Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I LOL when I read another of your illogical and incoherent comments. you say there is a god, but could not and will not provide proof. instead you asked those that do not believe in god to provide proof LOL.
Do you know what is an illogical and incoherent comment? It is the kind of comments and claims that you make that say "the universe is caused by nothing". Duh...
For you to accuse me of "could not and will not" provide evidences for the existence of God is to make yourself a blatant liar. I have provided arguments and evidences and even book references to show that the weight of the evidence points to there being a God. You, however, have provided NONE.
I know you have no proof that God does not exist, which is why it all boils down to belief, not reason and certainly not science. If you say you do not believe in God, well and fine. But do not confuse your not believing in God with saying there is no God. A statement of belief is not the same as a statement of claim. As long as you keep to saying that you BELIEVE there is not God then that's just it, a statement of belief and faith. I won't quibble with that at all.
-
Originally posted by SJS6638:
Face the fact, not everyone who does not believe in your God is atheist.
Since when was that the issue? You must be seriously misled by Jacky.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
god works in mysterious ways and god is the creator is as good as not explaining.
its a claim, a wild and unsubstantiated claim, nothing more than that.nonsensical claim? yes you can say that again, because that is exactly what your beliefs are. utter rubbish
Nothing can be more wild and unsubstantiated than your claim that nothing made everything, and that there is nothing more than that!
The belief in God being the cause of the universe is nothing more than a LOGICAL claim of cause and effect. But your absurd claim is that nothing caused everything. If that is not utter rubbish, then nothing else is!
-
Originally posted by SJS6638:
All these conflicts and argument, I won't be surprised in the end only a small number of christians are allowed to heaven.
Why would having conflicts and arguments result in only a small number of Christians allowed into heaven? I don't recall the Bible having such a criteria at all.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is still a lack of belief, a lack. So to be consistent, if lacking a belief means no burden of proof for the atheist then it equally applies to here as well. It has nothing to do with negative or positive claim. A belief is a belief, a claim is a claim. If you claim there is no God then you have a burden of proof on your shoulders.
You can't deny you did a double negative premise to assimilate your concept of atheist position and then commit a Tu quoque so as not to prove and shift the burden of prove to the other side.... Not reasonable.The starting point of these arguments is when a enthusiatic theist starts dispensing his beliefs. Onus probandi... was never fulfilled in the 1st place.... No god, no argument...
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I dun get it. when one dun believe their god one is called an atheist.
similarly do they believe in shiva, brahma, krishna? I bet they dun so wouldnt they be called an atheist also.
Please don't abuse the definition of atheism.
Christians are not calling everyone outside of Christianity an atheist. At least I don't. But I did say before that I aim my arguments mainly against atheism simply because nonbelievers who are not atheists basically use the SAME kind of arguments that atheists use to justify their rejection of Christianity. So demolishing atheism serves the purposes of one stone kill two birds.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
You can't deny you did a double negative premise to assimilate your concept of atheist position and then commit a Tu quoque so as not to prove and shift the burden of prove to the other side.... Not reasonable.The starting point of these arguments is when a enthusiatic theist starts dispensing his beliefs. Onus probandi... was never fulfilled in the 1st place....
Am I denying that it is a double negative? Nope. So your accusation is baseless.
And you are abusing the fallacy of Tu quoque. I am not shifting the burden of proof at all. By adopting the SAME tactic as the atheist I am saying I have NO burden of proof. You did not even get this point right. So unless you want to criticise the "lack of belief" tact I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to use that same tactic. If the atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by the clever positioning of words, why can't I do the same? But if you agree with me that this is a lame tactic (and it is), then I expect you to show some consistency.
The theist has already presented his arguments and evidences. For you to say that this has not been done is a blatant lie. Your rejection of the case for God is not the same as saying that no case was ever made. Know the proper distinctions please.
-
Originally posted by SJS6638:
Christian means without christ I am nothing that is how they view the word CHRISTIAN. Remove the Christ and the IAN stands for I am nothing.
Thus, without christ others are atheists and what shit ......... christians are previous in the sight of the so called "god".
Interesting theological insight but that's not what the word "Christian" means anyway.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Am I denying that it is a double negative? Nope. So your accusation is baseless.
And you are abusing the fallacy of Tu quoque. I am not shifting the burden of proof at all. By adopting the SAME tactic as the atheist I am saying I have NO burden of proof. You did not even get this point right. So unless you want to criticise the "lack of belief" tact I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to use that same tactic. If the atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by the clever positioning of words, why can't I do the same? But if you agree with me that this is a lame tactic (and it is), then I expect you to show some consistency.
The theist has already presented his arguments and evidences. For you to say that this has not been done is a blatant lie. Your rejection of the case for God is not the same as saying that no case was ever made. Know the proper distinctions please.
"Am I denying that it is a double negative? Nope. So your accusation is baseless."
Ok you affirmed, nevermind it wasn't an accusation.
"And you are abusing the fallacy of Tu quoque. I am not shifting the burden of proof at all. By adopting the SAME tactic as the atheist I am saying I have NO burden of proof. You did not even get this point right. So unless you want to criticise the "lack of belief" tact I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to use that same tactic. If the atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by the clever positioning of words, why can't I do the same? But if you agree with me that this is a lame tactic (and it is), then I expect you to show some consistency.
