| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:12:48 PM | nor does it make it all untruisms.
Have we beat this poor joke to death yet? I'm gonna quit...its giving me an aneurism. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:29:39 PM |
I said: I'm simply stating that the evidence in Job does not describe a contemporary animal and does describe a possible dinosaur like creature.
clarence said: I don't think Job's testimony should be regarded as hard evidence I didn't say "hard evidence". I said "evidence". Anyway, in regard to the descriptions, they are recorded as being spoken by God, not Job. And no, you don't need to refute whether God actually said them or not because that would rabbit-trail it down another meandering and pointless path.
I said: I'm also stating that rejecting out of hand the possibility that the fossil record is in error is dogma and an act of faith.
clarence said: If so called "living fossils", like coelicanth are discovered it does not mean that the fossil record is in error I didn't say it does. I'm simply stating that the demand to absolutely adhere to the letter of the fossil record as if it were written in stone and droning on and on about it being absolute and error free runs counter to the evidence, and is dogmatic.
As for Nessy, I think it would be very cool if it turned out to be a plesiosaur. And for no other reason I than I think it would be very cool. See, no even my 'very cool' isn't a religious argument -- stated in the hope that the comprehension-challenged won't create another Straw Man and waste bits and bytes pummelling shadows (hey, you can hope!). | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/8/2008 7:09:07 PM |
I'm simply stating that the demand to absolutely adhere to the letter of the fossil record as if it were written in stone and droning on and on about it being absolute and error free runs counter to the evidence, and is dogmatic.
I'm interested to know what you regard as unreliable in the fossil record. Fossils are made of mineralised bone which does to my mind make them evidence literally "written in stone". The only errors I can think of would arise from either mistakes of interpretation, which are usually corrected as more evidence is unearthed, or deliberate fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:26:16 AM | | I think most of the things you mention fall under the standard argumentative/logical fallacies mentioned in logic textbooks. There are other fallacies which exist (and which everyone falls into from time to time) not mentioned above but which I see from time to time in various arguments. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:54:44 AM | I too think that Nessy as a plesioosaur would be freaking awesome. Not a doctrinal point, just fond of weird stuff happening. :)
Just thought I'd add that. Enjoying the discussion! | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:03:26 AM | I'm interested to know what you regard as unreliable in the fossil record. Fossils are made of mineralised bone which does to my mind make them evidence literally "written in stone". The only errors I can think of would arise from either mistakes of interpretation, which are usually corrected as more evidence is unearthed, or deliberate fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man.
And it's worth mentioning that Piltown Man was exposed as a hoax by scientists. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:11:39 AM |
And it's worth mentioning that Piltown Man was exposed as a hoax by scientists.
Lol, you mean it is worth mentioning that it took scientists 40 years to admit that it was a hoax.  | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:18:40 AM |
don't know anything about the bible, but argue against it anyway.
most people whether atheist or christian have no idea about the bible.
if you believe in something that is not rational, objective, factual, consistent and fair then you have no idea.
if you look at something and see it as something quite twisted, demented, deluded or untrue but dont understand its purpose then you have no idea. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:28:24 AM |
I said: I'm simply stating that the demand to absolutely adhere to the letter of the fossil record as if it were written in stone and droning on and on about it being absolute and error free runs counter to the evidence, and is dogmatic.
clarence said: I'm interested to know what you regard as unreliable in the fossil record.
Here's a tip, clarence. When you stop rephrasing my statements, start quoting me verbatim, and stop assuming I'm saying more than or not what I am actually saying, you have my permission to ask me questions. Until you can show me the respect of actually reading my carefully chosen words, you'll have to play your silly game with someone considerably less intelligent.
As for Piltdown Man, the hoax worked because the scientists wanted a Piltdown Man so badly. For 40 years Piltdown Man was "written in stone", an absolute proof of an absolute belief. It was an act of desperation and faith because of dogmatic resistance to other possibilities that allowed to hoax to be so successful.
