The Paradox of Atheism and God

[ChristineM]

Wow. No. What @PureX is observing is your request for falsifiable evidence was completely irrational based on your incorrect rendering of the claim I made.

And now there's just more and more reasons that I am correct about my assertion that online-atheists cannot accept evidence that is counter to theiir mythology. In this case, the myth is, theists do not understand claims and evidence. Showing you this is wrong, using evidence produces denial. The evidence is not accepted for no rational reason.

Yawn. So much ego, so little knowledge

 

[dybmh]

Stop guessing to massage your ego.

No guess work. It's true. All of it is true. It happened right here in this thread. And all of this ends when you demonstrate some intellectual integrity. Admitting you're wrong is perfectly human and actually increases credibility. It's a good thing.

 

[dybmh]

It was not falsifiable and when asked you could not explain how it was falsifiable. What you gave was your opinion, opinion is not evidence of any sort

Not true. It was previously explained. I pre-empted that question. You asked for an explanation, and I copied the explanation into the reply. Did you read it? What was wrong with it? It's one of the simplest things. At least to me.

I brought a test where there are 2 and only 2 possible outcomes. Case 1 described the fault condition. If that case is the outcome ( "the online-atheist accepts the evidence" ), then my claim is falsified. If case 2 is the outcome, then my assertion is supported.

That's it. It's that simple.

 

[ChristineM]

No guess work. It's true. All of it is true. It happened right here in this thread. And all of this ends when you demonstrate some intellectual integrity. Admitting you're wrong is perfectly human and actually increases credibility. It's a good thing.

Nope, it's already ended, but feel free to continue your ranting if it makes you feel big and bold and macho. I've told you, I'm done.

Physician heal thyself

 

[dybmh]

Yawn. So much ego, so little knowledge

Yo, I clearly have beaucoup knowledge, and I understand how to use it, which makes me wise and clever. I out-foxed you. Insulting me goes double-triple for you.

 

[ChristineM]

Not true. It was previously explained. I pre-empted that question. You asked for an explanation, and I copied the explanation into the reply. Did you read it? What was wrong with it? It's one of the simplest things. At least to me.

I brought a test where there are 2 and only 2 possible outcomes. Case 1 described the fault condition. If that case is the outcome ( "the online-atheist accepts the evidence" ), then my claim is falsified. If case 2 is the outcome, then my assertion is supported.

That's it. It's that simple.

And of course the test was irrelevant, missing many shades of grey thst you deliberately omitted

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Not true. It was previously explained. I pre-empted that question. You asked for an explanation, and I copied the explanation into the reply. Did you read it? What was wrong with it? It's one of the simplest things. At least to me.

I brought a test where there are 2 and only 2 possible outcomes. Case 1 described the fault condition. If that case is the outcome ( "the online-atheist accepts the evidence" ), then my claim is falsified. If case 2 is the outcome, then my assertion is supported.

That's it. It's that simple.

Seems to be a logical fallacy - appeal to ignorance:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[ChristineM]

Yo, I clearly have beaucoup knowledge, and I understand how to use it, which makes me wise and clever. I out-foxed you. Insulting me goes double-triple for you.

Sheesh, really, also makes your head grow, careful when going through doorways.

 

[dybmh]

Those are clear declarative statements.

Ditto.
But Harry Potter & Star Wars are much
better & more clearly written than scripture.

Ah! Busted.

No, I claim that believers infer greatly different meanings.
This I label "murky".

Woo hoo!
It's like joining a club!

You just contradicted yourself. In context you are saying "No, I [ do not make claims about the details of sccripture ] I claim that believers..."

"Harry Potter & Star Wars are much better & more clearly written than scripture." contradicts with "No, I do not make claims about the details of scripture..."

I don't understand what's bothering you.

I'm not bothered. A false claim was made. I corrected it. And I keep getting more and more evidence in support of what I said. Everything is going according to plan. And I love it what a plan comes together. Poetry in motion.

 

[dybmh]

Seems to be a logical fallacy - appeal to ignorance:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Wait. I brought evidence. What are you talking about?

Falsifiable means precisely what I said. There are only 2 possible outcomes. One of those falisfies. Where is the argument from ignorance? What information am I missing? The test was completed. The outcome is clear.

