Delusion In Most Atheists?

Author: BrutalTruth

Posts

Total: 506
Topic's author
#211
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
So are you saying you are more than the physical? Your reply suggests more. 

Any sentient being is both physical and mental. However, physical makeup provides for mental makeup

A priori - from that which is before.
Incorrect.

a pri·o·ri
/ˌā prīˈôrī/
adjective

  1. 1.
    relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
Before you existed, before living things existed, supposedly from a naturalist of a humanistic framework, devoid of God, all there would be is matter. How does matter produce something that is non-material, abstract in nature, non-physical, such as the laws of logic, or abstract thinking, living, conscious beings?
I'm not a scientist, thus I do not claim to know. However, ignorance doesn't justify making assumptions based on speculation, which is exactly what theists do.

If he was directed by God he knew it. 
If the Christian god exists, yes.

How can a prophet 100's of years removed set it into motion, and by a foreign power?
There is a plethora of possibilities, some of which I've already pointed out. As to how the prophet actually did it, who knows? Maybe it was a god. Maybe it was any number of possible things. The point is speculation proves nothing, and that's all you are doing. Speculating. Your entire argument is: "I can't explain it any other way, so it must have happened this way." Absence of evidence is not evidence for. That is pure speculation.

The prophet was only telling what he heard God say. 
Supposedly. Again, that is not a proven fact.

I know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.
Correction, you know someone said it was.

I know that the OT book of Daniel was written before the 1st-century.
Correction, you know someone said it was.

I know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that house the book of Isaiah is around 97% accurate in comparison to the earliest OT Jewish texts found, other than the Christian Bible.
You just inadvertently admitted that you don't actually know they're accurate.

I know Isaiah and the other biblical (OT) manuscripts predate the 1st-century too.
Correction, you know someone said they do.

For some of the rest, where external history is not available, I have good reason to believe. It logically and reasonably makes sense.  
A fool once said "Speculation is a logical reason to believe."

I use my subjective mind, my reason, and my five senses in conjunction with the biblical revelation (God's divine word and law) to interpret what I experience by the five senses filtering into my subjective abstract mind aided by the rational thought of Someone else.
That's a real fancy way of saying "He said it's true, so it must be true."  Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I could go on and on defeating your arguments at every turn, but this is getting boring. Let's move on.
#212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
So are you saying you are more than the physical? Your reply suggests more. 

Any sentient being is both physical and mental. However, physical makeup provides for mental makeup
So, explain to me how mental or abstract comes from matter?


A priori - from that which is before.
Incorrect.

a pri·o·ri
/ˌā prīˈôrī/
adjective

  1. 1.
    relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.

A priori, Latin for "from the former", is traditionally contrasted with a posteriori. The term usually describes lines of reasoning or arguments that proceed from the general to the particular, or from causes to effects...a priori knowledge is knowledge that comes from the power of reasoning based on self-evident truths. 


I'm asking how such reasoning comes from a solely materialistic universe?

Where does consciousness come from? You take it for granted that it can come from a material universe. My worldview makes sense. From a necessary Mind comes other minds. From a conscious Being come other conscious beings. Intelligent Being gives rise to order and reason and other intelligent beings. From the living comes other living beings. From the meaningful comes meaning. 

Before you existed, before living things existed, supposedly from a naturalist of a humanistic framework, devoid of God, all there would be is matter. How does matter produce something that is non-material, abstract in nature, non-physical, such as the laws of logic, or abstract thinking, living, conscious beings?
I'm not a scientist, thus I do not claim to know. However, ignorance doesn't justify making assumptions based on speculation, which is exactly what theists do.
Some things are common sense and self-evident. Reason it out. If there is no God what is left? You have no personal Mind involved. What is left? Reason it out. If there is no intention and agency behind the universe, then what is left? If there is a cause to the universe (i.e., it had a beginning)  then something caused it because I fail to see how something can come from nothing. Can you show something can? Explain to me how something that doesn't exist creates itself? If the universe is eternal explain how we ever get to the present. 

My Christian worldview is reasonable and it can make sense of the universe. It gives an answer to the why questions that is satisfactory. I'm waiting to see if yours can and apparently it can't. You admit you don't have the answers and can't make sense of it.


You called yourself an agnostic. 

Agnosticism, (from Greek agnōstos, “unknowable”), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience.

Yet here you speak of a priori knowledge.



If he was directed by God he knew it. 
If the Christian god exists, yes.

