Failed Logic

Failed Logic

Straw Man (But of course atheist fundies never claim anything it’s the damn Christians!)

If god then X… The lamers guide to why god does not exist 🙂 If God is all powerful why did he take six days to make the universe? Standard atheist fundie troll question format.

The straw man fallacy is also very common, particularly in Theological debates. Think about this one literally. A man made of straw is easy to push to the ground. A real man is harder to push to the ground. What happens in this fallacy is that someone builds up someone else’s position like it’s made of straw, then easily knocks it down. In other words, someone attributes a false position to an opponent, then easily attacks that false position. If he had described the true position, it wouldn’t be so easy to knock down.

Sometimes the straw man fallacy aims to make someone’s argument or claim look downright ridiculous. For example: “This is what Christians actually believe…”

Here’s a full example of a typical straw man: “Theists thinks God is in everything. But if God is in everything then my pencil is God and I should worship it. This is idiotic. So God can’t be in everything.” Here the belief that God is in everything is equated with the need to worship—this is a mischaracterization of pantheism, the belief that God is in everything. It’s also used to justify misplaced burdens of proof and in begging the question fallacies. Such as “Atheists don’t claim there is not a god its Christian who do they need to prove it.” Or “ If christian believe in god why don’t the give one shred of evidence he exists.” If god then X…

A little logic will show you why some people are agnostic I don’t pretend to know what ignorant atheist fundies claim, they believe does not exist.

It boggles my mind why people just can’t say I don’t know…

I think I’ll go make holy water, get me some tap juice and boil the hell out of it.

Advertisements

22 responses

  1. You have a problem with the definitions.
    Atheism is the believe that God doesn’t exist.
    Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable.
    So Atheism is a believe while Agnosticism is a statement about reality.
    I subscribe to both: I don’t believe that a deity exists and that the exsitence is unknown or can’t be known.

    “Do they not know the Theory of Evolution has not been proven? Because an atheist cannot prove evolution does that mean it is not real? I am agnostic on that as well.”
    I’m not sure how you define “agnostic” in that sentence. I see two options:

    1. Your position is that absolut knowlege is impossible. So your also acnostic about the theory of gravity, or relativity and so on. Well that is true(yea, a paradoxon ;)) but I can still look at the evidence and conclude what is nearly certain true.

    2. You realy don’t know. There is one simple solution: Educate yourself. There is plenty of evidence.

    One little point about evolution: There is one essential law: Natural selection. and there are also two facts: Mutation do happen and natural ressources are limitted. Thats all you need.

    Here a simple start:

    • “You have a problem with the definitions.
      Atheism is the believe that God doesn’t exist.
      Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable.”

      No that’s not what Agnosticism is… what it is is the knowledge that nobody know if god exists or does not exist…PERIOD! You can define it in any way you like but that is not what it means.. Agnostic means without knowledge. your definition is just Atheist drivle. Who think agnostic is some midway point between atheism and theism… Atheism is just the opposite side of a coin from Theism both are beliefs. One believes in god and the other does not believe in god. Probability of one being more right than the other based on no data either way? 50%.

      Agnostic is the opposite side of the coin to gnostic. They both deal with knowledge nothing to do with beliefs. One knows the other does not know. Its a simple admission of truth.

      yours is an opinion without knowledge which is ignorance.

      1. you assume you know what I am thinking.
      2. you have no idea what I’m thinking…
      3. You need to admit you are agnostic about what I am thinking…

      But of course you believe you are right and I am wrong …

      When the THEORY OF EVOLUTION become the Law of Evolution then it is proven and accepted. Its called a theory for a reason… Why because it is NOT proven.

      • You don’t know what a theory in science is. A theory is an explonation of facts and laws.
        A Theory is above laws and facts.
        As I said. Natural selection IS a law of evolution.
        There are also facts: ringspecies exists.
        Common descent(Have you watched the video)?
        The earth is 4.56 billion years old.(It’s not about evolution, but it’s also an important fact)

        My definition of agnostiticm is not mine, it’s from wikipedia.
        But I think your position is Strong agnosticism (also called “hard,” “closed,” “strict,” or “permanent agnosticism”):
        The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, “I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.”

        I recommend you

        It is a great and interesting story of somone loosing his faith.
        There are also videos about definitions you should watch them.

        Look I don’t know if one or more deitys do exist. But all evidence show no signs that god is necessary for the universe and life to exists. So the simpler explonation for everything in the univers is, that God doesn’t exists. Now you need only occam’s razor to conclude that God PROBABLY doesn’t exists.

        “1. you assume you know what I am thinking.
        2. you have no idea what I’m thinking…
        3. You need to admit you are agnostic about what I am thinking…”

        1. I never claimed to know what you are thinkng
        2. false, I have a descent Idea, but that can be wrong…
        3. true
        Btw. thats a great example of a strawman 😉

        I have a simple question for you:
        What is in your view more likely: That the flying spagetti monster exists or the God of the bible.

      • I have a simple question for you:
        What is in your view more likely: That the flying spaghetti monster exists or the God of the bible.

