The logical fallacy of atheism

[Bunyip]

I'm putting you on ignore. Bye.

Fail

 

[Willamena]

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.

I did. A thing you go to see.

It seems you weren't listening.

I never claimed mind-reading abilities--don't know where you got that from. (You seem to be asking what meaning it has to you, and I'd have to be a mind-reader to know that.)

 

[Willamena]

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?

The context supplies _______ with the meaning, "a thing you go to see." No greater context was given, so it has just that meaning.

The significant thing is that _______ doesn't fail to have meaning, regardless of any agreement with you. It has just the meaning that was supplied.

 

[Sonofason]

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

How do you feel about leprechauns?

I don't know enough about them to form an opinion. I'd say I'm agnostic with regard to a belief in leprechauns. It's the only honest position I could take.

 

[Sonofason]

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?

I don't recall saying anything about absolute knowledge. And I don't recall saying anything about 100% certainty. I said what I said, and what I said is what I meant. But when you say it, yes it sounds pretty ridiculous. It would be much more believable if you would refrain from trying to paraphrase what I say.

 

[Bunyip]

The context supplies _______ with the meaning, "a thing you go to see." No greater context was given, so it has just that meaning.

The significant thing is that _______ doesn't fail to have meaning, regardless of any agreement with you. It has just the meaning that was supplied.

This is just silly. What did I go to see Willemena? Of course it fails to have meaning - you do not know what it is.

Just as the term 'god' has no meaning unless defined.

Just as no greater context is given when somebody says that they believe in god. You still need a definition to know what they mean by 'god'.

 

[Sonofason]

This is just silly. What did I go to see Willemena? Of course it fails to have meaning - you do not know what it is.

Just as the term 'god' has no meaning unless defined.

Just as no greater context is given when somebody says that they believe in god. You still need a definition to know what they mean by 'god'.

Why not ask the person who believes in God how they define God. Since those are the people who are using the word God in sentences, perhaps you should stick with their definition.

 

[Bunyip]

Why not ask the person who believes in God how they define God. Since those are the people who are using the word God in sentences, perhaps you should stick with their definition.

Of course. The point being that without that definition the term 'God' has no meaning.

Willemena has been arguing that just using a term defines it, and that terms are defined by context.
Both of which claims I am contesting.

 

[s2a]

I don't know enough about them to form an opinion. I'd say I'm agnostic with regard to a belief in leprechauns. It's the only honest position I could take.

Like leprechauns, and many other examples as may be compared to "religious explanations" of natural phenomena. I'm reminded of this favored exchange in the popular movie, "Dumb and Dumber".

Lloyd Christmas: I want to ask you a question... straight out, flat out... and I want you to give me an honest answer. What do you think the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary Swanson: Well Lloyd... that's difficult to say... you really don't...
Lloyd Christmas: Hit me! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary Swanson: Not good.
Lloyd Christmas: [Gulps] You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary Swanson: I'd say more like... one out of a million.
Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance. Yeah!



"Leprechauns" could exist...but are they likely? Trolls, sprites, dragons, talking snakes, we could go on...if we choose to allow ANY possibility as comparable to an EQUAL possibility...we may come to realize that one is not the other, and no reasoned person should. Unless you are type cast for "Dumb and Dumber". Some people will never accept come to rejection, progress, insight, discovery, or invention.

Ever.


Honestly.

 

[Willamena]

This is just silly. What did I go to see Willemena?

As I said, I'm not a mind-reader.

Of course it fails to have meaning - you do not know what it is.

And yet, it has meaning. It's magic!

Just as the term 'god' has no meaning unless defined.

Just as no greater context is given when somebody says that they believe in god. You still need a definition to know what they mean by 'god'.

And what is "god?"

 

[Willamena]

Willemena has been arguing that just using a term defines it, and that terms are defined by context.
Both of which claims I am contesting.

Sort of. I've argued that in using a term, it is defined. It has meaning, if you meant that it be an intelligible part of a intelligible sentence, even if its referent is just a concept. Such is the case with the word "god" used by you in a sentence.

And terms can acquire meaning simply by their use in context, yes. That's one of the ways. Having them defined for you would be another.

 

[s2a]

Sort of. I've argued that in using a term, it is defined. It has meaning, if you meant that it be an intelligible part of a intelligible sentence, even if its referent is just a concept. Such is the case with the word "god" used by you in a sentence.

And terms can acquire meaning simply by their use in context, yes. That's one of the ways. Having them defined for you would be another.

