Blog: Common Atheist and Theist Mistakes in Argument

a reply to: Grimpachi

I would like to know why a few atheists are ganging up on the OP with the whole "belief vs unbelief" argument, when that has very little to do with the meat of his post? Does this silly, completely pointless word game somehow render the information and ideas presented in the first post false? I don't believe it does at all, so why has it now become the central theme of this thread?

how can we discuss the concept of belief or lack thereof, in a god, if no one is willing to even explore the meanings of the words used to define god. and in some cases, want the words used to define what a god is, completely eradicated from the vocabulary. that's madness.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You are free to discuss what you wish.

Am I?

As for a reason. Personally I feel the article in the OP is a veiled attempt to redefine terms and think it agenda driven. Especialy after reading through other articles from that site. As an atheist I know what my beliefs and non beliefs are. The statement that not believing in something is belief is absurd.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Certainly, but aren't we supposed to stay on topic around here?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Grimpachi

Certainly, but aren't we supposed to stay on topic around here?

what IS the topic? his threads always confuse me cause he never gives his own opinion of the quoted material in his ops. he uses other people's material then just asks people for their opinions of it. people can latch on to almost any point in the quoted work and run with it, and still be off topic if he doesn't stipulate what he actually wants people to discuss and the limits thereof.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Are you now saying the statements within the article of the OP are not part of the topic?

Why do you feel the need the steer the conversation? Maybe the conversation you wish to have or you are trying to have doesn't interest others.

a reply to: undo

Whenever I post threads and leave the topic open then I feel anything and everything is the topic within the OP. If the OP wished to discuss a certain part of the article he could have said so.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: DeadSeraph

You are free to discuss what you wish.

Am I?

As for a reason. Personally I feel the article in the OP is a veiled attempt to redefine terms and think it agenda driven. Especialy after reading through other articles from that site. As an atheist I know what my beliefs and non beliefs are. The statement that not believing in something is belief is absurd.

what do you think the agenda is? i mean i tend to agree--belief is belief, whether it's lack of belief in something else or not, it's still your belief. but i'm a christian so that's kind of expected of me. what's the agenda of the quoted article?

i should probably tell you that there are several religious groups on the planet that believe that they are given full authority to lie for their god to the unwashed masses. in other words, it wouldn't be unusual to find an occultist of certain practices embracing the idea of removing from the social discussion, references to any powers we might as individuals attain, so that they alone retain the abilities they believe they possess. still others, not so much of the occultic variety, feel anyone who is not a member of their religion is fair game to lie to, steal from, kill, and so on. i'm not saying the author of the blog is either of those, but if you have evidence of agenda, that might be a source of it.

a reply to: undo

Oh I know there are religious groups that lie. I am from Florida home of Scientology.

Anyway I can't give evidence at the authors intentions but his article is opinion. It says they are common mistakes for both Theists and atheists however if you read the article can you tell me just what mistakes does the author outline that theists make?

I think the main reason people are jumping on the belief non belief part is that has been something that has been debated for a long time and it is almost always those coming from a religious point claiming it is a belief.

Before I even knew what the word atheist meant when I was asked about god I simply said I don't believe. The act of calling it a belief is absurd to me. It fly's in the face of the rational.

I think there is an effort by some that are religious to equate their personal beliefs to atheists. It seemed to me the author tried to act as if some things were an issue such as the cheese sandwich scenario to get people sucked into the article, gain credibility and agreement.

The cheese sandwich analogy is absurd. A non issue really. I don't think I have ever heard or read that being an argument against religion but it sounded good in the article. Didn't it? What is funny is the author was demonstrating a strawman by creating one as his argument. A double blind.

Maybe it is because I have done sales and read a lot of books on sales and psychology, but the article reeks to me of tactics.

It could have been put a different way. Atheists don't believe a cheese sandwich created the universe the same way they don't believe deities did. That statement only equates one thing. The level of belief an atheist holds for such possibilities, but you see the author twisted it to create yet another fallacy which BTW he warned against at the beginning of the article.

