Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
harry just flat out ignores anything that he doesn't feel helps his anti-religious/god crusade. Its a European crusade all over again. he is going to crusade over here and save us in the us.
we see it all time with him. no biblegod is easy. Thats done in about 10 seconds. i did it when i was 9 years old.
"no god of any type', isn't so easy. because now we have to assign god some properties and see what ones line up with science and what one don't.
harry won't do that. he answers strictly to anti-religious sect of atheism. in the exact same way fundy theist won't compare claims.
WRONG, the correct answer is that the gospels may be fictional is also an alternative, hence Lewis's argument is a false dichotomy.
Why do you insist on NOT answering the topic, preferring to tell lies about me? Why do we need to force you to actually address any of the arguments? Why would you rather attack me than point out why Ozzy has misrepresented my argument?
It's silly, but it's their hobby. It shouldn't bother anyone.
No one is going to be swayed by arguments. There are arguments on all sides. People will only be swayed by an argument if they were already leaning in that direction beforehand.
It's silly, but it's their hobby. It shouldn't bother anyone.
No one is going to be swayed by arguments. There are arguments on all sides. People will only be swayed by an argument if they were already leaning in that direction beforehand.
some will be. there are a significant number of atheist that have bought into the anti-god central dogma. Just like some fundy theist by into literal jesus.
The numbers show that most atheist do not buy into harry, raf, and trans sect of atheism. its almost impossible really. that sect's central dogma just counters observation.
in fact, i haven't met one, not one, hard core anti-god/religious that isn't grinding an axe. not one.
most atheist do think like me ozzy. most understand the difference between talking about the properties of a god thing vs religion can be dangerous. Most atheist do not think that denying everything because it may be used against atheism is the most rational position.
WRONG, the correct answer is that the gospels may be fictional is also an alternative, hence Lewis's argument is a false dichotomy.
Why do you insist on NOT answering the topic, preferring to tell lies about me? Why do we need to force you to actually address any of the arguments? Why would you rather attack me than point out why Ozzy has misrepresented my argument?
thats a bunt lie harry, i did answer. And I moved on. you are also not being honest when you say "I am making things up about you". I use what you post to make my claims.
your stance only holds up when confined in the small box of "no biblegod". yeah, i get it, there is no biblegod ... move on. yeah, the bible is a book ...
thats done harry ... move on.
its time you apply the same rigor to your belief as you do theirs.
You were the first person to use the term false dichotomy.
Can you explain what exactly your claim is so I can refute it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I have just scrolled up and checked all your posts. Not once did you discuss the problem with C S Lewis's false dichotomy.
So my statement is a bunt (sic) truth. It is you who is, as usual, being dishonest (and a hypocrite).
Now can we get back on topic (which is not you).
It's silly, but it's their hobby. It shouldn't bother anyone.
No one is going to be swayed by arguments. There are arguments on all sides. People will only be swayed by an argument if they were already leaning in that direction beforehand.
Now that is a celebration of closed -mindedness through faith, celebrated as an inevitable thing, if not a good thing. I have heard many times the arguments that 'there's no point in posting - nobody will ever change their minds.' Essentially it is a variant of 'atheists, please shut up and go away'.
We will not shut up and we will not go away, never again. And people do change their minds, because many atheists used to be believers, as indeed many believers used to be atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You only say that because you are close minded.
As is usual, 'open minded' in Theist-speak means 'willing to uncritically accept the claim of My religion'. 'Closed - minded' means considering any other alternative claims.
You were the first person to use the term false dichotomy.
Can you explain what exactly your claim is so I can refute it?
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options. (philosophy index)
I believe I was the one to bring up C S Lewis' well known 'Lord. Liar or lunatic' argument for Jesus being 'Lord' (by dismissing liar and lunatic on the basis of his character in the Bible (1) the fallacy of the false dichotomy being that the possibility of the gospel reports about his character, words and deeds might not be true isn't even considered. This is where "an argument presents two options (in this case, three, but the fallacy is the same) and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives."
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.
In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options. (philosophy index)
I believe I was the one to bring up C S Lewis' well known 'Lord. Liar or lunatic' argument for Jesus being 'Lord' (by dismissing liar and lunatic on the basis of his character in the Bible (1) the fallacy of the false dichotomy being that the possibility of the gospel reports about his character, words and deeds might not be true isn't even considered. This is where "an argument presents two options (in this case, three, but the fallacy is the same) and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives."
Now let's hear your refutation of this.
(1) which is arguable in itself
Your argument, above, is an argument for the divinity of Jesus. The topic being discussed was the video I posted ("The Rival Conceptions of God") which illustrated some distinctions between various beliefs. You claimed to have debunked it...
Quote:
Sorry, Blue one - this was not to you, but that video had to be debunked
That crafty fiddler C S Lewis? Right at the start a cheat. He tries to make atheism look like the only one that is dismissive of any possibility of a god, when all we do is look at the rival religions and ask why we should believe one rather than another. But Lewis has to claim that we dismiss all of them as false. But in fact we say that any god that does exist is of all those religions or none.
Quote:
HE is the one saying with a half-shrug that he accepts an element of truth in all of them (a possible god that atheism does not deny but does not believe, as he does) but that all of them are somehow doing it wrong.
Would you like to revise or add to what you said on the topic of the video before I respond to it?
Your argument, above, is an argument for the divinity of Jesus. The topic being discussed was the video I posted ("The Rival Conceptions of God") which illustrated some distinctions between various beliefs. You claimed to have debunked it...
Would you like to revise or add to what you said on the topic of the video before I respond to it?
No. I suppose- since you did not mention it - that you accept that his 'Lord Liar or lunatic' apologetic is a fallacy. If so, I stand by my response to the video that CS Lewis is a very clever apologist for Christianity, but his arguments are, in the end, fallacious. Now by all means go ahead and respond to that assertion of mine.
N. B. Just to save everyone's time, referring me to books, appealing to Authorities or posting videos that I am expected to watch, pick out your evidence for you and then refute it, will not be accepted.
if you have arguments to make, make them yourself, and make them here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
