[QUOTE=Mexican;21103418]Calling me out on resort to Ad Hominem is Ad Hominem. I just did it because I feel like I'm being completely overlooked. Besides, you have indeed done it, I'm just not going to point them out. You're basing this all on an incorrect train of logic.
No it isn't.
If there's no evidence against the existence of X, why would believe X is impossible?
Logically, you shouldn't.
That's an illogical assumption.
Yeah, that's fine. That doesn't mean religious people are all idiots though.
That's caring about beliefs influencing law, not caring about whether or not there is a deity.
True, but "there is no possibility for a deity and religious people are stupid" is a dogma.
It's not a fact.[/QUOTE]
hi spock
[QUOTE=Ishmael12;21103490]So, you want to found the church of the invisible pink unicorn?
It's illogical to believe something exists with no evidence to support it.
"God" is just what we label our ignorance.[/QUOTE]
i am not trying to prove that god exists. i am trying to tell you that "i havent seen god, he isnt real" is not a valid argument. and no, i wont worship the pink unicorn, because he hasnt done anything for me, really.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103239]Well this completely depends on the pressure it's under.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2248/waterphasediagram.png[/img]
This phase diagram says that water does not stay solid above its triple point, no matter the pressure. That triple point is 273.16 K (0.01 °C).
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103175]i disagree with that but anyway.
thats what i m trying to say here.
because of the fact that this argument is an endless circle, it is not valid. therefore its not a valid reason to be an atheist.[/QUOTE]
But I think what I'm trying to drive at, is that it's absurd for the idea to exist in such a specifically described manner in the first place (bible, etc.), yet none of the things present in the original ideas have ever been sighted again in 2000 years. It's logical to try and think of a reason that everything exists, but it's illogical to believe some 2000 year old text just because it's been preached to you.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I actually have no strong belief one way or the other on the existence of such things - I think it's illogical (to believe - to base your life around it is something else entirely) but I also know that as it stands, humans are ill-equipped to know the true nature of such things. I accept that it's entirely possible, since the power of a god would be far beyond our greatest imaginings, but the fact that it doesn't make any sense leads me to think that there isn't.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god one way or the other, and there likely never will be. Stating outright that god does not exist based on the lack of evidence is just as silly as stating that it DOES exist because there is no evidence against it.
It all comes down to how rationally you think and prioritize beliefs according to logic. In my [I]opinion[/I], a completely rational (open-minded) person believes that a god prooobably doesn't exist but readily admits there is no way to know and that they could be completely wrong.
[QUOTE=Mexican;21103467]I don't believe in them, but I also can't say that they do not exist. This is existentialist and agnostic thinking, and it is the purest form of logic.
I wouldn't do those things, but you all have. You've devoted a great deal of time to asserting your belief that there is no god, correct?[/QUOTE]
correct, only because I've been threatened to be beaten with a bible several times for having no god.
:black101:
[QUOTE=Mexican;21103418]Calling me out on resort to Ad Hominem is Ad Hominem. I just did it because I feel like I'm being completely overlooked. Besides, you have indeed done it, I'm just not going to point them out. You're basing this all on an incorrect train of logic.
No it isn't.
[B]Well, the default logical position isn't acceptance either, so I'm going to assume you're implying that it should be agnosticism. Yet I consider agnosticism to be implied, as it is impossible to ever really know anything for certain. However, logically, if you're faced with a life or death choice based on having to guess whether or not X exists, while having no evidence for X, would you say that X exists or doesn't exist. The rational thing to do would be to go with nonexistance. Agnosticism isn't a valid position on something.[/B]
If there's no evidence against the existence of X, why would believe X is impossible?
[B]Yeah that would be dumb to believe X is impossible. I don't see how this is at all relevant as I never claimed X was impossible.[/B]
Logically, you shouldn't.
[B]Uh your mountains of evidence have convinced me. Oh wait.[/B]
That's an illogical assumption.
[B]Most modern religions are based on the existence of a god. Believing in god is irrational because there is no evidence for his existence. Therefore, religion is irrational, and by definition, wrong.[/B]
Yeah, that's fine. That doesn't mean religious people are all idiots though.
[B]However, all religious people do hold one completely illogical belief.[/B]
That's caring about beliefs influencing law, not caring about whether or not there is a deity.
[B]How about people who are influenced by these beliefs, who may act on them.[/B]
True, but "there is no possibility for a deity and religious people are stupid" is a dogma.
