What is the most common mistake that atheists make?

[outhouse]

I understand what it is he is trying to say, how he is looking at it. Perhaps look at the analogy I suggested for him in post 143? It's not that odd of a concept really. If you look at those whom believe that the minor gods/goddesses are actually manifestations of particular aspects of One Divine entity then you can see where he's getting his ideas. I have no idea where he was going with the whole "one less god" argument, but I do understand his claim of certain "levels". Thing is, as much as he has been saying that atheists don't understand certain things, and while his ideas about levels does make sense in some respects as there are those who do believe such, he seems to be showing just as much lack of understanding in the fact that not all people have that particular view of gods. This is the whole reason why there are different religions and faiths. Not everyone looks at theistic ideas the same way. To propose they do is to propose we are all alike and think alike and understand alike. Humans don't work like that.

I understand, and your post made sense as far as that was concerned. You explained clear and well.

But we have been going back and forth about the value of historical applications and definition of said concepts, so knowing where his source of information is required so I can fully understand his position.

He has stated classical theism which we know is only an argument and not a definitive guide to the monotheistic god concepts.

Knowing he/she corners him/herself revealing sources, were getting almost nothing but rhetoric and attitude.

 

[outhouse]

Not everyone looks at theistic ideas the same way.

We have gone over this add nauseam with him. I get insults instead of an explanation.

He also refuse to even talk about the origins of his classical theism.

We have a bit of a hostile witness your honor

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Polytheistic deities (if they do exist) are celestial beings that belong to the same ontological level that angels do; they do not belong to the same ontological level that the monotheistic Deity does.

How can this statement even be made with a "straight face?" You qualify the initial object of your statement with "if they do exist" - owing to the fact that (of course) you do not know whether or not polutheistic deities exist at all... and then make a claim about them existing on "the same ontological level that angels do". You don't even know whether or not they even exist, but oh... "IF THEY DO", then you make some assertion about them. An assertion that is necessarily arbitrary - and that's putting it extremely nicely.

 

[Lighthouse]

How can this statement even be made with a "straight face?" You qualify the initial object of your statement with "if they do exist" - owing to the fact that (of course) you do not know whether or not polutheistic deities exist at all... and then make a claim about them existing on "the same ontological level that angels do". You don't even know whether or not they even exist, but oh... "IF THEY DO", then you make some assertion about them. An assertion that is necessarily arbitrary - and that's putting it extremely nicely.

Congratulations... you've just explained the scientific method. If X exists, then Y. The If always assumed to be factual without knowing if X even exists or not.

 

[outhouse]

Congratulations... you've just explained the the scientific method. If X exists, then Y. The If always assumed to be factual without knowing if X even exists or not.

Method and conclusion are 4 different things

 

[Lighthouse]

Method and conclusion are 4 different things

Veggie didn't attack the conclusion. He attacked the method.

 

[Revoltingest]

True. Except for my case I have all what makes me want to take the risk I have in mind. I guess we will find out one day. But no worries, atheists are humans too and God, if exists, knows how they feel and what's in there hearts. All we can do is make non ending hypotheses.

We each (dis)believe what calls to us.

 

[Smart_Guy]

We each (dis)believe what calls to us.

Err... yup!

 

[Shad]

The philosophical tradition of classical theology has undergone refinement through the years (although it has not undergone any major paradigm shift in a very long time). If your argument is that our theological understanding is evolving with time, so what? Our scientific understanding is constantly evolving. I don't see any reason why our theological understanding should not be permitted the same luxury.

An issue is that at time such developments are made ad hoc or merely assimilated by theology which has become divorced from the very foundation of the religion the theology covers. Changing a tribal polytheist god to a monotheistic one just shows religions evolve rather than contain major truth values. Much as people twist evolution so it compatible with their religion under the inane idea of theistic evolution. Slapping a new label on an outdated idea to save it from falsification does not fly in science but it does in theology.

 

[Shad]

Congratulations... you've just explained the scientific method. If X exists, then Y. The If always assumed to be factual without knowing if X even exists or not.

