One thing I find encouraging on here!

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to some I am very well behaved

"When I'm good, I'm good, but when I'm bad ... I'm great."

[Simon Moon]

Um is it just me or has the thread gotten drunk and stoned and wandered into some stranger's back yard?

Following straw men only makes it seem that way.

[Ravenshire]

After reading this train wreck of a thread, I've got to wonder why SW and people like him troll atheist sites as hard as they do.

[Baqal]

Nobody expresses it as such though. “If God Existed, He’d Not Be Great” By Christopher Hitchens. I missed that one.

Who are you referring to as "nobody"?

P1 Only Yahweh Exists
P2 [Insert other god’s name] is not Yahweh
C. Therefore, [insert other god’s name] does not exist.

I can play that game too.
1: No gods exist
2: Yehowah is a god
3: Therefore, Yehowah does not exist
What's the matter, baby doll? -wink-

[Statler Waldorf]

But seriously, what exact behavior do you need from me to prove that I do not hate god?

I am not sure, I do not interact with you much on here. I’ll keep an eye out for your posts from now on.

Doesn't make as good a title. Hitchens probably cared more about selling books than making sure pedants like yourself couldn't make a really terrible strawman.

It’s not a straw man, I’ve given you numerous examples to support my assertions. Engaging in hand waiving does nothing to refute those examples. Hitchens’ book was nothing more than slander against an entity he claims to know does not exist.

Nope. Still atheists, just agnostic or weak atheists.

No, an agnostic is not the same thing as an atheist. You can look that up in any Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I’ll save you the effort and look it up for you…

“‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’”- Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Agnostics do not fit this definition.

“Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.” –Encyclopedia Britannica, “Atheism” [Emphasis added]

Good for you. You want to tell me that I hate god, go find some evidence.

God says in scripture that you do, He is infallible, you’re fallible who do you think I am going to believe?

It's unfortunate for you that logic doesn't work that way. Circular reasoning is invalid.

*Sigh* Circular reasoning is not actually logically invalid (something is invalid in logic if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises). In circular reasoning the conclusion is simply a restatement of a premise so it does not prove anything, but it is not logically invalid. Of course none of my premises are restated in my conclusion so this is not an example of circular reasoning. My syllogism is valid because if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

I’ll give you another one…

P1 If Yahweh exists, then no other gods exist
P2 Yahweh exists
C. Therefore, no other gods exist.

Even Wikipedia-which is beloved by atheists on here- agrees with me.


“The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.”- Wikipedia, “Circular Reasoning”

Very few atheists claim to know that a god or gods do not exist.

By definition all atheists claim to know that god/gods do not exist. See the definitions of the term I provided above.

And that what Hitchens is talking about.

No, most of Hitchens' attacks were directed at Yahweh Himself.

What evidence? That atheists do not like what is done in the world in the name of various gods?

Guilty.

No, the fact that atheists claim to know God does not exist but then proceed to waste countless hours whining about how He’s a big meanie face.

He has chapters on Eastern religions, Islam is mentioned as much as Christianity, the Koran is mentioned just as much as the Bible.

Just as much? No.

First of all, most atheists posting on the internet are almost exclusively encountering Christians, not Zoroastrians or Hindus.

So?

The Bibles in hotel rooms are supposed to be taken.

To be read, not destroyed. One of my atheist teammates when I was in University took home a Gideon Bible and shot it.

No, he is just pointing out how the Biblical 'Yahweh' character is portrayed in the stories.

That’s not how He’s portrayed, that’s Dawkins opinion of Him and it’s hatred.

By the way, you do know that 'God' is not the name of the Biblical god, right?

In English it is.

God is a job title, not a name.

So is the term “Dad”, but many use that as a name as well.

You clearly have not been searching hard enough. Google is as much a tool as your brain. Use both.

Did not find any.

Are you new? This subject has been done to death. A/theism has to do with belief; A/gnostic has to do with knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

Knowledge is a form of belief; it is defined as justified belief. Philosophical references clearly indicate that the two terms are mutually exclusive and quite distinct from one another.

Also, I've had about enough of you telling people what they (dis)believe.

The definitions of terms matter; if someone wants to claim to be an atheist then they’d better believe what atheists believe. I’d be just as hard on someone who claimed to be a Muslim but also said they did not believe Allah existed.

