nevermore wrote:

On 3 Nov 2005 08:44:24 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:

nevermore wrote:

On 2 Nov 2005 07:09:22 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:

nevermore wrote:

On 1 Nov 2005 19:41:07 -0800, "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason
Gastrich's effort" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:

nevermore wrote:

That's ridiculous. The entire premise of atheism is the assertion
that there is no god.

Oops, wrong again. The only "premise" of atheism is lack of theism,
hence the term, "atheism," with means "without theism." This has been
pointed out to you more than once.

<LOL> Your logic is seriously flawed...

You're trying to redefine what atheism is; I'm just correcting you.
How is that flawed logic?

No response?

You're out here arguing with theists, and that totally destroys your
"premise" claim because you cannot argue a belief or a lack of belief,
since one's beliefs are entirely subjective.

So when a theist stomps into alt.atheism and says, "You really believe
in god, you just hate him," atheists should just agree?

Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise.

Why do you lie? Why do you ignore what is written? Why do you ignore
reality? YOU keep insisting there's more to the atheist position; YOU
keep claiming "atheists are lying about their beliefs, because they
keep asking theists for evidence of their assertions;" YOU keep
insisting that lack of belief is a belief.

When a theist

says, "You can't be moral because you don't believe in god," an atheist
shouldn't defend him or herself? When a theist says, "My god is real,
and you better believe in him or else," an atheist should refrain from
saying, "I don't believe you; do you have any objective, verifiable
evidence?"

What makes you think you can't argue the validity of a belief?

Well, as I said, the *validity* of beliefs is exactly what you are
arguing, not that you have no beliefs, as you claim to be the only
premise that is involved.

You're babbling. Theists claim "gods exist." Atheists respond "I
don't believe you."

Actually, atheists don't respond that way at all, they argue that the
theists beliefs aren't valid and that is, in itself, expressing a
belief...

Feel free to continue lying, just be aware that it isn't getting you
anywhere.

At which point, you jump in and start whining,
"You can't know gods don't exist, therefore you have a belief." You're
inventing a position for atheists so you can knock it down. There's a
word for that.

....and I think it's pretty funny that you'd argue that atheists don't
claim that God doesn't exist.

Golly, did I say that? Nope.

If, as you say, the only premise you were arguing here was your "lack
of theism," there would be nothing to argue about.

If theists would leave it alone, you'd be correct. But they don't, and
you aren't. As has been pointed out, theists almost ALWAYS argue from
the position that their belief is REAL, and refuse to grant that
someone else might think otherwise (although I have seen an extremely
limited few who admit the atheist position is the more rational one).

So if they argue that their beliefs is real, and you argue that it
isn't real, you have gone beyond what you say your premise is and now
you're arguing that there is no God.

Please, keep ignoring what I've said. It makes you seem so
intelligent. Atheists don't care what theists believe;

<LOL> ....and yet the fact that you argue with them destroys that claim....

How? How does saying, "If you're going to insist I accept your
assertions, expect to be asked for support" negate my lack of belief?

the problem, as
I keep pointing out, is that the vast majority of theists get really
upset when atheists don't fall to their knees and say, "Oh, I don't
know how I ever could have doubted you! Of COURSE your god exists!
I'll get busy worshipping! THANK YOU, JEEBUS!"

You should actually listen to what theists say before spouting off.

A person dealing
only with that premise would have nothing to say except an expression
of their own "lack of theism" and nobody in their right mind argues
that somebody doesn't really believe what they say they believe.

Oops, you're wrong again. Almost every day, we get some idiot barging
in to alt.atheism insisting we really believe in god, we've just got a
grudge. Or we get some idiot insisting "The entire premise of atheism
is the assertion that there is no god".

<LOL> Then why are you always arguing against people who say there
is a God if you say you have no beliefs at all involving God? If you
really have no beliefs at all about God, you would simply say, "I have
no beliefs about God." As soon as you start arguing about the
validity of a theists beliefs, you have gone beyond the premise of "no
beliefs."

You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? You just ignoring
anything I say; it's like talking to a wall.

I'm just pointing out the fallacy of claiming that you don't have any
beliefs about God whilst at the same time you claim that people who
believe in God are wrong.

How is it a fallacy to refuse to accept someone's unsupported
assertion? How is it a fallacy to point out that self-contradictory
things can't exist?

I'll try again, even
though I know it's a wasted effort. If someone asks if I believe in
deities, I'll say no. If they're polite enough to ask WHY I don't
believe in deities (which rarely happens; usually it's along the lines
of "why do you hate god?"), I'll tell them. If they ignore my response
(like you keep doing), or think they have some convincing argument and
insist I should believe in their god, I'll ask for evidence of their
claims.

I also think it's pretty funny how you try to portray your entire
philosophy about God in terms of what other people believe.

Congratulations; you again failed to read what was written.

