Daniel’s Bad Take on Atheism and Logic (and Philip)

A few weeks later, Philip was explaining question-begging on Twitter, in a very general way. He didn’t bring God or anything into it, and in fact, just gave the logic and asked others to name the fallacy. Now don’t get me wrong, this was obviously influenced by his conversations with Daniel, but it was being used as a tool to explain question-begging without naming names.

Even though Daniel had blocked him, he managed to screenshot this and make it all about himself. He started a thread that was awful:


He blocks someone, trawls their tweets, and then makes posts addressing their comments.


His thread was filled with issues, even had things like him saying God is evidence of his own existence…
He also said “it’s not fallacious to proclaim what is true” – but that shows a misunderstanding of what fallacies are.


Fallacies are about an error in reasoning. You can have non-fallacious reasoning and end up with a false conclusion, and you can have fallacious reasoning and still end up at a truth.

The bulk of my responses can be found in this thread: https://twitter.com/answersinreason/status/1444669403124142084

The TL;DR version is

1. He kept asking me to define god

2. I kept saying I use the definition of the theist I am speaking to because theists, even Christians, define God differently


3. He kept on with getting me to give “my definition”.
4. I gave him a general definition:


5. He then said how do you know it is the correct definition and how is that not question-begging – he got it into his head that I had somehow said defining God using the Bible is question-begging… It is not.
6. I tried to correct him on this, but he kept on with it, saying it is not question-begging because God exists…

As you can see, I quite clearly state that question-begging is your justification for saying God exists and not defining it.

7. He did make some weird claims like you need to be omniscient to know God Doesn’t exist:


There are a number of issues with this.

  • If a God is claimed with a number of properties that lead to a logical impossibility, even if one is omniscience, we can know that god does not exist.
  • I never brought knowledge in to the conversation, he did. I believe gods do not exist. Some I will claim to know based on the first point.
  • He was the only one to assert God does exist. He doesn’t hold himself to the same standard he expects of others, this is special pleading. He must subconsciously know this, else why would he be projecting this on to others?

8. I did get pissed off with him constantly misrepresenting me and not listening to what I was saying and stated I didn’t know if it was dishonest or couldn’t see out of his tiny box (meaning he filtered everything In such a way that he was always right and if it didn’t fit into his narrative he just ignored it) – agreed that this may not have been the best way to behave.

To explain (and not excuse) on top of finding dodging and misrepresentation annoying, my wife has had a C-section and we have a newborn in the house, so I’m a bit stressed with a shorter fuse.

Looking back, I don’t disagree with what I said but feel I could have put it better. I am sorry for that Daniel, I didn’t need to be quite as nasty.

All in all, the conversation was pretty shitty, and the following day he decides to make a thread about me, claiming that I said defining God using the Bible was question-begging.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6