Quoting Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only courtiers think that you need to be a formally-trained academic philosopher to identify a horseshit argument when you hear one.

Courtiers reply or the Myers shuffle where Myer is the courtier and the invisible cloak is the fine workmanship spun by Dawkins that he somehow needs no logic or reason or knowledge for declaring something incorrect.
From another point of view an invisible cloak is a ''shit can't think out of the box'' materialist stab at a God who is never suggested as an old man with a beard.

Basically Dawkins makes up the argument, invents the object of the argument and declares it ''horseshit'' or maybe even starts with the assumption of horseshit.......You know, Shakes i'm sure that's a fallacy.
 

[Shaker]

That's not writing, Vlad; that's typing.

[Sebastian Toe]

Antony Flew was an atheist philosopher and key person in evidentialism who gave up atheism.

I give you Muhammad Ali who gave up Christianity.

Punched it in the face, did a butterfly dance around it, knocked it out for a count of ten, shuffled around it so fast it didn't know what happened to it, Bolo punched it into submission, got it on the ropes then knocked it through the ropes, put it in the spit-bucket, wrapped it up in a parcel and posted it 'return to sender'.

This is a good game. who shall we do next?

[Sebastian Toe]

That's not writing, Vlad; that's typing.

Infinite-monkey typing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I give you Muhammad Ali who gave up Christianity.

Punched it in the face, did a butterfly dance around it, knocked it out for a count of ten, shuffled around it so fast it didn't know what happened to it, Bolo punched it into submission, got it on the ropes then knocked it through the ropes, put it in the spit-bucket, wrapped it up in a parcel and posted it 'return to sender'.

S'funny Seb I've seen something like this before. It looks like a ringer, a copy, a facsimile, an imitation, a clone, a wannabee, Humour manqué, a derivative, a pale shadow, a borrowing,

[SweetPea]

Already have.

It doesn't have a fraction of the detail and evidence of the New York Times article by Mark Oppenheimer: http://tinyurl.com/yd9b7g3k

An in depth article yes, but Oppenheimer with his atheist's hat on cannot help but try and belittle Flew's conversion by making out that Flew while starting to lose his facilities in old age had lost his once so-called 'rational' thoughts. Not so, I say.... let the man speak from his grave..

[SweetPea]

Someone else worth a look is David Berlinski..... someone with many questions on evolution. Not a theist but another thinking outside of the box..

[Shaker]

An in depth article yes, but Oppenheimer with his atheist's hat on cannot help but try and belittle Flew's conversion by making out that Flew while starting to lose his facilities in old age had lost his once so-called 'rational' thoughts. Not so, I say....

And that's not you with your theist's hat on trying to prop up some incredibly bad arguments, conveniently glossing over Oppenheimer's abundantly clear evidence of Flew's cognitive failings and his being taken for a ride by others in any way at all, I take it?

[Shaker]

Someone else worth a look is David Berlinski..... someone with many questions on evolution.

We usually find that's a job for scientists.

So that's Berlinski out, as he isn't one. Scientists ask the questions and with a great deal of patience, persistence and hard work sometimes come up with the answers - actual ones. Berlinski ... not really.

Unless of course you can name a single one of these questions of his that he has actually answered. Anything spring to mind?

Not a theist but another thinking outside of the box..

Or indeed thinking - using the word loosely - outside of science altogether.

Not tremendously useful in scientific matters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We usually find that's a job for scientists.

You're either doing a brilliant job of refuting 'courtiers reply/Myers' shuffle or supporting specially pleading ''scientists.''

Har Har.

[Maeght]

Someone else worth a look is David Berlinski..... someone with many questions on evolution. Not a theist but another thinking outside of the box..

Thinking outside the box, does that mean talking about stuff which he has little actual knowledge about?

[Maeght]

An in depth article yes, but Oppenheimer with his atheist's hat on cannot help but try and belittle Flew's conversion by making out that Flew while starting to lose his facilities in old age had lost his once so-called 'rational' thoughts. Not so, I say.... let the man speak from his grave..

Worth looking at the filmed interviews on youtube then I would think. A clear contrast between his early and later ones it seems to me but take a look if you haven't already.

His conversion was, he said,  was due to the integrated complexity which science has revealed but, he felt, not explained. He applied his philosophical way of thinking to the science, which is fine so long as you recognise he is a philosopher nota scientist.

[Sassy]

There has been some arguments about faith being true.

So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.

So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

[Shaker]

There has been some arguments about faith being true.

So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.

So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

There's always one clown here who'll wheel out the negative proof fallacy, surely the go-to piece of bad reasoning of religionists.

[floo]

There has been some arguments about faith being true.

So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.

So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

There you go again, stating something is factual when it is only a belief you can't back up.

[Maeght]

There has been some arguments about faith being true.

So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.

So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

Something can only be claimed to be true if there is sufficient supporting evidence. In the absence of evidence something cannot be said to be true but that is different from saying something is false. The latter would require supporting evidence.

I'm afraid we don't know faith to be true or that God is real. On that basis did you say that? If it was because God's existence cannot be disproved then this is a classic negative proof fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something can only be claimed to be true if there is sufficient supporting evidence. In the absence of evidence something cannot be said to be true but that is different from saying something is false. The latter would require supporting evidence.

I'm afraid we don't know faith to be true or that God is real. On that basis did you say that? If it was because God's existence cannot be disproved then this is a classic negative proof fallacy.

Can you just define NPF again I thought it was a conclusive statement that something exists or doesn't because it cannot be disproved or proved.

Eg God exists because he cannot be disproved or God doesn't exist because he cannot be proved.

[Maeght]

Yes, and that's what Sassy said isn't it?

[Shaker]

Yes, and that's what Sassy said isn't it?

Yup:

I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

Textbook NPF.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, and that's what Sassy said isn't it?

I don't know but I seem to be getting a whiff of ''Sassy has done an NPF therefore God doesn't exist'' a bit from Shaker.

[Maeght]

I don't know but I seem to be getting a whiff of ''Sassy has done an NPF therefore God doesn't exist'' a bit from Shaker.

I think you're over thinking that!

[BeRational]

I don't know but I seem to be getting a whiff of ''Sassy has done an NPF therefore God doesn't exist'' a bit from Shaker.

No not at all.

I think he just noted she had used the classic NPF, which makes her argument useless.

I believe X is true, you cannot prove X is not true, is a classic fallacy.

If you claim X is true, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that X is true. No one has to show that X is not true.

Things are not assumed to be true. They have to be demonstrated.

[Shaker]

I think you're over thinking that!

That's a first.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you're over thinking that!

No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist which if not an NPF is the equivalent of dry humping one.

Look Meaeghtt

No Christian bases his or her faith on the NPF but most atheists base their position of acting as if God doesn't exist on the inability of Christians to provide proof of God.
Thus it is that when a forum antitheist claims a tiny victory on the NPF stakes the whole of the world, rational atheists, Aardvarks, Aliens Freemasons along with the whole company of heaven and earth allow themselves a modest titter.

[Shaker]

No I think your overdoing the NPF bit since there are people on here who believe that because God cannot be proved he therefore must be treated as if he doesn't exist

I'm not seeing the problem.

Look Meaeghtt

No Christian bases his or her faith on the NPF

Despite the fact that earlier Sassy did a cunningly close impression of doing exactly that - #544, relevant bit quoted in #550.

but most atheists base their position of acting as if God doesn't exist on the inability of Christians to provide proof of God.

Or rather any evidence, let alone proof.