Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
This could have been a better analogy:

Premise: A baby believes in god
Premise: A baby is a theist.
Conclusion: A baby believes in god.

But those are both obviously false premises. Your initial claim had two true premises.
Why do you think that is a better analogy?

Once again your analogy is wrong because you are trying to discredit my argument by comparing atheism with teeth. Last time you compared it to birds. Hence it is once again a straw man.
I did not compare anything. Look up the meaning of 'compare' in a dictionary. And even if I did. that wouldn't make it a straw man.

I have discredited your argument by pointing out that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If you still don't see it then I really don't know if you can be helped.

Please actually answer all the questions in my post.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But those are both obviously false premises. Your initial claim had two true premises.
Why do you think that is a better analogy?

[b]Once again your analogy is wrong because you are trying to discredit my argument by comparing atheism with teeth. Last time you compared it to birds. Hence it is once again a straw man.
I did not compare anything. L ...[text shortened]... really don't know if you can be helped.

Please actually answer all the questions in my post.[/b]

But those are both obviously false premises. Your initial claim had two true premises.

Ok if you agree that my first two premises were true, what would the correct conclusion be? Also assuming the next two premises I gave you were true, why would the conclusion be wrong?

Here let me use two more (correct) premises:

premise: A baby is an atheist.
premise: A baby doesn't believe in God.
conclusion: An atheist doesn't believe in god.

This is exactly the same logic that I used in my first argument. Is this logic also incorrect?

Why do you think that is a better analogy?

Because the analogy contains the same concepts as the original argument.

I did not compare anything. Look up the meaning of 'compare' in a dictionary. And even if I did. that wouldn't make it a straw man.

Once again telling people to look things up because you can't deal with the facts doesn't help.

I have discredited your argument by pointing out that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

And I say the reason you think you did it was because you used a straw man. Which you obviously fail to see.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok if you agree that my first two premises were true, what would the correct conclusion be?

If the premises were true then obviously the conclusion (which was just a repeat of one of the premises) would have to be true. It wouldn't really be a 'conclusion' given that no reasoning was required given that it was just a repeat of a premise.

Also assuming the next two premises I gave you were true, why would the conclusion be wrong?
Which 'next two premises'?

Here let me use two more (correct) premises:

premise: A baby is an atheist.
premise: A baby doesn't believe in God.
conclusion: An atheist doesn't believe in god.

This is exactly the same logic that I used in my first argument. Is this logic also incorrect?
Yes. That logic is also incorrect because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Because the analogy contains the same concepts as the original argument.
No, it doesn't.

Once again telling people to look things up because you can't deal with the facts doesn't help.
Why should I keep copy/pasting dictionaries and Wikipedia links for your benefit? Don't you know how to use Google?

And I say the reason you think you did it was because you used a straw man. Which you obviously fail to see.
Do you still maintain that your argument was logical, and that the conclusion follows from the premises?

Can you answer the questions I asked in the previous posts? I don't think so, because the would highlight the fact that you are lying.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You certainly seem to be exhibiting oodles of logic. Atheist = rock = no critical thinking skills= Theist. LOL

Sigh.

As human beings we are complex creatures. I am an atheist, sure, but my atheism is a miniscule part of who I am as a person. (Unlike I suspect your theism which is a greater part of who you are as a person). Therefore equating my atheism to that of a rock doesn't mean I want to be a rock. (You get that right?). But like a rock I give no thought to God. Sure, as I got older, I dismissed the idea of God, but my atheist clock didn't start ticking on that day. - I know sonship would have you believe that I rejected God so that I could run off and fornicate. Truth is of course If I believed God actually existed I wouldn't be stupid enough to reject him. Clearly my 'rejection' (as theists love to call it) was based on me 'not' believing in him and certainly not a case of rejecting a God I did believe in, just so that I could live a sinful life. Sonship is kidding himself if he truly believes such a thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If the premises were true then obviously the conclusion (which was just a repeat of one of the premises) would have to be true. It wouldn't really be a 'conclusion' given that no reasoning was required given that it was just a repeat of a premise.

