Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 17, 2024, 12:34 am
Thread Rating:
|
Yes, Atheism is a Religion
|
 (December 15, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Delicate Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 4:49 pm)Cato Wrote: Plantinga is a known ID devotee. He, like all the others of his ilk, don't bother assessing all the evidence and creating a working hypothesis to be tested. He starts with his conclusion and parrots arguments that attempt to lend credibility to his assertions. Plantinga doesn't have anymore evidence for god than you do. If he did, he would be arguing from his evidence and not tired rehashed arguments that only serve to desperately attempt to keep your pet deity out of the unemployment line. Are you trolling? He is critiquing your source for credibility.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (December 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Delicate Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 5:01 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: YAY DELICATE'S BACK kayyy
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.  (December 15, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Delicate Wrote: Didn't I predict you wouldn't be able to provide a competent response? Do you and Cato read lists of fallacies and mistake them for a how-to guide? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...-well.html
If your source is not credible, and biased I may add, any authority of or data drawn from that source also lacks credibility. It may be correct, but tainted to the point where you have to work to restore that credibility. No part of anything I said is fallacious.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(December 15, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: If your source is not credible, and biased I may add, any authority of or data drawn from that source also lacks credibility. It may be correct, but tainted to the point where you have to work to restore that credibility. No part of anything I said is fallacious. We're not depending on a source's testimony but their presented arguments, which can be assessed independent of any source. So yes, you're still committing a fallacy, and you're trying to defend your fallacy. This is why atheism is a joke.
As I said, the arguments are tainted by the source's lack of credibility until and unless you can show otherwis. It's rather like having Giggling Nannie Doss cook you xmas dinner - sure, you might be lucky this time, but could you really trust it?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Oh, and I am not atheism. Even if I am completely guilty of every charge you lay against me, it says nothing about anything or anyone other than me. This is why people regard you as a joke.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(December 15, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: As I said, the arguments are tainted by the source's lack of credibility until and unless you can show otherwis. It's rather like having Giggling Nannie Doss cook you xmas dinner - sure, you might be lucky this time, but could you really trust it? Are you thick? If Richard Dawkins says 2+2=4 does the fact that he can't think himself out of a paper bag on anything outside zoology make 2+2=4 false? Or can we examine the merits of the claim 2+2=4 on its own without worrying about who says it? Right now I could dismiss every word you're saying because you've actually been trying to defend a logical fallacy, a fact that tanks any shred of credibility you might have scrounged up over your lifetime. Should I do that, or engage with your claims as they stand, independent of who says them?
If Richard Dawkins said 2+2= "God doesn't exist", you can bet your braincell I'd be tearing him apart as a biased source.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