If people formed a religion around these characters, gained power and tried to get laws passed, started wars, persecuted minorities, etc based on them, you can bet there would be an outcry.

What if they started charities, Universities, fed the poor, and provided medical aid for those who could not afford it?

Atheists also try to gain power, pass laws, and persecute minorities; where is your outcry against naturalistic materialism sir?

Looks like you also don't understand rhetoric and hyperbole, too.

How do you know that was merely rhetoric and hyperbole? Because you say so? Hitchens never said so.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. Most atheists are agnostic.

This is simply false. The philosophical references I quoted above clearly state that there is a clear distinction between the two positions and someone cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Yes he does. He talks abut Hinduism and Islam in his book.

Briefly, but that’s not the purpose of the book.

He's not talking about 'God' in the book, he's talking about what the followers of various gods do in their names.

The quote was from the book and he is directly talking about Yahweh in that quote. .

Massively and laughably fallacious.

How? I always get weary when people call something fallacious but conveniently leave out the name of the fallacy and how it was committed.

Speaking out against the actions of various theists is not the same as hating the god they believe exists.

I never said that it was. Disparaging the God they believe exists is the same though.

The issue isn't that we detest your god. It's that you get folks coming 'round and preaching about him even when they're not invited. Sort of like a Christian coming to an atheist forum in order to taunt the members there, when you think about it. I mean, you'd think if they really believed in an omnipotent god, they'd let him work his will as he sees fit.

God uses Christians preaching the gospel to work His will. If you know that Christians are wrong, then why does that bother you? It does not bother me in the least when Mormons approach me on the street because I know that they are wrong.

I don't hate god, but the assholes who worship him sure get on my fucking nerves sometimes.

I think you hate God.

In other words, it's about the social aspects of religion, not the epistemology of it. Just as Christians advise "don't hate the sinner, hate the sin," so atheists don't hate the god, but sure in the fuck are annoyed by the self-righteous pricks who aren't satisfied with believing for themselves, but must press it upon others.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't, feel free to ask for clarification.

The God you claim to not hate commanded those “pricks” to not be satisfied with believing for themselves. If the Bible said, “do not share the gospel with anyone else” you might have a point.

Nonsense. The reason why Hitch wrote that book, which you'd know if you had actually read it rrather than having been spoon-fed your view, is encapsulated in the subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Then the book should have been titled, “Religion Is Not Great”. Religion and God are not the same thing, was Hitchens too dense to understand even something as simple as that?

Take pride that your god is first among the targets, only because the largest number of fools ascribe belief in him.

Nope, because atheists know that only He exists. Romans 1. Enjoy.

Following straw men only makes it seem that way.

Who brought up my signature? Me? If you cannot handle traveling off course then do not touch the wheel.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm glad Stat most assuredly knows what's going on inside my own head.

[Tobie]

God says in scripture that you do, He is infallible, you’re fallible who do you think I am going to believe?

Reality trumps scripture.

*Sigh* Circular reasoning is not actually logically invalid (something is invalid in logic if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises). In circular reasoning the conclusion is simply a restatement of a premise so it does not prove anything, but it is not logically invalid. Of course none of my premises are restated in my conclusion so this is not an example of circular reasoning. My syllogism is valid because if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

I’ll give you another one…

P1 If Yahweh exists, then no other gods exist
P2 Yahweh exists
C. Therefore, no other gods exist.

Even Wikipedia-which is beloved by atheists on here- agrees with me.


“The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.”- Wikipedia, “Circular Reasoning”

I made bold the main thing wrong with your logic. Starting with an unproven premise does not make a very good argument. Using your brand of logic, you can "prove" just about anything you want to. Does that seem like a sound method of reasoning to you?

Also, try googling "define atheism". The results are almost exclusively atheism=disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods. Don't try and tell us what we think because it fits in with your particular delusion.

[Losty]

But seriously, what exact behavior do you need from me to prove that I do not hate god?

I am not sure, I do not interact with you much on here. I’ll keep an eye out for your posts from now on.

Oh thank goodness. I do appreciate you looking out for me. I will try to be on my best behavior. I hope you are prepared for what you might find.

[Mothonis]

---

But seriously, what exact behavior do you need from me to prove that I do not hate god?

I am not sure, I do not interact with you much on here. I’ll keep an eye out for your posts from now on.

