The logical fallacy of atheism

[Bunyip]

That is not true. Most atheists hate God.

As I said, that makes no sense.

I can not hate something that does not exist. It is not possible to hate god and be an atheist.

 

[Sonofason]

On the contrary, I believe I proposed the so-called "strong" atheist.

Neither babies nor rocks have the capacity for belief or nonbelief.

That's fine, but the atheist does not include those who do not know whether or not a God exists. Those people are agnostic. You can believe strongly that no God exists, or you could believe weakly that no God exists, and that is still atheism. Both are illogical.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm showing how ridiculous your argument is; not trying to convince you or myself to join Islam. It's called reframing your argument. Did you miss that?

No, I ignored it.

 

[serp777]

Notice what I said was a statement. Notice what I said. I said, "Then go fight with Hamas. That was not a question, it was a command.

Ok, whatever, I guess you just concede on the previous argument since you clearly can't address it.

 

[Willamena]

That's fine, but the atheist does not include those who do not know whether or not a God exists.

It includes me, and I know whether or not a God exists.

So I would have to disagree with what you say.

 

[Bunyip]

According to my dictionary, the word has more broad applications than just the political.

secular: definition of secular in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Sure, it is stilp not relevant to the OP, or to atheism.

 

[serp777]

No, I ignored it.

Yea because you aren't capable of answering it .

 

[Sonofason]

As I said, that makes no sense.

I can not hate something that does not exist. It is not possible to hate god and be an atheist.

You don't know if God exists or not. So you could indeed hate God, because as far as you know, He might exist, and you hate that.

 

[serp777]

Not so, God has revealed Himself to me, not you.

No he hasn't. You only think he has. You think you know he has because you know i guess. It's circular reasoning you're using to prove to yourself that God has spoken to you individually for some bizarre reason.

And this is still exactly the same kind of argument hamas fighters would use. How are you any better than them?

 

[Willamena]

Sure, it is stilp not relevant to the OP, or to atheism.

I believe it has relevance. I wouldn't have bothered introducing it to the conversation if I didn't.

 

[Sonofason]

Ok, whatever, I guess you just concede on the previous argument since you clearly can't address it.

Won't address it.

 

[serp777]

Actually, no knowledge claim sounds more like secularism, which makes claims without regard to god.

What do you mean though? I was referring to making a claim about God--a claim of not having any knowledge about God. Secularism, on the other hand, doesn't even make any claims about whether God is unknown on the other hand.

 

[serp777]

Won't address it.

*Not capable, otherwise you would have.

 

[Sonofason]

*Not capable, otherwise you would have.

I experience God. I do not experience the Islamic false god Allah. God is very real to me. And I can see clearly what Allah is.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean though? I was referring to making a claim about God--a claim of not having any knowledge about God. Secularism, on the other hand, doesn't even make any claims about whether God is unknown on the other hand.

"I went to the bathroom today," is a claim regardless of God. It is no claim about knowledge about God.

A claim that "God is unknowable" is a claim of knowledge about God. It has assigned God a property: unknowability.

For the record, I think the latter is an extension or extrapolation of agnosticism, but not in itself agnosticism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Rhetorical, then. Not willing to acknowledge any logic behind a 7, but pretending that there's some value to being almost 7. That doesn't bode well for his integrity.

I'm not here to defend Richard Dawkins but it was just a fancy way of saying he is "very much an atheist" but obviously he doesn't have the blind faith of a theist.

Does 7 represent blind faith, or, as it states, belief (conviction) based on probability?

7 would be someone who claims that there is no god. Claims it as a fact.

Won't address it.

speaking of....did you simply ignore my post some many pages back?

 

[Willamena]

7 would be someone who claims that there is no god. Claims it as a fact.

Is 100% probability the equivalent of a fact?

Edit: I think rather that it is the equivalent of certainty.

Certainty is belief; fact is knowledge.

 

[Sonofason]

"I went to the bathroom today," is a claim regardless of God. It is no claim about knowledge about God.

A claim that "God is unknowable" is a claim of knowledge about God. It has assigned God a property: unknowability.

For the record, I think the latter is an extension or extrapolation of agnosticism, but not in itself agnosticism.

The latter is agnosticism exactly.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm not here to defend Richard Dawkins but it was just a fancy way of saying he is "very much an atheist" but obviously he doesn't have the blind faith of a theist.



7 would be someone who claims that there is no god. Claims it as a fact.

speaking of....did you simply ignore my post some many pages back?

I do decide which posts I will respond to.

 

[Willamena]

The latter is agnosticism exactly.

Fair enough. I disagree.