- Me - Hey, let's talk about consciousness!
- Others - No, prove God first
- Me - Hey, let's talk about morality!
- Others- No, prove God first
- Me - Hey, let's talk about evolution!
- Others - No, that doesn't prove God
I've coined the term The Straw God Fallacy to describe the behavior of rebutting a Christian's argument, by attacking a Christian's beliefs.
I don't argue religiously. If this were a Catholic forum, my discussions would take a Religious approach. But a Biblical approach is wasted on an atheist audience. I focus on making non-religious, scientific, and philosophical arguments. I present my responses in whatever way I think they are most likely to be received and agreed upon. I don't think I've ever made an argument on these forums, which require God's existance. If I have they are few and far between.
Labels are useful tools, but they must be used properly. People tend to see my label and not my arguments. They think that refuting my label, is a valid rebuttal to my arguments. For example, if you disagree with my arguments on subjective morality, you might be tempted to attack the Bible's morality, as if by default my argument is also refuted. Or if you disagree with my arguments on evolution, you might be tempted to attack Young Earth Creationism, as if by debunking it, my position is weakened.
The constant request for evidence of God is particularly interesting. As far as I'm concerned, God doesn't exist for the purposes of these discussions. Whatever my personal beliefs are outside these forum, shouldn't be inferred or supposed unless I use them in my arguments. I've even been asked emphatically for evidence of souls before, which is funny given that my denomination doesn't believe in souls.
Address my arguments, not my Christian label.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You don't have any valid arguments Breezy. That's the point. Don't play the victim game here. Won't work.
You constantly use your self perceived cleverness to derail a topic, insult people who actually answer you, then here you claim to be a victim?
In the words of the immortal and revered Mykcob. Do fuck off.
I'm not being victimized lol. I too make assumptions about Cyber's atheism. She corrects me and we move on. I'm offering my Rules of Engagement for those that wish to have productive discussions with me.
No one cares, get over yourself.
Also no one expects any evidence for god, the superstitious have had thousands of years and failed to produce one shred of objective evidence. You're preaching unicorn husbandry as far as I'm concerned.
I’m using this term more often.
I wouldn't JoC it will lead to the same responses.
Apart from that at least you are up front in your prejudices and 'reasoning'. I would rather debate you on Catholic fallacies than play clever games for no discernable result.
Yes. that is a compliment. Stick to what you do.
Catholic fallacies?
@JoC Catholic fallacies?
How about the virgin birth?
Oh that reminds me. Didn't you say once that you don't consider in vitro recipients virgins? Why was that.
@John 61X Breezy: Didn't you say once that you don't consider in vitro recipients virgins?
It's sexual reproduction by other means. Parthenogenesis implies birth without penetration or implantation by any method.
If the Christian worldview was one where there is no God or God cannot intervene, then yes. That would be a fallacy.
However, the Christian worldview says that God does intervene. Meaning he in fact make a virgin pregnant. Or create something out of nothing. Within itself, there is no contradiction.
"However, the Christian worldview says that God does intervene. Meaning he in fact make a virgin pregnant. Or create something out of nothing. Within itself, there is no contradiction."
Just no objective evidence to support it.
@JoC Meaning he in fact make a virgin pregnant.
So can I. [LOL]
But do the original scriptures specifically say that Mary was a pregnant virgin? Or was she simply a young woman? Could a translation error have occurred?
And why is virginity so important? Is sexual reproduction a dirty concept for Catholics? Can't someone be pure unless they're a virgin? What an insult to every mother.
This virgin cult sounds like a borrowing from pagan goddesses like Artemis and Athena. I think this particular fallacy is unhealthy and perverted, like the cult of celibacy.
I think we can all agree catholics/theist of time past, (and many still are today,) are incredibly sexist. It is a question that always bothered me, why does any women embrace a religion/culture that puts them 2nd class to the male?
I can not wait to see the steam coming out of these nuts ears when science blurs and eventually removes all barriers of man and women by definition, which we are getting increasingly close to and has already made lots of progress on. They already successfully transplanted a uterus and the doctors/scientist involved say that the technology already exists that it could be transplanted into a male so that a male could carry a baby.
Barring societal collapse and slow down in innovation, I think it is highly likely a male can do anything a woman can, and a woman can do anything a male can, within the next 100 years.
Virgin births via science would be easy. Especially if you consider virginity to follow the definition of "never had sex." That has already occured many thousands of times. But I know, I know theist just move the goalpost on that one to suit their delusion.
@JoC: Within itself, there is no contradiction.
That's true of "Harry Potter," "The Iliad", "Lord of the Rings," and many other words of fiction.
Internal consistency is a fine thing, but it doesn't turn fiction into fact.
Thinking critically about any book/movie is a great exercise everyone should do to: not fall victim to liars and cons. Sure enjoy the movie as a work of fiction, but perhaps on second viewing take the time to recognize all the logic flaws and inconsistency in works of fiction, then apply those skills to media that claims to be non-fiction.
JoC,
Mary was supposed to have been a virgin but there was no proof that she was. Where was her token of virginity?
Based on the biblical fairy tale a case can be made that Mary was simply a metaphor for Samaria and that Joseph was a metaphor for Judea. According to the Old Testament Samaria and Judea were supposed to become united. Samaria had never produced a prophet for the Jews, so it was a virgin in that regard. In the New Testament Yeshua was accused of being a Samaritan but he ignored the accusation. He certainly behaved as one most of the time.
Only if you accept the NT was an an allegory of the political situation in the area at the time.That no actual events were described at all, does your argument has merit.
How many other stories have such convoluted origins? Be serious Diotrephes. Even for a died in the wool conspiracist that is a step too far!
@JoC
Holy Trinity? Transubstantiation? Papal infallibility? Life of Jesus? Inspired Word of God? "Holy War"? (WTF?)
Bloody hell man don't get me started....
But at least you are honest as you can be, if mistaken. There's plenty here who point that out for you.
How are those fallacies? And which formal fallacies are you talking about?
"A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is."
To make it simple; all the examples I quoted are simple constructs (lies) to argue the deception of the existence of the christian god. (Aka Jesus, YHWH, Holy Ghost)
Okay. So no formal fallacies then? So really, they’re not fallacious.
he said catholic fallacies, not formal fallacies.
which by definition is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
read.
Exactly. So none are formal fallacies. You see, you telling me my beliefs are mistaken do not make them mistaken.
Your idea that argument that are not formal fallacies can't be fallacious; is itself fallacious. Worse still, this should be as obvious as the nose on your face; it isn't hard to see. Unless of course you are just reflexively spouting random trash in a vain effort to defend your faith and not considering what you are saying(aka apologetics).
I already gave you the definition, I did not specify 'logical fallacies' with which you are demonstrating your confusion.
Now you are sounding like Breezy...don't. It will end in tears for you.
"How are those fallacies?"
They're mistaken beliefs based on unsound arguments, and for which no objective evidence can demonstrated.
They beatified that sadistic Albanian nun, and the "miracles" were confirmed despite the evidence showing unequivocally the claims were false. and the causes proven to be entirely natural.
@Breezy
What a crock!
Oh BOO HOO woe is me.
Pathetic.
You want to make up the rules to engage you? What a bunch of pussy shit.
John: Creationist arguments are never provided by the nonreligious. They have no basis outside of religion. Asking us to ignore your religious bias is asking to ignore the elephant in the room.
Pages