The theist has already presented his arguments and evidences. For you to say that this has not been done is a blatant lie. Your rejection of the case for God is not the same as saying that no case was ever made. Know the proper distinctions please. "Learn2read godamnit.... Tu quoque (
/tu�ˈkwoʊkwi�/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3]The theist informs on the premise of the existence of god/s. The atheist rejects on the ground of lack of evidence of god/s. You have been showing consistency by being fallacious in your arguments, I try to be reasonable logical.Yay for me being the whistle blower....
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Am I denying that it is a double negative? Nope. So your accusation is baseless."
Ok you affirmed, nevermind it wasn't an accusation.
"And you are abusing the fallacy of Tu quoque. I am not shifting the burden of proof at all. By adopting the SAME tactic as the atheist I am saying I have NO burden of proof. You did not even get this point right. So unless you want to criticise the "lack of belief" tact I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to use that same tactic. If the atheist can disclaim a burden of proof by the clever positioning of words, why can't I do the same? But if you agree with me that this is a lame tactic (and it is), then I expect you to show some consistency.
The theist has already presented his arguments and evidences. For you to say that this has not been done is a blatant lie. Your rejection of the case for God is not the same as saying that no case was ever made. Know the proper distinctions please. "Learn2read godamnit.... Tu quoque (
/tu�ˈkwoʊkwi�/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3]The theist informs on the premise of the existence of god/s. The atheist rejects on the ground of lack of evidence of god/s. You have been showing consistency by being fallacious in your arguments, I try to be reasonable logical.Yay for me being the whistle blower....
You are not reading what you post at all. Was I discrediting the atheist's position? No, but I am ASSUMING for the sake of argument that the atheist is justified in defining his atheism as "lack of belief in...". So I am simply saying, "Hey, if you can do this, so can I!" But if you take issue with me doing this, then the hypocrisy is on you.
To say that there is a lack of evidence for God is another blatant lie by the atheist. Countless books have been written to show the evidence for that. You mean you are blind to that? Do not confuse your rejection of the evidence with the lack of evidence. To say lack evidence is subjective. The hardcore atheist can always say "not enough evidence" if he has already decided not to believe in God regardless. Don't be naive to think that humans will always believe when there is evidence given to them. Why? Simply because nonbelievers can always invoke other explanations for the evidence to keep their current worldviews intact. Again you seem to have missed the point that all evidences and facts are interpreted. The issue is not throwing evidence at you, but presenting the evidence in a way that makes sense.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are not reading what you post at all. Was I discrediting the atheist's position? No, but I am ASSUMING for the sake of argument that the atheist is justified in defining his atheism as "lack of belief in...". So I am simply saying, "Hey, if you can do this, so can I!" But if you take issue with me doing this, then the hypocrisy is on you.
To say that there is a lack of evidence for God is another blatant lie by the atheist. Countless books have been written to show the evidence for that. You mean you are blind to that? Do not confuse your rejection of the evidence with the lack of evidence. To say lack evidence is subjective. The hardcore atheist can always say "not enough evidence" if he has already decided not to believe in God regardless. Don't be naive to think that humans will always believe when there is evidence given to them. Why? Simply because nonbelievers can always invoke other explanations for the evidence to keep their current worldviews intact. Again you seem to have missed the point that all evidences and facts are interpreted. The issue is not throwing evidence at you, but presenting the evidence in a way that makes sense.
"You are not reading what you post at all. Was I discrediting the atheist's position? No, but I am ASSUMING for the sake of argument that the atheist is justified in defining his atheism as "lack of belief in...". So I am simply saying, "Hey, if you can do this, so can I!" But if you take issue with me doing this, then the hypocrisy is on you."
Yay me the hated whistle blower... You just conceded a tu quoque. How was I a hypocrite? Come at me, read me the charges you have against me.
"To say that there is a lack of evidence for God is another blatant lie by the atheist. Countless books have been written to show the evidence for that. You mean you are blind to that? Do not confuse your rejection of the evidence with the lack of evidence. To say lack evidence is subjective. The hardcore atheist can always say "not enough evidence" if he has already decided not to believe in God regardless. Don't be naive to think that humans will always believe when there is evidence given to them. Why? Simply because nonbelievers can always invoke other explanations for the evidence to keep their current worldviews intact. Again you seem to have missed the point that all evidences and facts are interpreted. The issue is not throwing evidence at you, but presenting the evidence in a way that makes sense."
In actual fact, there is no lack of evidence for God or more appropriately, God need no evidence. The evidences presented were only implying the necessity for a god/s. If one doesn't "buy" the idea of need of god/s, more solid evidences need to be supplied. which currently not available. I doubt there would be, since I believe this has to do with the criteria of being chosen for next phase...
I hope you realize most of your arguments are informal fallacies, meaning that the conclusions are not exactly wrong but the arguments are not logical most of the time. We'll reach the illogical fallacies soon enough.... -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You are not reading what you post at all. Was I discrediting the atheist's position? No, but I am ASSUMING for the sake of argument that the atheist is justified in defining his atheism as "lack of belief in...". So I am simply saying, "Hey, if you can do this, so can I!" But if you take issue with me doing this, then the hypocrisy is on you."
Yay me the hated whistle blower... You just conceded a tu quoque. How was I a hypocrite? Come at me, read me the charges you have against me.
"To say that there is a lack of evidence for God is another blatant lie by the atheist. Countless books have been written to show the evidence for that. You mean you are blind to that? Do not confuse your rejection of the evidence with the lack of evidence. To say lack evidence is subjective. The hardcore atheist can always say "not enough evidence" if he has already decided not to believe in God regardless. Don't be naive to think that humans will always believe when there is evidence given to them. Why? Simply because nonbelievers can always invoke other explanations for the evidence to keep their current worldviews intact. Again you seem to have missed the point that all evidences and facts are interpreted. The issue is not throwing evidence at you, but presenting the evidence in a way that makes sense."
