What logical fallacy? Its the opposite, my posts use 100% logic
LOL!
I'm not claiming something exists, pay attention, I'm claiming the existence is unverifiable though I personally believe it exists, I'm arguing that atheists should be agnostic not atheistic
As it happens, I'm an agnostic-atheist. I admit that I can't possibly
know for certain that a god doesn't exist in the universe. But I also do not believe that there is any good reason to accept that one does. Until such time as
good reason is presented via evidence, I'll not believe in gods, witches, ghosts, poltergeists, alien abductions, ESP, remote viewing, etc., etc.
And one can only imagine how you can both claim to "believe" a god exists yet not make a claim that one does. Either you believe it or you don't.
Rather it is YOU atheists who claim that something that is unverifiable doesn't exist, making atheism 100% faith-based, all atheists have faith, hope, expectations, etc...
I have no problem with "faith" when its used correctly as a term. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. I have faith that water will quench my thirst. I have faith that the ball I throw up will come back down and I have faith that I can catch it. These are faiths based on experience and observation. Paranormalists can't truly say this. And, to be sure, I don't claim that because something is unverifiable that it doesn't exist. I claim only that there is
no good reason to accept that it does. I have no good reason to believe in your god anymore than I do that of a witchdoctor in Haiti.
I've even less reason to believe in either of these gods than I do a celestial tea pot orbiting the sun independent of our own planet. I have at least observed both tea pots and space flights that could potentially put one in orbit. Yet I still doubt that one exists in and independent orbit around our sun.
Over 10 studies have been done on prayer showing mixed results, some showing prayer is effective and others showing no effectiveness
Interesting. Please cite the one you found
most convincing.
There's innumerable reports showing the effectiveness of healing, healers causing people with incurable diseases to be fully healed...this doesn't convince any atheist of anything
Again, please cite the peer reviewed documentation of the most promising, most convincing case that we might examine it.
There's reports of nearly everything you listed, blind people seeing again, paralyzed walking again, etc...again none of this convinces any atheists of anything, atheists have fully made up their minds to never believe in God, atheism is unfalsifiable, just like any other faith-based belief system
Again, I'm talking about those who are damaged to the point that they lack the required tissues such that only "divine intervention" or surgical implants, grafts, or transplants can heal the person's disability. I don't dispute that the body can heal itself -the lymphatic system alone does a marvelous job in this way. Yet, not a single "faith healer" has ever shown to be effective. And 'spontaneous healings' do not occur at rates that are unexpected or significant.
If you konw of a case the rest of us are ignorant about, please cite it that we might be enlightened.
ROFL...another typical atheistic tactic
And, yet, one that rings true. Such reactions from the superstitious and those deluded about paranormal are common when skeptics and rational thinkers bring it up. Instead of properly refuting logic and reason, we get "ROFL" and "typical tactic." The UFO nutters and the alien abduction wacko's are great for this. I was hoping for more from a theist.
Here's your tactic: "If God exists then everything in the world should be good, even though NO religion ever says since God exists everything should be good, we can just pretend they do, even though they don't"
Your straw man doesn't work. I have only one tactic. It is truth revealed through the only means available to humans: observation and experience. This is what science does and this is how scientific naturalists proceed in the world. We start with observations and experience then arrive at conclusions. Paranormalists, on the other hand, begin with conclusions to which they fit their observations and experiences. No amount of discussion and reasoned discourse will change your mind. Mine, however, can easily be changed with observation and experience. I simply need some actual evidence.
Instead of providing it, nutbars like you keep using logical fallacy after logical fallacy to promote their conclusions, all the while flat-out ignoring any data that conflicts with their conclusions. These conclusions, to nutters like you aren't open for discussion and you aren't willing to revise your position in light of any amount of evidence that contradicts them. Likewise, experiences that contradict these pre-conceived conclusions are quickly forgotten, as if they didn't happen. The paranormalist only remembers the hits, the misses never happened in his mind, regardless of how frequent they are. The closed mind of the paranormalist rarely opens. It does occasionally.
Great tactic...man these atheists always amuse me, they continously try to find ways to preserve their great atheistic faith
As example of your intellectual cowardice, you resort to ad hominem remarks throughout your posts here in this forum. Some are direct, many are circumstantial like "atheistic faith." I find this particular logical fallacy intriguing when it is presented in this fashion since it reveals that the paranormalist
knows deep down his position is untenable. He realizes that "faith" and "religion" are pejorative and attempts to apply this to the atheist as if atheism could have a "faith" in the religious sense or even be a "religion." This type of ad hominem is called
Tu Quoque, meaning "you, too." So, in your revelation of amusement, you create a bit of amusement for the rationally minded. Ironic, no?
Yet another atheistc tactic, the burden of proof is on us, but that doesn't change the fact the existence of God is unverifiable, the rational conclusion is that it's unknown until verifiable, not "something is false until proven true" (like the atheist really believes), thats an argument from ignorance, so atheists use ignorance
The thing about tactics is that sometimes they're good. If a god is so unverifiable to you, what is the rational explanation that you give to yourself for believing it it? Which god do you accept? Humanity has had so many over the course of history and prehistory.
But, more importantly, you fail to actually grasp the argument that the scientific naturalist actually makes with regard to gods. And you
appear to make the assumption that an atheists
atheism informs their worldview and not the other way around. I subscribe to scientific naturalism and it is
this that informs my agnostic-atheism. I agree that a god in the universe is something that I may never know. I may also never know about the living clouds that thrive on a planet 3 billion light years away (and an infinite number of other alien forms of life or objects and events that the imagination can muster).
Just because I can imagine this form of life doesn't mean it exists or doesn't exist. I'm "agnostic" to the existence of living clouds. I can imagine them and give them imaginary qualities. But, if pressed on whether or not I believed in their existence, I'd have to reply that I see no good reason to believe in them, regardless of how perfect I can imagine them.
As to your criticism that for one to argue a god doesn't exist simply because there's no evidence is a logical fallacy, I agree. It is a clear appeal to ignorance:
there is no evidence for P; therefore P is false. This isn't, however, what
most rational atheists are saying. Most theists think that "atheism" is a "denial" of their god (whatever god they happen to believe). This isn't true, since "atheism" simply means 'without gods.' Having said that, most atheists (all I know, anyway) simply say that there is
no good reason to accept that any god proposed by a human actually exists. Believing in such a god is the same as making a tacit, and positive, claim that a given god exists.
Whether that god be Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Wotan, Ba'al, etc. None of the associated dogmas and doctrines found in the cults that worship or worshipped these and any other gods of humanity provide any reason to accept one over the other nor do they provide
any good reason to accept that they are all simply manifestations of the same god.
In closing, for the theist (who, by definition, believes in at least one god and makes a tacit claim of this god's existence) to say,
there is no evidence against P; therefore P, you would have to admit that this theist is making the very same logical fallacy you are criticizing: an appeal to ignorance. This is, essentially, the claim you are making while creating a straw man of the atheist claim that
no good reason exists to accept your god. This is quite different than saying, there's no evidence so there's no god.