Doesn't make as good a title. Hitchens probably cared more about selling books than making sure pedants like yourself couldn't make a really terrible strawman.

It’s not a straw man, I’ve given you numerous examples to support my assertions. Engaging in hand waiving does nothing to refute those examples. Hitchens’ book was nothing more than slander against an entity he claims to know does not exist.

Nope. Still atheists, just agnostic or weak atheists.

No, an agnostic is not the same thing as an atheist. You can look that up in any Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I’ll save you the effort and look it up for you…

“‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’”- Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Agnostics do not fit this definition.

“Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.” –Encyclopedia Britannica, “Atheism” [Emphasis added]

Good for you. You want to tell me that I hate god, go find some evidence.

God says in scripture that you do, He is infallible, you’re fallible who do you think I am going to believe?

It's unfortunate for you that logic doesn't work that way. Circular reasoning is invalid.

*Sigh* Circular reasoning is not actually logically invalid (something is invalid in logic if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises). In circular reasoning the conclusion is simply a restatement of a premise so it does not prove anything, but it is not logically invalid. Of course none of my premises are restated in my conclusion so this is not an example of circular reasoning. My syllogism is valid because if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

I’ll give you another one…

P1 If Yahweh exists, then no other gods exist
P2 Yahweh exists
C. Therefore, no other gods exist.

Even Wikipedia-which is beloved by atheists on here- agrees with me.


“The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.”- Wikipedia, “Circular Reasoning”

Very few atheists claim to know that a god or gods do not exist.

By definition all atheists claim to know that god/gods do not exist. See the definitions of the term I provided above.

And that what Hitchens is talking about.

No, most of Hitchens' attacks were directed at Yahweh Himself.

What evidence? That atheists do not like what is done in the world in the name of various gods?

Guilty.

No, the fact that atheists claim to know God does not exist but then proceed to waste countless hours whining about how He’s a big meanie face.

He has chapters on Eastern religions, Islam is mentioned as much as Christianity, the Koran is mentioned just as much as the Bible.

Just as much? No.

First of all, most atheists posting on the internet are almost exclusively encountering Christians, not Zoroastrians or Hindus.

So?

The Bibles in hotel rooms are supposed to be taken.

To be read, not destroyed. One of my atheist teammates when I was in University took home a Gideon Bible and shot it.

No, he is just pointing out how the Biblical 'Yahweh' character is portrayed in the stories.

That’s not how He’s portrayed, that’s Dawkins opinion of Him and it’s hatred.

By the way, you do know that 'God' is not the name of the Biblical god, right?

In English it is.

God is a job title, not a name.

So is the term “Dad”, but many use that as a name as well.

You clearly have not been searching hard enough. Google is as much a tool as your brain. Use both.

Did not find any.

Are you new? This subject has been done to death. A/theism has to do with belief; A/gnostic has to do with knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

Knowledge is a form of belief; it is defined as justified belief. Philosophical references clearly indicate that the two terms are mutually exclusive and quite distinct from one another.

Also, I've had about enough of you telling people what they (dis)believe.

The definitions of terms matter; if someone wants to claim to be an atheist then they’d better believe what atheists believe. I’d be just as hard on someone who claimed to be a Muslim but also said they did not believe Allah existed.

If people formed a religion around these characters, gained power and tried to get laws passed, started wars, persecuted minorities, etc based on them, you can bet there would be an outcry.

What if they started charities, Universities, fed the poor, and provided medical aid for those who could not afford it?

Atheists also try to gain power, pass laws, and persecute minorities; where is your outcry against naturalistic materialism sir?

Looks like you also don't understand rhetoric and hyperbole, too.

How do you know that was merely rhetoric and hyperbole? Because you say so? Hitchens never said so.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. Most atheists are agnostic.

This is simply false. The philosophical references I quoted above clearly state that there is a clear distinction between the two positions and someone cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Yes he does. He talks abut Hinduism and Islam in his book.

Briefly, but that’s not the purpose of the book.

He's not talking about 'God' in the book, he's talking about what the followers of various gods do in their names.

The quote was from the book and he is directly talking about Yahweh in that quote. .

Massively and laughably fallacious.

How? I always get weary when people call something fallacious but conveniently leave out the name of the fallacy and how it was committed.

Speaking out against the actions of various theists is not the same as hating the god they believe exists.

I never said that it was. Disparaging the God they believe exists is the same though.