In actual fact, there is no lack of evidence for God or more appropriately, God need no evidence. The evidences presented were only implying the necessity for a god/s. If one doesn't "buy" the idea of need of god/s, more solid evidences need to be supplied. which currently not available. I doubt there would be, since I believe this has to do with the criteria of being chosen for next phase...
I hope you realize most of your arguments are informal fallacies, meaning that the conclusions are not exactly wrong but the arguments are not logical most of the time. We'll reach the illogical fallacies soon enough....Nope, I conceded nothing. You, however, failed to understand what that fallacy is all about. Giving a Wiki link is not to be confused with knowing it. The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof.
Please clarify, what do you mean by there is no lack of evidence for God OR God need no evidence? The evidences presented were to convince the atheist that God exists. If one doesn't buy the idea of God, no amount of evidence would matter anyway. This is what I have often said about worldviews and presuppositions.
I know you love to allege that my arguments are informal fallacies, but I hope you realise that they are just that, allegations. But I did show where yours are.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Nope, I conceded nothing. You, however, failed to understand what that fallacy is all about. Giving a Wiki link is not to be confused with knowing it. The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof.
Please clarify, what do you mean by there is no lack of evidence for God OR God need no evidence? The evidences presented were to convince the atheist that God exists. If one doesn't buy the idea of God, no amount of evidence would matter anyway. This is what I have often said about worldviews and presuppositions.
I know you love to allege that my arguments are informal fallacies, but I hope you realise that they are just that, allegations. But I did show where yours are.
"Nope, I conceded nothing. You, however, failed to understand what that fallacy is all about. Giving a Wiki link is not to be confused with knowing it. The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof."
So I'm guilty of hypocrisy by association? Some prejudice...
Anyway I'm always here to correct:
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position[62]"Please clarify, what do you mean by there is no lack of evidence for God OR God need no evidence? The evidences presented were to convince the atheist that God exists. If one doesn't buy the idea of God, no amount of evidence would matter anyway. This is what I have often said about worldviews and presuppositions."
Both are correct. Something I like to call progressive argument. The premise must be agreed upon, else no point arguing. I find your way repelling them away instead of engaging them in constructive arguments... it could be only my views, couldn't it?
"I know you love to allege that my arguments are informal fallacies, but I hope you realise that they are just that, allegations. But I did show where yours are."
Your faith is admirable... your above belief is self delusional. Unless you don't read well enough to understand and apply the fallacies, I don't blame you. Thats why I'm still whistle blowing. *Blows whistle
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Nope, I conceded nothing. You, however, failed to understand what that fallacy is all about. Giving a Wiki link is not to be confused with knowing it. The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof."
So I'm guilty of hypocrisy by association? Some prejudice...
Anyway I'm always here to correct:
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position[62]"Please clarify, what do you mean by there is no lack of evidence for God OR God need no evidence? The evidences presented were to convince the atheist that God exists. If one doesn't buy the idea of God, no amount of evidence would matter anyway. This is what I have often said about worldviews and presuppositions."
Both are correct. Something I like to call progressive argument. The premise must be agreed upon, else no point arguing. I find your way repelling them away instead of engaging them in constructive arguments... it could be only my views, couldn't it?
"I know you love to allege that my arguments are informal fallacies, but I hope you realise that they are just that, allegations. But I did show where yours are."
Your faith is admirable... your above belief is self delusional. Unless you don't read well enough to understand and apply the fallacies, I don't blame you. Thats why I'm still whistle blowing. *Blows whistle
Which part of "The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof" do you not understand? And your attempt to correct is a total failure. You simply don't understand what the fallacy is at all or whether it applies here in this case. Anyway I am always here to correct your correction. LOL!
As mentioned, I am assuming for the sake of argument that defining atheism as lack of belief is valid and thus atheists have no need to bear any burden of proof. So the same reasoning applies that restating theism as lack of belief makes no obligation on shouldering any burden of proof. Your failure to see this point does not invalidate anything on my part.
Taking issue with my way or style of argument is tantamount to engaging in ad hominem. Saying that my style of argument repels the atheist has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments themselves. The issue is whether the arguments themselves are valid and sound. And whether the evidences provided are adequate to support the case.
Contrary to what you like to believe (self-delusion on your part), I do know what fallacies are and I have even shown how you failed to identify or apply them on many occasions, not to mention the number of times you committed them as well. Your whistle blowing only draws attention to your own mistakes.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Which part of "The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof" do you not understand? And your attempt to correct is a total failure. You simply don't understand what the fallacy is at all or whether it applies here in this case. Anyway I am always here to correct your correction. LOL!
As mentioned, I am assuming for the sake of argument that defining atheism as lack of belief is valid and thus atheists have no need to bear any burden of proof. So the same reasoning applies that restating theism as lack of belief makes no obligation on shouldering any burden of proof. Your failure to see this point does not invalidate anything on my part.
Taking issue with my way or style of argument is tantamount to engaging in ad hominem. Saying that my style of argument repels the atheist has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments themselves. The issue is whether the arguments themselves are valid and sound. And whether the evidences provided are adequate to support the case.
Contrary to what you like to believe (self-delusion on your part), I do know what fallacies are and I have even shown how you failed to identify or apply them on many occasions, not to mention the number of times you committed them as well. Your whistle blowing only draws attention to your own mistakes.
