Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

As you point out, it's all here in black and gray. Everyone can read for themselves how every single post you have made has been ripped to shreds and ridiculed as either being irrelevant to the topic or completely misunderstood and mistated by you.

Your claim that you want to learn is obliterated by your refusal to address rebutals honestly.

Your outlandish premise has been thoroughly discredited by too many posters to list and you refuse to acknowledge defeat.

Plugging your ears and saying NAHNAHNAHICAN'THEARYOU is your response.

Too nice a day to waste any more time on nonsense, so I'm out.

Good luck with that "desire to learn" thing.

 

If that's what you think is happening

 

By your quoted definition, that's not a straw man.

A straw man argument is one in which someone intentionally misrepresents an OPPOSING argument for the purpose of beating it down.

For example:

Frank: Most people agree that cats are smarter than dogs.
Sam: So, you think we should kill every dog, huh? Polls show that 99.3% of Americans think we should NOT kill all dogs, so you are clearly wrong.
Frank: Umm...
Sam: DOG MURDERER.

The straw man occurred when Sam characterized Frank's argument incorrectly, making the subsequent beat down of that "straw man" argument meaningless.

 

Well that came right from wikipedia. Maybe that would explain wikipedia isn't accurate? What do you think?

 

The definition you quoted was fine. It was your interpretation of it that was wrong.

 

And, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is wrong all the damn time.

 

So let's break down when I called MARIS using a straw man argument.

I said "Religion is catastrophic because religious leaders abuse their power"

Then MARIS said "You're right they are catastrophic". They are peaceful people.

Then I brought up that the communist countries have been responsible for over 250 million deaths. So that same abuse has been done from both the atheists and religious leaders.

Then he said the communists aren't atheists, so it doesn't count.

I argued that both sides have been just as responsible for being "catastrophic" on their abuse of power.

 

See?

 

Gonna have to agree with you on that.

 

So, where exactly was the straw man?

 

When there was evidence of atheists abusing power; he tried proving that communism was not atheists. That's when it became "straw man".

 

2 mis-statements of my posts right there.

 

Yeah a bit of the summary. Shall I copy and paste exactly what you said? Do you really want me to do that?

 

No, I did not.

That's ridiculous.

 

If you don't, I will.

I said nothing of the kind, nor did I imply it.

 

Start:

Then I said

Caravan said

and I replied

Then this is when it gets straw man

So you are denying that you said "Religion is catastrophic"?

 

China has killed well over 100 million people. That's when it became "straw man"

 

Really? So MARIS is an exception?

Also, as you said "No compelling evidence"; and when you also said "The only way I will believe there is a "God(s)" is when he speaks to you from a burning bush; then I replied "So you refuse to believe Khan exists?". So who's logic is flawed here?