[...] Top 3 Fallacies of Atheism [...]

The one fallacy of religion (all religions) is that it is all made up from the minds of men (usually men) to help them have power and control over others. None of it is real. It is a myth, a fantasy, a bogus idea.
see 50 reasons why god is imaginary.

This is an interesting assertion. Is the “fallacy of religion” that you speak of cited in any work of philosophy or logic?

So, nothing about this post is correct. To suppress a correlation, one must first establish a correlation, not simply believe one exist, then actually suppress it. The example of the judge is awful because judgement of evil is purely subjective and no one can be said to be “incorrect”. The fallacy of necessity that you observed is simply a misunderstanding on your part. He was not saying that faith requires “proof” he simply said that in the definition of faith, he was also defining the term “proof” to mean evidence. You simply read it wrong. While the appeal to ridicule is certainly not an indication of truth, I believe that by sending religious passages to atheists you were trolling for an argument. Ridicule was to be expected.

Thank you for making the point.  In the same way that you claim that “nothng about this post” is correct you are suppressing the correlative established by my agrument in the cited post.  You reaffirmed my opponent’s redefinition of faith rather than giving due consideration to a biblical definition that establishes the correlative between faith and evidence.

I am unsure where your evidence of my trolling by way of religious passages comes from.  This is my blog post, not a tweet.  You found your way here, but I did not troll for you. 

Finally, I expect ridicule only from those with no willingness to engage in intelligent thought and mature discussion, when they find persons who disagree with them.  Neither atheists nor Christians have a corner on that market.  I have merely experienced it often with atheists, whether or not the topic at hand involved a “religious passage.”

@ max richey. Your comments again show a basic misunderstanding of “correlation”. If you say “it is ok to punish a child with spanking” you are simply stating an opinion with a value judgement. Not a statement of fact. THe action, “spanking” is given a value judgement “ok” and is just as valid an opinion as anyone else’s. Similarly, if a judge makes a value judgement saying “spanking your child is evil” he is also stating an equally valid opinion. There is no correlation between the action and the judgement unless you can somehow establish the opinion as fact. Until then, it is simply an opinion with no correlation to “suppress”. Each opinion is equally valid. As for the definition of faith, I see nothing wrong with the modern textbook definition. I believe the writer simply wanted to clarify what the modern definition meant by “proof”. If you have another definition for faith I’d love to see it and your sources, the modern definition is the only one I have known. Unfortunately, you didn’t do this so It’s unclear why you disagree with the dictionary. As for ridicule, I dont endorse it and usually find it to be The last refuge of the ignorant. However, you claimed that you received ridicule when you posted biblical quotes to atheists lol. What did you expect? Your actions fit the definition of trolling. If I were to post my favorite atheist quotes on a religious website, or to religious twitterers, I would expect a fair amount of ridicule as well.

The point is that the hypothetical judge, when considering evil, might suppress the evidence present in the proverb that expresses an alternative human experience, which may be held to be equally valid, when given correlative consideration.

You are jumping to conclusions by reading into my statement about biblical quotes.  I observed these ridiculous responses to more than one person offerring scriptural references. 

However, you are correct that I would indeed expect ridicule when offerring biblical quotes.  But the issue at hand is not what I would expect, but what is often fallaciously offerred in response to an intelligently presented and contextually relavent scriptural reference.

Well I think we’re finally closer to the heart of what I was saying, that without evidence the opinion is simply that, an opinion. You said, “…might suppress the evidence present in the proverb…” What evidence is present in the proverb? Forgive me if that sounds like a stupid question but I never saw any evidence in the proverb. It appeared to me a statement that expressed an opinion. Perhaps you are using some definition of evidence that I’m unaware of? Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, as do stripes the inner depths of the heart. What evidence is there that this statement is true? Without any, I cannot see how it can be anything but opinion. Furthermore, it seems to me that for this statement to be true, as in a fact, then it must always be true without exception. Otherwise, the opposite statement, “spanking your child is evil” can also be said to be true. A fact and its opposite cannot both be true, this is the most basic of logical fallacies. Without evidence, and to my knowledge there is none, both these statements are clearly opinions. And merely stating your opinion does not in any way suppress someone else’s.

