A False Dilemma, in Atheism

It's amusing how after being called out for this numerous times by dozens of people, you still think this is a valid form of debate. Your premise has been picked apart and shot full of holes showing the numerous fallacies you are using. You have no idea what Ad Hom means, and you throw it out anytime someone rebuts your post. Your argument in rebuttal to other posters amounts to "nuh uh". Nobody is fooled by this.

 

Then you should try using actual arguments and rebuttals instead of your usual denials, dismissals and ad homs.

 

Very true....you should try to avoid it.

 

They have to do with our blind acceptance of the thoughts of your betters, claiming them to be yours.

They also apply to your inference that you are always correct even when you deny your own statements.

Your talking points continue to fail to convince anyone of your alleged superiority, in fact just the opposite.

 

What you see is, as usual only what you wish to see. Tunnel vision on the facts and anything that scares you.

It would appear that you are the one lacking reason on the subject, just blindly doing as you are told by your betters.

 

Any false witness bearing may lead to the abomination of hypocrisy.

the truest witness bearers must be the most moral.

are women discovering, the "one per mil" is not just a biblical myth.

 

You stated claims about "unobservable force" and what is untestable.

You were simply wrong about that. There is no claim of "unobservable force" related to abiogenesis, for example.

You need to think before you attack.

 

What about them? Are you afraid to further explain what you mean?

 

Not afraid but understanding the mindset I am dealing with and the inability to grasp or confront data that goes against stories of dogmatic power. Biologically animals, let alone humans cannot be created from moist soil and cannot be re-animated after death...certainly not after days of being dead. Physically our planet does not and never has had sufficient water to submerge all land masses. Nor can a wooden craft be built that would fit 2 of every animal and a genetic bottle neck would ensue within a few generations regardless.

 

There is a first time for everything.

 

1. Vague, unquoted, and unspecified 'rebuttal' to something i allegedly said. I have no idea what you are talking about.

2. Stupid repeat of a phony narrative.. 'Attack!! Attack!!'

3. Still NOTHING related to the OP. No addressing any points of reason, just dismissal and ad hom streams, as if that makes a point.

Reason.
It are hard.
I guess a rational progressive really is a myth. Your cronies here only confirm that observation..

 

Deal with the OP, or deflect with irrelevant ad hom streams. I don't care.

Your pathetic dog piles won't work with me. I respect reason and Truth, and won't be bluffed by distortions and petty needling.

Its funny, though.. atheists arguing that they do too believe that no evidence doesn't matter... when in every thread I've ever been in, the 'No evidence? No God!' argument is thrown out constantly.

How is this NOT a fallacy? And your petty little barbs at me, personally, only show your intellectual impotence,and logical bankruptcy.

You really think bankruptcy and impotence can overcome Reason? Maybe you can fool a few bobbleheaded indoctrinees, but thinking people are not fooled.

 

You made the "unobservable force" claim in your attack in post #235.

I called you on it, because it is absolutely false.

 

Asked and answered.

 

My post..

Incredulity is not a strong argument against any God. We already premise a supernatural Being, with supernatural powers.. ability to create a universe, for example.

So the argument, 'Nobody could do that!' Does not apply, if you accept the premise of a God.

But any claim of origins is non testable and a matter of belief, including atheistic naturalism. They posit a mysterious, unobservable 'force', abiogenesis, somehow started life. Then they posit another unobserved belief of common descent, that all living things evolved from a single cell.

Neither of those beliefs can be observed, repeated, or tested. ..just like a supernatural belief.

So incredulity can go either way, and works against any worldview.

This is an 'Attack on Science!!!', to you?

Do you and other atheists not believe in abiogenesis?

Is it not an unknown and mysterious force, that creates life?

Your bizarre sensitivity and defensiveness is hypocritical, as you and your cronies routinely denigrate and ridicule a Creator God, yet bristle in righteous indignation for me saying a belief in abiogenesis depends on an unknown, mysterious force?

Really?

