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

[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.