Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

There is no God unless proven otherwise. I wish we could just leave it at that :unsure:

 

Not true. Pluto existed long before humans discovered it.

That's true, but it's absurd to believe in a god until evidence is presented, just as it would have been absurd to believe there was a ninth planet until any evidence was presented. As another example, even if the world ended in 2012, all those who believed that it would end in 2012 would still be lunatics, as there was no evidence to suggest that any such event would occur. It would still have been an absurd belief to hold.

 

Careful when you talk about beliefs with CGF. If you tell him that you don't believe that the world is going to end in 2012, he is going to interpret that as meaning that you are expressing a 100% firm conviction that the world cannot possibly end in 2012.

 

Whats your take on this whole "not believing" debate I am having with him? Did you post about it somewhere?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying that if I think there is a 0.001% chance that god exists, I would be more accurate in saying "I don't know" than "I'm an atheist"?

 

If we're going by definitions, yes. Admitting ignorance when you do not know if something is or isn't is probably the best thing to do. When you think something to be true, you believe it. When you think something to be untrue, you don't believe it. When you think something to be bit over your head at the moment and you wish to reserve judgment until further evidence on either side is presented, you don't know. You haven't decided whether to believe it or not yet.

 

Now can you answer my question: Why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does?

 

Yeah maybe we just have his story all wrong...

 

Possibly - there very well could be a regular guy called Santa Claus. Your example was about The Santa though, and you were equating his plausibility to any god, which is basically claiming god is fictional. All while arguing about how atheism is the neutral stance.

 

Careful when you talk about beliefs with CGF. If you tell him that you don't believe that the world is going to end in 2012, he is going to interpret that as meaning that you are expressing a 100% firm conviction that the world cannot possibly end in 2012.

 

Well, that's what the sentence denotes, whether you want to be religious about it and deny the truth or not. This is why I love arguing with religious atheists - they take their beliefs to heart just as much as Christians. Hell, they'll even twist definitions and semantics around to give their BELIEFS more leverage. :D

 

That's true, but it's absurd to believe in a god until evidence is presented, just as it would have been absurd to believe there was a ninth planet until any evidence was presented.

 

My point there had nothing to do with what one believes. Dizzle claimed that god does not exist until he is proven, which just isn't how things work in reality. Something can exist whether we perceive it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying that if I think there is a 0.001% chance that god exists, I would be more accurate in saying "I don't know" than "I'm an atheist"?

 

If we're going by definitions, yes. Admitting ignorance when you do not know if something is or isn't is probably the best thing to do. When you think something to be true, you believe it. When you think something to be untrue, you don't believe it. When you think something to be bit over your head at the moment and you wish to reserve judgment until further evidence on either side is presented, you don't know. You haven't decided whether to believe it or not yet.

 

Now can you answer my question: Why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does?

 

Because when I use the term "belief" I use it interchangably with "something that I am almost entirely certain of." I am not almost entirely convinced of a god's existence, so therefore I say I lack this belief. If we want to define "belief" as "something I am 100% certain of" then I am afraid that I have virtually no beliefs. There is hardly anything in this world that has 100% certainty, especially if we are talking about the physical world.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying that if I think there is a 0.001% chance that god exists, I would be more accurate in saying "I don't know" than "I'm an atheist"?

 

If we're going by definitions, yes. Admitting ignorance when you do not know if something is or isn't is probably the best thing to do. When you think something to be true, you believe it. When you think something to be untrue, you don't believe it. When you think something to be bit over your head at the moment and you wish to reserve judgment until further evidence on either side is presented, you don't know. You haven't decided whether to believe it or not yet.

 

Now can you answer my question: Why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does?

Do you believe I can fly? Because I assure you, if someone told me they can fly, a small part of me would believe them too. However, in no way would I seriously consider that small part of me that believes them. I would dismiss it as a ridiculous belief, just like how I dismiss a belief in a supernatural deity.


TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not almost entirely convinced of a god's existence, so therefore I say I lack this belief.

 

I understand that. As long as you lack the belief of something, you don't believe it. But (back to the consciousness aspect of making claims) my point is just that it would be more accurate and less misleading to say "I don't know" or "I am almost entirely certain it is not true" and be more specific about your actual belief, in order to not get it jumbled with the people who straight up reject an idea as false. It would be more accurate for them to make the claim "I don't believe you". Sure, saying, "I don't believe you are the world's strongest man," could also mean that you have no idea on a technical level, but what I want to know is what is it that would make you decide to say that rather than going straight to the chase and saying "I don't know". Doesn't "I don't know" work better?