The evidence is not in terms of absolutes.  You are making your argument by observing that the judge and the proverb offer opinions, not facts.  And if not fact, then you claim that no supression is present.  The suppression is in the rejection of the alternative view, not in the oppression of an opinion.  Although, in some cases, both could be simultaneusly applied.  The evidence, in this case, is based on experience.  Having heard both good and evil, the judge rules based on his experience of what is or is not a fitting application of law, whether or not there is a precedent.  Having witnessed both good and evil behavior, the parent rules based on her experience of which disciplinary measures provide the greatest benefit.  Either may not consider the other, when choosing.  To invalidate either form of evidence without due consideration is to suppress the evidence of the contrary position by ignoring/suppressing the plausiblity of a correlative definition in aternative terms.  This typically takes the form of black and white, close-minded thinking, wherein only one opinion, view, evidence, or premise is considered, while holding the counter view to be implausible or even impossible through redefinition of the correlation.

So what establishes the correlation? It is the common relationship at the core of differing terms of definition. In the case of the judge, it is in terms of what does or does not lawfully define an act of evil against an errant child.

In any case, I submit that it would be impossible to fallaciosly suppress any correlative without opinion of some sort.  Because to suppress a correlative with pure logic based in fact cannot be considered fallacious.

Merely stating an opinion does supress someone else’s, when the heart of that valid opinion redefines someone else’s equally valid opinion about the same issue to be invalid.

Actually, evidence is an absolute. It is knowledge of a fact that either supports or denies a claim or propsition. Truth is the reality of facts. Facts exist. THey can be correct or incorrect, but the correct ones determine the truth of reality. Unfortunately, one person’s personal experience doesn’t create truth. Just because one person’s experience may validate their opinion, but someone else may have experiences that validate their opinions. LIke I said before, neither person can be wrong. The values “good” and “evil” are subjectively applied based on personal experience. These values cannot be said to be wrong. If two people state their different opinions, no fallacy has occurred. Different opunions are basically the heart of every debate. if the statements made were regarding a fact, like “the child has been punished” then evidence can be presented to support or reject the statement.

I take it from your nickname that you are somehow linked with a federal agent.  As such, I take it that you are familiar with the concept of circumstatial evidence.  For example, the evidence in your chosen handle that leads one to conclude that you are a federal agent.  Now perhaps that is an absolute truth, but then again, your handle could be misleading.  So, is evidence really absolute?  Or can it be subjectively interpreted? 

The handle I have chosen “fedagent” is only evidence of THe handle I have chosen. Nothing else. It, in of itself, cannot prove or disprove my occupation. True, it is in formation that can be used to make a deduction. That deduction can then be confirmed or disproven using other evidence. But by itself it is evidence of nothing other than my chosen identity. Indeed, it is absolute. If your statement were “is your handle fedagent absolute proof your handle is fedagent?”. The answer would’ve been an easy yes.

Thanks for clearing that up. I hope your experience as a federal agent provides you with more evidence that an opinionated redefinition of terms designed to render an opposing opinion as non-factual, while upholding your own opinion as factual is fallacious.

Lol What opinion of mine do you think I am holding as factual? Please show me where I wrote an opinion, then claimed it to factual. I’m fairly certain this never happened, if it did you wouldn’t need to dance around it, you could just point it out. Secondly, what terms have I redefined? Coming from a guy who uses a 400 year old definition of “faith” this seems like a silly accusation. If I have bothered to define terms at all, It is because clarity is needed before any proper debate or discussion using said terms. And why all the smoke and mirrors? If you truly believe me guilty of THe accusations you have made why not simply point them out when making the accusation? I can only assume you do this because you know these accusations to be baseless.

Your opinion?

“I understand that this “definition” of faith that you happened upon is the very foundation for most of your writings on this page, so it must be hard to accept that from the you misunderstood that definitionstart. But aren’t you happier now for knowing the truth? You need not waste any more time or efforts following a flawed belief.”

Holding the opposing opinion as non-factual?

“you misunderstood that definition”

Holding your opinion as factual?

But aren’t you happier now for knowing the truth? You need not waste any more time or efforts following a flawed belief.”

Another opinion?

“To say that faith is evidence, according to the king James interpretation, then claim that “evidence in this context is the very same evidence as we use the term today is not just misleading, its blatantly false.”

Holding the opposing opinion as non-factual?

then claim that “evidence in this context is the very same evidence as we use the term today is not just misleading,…

Holding your opinion as factual?

…its blatantly false.”