As for Count Ibil's comment that it was scientists who unearthed the hoax, so what? It was scientists who perpetrated the hoax. It was scientists who validated the hoax. It was scientists who taught the validity of the hoax. It was scientists who clung to that validity, entrenched and defensive against growing academic challenges to the assumptions surrounding it the hoax. It was scientists who rejected challenges to its validity as "religious nonsense" the hoax. It was scientists who took 40 years to admit their failure. I'd say that sanctifying "scientists" for exposing the hoax hardly bears much merit given their previous record with the matter. It's akin to a caught red handed, heavily photographed, identified by multiple witnesses, and hand in the money bag thief admitting guilt! | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:45:25 AM |
Here's a tip, clarence. When you stop rephrasing my statements, start quoting me verbatim, and stop assuming I'm saying more than or not what I am actually saying, you have my permission to ask me questions. Until you can show me the respect of actually reading my carefully chosen words, you'll have to play your silly game with someone considerably less intelligent.
If you're as intelligent as you think you are you would have answered my question of what exactly you have against the fossil record.
In the absence of you using your no doubt vast intelligence to answer my question and because if I spend an hour or so slaving over a hot 'puter it will postpone the onerous task of getting on with the housework I've been re reading your post number 21 to try and gain some insight into what exactly you are trying to say.
If I'm allowed to convey the gist of it without quoting the whole thing, you appear to be attempting to justify an interpretation of Biblically described animals in Job as representing Dinosaurs.
eFact #3: The only argument against them being descriptions of dinosaurs is that dinosaurs must have died out millions of years prior to man's existence and therefore they can't be dinosaurs because Job couldn't have known about the existence of dinosaurs. The argument is one of necessity and the absolute need to adhere to a previous theory. That's hardly logical, rational, empirical, or scientific.
Did dinosaurs die out completely? Is it impossible for man and dinosaur to have co-existed? Is it a fact that they couldn't co-exist or is it a dogmatic adherence to a theory as law, or an act of faith on the part of the believer?
The often taught precision of the fossil record, simply isn't. Nature is not tidy and neat. Maybe those who insist on an orderly progression throughout evolution do so because they need to do so. Maybe it gives them a sense of order. Certainly, to believe thus requires and act of faith on the part of the believer. If you'll pardon the pun, the Fossil Record isn't written in stone.
"Is it impossible for man and dinosaur to have co existed?" The notion of co-existence is not supported by evidence, and I don't see how you can argue that evolutionary theory could be at fault in this. A theory is a model of how things appear to work based on observable facts. It is open to revision or supersedence by a new theory if facts are discovered that are inconsistent with it. This appears to me as perfectly "logical, rational, empirical and scientific", contrary to your criticism of dogmatism. The definition of dogmatism is adhering rigidly and inflexibly to insufficiently proven principles- clearly not the case here.
In the case of evolutionary theory we are talking about millions of unearthed, studied and collated fossilised facts, assembled to create a picture, the internal consistency of which lends the theory enormous weight.
If a couple of large dinosaurs existed as recently as a few thousand years ago, we could logically expect them to be part of a viable breeding population that would have left fossil evidence leading back millions of years.
I suppose the idea cannot be utterly discounted but it resides with Nessie in the wishful thinking zone of unsupported hypothesis until some evidence turns up.
Blimey, I can't believe I got through writing that lot without including a sarcastic reference to the Flinstones...
Oooops! | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 11:11:41 AM | "Atheistic logic" is an oxymoron. Nothing is more logical than reality. The main logical error made by atheists is in calling their logic, "logic", in the first place. Logic that does not deal with reality has taken leave of it's senses and becomes vain babble.
Analyze this:
I was very sick and prayer was made in Jesus name and suddenly what felt like a fire went through me and I was instantly well. I've seen it happen to others as well. I've seen demons cast out of people in Jesus name just as it happened in the Bible. I've seen those demons attack mockers nearby just as it happened in the Bible. I've seen hundreds filled with the Spirit with the same supernatural evidence of speaking in tongues just as described in Acts chapter 2, 10, and 19. I've seen lives instantly changed when that happened to them, drunkards, druggies, smokers, delivered instantly. And now you expect some high sounding concoction of atheistic words to do away with this reality? You're not being logical, you're being willingly ignorant of the logic of reality. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 11:41:40 AM | I was very sick and prayer was made in Jesus name and suddenly what felt like a fire went through me and I was instantly well.