[B]Agreed. Which is why I never denied the possibility of a god.[/B]
It's not a fact.
[B]Logic doesn't change, therefore it's a fact/law.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalibos;21103616]Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I actually have no strong belief one way or the other on the existence of such things - I think it's illogical (to believe - to base your life around it is something else entirely) but I also know that as it stands, humans are ill-equipped to know the true nature of such things. I accept that it's entirely possible, since the power of a god would be far beyond our greatest imaginings, but the fact that it doesn't make any sense leads me to think that there isn't.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god one way or the other, and there likely never will be. Stating outright that god does not exist based on the lack of evidence is just as silly as stating that it DOES exist because there is no evidence against it.
It all comes down to how rationally you think and prioritize beliefs according to logic. In my [I]opinion[/I], a completely rational (open-minded) person believes that a god prooobably doesn't exist but readily admits there is no way to know and that they could be completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
It's not as silly because the disbelief in god isn't based on something completely theoretical, rather rooted in reality.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;21103595][img]http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2248/waterphasediagram.png[/img]
This phase diagram says that water does not stay solid above its triple point, no matter the pressure. That triple point is 273.16 K (0.01 °C).[/QUOTE]
Interesting, thanks. I'm still in high school, and chemistry isn't exactly as interesting to me as it is to some. But now I know.
[QUOTE=gnome;21103601]But I think what I'm trying to drive at, is that it's absurd for the idea to exist in such a specifically described manner in the first place (bible, etc.), yet none of the things present in the original ideas have ever been sighted again in 2000 years. It's logical to try and think of a reason that everything exists, but it's illogical to believe some 2000 year old text just because it's been preached to you.[/QUOTE]
i truly agree with that. i am not saying that god exists i am saying that maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;21103616]Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
[/QUOTE]
this, in a nutshell
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103704]i truly agree with that. i am not saying that god exists i am saying that maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.
[B]this, in a nutshell[/B][/QUOTE]
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
"Well, the default logical position isn't acceptance either, so I'm going to assume you're implying that it should be agnosticism. Yet I consider agnosticism to be implied, as it is impossible to ever really know anything for certain. However, logically, if you're faced with a life or death choice based on having to guess whether or not X exists, while having no evidence for X, would you say that X exists or doesn't exist. The rational thing to do would be to go with nonexistance. Agnosticism isn't a valid position on something."
I'm not faced with a life or death choice, so it's irrelevant. I choose not to choose because I can.
"Yeah that would be dumb to believe X is impossible. I don't see how this is at all relevant as I never claimed X was impossible."
"God does not exist" is pretty much saying X is impossible.
"Most modern religions are based on the existence of a god. Believing in god is irrational because there is no evidence for his existence. Therefore, religion is irrational, and by definition, wrong."
Atheism is the belief that there's no god. Disbelieving in a god is irrational because there's no evidence of his absence. Therefore, atheism is irrational, and by definition, wrong.
"However, all religious people do hold one completely illogical belief."
So do all atheists.
"How about people who are influenced by these beliefs, who may act on them."
That too.
"Agreed. Which is why I never denied the possibility of a god."
But you said you know there is none.
"Logic doesn't change, therefore it's a fact/law."
Your logic is illogical.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103634]
Logic doesn't change, therefore it's a fact/law.
[/QUOTE]
that is truly incorrect. logic is just a point of view of things. for a christian, it is logical to believe in jesus. for a muslim its logical to believe in Allah. those are two different logics. therefore, logic changes.
[QUOTE=gnome;21103682]It's not as silly because the disbelief in god isn't based on something completely theoretical, rather rooted in reality.[/QUOTE]
Based on [I]only[/I] the evidence argument, it's no different. When you start to take into account religious accounts, that's when things start getting dumb and confusing.
Believing in god and not believing in god [B]based solely[/B] on the evidence or lack of evidence either way are no different and are both incredibly ignorant.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103744]2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what you've been doing.
I think less than 10% of this thread is actually on-topic.
It's just Kybalt desperately trying to assert authority and get noticed as an intellectual titan.
[QUOTE=voltlight;21102352]Get possessed; Learn new languages.[/QUOTE]
Can't loose! :downs:
She sounds angry
[QUOTE=Mexican;21103748]"Well, the default logical position isn't acceptance either, so I'm going to assume you're implying that it should be agnosticism. Yet I consider agnosticism to be implied, as it is impossible to ever really know anything for certain. However, logically, if you're faced with a life or death choice based on having to guess whether or not X exists, while having no evidence for X, would you say that X exists or doesn't exist. The rational thing to do would be to go with nonexistance. Agnosticism isn't a valid position on something."
