Atheism on Trial

[Scott Mayers]

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?

What were these "five observations"?

[The Inglorious One]

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?

What were these "five observations"?

gcomeau quoted them. His response was, "You would have been better served making an argument for where they lead yourself, because where I see them leading is absolutely nowhere." I think that comes under "question-begging."

[Scott Mayers]

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?

What were these "five observations"?

gcomeau quoted them. His response was, "You would have been better served making an argument for where they lead yourself, because where I see them leading is absolutely nowhere." I think that comes under "question-begging."

I had to look to find these but only discovered something regarding abstractions. It is you above here who stated you had questions. What particularly are you questioning yourself regarding atheism?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?

You still have not got it yet. The whole point is that NOTHING is representative of a position which makes no claims. Atheism by definition is making no claims, nor even offering a belief.

But allow me to point out what a bunch of dissimulation your ridiculous post is. There is not one case of Red Herrings, except those you have thrown into the works; No non-sequiturs (analogous or otherwise); not a straw man misrepresentations in sight (except the massive whopper in the PN article, noted by several posters), and your own childish misrepresentation of "atheism"; no question begging nonsense, and no one has misrepresented you.

Francis Bacon does not count as fact or evidence: just another opinion.

It's a shame that you don't like the reality of the Atheist position, But wait... relief is at hand.... you can easily refute the position. You can simply traduce atheism as an idiots folly. All you have to do, is offer an argument concerning the existence of a supreme Being that would convince any atheist of its veracity. Simples!!! tct.

Once you do THAT then you have truly put atheism on trial. Until then atheism remains unassailable.

[The Inglorious One]

I had to look to find these but only discovered something regarding abstractions. It is you above here who stated you had questions. What particularly are you questioning yourself regarding atheism?

Does your mother still spoon-feed you and wipe your ass? If you bothered to look you'd find. "What follows from the five observations I laid out?" Atheists here seem to know the answer but don't like it so avoid answering it at all costs. Just look at Hobbes' last post.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?

You still have not got it yet. The whole point is that NOTHING is representative of a position which makes no claims. Atheism by definition is making no claims, nor even offering a belief.

But allow me to point out what a bunch of dissimulation your ridiculous post is. There is not one case of Red Herrings, except those you have thrown into the works; No non-sequiturs (analogous or otherwise); not a straw man misrepresentations in sight (except the massive whopper in the PN article, noted by several posters), and your own childish misrepresentation of "atheism"; no question begging nonsense, and no one has misrepresented you.

Francis Bacon does not count as fact or evidence: just another opinion.

It's a shame that you don't like the reality of the Atheist position, But wait... relief is at hand.... you can easily refute the position. You can simply traduce atheism as an idiots folly. All you have to do, is offer an argument concerning the existence of a supreme Being that would convince any atheist of its veracity. Simples!!! tct.

Once you do THAT then you have truly put atheism on trial. Until then atheism remains unassailable.

[Scott Mayers]

I had to look to find these but only discovered something regarding abstractions. It is you above here who stated you had questions. What particularly are you questioning yourself regarding atheism?

Does your mother still spoon-feed you and wipe your ass? If you bothered to look you'd find. "What follows from the five observations I laid out?" Atheists here seem to know the answer but don't like it so avoid answering it at all costs. Just look at Hobbes' last post.

Please spell it out for me so that I might have a chance to respond directly to you. What do you charge is so problematic with Atheism? What are we on trial here for?

[The Inglorious One]

I had to look to find these but only discovered something regarding abstractions. It is you above here who stated you had questions. What particularly are you questioning yourself regarding atheism?

Does your mother still spoon-feed you and wipe your ass? If you bothered to look you'd find. "What follows from the five observations I laid out?" Atheists here seem to know the answer but don't like it so avoid answering it at all costs. Just look at Hobbes' last post.

Please spell it out for me so that I might have a chance to respond directly to you. What do you charge is so problematic with Atheism? What are we on trial here for?

I'll take that as a "yes" to the first question, which answers yours.

Sorry Scott, but I'm weary of all the evasiveness. The prosecution rests its case. Verdict: atheism is irrational.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Does your mother still spoon-feed you and wipe your ass? If you bothered to look you'd find. "What follows from the five observations I laid out?" Atheists here seem to know the answer but don't like it so avoid answering it at all costs. Just look at Hobbes' last post.