[b]Also assuming the next two premises I gave you were true, why would the conclusion be wrong?
Whic ...[text shortened]... n the previous posts? I don't think so, because the would highlight the fact that you are lying.[/b]

If the premises were true then obviously the conclusion (which was just a repeat of one of the premises) would have to be true.

Thank you so now you agree that my conclusion was true. Because in the previous post you said the two premises I used originally were true. Hence my conclusion has to be true. Sigh. All that fuss over nothing.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sigh.

As human beings we are complex creatures. I am an atheist, sure, but my atheism is a miniscule part of who I am as a person. (Unlike I suspect your theism which is a greater part of who you are as a person). Therefore equating my atheism to that of a rock doesn't mean I want to be a rock. (You get that right?). But like a rock I give no thou ...[text shortened]... o that I could live a sinful life. Sonship is kidding himself if he truly believes such a thing.

So if you don't believe in god what do you believe in and why?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Thank you so now you agree that my conclusion was true.

No I do not.

Because in the previous post you said the two premises I used originally were true. Hence my conclusion has to be true.
No, that does not follow.

Sigh. All that fuss over nothing.
If your logic is to be believed then this argument is valid:
Premise: Cats have fur
Premise: Cows are mammals.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.
See, both premises are true therefore the conclusion must be true.
All that fuss over nothing. We have proved God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
This could have been a better analogy:

Premise: A baby believes in god
Premise: A baby is a theist.
Conclusion: A baby believes in god.

Once again your analogy is wrong because you are trying to discredit my argument by comparing atheism with teeth. Last time you compared it to birds. Hence it is once again a straw man.

You really don't know shyte from shinola. Your statement wasn't even logic. It was nonsense.

Why don't you take a quicky course in logic before you try to argue with actual smart people?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if you don't believe in god what do you believe in and why?

Are you pre-supposing (incorrectly) that not believing in God has left a hole in my life?!

I also do not believe in the Yeti. Has this left a yeti shaped hole in my life too?

(I fully accept that to a theist 'God' and the 'Yeti' are not the same, so kindly reciprocate the understanding that to an atheist they effectively are the same and that neither leaves a hole that requires filling).

As for what I do believe in, many things, all of them rationally verifiable.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]But those are both obviously false premises. Your initial claim had two true premises.

Ok if you agree that my first two premises were true, what would the correct conclusion be? Also assuming the next two premises I gave you were true, why would the conclusion be wrong?

Here let me use two more (correct) premises:

premise: A baby is an ...[text shortened]... e reason you think you did it was because you used a straw man. Which you obviously fail to see.[/b]

Dear god they need to start teaching logic in schools.

premise: A baby is an atheist.
premise: A baby doesn't believe in God.
conclusion: An atheist doesn't believe in god.

No, this does not follow. [non-sequitur]

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

All three statements in that 'argument' are in fact true.
Babies are atheists, babies don't believe in gods, and atheists don't believe in gods.

But your 'conclusion' "An atheists doesn't believe in god" [and again it should be a god or gods]
does not follow from the premises you have written.

A formal deductive logical argument is one where IF the premises are true, AND IF the argument
follows the rules of logic correctly, THEN the conclusion MUST also be true.

So let's see whether we can take exactly the same form of argument as you have presented and
see if we can create a false conclusion, thus proving that this form of argument does not follow
the rules of logic correctly.

First let's identify the form of argument you have presented in general form.
"premise: A baby is an atheist." is equivalent to "P1: a "B" is an "A""
IE: the thing B is a member of the set A.

"premise: A baby doesn't believe in God." is equivalent to "P2: a "B" "has property X""
IE: the thing B has a property X

"conclusion: An atheist doesn't believe in god." is equivalent to "C: Therefore an "A" "has property X""
IE: all the members of set A also have property X.

