Posts by Christ Alone

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

Its all ego. Really. ITs all peoples attempt to show how superior THEIR belief system is, be it God or No God, may be a god or definatly maybe not a god possibly.

To some maybe. But not true of many. It is an important question philosophically of who we are and where we are going. It's an important issue to atheists and theists. JWs rarely think in philosophical terms, so I'll cut you a break EE. Maybe when you get out and don't have to spend all that time doing fake elder stuff, you can join in the discussion without Thor.

To many, this discussion really matters and is at the heart of who we are. That is one reason why Dawkins is intensly interested in it. It's the reason why many believers are interested too. It's an issue that effects us all. The discussion has great relevance and import to our society.

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

Here is another one:

Inferential Fallacy
~believing that if proposition A is true that proposition B cannot be true because they are mutually exclusive when they are not
Example: Light and dark cannot exist in the same room (untrue. It can if the light is in the room and the dark is in the box that is in the room)
Example: If there is suferring a loving God could not allow that to happen

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

Niether of those is a fallacy.

Oh dear. A fallacy is broken logic. There is no logic in "go buy a book and learn something". That is implying that the person arguing does not have sufficient knowledge. It is leaving the argument unspecific. It's merely a veiled attack on the person's intelligence as if they have never read a science book. So yes, it is a fallacy.

Many people familiarize themselves with only a few logical fallacies, and do not know that there are many many others. Here are some:

Genetic Fallacy
~The attempt to invalidate a position or belief, merely by showing how the position or belief originated.
Example :"Christianity arose because people feared reality, because people were scared of death. Therefore Christianity is false."

Ad Hominem Fallacy
~An argument that attempts to counter another's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
Example :"You're an Idiot, only gullible, ignorant fools believe in God."

Argument from Personal Incredulity
~An argument thats attempts to disprove or negate a position because the individual either does not understand and/or explain and/or imagine it.
Example : "God seems so illogical to me, he can't possibly exist."

Appeal to Ridicule
~A fallacy where ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an argument.
Example :"You can claim that God exists all you want, the theistic position is still laughable and illogical."

The Masked Man Fallacy (Illicit Substitution of Identities)
~A fallacy where an assumption is made that because something is known under one perspective, that it must also be known under a different perspective.
Example :"Thousands of years ago people believed lightning, rain and droughts were caused by a/the God(s). This has been disproved by science. Others believe in fairies and this is untrue. Therefore God played no role in the creation of the Universe."

Appeal to Pity
~The receiver is urged to accept arguments based off an appeal to emotions or sympathy."
Example :"How could you honestly believe in God when there are starving children in Africa?"

Guilt by Association
~Rejecting someone's argument because of the person's friends, religion, topic standing etc.
Example :"Why should I believe anything you say? You're a Christian after all! Religion has been responsible for horrible atrocities"

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

AFTER. 20 YEARS AS A JW DO I KNOW ALL YOUR EVIDENCE FOR A BELIEF IN GOD..............WHat do you think?

I don't think you do! My beliefs and evidences are COMPLETELY different than when I was a JW. So it looks like we both assumed something wrong, you sneaky devil! :-) You know all about me, but I know nothing about you. I have not researched what you have researched regarding disbelief in God. Neither of us know what either of us have read or researched.

And yet, the best line of argument is to resort back to the "prove santa exists" line of thinking. Weak, dude. Weak.

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

you are a sneaky devil, you claim that atheists would need a physical apperance of god to believe in him.....

Not necessarily. I'm asking what would be proof enough to believe in a higher intelligence? I've asked it over and over again. It's just been ignored in favor of something that I've said that can be picked on.

I said that I don't see most atheists believing in a diety short of a physical appearance. But then I asked YOU ATHEISTS, "What would it take?"

But of course, the question was ignored and instead the comment before was picked on and the question was left unanaswered.

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

Dawkins redefined the term. You won't find Dawkins definition in any dictionary. At least that I've seen.

