faulty religious non-reasoning (was re: Santa ...)

[falcon9]

[this thread moved to D+D at Kohler's request]:

What’s up with your sidekick or as the earlier post stated Jr.

You don't do well responding to the context of a posted reply, do you?  As to your lame attempts at derrogatory remarks; there is no "sidekick" or "Jr." here - there are two separate members of FC who have been successfully challenging your fundie nonsense.

Falc, I shared an argument not my belief so make no assumption.

Your "argument" consisted of making irrational assertions which had no substantiation and stemmed from your religious beliefs.  No assumptions were made as this is based upon your own posted words, (making assumptions unneccessry).

I expressed a simply reasoning that is viewed differently in your eyes and probably Jr's also.

Your remarks were not consistant with "reasoning"; simple or otherwise.  They were merely baseless religious opinions and were challenged as such.  Apparently, you prefer to continue using illogic and nonreasoning instead of refutations using the alternatives.  So be it.

In certain religions such as Christian and Islam the atheist is seen as the opposition, to sum it up;
One that serves Satan simply because there's no middle there's either one or the other.

Since I'm neither xtian nor islamic, the skewed views of these 'religions' do not apply to actual facts.  The cognizant fact in this context is that atheists neither serve nor worship "satan" or any "gods", 'archangels' or stuffed animals.

Disbelief - is to reject a belief, why?

Thos question has already been addressed however, for those who are paying attention: a belief can be rejected, (disbelieved), on the basis of no evidence to support the asserted belief.

Because the individual’s belief lies elsewhere

Not necessarily.  It as possible to hold no unfounded 'beliefs' as it is to hold alternative unfounded beliefs.  Your characterization of fallicious non-reasoning as "reasoning" is a false one.

(Something has to influence disbelief there’s no absence of belief -that's soothsaying, fallacious)

The absence of belief results from the absence of evidence to support that belief.  This is termed as "disbelief", not "soothsaying", (which has a completely different meaning).

 

Like I shared in both Christian and Islam there's no middle it's either A or B; God or Satan.

The skewed belief systems do not apply to me since I'm neither xtian nor islamic, (as previously stated).  Therefore, it is not a matter of "A or B"; option 'C' = not believing either mythology.

You likewise the atheist fall in one or the other

That is faulty 'reasoning'; atheism is not a belief and is not a subset of other beliefs - it is a rejection of those belief systems on the basis of a lack of supportive evidence for the claims made under those beliefs.

you're either hot or cold. It's pitiful to think there's a place for lukewarm.

Your critical thinking skills appear to be absent; there is of course, a range of temperatures between "hot" & "cold" which includes "lukewarm".  The analogy therefore fails and with it, your arguement.
[/quote]

[Falconer02]

I assume you're responding to a thread Getinonthis created and then deleted after the user ran into a corner and couldn't defend their 'argument' for a religion they don't know much about. If I'm right, this is nothing new. They'll dress up the aspect they can't explain, try to work their way around the problem, act like that aspect has been explained, and then get angry when you call them on their obvious fault.

Edit: nm...just found the other thread.

there is no "sidekick" or "Jr." here - there are two separate members of FC who have been successfully challenging your fundie nonsense.

Shh! Don't bring anything up! They're catching onto me being your doppleganger! Honestly though I'm kind of disgruntled that a lot of the other veteran users who can argue extremely well rarely pop their heads in here anymore.

[falcon9]

I assume you're responding to a thread Getinonthis created and then deleted after the user ran into a corner and couldn't defend their 'argument' for a religion they don't know much about.

In this instance, 'Gethy' interjected some bizarre unreasoned stuff about atheists "serving satan".  No doubt s/he often posts pseudo-arguments and then flees when challenged, (as in this case).

If I'm right, this is nothing new. They'll dress up the aspect they can't explain, try to work their way around the problem, act like that aspect has been explained, and then get angry when you call them on their obvious fault. It's quite humorous.

Reason is anathema to religion.  What's ironic is that it isn't called "blind faith" for nothing.

Edit: nm...just found the other thread.

there is no "sidekick" or "Jr." here - there are two separate members of FC who have been successfully challenging your fundie nonsense.

Shh! Don't bring anything up! They're catching onto me being your doppleganger! Honestly though I'm kind of disgruntled that a lot of the other veteran users who can argue extremely well rarely pop their heads in here anymore.