Now lets write that in full:

P1: a B is an A
P2: a B has property X
C: therefore an A has property X

If we make:
"B" = "human baby"
and "A" = "mammal"
and "has property X" = "cannot walk"
then we get:

P1: A human baby is a mammal. [which is true]
P2: A human baby cannot walk. [which is also true]
C: Therefore all mammals cannot walk. [which is false]

Or we could make:
"B" = "human baby"
and "A" = "atheist"
and "has property X" = "cannot speak english"
then we get:

P1: A human baby is an atheist. [which is true]
P2: A human baby cannot speak english. [which is also true]
C: Therefore all atheists cannot speak english. [which is false]

Clearly this form of 'logical argument' does not correctly follow the rules of logic as it can lead to false conclusions.

Specifically the error here is that you are looking at the properties of a subset of items, and then extrapolating
those properties to the larger superset. Along the same lines of someone saying "all dogs are mammals,
therefore all mammals are dogs." which is clearly and obviously not true.

Babies are people who lack a belief in a god or gods. And therefore they are members of the set atheists.
[some like to call them 'implicit atheists']

However, just because babies are not atheists because they have thought about the subject and come to a
particular conclusion [and indeed are incapable of doing so] that doesn't mean that the same applies to all
atheists.

The definition of what an atheists is "a person who lacks belief in a god or gods" doesn't specify WHY any given
person is an atheist. Because there are many many many different answers [good and bad] people will give for
why they are atheists. Some people have good logically sound reasons, some people have irrational and illogical
reasons, and some [like infants] have no reason at all.

There are people who [for whatever reasons] believe that a god or gods exist.
And there are people who [for whatever reason] don't believe that a god or gods exist.

We call the first group theists, and the second group atheists.

It's really that simple.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Dear god they need to start teaching logic in schools.

premise: A baby is an atheist.
premise: A baby doesn't believe in God.
conclusion: An atheist doesn't believe in god.

No, this does not follow. [non-sequitur]
[quote]a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.[/quo ...[text shortened]... .

We call the first group theists, and the second group atheists.

It's really that simple.

My guess is that post will go over his head and his eyes will be spinning in confusion if he even ATTEMPTS to read what you just wrote. Sad isn't it.

Originally posted by apathist
Rocks lack a belief in gods. Since that is stupid (so I hear), there must be something wrong with your definition.

Atheism requires an opinion on the subject of theism. Babies (and rocks) have no opinion on the subject, so they cannot be atheists. A better word to describe babies might be secular.

An atheist is most broadly "a PERSON who lacks a belief in a god or gods."

Atheism is most broadly "the lack of belief in a god or gods".

An atheist is a person, that's in the definition.
Atheism is a statement about beliefs or lack thereof of people.
twhitehead gives his definition in terms of what atheism is.
I give mine in terms of what AN atheist is... which is why my definition includes the word person
and twhitehead's doesn't.
This doesn't make his definition wrong, and it still makes claims about it applying to rocks stupid.

Atheism requires an opinion on the subject of theism

Why? Says, who?

Because no atheist organisation I know of requires that in their definition.
I certainly don't.

Who the hell are you to tell me and all the major atheist institutions and organisations what an
atheist is?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If theists are required to provide evidence for their beliefs, surely atheists should also provide evidence for their beliefs? If you claim that you don't believe in God(s), then what do you believe in? Nothing?

Can you "provide evidence" for your not believing (presumably) in the tooth fairy?

I don't think you need to - unless compelling evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy emerges, a perfectly valid position is for you to say you don't believe in the tooth fairy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This has glaring holes.

I know you're eager to "prove" your case, but this post is far from doing that.

BUMP

It doesn't actually have glaring holes...

However, if you would like to try to point some out you are more than welcome to do so.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I also do not believe in the Yeti. Has this left a yeti shaped hole in my life too?

This amused me because I was reminded of part of a recent "The Most Interesting Man in the World" commercial I heard just the other day.

"Yetis have a hard time believing that he exists."