"Which part of "The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof" do you not understand?"
The hypocrisy on my faulting part. Yay for the hated whistle blower.
"And your attempt to correct is a total failure. You simply don't understand what the fallacy is at all or whether it applies here in this case. Anyway I am always here to correct your correction. LOL!"
Is it? Allow me to lay it down before you...
You-too version
This form of the argument, familiar from everyday disagreements, is as follows:
- A makes criticism P.
- A is also guilty of P.
- Therefore, P is dismissed.
Where A is me. P is you made a informal fallacy. You call me hypocritical(Yet to be proven). Therefore P is dismissed.
Get it now? Hahahahaha
"As mentioned, I am assuming for the sake of argument that defining atheism as lack of belief is valid and thus atheists have no need to bear any burden of proof. So the same reasoning applies that restating theism as lack of belief makes no obligation on shouldering any burden of proof. Your failure to see this point does not invalidate anything on my part."
But you never accept their lack of belief is valid... The atheists presented the evidence of absence, not "no need to bear burden of proof" as you thought. The premise was understood, unless it was changed somewhere without clear indications... Correction is the word, not invalidate...
"Taking issue with my way or style of argument is tantamount to engaging in ad hominem. Saying that my style of argument repels the atheist has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments themselves. The issue is whether the arguments themselves are valid and sound. And whether the evidences provided are adequate to support the case."
The main point of being christian is to insist on valid argument and hope to convince and convert based on the merits of the argument themselves? Just shows where you put your priorities...
"Contrary to what you like to believe (self-delusion on your part), I do know what fallacies are and I have even shown how you failed to identify or apply them on many occasions, not to mention the number of times you committed them as well. Your whistle blowing only draws attention to your own mistakes."
As proven shown above. Dispute if you can.
All I see is "no_u"'s, not valid argument. *Blows whistle. Flashes ad hominem card* -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Which part of "The hypocrisy is on your faulting me for using the same tactic as the atheist to disclaim any burden of proof" do you not understand?"
The hypocrisy on my faulting part. Yay for the hated whistle blower.
"And your attempt to correct is a total failure. You simply don't understand what the fallacy is at all or whether it applies here in this case. Anyway I am always here to correct your correction. LOL!"
Is it? Allow me to lay it down before you...
You-too version
This form of the argument, familiar from everyday disagreements, is as follows:
- A makes criticism P.
- A is also guilty of P.
- Therefore, P is dismissed.
Where A is me. P is you made a informal fallacy. You call me hypocritical(Yet to be proven). Therefore P is dismissed.
Get it now? Hahahahaha
"As mentioned, I am assuming for the sake of argument that defining atheism as lack of belief is valid and thus atheists have no need to bear any burden of proof. So the same reasoning applies that restating theism as lack of belief makes no obligation on shouldering any burden of proof. Your failure to see this point does not invalidate anything on my part."
But you never accept their lack of belief is valid... The atheists presented the evidence of absence, not "no need to bear burden of proof" as you thought. The premise was understood, unless it was changed somewhere without clear indications... Correction is the word, not invalidate...
"Taking issue with my way or style of argument is tantamount to engaging in ad hominem. Saying that my style of argument repels the atheist has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments themselves. The issue is whether the arguments themselves are valid and sound. And whether the evidences provided are adequate to support the case."
The main point of being christian is to insist on valid argument and hope to convince and convert based on the merits of the argument themselves? Just shows where you put your priorities...
"Contrary to what you like to believe (self-delusion on your part), I do know what fallacies are and I have even shown how you failed to identify or apply them on many occasions, not to mention the number of times you committed them as well. Your whistle blowing only draws attention to your own mistakes."
As proven shown above. Dispute if you can.
All I see is "no_u"'s, not valid argument. *Blows whistle. Flashes ad hominem card*Either you are just playing daft here, or else your English comprehension must be very sub standard. It's hypocritical of you to fault me for using the same tactic of the atheist. If you allow the atheist to get away with "lack of belief" then there is no reason for you to find fault with me. Positive or negative claim is besides the point so don't shift the goalpost here. And your convoluted attempt to show the you-too fallacy is pathetic and wrong.
Here's the correct scenario:
A defends P
B uses the same tactic as P
A blasts B for using P
Where A is you, P refers to the atheist's using "lack of belief" tactic to negate burden of proof.
This is obvious double standards. And worst is that you can still give that maniacal laugh for acting hypocritically.
The atheists presented NOTHING because they already disclaim any burden of proof by using the lame "lack of belief" tactic. Of course I never accepted the lame "lack of belief" tactic as valid. But since you obviously did, I was using that same tactic against you. In the Bible this tactic is called "Answering the fool according to his folly" so that you can see the foolishness of your own view. But sad to say, you cannot even see the foolishness of this view. It's worst than I thought.
You are shifting goal posts again by not responding to my point about it being ad hominem to take issue with the way I argue my case. No point flashing fallacy cards when you don't even know how to use the cards or know what they mean.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think you are just playing daft here, or else your English comprehension must be very lousy indeed. It's hypocritical of you to fault me for using the same tactic of the atheist. If you allow the atheist to get away with "lack of belief" then there is no reason for you to find fault with me. Positive or negative claim is besides the point so don't shift the goalpost here. And your convoluted attempt to show the you-too fallacy is pathetic and wrong. Here's your correct scenario:
A defends P
B uses the same tactic as P
A blasts B for using P
Where A is you, P refers to the atheist's using "lack of belief" tactic to negate burden of proof. This is obvious double standards, if not downright hypocritical. And worst is that you can still give that maniacal laugh for acting the hypocrite.