How can a prophet 100's of years removed set it into motion, and by a foreign power?
There is a plethora of possibilities, some of which I've already pointed out. As to how the prophet actually did it, who knows? Maybe it was a god. Maybe it was any number of possible things. The point is speculation proves nothing, and that's all you are doing. Speculating. Your entire argument is: "I can't explain it any other way, so it must have happened this way."
Absence of evidence is not evidence for. That is pure speculation.
You can make up as many what-ifs as you want but are they reasonable? Is the Christian faith a reasonable faith? Yes, it is. Is your faith a reasonable faith? Probably not if you believe the material universe is the answer to what we see. Are you speculating beyond what is reasonable? Very likely. Are you being unreasonable about historic evidence? I believe you are. I think your bias comes shining through. IMO, you have a beef, a grudge against the Christian God who you deny??? To me, it becomes evident in your focus on God's omnibenevolence. I just read part of your omnibenevolent debate argument and I see a misunderstanding. That is my opinion. We will see what others think when we debate this issue. 

#213
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth


The prophet was only telling what he heard God say. 
Supposedly. Again, that is not a proven fact.

It is what is said (fact) in the historical manuscripts, many manuscripts. Do YOU have reasonable evidence to the contrary?

I am appealing to the reasonableness of the evidence as to what it says. If you (generic and specific; applying to both) don't want to talk about reason and what makes sense then it limits the discussion to any fanciful thing. 

Much of this history can be confirmed by external evidence and eyewitness accounts. Is that reasonable? 

Simon Greenleaf looking at the eyewitness accounts of the NT thought so. He was influential in crafting the criteria for evidence and eyewitness testimony used in US law. 

"Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century."


I know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.
Correction, you know someone said it was.
If you doubt all history you are not reasonable. Did Ronald Ragan live or did someone put on a mask and make the character up? Napolean existed or are those photos of someone else - a fictitious character made up? Are all the references to him just fictitious? Is there a single thing we can know about him? You seem to be implying that the answer is no, at least with ancient history. This seems like postmodern thinking to my mind. Postmoderns form their own narrative.

Are you being reasonable?


I know that the OT book of Daniel was written before the 1st-century.
Correction, you know someone said it was.
They have been dated by experts. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or is the statement reasonable to believe?

Are your beliefs regarding history reasonable to believe?

I know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that house the book of Isaiah is around 97% accurate in comparison to the earliest OT Jewish texts found, other than the Christian Bible.
You just inadvertently admitted that you don't actually know they're accurate.
What are the discrepancies? Are they mainly grammatical and spelling errors, or copying errors of some kind by the scribes? Are there any doctrinal changes? 


I know Isaiah and the other biblical (OT) manuscripts predate the 1st-century too.
Correction, you know someone said they do.
Is it reasonable to believe? Can anything be believed? Who are you going to trust?

According to some scholars, the Great Isaiah Scroll dates back to 200 B.C. (Take it for what it is worth, an appeal to authority)

"Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and from the first century CE."


For some of the rest, where external history is not available, I have good reason to believe. It logically and reasonably makes sense.  
A fool once said "Speculation is a logical reason to believe."
 One reason to believe it is the unity of Scripture. As I said, 66 different books, 44 different authors, all having central themes in common. Something is either reasonable or it is not. 

#214
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

I use my subjective mind, my reason, and my five senses in conjunction with the biblical revelation (God's divine word and law) to interpret what I experience by the five senses filtering into my subjective abstract mind aided by the rational thought of Someone else.
That's a real fancy way of saying "He said it's true, so it must be true."  Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Appeal to authority is something we can't avoid doing and the appeals are often valid. Most of us try to justify our argument by appealing to an authority. Some make the authority themselves; others use their 'experts.' The problem is when we make an appeal to authority and the authority has no proficiency or ability in the matter, or we make an appeal to an authority and not give evidence to their authority on the subject matter. The Bible does give evidence of the authority contained within. It appeals to history and nature as evidence that is reasonable. Do those things confirm His truth? They give credence to the argument. It also makes the case that there is no higher court of appeal. If God is God then this is true. 

It is my worldview I am describing to you above like you described your worldview to me in your OP. You have appealed to yourself as your authority on any subject matter yet when I describe to you that I look outside of my subjective self alone because I list God you accuse me of the fallacy of appealing to authority. We all appeal to what we consider our greatest authority or else why would we believe what we do? We believe what we do because we see it as authoritative.

Whenever you look at a person's worldview they have a side they pick and believe it to be so because of the evidence and authority of that position. You looking at the Bible in the way you do means you think your view is correct and authoritative over my view. Your bias and the way you look at the evidence leads you to that conclusion. You claim you are your own expert, your own authority. Is that an Argumentum ad verecundiam? 