Wrong as soundness is required for X. Soundness means X is true as the conclusion must be sound, true, as well. Premises which are not sound do not create a sound conclusion. You also reduce science to basic logical principles but without the details regarding what X and Y are you have created a strawman to knockdown.

 

[Lighthouse]

Wrong as soundness is required for X. Soundness means X is true as the conclusion must be sound, true, as well. Premises which are not sound do not create a sound conclusion. You also reduce science to basic logical principles but without the details regarding what X and Y are you have created a strawman to knockdown.

The method was attacked, not the soundness.

I understand what you mean though.

 

[Ouroboros]

We each (dis)believe what calls to us.

Kthulhu calls us!

 

[Shad]

Veggie attacked the method, not the soundness.

I understand what you mean though.

Soundness is part of the method when it comes to deduction for a specific, which science addresses all the time.

 

[Skwim]

Wrong as soundness is required for X. Soundness means X is true as the conclusion must be sound, true, as well. Premises which are not sound do not create a sound conclusion. You also reduce science to basic logical principles but without the details regarding what X and Y are you have created a strawman to knockdown.

Actually, the three elements of a logical argument are:

1. Truth. Each premise is true.
2. Validity. The form of the premises and conclusion taken as a whole are logically coherent (in syllogism I believe there are 19 such forms.)
3. Soundness. Both requirements, 1 and 2, are met.​

.

 

[Shad]

Actually, the three elements of a logical argument are:

1. Truth. Each premise is true.
2. Validity. The form of the premises and conclusion taken as a whole are logically coherent (in syllogism I believe there are 19 such forms.)
3. Soundness. Both requirements, 1 and 2, are met.​

.

Sure but truth is already a parameter of soundness itself thus 1. is redundant. People often skip 1. completely when making all sort of arguments so seems of no value itself since it matters little to people making claims.

 

[Skwim]

Sure but truth is already a parameter of soundness itself thus 1. is redundant.

I wasn't amplifying on what you said, only explaining the three elements of a logical argument.

People often skip 1. completely when making all sort of arguments so seems of no value itself since it matters little to people making claims.

Obviously of no concern to them, but significant to those of us who can see them for what they are. And, from time to time I've seen people propose invalid arguments.

 

[Covellite]

All of them.

Remember the two truths of atheism:

1) There is no God, and

2) I Hate Him.

Atheists cannot hate God, because they don't believe in God's existence.
I know a lot of people how don't believe in God and they find "religions" and believes is any supernatural beings naive. They usually have other interests and run fulfilled life.
If the hate God, they are not atheists at all.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Veggie attacked the method, not the soundness.

I understand what you mean though.

Yeah... I think the lack of "soundness" concerning the subject matter at hand is rather obvious. Or do you think there is some foundation of "fact" to stand on when discussing polytheistic deities?

Also - wasn't sure you were even referring to me at first when using the word "Veggie" multiple times over - as if you thought it funny or something! I can assure you that you are not funny, Nuthorse.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yeah... I think the lack of "soundness" concerning the subject matter at hand is rather obvious. Or do you think there is some foundation of "fact" to stand on when discussing polytheistic deities?

Also - wasn't sure you were even referring to me at first when using the word "Veggie" multiple times over - as if you thought it funny or something! I can assure you that you are not funny, Nuthorse.

You're more than welcome to discuss the soundness of the matter now, rather than the method if you wish.

My apologies, got the name wrong. Really just glanced it over and thought it was Vegetable. I can assure that I'll laugh and not be offended by whatever you call me, especially if it were by mistake. Forgive me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're more than welcome to discuss the soundness of the matter now, rather than the method if you wish.

My apologies, got the name wrong. Really just glanced it over and thought it was Vegetable. I can assure that I'll laugh and not be offended by whatever you call me, especially if it were by mistake. Forgive me.

Regardless - I did make reference to the soundness of the assertions in my original post, by pointing out that the assertion itself was "necessarily arbitrary". If you care to disagree with that pair of words as a description of the assertions being made by the OP, then by all means, let's continue. Otherwise, we're done.