I don't wish to be especially rude, but that's jabberwocky.

"God" means whatever one chooses "god" to be?

"God" defies any/all explanation or definition?

If only science had it that easy...

"What made the stars form"?

"God"

Oh, ok...time to move along then.

Doh.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I don't wish to be especially rude, but that's jabberwocky.

"God" means whatever one chooses "god" to be?

"God" defies any/all explanation or definition?

If only science had it that easy...

"What made the stars form"?

"God"

Oh, ok...time to move along then.

Doh.

To be fair, something having a meaning doesn't necessarily mean something has a useful meaning..

 

[Willamena]

"God" means whatever one chooses "god" to be?

No. I believe the useful take of a thing is objective. Its form is not our doing, in as much as we have surrendered the thought of its form to truth.

"God" defies any/all explanation or definition?

Does it?

A case could be made for that, if you were a mystic. But if you just want to talk about god, it's necessarily defined.

 

[Willamena]

To be fair, something having a meaning doesn't necessarily mean something has a useful meaning..

Or the same meaning to others.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Or the same meaning to others.

Boy, I learned that truth when I was in a hotel in Europe, and the bellhop asked if we wanted to be " knocked up" in the morning...

There was terrified, awkward silence from our group of high schoolers, until our tour guide showed up to explain...

 

[Sonofason]

Of course. The point being that without that definition the term 'God' has no meaning.

Willemena has been arguing that just using a term defines it, and that terms are defined by context.
Both of which claims I am contesting.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with Willemena completely. I believe that using a word in context can be helpful in ascertaining the meaning, but not always, and not necessarily so.

 

[Sonofason]

Like leprechauns, and many other examples as may be compared to "religious explanations" of natural phenomena. I'm reminded of this favored exchange in the popular movie, "Dumb and Dumber".

Lloyd Christmas: I want to ask you a question... straight out, flat out... and I want you to give me an honest answer. What do you think the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary Swanson: Well Lloyd... that's difficult to say... you really don't...
Lloyd Christmas: Hit me! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary Swanson: Not good.
Lloyd Christmas: [Gulps] You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary Swanson: I'd say more like... one out of a million.
Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance. Yeah!



"Leprechauns" could exist...but are they likely? Trolls, sprites, dragons, talking snakes, we could go on...if we choose to allow ANY possibility as comparable to an EQUAL possibility...we may come to realize that one is not the other, and no reasoned person should. Unless you are type cast for "Dumb and Dumber". Some people will never accept come to rejection, progress, insight, discovery, or invention.

Ever.


Honestly.

All myths come from somewhere. It is very likely that most myths have a bit of truth in them. It may very well be that leprechauns have existed, but our modern understanding of leprechauns is highly flawed. I just don't know. I'm not going to form an opinion as to whether they do, have or ever will exist. I really don't care that much about it to give it a whole lot of thought. If they exist, great. If not, great. But if I find out for sure that they do exist, I'm gonna start hiding all my gold coins.

 

[Sapiens]

The problem is the disparity between the enormity of the claim and the paucity of the data. If I told you that your significant other were having an affair, you'd pay no attention unless there was supporting evidence but you will accept, yea even proselytize, the existence of a supreme being with far less data then you'd require to impeach your SO's fidelity. Looks like a massive impedance mismatch to me.

 

[s2a]

No. I believe the useful take of a thing is objective. Its form is not our doing, in as much as we have surrendered the thought of its form to truth.


Does it?

A case could be made for that, if you were a mystic. But if you just want to talk about god, it's necessarily defined.

Interesting, but then, what value might we seek from any term that is purely subjective...especially when proffered as "truth"?

It could be that I'm far too literal in this regard, for I have never been "blessed" with (religious) faith.

I retain the mindset that "god" means waay too much in multiples of terms and applications to ever be "necessarily defined" by anyone, unless they themselves have their own "understanding" of what a "god" means. Need I recall just how many denominations of "Christians" alone exist? Muslims? Jews? And that's just Judeo-Christian beliefs in a singular Jehovah/Allah. I haven't even scraped the surface of denominations that declare (or claim) their own insights as to what their "god(s)"may be, do, or even care about or choose to influence.

It may be fair to observe that each individual believer (or grouping thereof) may "claim" to "know" their own "god"...but their held "definition" is always the "right" one, first and foremost. Others may be "entitled" to hold differing opinions, but of course, the are "wrong".

The one advantage of an atheistic perspective?

ALL "believers" are wrong, no matter how heartfelt and earnest their espoused belief may be.