The atheists presented NOTHING because they already disclaim any burden of proof by using the lame "lack of belief" tactic. Of course I never accepted the lame "lack of belief" tactic as valid. But since you obviously did, I was using that same tactic against you. In the Bible this tactic is called "Answering the fool according to his folly" so that you can see the foolishness of your own view. But sad to say, you cannot even see the foolishness of this view. It's worst than I thought.
You are shifting goal posts again by not responding to my point about it being ad hominem to take issue with the way I argue my case. No point flashing fallacy cards when you don't even know how to use the cards or know what they mean.
"I think you are just playing daft here, or else your English comprehension must be very lousy indeed. It's hypocritical of you to fault me for using the same tactic of the atheist. If you allow the atheist to get away with "lack of belief" then there is no reason for you to find fault with me. Positive or negative claim is besides the point so don't shift the goalpost here. And your convoluted attempt to show the you-too fallacy is pathetic and wrong. Here's your correct scenario:
A defends P
B uses the same tactic as P
A blasts B for using P
Where A is you, P refers to the atheist's using "lack of belief" tactic to negate burden of proof. This is obvious double standards, if not downright hypocritical. And worst is that you can still give that maniacal laugh for acting the hypocrite."
Do you even read? The 2nd "you too" is commited right after you call my hypocrisy(yet to be proven) and dismiss my point.
The 1st tu quoque was slightly more complicated....
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, P is false.
A= Jacky. P = burden of prove lies on the one making claim. You said "Define what you mean by prove. Chances are, you do not even know the kind of proofs there are and whether the proofs demanded are reasonable." refering to his past inconsistencies to conclude P is false. Took up a double negative position to assimilate a lack of belief and use your conclusion, P is false, to refuse fulfilling the burden of prove.
Both cases were tu quoques even if you don't understand. If you don't by now... try harder.
"The atheists presented NOTHING because they already disclaim any burden of proof by using the lame "lack of belief" tactic. Of course I never accepted the lame "lack of belief" tactic as valid. But since you obviously did, I was using that same tactic against you. In the Bible this tactic is called "Answering the fool according to his folly" so that you can see the foolishness of your own view. But sad to say, you cannot even see the foolishness of this view. It's worst than I thought."
Appeal to ridicule... appeal to authority (wow bible)... They did present a couple of evidences of lack if you can recall properly... No doubt its in these forums somewhere...
"You are shifting goal posts again by not responding to my point about it being ad hominem to take issue with the way I argue my case. No point flashing fallacy cards when you don't even know how to use the cards or know what they mean."
I'm shifting the priority if thats what you mean. Look, I lay it down openly so that you see. You are accusing without basis... ranting "no you" does not help your position. Argue sensibly please.
-
/1. The Bible is authoritative and can be trusted in what it tells us about origins as related to us in Genesis 1-11./
Proof please. Also, check out this site --> http://www.evilbible.com/
/2. Genesis 1-11 is real history. This is also the view of the Biblical writers. There are no fictional, allegorical or metaphorical characters in those chapters. There was a real Adam and Eve in a real Garden in real time history./
Proof again. Where is the evidence that an Adam and Eve existed?
/3. Creation of the universe and life on earth took place in 6 literal ordinary 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago./
Proof again.
/4. There was a global flood that occurred about 4000 years ago which accounts for the many geological features we see today. E.g. the Grand Canyon./
Wrong.
This was how the Grand Canyon started, with actual proof - http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html
Check out this site.
Lastly, I laugh at your claims that anyone can dismiss burden of proof. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim - and he must back it up. One cannot logically back up non-existence.
If a person says that X exist, then must back up his claim. It is incorrect to assume that X exists simply because there is no proof disproving X yet. Just because X has not been disproved does not make it any more credible.
Also, quoting from the Bible is not proof. That is the claim. Its the same as saying Spiderman is real because there are Spiderman comics.
Lastly, atheism is not a religion. Theism is a belief, atheism is the lack of (notice the 'a', which means non) Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not eating is a form of consumption, or that not collecting stamps if a hobby.
-
or bald is a hair color...
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"I think you are just playing daft here, or else your English comprehension must be very lousy indeed. It's hypocritical of you to fault me for using the same tactic of the atheist. If you allow the atheist to get away with "lack of belief" then there is no reason for you to find fault with me. Positive or negative claim is besides the point so don't shift the goalpost here. And your convoluted attempt to show the you-too fallacy is pathetic and wrong. Here's your correct scenario:
A defends P
B uses the same tactic as P
A blasts B for using P
Where A is you, P refers to the atheist's using "lack of belief" tactic to negate burden of proof. This is obvious double standards, if not downright hypocritical. And worst is that you can still give that maniacal laugh for acting the hypocrite."
Do you even read? The 2nd "you too" is commited right after you call my hypocrisy(yet to be proven) and dismiss my point.
The 1st tu quoque was slightly more complicated....
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, P is false.
A= Jacky. P = burden of prove lies on the one making claim. You said "Define what you mean by prove. Chances are, you do not even know the kind of proofs there are and whether the proofs demanded are reasonable." refering to his past inconsistencies to conclude P is false. Took up a double negative position to assimilate a lack of belief and use your conclusion, P is false, to refuse fulfilling the burden of prove.
Both cases were tu quoques even if you don't understand. If you don't by now... try harder.
