Evidence for atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, I like that, Imma pass it along to the teachers in my family.

In the same way, I fail the folks who come along with "arguments" that they claim makes their faith "reasonable". They must satisfy the requirements for such a designation. When they do not, their claims are, to me, false - as in..not true - there is no middle ground in my conception between those two concepts. If they refer to those requirements, they cannot then backpedal - stating that that their claim is not false - even if it is not "necessarily true". It is false, they chose the metrics, they failed to meet the requirements - and those requirements define what we mean when we give something the designation. Again, logic is not just a conclusion, it is the process that led to that conclusion - the two cannot be separated from that end. Showing that a conclusion can be derived from some other line of thought, or cannot be derived from the line of thought invoked, is to show that their claim is false. A does not lead to b. If b is true, it is not true for the reasons they have offered. Give me some other argument.

[Jackalope]

LOL, I like that, Imma pass it along to the teachers in my family.

In the same way, I fail the folks who come along with "arguments" that they claim makes their faith "reasonable". They must satisfy both requirements for such a designation. When they do not, their claims are, to me, false - as in..not true - there is no middle ground in my conception between those two concepts. If they claim to possess something "reasonable" it must meet those requirements. If they refer to those requirements, they cannot then backpedal - that their claim is not false - even if it is not "necessarily true".

I suppose that I could agree with you if we can agree that claim =/= argument (though a claim *can* be). It's imprecision in terms, I think, that's standing between us.

[Whateverist]

I'm sorry but I'd prefer to spout off just now rather than read. Is the point of this thread to give testimony to our non-belief in gods?

If so, I'd like to testify. Brothers, I am godless. Utterly forsaken and clueless in the god-thing department. I hope you will accept my confession as evidence that atheism does exist - at least in me.

Next!

---

But it -is- the same as demonstrating what is or is not true within the rules of the system.

Within the rules of *what* system? Are we even on the same page here? I'm beginning to suspect not.

LOL, I'm starting to suspect something similar.

Herd of fucking cats we are.

[Jackalope]

Herd of fucking cats we are.

Fucking a right we are.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm alive.

I'm an atheist.

I exist.

Therefore I'm evidence that atheism exists.

[Whateverist]

But it -is- the same as demonstrating what is or is not true within the rules of the system.

Within the rules of *what* system? Are we even on the same page here? I'm beginning to suspect not.

LOL, I'm starting to suspect something similar.

Herd of fucking cats we are.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd be inclined to agree with you CD.

LOL, Whateves, preach it...here, have my soapbox.

[Whateverist]

Damned repetitious I am.

[Angrboda]

The entailment implied by the argument is false. That says nothing about the conclusion, in or out of the system. (And imo, equating not necessarily true with false is as likely to make a mess of things as not. In classical logic, the liar's paradox is stated as, "This sentence is false." Logicians have gotten around this by claiming that the sentence is meaningless and therefore it isn't false, it's just meaningless. This prompted the improved liar's paradox which is stated as "This sentence is not true," which evades the meaning objection. Clearly 'false' and 'not true' have different implications in the system, even in classical logic. And this is assuming classical logic, as opposed to something like dialetheic logic in which a statement can be both true and false.)

I understand the desire to say something about the conclusion in the context of an unsound or invalid argument, but in doing so, I think you are overreaching, with potentially unwanted consequences. (Can we use the invalidated argument in another argument in the place of the value 'false' ? Absolutely not.) Your objection runs perilously close to the fallacy fallacy; it's a fallacy that because an argument employs a fallacy in reaching a conclusion that the conclusion is false.

Anyway, I don't fully understand what you're trying to say Rhythm. I side with CD on this one. Not necessarily true is the appropriate conclusion, not 'false'.

[The Grand Nudger]

In any logical statement, there are implied states and operations.

If, only if, Because of this, that, therefore, ergo, etc. (we can use standard formulations or native language to express any number of these)

Ignoring those, we might be able to separate some statement that "is not true" from it's conclusion that " is not false", or some conclusion that "is not true" from the notion that it, itself, is "false"
Including them (as we must if we wish to do logic), we cannot do so (that's why I cant model it as a gate).

If any part of a statement is false....is that statement true or false?