The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience Aug 10, 2018 12:30:39 GMT

Quote

Post by Arlon10 on Aug 10, 2018 12:30:39 GMT

Aug 10, 2018 12:19:33 GMT FilmFlaneur said:

Aug 10, 2018 12:00:42 GMT Arlon10 said:

The Britannica might be correct insofar as it goes.

Yes, it goes even so far as correctly defining a fallacy. QED.

The likely culprit is your interpretation of what Britannica says. I have given details, you have not.

The first thing you said was that "there is no "fallacy of nature", and I showed that there was, remember?

The details of the case was that you said originally "the subject of modern religious activities and might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics .

So QED again, and I hope that helps.

It is however possible that even "authorities" of past repute have fallen sway to the grunts responsible for the lie that any agency found in nature could have initiated life on Earth.

All that is required, Arlon, is for one to assert that in the case of the origins of life on earth, presently at least, nature works in mysterious ways. This always seems to be perfectly satisfactory for any of the devoutly-challenged who cannot explain what their preferred deity is up to. For my own part, it is hard to take any lessons in understanding from one with extreme credulity in supernatural alternatives and who, moreover apparently does not know how old the cosmos is - or discounts quantum physics, come to that. But we've been here before.

   As I predicted you still do not understand what you're talking about. You saw the words "nature" and "religion" in the same paragraph and decided there must be some "fallacy." Red flag that. We both know you only have to see the word religion in a paragraph to decide it must contain a fallacy.

   There are indeed examples of failures in logic, all of your attempts are. You are the one guilty of any "fallacy of nature." See how that works? Now you try and get out of it.

   Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance are also not really rules and not helpful in deciding the winner of any argument. They are just "made up" by grunts who can't win any other way than claiming some rule requires it. You need such "rules" because you are losing so bad.