Posted: Feb 16, 2012 12:03 pm
by Spearthrower
Lion IRC wrote:
No. It's not good advice because it's based on something which is ITSELF an unsubstantiated claim - an opinion.
"Pretty much every "proof" of God ever invented has been discussed already and found to be invalid, unsound or both."


You mean which ones? Which ones have been found to be substantiated? I clearly didn't get the memo that everyone in the world now knows about one particular god and universally agree of its existence - how pray tell did this come about? Did a hand appear in the heaven and a boomy voice in the clouds? I know I overslept a bit this morning, but I wasn't expecting to miss anything this momentous.


Lion IRC wrote:Beware of claims which rest on the logical fallacy...everybody knows... everyone agrees with...we all blah blah blah...


Wow! Nice red herring Lion! Where does it say in the text you're supposedly citing that 'everyone knows'? The only way in which you've mastered logical fallacies is in the production of them.


Lion IRC wrote:I am as entitled to be skeptical of atheism - the no god hypothesis - as I am to be skeptical of any other unsupported theory.


Only, just by saying it like that, you show that you've got no comprehension of the topic. A null hypothesis is default until data shows otherwise. No one is 'skeptical' of the null hypothesis - it's just sitting there waiting to be shown wrong.

You've also made the mistake of saying that atheism is a theory, or that it should be supported. In essence, you've provided the perfect counterpart to this thread - a role model for the kind of erroneous bollocks we routinely face from believers such as yourself, and which intelligent believers would do well to avoid if their objective here is to actually engage in the other side's points, rather than flail around at strawmen.