 

It's amusing how after being called out for this numerous times by dozens of people, you still think this is a valid form of debate. Your premise has been picked apart and shot full of holes showing the numerous fallacies you are using. You have no idea what Ad Hom means, and you throw it out anytime someone rebuts your post. Your argument in rebuttal to other posters amounts to "nuh uh". Nobody is fooled by this.

 

1, 2 & 3 are just restatements of your posting style. That and the myth that you claim to be rational. Obviously false.

 

...is that Job 34:30 always applies.

 

other humans conjure up rationale for god's non existence the same identical constructs and then toot their horn about their superior fallacious position.

too busy medicating your own?

And if we were discussing metaphysics the same would apply to you.

'Every' atheist makes that argument, if they are brave enough to come forward and honestly justify their lack.

Bingo!

Dawkins?
What a blathering idiot.
atheists believe in 'NO' G/god period.
Thiests believe in a minimum of one God.
That is possibly one of the dumbest things I have read!
Did Dawkins really say that?

 

Hey I can do this two. Theists claim they don't need any evidence about God because their Mommy and Daddy told them he exists and it makes them feel all comfy and warm to believe. Every theist makes that argument, if they are brave enough to come forward and honestly justify their belief. What's the difference between you claiming you know my argument and twisting it, and my claiming to know your argument and twisting it

 

Thats not what I have seen.
Theists most often offer plenty of evidence for their beliefs however atheists refuse to accept their evidence because they cant hit it with a hammer.
You ignore the fact that it is the underlying premise (argument) regardless if it is verbalized.
That is why you wont answer the question 'why' you do not believe in or lack belief in a G/god.

 

Abiogenesis is not a "mysterious, unobservable force." It denotes the process by which organic molecules, through their inherent properties, self-assemble into the beginnings of what we know as life, which is fundamentally a self-replicating system made up of such molecules at the most fundamental level.

All that is really "mysterious" about abiogenesis is whether it occurred on earth, and if so, exactly how it led to life as we know it, because that hypothetical, but also reasonably probable, prehistoric event has not left evidence behind that we can study, beyond life itself as it exists now and the fossil specimens that we are able to find. It is one of the most difficult things to observe, likely being a process that takes considerable time and some very alien conditions to occur, and a process that would have occurred so long ago that any evidence it left behind on earth is likely gone due to the recycling of earth's crust through plate tectonics. We might luck out and find something concrete on the moon, given that it was evidently created from terrestrial material that had been knocked into orbit following a catastrophic collision with another protoplanet, but there are no certainties there, either.

Abiogenesis is, however, testable, even if it is difficult to test. It also explains how life could have arisen without resorting to something far more complex, infinitely less probable, and equally unobserved - namely an intelligent creator of some kind. You also have no credible argument in favor of such a creator beyond your own personal incredulity as regards abiogenesis and, I'm sure, evolution.

 

"No evidence = no Unicorns

'Evidence' can be personal, empirical, or other.

My case is that the CONCLUSION of 'No unicorns' is fallacious, based on incomplete information, and a false dilemma.

It is flawed reasoning to conclude 'No unicorns' based on ignorance or flawed assumptions. There are other possibilities as to why one has 'no personal evidence.' It is a flawed conclusion to arrive at 'no unicorns', only from ignorance."

 

the Person with the fewest fallacies must be the most moral.

 

You do an injustice when you try to 'paraphrase' or simplify the atheist argument and I think you do it either disingenuously or arrogantly. Its not yours to alter, change or modify. To put it another way. We know what we think and why we think it, better than you do. This little twist to make the false dilemma work may have started as a convenient but innocent loss of an important word on pages 1-5 of this thread, it long since became an outright lie. I don't like to be lied about for an agenda.

By the way, I don't recall being asked directly why I don't believe in a deity or supernatural being as a creator, or about why I don't believe in a life after death, or a heaven or a hell. If this is an invitation, I will just say I seem to need a lot more proof than I have been provided, for any faith or belief in a supernatural or paranormal or mythological, or spiritual essence or being to thrive in me.

I don't do miracles, or see miracles and I don't believe in miracles. I am perfectly fine with people who do, as long as they don't lie about why I say I don't.