Psychosomatic illness. Placebo response. Give more data. If you grew a new leg after losing it in a nasty accident involving a loose tiger I'll be very impressed.
I've seen demons cast out of people in Jesus name just as it happened in the Bible. I've seen those demons attack mockers nearby just as it happened in the Bible.
I like it. Was the act of exorcism performed by one of those shouty, microphone clutching, shiny suited, bouffant haired, born again snake oil salesmen in a church hall full of mass hysterical zealots?
I've seen hundreds filled with the Spirit with the same supernatural evidence of speaking in tongues just as described in Acts chapter 2, 10, and 19.
Do you have any tape recordings validated by language experts?
Sorry, darned logic! | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 11:44:20 AM | ^^^ Thanks for living up to the stereotype that the more rational theists in this thread have been striving to avoid.
By redefining words and terms to suit your own meaning, by justifying what are clearly statements of belief but to any other viewer could be post hoc rationalizations with no chain of evidence that would be accepted in a court of law, you merely reinforce the stereotype of the irrational person that the atheist or non-believer rails against...
Calling what you experience a logical reality and attempting to strangle and redefine those terms for your own personal meaning just reinforces the point as does calling it "vain babble" which just shows that the common sense arguments of reason and logic are simply going over your head. You might as well call it "fancy lawyerin' tricks" instead of "high sounding concoction of atheistic words"...
I don't think you could dumb it down much more.
To the other theists who have stepped forward in this argument, rest assured you are not to be lumped in with the likes of this. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 12:19:22 PM | What's even more comical than scientists and the British government not revealing the Piltdown Man hoax for 40 years, was the fact that L. Ron Hubbard listed the Piltdown Man as one of the ancestors of humanity in his book Scientology: A History of Man to help promote his religion of Scientology.... and just a few months after the book was released.... the hoax was revealed world wide !
Now THAT is fricken knee-slapping hilarious !!
| |
|
| |
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 12:49:11 PM | People seem to be forgetting the key difference here between scientific methodology and dogmatic religion which is the willingness to ACCEPT and CORRECT error when it occurs.
Science may be slow to do this at times...good science and good scientists less slow.
Dogmatic or fanatic religion accepts no error as to do so suggests that God who is by nature perfect may somehow be in error...scripture is most often viewed as inerrant by such individuals.
I don't think we want to start looking too closely at errors committed by the theists as opposed to those by the scientist or atheist scientist because I think it assuredly is not going to be in favour of the theist as far as concensus reality goes.
So revelling in Piltdown man or a few other errors...if that's the best you can do, well frankly that's pretty damn pathetic. And sad. But hey, if that's what gives you a half a pack of rolaids, go right ahead... But comparitively speaking, it's about as dunderheaded as it gets, not to mention drifting way off topic. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 12:54:18 PM | clarence clutterbuck makes a good point above tbh with the placebo i agree with him, if people want to believe then they will and can heal a great deal of minor illnesses.
for that reason the church is a good thing as it is one big placebo.
I believe jesus was on earth and made his own stance on religion, a modernest if you like in those dark days of roman control though i do not believe in the bible.
i will lead my life as a good person and a nice guy and if i end up in hell for not getting down on my knees and praying then so be it there is not much more i can do.
All in all if religion works for you then fair enough.
you only have to look at mormons. they are only human but what a load of rubbish, it makes me laugh what they believe in. i bet many christians laugh at them also on how they are brain washed into believing in sacred under garments which they have to wear daily and can only take off once every 5 days to wash and god coming from the planet kollob (or whatever its called).
All i can say is as a christian if you laugh at that then you may as well laugh at yourselves but whatever makes people happy then all good to me :) | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 12:59:39 PM |
I don't think we want to start looking too closely at errors committed by the theists as opposed to those by the scientist or atheist scientist because I think it assuredly is not going to be in favour of the theist as far as concensus reality goes.
