'Atheist' nations more peaceful, Global Peace Index study finds.

[Pippy]

I did not make a claim about wich I carry the silly burden of proof.

And it's funny to see both of you misunderstand my point entirely.

I'm not talking about god's existence, I am only describing what I see as the 'the bible is wrong, so there is no god' fallacy.

I got the number 6,000,000,000 not from my ass, but my head. It means that there can be up to and including one idea of god for every soul on the planet, and therefore disproving the bible does not mean there is no god, only no biblical god.

It doesn't have anything to do with the flat earth, or with universal truth being measured in mass appeal, I am not sure where you got that.

It is fallacious if the only reason you are an atheist is because Christians bug you, and the Bible is silly, and your 15 and sullen. I am not saying that any of you fit that bill, but that someone somewhere does, and their choices are based on fallacy. A+B does not equal C.

You asked me to explain the fallacy I referenced, and I have now twice. Thank you.

[leo-rcc]

Sorry, but you said:

You think they are wrong, so there is no god.

That is not a general statement, but specific targeting.

[Autumnlicious]

I did not make a claim about wich I carry the silly burden of proof.

Statement declaring certain expectations and rules do not apply to such without giving specific counter examples. Resolution - ignore and deal with the arguments presented.

And it's funny to see both of you misunderstand my point entirely.

I'm not talking about god's existence, I am only describing what I see as the 'the bible is wrong, so there is no god' fallacy.

Not certain how we got to declaring in a reasonable manner that an entire work of literature can be assigned a binary statement. Your fondness for straw man attacks is impressive - and tiring.

I got the number 6,000,000,000 not from my ass, but my head. It means that there can be up to and including one idea of god for every soul on the planet, and therefore disproving the bible does not mean there is no god, only no biblical god.

It doesn't have anything to do with the flat earth, or with universal truth being measured in mass appeal, I am not sure where you got that.

Only in your simplified world could every thinking being on this planet have roughly one idea of a deity, while redefining deities to be included in set deity, and defining human beings to have a set state at any point in time (no compartmentalization here folks).

I (attempted) to show you the argumentum ad populum fallacy you made by spuriously running a test case, in which the (vast) body of human beings to ever exist at one point may have somehow assumed the world was flat at any point in time, even though the Earth is /not/ flat. No matter how many variations of that idea or sheer numbers of raw ideas believing in the flatness of the Earth, the Earth remained round.

It is fallacious if the only reason you are an atheist is because Christians bug you, and the Bible is silly, and your 15 and sullen. I am not saying that any of you fit that bill, but that someone somewhere does, and their choices are based on fallacy. A+B does not equal C.

You asked me to explain the fallacy I referenced, and I have now twice. Thank you.

Non sequitur - your statement does not make sense. By those reasons alone, there is no cause for a human to change because their emotions or decisions may not be sound. Once again, a simplified view of human nature.

[Pippy]

Your fondness for straw man attacks is impressive - and tiring.

You're fondness of incorrectly labeling my arguments as said scare-crows is also a little frustrating. I am only trying to make one little point, about how it is a logical fallacy that one concept of god is flawed, and so there must be no god. I mean that is without a doubt a clear case of logical fallacy. I am not saying that you yourself hold this view, but that it exists, and it is dysfunctional. I am not arguing that there is or is not a god, and especially not over myself being right or wrong. It would be a straw man if I was talking about anything other that the very argument I am forwarding in connection.

A world in which everyone gets the ability to have at least one idea of a possible deity is not simplistic, in fact it is likely a little over-the-top. I am trying to show that to be a proper atheist (one that is thorough) you would have to disprove all of the gods. Or at least disprove a couple more than just Yahweh. But there are people that say 'the bible made me an atheist', in fact there was a thread with that very name a while ago. I just feel like pointing out that there is a fallacy in that. That either the Christians are wrong, or they are right. But it is disingenuous to purport that they are right about god, but wrong in total. That is the statement being forwarded in the fallacy of the 'bible made me an atheist' idea. That Christians are somehow right and wrong at the same time.

Flat earth has nothing to do with my argument, I just distracted you with the whole 6,000,000,000 ideas thing. I have nothing to say about mass appeal, about human flaws. I am only trying to make one little point. I think there is a fallacy in the 'bible made me an atheist' camp, what do you think?