I also realize that you could heap the appeal to ignorance argument on me when discussing God since you cannot disprove Him and then I challenge you to disprove Him. Since you can't disprove Him I then could say my conclusion is true, which can be argued as possibly not true. Your inability to disprove Him doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion I make is true.

If the biblical God is true (and I believe it fully to be the case yet you do not) then what He said would be the highest authority that can be appealed to and it would not be wrong. It is only a fallacious appeal to authority if the authority is false or not credible. Unless you can establish He is not who He is (and you have admitted you can't know with certainty) how do you know my belief and authority is fallacious? If I appeal to a fallible expert I would have a probable conclusion, since he could still be mistaken. But if God is true and He is the expert, then I'm not using a fallible expert as infallible but an infallible one as infallible. 


I could go on and on defeating your arguments at every turn, but this is getting boring. Let's move on.
So, you have read books or visited websites on fallacies. So have I. I still find it difficult in avoiding them.

Three books in my library I have read:
Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language, The Language Trap, by S. Morris Engel
With Good Reason, An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, by S. Morris Engel



Topic's author
#215
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Look dude, you're trying to prove something is "true" here. Logical fallacies exist for a reason, and that reason is: To point out errors in logic and falsehoods in proof in order to ensure that something is actually proven true. If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then that argument has not proven something to be true. If you can't prove something to be true, then there is one very simple conclusion: You cannot know it's true.

If logical fallacies are unavoidable in arguing for what you believe, then what you believe can't be proven true, which means you believe something is true when you don't know it is, which is the definition of delusion. It's as simple as that.
#216
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth


Look dude, you're trying to prove something is "true" here.
I'm trying to give reasonable evidence. And yes, I certainly believe God is true. 

BUT...

How could I prove something true to those who do not want to believe, even if it was true? I can try and persuade you at best. You WILL NOT accept the Christian God if you do not believe He exists, but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure? A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt. I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me. 

Logical fallacies exist for a reason, and that reason is: To point out errors in logic and falsehoods in proof in order to ensure that something is actually proven true. If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then that argument has not proven something to be true. If you can't prove something to be true, then there is one very simple conclusion: You cannot know it's true.
Yes, they exist for a reason. I'm willing to learn.

Listing every logical fallacy in Latin can certainly make a person look like a genius but are their charges true to the fallacy? I would invite you to explain them, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of any other dummy like me reading this thread. It also gives me a chance to interact and question the validity of the claim.


If logical fallacies are unavoidable in arguing for what you believe, then what you believe can't be proven true, which means you believe something is true when you don't know it is, which is the definition of delusion. It's as simple as that.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). It does not necessarily follow that it can't be proven true, or that I don't know it is true. It could be that I'm not good at expressing it well enough to prove it true, not that it is necessarily a delusion.

Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.

Because I may not, can't, or don't express it well enough does not necessarily make what I believe false.  
#217
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
It could be that I'm not good at expressing it well enough to prove it true

Why not ask god for the right words? Doesn't he talk to you?
#218
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Sorely an omnipotent omniscient being could tell you what to say.
Topic's author
#219
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
How could I prove something true to those who do not want to believe, even if it was true? I can try and persuade you at best. You WILL NOT accept the Christian God if you do not believe He exists,

I believe you exist. Is it because I want to believe you exist? No. Frankly I don't really care whether you exist or not. Can I not accept that you exist? What difference does it make whether I accept your existence or not? Your existence is a fact of reality. I have undeniable proof of your existence. To deny that you exist would be denial of reality(delusion).

Your god, on the other hand, does not undeniably exist, and whether or not I want it to exist is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it does. Your assertion here makes no sense at all. As if what I want to believe has any ability to affect what is. I'm not a magical wizard, nor a god. I'm a human who can't conjure entities with my beliefs.

but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure?
Go figure? I guess you don't find grievance with someone who orders infanticide, genocide, rape, murder and a plethora of other atrocities? Who is the morally skewed person now?

A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt.
A skeptic is intelligent enough to question claims of truth, instead of believing in fairy tales.

I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me. 
I'm still waiting for this "reasonable defense."

Yes, they exist for a reason. I'm willing to learn.
And I'm willing to teach.