"The atheists presented NOTHING because they already disclaim any burden of proof by using the lame "lack of belief" tactic. Of course I never accepted the lame "lack of belief" tactic as valid. But since you obviously did, I was using that same tactic against you. In the Bible this tactic is called "Answering the fool according to his folly" so that you can see the foolishness of your own view. But sad to say, you cannot even see the foolishness of this view. It's worst than I thought."
Appeal to ridicule... appeal to authority (wow bible)... They did present a couple of evidences of lack if you can recall properly... No doubt its in these forums somewhere...
"You are shifting goal posts again by not responding to my point about it being ad hominem to take issue with the way I argue my case. No point flashing fallacy cards when you don't even know how to use the cards or know what they mean."
I'm shifting the priority if thats what you mean. Look, I lay it down openly so that you see. You are accusing without basis... ranting "no you" does not help your position. Argue sensibly please.
I NEVER said that it is false to say that the one making a claim has the burden of proof. Darn, I even said that the atheist claims there is no God and thus has a burden of proof! You obviously did not read that. So you are misrepresenting my views. An apology would suffice here?
Let's do a brief recap. Jacky said I have the burden of proof. Now, not only am I saying that Jacky has really no idea what kind of proofs we should be talking about, I also used the atheist's lame tactic of "lack of belief" against him to disclaim any burden of proof. And you valiantly but blindly went to Jacky's defense because you saw Jacky in trouble and raised the fallacy card. EXCEPT that there was NO fallacy committed, except what you wished to see. You basically and utterly failed to see what I was trying to do. And even after explaining to you also you failed to understand. Trying too hard to spot fallacies or just stiff-necked stubbornness?
What lack of evidences did the atheists produce? I know of none. Telling me it's hidden somewhere in the forums is unhelpful at all. I made my accusations with sufficient evidence. Remember the times I pointed out your ignorance of the Bible and creationism? I actually showed what you were ignorant about. No doubt it's in the forums somewhere.....
-
Originally posted by Hardcore Atheist:
/1. The Bible is authoritative and can be trusted in what it tells us about origins as related to us in Genesis 1-11./
Proof please. Also, check out this site --> http://www.evilbible.com/
/2. Genesis 1-11 is real history. This is also the view of the Biblical writers. There are no fictional, allegorical or metaphorical characters in those chapters. There was a real Adam and Eve in a real Garden in real time history./
Proof again. Where is the evidence that an Adam and Eve existed?
/3. Creation of the universe and life on earth took place in 6 literal ordinary 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago./
Proof again.
/4. There was a global flood that occurred about 4000 years ago which accounts for the many geological features we see today. E.g. the Grand Canyon./
Wrong.
This was how the Grand Canyon started, with actual proof - http://www.durangobill.com/Paleorivers_preface.html
Check out this site.
Lastly, I laugh at your claims that anyone can dismiss burden of proof. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim - and he must back it up. One cannot logically back up non-existence.
If a person says that X exist, then must back up his claim. It is incorrect to assume that X exists simply because there is no proof disproving X yet. Just because X has not been disproved does not make it any more credible.
Also, quoting from the Bible is not proof. That is the claim. Its the same as saying Spiderman is real because there are Spiderman comics.
Lastly, atheism is not a religion. Theism is a belief, atheism is the lack of (notice the 'a', which means non) Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not eating is a form of consumption, or that not collecting stamps if a hobby.
But wait, as an admitted hardcore atheist, do you sincerely and honestly believe that there can be evidence for the existence of God? If so, what form or kinds of evidence is deem reasonable and acceptable?
After you have thought through it, if you still want the evidences, see www.creation.com
Then you must laugh at your fellow atheists who define atheism as "lack of belief" to avoid the burden of proof. If you say you cannot prove the non-existence of God, then atheists should not make bold claims that God does not exist. Just say that you BELIEVE there is no God. Atheists have faith too, but of course they would deny it with all their might.
Theists are not saying God exists because atheists failed to prove their atheism (though that's true also), but have offered many lines of evidences to show that the most reasonable conclusion is that God exists. I'm sure you must have read some of these.
If an eyewitness has been shown to be reliable, can you say we cannot admit his testimony as evidence? Good news for you, the Bible has been shown to be reliable in many aspects.
Lastly, atheism IS a religion. http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion This has even gone up to the courts in the States and the court has ruled that it is a religion. As a worldview atheism is not just about what is being denied, but also what is being believed in terms of other areas as well.
Your various analogies FAIL for obvious reasons which maybe you failed to see. Not collecting stamps is not the same as saying stamps do not exist or that hobbies do not exist. Your hobby could be different. The atheist may not believe that God exists, but the atheist believes that nature is all there is, which is a metaphyiscal claim about reality. Carl Sagan had a religious saying that goes like "The cosmos is all there is, and all that ever was" Does the atheist have proof that matter is all there is? Saying no scientific evidence means no God is just like saying what your net don't catch ain't fish.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I NEVER said that it is false to say that the one making a claim has the burden of proof. Darn, I even said that the atheist claims there is no God and thus has a burden of proof! You obviously did not read that. So you are misrepresenting my views. An apology would suffice here?
Let's do a brief recap. Jacky said I have the burden of proof. Now, not only am I saying that Jacky has really no idea what kind of proofs we should be talking about, I also used the atheist's lame tactic of "lack of belief" against him to disclaim any burden of proof. And you valiantly but blindly went to Jacky's defense because you saw Jacky in trouble and raised the fallacy card. EXCEPT that there was NO fallacy committed, except what you wished to see. You basically and utterly failed to see what I was trying to do. And even after explaining to you also you failed to understand. Trying too hard to spot fallacies or just stiff-necked stubbornness?
