Rabid atheists

Post Reply New Topic

but evidence in itself is subjective. Science uses repeated processes as evidence and then claims that its because of their theory which is why I feel science is unreliable. You'd need a knowledge of the world that's layers cannot be penetrated by the reasoning of science. Electricity, Gravity etc we knew what to look for as it was an explanation not a created process so the only real evidence is that the process exists the explanation for it may in truth have nothing to do with the acutal explanation if there is more factors that we do not take into account.

I'd really like to have that faith that without intervention everything could be ok thats what people with religion have. They have this type of a savior no matter how much the world decays and turns rotten and that hope that one day their savior will help them in the world's time of greatest need I'd like to have that faith but unfornatly I cannot just close my eyes to the flaws that exist in everything.

Last edited by Abangyarudo on 16 Dec 2007, 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ghosts was an example of something that was a middleground between spiritualism and science. If you don't think there has ever been anything that science couldn't explain that are real then your wrong there are acutal cases where ghosts left physical evidence. Example being there was a ghost in a cemeretary I believe down in the southern states who was often see holding the bars of a cemetary door. The bars were found partially melted not anything exaggererated but approximatly where the ghost was supposedly holding them.

This was examined and there was no logical reason as to why it was melted now scientists ran to say that it was a hoax etc etc but its shaky ground to stand on. First a scientist claimed it was a hoax perputated by the owners of that particular cemetary to attract tourism. Don't ask me how that makes sense. His first claim was that they used a blow torch the original examiner backed up his claim by scientifically explaining why a blow torch couldn't be used with reasoning including the small localized area which was almost fingers shaped expect for the parts where it was theorized her hands were, as well as the extreme heat which was more then a blow torch I forget the acutal degrees.

In the end ghosts was an example of something that spiritualists believe and science cannot disprove if I used anything else you would cite some fanatic theorists view of why its impossible but like a religion their fanaticism leads to them using explanations that fly in the face of the conventional reasoning. Which means they are drawing at straws neither am I trying to prove religion what I am saying is that the belief in religion is not any more proven then religion's in my view so your bashing of other people on here has no real merit and shows a want of unbiased opinion instead of acutal facts and a legitmiate leg to stand on.

Computer is a tool plain and simple and lets remember the various people who have contributed to the existance of this have been from varrying religions so if we are to assume science as religion then its not exclusive to that religion.

These are combination of "Ad hominem","Straw man" and "Appear to ridicule"logical fallacies:

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



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



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





This is "Ad hominem" & "Appeal to ridicule"




Haha,what a hypocrite!




Same errors that you make constantly?




This is "Poisoning the well" logical fallacy.

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






This is "Ad hominem"



This is "Argument from ignorance"

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





This is "Ad hominem" & "argument from personal belief"

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





This is variation of "Argument from ignorance" fallacy,plus some elements of "Appeal to ridicule " fallacy.




Hypocrite alert!



"Appeal to ridicule" again,plus "Ad hominem" at the end.



This is "Argument from ignorance" again.




"Ad hominem" & "Straw man" fallacies again.



This is classic example of "Poisoning the well" fallacy.

To repeat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well



P.S


It is always funny to see pseudo-intellectual bullies how they refute thinking of opponents as 'logically fallacious',while they use these same logical fallacies to support that claim.

Witt, give it up, you don't know how to apply logical falacies to save your life. I'm not about to reply to that list of non-sequiturs

wow your good admitedly I dunno much about the rules of logic. Though sometimes it comes off to me asI means to only advance personal agendas then find objective truth but that could be more in the way of how I've seen it used as opposed to how it is supposed to be used

Does that mean that the opponent is the same?

Very interesting, which I believe those logical fallacies are used because of the emotional response ayone has when defending an idea or ideals, remember that emotions like anger and frustration, pretty much can blind logic and you can miss the real picture, so this happens a lot everywhere, and here as well, after all, we have emotions and that's pretty hard sometimes.

About the "argument from personal belief", interesting, and makes sense, but I say that almost all people, most likely all people here have used that, as it is the easiest to fall into.

I believe this should be stickied here on the PPR forum as rules for debating.

"meaningless word salad" is a pretty good summary of Postmodern "thought." IIRC the philosophical term used to describe such nonsense is "Category Error."

Perhaps...but opponent has not started with these claims.Opponent just show how inconsistent is his rival that claim consistency and logic.




Problem in Theist vs Atheist discussion is that Theists mostly claim that they believe because of emotional and existential reasons (most,but not all),and therefore,even if they are making logical fallacies,at least they are consistent with their personal belief that is not based on logic in the first place.

On other side Atheists,deny Theists even the right of privacy,by denying their personal beliefs on 'objective basis'.
Aggressive Atheists who claim to be 'logical ones',and who attack and insult others,but create logical fallacies (almost constantly),are therefore inconsistent with their own claims.

As we see such types of Atheists,are clearly not 'objective'.

I couldn't've said it better myself. These Abangyarudo and Witt characters are full of this solipsistic nihlism. It gives me headaches trying to wade trough it all.

That's OK, Witt doesn't either. I couldn't find one of his "rebuttals" that wasn't a non-sequitur of somekind.

that was to witt and I understood it perfectly and it made perfect sense to me.

Marked part is 'Ad hominem' fallacy,second one is 'Argument from personal (dis)belief'.




'Ad hominem' in first sentence, 'Straw man'&'Appeal to ridicule' fallacies in the second.

so if I may ask witt what is your opinion on the discussion?

Birds of a feather......

Maybe all I know is I tire of your inability to acutally offer any discussion more then "you're a moron because you don't agree with me" defenses that reek of the same deficiencies you claim in my arguements. Which in reality is merely a disguise for your frustration that you cannot refute my arguements against your "religion." I guess I may acutally start discussing it again when you acutally have something to offer this discussion. Witt makes a analysis and backs it up with evidence while you post some rules from logic seemingly unaware you violated many of the rules that you try to proclaim as the basis of your defense. It seems more likely an emotional response of frustration and fear that you cannot defend your religion as vehementally as you wish you could.

I in turn acutally want to have a discussion and hear witts point of view since he acutally backs up his assertions with evidence and reason. Since we're on the subject you and Odin seem to flock together as well. Thats cool enjoy it you can go around and persecute people and try to put down people to really show how far your scars run. In the meantime I'm looking for a bit more intellecutal conversations. Me and Witt may not agree but atleast we can discuss and respect eachother's opinions which where I comes from separates men from children.

According to my personal experience with internet forums,I believe that these kind of conversations can go indefinitely.

When one person has made up his mind,and have personal belief(in something),then its pointless to convince this other to understand opinion that is opposite of his belief.

So 'prove me that your belief is right and that mine is wrong' discussions are pointless.
Since people will always interpret and rationalize reality according with their own belief system.

Problem in here is not discussion itself,but aggressive intolerance and ad hominem attacks from 'enlightened ones'.

And this intolerance supports the point of original poster,and the name of this thread.