Please spell it out for me so that I might have a chance to respond directly to you. What do you charge is so problematic with Atheism? What are we on trial here for?

I'll take that as a "yes" to the first question, which answers yours.

Sorry Scott, but I'm weary of all the evasiveness. The prosecution rests its case. Verdict: atheism is irrational.

Ignoring post does not avail your verdict.

You still have not got it yet. The whole point is that NOTHING is representative of a position which makes no claims. Atheism by definition is making no claims, nor even offering a belief.

But allow me to point out what a bunch of dissimulation your ridiculous post is. There is not one case of Red Herrings, except those you have thrown into the works; No non-sequiturs (analogous or otherwise); not a straw man misrepresentations in sight (except the massive whopper in the PN article, noted by several posters), and your own childish misrepresentation of "atheism"; no question begging nonsense, and no one has misrepresented you.

Francis Bacon does not count as fact or evidence: just another opinion.

It's a shame that you don't like the reality of the Atheist position, But wait... relief is at hand.... you can easily refute the position. You can simply traduce atheism as an idiots folly. All you have to do, is offer an argument concerning the existence of a supreme Being that would convince any atheist of its veracity. Simples!!! tct.

Once you do THAT then you have truly put atheism on trial. Until then atheism remains unassailable.


A position that makes no claim cannot be irrational.

[Scott Mayers]

I had to look to find these but only discovered something regarding abstractions. It is you above here who stated you had questions. What particularly are you questioning yourself regarding atheism?

Does your mother still spoon-feed you and wipe your ass? If you bothered to look you'd find. "What follows from the five observations I laid out?" Atheists here seem to know the answer but don't like it so avoid answering it at all costs. Just look at Hobbes' last post.

Please spell it out for me so that I might have a chance to respond directly to you. What do you charge is so problematic with Atheism? What are we on trial here for?

I'll take that as a "yes" to the first question, which answers yours.

Sorry Scott, but I'm weary of all the evasiveness.

You're evading me here now. As to your presumption about my own maturity, I suggest you try growing up yourself: The thread here is five pages long and while I took an honest skim back to try to see what the 'observations' you were referring to were, I don't find anything specific you were implying, if you were actually sincere about any 'observations' at all.

I already responded to the referenced article here earlier with clarity. You seem to think that this thread is about a challenge here that hasn't been met or defended. So what is your grievance on atheism as discussed by posters here? Perhaps you could at least link the particular post you're thinking of with these 'observations' and/or questions?

[gcomeau]

I gave a list of five observations without drawing drawing any conclusion myself (though I did also quote Francis Bacon). The list was not seriously challenged by atheists, but led to red herrings, non-sequitur analogies, straw man arguments, question-begging and misrepresentation of what was said.

Are these tactics representative of atheism itself, or are just the proponents of atheism irrational?

What were these "five observations"?

gcomeau quoted them. His response was, "You would have been better served making an argument for where they lead yourself, because where I see them leading is absolutely nowhere." I think that comes under "question-begging."

You clearly don't understand what "question begging" means at all. You asked me where I saw those 5 points leading. I told you.

That isn't even vaguely related to question begging. Please at least learn what the terms you use mean before throwing them round.

[gcomeau]

I had to look to find these but only discovered something regarding abstractions. It is you above here who stated you had questions. What particularly are you questioning yourself regarding atheism?

Your issue is probably that...

1. The inglorious One's "observations" are not observations at all, but assertions. So when you go looking for observations they aren't there. I had to infer what he was talking about by just finding where he listed 5 things and guessed that was what he was referring to.

2. He refuses to make any concrete argument or draw any conclusion based on those assertions but instead repeatedly implies that we atheists already know what he's trying to argue but we won't admit it... so if you go looking for his argument you never actually find it.


He then accuses us of being irrational for not acknowledging the argument and conclusion that he never actually presents.

[The Inglorious One]

I don't find anything specific you were implying, if you were actually sincere about any 'observations' at all.

Exactly. I wasn't implying anything at all. I even said so. Long story short, I presented some statements (assertions or observations -- it doesn't matter) with which no one seemed to disagree, and from those statements, it was inferred that I was talking about God or some kind of "supermind." Why?

[Obvious Leo]

I speak only for myself but I drew no such inference. I made no comment on your statements because they didn't mean anything.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I speak only for myself but I drew no such inference. I made no comment on your statements because they didn't mean anything.

Exactly. His comments amount to hot air.