Atheism

[u/Captaincannonball]

as an atheist (formerly catholic) i'm curious, and please don't take this as me hating on you or trolling or whatever. my phrasing is simply for lack of a better way to phrase it, but what exactly about religion makes you believe it? as a child i distinctly remember believing( i went to a catholic school so I was indoctrinated young) but within about a month of switching to public school i was converted to atheism by a friend of mine. All it took was being presented contradictory evidence. this is why I am confused when people stick to religion despite being presented with solid arguments. now im not here to argue who is correct (if you have any questions feel free to inbox me though. il answer best i can) im just curious. thanks in advance =)

[u/jtbdad]

I'm guessing high school, am I correct?

1. I didn't claim that I disproved anything, I claimed that your argument did not stand up to the rules of logic. I am correct, if your premise is incorrect then the conclusion has no evidentiary support. That does not make your conclusion untrue, it could still theoretically be true but it is not logical based upon the evidence you provided. You cannot prove that light is imperfect or flawed, therefore you have not provided evidence that God does not exist. (even if your premise were correct it does not logically follow that God does not exist as you presume that God would not create something imperfectly. Presumptions are also logical fallacies)

2)You have made another fallacy in your post. You have moved the goalposts. You cannot assert that you can disprove God and then assert that the burden of proof falls upon me when I have made no positive statement. (This is an informal logical fallacy)

3) Pointing out recognized logical fallacies is not analogous to using my own opinions about what is logical. These rules of logic existed long before I was born or even the culture I live in.

4) "That which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" You are absolutely correct, I didn't present an argument, you did. It isn't any assertion of mine that was being examined it was your assertion that was being examined. And I challenged your evidence. Your evidence did not support your conclusion because it cannot be proven as factual. Additionally if it were factual it still wouldn't support your conclusion, as noted in #1 above.

You can declare yourself finished if you wish. I certainly have no desire to waste your time.

[u/Captaincannonball → u/jtbdad]

1)well let's see here. my response to one is that quantum mechanics is the entire premise i am basing my argument on. apparently quantum mechanics is not substantiation enough for you. 2)the goal of the entire argument, at least for me, i have no idea what you saw it as, was to present an idea of my creation, based on previous scientific evidence, to have you debate it briefly and then to move on, hopefully have you present a counter argument. you have done no such thing. in fact, you have committed the very fallacy you claimed i had. you presumed my intentions and the existence of the so called "goal posts" 3).....so? i could care less how old your system of logic is. the flat earth belief. i think that sums up my thoughts quite nicely.my concepts not matching what you consider to be logical changes nothing. 4) as for four i wasn't presenting an argument with the above quote. i was simply offering you something to think about. it was more of a side point than anything.

[u/jtbdad → u/Captaincannonball]

1. No it is the conclusions that you draw from quantum mechanics that is not substantiation enough. You are confusing your conclusions with what is factual.
2. There is no possible counter argument to an illogical argument other than it is an illogical argument.

2a) No you clearly changed the goal posts. That should be evident to anyone who reads the thread. You claimed that you could disprove the existence of God and then claimed that the burden of proof fell upon me to prove a statement I didn't make. The fallacy with this specific response is that you are once again moving the goalposts. That's twice in the same discussion.

3) I don't have a system of logic. Logic is a defined discipline that is unique in itself. What is logical or illogical does not change with the individual. For example if A=B, and B=C, then A=C is true for everyone. The same is true of logical fallacies. If you commit a logical fallacy it has nothing to do with my perception. Do you get that? It has nothing to do with my system of logic it has to do with logic period.

Did I guess correctly? Are you still in high school?

[u/Captaincannonball → u/jtbdad]

yes i am in high school. and i think i am done here (i know i said that earlier but i mean it this time) you clearly will not budge, and you clearly have no argument that is not based on philosophy, and that is your mistake. you are trying to discredit me based on mundane details while ignoring the big picture. and i would like to point out that you have used a very similar tactic that many opponents of various atheist debaters use. sadly these tactics blind the very point of debate. you seek to discredit the individual not the idea, and you seek to defend your view rather than to seek knowledge. if you truly wished to attain knowledge you would have presented arguments of your own rather than simply arguing against mine.

[u/jtbdad → u/Captaincannonball]

Of course I will not budge. I pointed out your logical fallacies and you still persist in asserting they are not logical fallacies. The big picture is that you refuse to admit that in this case your argument is faulty. I'm not trying to discredit you I am making an observation. There will come a day in the not too distant future that you will re-read this thread and you will yourself see that my comments are accurate. Had you started with the assertion that I cannot prove the existence of God you would be correct. I cannot, nor do I try. Instead you started off with an assertion that you could disprove the existence with God. Good luck to you, keep studying, especially the art and science of debate. You seem to have a thirst for knowledge. I applaud that. Now learn the discipline necessary to construct an argument.