can beat them doesn't make you correct and nor does it promote any points against the real opponent.

If you would like to argue against the position many of the people in this thread have proposed to you then by all means. However I don't know of anyone here in this thread who has accepted your definition or attempted to defend it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Where is the context?
a seven word sentence is not context.


nice try though.

Agree.

He gives me a non-context to prove a point that context can't be a context...

 

[outhouse]

There are no universally agreed-upon definitions.

To say that there is some universally agreed-upon definition and that it's the one that you personally understand is just to say that everybody is supposed to agree with you.

Abrahamic deity Is agreed on by roughly 4 billion people.


Which is amazing that 4 billion people don't have a clue about real history.

 

[Willamena]

Abrahamic deity Is agreed on by roughly 4 billion people.


Which is amazing that 4 billion people don't have a clue about real history.

Real history being the one that you personally understand?

 

[Nakosis]

I'd think most people supply their own definition for God. Even that of being a non-existent imaginary entity.

What I believe God to be is the omnipresent observer. What I experience God to be is an entity who occasionally provides insights to truth or truths I find beneficial. The "Truth" I experience is non-self, non-duality where the term God does not apply.

So we define God by the context of the perception/experience/belief/imagination we have in mind when referring to God.

Kind of like using the word "beauty" to express an idea. An exact understanding depends a lot on context.

Funny, looking up the definition of beauty, it could almost be used as a definition for God.

God that which - gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

 

[Nakosis]

Real history being the one that you personally understand?

While growing up I found it interesting that history is dependent on whom was teaching it.

Different teachers, different schools, different history. I usually suspect history is anywhere from 50% to 99% fiction.

 

[outhouse]

Real history being the one that you personally understand?

No, one backed by education and knowledge, the pseudo history followed within all Abrahamic religions.

Real history in context, being history that is accepted and not debated by any credible college.

 

[outhouse]

While growing up I found it interesting that history is dependent on whom was teaching it.

Different teachers, different schools, different history. I usually suspect history is anywhere from 50% to 99% fiction.

Oh you mean

details within history is dependent on whom was teaching it.



The first they teach you in a history class is that history cannot ever be recreated.

Plausibility of what happened however, can provide certainties on many time periods.

 

[Bunyip]

_______ is a thing you go to see.


Now this silly semantic argument can turn to what gets to be allowed to be included as definition.

And what is it? Come on, if what you have claimed is true you will be able to tell me what I went to see. If you can in fact define a term from context alone - please get on with it.

 

[Bunyip]

"Context: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning." (Merriam Webster)

The dictionary is your friend.

I know what context means, that was a truly pathetic alternative to answering a direct question.

If as you said you can determine the definition from context - fill in the blank in this sentence;

Yesterday I went to see a _______.

You can not do so, and you know that you can not do so and that your claim was false. Why not pick up the dictionary yourself and try hitting the side of your head with it?

 

[Bunyip]

Where is the context?
a seven word sentence is not context.


nice try though.

Well where is the necessary context for this even shorter sentence then (given this is the actual topic);

I do not believe in _________.

How is that sufficient to determine context?

Let me remind you of the op - it is about atheism. Now atheism is a single word - how is that single word enough to give sufficient context to define god?

 

[Ouroboros]

I know what context means, that was a truly pathetic alternative to answering a direct question.

If as you said you can determine the definition from context - fill in the blank in this sentence;

Yesterday I went to see a _______.

You can not do so, and you know that you can not do so and that your claim was false. Why not pick up the dictionary yourself and try hitting the side of your head with it?

I'm putting you on ignore. Bye.