Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If that is a touque (winter hat?) argument so be it, I think it is still valid. I am certainly trying to focus and argue you position, not your self.

I was going to simply ignore your post but can't help myself but make a brief reply rather than dissect your entire post.


"tu quoque' ("you too") is a common logical fallacy.


To argue "my position is not Tu qouque because of X Y or Z",is perfectly reasonable

It is NOT reasonable to argue "well yes,it iS ,but it's valid anyway" as you have done,is nonsense. A logical fallacy invalidates an argument by definition.

I honestly don't know if you're just being deliberately bloody minded,or are simply unable to grasp the notion of a logical fallacy,which is NOT the same thing necessarily as "false".

IE:That I also patronised what's-his- face is true but irrelevant.

You think we're alike? For some odd reason,I don't consider that idea at all flattering. (to either of us)

Please don't think this a personal attack,indeedly doodly not.I'm merely pointing out that your posts make you appear a bit silly.



Below is a good link which outlines some basics. I suggest you have a glance.Perhaps then you might come across slightly less ignorant and dippy in future posts.


I have nothing further to say to you on this matter.

A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

[Dotard]

Dotard,

I think your missing the memo that's been going around. You're an Atheist. We are very different kinds of theists.

Every theist is a different kind of theist. You are not a very different kind.

We can not show you any 'truth', it is not our responsibility.

If you're claiming this 'truth' leads to some kinda God, then yes it is your responsibility to show me this truth. And defend it validity.

You want to find god, find her. If not, then don't. Either way, not my problem.

Then STFU.

I only can speak for myself, but to rudely ask for 'truth' or 'evidence' is beyond useless.

To claim you possess this truth then rudely refuse to share it is beyond idiotic.

So then, lets just discuss other things, that we know we might come to a conclusion with.

If not evidence then what other things? There is no other things.

To all theists: If you don't want it discussed then stfu. Stop posting crap you're unwilling to discuss. This includes signatures, titles, tag-lines etc.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

To all theists: If you don't want it discussed then stfu. Stop posting crap you're unwilling to discuss. This includes signatures, titles, tag-lines etc.

Bravo

You may have THREE cookies

[Ryft]

How about explaining exactly what 'truth' leads to a belief in a magical sky-daddy.

Sorry, I can't think of any truth that leads to a belief in a magical sky-daddy.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ah Kyu, always a charmer!

Or a realist.

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey all,

I maintain my status as king of destroying coherent discussion. I feel a little bad that I add to other peoples threads now and get in flame-guments... For that I apologize.

Hey Padraic, thank you for replying. I have too smile, I really don't mean offense, and take none. The similarities we may have is a certain attitude towards the world (may be a cynicism) for better or worse, and I can only appreciate it when I think I recognize it in your posts. I am sure we have many differences too.

I can tell myself I have been officially told off. Please, you needn't post gosh dern wiki articles for concepts covered in grade school psych. Logical fallacy may even fall under (what we wish would be) common knowledge. I understand it, thank you. I didn't say my argument was a touque argument, I said it may be, but I thought it still valid (and so not a fallacy). What reasoning was I lacking in saying I thought it was unnecessary at best to patronize someone for (possibly unintentionally) patronizing you. You have to make a better declaration of the fault of the "logic" of my opinion than you did, for me to spend time refuting it. The ball, in my game, was very much still in your court on that one.

I would carry on, about how if my point is "true - but irrelevant", why does that make it a fallacious argument? The irrelevancy? I assure you it is on your side of the ocean. For me it had to be relevant, or I wouldn't have said it. In fact, I wasn't stating a fact, only my opinion on how you expressed yourself, so that is farther from the line of fallacy/well supported truth any ways... But I respect that you have no more wish to discuss this. It is for the best, because this isn't very constructive. Thank you for sharing. I will do my best not to sound ignorant and dippy, but make no promises. Thank you, until we speak again.

And Dotard,

Every theist is a different kind of theist. You are not a very different kind.

Every atheist is a different kind as well. I think I and frodo and now arcanus (am I missing anyone) could be considered 'very' different. I am assured we could find plenty of things to disagree about. If I didn't think we were 'very' different I would not have written such. If you disagree, congratulations.