So obviously, the premise that you are arguing here, indeed the only
logical premise that can be argued on this issue, has to do with the
validity of beliefs (ie) the existence of a god.

You're not paying attention, are you? Atheists don't have to prove the
existence or the nonexistence of god; that isn't a law written somewhere.

<LOL> Then why do you argue it?

I don't; I ask for evidence. Why do you lie about what I say?

So, I'm supposed to believe that you don't ever proclaim that there is
no God? Sorry, I don;t believe you.

You've demonstrated your beliefs are suspect. Please, I beg you, point
out where I've ever said no deities exist. You betray your beliefs by
constantly referring to "God," rather than "a god" or "gods" or
"deities." You assume the xtian god is real.

The only requirement to be an atheist is to not be theist.
That's the premise. That's the logic. The atheist can have
unsupported, or well-supported, reasons for the lack of theism.

BTW, your failure to see the simple logic I laid out above puts the
validity of your entire belief system in serious doubt.

What logic? You've made a series of assertions based on your incorrect
interpretation of what atheism is.

<LOL> And you've claimed that the only premise of atheism is a lack of belief in God,

Which you claim I'm lying about.

Actually, I just think you're too stupid to se that you do indeed have beliefs.

No, dear. I have lots of beliefs. I just happen to lack beliefs
regarding deities.

and you destroy that claim by arguing the validity of theists' beliefs,

You have yet to explain how my pointing out flaws in logic, or asking
for evidence, "destroys my claim" that I lack belief.

Actually, I don't believe that you have any concept of what a flaw in
logic is. Why don't you provide me an example of you doing that.

You made the assertion, bunky. What's the matter, can't back it up?

Here're some of the fallacies you're committing:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the
error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated
an idea, rather than the idea itself.

For example, in this post, you tried "Actually, I just think you're too
stupid to se that you do indeed have beliefs."

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by
repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying
it again and again.

(one of your favorites, it seems)
"Actually, if you had no beliefs about God, you would simply say, "no,
I have no beliefs about God, but instead you argue about the existence
of God, which destroys your premise."

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This
is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be
true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping.

From above: "A person dealing only with that premise would have nothing

to say except an expression of their own "lack of theism" and nobody in
their right mind argues that somebody doesn't really believe what they
say they believe."

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of
stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from
the premises.

"You're out here arguing with theists, and that totally destroys your
"premise" claim because you cannot argue a belief or a lack of belief,
since one's beliefs are entirely subjective."

Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of
assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are
trying prove.

"So obviously, the premise that you are arguing here, indeed the only
logical premise that can be argued on this issue, has to do with the
validity of beliefs (ie) the existence of a god."

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing
irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

"Actually, I don't believe that you have any concept of what a flaw in
logic is. Why don't you provide me an example of you doing that."

"BTW, your failure to see the simple logic I laid out above puts the
validity of your entire belief system in serious doubt."

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme
version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've
made.

From up this thread a few posts: "The entire premise of atheism is the

assertion that there is no god."

I'm sure there are more.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:49:57 -0500, wbarwell
<wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:

Les Hellawell wrote:

*********

Nevertheless he makes a valid point you did not attempt
to address the logic of his argument but simply dismissed it.

You clearly did not even read the opening qualification of his
argument which makes it clear he was discussing gods
*as claimed* by several religions not all gods claimed
and possibly unknown.

Here it is. Your preciuous widdle god cannot exist.
I can prove it, and you can't deal with the evidence.

No, Bill, you can't prove it because you can't disprove all
the possible evidence simply because you cannot have seen all
the possible evidence. Nor is it possible for you to disprove
the existance of all possible Gods.

Re-read his opening statement.

Also note his argument is based on logic not evidence. He
is (if I understand his argument) trying to prove that the
claimed gods are not logically possible.

Exactly. I have no evidence to work with.

exactly....

IOW, it cannot be proven either way....

I have only theistic claims. I can thus only
examine claims made about god.

Additionally, given your obvious predisposition to disbelief I
think it's reasonable to doubt you're objective enough to judge
evidence for God one way or the other.

Your response?

Re-read his opening statement, then the argument showing where
the flaws (if any) are. He gave you a closely argued statement, if
you dispute and reject it the onus is on you demonstrate that.

I have not attempted to work though his argument myself but then I
am not dismissing it or accepting it either. I would put it to
Christians that their best strategy would also be to just ignore
it and pretend it does not exist.

Its simple enough an argument.
I base it on overarching claims found in all the major
religions.

Omni-everything, creator gods turn out to be disprovable.

There are other kinds of gods, also in many
cases, disprovable.

One can easily create a claim, say Mickey Mouse lives
on Neptune and runs the Universe using magic that is
not disprovable as such, but such things are pretty
silly.

But when a belief has claims that create contradictions,
that belief is impossible.

--

Steve