What lack of evidences did the atheists produce? I know of none. Telling me it's hidden somewhere in the forums is unhelpful at all. I made my accusations with sufficient evidence. Remember the times I pointed out your ignorance of the Bible and creationism? I actually showed what you were ignorant about. No doubt it's in the forums somewhere.....
"I NEVER said that it is false to say that the one making a claim has the burden of proof. Darn, I even said that the atheist claims there is no God and thus has a burden of proof! You obviously did not read that. So you are misrepresenting my views. An apology would suffice here?
Let's do a brief recap. Jacky said I have the burden of proof. Now, not only am I saying that Jacky has really no idea what kind of proofs we should be talking about, I also used the atheist's lame tactic of "lack of belief" against him to disclaim any burden of proof. And you valiantly but blindly went to Jacky's defense because you saw Jacky in trouble and raised the fallacy card. EXCEPT that there was NO fallacy committed, except what you wished to see. You basically and utterly failed to see what I was trying to do. And even after explaining to you also you failed to understand. Trying too hard to spot fallacies or just stiff-necked stubbornness? "The context was Jacky calling for prove for God and Satan. You implied him being unreasonable to ask for prove. I intervened and you adopted the double negative position saying"Anyway, I can simply redefine theism simply as a lack belief in the non-existence of God. So what burden of proof are you talking about? Duh..." referrencing to Jack's past shifting the burden of prove. Also you said"But since my claim is that theism is a lack of belief in the non-existence of God, then what burden of proof you talking about?" I did not interprete wrongly. No apology dispensed.
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, P is false.
Fits tu quoque's definition like a T. Unless you are just prejudiced against Jack as a person and not addressing to his arguments. BTW I'm not defending him but pointing out fallacies in arguments is my calling.
"What lack of evidences did the atheists produce? I know of none. Telling me it's hidden somewhere in the forums is unhelpful at all. I made my accusations with sufficient evidence. Remember the times I pointed out your ignorance of the Bible and creationism? I actually showed what you were ignorant about. No doubt it's in the forums somewhere.....":
The evidences/ observations they have do not point to/ conclude any existence of god/s. That is the evidence of lack. You can repeat how you corrected me a millions times and expose your good self being butthurt and hold on to prejudice. I forgive you.
-
///But wait, as an admitted hardcore atheist, do you sincerely and honestly believe that there can be evidence for the existence of God? If so, what form or kinds of evidence is deem reasonable and acceptable?
After you have thought through it, if you still want the evidences, see www.creation.com
Then you must laugh at your fellow atheists who define atheism as "lack of belief" to avoid the burden of proof. If you say you cannot prove the non-existence of God, then atheists should not make bold claims that God does not exist. Just say that you BELIEVE there is no God. Atheists have faith too, but of course they would deny it with all their might.
Theists are not saying God exists because atheists failed to prove their atheism (though that's true also), but have offered many lines of evidences to show that the most reasonable conclusion is that God exists. I'm sure you must have read some of these.
If an eyewitness has been shown to be reliable, can you say we cannot admit his testimony as evidence? Good news for you, the Bible has been shown to be reliable in many aspects.
Lastly, atheism IS a religion. http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion This has even gone up to the courts in the States and the court has ruled that it is a religion. As a worldview atheism is not just about what is being denied, but also what is being believed in terms of other areas as well.
Your various analogies FAIL for obvious reasons which maybe you failed to see. Not collecting stamps is not the same as saying stamps do not exist or that hobbies do not exist. Your hobby could be different. The atheist may not believe that God exists, but the atheist believes that nature is all there is, which is a metaphyiscal claim about reality. Carl Sagan had a religious saying that goes like "The cosmos is all there is, and all that ever was" Does the atheist have proof that matter is all there is? Saying no scientific evidence means no God is just like saying what your net don't catch ain't fish. ///
The Bible is real because the Bible said so, therefore the Bible is real <-- circular reasoning.
Again, you provide no empirical proof, whether it be archaeological or not. Simply by using a Bible, you are not convincing me. I can easily use the Torah, the Quran, or any Buddhist mantras, not to mention a book that says it real because it said so. This is your logic, which is a flaw. We already have dinosaur fossils, and lots of geological and archaeological of the Earth being far much older than just 6000 years. There are also stars that we see from the naked eyes that requires lightyears for the light to reflect back, thus seeing it. The lightyears are a lot lot longer than just 6000 years. We have -
Potassium-Argon Dating
Argon-Argon Dating
Rubidum-Strontium Dating
Samarium-Neodymium Dating
Lutetium-Hafnium Dating
Rhenium-Osmium Dating
Carbon-14 Dating
Dendrochronology
Ice Cores
Varves (Fresh Sediment layers)
Coral Layers
Thermo-luminescenceAnd you believe all these to be false? No offence, but so far you have not found any evidence to disprove these datings, except quoting from a 'holy book'.
Also, do you actually realise you get your sources from biased pages? Creation.com? Really? You are using a website that supports a being that has not been existing yet.
I have also never said that God does not exist, I merely do not believe in God. Sure, I can't 100% bet that a creator does not exist, but by definition, which god? Allah? Zeus? Thor? Yahweh? Quetzacoatl? Izanagi?
I am an agnostic atheist, and I consider myself hardcore since I do not consider the existence of a god (much less the one you worship), plausible.
