"Sheldon, you may genuinely believe that you have smashed me with superior logic. But...well, you didn't, because there are blatant illogical flaws that you have failed to recognize."

I explained where you were using known logical fallacies, and you come back with a puerile school ground taunt, wow. Care to quote the text from my post and explain why it is irrational? After of course you address the known logical fallacies in your OP which I pointed out and you ignored?

"Do you realize what happens when you label everything you disagree with as an ''assertion fallacy''?

That's a straw man fallacy, as I never "labelled everything" as an argument from assertion fallacy, I was quite specific.

You can't just make up fallacies and declare you've won.

I did neither of these? I explained specifically where you had used known logical fallacies, I even linked a site listing and defining these, and other logical fallacies, you are simply lying now? FYI this is again a straw man fallacy, since you have made up a false argument I never made and assigned it to me.

"I know what every informal fallacy means :D"

I find that claim absurdly dubious given your OP claims, and this disjointed rant of yours in response to me pointing out your use of known logical fallacies, and if you really did know what every informal fallacy means, then why are you repeatedly using them?

"Oh dear. I don't even know how to respect your opinions anymore. You just blatantly resorted to denial--which atheist, specially one like you, WOULDN'T argue on behalf on science and logic (at least their notion of it)?

Since when is denying something someone has claimed, verboten in a fucking debate forum, and where did I claim no atheist would argue on behalf of the efficacy of science and logic? Is English actually your first language, as you seem unable to comprehend the simplest sentence?

"And your accusation of me not knowing the definition of atheism is not just false but a non sequitor, because dictionaries don't tell us the details (otherwise it'd be as big as the observable universe)."

You misrepresented atheism in your OP in a debate forum, so I posted a rebuttal arguing against your misrepresentation, using the dictionary definition of atheism as evidence, so how one earth is that a non sequitur exactly? Or is this another phrase you clearly don't understand? As for your claim the dictionary definition doesn't give us details of what words mean, I am at a loss as to how to respond to such obvious stupidity?

"Another blunder of yours (and argument I've seen a million times) is that you claim I need to provide physical evidence for non-physical things. "

I never claimed this, I just asked what objective evidence you could demonstrate for any deity, so this is yet another straw man fallacy you have created. Do you even grasp the fundamental difference between a claim and a question?

"You're not going to gain respect by calling us ignorant and trolls. You're LOSING respect."

I never called you an ignorant troll, though your bizarre disjointed response is making it impossible not to infer one or the other. I am no longer leaning towards you being a troll, if that helps, and your respect is not something I crave, since it is you who came to an atheist forum to make your asinine false claims about me, not the other way around.

"I don't think atheists have the ground to dismiss the probability of the existence of deities solely because of a lack of physical evidence."

Nor do I, but then I have never done this, as atheism is not a denial of the existence of any deity, again a cursory look at a dictionary might help you see your error here.

" I find this really ironic because you are now confirming what you were denying earlier (the notion that you somehow don't have prejudice against non-scientific methods)!"

I don't think you understand irony either, and I have never actually made that denial, so this is again a fallacious straw man lie you are making up based on your errant assumption that atheism things, because you clearly don't know what the definition of atheism is, and it doesn't mention either science or logic.

"Sheldon, you're literally arguing in bad faith (or, worse, you're blatantly dishonest). Adding the word ''fallacy'' to every thing you disagree with doesn't make you more logical."

"More logical" what does that even mean? Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, reasoning either does adhere to these principles or it does not, and one of the most basic principles of logic is that nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational. For the record your response is a perfect example of irony, as again I never did what you are claiming. I very specifically explained where you had used known logical fallacies, and I gave you the definitions of those fallacies. For example here you have again dishonestly distorted what I said, and made up a false argument, then assigned it to me, and this is the very definition of a straw man fallacy, and therefore by definition it is irrational Here again then is a link to that site explaining 15 of the most commonly used fallacies in informal logic.

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

Now do try not to simply ignore this again as you have done here. as your response seems to be a disjointed and puerile rant that doesn't even pretend to address any of the points I made.

