this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
739 points (94.8% liked)

Atheist Memes

5595 readers
43 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] exanime@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I used the equivalent logic. I’m demonstrating the logic is wrong, not the conclusion.

By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim? that's the part I disagree with

Nit picky. Change it to a million sided die and 999999 people all choose different answers. One doesn’t have to be true, but it’s still ridiculous to claim they all have to be wrong.

OK, 99999 side, no option is correct. How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that "none are correct"?

You gotta shake the black and white thinking.

I'm not, my initial criticism of your logic is precisely that we cannot reduce it to a simple right or wrong. Almost everything is more nuanced than that, specially religion

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim?

It exactly resembles the logic. Which is the important part. You can argue there is more to it because religious beliefs are much more complicated, and I would agree, but you would also be agreeing with my point that the logic itself is bad.

How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that “none are correct”?

? There is only a 1 in a million chance that noone is correct. To say the only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong makes no sense because it is almost certainly incorrect.

I’m not,

? Your last argument that I responded to is literally that we shouldnt be acting like a belief is right or certain. Which was also in a chain of you accusing me of saying one must be right.

This is really going off then rails.

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It exactly resembles the logic. Which is the important part.

Not if the components of the formula you are subbing in the logic are so far departed. But this is my opinion and I feel we are just going in circles here. I do agree with you in that the Hitchens original claim is flawed (actually I never found him as wise as people seem to) but I do not believe your reduced scenario proved that.

Your last argument that I responded to is literally that we shouldnt be acting like a belief is right or certain.

How is me saying that an indication I am thinking in black and white?! Precisely saying we shouldN'T be acting like a belief is right or certain is the opposite of black and white thinking.