Can't really be a doppleganger if one is a "falconeer" and the other is a squadron call-sign but, they seem unable to discern the "neer" part.  As I understand it, members come and go, (some return, some never do), and that's the way it goes.  It would be interesting to debate with someone else who uses reasoning, (although "Abrupt" gives it a shot from time to time).

[loulizlee]

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure ...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

[falcon9]

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure ...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

[Falconer02]

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure ...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

Grabbed that from the FC email today, eh? I honestly don't understand why you'd post that in a religious thread since it was about life in general.

[loulizlee]

Just wanted to see how long it would take you to figure that out.    I hope it didn't take to long to look up another quote.  I figured I could put FC quotes anywhere.  I'm still getting my 30+ posts per month.  Besides, I didn't realize this was a "religious" thread.  The person who started is certainly not religious.  I'm not certain what she is.   Maybe I'll post some jokes for comic relief.  On the other hand, this is getting too funny for words. 

[falcon9]

I hope it didn't take to long to look up another quote. 

Not long at all, it was from memory.

I figured I could put FC quotes anywhere. 

You can, technically however, it wasn't an "FC quote".  It was essentially a non sequitur.
 

Besides, I didn't realize this was a "religious" thread.  The person who started is certainly not religious.  I'm not certain what she is. 

I actually retitled the "Santa" thread at Kohler's request, rather than starting a new thread.  About the only thing it has to do with religion is demonstrating the faulty 'reasoning', lack of reasoning and lack of evidentiary support for empty claims made by religious claimants.
  

Maybe I'll post some jokes for comic relief.  On the other hand, this is getting too funny for words. 

Humor is often a good way of bypassing knee-jerk defensiveness.  For instance, dyslexic satan worshipers may think they're worshipping santa.

[loulizlee]

I KNEW this and the other thread were getting "too funny for words."

[falcon9]

I KNEW this and the other thread were getting "too funny for words."

Ran out of words?

[falcon9]

There are a few more examples of non-reasoning proponents of religions use, (albeit ofttimes, unknowingly).  These are nine common examples:

#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, that means he must exist.

#2. Argumentum ad misericordia - Appealing to pity.
Why are you so intent on destroying something that makes so many sick children happy!

#3. Argumentum ad nauseum - Fallacy that something is likely to be true the more often it is said.
God exists, how many times do i have to tell you?

#4. Argumentum ad novitatem - Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
Of course Islam is the true religion, Mohammad is the most recent prophet.

#5. Argumentum ad populum - Fallacy that something is correct based on the amount of people who believe it.
Look how many people believe in Jesus, they can't all be wrong.

#6. Bifurcation - Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two answers.
Evolution is wrong, so that means creationism is right.

#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.
The bible is the word of god because it says it is and it can't be wrong, because after all, it is the word of god.

#8. *bleep* hoc ergo propter hoc - Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.
With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?

#9. Plurium interrogationum - Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question.
If god didn't create the universe then explain what did.

[loulizlee]

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

[duroz]

Shh! Don't bring anything up! They're catching onto me being your doppleganger! Honestly though I'm kind of disgruntled that a lot of the other veteran users who can argue extremely well rarely pop their heads in here anymore.

As I understand it, members come and go, (some return, some never do), and that's the way it goes.  It would be interesting to debate with someone else who uses reasoning, (although "Abrupt" gives it a shot from time to time).

Don't you guys love and appreciate me just a LITTLE bit once in a while, for my appearances just to poke 'em a little with sticks??  

Can't really be a doppleganger if one is a "falconeer" and the other is a squadron call-sign but, they seem unable to discern the "neer" part.

maybe they think the "neer" part means JUNIOR..?    

[falcon9]

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

“The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives” - M. Gandhi

[falcon9]

Don't you guys love and appreciate me just a LITTLE bit once in a while, for my appearances just to poke 'em a little with sticks??  

Maybe just a little bit.  Every once and while. 

Can't really be a doppleganger if one is a "falconeer" and the other is a squadron call-sign but, they seem unable to discern the "neer" part.

maybe they think the "neer" part means JUNIOR..?    

Possibly however, much more likely that it's easier for them to lump separate people together who disagree with them, (rather than actually try refuting what is posted).