You also didn't even try to demonstrate any objective evidence for your belief a deity or deities exist? Since you have come to an atheist forum what is it you hope to achieve, you keep talking about respect but you opened with some fairly typical theistic lies misrepresenting atheism as if it implies claims or beliefs when it does not. So why would I give a toss whether you respect me or not? I have zero respect for you or your absurd views which are so facile it as if a child has written them.

"science only covers the physical world and the human experience is more than the physical world. "

What objective evidence can you demonstrate that anything exists beyond the physical natural world? I suspect we already know the answer, if your previous posts are a fair indicator.

"I'm not going to argue against this. It actually proves my points that musical tastes are based on emotions and not logic."

No it actually doesn't, but do please evidence your claim, you could start by showing why you think emotions can't be rationally explained? Since thus far you are simply asserting it as if it is a fact, which is of course an argument from assertion fallacy, as has already been explained to you, though you just ignored it of course.

I also already offered you a link to scholarly articles explaining the evolution of human emotions, which you simply ignored, so that suggests you are not interested in hearing opinions that contradict your faith based assertions, so one wonders why you have come to an atheist forum? Anyway here is that link again, so you can simply ignore it again.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=the+evolution+of+human+emotions&h...

@ hanni the witch

"but what falls short is that science answers ''how'' questions but not ''why'' questions."

The Large Hadron Collider was built at a cost of $4.75 billion and one of it's prime goals was to answer a "why" question.

Why do particles have mass?

I can offer multiple examples on how science addressed many "why" questions.

In many cases someone asks "why", and after scientific examination it responds with a "how".

@hanni the witch: Completely wrong again. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Why does the moon orbit the earth. Why do plants turn towards sunlight. Why do you die if you do not drink enough water? Why is too much water poisonous? Why do you take antibiotics to kill a bacterial infection. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

RE: "why they were created" I am assuming this is some sort of analogy. While digital life is created as we know of no instance of digital life occurring naturally, comparing it to life is a FALSE ANALOGY. We know things are created by comparing them to things that occur naturally. Asserting creation, does not make it so and the assertion must be demonstrated. Something created requires a creator. It does not occur naturally. This is the difference you are missing. Demonstrate your creator.

RE: There are equally valid methods to science: Please demonstrate one.

RE: Science only covers the physical world. WRONG AGAIN. Science covers claims that affect the physical world. Recent prayer studies for example. Prayer itself is a physical act but the affect of prayer on the real world can and has been studied. It has the effectiveness of a coin flip. Worse than that, it has been shown that when terminally ill people know they are being prayed for, they do significantly worse on scales of recovery. Science has studied and attempted to find the weight of a soul. Science has debunked millions of miracle claims, cows that drink milk in India for example. You are just DEMONSTRABLY WRONG.

Apples or Oranges can be demonstrated to be better than each other contingent on the criteria accepted for the concept of better *Taste preference being one of the criteria.* https://www.debate.org/debates/Apples-are-better-than-Oranges/1/
Just go to debate.org and you will see the facts. Science has everything to say about which fruit is better.

RE: Music. WRONG AGAIN! READ THE FRIGGING ARTICLE. YOUR MUSICAL TASTES ARE GENERALLY SET EARLY IN YOUR LIFE. You are arguing against hundreds of years of research and the entire advertising and music industry if you think your musical tastes can not be manipulated by the culture around you or that we are incapable of understanding that culture. YOUR BLACK AND WHITE LOGIC is preventing you from seeing what is real. It does not have to be this way or that way. FINALLY: Demonstrate emotional preference in music to the same degree a sociologist can demonstrate it. Your methodology is .... well....... stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociomusicology

RE: Calling me friendly? WRONG AGAIN! I give everyone a chance to sound like an intelligent human being and that is it. Persist in repetitious stupidity and I am certainly no different than anyone else on the site; and in fact, have a reputation for being much less tolerant.

If you are looking for the friendly voices try Sheldon or Nyarlathotep. They have more patience with idiocy than anyone else on the site. Stay away from ME, the Tin Man, Anyone else that looks like an Ape, Midgets in gardens taking dumps, Old men on trikes, and anyone called David. There is also a witch of a woman on the site that goes by White..... something or rather.... STAY AWAY. You most certainly will not get the respect you think you deserve by postulating silly ideas like "FEELINGS ARE AS ACCURATE AS SCIENCE."

PURE HORSESHIT!!