 

Because when I use the term "belief" I use it interchangably with "something that I am almost entirely certain of."

 

"There almost certainly is no god."

 

So essentially you believe there is no god? This ties back into the conscious incentive to make a claim thing. In practice, most atheists are a bit more than neutral on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. As long as you lack the belief of something, you don't believe it. But (back to the consciousness aspect of making claims) my point is just that it would be more accurate and less misleading to say "I don't know" or "I am almost entirely certain it is not true" and be more specific about your actual belief, in order to not get it jumbled with the people who straight up reject an idea as false. It would be more accurate for them to make the claim "I don't believe you". Sure, saying, "I don't believe you are the world's strongest man," could also mean that you have no idea on a technical level, but what I want to know is what is it that would make you decide to say that rather than going straight to the chase and saying "I don't know". Doesn't "I don't know" work better?

 

So essentially you believe there is no god? This ties back into the conscious incentive to make a claim thing. In practice, most atheists are a bit more than neutral on the matter.

 

I never claimed that any atheist was neutral on the matter, but instead I wanted to make it clear that they aren't of a firm stubborn conviction that there is no god and cannot be a god.

 

I am sick of debating what a "belief" means, so let me just set the record straight once and for all, as all I care about is having a clear public understanding of what the atheist belief is.

 

If you define belief as being 100% certain of something

An atheist certainly then does not believe in a god. An atheist also would not believe there is "no god". An atheist in the modern sense of the word refers to a group of people who value scientific thought. No proper scientist would ever say that they have a firm 100% conviction that nearly anything is true. There might be lots of stuff that we are 99.9999% certain of, but it is not 100%

 

If you define belief as "anything you think could be possible"

This section seems to be your understanding of the word "belief", from what I have gathered thus far. If a belief is anything we believe to be possible, most atheists would have some belief in a god. Now, don't get too excited, because they would also have about the same amount of belief in Santa Claus, leprechauns, etc. A scientifically minded atheist would most likely have no justification in deeming most things "impossible". Thus, an atheist would have varrying levels of "belief" in everything.

 

If you define belief as "something you hold to be true"

I see this meaning being used a lot also. I hope I can clearly explain what it means. By "hold to be true" I mean that you base decisions off of the assumption that one thing is true, based on evidence that you interpret. So for example, lets say that we are testing two new drugs for diabetes. We run tests, and we see that Drug A helped 98% of a random sample. Drug B helped 5% of a different random sample. A doctor would look at this and say "I believe that Drug A is going to help with your diabetes." Is he absolutely 100% certain that the drug will help the patient? No. But he can't just sit on his hands and say "I am indifferent of opinion on which drug to use."

 

Applying this to religion would yield that an atheists does not believe in god, AND believes that god does not exist. If he says "I believe god does not exist" does this mean that he is 100% certain? Not necessarily (he COULD mean this). All it means is that he thinks god is unlikely enough to make life decisions based on the idea that there is no god. There are many decisions to make in regard to this topic: should I pray at night? before I eat? Should I attend church? etc...If someone is 50/50 on the existence of god, then he might pray before some meals, be atheist the next day, attend Temple on Saturday, go to church on Sunday...etc. Using this 3rd meaning of "belief" an atheist would say "I believe there is no god" but this doesn't mean "I am 100% certain that there is no god." All it means is "I am certain enough that god does not exist that I will make life choices based on the assumption that he doesn't exist."

 

 

 

 

 

Whichever of these three definitions suits you...pick it. All I care is that your story is straight on the idea that most atheists would not be of the opinion that god has a zero percent chance of existing.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you define belief as "something you hold to be true"

I see this meaning being used a lot also. I hope I can clearly explain what it means. By "hold to be true" I mean that you base decisions off of the assumption that one thing is true, based on evidence that you interpret. So for example, lets say that we are testing two new drugs for diabetes. We run tests, and we see that Drug A helped 98% of a random sample. Drug B helped 5% of a different random sample. A doctor would look at this and say "I believe that Drug A is going to help with your diabetes." Is he absolutely 100% certain that the drug will help the patient? No. But he can't just sit on his hands and say "I am indifferent of opinion on which drug to use."

