After throwing me out of Atheistically Speaking, one of the admins helpfully explained my point of view.
This is what he thinks I was going to say:
I’ll respond line by line.
I’ll just put this here in case someone is interested.
Thanks. But if someone was interested, it would have been better to let me speak for myself.
The 4 proofs of god’s existence that the Branyan’s were talking about are the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We would have listed 5 proofs. Also, three of the four you listed are incorrect…In case someone is interested. (And the possessive form of our name is incorrect in your sentence…in case someone is interested.)
If you follow WIlliam Lane Craig at all, these are his go-tos.
If you follow William Lane Craig at all, you’d realize that these particular arguments are centuries old and logically bulletproof.
All of these arguments have been refuted or debunked in one way or another, and it’s by sheer rejection of that acknowledgment that they can say no one has ever countered it.
If you follow William Lane Craig at all, you’d know that his arguments have been neither refuted nor debunked. I’m not sure what it means to “reject an acknowledgment” but “countering” an argument is not the same as debunking it.
And don’t you have a rule about supporting claims like “these arguments are debunked”? (See #5)
I have NAMED the fallacies that these arguments fall for in my discussion with Amanda, and even Craig admits these fallacies.
Please see rule #5. (William Lane Craig has a Ph.D. in Philosophy…he’s not putting forth arguments he knows are fallacious.)
You need to do more than just NAME fallacies, cowboy.
Otherwise, you’re making the Soup Bowl fallacy.
(Which is a fallacy I just made up to describe arguing using made up fallacies.)
He resolves the use of fallacies for these arguments by evoking the Fallacy Fallacy, or just because an argument is fallacious does not mean it isn’t true.
Evoking the Fallacy Fallacy makes you guilty of the Fallacy Fallacy.
Also, please see rule #5.
You’re Soup Bowling me again.
However, just because the fallacy fallacy exists does not resolve the claimant’s requirement to resolve those fallacies.
Yeah. Right back at ya!
Oh, and don’t forget that I didn’t bring up ANY of these arguments in the first place. You’re literally arguing with yourself.
And as you can see, they are quick to dismiss their fallacies but will call out supposed fallacies and paradoxes in arguments that contradict or refute theirs.
We are quick to dismiss unsubstantiated accusations of fallacious arguments, yes. But even if we were guilty of fallacious statements it doesn’t mean you can just ignore your own fallacies. Quid pro quo doesn’t apply in a debate.
Apparently, the fallacy fallacy only matters when they are fallacious.
You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.
We only touched on the Cosmological argument here, and because I wasn’t willing to accept that the cosmological argument was proven…
And because you were unable to explain how it had been disproven…
…she wouldn’t even go any further…
Because you kicked her out of the group without warning.
…but all three of the other arguments have been refuted. Easily I might add.
Again, you weren’t addressing the arguments that we raised.
Ian is an intellectual lightweight and a coward. I deduced that easily I might add.
17 Responses
Wait! Scientific inquiry doesn’t even exist without philosophy and logic!
I dare you to say that to the atheists.
I have. They just claim that I’m using the F Squared Fallacy, that I’m using logic wrong, and declare victory. 😏
Ha! Shall we just call that the F-word squared? Somebody smart recently said, “your theology has too many syllables.” The guy goes, “I’m an atheist!” And she says, “I don’t care what denomination you are, your theology still has too many syllables.” Cracked me up.
“Denomination” 😂
Perfect.
I enjoy the self congratulations for easily refuting arguments that were never even made. That’s like declaring yourself the champion of a game that you never played. I like that, I think I will just start declaring victories in arguements I never had.
“Please see rule #5. (William Lane Craig has a Ph.D. in Philosophy…he’s not putting forth arguments he knows are fallacious.)”
Philosophy is not general science; therefore, he is also not putting forth arguments that are factual either, his arguments can only be conjecture. Philosophy may have some degree of objective knowledge, but it is regarded by many as a highly theorised discipline with not much in common with reality and more aligned to art, literature or religion as in this case. The predominant assumption is that none of it actually qualifies as knowledge until proven scientifically.
Please notice that every single line of your comment is a philosophical statement. So can I assume none of it actually qualifies as knowledge or are you going to prove it “scientifically”?
Can we start referring to Atheists as “Philosophy-deniers”?
They quickly cut ties with any discipline which doesn’t produce the results they want.
That’s actually a great idea!
It’s a bit long. Are we using PD for anything important or can we refer to them with those initials?
We need to use the whole, hyphenated word, because Atheists are tenacious enough to spell out “science-denier” every time.
We can’t get lazy until they do. 🙂
Shucks.
Ignorant pettiness is such hard work.
(I found an article that proves most species of life on Earth are no older than about 200,000 years. When I post it, do you think the PD’s will cut ties with Darwinian Evolution?)
When you post an article demonstrating that life evolved no more than 200,000 years ago, the Atheists will immediately begin the character assassination against whichever scientists conducted the research. They won’t understand a single word from the article, so they will Google all the researcher’s names until they find one who played bingo at a church one time, and they will dismiss the whole paper based on that.
Bookmark this comment. You’ll want to reference it in a day or two.
Yawn. I’m almost ready to pay money to see an atheist game enough to argue with you all the way to the end. They bail so quickly these days that it’s getting boring.
You should pop over to a blog and dare them to have a conversation with me.