To avoid copying every quote of mine again, I’ll refer to the ones you listed as 1-6 in order of top to bottom. 1-is indeed a statement of fact, while it may of course be incorrect, you haven’t shown thisbto be so. Isn’t your definition of “faith as evidence” the basis for your premise of a “logical Christianity”? If it isn’t, then what is? I’m hoping its not the science of string theory because you haven’t shown that to be connected to spirituality or the supernatural in any way, let alone the specific spirituality of Christianity. 2- that is also a fact, you did misunderstand the biblical definition of faith you were using. This is evident when you began comparing the “evidence” referred to in the bible as essentially the same “evidence” that scientists use today. Again, I demonstrated this, perhaps you chose to ignore it? 3-the first line is a question…not an opinion, the second line is fact. If indeed your “logical Christianity” is built upon faith as evidence, then that belief is flawed as I have demonstrated. 4- Again, this entire statement is true, it is fact. If you are ignorant of that fact, it still remains a fact, not an opinion. 5 and 6- since they are just parts of 4 I will elaborate. Using an outdated definition, then misinterpreting that definition as a basis for A premise can be called many things, dishonest, dumb, foolish, deceitful, etc. I chose the words misleading and false because I felt they were the least insulting and they don’t speak to your motive for doing so. I don’t think you meant to misinterperate the meaning of that passage. But that doesn’t make it any less true, its still incorrect.

1 – This is not even close to being a fact.  The foundation of this post is the top three fallacies of atheism.  Now that IS a fact.  The definition of faith, is a chosen example in two of the three.  And what does string theory have to do with this discussion?

2 – It can only be said that it is a fact that I misunderstood the definition if you can prove my understanding to be false.  Which despite your best efforts you have not.  The reason you have not demonstrated it is because you are locked on to the fallacy of suppressing the correlative, which goes back to the foundation of this post.  So, you are only offering your opinion.

3 – The second line is not a fact because it is merely your opinion that I “need not” spend my time doing anything whatsoever.

4 – You cannot possibly believe that this is a complete statement of fact.  If so, I question the validity of any logic you may think you have offered here.  Again, you are merely suppressing the correlative.  Therefore you are left with fallaciously declaring an obvious opionated viewpoint as fact.

5 & 6 – This is just further evidence that your propositions are fallacious.  Not only are you commiting the fallacy of suppressing the correlative, you have stooped to the fallacy of ridicule.

1- you are indeed correct about this page, I spoke in haste and spoke incorrectly, what I meant to say was “the foundation for your premise of this website” not this specific page. 2- you did misunderstand your definition of faith, I have explained this rather well on your “unbelievers” page. If you have a problem with my interpretation of your , definition of faith, please explain why as I feel I have clearly shown you to be wrong and offered you references upon request, since you seem to be uninterested with doing the research yourself. 3-again, you are correct that “need not” is opinion, but since that was offered along with the point I was making, you can discard it and the point remains factual. 4-the statement remains true, I have clearly demonstrated your understanding of your biblical definition of faith to be incorrect. If my understanding of that same definition is also incorrect, you need only to show why. You have yet to do so, but I am curious to hear your response. 5-6 Any accusation of fallacy remains just that, an accusation. You haven’t shown why You believe these statements to be fallacy. Accusations and more accusations, you are avoiding the truth of my statements by throwing baseless accusations at them. To say something is fallacy is one thing that you are good at, to prove something is fallacy is something else entirely which you haven’t even attempted, let alone failed at.

Due respect, but I just don’t think I can demonstrate your positions to be fallacious any better than the obvious manner demonstrated in your comments.   God bless you and best of luck.

No offense taken, I know that you can’t demonstrate any of my statements to be fallacious simply because they aren’t. Your continual refusal to do so only reaffirms this assertion. Like I said, its one thing to call a statement fallacy, another to prove it. Without proof you are left with a weak accusation.

So, I decided to educate myself on the suppressed correlative fallacy since I’ve been accused of it so often here. As it turns out, I’m still not guilty of it, but max is. It has far less to do with the math example given and far more to do with mutually exclusive ideas. For example, complex and simple, or dangerous and safe. Here is a good example I have found online. Person 1- earthquakes are difficult to predict so they are mysterious. The human circulation system however is not mysterious. Person 2- everything is mysterious. We still no very little about the human circulation system. By redefining mysterious as “everything” person 2 has suppressed the correlative between mysterious and non-mysterious, and effectively destroyed any useful meaning to the word mysterious. Max has done this with the words “faith” and “evidence”. By redefining faith as evidence, max has suppressed the correlative between the two. Faith has lost its distinction from evidence by being included as evidence. How ironic. Max has also committed several other fallacies in his redefinition of Faith including, presentism, fallacy of quoting out of context, etymological fallacy, and poisoning the well. I’d be glad to explain these to you, max, as you don’t seem to like doing the research yourself. Best regards.