A argument from ignorance is in the form of: "I don't knnow what it is therefore it MUST be X, Y, or Z". I didn't do anything like that.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Wait. I brought evidence. What are you talking about?

Evidence for yourself. Big difference.

No one ever agreed with you with a method of testing. As of yet.

 

[dybmh]

Seems to be a logical fallacy - appeal to ignorance:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

From your link: "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

Now I brought a logical argument. I wrote a premise, gave two cases, brought evidence, per the logical law of the excluded middle, lacking coutner example. It's proven logically to be true.

Argument from ignorance doesnt even come into play here. Not at all.

 

[dybmh]

Evidence for yourself. Big difference.

No one ever agreed with you with a method of testing. As of yet.

Not true. Did you go and read the thread I linked to? If you don't examine the evidence then you made your own argument from ignorance. And this supports what I said before. It was opinion, but now it is supported. Your objectivity apppears to be compromised. You're swooping in to the rescue, which is noble, but, as they say: "fools rush in".

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

From your link: "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

Now I brought a logical argument. I wrote a premise, gave two cases, brought evidence, per the logical law of the excluded middle, lacking coutner example. It's proven logically to be true.

Argument from ignorance doesnt even come into play here. Not at all.

Read further:

" This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates,"

Source:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

Nope, it's already ended, but feel free to continue your ranting if it makes you feel big and bold and macho. I've told you, I'm done.

Physician heal thyself

Your argument of "nope" is the weakest of the weak arguments.

 

[ChristineM]

Your argument of "nope" is the weakest of the weak arguments.

It's the only truthful one

 

[dybmh]

Read further:

" This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates,"

Source:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you would like this to apply, it is your burden to show that the sharp dichotomy is not accurate in this case. It is also your burden to show insufficent investigation. Further, I gave an open ended offer to bring evidence proving me wrong. This shows I did indeed, absolutley leave open the possibility that the answer is unkowable.

I covered my bases on this one. I know what to do. This is not a biased, ignorant, arrogantt argument. People don't like it. Of course not. I'm exposing the hypocrisy in their position.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Not true. Did you go and read the thread I linked to? If you don't examine the evidence then you made your own argument from ignorance. And this supports what I said before. It was opinion, but now it is supported. Your objectivity apppears to be compromised. You're swooping in to the rescue, which is noble, but, as they say: "fools rush in".

Okay, I'll try to be fair about it.... I'll acknowledge your evidence (without giving it a free pass against scrutiny), but suggest that as is, it's pretty insufficient [for me].

Also, since what you're proposing has large implications, I actually think that if you can do it in a way where you don't call people out specifically (like @ChristineM ) that this whole investigation actually warrants its own thread. It'd probably reach a larger audience that way.

 

[dybmh]

It's the only truthful one

No, Christine. You're wrong on the details on the stories in the OT. Repeatedly, and have never in my experience accepted the evidence. You always assert the same old line "I've read the bible 3 times...." But, if we're talking about the OT, that's 22 books. You read all that 3 times. It's clearly false Christine. Clearly. Obviously. It's an talking point. Like a politician. They're weasel-words. Your claims include the entire OT. Were talking about 2 Chronicles. You're telling me you've read 2 Chron 3 times?

And even so, if I grant that you actually read all 22 books 3 times through... it's irrelevant if your facts are wrong. Who cares how many times you've read it? 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times? Wrong is wrong.

I have read 3 bibles cover to cover,

 

[ChristineM]

No, Christine. You're wrong on the details on the stories in the OT. Repeatedly, and have never in my experience accepted the evidence. You always assert the same old line "I've read the bible 3 times...." But, if we're talking about the OT, that's 22 books. You read all that 3 times. It's clearly false Christine. Clearly. Obviously. It's an talking point. Like a politician. They're weasel-words. Your claims include the entire OT. Were talking about 2 Chronicles. You're telling me you've read 2 Chron 3 times?

And even so, if I grant that you actually read all 22 books 3 times through... it's irrelevant if your facts are wrong. Who cares how many times you've read it? 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times? Wrong is wrong.

FFS, and right is right, we've been over interpretation before, so get over yourself.