Theism is A. A-theism is Not A. And that right there is your tautology.
tau?tol?o?gy
t?'t?l?je/Submit
noun
LOGIC
a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
Would you like to try again. In logical forms, a tautology based on definitions is not a fallacy, which is what you're attempting to claim here, that this is a tautological fallacy. Incorrect. A tautology based on definitional forms is necessarily true by virtue of its logical form. A = A and A does not equal Not A. A-theism is a lack of theism. It is Not A. This is not fallacious. This is factual, definitionally defined, and true by necessity.
Try again dipshit.
And that's another tautology.
Tad you seem to be having trouble understanding that tautologies which are definitional are not fallacies of logic.
You can describe your belief that there is no God as a lack of belief in God, but it's still a belief.
A cannot equal Not A. You're wrong by definition.
Belief: N. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
That's nice. Too bad atheism is a lack of this, and therefore can't be it.
By definition.
You are confident in the truth that there is no God.
No, I'm confident in the belief that your particular flavor of a god does not exist. I don't know that no gods exist absolutely.
God's existence or non-existence is not subject to rigorous proof.
Things which exist are demonstrable. Until such time as you can demonstrate something exists, lack of belief in that positive claim is the default position. So in that way, yes, actually, your magical sky fairy man is either non existent, or subject to rigorous proof.
Anyway, last post on this subject in this thread.
Because you don't have a rebuttal to the factual statement that A = A and does not equal Not A in the same way that 2 and 2 equate to 4 DEFINITIONALLY.
Keep spinning your wheels on this subject if you want, but deep down you know you're wrong or you wouldn't try so hard to bullshit me.
No, I know for a fact you're wrong, which is why I'm pointing it out over and over again until you get it through that thick fucking skull of yours that you are wrong.
I don't usually bother with the atheism thread because its mostly a circle-jerk of folks like you.
You don't bother with it, because your argument is shit as I've demonstrated here. Its a waste of time trying to argue a losing position, which is why you're going to run away from this now.
As the only person in this thread with an A+ in Constitutional Law from a well-known top 14 Law School
Appeal to authority fallacy.
let me end this discussion on this topic by simply saying: please shut the fuck up about something you know nothing about.
He says while asserting that 2 and 2 equating to 4 is a tautological fallacy.
Clearly I know more than you do about it, since you're here arguing that sometime in the future, the Supremes will return us to Jim Crow style laws, which is never going to happen.
Wikipedia is riddled with inaccuracies and bias
Incorrect. All peer reviewed research to date contradicts this claim. It has as many errors as Encyclopedia Britannica. Trying to defend your appeal to genetic fallacy by making unsubstantiated accusations isn't an argument or rebuttal either.
something the GamerGate folks were forced to find out the hard way. But keep on believin'
I'll tell you what. Find us one peer review source that states that Wikipedia has more errors with its articles than a regular encyclopedia and I'll cede your argument wikipedia is an invalid reference source.
It doesn't exist so good luck!
Again you prove that you think everyone is a racist and federal power must be used to coerce people to behave properly.
This is just a strawman attempting to avoid the actual issue: This nation has a historical record of discriminatory policies by private businesses which directly impacted the lives and rights of minority populations, and this led to the Supreme Court putting an end to that activity. Whether you like it or not, this is a fact.
I on the other hand, think we live in a country where everyone is not a racist, however I think everyone, including racists such as yourself, have the right to speak and behave as they see fit as long as they aren't acting or behaving criminally.
This is just soapboxing your strawdog.
Does this country have a history of social discrimination against minorities, yes or no? Was that discrimination protected by law, yes or no? Did that discrimination lead to segregation and civil unrest, yes or no?
Did the Supreme Court find that these policies were Unconstitutional and that the Federal Government has a right to regulate this activity based on its impact on interstate commerce, yes or no?
Since all of these questions must be answered with yes, your entire line of reasoning is one big fat strawman devoid of historical context, and your attempts to slander others as racists because these facts are inconvenient to your position is just an example of how pathetically weak your argument is, that you have to try and paint others as racist....as a means of justifying your position that discrimination in private industry is a Constitutionally protected right, which is a conclusion contrary to all evidence, Supreme Court rulings of the past half century and more and unjustified based on even an extremely broad reading of the right to free association, which covers organizing for political and cultural and religious ends, but does not include a right to discriminate against others in your business dealings.
What you need to do is put up or shut up. Show us a case, that hasn't been overturned in the past 100 years, where the Supremes determined that the 1st amendment right to free association gives a business person a right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, color, religion, creed, etc.
It doesn't exist, so again, GOOD LUCK DUMB FUCK.
