Ask an Atheist

One of the characteristics of a cogent refutation of an argument is that the argument one is refuting be represented fairly and accurately. To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the misrepresentation or distortion is accidental and due to misunderstanding the argument or is intentional and aimed at making it easier to refute. Either way, one commits the straw man fallacy.

In other words, the attacker of a straw man argument is refuting a position of his own creation, not the position of someone else. The refutation may appear to be a good one to someone unfamiliar with the original argument.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson9.html 

Ron Webb wrote: Andalus wrote: Ron Webb wrote: There is no water composed of carbon dioxide, by definition.  It doesn't require evidence. by "definition" because it is based upon the "attributes", or essential elememts of water and carbon dioxide. It is a universal negative statement. By "definition" does not make not a universal negative statement. No, but it makes it a false analogy.  Obviously one can prove some negative statements, but the point here is that one cannot prove a statement that says something does not exist.

Not a false analogy. We are talking about arguing for a universal negative statement. The claim was that it could not be proven.

Fortunately it is not necessary to prove that "carbon-dioxide water" does not exist, because we already know that it cannot exist, by definition.

tangent. What was being discussued was the issue of a universal negative statement, and the idea of shirking all responsibility for having to make an argument for supporting a claim.

No one is suggesting that God cannot exist (i.e., it is possible to imagine such a Being), only that He does not.

agreed. This is not the topic.

What good reason would someone necessarily believe that unicorns or any of the other rediculous aburdities must be true. Well, none really, except that lots of other people believe in them (or did at one time).  What good reason would someone believe that God exists?

I am quite ready to give my arguments. Not until the author of the thread provide their reasons why athiesm is necessarily true, which is the context of the thread.

Faithful Foundation Say's oh baseless blind Iman
Your followers are all non scientific illogical irrational mumbling Be Iman
Your blind believers are atheist agnostic superstitious idiots
Your blind believers are all bumbling bigots
If they are truly rational and can understand the logic
Then they will surely say Mona lisa smile is piece of creators art it did not came through by chance magic
But why not it too can come by random throwing down of colour
But they will again say the Science Say's yes may be once not what is happening every where regular
If something happens in same Patten in same fashion in same manner
Then they all must have one singular creator originator
The creator who created the first design and replaced it many subject
If that is so then tell us oh blind atheist and agnostic believers what is the name of that single and most abundant object
The diagram of golden ratio in the nature
How they all have the same diagram of the heavenly sephiroth and earthy sandal character
The octagonal diagram of the atomic design to the pentagram of water Lilly's
Why almost everything in the nature follows the design of holy KAABA and HOLY of HOLLIES
If every thing follows the same design then there must be one designer
Faithful Foundation Say's oh baseless blind believer accept ISLAM now and reject KUFFAR

from SWEETSWORDS 78 [ Great Traitors ]