I was on the one of the other message boards and I ran across something called Athen's Dictum. Can anyone explain this to me that makes sense. I sort of get it but this other guy, Matt seems to make sense as well. But, I think it is not as easy to dismiss as Matt thinks.

Its full of fallacies on any direction you try to give it.

I don't think it would last very long if someone called it into the Atheist Experience this weekend.

At first I thought people were adding spin to it, now I'm under the impression that its the same person with different names inflating his own ego.

Yea I did find it odd that everytime a different named person continues the discussion in the same exact manner as the previous person. But who knows.

Anyways on topic, I just don't see the reason to talk about supernatural when discussing reality. I posted in detail about that on that thread.

I read all the posts on this thin and I am sure that there are any fallacies to it. I think what the problem with this guy's dictum is that people get hung up on words like supernatural and god. They do not stop to think about phenomena outside our knowledge yet to be discovered. Any atheist who finds this fallacious is the one committing the fallacy.

It seems to me that any nature not yet known would still be nature, but that would not stop people from believing it to be supernatural if it occurred so fast that scientists could not accurately study it. But does that mean it is supernatural? There is a lot we do not know about the universe and the human species will die out before we know everything, so it is amazing to me how intense the arguments over these issues can be for atheists and theists. I think it is not the author of the dictum who needs his ego checked but that of the one person who seems to know something without evidence. I think we know who that is. Whether the dictum is right or wrong give the guy or gal credit for trying to be original. Just because we cannot understand something and we have counter arguments that make sense to us does not mean he or she is wrong.

Matt, you claim the dictum is full of fallacies and yet you do not bother to mention them. Go ahead and mention them and then cite your sources. You claim you do your research, so demonstrate it.

I have cited several in various threads. I didn't bother mentioning them here because in the same day I made several replies addressing the different fallacies.

Iron Chariots would be a good resource for you, seeing as you make many of the common mistakes that are addressed there.

In the initial thread, which you commented on I pointed out 3. Appeal to Solipsism, God of the Gaps, Special Pleading (in an attempt to ignore the burden of proof.)

Now, not for nothing but you seem to have an issue with reading what other people write and you clearly have an attitude problem as well.

Matt, you need a lesson in informal deductive logical fallacies.

Cool, you gonna expand on that or do you just wanna play games?

The only one playing games douche is you and your pseudo-intellect

As opposed to your brilliant arguments?

Well I guess I got my response then.