tryto

Quote: Logical fallacies are used to point out flaws in other arguments, not to support or "prove" one's own argument. You've made it quite clear which one of us does not understand the purpose of logical fallacies. I might have a lot to learn about them, but I still think it's ridiculous to bring up the population argument here. You brought it up in the FIRST PLACE, by appealing to the amount of people who believe in god as a claim that your argument is more likely because of this and that because many people did not believe in the tooth fairy, it must be more unlikely. In the middle ages the majority believed in a geocentric, flat earth model. This is completely untrue, yet the majority of the population believed in it. That is why this is a fallacy. Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument? While it does make a compelling argument against it, it is by no means conclusive, and basing an argument solely on that fact means nothing, as the population's position over time has been shown to be flawed, even if you take only these two examples- there are many more. We have other reasons to think the tooth fairy does not exist, which are all fairly obvious. If you found someone who claimed to speak to god and was revealed to be a fraud, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story? If you found someone who faked miracles, wouldn't that tell you it's a false story? If you found someone who lied about visions and made false predictions, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story? Your arguments are devastating against your own argument, as well as being incorrect. Now you see how difficult it is to prove a negative.

:thumbup: Fixed, thanks.

456. Yes I R evil.

448

444

437

410

405

398

391

387

378

373

366

362

Wondering if anyone has done the quest recently and gotten a different result than shown? Any confirmation would be helpful in the meantime. Thanks.

Correction there, no Christian obeys His commandments on the whole. There's a difference. Someone who follows a commandment tries to obey it, (Followers have not always obeyed their master, as in) while someone who does not follow it (Such as the KKK and racism) can not honestly say that they try to obey it, or to follow it. Another thing, since the new testament not all the laws are followed that were stated in the Old testament, (Which is obviously why it's called "New"), so following all the old testaments is not a part of it. That's interesting, because it is stated quite clearly that a Christian must also strive to be like Him. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20) The Pharisees were crazy kooks in Jesus' time who followed all of the old Testament Laws. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5: 17, 18 If you want to have a bigger debate on this, head over to the god thread, this is way offtopic :P. Religion, in the case of Christians blowing each other up in Belfast, Muslims bombing places, or Scientologists throwing frivolous lawsuits, is often an excuse for actions that are inexcusable, but the perpetrators attempt to obviate this with religion, and point to their moderates. Moderate Muslims that do not speak up against radicals are implicitly aiding them and causing their religion to be seen in a negative light by society at large; and maybe they deserve it.

Last time I checked, the KKK's goal was to create a White Christian conservative American nation. Pretty sure that it's arguably based on religion then to a certain degree. Do remember for a brief period they also targeted Catholics as well. Nobody that supports the ideas of the KKK can honestly say that they are a Christian. Racism goes directly against the fundamental principles of Christianity. No True Scotsman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman No Christian follows Jesus' commanments on the whole(hating everyone, giving away all your possessions, following all the Old Testament Laws like a Pharisee, etc). Does that mean they are not Christians, just like any Scotsman who murders is not a true Scotsman? The only real requirement to be a Christian that I see is believing in the Divinity of Jesus. I won't even get started on genocides and racism in the bible.

Well technically, a baby does not believe in Physics, or atoms, or elements, or Pi, or Square roots, but someone had to tell them. Does that mean none of those are true? Of course not, simply because someone doesn't know something, doesn't mean it can't exist. While this would make sense with the God dilemma, couldn't God have waited, and shown himself to the first man and or woman? He\she (just speaking about the idea in general, not the Christian God) have given them a clean slate, semi similar to Tabula Rosa, and them shown himself, and give them the choice? If that's true, let's say it is, then of course the baby wouldn't know, because the God would not want the baby to know, for any reason. But simply because one does not know of something naturally, doesn't mean it can't exist. You didn't read my post. It means that for them to be rationally argued about, they accept the burden of proof, because they are not the default position, if someone was born alone in the wilderness, not that they are untrue because of it. I'll respond to cannibalisms post later today, I have classes.