 

My definition of "belief" is exactly that: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

 

If you're not holding anything to be true nor untrue, that constitutes as neutrality or indifference - literally nothing more than a lack of belief. Atheism (without god) however, denotes that you hold it to be true that you live in a world without god. (Certainty is irrelevant. I am discussing the conscious psychological incentive behind ascribing a particular status to yourself - "holding something to be true", no matter the level of certainty.) My point all along is that the word atheist itself suggests that there is no god (or almost certainly is no god - you hold true that there is no god), and in practice, many atheists argue off the basis that there is no god. Not many atheists are oblivious or bold enough to actually assert that there is definitely no such thing as god, but it's apparent in the nature of the arguments and debates I've seen how much most of you disbelieve him. For example, you equated the plausibility of a god to a fictional character. Yet somehow atheism still isn't considered a religion... :-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you define belief as "something you hold to be true"

I see this meaning being used a lot also. I hope I can clearly explain what it means. By "hold to be true" I mean that you base decisions off of the assumption that one thing is true, based on evidence that you interpret. So for example, lets say that we are testing two new drugs for diabetes. We run tests, and we see that Drug A helped 98% of a random sample. Drug B helped 5% of a different random sample. A doctor would look at this and say "I believe that Drug A is going to help with your diabetes." Is he absolutely 100% certain that the drug will help the patient? No. But he can't just sit on his hands and say "I am indifferent of opinion on which drug to use."

 

My definition of "belief" is exactly that: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

 

If you're not holding anything to be true nor untrue, that constitutes as neutrality or indifference - literally nothing more than a lack of belief. Atheism (without god) however, denotes that you hold it to be true that you live in a world without god. (Certainty is irrelevant. I am discussing the conscious psychological incentive behind ascribing a particular status to yourself - "holding something to be true", no matter the level of certainty.) My point all along is that the word atheist itself suggests that there is no god (or almost certainly is no god - you hold true that there is no god), and in practice, many atheists argue off the basis that there is no god. Not many atheists are oblivious or bold enough to actually assert that there is definitely no such thing as god, but it's apparent in the nature of the arguments and debates I've seen how much most of you disbelieve him. For example, you equated the plausibility of a god to a fictional character. Yet somehow atheism still isn't considered a religion... :-w

 

But is holding something to be true the same thing as "believing that something is no less than 100% certain"? From my understanding of religion, most of them require you to have faith that the universe came from god. To my understanding, and from the descriptions I have seen from theists, you are supposed to believe that god 100% certainly is "The Creator" or whatever it is. Atheism is not a religion because, while you certainly have "beliefs" they are not beliefs formed from faith but rather from rational conclusions based on physical evidence.

 

 

 

The plausibility of god is equal to the plausibility of a fictional character, or mythical character (such as a dragon or unicorn). It is a character that appears in literature frequently, but has no physical evidence to support the claim. I fail to see what about God would make him any more plausible than unicorns.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet somehow atheism still isn't considered a religion..

 

thefreedictionary.com

 

Re-lig-ion:

 

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

[T]he test of belief “in a relation to a Supreme Being” [in a law providing for conscientious objector status from military service] is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God . . . .

 

—United States Supreme Court, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 165–66 (1965)

 

United Nations Statistical Division:

 

For census purposes, religion may be defined as either

 

(a)

religious or spiritual belief of preference, regardless of whether or not this belief is represented by an organized group, or

 

(b)

affiliation with an organized group having specific

religious or spiritual tenets.

 

 

"As enshrined in Article 9 (art. 9), freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a 'democratic society' within the meaning of the Convention. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it.

 

European Court of Human Rights, Kokkinakis v. Greece, No. 14307/88 (1993)

 

 

Because it's not a religion. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's not a religion. :roll:

 

Yes, but you entirely missed the point - I wasn't being literal. My point is about atheists acting religiously and making equally ridiculous assertions (such as "God = fictional character"), which reveals that their beliefs in practice are essentially "no god" "I believe there is no god" "god is not real" - the inverse of a religious person's. All while pretending that they are merely having an indifferent default stance on the matter - nothing more than "a lack of belief". I don't understand how a lack of belief plays such a large role in some folks' lives. I just wanted to point out the irony of the situation, coming from someone who actually is anti-religious and does not spout unfounded claims like "There is a god!" or "There isn't a god!".