Dictionary.com:

atheist

a·the·ist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Miriam Webster degines atheism as:

athe·ism

Definition of ATHEISM

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

I think a "real" atheist is one that not only claims to be an atheist but states outright the disbelief in God. A "real" atheist does not think that there "may" be a god, we just have no evidence. He denies the existance of god 100%.

My experience has shown that many that claim to be atheist's are actually agnostic if you ask them enough questions. That's not taking anything away from atheists however. There are still plenty of atheists in the cool kids club.

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

Who was making that assertion?

Rather be in hades among others. It's a common fallacy that some atheists use when out of ideas. Or the other fallacy is "Why don't you just go read some science and get back with me." Assuming that I have not done any research and I'm uneducated in the realm of science is a common line of thinking. It's a way to derail the conversation and make one side look stupid while never dealing with any real issues. Rather be in hades has done that with me on numerous threads. And honestly I'm tired of it and I'm ready to stop responding to him.

I love talking with "real" atheists. I love debating logic and science. But when it degrades into generalizations and fallacy, I'm done.

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

You're right, EP. I wasn't using that as an example for logical fallacy. Rather be in hades was asserting that I gave no logical reason why I would think that a complex universe would have intelligence behind it. So I gave that example.

Rather be in hades did not deal with my main point of logical fallacy. He just spewed out some garbage and refused to get specific.

I only brought up a couple fallacies that I saw. One is comparing the belief that it is reasonable to conclude that there has to be intelligence behind the universe to a belief in unicorns and fairies. If one can't see the fallacy here, then I wonder how honest they are being with themselves. I'm not putting down the atheist. But this specific argument doesn't hold any weight in determining whether an intelligence would be behind the universe in its complexity. Nothing comes from nothing. There is logic behind that. Recognizing this is not comparable to belief in fairies. Yes, as NC stated, there are those that believe in fairies. But we are not discussing mythology or even the Bible. It is not delusional for me to believe that there is intelligence behind the universe. Trying to banish that into the realm of myth and fairies is a fallacy that proves nothing, but instead attempts to belittle the argument enough to make it look ridiculous.

553

Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?

by Chariklo in

jw
friends

until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.

it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.

do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.

Christ Alone

man i had to explain to you why your claims about atheists not believing in the rapture or miracles if it happened was grade a manure.

So it's obvious that you missed my point. I don't think you read these posts closely. I gave an example of what SOME Christians believe may happen. I didn't say that I do. I was using it as an illustration to see if THEY were right, would that be enough proof?

You've consistantly avoided my real question which was, what sort of proof would be enough proof short of God appearing in the sky? I didn't talk about atheists believing in the rapture or miracles. I said IF those things happened, would that be enough proof? According to the Bible even Jesus' miracles were not enough proof for them. Not saying the miracles happened, but it makes sense that no matter how much visible proof you could show, there would still be those that would explain it away and still not believe.

I think I'm done responding to you, rather be in hades. It seems I can't have a rational conversation with you. And in case you view that as an attack on atheism, it's not. I love talking to NC, cofty, Nicolau, and others that have valid arguments and use reasonable logic. You instead use no example but say I am intellectually dishonest and illogical. It's shown again and again in comments like this:

so you keep saying there's no proof blah blah blah, and i keep saying go look up some anthropology.

The "blah blah blah" is telling. I said there is no proof of what? No proof of God? Yes, I said there was no scientific proof of God. So then I asked, "What proof would prove to you that a God exists?" You haven't been able to answer. You tell me to go look up some anthropology? Yeah, again a generalization. I've studied anthropology, so please sir, direct me to the right place. I'd be happy to read what you are referring to.

I have a feeling however that you are not referring to anything specific. Just throwing out big boy words. Well done. Yes, that had some scorn on it. But I'm getting frustrated by your generalizations and saying things that lack any substance.

Again, this is the end of my discussion with you, hades. It's been...unfulfilling.