You said that just because something has no proof to back it up does not mean it does not exist, which is 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' in short. However, this goes two ways - just because something has not been disproved yet does not mean that it is any more credible. Don't be biased. Atheists and theists have so far not been able to provide actual, foolproof that a god exists or don't exist. I am not going to use Pascal's Wager to actually believe in a god just because no evidence has been found for either side. Pascal's Wager is a fallacy - it only applies if there is one religion in the world.
You have also not shown how a book can be reliable. An eyewitness can give false claims. Seriously, do you need me to point out the logical contradictions or the moralistic ones in the Bible?
Last but not least, many of the points you pointed out that atheism was a religion was in fact, incorrect. Atheism has nothing to do with science - even an unscientific person can be an atheist. Also, Confucianism and Taoism is a philosophy, not a religion.
The first part of the page said about narratives. Evolution is not an explanation of how everything came from - by saying that this goes to show how ignorant the person who made the page is. The Theory of Evolution is not a gospel to atheists, its only something we refer to. We don't see it as a holy book where we follow ten commandments.
The second part deals with experiential points. Again, invalid. Meaning is life is subjective - nuff said.
The third part talks about social - again, another fallacy. There is no power structure, no hierachy. Evolution is not a belief - it's already a fact. Also, communism has NOTHING to do with atheism. This site already reeks of bias. Really? Atheists persecute theists? More like the other way round. I suppose you know that Islam punishes apotasy, or that ignorant Christians say inane things like, "You are going to hell?" Do you have proof of hell? Religion is being prosecuted. Right now, Christianity is the largest religion, and that it is being persecuted? Ridiculous. The site claims that evolution is a lie - proof?
The fourth part is self-explanatory. They do not believe and adhere - secular humanism is different from atheism, although it can be considered a branch out. The site also tries to pin blames of communism on religion - which is ironic. Hitler was a Catholic, and here are his exact words,
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”The fourth part, which talks about ethical signs of atheism being a religion, is again another fallacy. The site states that an atheist squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.
Atheism has nothing to do with morals - it comes from oneself. Rape is wrong. Why? Because it goes against the will of the victim. Nuff said.
The firth part is ridiculous also. Firstly, atheists celebrate birthdays, and also Christmas. I say that from personal experience, as well as knowing atheists friends from all over the world celebrate it. They celebrate it because it is a CULTURAL act, and they do not divine meaning from Christmas. To atheists, special occasions are seasons of joy.
Last point is also pure ridiculous. Atheists obviously know that resources have to be conserved, not because of survival of the fittest. By conserving and trying to save the Earth, it is known as adaptibilty or love (or both). The first point shows that this is the true form of survival of the fittest, humans adapted, therefore they could survived. The second point is that, Earth is our planet. Without it, we will die. The second part shown by the site is also riduculous. Nature isn't sacred according to atheists - this is pantheism.
The site you have given me reeks of propaganda, and it gives false information. Nuff said.
-
Godwin law invoked. God wins.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"I NEVER said that it is false to say that the one making a claim has the burden of proof. Darn, I even said that the atheist claims there is no God and thus has a burden of proof! You obviously did not read that. So you are misrepresenting my views. An apology would suffice here?
Let's do a brief recap. Jacky said I have the burden of proof. Now, not only am I saying that Jacky has really no idea what kind of proofs we should be talking about, I also used the atheist's lame tactic of "lack of belief" against him to disclaim any burden of proof. And you valiantly but blindly went to Jacky's defense because you saw Jacky in trouble and raised the fallacy card. EXCEPT that there was NO fallacy committed, except what you wished to see. You basically and utterly failed to see what I was trying to do. And even after explaining to you also you failed to understand. Trying too hard to spot fallacies or just stiff-necked stubbornness? "The context was Jacky calling for prove for God and Satan. You implied him being unreasonable to ask for prove. I intervened and you adopted the double negative position saying"Anyway, I can simply redefine theism simply as a lack belief in the non-existence of God. So what burden of proof are you talking about? Duh..." referrencing to Jack's past shifting the burden of prove. Also you said"But since my claim is that theism is a lack of belief in the non-existence of God, then what burden of proof you talking about?" I did not interprete wrongly. No apology dispensed.
- A makes claim P.
- A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
- Therefore, P is false.
Fits tu quoque's definition like a T. Unless you are just prejudiced against Jack as a person and not addressing to his arguments. BTW I'm not defending him but pointing out fallacies in arguments is my calling.
"What lack of evidences did the atheists produce? I know of none. Telling me it's hidden somewhere in the forums is unhelpful at all. I made my accusations with sufficient evidence. Remember the times I pointed out your ignorance of the Bible and creationism? I actually showed what you were ignorant about. No doubt it's in the forums somewhere.....":
The evidences/ observations they have do not point to/ conclude any existence of god/s. That is the evidence of lack. You can repeat how you corrected me a millions times and expose your good self being butthurt and hold on to prejudice. I forgive you.
Wrong again. Failure to read. I never implied that it was unreasonable to ask for proof. You were the one doing the implying, not me. I asked if he even knew what proofs are required, and whether the proofs demanded were reasonable. I am not saying that it is unreasonable to ask for proofs, but whether the proofs demanded were reasonable. You still don't get it? I later then used the "lack of belief" tactic to basically say that if the atheist can get away with giving proofs, so can I. And I believe the apology is still pending.
As to lack of evidences, exactly what evidences do atheists have that point to or conclude the existence of God? They point to nothing and say that there is no evidence for God? Where are they looking and what are they looking at and with what are they looking at?