 

But hey looking at your definitions of "religion", I see that it actually does apply to many atheists:

 

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

Atheism is not a religion because, while you certainly have "beliefs" they are not beliefs formed from faith but rather from rational conclusions based on physical evidence.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and to think otherwise isn't very scientifically minded. I would call it "religious thinking".

Edited by CrustyGoblinFoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why the distinction is important, and why atheists make it. So no, we're not making assertions; though some may, in which case you have a point.

 

To put it another way, if you assert you can fly, we're under no obligation to toss you off the roof in order to find out. Though, if you want us to fly with you, you'll have to go first. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it another way, if you assert you can fly, we're under no obligation to toss you off the roof in order to find out. Though, if you want us to fly with you, you'll have to go first. :thumbup:

Why not just attempt to fly from the ground up?


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and to think otherwise isn't very scientifically minded. I would call it "religious thinking".

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Top 10 Logical Fallacies in Everyday Arguments

 

Ad hominem

 

Tries to counter an argument by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

 

Ad ignorantiam

 

States that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

 

Argument from authority

 

Argues that something is true because a respected individual (an individual with authority) says it is.

 

Correlation implies causation

 

Fairly self-explanatory. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

 

False Dichotomy

 

Reducing a set of many possibilities to only two, in order to make a choice seem obvious when it is not.

 

Non sequitur

 

“Doesn’t follow”. When the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises.

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

“After this, therefore because of this”. Implies that because B happened after A, A must have caused B.

 

Straw Man

 

Misrepresenting an argument in order to make it easier to argue against.

 

Tu quoque

 

“You too”. Justifying an action because someone else did it first, or damning a claim because its proposer has not adhered to it in the past.

 

Ignoratio elenchi

 

Presenting an argument which, although it may be true, is not relevant to the topic in hand.

 

Posting because I have seen a number of these on this thread already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

 

Haha, Zierro's motto helped me answer a question in a Speech class exam.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and to think otherwise isn't very scientifically minded. I would call it "religious thinking".

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence.

 

Whoa there, I've never been arguing that it's more logical to assume a god does exist. Just that it's illogical to assume that he is merely a fairytale, on par with Santa or the Toothfairy. The most logical stance to take would be pure agnosticism (or ignorance) because there is no evidence for or against him. Santa, however, does have evidence against his existence. It could also be argued that there is evidence against Zeus or the Christian god, but those are specific gods and there is nothing to suggest that any god cannot exist.

 

Let's say hypothetically that a god did exist. How would we ever find evidence of him? We can't observe him so we wouldn't be able to find the obligatory physical evidence anyway. This is when a logical problem arises. "Since we have not found any physical evidence of him, it is more logical to hold god to be untrue, even though he would be unobservable if he did exist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and to think otherwise isn't very scientifically minded. I would call it "religious thinking".

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence.

 

Whoa there, I've never been arguing that it's more logical to assume a god does exist. Just that it's illogical to assume that he is merely a fairytale, on par with Santa or the Toothfairy. The most logical stance to take would be pure agnosticism (or ignorance) because there is no evidence for or against him. Santa, however, does have evidence against his existence. It could also be argued that there is evidence against Zeus or the Christian god, but those are specific gods and there is nothing to suggest that any god cannot exist.

 

Let's say hypothetically that a god did exist. How would we ever find evidence of him? We can't observe him so we wouldn't be able to find the obligatory physical evidence anyway. This is when a logical problem arises. "Since we have not found any physical evidence of him, it is more logical to hold god to be untrue, even though he would be unobservable if he did exist."

 

You don't have evidence against Santa. Tell me what the evidence is that proves he doesn't actually exist. All you have is evidence that we have failed to see Santa.

 

Is God more believable than fairies? Unicorns? Dragons? How about a giant invisible undetectable snake that is flying around in the air? The snake is invisible and undetectable...so how are you going to disprove it. The case of "If you can't disprove it, you can't comment on how logical it is" is so silly. What if we used this argument for other stuff in our lives? I could come up with hundreds of magical, undisprovable explanations for the things around us.