I'm not faced with a life or death choice, so it's irrelevant. I choose not to choose because I can.
"Yeah that would be dumb to believe X is impossible. I don't see how this is at all relevant as I never claimed X was impossible."
"God does not exist" is pretty much saying X is impossible. [B]I don't believe I've ever said this. However, the lack of evidence is certainly pointing to that conclusion.[/B]
"Most modern religions are based on the existence of a god. Believing in god is irrational because there is no evidence for his existence. Therefore, religion is irrational, and by definition, wrong."
Atheism is the belief that there's no god. Disbelieving in a go is irrational because there's no evidence of his absence. Therefore, atheism is irrational, and by definition, wrong. [B]Witty except the burden of proof is on those claiming god's existence, atheism is simply the default.[/B]
"However, all religious people do hold one completely illogical belief."
So do all atheists.
"How about people who are influenced by these beliefs, who may act on them."
That too.
"Agreed. Which is why I never denied the possibility of a god."
But you said you know there is none. [B]Where did I say this?[/B]
"Logic doesn't change, therefore it's a fact/law."
Your logic is illogical.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103744]
3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."[/QUOTE]
again
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103704]i am not saying that god exists i am saying that maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.
[/QUOTE]
you cant disprove him by the lack of evidence.
was there any evidence that the earth was round until 1492? no, but that did not disprove the fact that it could be round.
"Witty except the burden of proof is on those claiming god's existence, atheism is simply the default."
Agnosticism is the default.
"Where did I say this?"
You've said "religion is wrong", implying that theist beliefs are wrong, implying there is no god.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103853]again
[B]you cant disprove him by the lack of evidence.
[/B]
was there any evidence that the earth was round until 1492? no, but that did not disprove the fact that it could be round.[/QUOTE]
Not trying to. I'm saying that at this point in time it's illogical to believe in god.
[editline]04:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mexican;21103875]"Witty except the burden of proof is on those claiming god's existence, atheism is simply the default."
Agnosticism is the default.
"Where did I say this?"
[B]You've said "religion is wrong", implying that theist beliefs are wrong, implying there is no god[/B].[/QUOTE]
It's wrong because it's illogical to believe it without any evidence.
[QUOTE=Darkar;21103853]
was there any evidence that the earth was round until 1492? no, but that did not disprove the fact that it could be round.[/QUOTE]
oh please please don't say that
it was quite common knowledge that the Earth was round for more than a thousand years before Columbus
[QUOTE=Mesothere;21103804]I think less than 10% of this thread is actually on-topic.
[B]It's just Kybalt desperately trying to assert authority and get noticed as an intellectual titan.[/B][/QUOTE]
Worship me.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103926]Worship me.[/QUOTE]
I'm not fond of worshipping confused children, sorry.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;21103912]oh please please don't say that
it was quite common knowledge that the Earth was round for more than a thousand years before Columbus[/QUOTE]
maybe, but i think you get the point i was trying to make.
anyway,is the "earth is spinning" example more appealing to you?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103888]Not trying to. I'm saying that at this point in time it's illogical to believe in god.
[editline]04:39PM[/editline]
It's wrong because it's illogical to believe it without any evidence.[/QUOTE]
This isn't the definition of wrong, sorry.
You can say it's illogical, you can't say it's "wrong"
[QUOTE=Mesothere;21103945]I'm not fond of worshipping confused children, sorry.[/QUOTE]
Okay.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;21103912]oh please please don't say that
it was quite common knowledge that the Earth was round for more than a thousand years before Columbus[/QUOTE]
I get what he's trying to say though, and I'll pick a better example.
The model of the atom. For a while it was the "plum pudding model". This model fit well in all tests done to it and therefore it was the accepted one. For all scientific purposes, we should assume it is correct. However, to outright proclaim "I know it is correct because nothing says otherwise" is illogical. Later we found evidence to revise the model based on new tests. So, yes, for scientific means only things without evidence should be ignored and we should only focus on what data we have. However, for something like religion, on which we have absolutely no data, this same method cannot apply.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21103888]Not trying to. I'm saying that at this point in time it's illogical to believe in god.
[/QUOTE]
you cant be the judge of that. that is up to a person's logic. if his logic differs from yours does that make him wrong?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.