Certainly nothing that I have read here has disproven or even touched my conceptualization of god. You point out 'god of the gaps', and I point out that not all theism includes that fallacy. Certainly mine does not. I have read most of Dawkins, probably more than some of you. I just wasn't as easily convinced. He's more than a little fallacious himself. That's part of the point I am making. We both think the bible is not the word of god. But where we take that conclusion is very interesting in it's difference.

I never want to say the word fallacy again...

mmmm phallus.

[Meatball]

North Korea is fucked up, yes. North Korea maintains a tight cult of personality among it's people yes. Are they religious in the traditional sense of the word? No, they aren't. Brainwashed and religious two different things.

What religion would you say North Korea practices?

[Eilonnwy]

---

Your fondness for straw man attacks is impressive - and tiring.

You're fondness of incorrectly labeling my arguments as said scare-crows is also a little frustrating. I am only trying to make one little point, about how it is a logical fallacy that one concept of god is flawed, and so there must be no god. I mean that is without a doubt a clear case of logical fallacy. I am not saying that you yourself hold this view, but that it exists, and it is dysfunctional. I am not arguing that there is or is not a god, and especially not over myself being right or wrong. It would be a straw man if I was talking about anything other that the very argument I am forwarding in connection.

A world in which everyone gets the ability to have at least one idea of a possible deity is not simplistic, in fact it is likely a little over-the-top. I am trying to show that to be a proper atheist (one that is thorough) you would have to disprove all of the gods. Or at least disprove a couple more than just Yahweh. But there are people that say 'the bible made me an atheist', in fact there was a thread with that very name a while ago. I just feel like pointing out that there is a fallacy in that. That either the Christians are wrong, or they are right. But it is disingenuous to purport that they are right about god, but wrong in total. That is the statement being forwarded in the fallacy of the 'bible made me an atheist' idea. That Christians are somehow right and wrong at the same time.

Flat earth has nothing to do with my argument, I just distracted you with the whole 6,000,000,000 ideas thing. I have nothing to say about mass appeal, about human flaws. I am only trying to make one little point. I think there is a fallacy in the 'bible made me an atheist' camp, what do you think?

Certainly nothing that I have read here has disproven or even touched my conceptualization of god. You point out 'god of the gaps', and I point out that not all theism includes that fallacy. Certainly mine does not. I have read most of Dawkins, probably more than some of you. I just wasn't as easily convinced. He's more than a little fallacious himself. That's part of the point I am making. We both think the bible is not the word of god. But where we take that conclusion is very interesting in it's difference.

I never want to say the word fallacy again...

mmmm phallus.

---

You're making a strawman when you say that we propose the concept of God is flawed, therefore say there is no God. No atheist here has ever said that on these forums, as far as I'm aware. Therefore you characterize the argument in a way that's easy enough for you to knock down. *cough* Strawman *cough* Anyone who claims that a flawed logical concept means there is no God is an idiot.

Instead, we take the negative position of not accepting that there is a God unless there is proof. I don't believe in God just because I like to beat up Christianity. As I pointed out to rjh4 who told me the Problem of Evil is not limited to Christianity, which, no shit. I'm an atheist because no religion has answered it satisfactorily.

I argue against Christianity because not only do I live in a predominantly Christian nation in which a group of fundamentals are trying to decimate the constitution, but it's also the religion I intimately know therefore I have the tool set to argue it better than the Islamic religion, Hindu, Buddhist, etc... I don't accept the other religions because certain god and spiritual claims are very similar enough that if you have a skeptical tool set you understand it's not a matter of picking the religion you like best, but not accepting something as true until it meets its burden of proof.

In the same way that Christianity has not met its burden of proof, neither has Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Mormonism, etc...

There is a very important distinction between claiming there is no god and not accepting the claim that there is. It's the basis of a logical arguments and debates, and if you can't tell the difference, then no wonder you make strawman arguments. You wouldn't now any better.

[Edwardo Piet]

Pippy,

For you point about how both you, and atheists such as myself think creationists are wrong - and yet you choose to find something better and I don't....

As far as I'm concerned that would be like spending my life searching for celestial teapots through telescopes...

...why would there be anything better? In the super natural sense I mean....

I'd need a fuckload of evidence... why spend a lifetime searching for what to me, so far, from my position, seems so incredibly improbable?

EvF

[Pippy]

Evie, I don't in any way mean I am better off. I just believe because the world looks that way to me. You do not, and I respect that. You should search for the things you want to.

