A False Dilemma, in Atheism

You do realize that philosophy is merely the collection of thought by others and has no bearing on truth, right?

Your claims of philosophical superiority and certitude are thereby proven false, as is your belief system.

 

So you are showing both religious and political bigotry whilst showing you know nothing about atheists and have no wish to learn the truth. How incredibly christian of you!

 

Just some information to input into this discussion.

I personally do not care if there is a god or not. Not enough evidence presented either way to be convincing but I feel compelled to present counter statements to inflict beliefs on others.

 

Hey - welcome back (at least I haven't seen posts from you for a while)!

 

Yeah....I stepped away for awhile to avoid getting banned by Lee....so now I only play away from politics here.

 

Well, first of all you seem to be targeting science, not atheism.

As for that, I don't see any irony. Science does not claim to find "truth". In fact, science states that even the most concrete results are assailable. Science is a tool for developing an understanding of how our physical universe works. Religion doesn't supply that.

On the other hand, religion allows humans to claim to have found truth.

I just don't see a justification in finding some big conflict here. If you want to know the mechanism of this physical universe, you go to science, not religion. If you want to achieve "truth" in the sense you mean, one must turn to something other than science - something that allows one to be unfettered by the physical evidence of this universe. There are thousands of ideas on how to do that. Surely people have been working on this ever since cave art was a thing.

 

Despite the public problems with paid ministry, it does not mean all ministry is for profit. Take my church, LDS. Our ministry is never paid.

 

I like this direction as we certainly have seen religious persons working hard at reaping the wealth of their flocks by night TV.

However, there are ecclesiastical leaders within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that earn 6 figure salaries from the church.

My own opinion is that this is still better than many church situations, where pastors are paid to play or where the overall organization has huge investments and a vast hierarchy.

 

Yikes! I've never seen anything you've said that could possibly warrant censure.

I hope to see you around.

 

And I never have....it was an apparent inability to grasp humor becoming a series of FlameBait infractions. In about a month I will be safe to play again but will temper my wit.

 

I can relate to that.

 

And whose names are those?

 

I do not claim phosophical superiority.. i demonstrate it. ..constantly in these forums, dealing with fallacy after fallacy from progressive indoctrinees.
Nobody has even given a rational rebuttal to the OP, just assertions, ad hom, and indignation.. this passes for 'reason!' in Progresso World..

 

I think you will find that Bruce D. Porter, an elder, got a raise in 2016 to $120K/year.

Obviously, that's not a large salary compared to corporate leadership today. However, claims that they don't get paid just aren't true.

You can look to see what others receive.

The LDS church is significantly secretive about salaries of top leadership, but the information does get out.

 

The Church must be ultra secretive since the church announces openly we have no paid ministry. As to Porter, he died in 2016.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/the-church-s-unpaid-clergy
3 September 2009 | POSTED BY Doug Andersen

 

Perhaps Porter was outside the definition of "clergy".

His 2016 raise was about $4k - $116k to $120K.

 

Funny how a comment is now supposed to be proof.

I provided proof they are not paid.

 

You claim, by only your own standards, to demonstrate it. In fact, you constantly deny it and not only fail to deal with fallacies, you post that that belong to you. And insist that others buy into your fairy tales.

You have given no rational support of your claims, merely that you believe them. Not a good enough reason by far.

 

Seriously?

I really don't get the false accusations.

Fairy tales? From this?

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)
The dilemma presented is usually like this:
'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'
But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

This is an exposè of a false dilemma. I have no idea how your irrelevant accusations apply.. they don't, in fact. They are just ravings from a religious bigot.

I am amazed at the level of jihadist Indoctrination from progressives and their bobbleheads. Reason and simple logic is ignored, and outrage over some nonexistent offense is trumped up.. with the gratuitous hysterical indignation.

If this kind of intensity lasts for more than 4 hours, you should call a doctor...

 

You participate and post false accusations constantly. The fairy tale is that you claim to not know it. You make claims on behalf of others without knowing what they truly think on a given subject.

And you have the nerve and hypocrisy to claim innocence of making these claims? You label everything to fit your scenario and will brook no difference to your claims.

It would seem that you are the one ignoring reason and simple logic, to quote your own words. Perhaps an investment in a dictionary would be helpful.

 

It’s becoming more and more clear that we cannot expect honest debate out of the kind of person who would use a dictionary definition and then arbitrarily edit that same definition when it is pointed out that it goes against their argument.

 

..from a flame baiting heckler, who just wants to provoke to get his enemies banned...

You don't want to debate the topic. I get it. But why not move on? Why the compulsion to needle and harass?

 

What I want is an honest debate. You can’t get that from someone who arbitrarily redefined words and who selectively quotes posts.

 

Back to the topic:

"No evidence = no God

'Evidence' can be personal, empirical, or other.

My case is that the CONCLUSION of 'No God' is fallacious, based on incomplete information, and a false dilemma.

It is flawed reasoning to conclude 'No God!' based on ignorance or flawed assumptions. There are other possibilities as to why one has 'no personal evidence.' It is a flawed conclusion to arrive at 'no God!', only from ignorance."

 

No, you pointed out that the one example I gave died the same year he got a $4k raise.