Listing every logical fallacy in Latin can certainly make a person look like a genius but are their charges true to the fallacy? I would invite you to explain them, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of any other dummy like me reading this thread. It also gives me a chance to interact and question the validity of the claim.
This is very reasonable. I didn't explain because I took you for someone who understands them already. The last logical fallacy I accused you of I actually did explain to you, in a sense. I said your argument basically states that "He said it's true, so it must be true." That is the essence of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appeal to authority." Just because someone says something is true, doesn't mean it is. Your argument rests on the word of a supposed god, therefore it is invalid. You must prove this god's claim.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). It does not necessarily follow that it can't be proven true, or that I don't know it is true.
That is true, however, you specifically said that logical fallacies are unavoidable for your arguments. That means your arguments cannot be proven true. Did you misspeak? If so, rephrase.

Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.
I list logical fallacies for one reason only: To do exactly what they're intended to do, which is: Show an argument to be invalid.

If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then you have two options: Either fix the argument, or admit defeat.

Because I may not, can't, or don't express it well enough does not necessarily make what I believe false.  
This is also true, however, if you can't articulate an argument well enough to prove it, then honestly you probably shouldn't be on a debate site.
Topic's author
#220
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorely an omnipotent omniscient being could tell you what to say.

One would think.
#221
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@BrutalTruth
I was a believer right up until I examined my beliefs for logical flaws. Did you ever believe?
Topic's author
#222
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I thought I did, when I was a kid. Then I grew up and realized I can't know.
#223
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorely an omnipotent omniscient being could tell you what to say.
Things come to mind as I write. I don't see the full picture. And I pray for guidance but God is not a cosmic butler at my every whim. His word is my guide, rightly discerned. God is able but I am not always. 

#224
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
That is decidedly inconvenient for you, and also for god if what he wants is for me too believe in him. Or maybe the reason he isn't inspiring you is that when you think you are talking to god you are actually talking to yourself. 
#225
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I like to picture god trying to prove his god to sec mur. 
Topic's author
#226
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Essentially what Christians experience as "divine connection" is the interpretation of an emotion felt when "engaging" their god. They believe this emotion comes from this god, and the thoughts thereafter are placed in their minds by this god, and positive events that happen in their lives are set into motion by this god. Every bit of it is defeated with 5 little words: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
#227
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@BrutalTruth
I am not the one you need to convince. Also this holds true for theists other than christian.
Topic's author
#228
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm aware. I'm just commenting.
#229
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

How could I prove something true to those who do not want to believe, even if it was true? I can try and persuade you at best. You WILL NOT accept the Christian God if you do not believe He exists,

I believe you exist. Is it because I want to believe you exist? No. Frankly I don't really care whether you exist or not. Can I not accept that you exist? What difference does it make whether I accept your existence or not? Your existence is a fact of reality. I have undeniable proof of your existence. To deny that you exist would be denial of reality(delusion).

Your god, on the other hand, does not undeniably exist, and whether or not I want it to exist is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it does. Your assertion here makes no sense at all. As if what I want to believe has any ability to affect what is. I'm not a magical wizard, nor a god. I'm a human who can't conjure entities with my beliefs.
Again (and I speak from the heart), you will never convince me otherwise concerning God since a worldview that begins with matter has no ultimate meaning. There is no good or bad in it, just preference. It can't explain itself with anything but speculation and subjective opinion. Yet you find meaning and create it in a meaningless universe, for what? Nothing - no reason ultimately. What do you have to offer, your meaningless truth? Why should I value that in a meaningless universe? No reason. 

He does exist for millions. Could it be you lack understanding of this God or that you do not want to understand Him because you look upon yourself in His place?


but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure?
Go figure? I guess you don't find grievance with someone who orders infanticide, genocide, rape, murder and a plethora of other atrocities? Who is the morally skewed person now?
With a non-existent being? Why would I? You keep claiming He does not exist yet you have grievances with Him.

I'm sure we will be at loggerheads with this topic in our upcoming debate then.


A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt.
A skeptic is intelligent enough to question claims of truth, instead of believing in fairy tales.
You have not proved it is a fairy tale. You have just asserted it. Assertions are easy. The proof is not so easy.


I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me. 
I'm still waiting for this "reasonable defense."
Easy to say. 

You do not accept the reasonableness of history. End of discussion.

Without belief in history, all you can know is the present. So, stay in the present. 


Yes, they exist for a reason. I'm willing to learn.
And I'm willing to teach.
Good, then please explain them in the future, not just list them. I want to iron them out with you, not simply take your word for my committing them. 