The issue isn't that we detest your god. It's that you get folks coming 'round and preaching about him even when they're not invited. Sort of like a Christian coming to an atheist forum in order to taunt the members there, when you think about it. I mean, you'd think if they really believed in an omnipotent god, they'd let him work his will as he sees fit.

God uses Christians preaching the gospel to work His will. If you know that Christians are wrong, then why does that bother you? It does not bother me in the least when Mormons approach me on the street because I know that they are wrong.

I don't hate god, but the assholes who worship him sure get on my fucking nerves sometimes.

I think you hate God.

In other words, it's about the social aspects of religion, not the epistemology of it. Just as Christians advise "don't hate the sinner, hate the sin," so atheists don't hate the god, but sure in the fuck are annoyed by the self-righteous pricks who aren't satisfied with believing for themselves, but must press it upon others.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't, feel free to ask for clarification.

The God you claim to not hate commanded those “pricks” to not be satisfied with believing for themselves. If the Bible said, “do not share the gospel with anyone else” you might have a point.

Nonsense. The reason why Hitch wrote that book, which you'd know if you had actually read it rrather than having been spoon-fed your view, is encapsulated in the subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Then the book should have been titled, “Religion Is Not Great”. Religion and God are not the same thing, was Hitchens too dense to understand even something as simple as that?

Take pride that your god is first among the targets, only because the largest number of fools ascribe belief in him.

Nope, because atheists know that only He exists. Romans 1. Enjoy.

Following straw men only makes it seem that way.

Who brought up my signature? Me? If you cannot handle traveling off course then do not touch the wheel.

---

Sorry you piece of filth you intentionally make straw man arguments YOU KNOW ARE FALSE. You know the problem that atheists have your religion is because it hurts society and effects them. Not because they believe in your imaginary sky daddy. You should be banned for trolling because you intentionally make arguments you know are lies.I guess I should stop believing that people like you exist, because some old book told me everyone knows Talos exists,and you only pretend to believe in god in order to deny Talos.

[Simon Moon]

*Sigh* Circular reasoning is not actually logically invalid (something is invalid in logic if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises). In circular reasoning the conclusion is simply a restatement of a premise so it does not prove anything, but it is not logically invalid. Of course none of my premises are restated in my conclusion so this is not an example of circular reasoning. My syllogism is valid because if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

I’ll give you another one…

P1 If Yahweh exists, then no other gods exist
P2 Yahweh exists
C. Therefore, no other gods exist.

Even Wikipedia-which is beloved by atheists on here- agrees with me.


“The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.”- Wikipedia, “Circular Reasoning”

P1 is not true according to the Old Testament, since there are other gods mentioned. The Hebrew bible is henotheistic, not monotheistic.

[Elohim] stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment (Ps. 82:1).

For [Jehovah] is the great God, and the great King above all gods (Ps. 95:3).

All the gods bow down before [Jehovah] (Ps. 97:7).

I know [Jehovah] is great, and our Lord is superior to all gods. (Ps. 135:5)

Prove P2.

Your syllogism is guilty of affirming the consequent. Your conclusion is stated in the premises.

P2 is what is in contention, numbnuts. That's what you are trying to prove.

By definition all atheists claim to know that god/gods do not exist. See the definitions of the term I provided above.

Not according to Oxford:

Atheist - One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

Atheism and theism are positions of belief. Not knowledge.

Me thinks you do not know the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'.

No, the fact that atheists claim to know God does not exist but then proceed to waste countless hours whining about how He’s a big meanie face.

I do not claim to know that a god or gods do not exist.

It's the real world, negative consequences that theism causes that I speak out against, not the belief itself.

I think most pagan beliefs are as ridiculous as Christian, Muslim and Hindu beliefs. I don't care about their beliefs because they have no negative effects on society.

To be read, not destroyed. One of my atheist teammates when I was in University took home a Gideon Bible and shot it.

So.

It's Bronze and Iron age texts written by superstitious goat herders.

But you claimed that the Bibles in hotel rooms were being stolen, but at least you admit you were incorrect about that, since they are meant to be taken. Progress!

That’s not how He’s portrayed, that’s Dawkins opinion of Him and it’s hatred.

He is portrayed as ordering the mass the murder of several towns, babies being bashed against rocks, killing women in their wedding night if they're not virgins, etc. Sounds pretty horrible to me.