        You want me to guess I don’t guess. you guess and call it probable… and the result would still be 50/50.

        If you said the FSM existed and a theist said God was more likely to exist and I said I did not know which one of the three of us would be closer to the truth?

        How exactly do you know there is no god? Or do you just deny what Christians believe?

        And no evolution is just a theory… a best guess.

      • “How exactly do you know there is no god? Or do you just deny what Christians believe?”
        That is a strawman
        I don’t claim that there is certain no God. I say it is probable that there is no god becouse we can explain as much with God as without. So you only need occam’s razzor to conclude that the existence of God is unprobable.

        About evolution:
        What is your position?
        There is a 50% percent chance, that evolution is false or I’m not certain, but evolution is to 99.99999999999% right. If your position is the first one, what is your position about the theory of relativity? ANd look that video about the fusion of chromosom 2 and ERVs.

        So there are over 2000 Gods only in the history of humanity. So the probability that one particular God exists is under 0.05%. But I can imagine 100’000 Gods if I have enough time. that puts the probability way lower. Given the point, that some sort of God exists.

      • SO you don’t know if there is a God .. that makes you agnostic. Where do you get these numbers from? Pull them out of your ass?

        So there are over 2000 Gods only in the history of humanity. So the probability that one particular God exists is under 0.05%. But I can imagine 100’000 Gods if I have enough time. that puts the probability way lower. Given the point, that some sort of God exists.

        And you know that every one of these do not exist .. You have proof of these 200 god’s non existance? Oh right NO you don’t you have no proof of anything just a probable cause or a guess. YOU KNOW NOTHING! Making you opinion worthless. An Opinion without Knowledge is Ignorance… You are just an ignorant Atheist. Just a non-believer is all.

        And I suppose you believe in life on other planets as well…

  2. No I do not have evidence that every one of thes do not exists. That is not my point. My point is that you can imagine a nearly infiite amount of gods. That puts the probability of one particular God near 0. So I can say:
    That God X doesn’t exists is nearly certain.

    I am an agnostic atheist
    That means I don’t know for certain if God does or doesn’t exists, but due to occam’s razzor I can make a statment about the probability of the existens of some sort of God.

    Do you see, that I don’t make any absolute statment about truth?

    You didn’t anwser my question about evolution. Else I can’t understand your standpoint…

    Well I can’t sey there is certain life on other planets. But due to the fact that there are billions of galaxys with billions of star with some planets and the fact, that life on earth started very early in the history of our planet. it is very likely that life exists elsewere in the universe.

    • “My point is that you can imagine a nearly infiite amount of gods”

      What do you not understand? What part of I DON’T KNOW do you not get?

      Agnostic atheist… thats like calling bald a hair color. “I don’t believe that I know nothing”? what kind of statement or position is that? But I suppose you don’t use the meaning and redefing it as something more appealing?

      “Do you see, that I don’t make any absolute statment about truth?” Because you don know anything… simple no?

      • Which part of “I don’t know, but I can guess if something is likely or not with the available evidence” do you not understand?

        Lets search for a simple example:
        My favourite athlete is Roger Federer. If he is in a tournament against ATP 173 I don’t know if he’ll win or not. but it is more likely that he’ll win because he has shown in the past, that he plays tennis very well.

        Do you understand that concept?

      • That’s my point … its just a guess nothing more. its like a coin toss… https://agnostichumor.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/coin-toss/

        Your whole argument is based on the fact that Roger Federer exists. Correct, of course it is. So in order for any god argument to be relevant the same must hold true for god. Atheism must presuppose the existance of god.

        Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God. Without an atheist god it just becomes circular reasoning.

        Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:

        “God does not exist. The fact that Christians can’t prove there is a god is proof of this.”
        OR “god cannot be proven, because you cannot prove a negative.”

        Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — “God does not exist” or “God cannot be proven” — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

        Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. Much like a-theism presupposes theism. Laws of logic require the existence of God.

        You can’t convince an atheist of anything; for their non-belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to not to believe.Supported by a presupposition that god exists, which they deny. Sound logic or a logical fallacy? A non-belief based on Circular reasoning.

        Circular reasoning always presupposes guilt instead of assuming innocence “I say your guilty of murder prove your innocent or you are guilty.” This type of Logic is called a Kangaroo Court or in medieval times an Inquisition. Seems ironic Atheists having to resort to inquisition to support their non-belief. A practice christians left behind centuries ago.

        A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if the atheist is sincere is sincere. The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). The believers (Theist and Atheist) and the proposition (god) use knowledge to prove their opposing viewpoints. Atheism presupposes theism and shares the proposition of god one for and one against.
        Gnositc – knowledge of god
        Agnostic – no knowledge of god.

        DO YOU GET IT? lol of course you don’t 🙂 You don’t believe that either do you? All atheists do is naysay or deny that’s it, nothing but hot air and rhetoric. When you have some proof of your position come talk to me. PROOF not stupid logical fallacy analogies nothing more than fables meant to fool children.