Listing every logical fallacy in Latin can certainly make a person look like a genius but are their charges true to the fallacy? I would invite you to explain them, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of any other dummy like me reading this thread. It also gives me a chance to interact and question the validity of the claim.
This is very reasonable. I didn't explain because I took you for someone who understands them already. The last logical fallacy I accused you of I actually did explain to you, in a sense. I said your argument basically states that "He said it's true, so it must be true." That is the essence of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appeal to authority." Just because someone says something is true, doesn't mean it is. Your argument rests on the word of a supposed god, therefore it is invalid. You must prove this god's claim.
An appeal to authority is sound and valid if the authority is true and an expert authority. I have given reasons why it is reasonable to believe in this authority. Prophecy is one of those reasons. The evidence of what is said corresponds to history. The only thing standing of the temple today is the Western Wall which is not part of the temple itself.

Making sense of origins, existence, meaning are other areas of evidence that is reasonable to believe. Since you don't seem to believe in history, or at least have given me that impression we will have to move onto another topic.

My thoughts are that no matter what I offer, overall, I believe you will deny it without discussion unless the topic sparks an interest. So I look forward to our debate on God's omnibenevolence. 

From a worldview that is not sure about origins, how can you be sure there is not God? You have already admitted in your OP you can't, yet you deny Him as you pile on your grievances against Him. That spells inconsistency. Something it not right. 

#230
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth


Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). It does not necessarily follow that it can't be proven true, or that I don't know it is true.
That is true, however, you specifically said that logical fallacies are unavoidable for your arguments. That means your arguments cannot be proven true. Did you misspeak? If so, rephrase.
I just pointed out the fallacy you committed by giving a scenario in which your statement would be false. I also argued for the authority of the biblical God as infallible provided He exists. I also questioned why your stated authority is what it claims to be?

I did not think I did specifically state, but I will grant that they are with all mortal persons, including you, including me. I would never admit to every argument I make as being false. I have not seen one yet that you pointed out in which I agree with as being false in our discussion. However, you have shut done the topic with your claims about history. There is no point in further discussion because of your bazaar view of history (if I understand what you have said correctly).  My experience is that I can't convince someone who denies history has truth to it.


Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.
I list logical fallacies for one reason only: To do exactly what they're intended to do, which is: Show an argument to be invalid.

If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then you have two options: Either fix the argument, or admit defeat.
Okay, then I will be listening for you to point them out and see if your case is as you claim it to be.


Because I may not, can't, or don't express it well enough does not necessarily make what I believe false.  
This is also true, however, if you can't articulate an argument well enough to prove it, then honestly you probably shouldn't be on a debate site.

That is a low blow. But what can you prove about origins, morals, God?

As soon as you make an assertion against my claim the burden of proof shifts to you to prove it. 

#231
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin



That is decidedly inconvenient for you, and also for god if what he wants is for me too believe in him. Or maybe the reason he isn't inspiring you is that when you think you are talking to god you are actually talking to yourself. 
God inspires me all the time by thinking of His majesty and grace. I do not forget who is in control. It is not I.
#232
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Can you demonstrate this majesty and grace or are you merely asserting it? Understand that in the absence of evidence I have no choice but to reject your claim.
#233
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
If logical fallacies are unavoidable in arguing for what you believe, then what you believe can't be proven true, which means you believe something is true when you don't know it is, which is the definition of delusion. 
I don't think delusion means what you think it means.

Do you think the truth exists?


#234
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you mean by reject?  

#235
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Can you demonstrate this majesty and grace or are you merely asserting it? Understand that in the absence of evidence I have no choice but to reject your claim.
You keep talking as if the goal of the theist is your acceptance of his claim, and that your rejection is feared and of highest import.

This is why you don't answer questions but behave on the board as if you are evaluating theists who have brought their beliefs to you for validation.

Everyone is here debating. No one will be shattered if you reject a claim. No one is afraid of your rejection. Just argue your point and stop telling us how you will have "no choice" but to reject claims.

You aren't nearly as bright or as important as you think you are.






#236
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@BrutalTruth
I love how you can tell what is and isn't emotionally real to people cause you have special powers I guess. LOL
#237
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Plisken
it mean he thinks you area  psychotic liar. 
#238
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Plisken
I mean do not accept. I do not need to accept any position to reject yours.
#239
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
I have no evidence for or against any god(s) in the same way I have no evidence for it against any ghosts or Bigfoot or flying teapots. My only claim is that we do not have any sufficient evidence and in the absence of evidence the reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief. You are welcome to your beliefs but if you don't care about convincing people of them what are you doing on a debate sight?
#240
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Incorrect.