Everyone should have a right to free speech, of all kinds, even things I disagree with. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it, as Voltaire said. Muslims are unjustified in their actions, and moderate muslims who do not stand up against the radicals are implicitly allowing this behavior. There are some great quotes of the fundamental hypocrisy in Bill Maher's Religulous; Muslims want the rights of free speech afforded by liberal societies, but don't allow this free speech used against them. People using religion as a shield to deny freedom of speech are abhorrent to me; free, uncensored speech is the only way to achieve things in our society.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209215824AAnrv8G http://www.afb.org/braillebug/askkeller ... ueid=20073 A more reputable source. "As a child, Helen Keller had been told that Mother Nature had made the sky, trees, water, and all living creatures. However, as she grew older, she inquired about God, and was baffled. Her friends tried to tell her that God was the creator, and that he was everywhere, that he knew all the needs, joys, and sorrows of every human life, and that nothing happened without his foreknowledge and providence. Helen Keller was drawn irresistibly to such a glorious, lovable being, and longed to really understand something about him. "

Ah, but there are two problems with that. Firstly, any single god is in a minority in the world. Christianity is a minority; more people do not believe in Jesus than there are Christians. Same for Muslims and any other group. As well, lack of belief is the default position. No baby believes in a god, and there would have been no notion of a god before the first person thought of it(or was spoken to by one, whatever myth you choose to believe). That is why it is a positive claim. I will not deny that strong atheism does not carry some burden of proof, but it is less than theism, and I support that with non cognitivism, Occam's Razor, and the The Euthyphro Dilemma. Now can we move on. This topic is boring me and Lent :P. Anyone care to address my argument from non cognitivism? Oh, I'm sorry, someone did and I missed it cannibal. God cannot transcend logic. 1) If "Human logic" is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is ridiculous. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place 2) To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilities that cannot logically exist. 3) "Beyond logic" is a synonym for "irrational", and admissions of beliefs that are beyond logic is an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible. As well, if you claim that god is beyond logic, then you allow me to ask questions such as "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", and you do not have the easy escape of saying that he cannot do illogical things, as you just said he is.

"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist." The reason that is a fallacy is because it uses the word must. Something *can* exist without evidence for it, it's just unlikely and it is best not to make claims of it's existence without proof. For example, hundreds of years ago, there was no evidence of the existence of Neptune, but it did very much exist. No one's using the word must: I'll admit that a deity of some sort could exist(not the Abrahamic one, it's self-contradicting and noncognitive) There's just no reason to think that it does without some sort of proof. My claim is: Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore it is best to make no claim that such a being exists, which is a rewording of the wiki quote. This probability line of reasoning is complete bs; it's all completely speculative. I know the reason you are pursuing it, and your predicates are wrong. my invisible bunnies have no evidence either way, so you would be obligated to argue that their chance of existence is 50/50, while it is clearly NOT. Again, this is also committing the fallacy of assuming that the middle is correct simply because it is the middle. We don't know nothing; we know that we are speculating on the existence of a supernatural being, with no proof for it. As well, this being serves no logical purpose(that is, it answers no questions) as it raises infinitely more questions once you assume it's existence. This also violates Occam's Razor, as well as being non-cognitive(as shown in my post a few pages ago which no one answered) If you don't want to read that; assigning speculative probabilities to something just for the sake of assigning probabilities does not affect it's nonexistence or existence, and is a complete red herring.

Then really it all comes down to what you subjectively perceive as "idiotic". I could ask you for proof that time exists, but if I am stubborn and say that your "proofs" do not qualify and the idea of time sounds rubbish then does that justify my positive assertion, "No, time does not exist."? This is what I mean about the 50/50. I don't see one side bringing up a point better than the other side's so I think they are both equally possible. Couldn't I just as easily say the idea of God not existing is idiotic? I might even be tempted to require proof for such an "idiotic" claim. Because the notion of God not existing is a positive claim. Since idiotic is a subjective idea, this makes ALL positive claims have the burden of proof. When evolution was first proposed by Darwin, it was not accepted until a literal mountain of research affirmed it. That's the entire premise of peer reviewed science journals. Do you read links I post at all, especially the one about negative proof? There is no proof for my invisible purple bunnies, but most of us would certainly agree that the probability of their nonexistence is not 50%. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it is 50/50. Your point about time is fairly relevant. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. In the end, time merely exists as a way of defining other quantities. For example, the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. {wikipedia} Don't be silly; of course it's possible to overcome the burden of proof. Global warming did it, for example. If you read the links I gave you, you would see that the burden of proof does not rest on the ridiculous claim, but on the positive claim.

Fixed thanks.