To claim you possess this truth then rudely refuse to share it is beyond idiotic.

I did not make such claim, this is Arcanus' thread. I in fact never made such claim. From the beginning I said the 'evidence' and 'truth' is relative and interpretive. I would gladly share the things I hold to be true, but it would be silly. I don't rudely refuse to share it. If you wanted to see my version of the truth, I would happily share. I am sure you do not though. I get called an idiot a lot these days. I would hope that it is clear I am eccentric and cynical, but at the very least marginally intelligent. Or wait, is the test that I am more "intelligent" the more I agree with everything you say? Is disagreeing stupidity these days?

If not evidence then what other things? There is no other things.

I have to point out that it would be 'there "are" no other things', since "things" is plural. I do it to pick at what Arcanus said earlier, and because you called me idiotic. There is plenty to talk about! I love trees very much, and am happy to see them awake and enjoying summer. How about you? I have seen a lot of New England, any one else? Even debate, What do you think of Jackson's crazy funeral party? I'm sure we can find something in there to argue, just for fun. After I found god, I stopped worrying too much about the process of self-destructive self-examination.

Thank you for sharing. As you can see, I politely decline the offer the 'stfu'. I already have engagements on this day. Ask me again later?

The point is to find places you are in agreement, because personal arguments are a waste of valuable time.
I hope you all have a lovely Saturday, the day of the planet of the rings!

The,
-Pip

[Dotard]

And Dotard,
Every atheist is a different kind as well.

No one claimed we are the same. You gave the impression you believe your brand of theism is very different. It's not. You paint it a different color and try to arrange it in a lovely pattern, but it's still a pile of bullocks. Different bullock, but bullock nonetheless.

I did not make such claim, this is Arcanus' thread. I in fact never made such claim. From the beginning I said the 'evidence' and 'truth' is relative and interpretive.

You jumped in on this thread claiming no responsibility to provide 'truths'. You made it your claim when you offered your contention Arcanus need not provide any proof or define his "truth". And truth is a synonym for actuality, certainty, correctness, exactness, fact, infallibility, precision, verity, authenticity, exactitude, factualism, legitimacy. So, just in case you ain't figured it out yet, "truth" by definition is NOT relative. If you are going to claim truth is not what it is defined to be, then you are playing the re-definition game and it is pointless to discuss anything with you.

I have to point out that it would be 'there "are" no other things', since "things" is plural. I do it to pick at what Arcanus said earlier, and because you called me idiotic.

Never called you idiotic. I stated to claim something is then refuse to share evidence of why you think it is, is idiotic.

There is plenty to talk about! I love trees very much, and am happy to see them awake and enjoying summer. How about you? I have seen a lot of New England, any one else? Even debate, What do you think of Jackson's crazy funeral party? I'm sure we can find something in there to argue, just for fun.

The Hello Kitty forums are that-a-way ----->

How the hell are any of those topics you mentioned remotely relevant? In what way could we draw a conclusion on the question of God from those topics?

---

Sorry, I can't think of any truth that leads to a belief in a magical sky-daddy

Don't be ragging on my definition of God. Everyone defines "God" differently. I define it as "magical sky-daddy". If you cannot defend your statement "Truth leads to God" then why even post it? If you are unwilling to or cannot defend your contentions then why post them?

[Matt85]

gday Arcanus welcome to the forums I thought since you are such a logical reasonable person you might want to check out this site. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...ncies.html

tell us what you think

[Ryft]

gday Arcanus welcome to the forums I thought since you are such a logical reasonable person you might want to check out this site. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...ncies.html

tell us what you think

Although I have not seen that particular page before, the biblical inconsistencies and apparent contradictions he lists are not new or unique. I have been confronted with many over the years by both atheists and Muslims, but have yet to encounter any that are actual inconsistencies or contradictions. In almost every single case it's because they have no education or training in the historical context or language of the period. There are scholars who are that have taken the time to publish refutations of these over the years, from booklets that touch upon the major ones to larger volumes that address even the trivial ones—of which such atheists and Muslims, for some reason, don't bother to avail themselves.

[Tiberius]

Have you read any of Bart Erham? He is a biblical scholar and atheist, so he has a rather unique take on everything. What do you make of his assertions of contradictions?