Let me say the article is a cleaver attempt but I think it reeks.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

My opinion is that it's largely for distraction.
Dickering about the semantics of the word atheism as if it was not a umbrella term distracts from the larger criticism.
A rather common tactic on the net I've noticed.
Grammar Nazis anyone?


a reply to: undo

You still think I'm relevant..
*chuckles*

It is BY DESIGN that I am not sharing my opinions in the OP.
If you cannot respect that then kindly see your way out of my threads.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, it does have agenda.
An agenda to point out that neither side is "right" as it wants to pretend it is.
If that is a bad thing to you.
Well...

The cheese sandwich analogy is absurd. A non issue really. I don't think I have ever heard or read that being an argument against religion but it sounded good in the article. Didn't it? What is funny is the author was demonstrating a strawman by creating one as his argument. A double blind.

Oh really?
What is the Flying Spagetti Monster again?
Or liking belief in diety as like belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus?
Shall I continue?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Yes, it does have agenda.
An agenda to point out that neither side is "right" as it wants to pretend it is.
If that is a bad thing to you.
Well...

Yet in the article it says science supports deities. Hmm...sure OK.

Oh really?
What is the Spagetti Monster again?

Mostly a joke that has been used so often and to which I have seen to demonstrate the level of belief an atheist holds for deities. However, I find this one better.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yet in the article it says science supports deities. Hmm...sure OK.

No.
Actually it doesn't.
He just says science doesn't support atheism.
And it doesn't.
That does not automatically mean it supports theism.
The question as to the existence of is currently a unfalsifiable question.
Meaning you cannot apply the scientific method to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Thusly, science says nothing about whether a god does or does not exist.

And yes he does go on to state a personal belief as such.
He doesn't say "fact is science supports theism".
Had he said that, this article would not be here as I would never have posted it.

Mostly a joke that has been used so often and to which I have seen to demonstrate the level of belief an atheist holds for deities. However, I find this one better.

Yet some have used the argument quite seriously.

a reply to: Grimpachi

well i tend to believe that believing something, whether it's a belief that you hold against another belief or not, is still believing something. if i don't agree with hinduism that's my belief regarding hinduism. there may be a rationale for not believing it, in this case i'm a christian, but i may have other reasons as well for my belief that i don't agree with hinduism.

i don't see any other way to read it so in that respect i tend to agree with the blog. what i question is the op himself, and his interest in pushing this discussion. does the blogger try to present himself as an atheist like the op does? what an interesting conundrum that is for people who understand that word meanings have multiple implications, that given the right amount of agenda, can be massaged in whatever way the reader sees fit. i think this particular issue has been a problem since these subjects have been available to debate. this type of thing happens all the time when the attack is solely against religion or solely against lack of religion. words are powerful things, and in the hands of large groups of people of similar mindset, they become a force for good or evil or indifference.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

So, not exactly original thought just an exercise in incitement then?

a reply to: LarryLove

Trying to incite discussion is a bad thing?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: LarryLove

Trying to incite discussion is a bad thing?

i think it's a good thing but you really do need to put your opinion of the quoted material in your op and any boundaries for discussion if you have any.

a reply to: undo

Good thing we don't all have to live by your opinions.
Are you done harping on about me yet ma'am?
You're getting QUITE tiresome...

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

It is lazy threading. Put your money where your mouth is and don't drop someone else's thoughts in an attempt to spark good discussion without your own take too.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

you have incited me to discussion. is that a bad thing? actually, YOU didn't incite me to discussion unless you wrote the blog.

originally posted by: LarryLove
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

It is lazy threading. Put your money where your mouth is and don't drop someone else's thoughts in an attempt to spark good discussion without your own take too.

i keep trying to explain that, particularly because he tries to redraw the lines when someone wanders around inside the topic. i'm not use to not having an inkling of an idea of what an op wants from his op-ed.