I wouldn't be so sure of yourself. If you knew where to look you would see that religions are constantly correcting themselves also. It's what the Reformation was about. It's what new denominations are about. It's what Councils are about etc. That's only from the Christian viewpoint. I am sure the others are also consistently on a path of greater revelation. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:10:55 PM |
Psychosomatic illness. Placebo response. Give more data. If you grew a new leg after losing it in a nasty accident involving a loose tiger I'll be very impressed.
& if the leg was recovered, would you hop off to the hospital to have it reattached by trained surgeons or to the local church to have it reattached by prayer?
Why do these alledgegedly devout christians call an ambulance after they get hurt & not the nearest priest?
The greatest hypocracy:
Why is it neccessary for churches to have lightning rods on them? | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:42:30 PM | Forgive me for having not read the entire thread.. if I am missing something pertinent, do let me know..
What immediately struck me whitegold, is your ability to step outside of yourself to comment upon that which you see as needing improvement in the way of debate and communication with others whose ideas/beliefs differ from your own.. that IS what you were saying, correct?
Or were you generalizing your own percieved errors and projecting them onto all of atheism?
Either way it is refreshing to see one make an honest appraisal of what are the weaknesses of his own stance.. bravo!
I know that I have fallen prey to many of my own errors, many of them logical.. most of them emotional.. but I will say that all of them led to a deeper understanding of how to communicate with others whose beliefs differ from my own... the ability to stand in my own truth without the urge to undermine another to do so.. it has taken time, and I am still learning..
No matter how many breaks I have taken from this place.. I always come back because the potential to learn and grow, make meaningful connections and share at a deep level is thus far unsurpassed..
Thanks for the unique and thought-provoking topic :) | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 2:11:40 PM |
Why do these alledgegedly devout christians call an ambulance after they get hurt & not the nearest priest?
The greatest hypocracy You started a thread here: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9616649.aspx
Where you called a couple premeditated murderer for not taking their child to hospital and relying on prayer.
So if a person doesn't take himself to hospital and relies on prayer, that would make them suicidal, but if they do take themselves to hospital and don't just rely on prayer, you call them a hypocrite?
Do you ever stop calling people names?
Most people get over this phase by the age of 10. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:05:23 PM | | I love you atheists. And God loves you too. I don't know about Him but I haven't given up hope on trying to pound some sense into your hard heads. | |
|
| |
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:31:23 PM | You started a thread here: http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9616649.aspxWhere you called a couple premeditated murderer for not taking their child to hospital and relying on prayer. So if a person doesn't take himself to hospital and relies on prayer, that would make them suicidal, but if they do take themselves to hospital and don't just rely on prayer, you call them a hypocrite? Do you ever stop calling people names? Most people get over this phase by the age of 10.
So who picks up your toys now you've thrown them out of the pram again? Why not *try* answering the question instead of deflecting them continuely when you don't actually have a bloody clue??
| |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:03:53 PM |
What immediately struck me whitegold, is your ability to step outside of yourself to comment upon that which you see as needing improvement in the way of debate and communication with others whose ideas/beliefs differ from your own.. that IS what you were saying, correct?
Exactly. I'd rather have an informed and intelligent debate with people I disagree with than the stupid squabbling that religion debates are succeptable to. See above.
Personally, I will routinely back up beliefs I don't hold if I feel someone has used an unfair argument, straw man, or is just plain wrong.
Many atheists try to argue from the bible, for example, but inadvertently (or deliberately ) misconstrue or omit context. For example many atheists talk about the bible condoning slavery. But the slavery discussed in the bible is generally a form of "debt" slavery, essentially putting you in servitude for a number of years to work off a debt you can't pay. These slaves were treated well, and any violence done to them broke their tenure and freed them. So comparing that to the appalling treatment of Africans captured to work in US cotton and tobacco farms is misleading.
Of course, the abominable misunderstanding of science by the religious is even worse... | |
|
Home
login 