Eilo, you're right that yourself personally do not fall into that hole. I did not mean that all you guys, or all atheists bump against that fallacy. I disagree that no one has ever said that here, do you remember the thread called 'the bible made me an atheist'? It's not a straw man if I am not breaking context. I am talking about a flaw in some peoples versions of atheism, not yours or anyone here's specifically. So the point I am arguing is said flaw, and the argument cannot be a straw man to itself. I am not trying to prove some extraneous point, so I really don't think I am in fallacy. It certainly isn't some petty attack.

One thing that piqued my interest though. You believe that Christians are trying to "decimate the constitution"? That might be part of the issue. I would ask you to really consider that the people doing the damage to America's identity are either not at all Christian or at best are terrible stewards of said faith. I'm all on board for people trying their best to change America, they've been at it for generations. I just really think it is a political and human problem, and if it is spiritual, it certainly is not Christian.

[Eilonnwy]

Eilo, you're right that yourself personally do not fall into that hole. I did not mean that all you guys, or all atheists bump against that fallacy. I disagree that no one has ever said that here, do you remember the thread called 'the bible made me an atheist'? It's not a straw man if I am not breaking context. I am talking about a flaw in some peoples versions of atheism, not yours or anyone here's specifically. So the point I am arguing is said flaw, and the argument cannot be a straw man to itself. I am not trying to prove some extraneous point, so I really don't think I am in fallacy. It certainly isn't some petty attack.

I am jumping into the conversation late, nevertheless, arguing about what some atheists might say, especially if they're not here is fallacious. If you are arguing people here and they haven't made the logical fallacy you alluded to, then to argue against us as we did make this argument is a fallacy itself. The strawman fallacy specifically speaks to one where you characterize someone's argument falsely and in a way that is easy to argue against.

One thing that piqued my interest though. You believe that Christians are trying to "decimate the constitution"? That might be part of the issue. I would ask you to really consider that the people doing the damage to America's identity are either not at all Christian or at best are terrible stewards of said faith. I'm all on board for people trying their best to change America, they've been at it for generations. I just really think it is a political and human problem, and if it is spiritual, it certainly is not Christian.

See, you did it again. You made a strawman argument because you took what I said, which was that a group of fundamentalist Christians are trying to decimate the constitution into Christians are trying to do it. Those statements are very different. One speaks to a subset, the other to everyone within a given group. I don't think all Christians are trying to decimate the constitution, my mother, a Catholic, would agree with me point for point on the seperation of church and state, of 10 commandments on Government property, prayer in the classroom, etc... Not all Christians are trying abuse freedom of religion. But some are, and a lot of those people have a following, get on the news, get elected into government office, spread these ideas publicly that it's Christians Nation and people should put up or shut up. I argue against those people.

Furthermore, you're making a true Scotsman fallacy by insisting the people I'm talking about are not true Christians. They call themselves Christians so they are Christians. They do what they do in the name of Jesus and the Bible, they are Christians. Their agenda is publicly put out there as being about Christianity. They may not follow the version of Christianity that tackattack does, or Fr0d0, but they're still Christians.

[Pippy]

I guess so...

I did not mean to make another straw man about Christians. I know you meant fundamentalists, and I am not trying to generalize. I think the leasers of America, and especially the people destroying the constitution are not Christian. They might say they are Christian, but I don't make that the only criteria for it as you do. They can say they are a moose, but it doesn't make it so.

I don't think Obama is a secret Muslim, but I doubt he is a practicing Cristian either. I wasn't trying to frame your argument in an unfair way to make it easier for me to disagree.

It just strikes me that we both see people trying to mess up long standing rules and foundations of the country, but you see them as Fundies and I see them as agnostics or even some weird Satanism. They certainly are in shady secret societies.

America is not a Christian nation, although they do prattle on about it. It may be a Jewish nation (but the would also be untrue, because people who only 'say' they are jewish are not, it is a racial identity). It is just funny that you see Fundies and I see Secularism, but we are both angry.

I'm sorry for being so fickle in the head that you think I keep making fallacies, but I am not trying to make the points you say I did. I know you meant Fundies, so I will now refer to them as Fundies and not Christians. And it is not a no true Scotsman fault as well, because where would we stand if I suddenly shouted "I am a true Scotsman!"? I mean, I am not. I have never been to Scotland. But could I turn around and deride anyone for arguing with me that they are in fallacy, when they are not.

So I maintain that those politicians are not Christian, in the sense that if they are they are going to Damnation for breaking EVERY rule they supposedly forward. they are only saying they are beleivers to try to win points in hearts and minds.