      • You can beat your Atheis strawman down a hundert times . It is still a strawman…

        I DON’T KNOW IF GOD EXSISTS OR NOT(I don’t know if Roger Federer’ll win).
        BUT I CAN MAKE A PREDICTION IF IT IS LIKELY OR NOT.

        It is realy that simple

        PS: Im still waiting for the anwser for the evolution question: 50% or 99.999999%?

      • PS: Im still waiting for the answser for the evolution question: 50% or 99.999999%?

        I DON”T KNOW… wtf you not getting lol. Provide on shread of proof god doe or does not exist and I will look at it other than that its just rhetoric. Nothing else matters. Put up or shut up. And please explaining to me how science has anything thing to do with religion? Or did I miss the memo? You pull the 99.99999% out of your ass or is there hard evidence for that?

        “I DON’T KNOW IF GOD EXSISTS OR NOT(I don’t know if Roger Federer’ll win).
        BUT I CAN MAKE A PREDICTION IF IT IS LIKELY OR NOT.”

        Yes thats all you can do is take a guess assuming he exists. What if I told you there was a tennis match and I did not know who was playing and asked you to pick a winner? What would be your odds of getting it right?

      • Do you understand, that I can make a substancuated guess that will to 99% be right and still don’t know for sure?

        You should watch

        Its about making substantiated claims.
        He addresses a variaty of objections to it in the second video. If you don’t want to make strawmen after strawmen you should watch it. It is pretty much my standpoint.

        Yes I put that number of 99.999999% out of my ass, because for the real number you’d need more 9 than there is space for in one reply.

        Look if there was a tree carbon dating dates it at about 300 years, You know from historical evidence, that the tree was planted about 294 years ago. Then you take a sample of treerings and date it at 294-295 years.
        You can be pretty certain that the tree is aproximately that age.

        You have far more independent aproaches for the tree of life and every aproach commes to the same conclution.
        Here a short detail.

        look at the well made video from a roman catholic.

      • So you KNOW that these videos are bullshit without even watching them. Seems you are only agnostic if it is to your advance…

        And you didn’t even read my complete anwsers.

        Well, there is only one option: You watch these goddam bullshit videos and read my anwsers or I look that discusion as finished and you can going on fighting your atheist strawman.

      • You do believe in life in outersapce don’t you 🙂

        All I see is numbers pulled out of your ass with no proof. its 99% or 99.9999% do that make it right? It maeans nothing its just inflated numbers you use to support your bullshit viewpoint that there is no god. While all the time you KNOW NOTHING DO YOU? And why do you insist on spewing out science to support your denial of god? Appealing to science as an authority in religion is stupid… They are not related. Would you bring a cat to court to prove I kicked a dog? Stop the rhetoric and bring proof… 100% proof not your 99.9999999999% proof.

        And while we are it it could you describe this god you have proof of that does not exist… just to make sure we are on the same page we could be clearly talking about two different people here.

      • Watch videos + read my posts, I wrote an entire paragraph about it.

        I do not appeal to science as an authority, that is your strawman.
        Look at the video Its titelet “This is [b]Why[/b] Every Scientist Accepts Evolution”

      • I made my point clear about this. You …. just …. have to read my posts…

        It seems to me that your standpoint is radical scepticism:
        radical scepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.
        Of course i could be wrong. In that case I ask you to difference your standpoint from radical scepticism.

        See I want to understand your viewpoint. You are not even willing to understand my viewpoint. Maxbe because it diffes from your atheist stereotype you fight against in your blog.

        If you want to understand my viewpoint, you have to watch the last two videos I posted.

        I’m not hiding behind science, I’m defending it.
        You claim, that a scientific law higher is than a scientific theorie. that is not the case. If you scroll all the way down, I posted the definition of a scientific theorie and a comparison between scientific law and scientific theorie.

      • You see I am ok with the fact that I do not know. Which is the truth. You non the other hand are trying to pretend you do know something? Which you don’t. But you sincerely believe that you do. Which is just ignorance. Come in have a laugh we are agnostics we are having a laugh at the stupidity and arrogance of atheists. FACE IT YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT.

        I asked you 2 simple questions and go no answer:

        1. Do you believe in Aliens?
        2. Describe this god so we are on the same page.

        All I keep getting is You Tube Videos… Here is a short one for you

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
    “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

    “Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.
    A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.
    Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.”

    You have a lot to learn.

    • “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation”

      What have I been saying? A theory is just a best guess…Scitentfic method was invented by a catholic priest LOL…who 99.999% believed in god 🙂

      A scientific fact is empirical evidence its is used in science How do you find empirical evidence on a philosophy the uses the law of justification to determine truth? Religion is a philosophy. The bible is literature. And you could well be a character in the bible… Noah Brains…

      Well of course I have a lot to learn I think I know nothing 🙂 And the last place I would enroll to learn anything is from someone who is preaching the merits of denying what a christian believes in the face of no evidence. If you are going to tackle the issue of no god … Do it show me proof there is no god. PERIOD END OF STORY. Don’t tell me about tennis or bowling or science or evolution. Tell em about god and how you KNOW 100% there is none. God is not science leave science out of it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s