 

I think it is funny how God's story has been changed to accomodate for scientific advances. God wasn't always some crazy existent yet non existent invisible undetectable thing. We used to think heaven was a place in the sky and hell a place in the ground. But now that we have explored those areas, people change the story to "Oh its not really something you can see and its not really even a place that we can ever understand so...yeah. Take that." Maybe we should change Santa's story. Maybe his workshop is in a place that cant been seen or detected and he rides in a sleigh that can't be seen or detected either.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have evidence against Santa. Tell me what the evidence is that proves he doesn't actually exist. All you have is evidence that we have failed to see Santa.

 

Every parent can vouch for them being the ones who buy the presents and they can prove it with receipts. If someone else can vouch that they've created the universe and show us proof, well then the god theory has been debunked.

 

I assert that Santa Claus does not exist - at least not the one we're talking about. As for you, you seem to be insinuating that you are open to the possibility of a man in red going through chimneys and giving presents to little boys and girls across the world in one night, since you said that you don't completely reject the possibility of a god and are equating the two.

 

I could come up with hundreds of magical, undisprovable explanations for the things around us.

 

And you'd probably intentionally make them as absurd as you possibly could.

 

I think it is funny how God's story has been changed to accomodate for scientific advances. God wasn't always some crazy existent yet non existent invisible undetectable thing. We used to think heaven was a place in the sky and hell a place in the ground. But now that we have explored those areas, people change the story to "Oh its not really something you can see and its not really even a place that we can ever understand so...yeah. Take that." Maybe we should change Santa's story. Maybe his workshop is in a place that cant been seen or detected and he rides in a sleigh that can't be seen or detected either.

 

I believe you're lumping together theism and Christianity. The only necessary characteristic of a "god" is that he created the universe. All the details like heaven and hell are derived from specific religions. There are plenty of theists who reject the concept of heaven and hell. But I do like the point you're getting at - the entity could exist, but the stories are wrong. There is no evidence against a man who might happen to be named Santa Claus, but there is evidence showing us that a fat man in red called Santa Claus who flies around earth with flying reindeer and a sleigh going through chimneys to drop off presents every Christmas is not real. Every gift given from "Santa" can be traced back to a family member, friend, or a someone that just felt like being charitable. There are receipts proving this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have evidence against Santa. Tell me what the evidence is that proves he doesn't actually exist. All you have is evidence that we have failed to see Santa.

 

Every parent can vouch for them being the ones who buy the presents and they can prove it with receipts. If someone else can vouch that they've created the universe and show us proof, well then the god theory has been debunked.

 

I assert that Santa Claus does not exist - at least not the one we're talking about. As for you, you seem to be insinuating that you are open to the possibility of a man in red going through chimneys and giving presents to little boys and girls across the world in one night, since you said that you don't completely reject the possibility of a god and are equating the two.

 

I could come up with hundreds of magical, undisprovable explanations for the things around us.

 

And you'd probably intentionally make them as absurd as you possibly could.

 

I think it is funny how God's story has been changed to accomodate for scientific advances. God wasn't always some crazy existent yet non existent invisible undetectable thing. We used to think heaven was a place in the sky and hell a place in the ground. But now that we have explored those areas, people change the story to "Oh its not really something you can see and its not really even a place that we can ever understand so...yeah. Take that." Maybe we should change Santa's story. Maybe his workshop is in a place that cant been seen or detected and he rides in a sleigh that can't be seen or detected either.

 

I believe you're lumping together theism and Christianity. The only necessary characteristic of a "god" is that he created the universe. All the details like heaven and hell are derived from specific religions. There are plenty of theists who reject the concept of heaven and hell. But I do like the point you're getting at - the entity could exist, but the stories are wrong. There is no evidence against a man who might happen to be named Santa Claus, but there is evidence showing us that a fat man in red called Santa Claus who flies around earth with flying reindeer and a sleigh going through chimneys to drop off presents every Christmas is not real. Every gift given from "Santa" can be traced back to a family member, friend, or a someone that just felt like being charitable. There are receipts proving this.

 

You didn't answer the main concern I had which is: is god more likely to exist than fairies? Unicorns? Dragons? etc. Or is god more likely to exist than a giant flying snake that is circling your head right now but cant be seen or detected?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't answer the main concern I had which is: is god more likely to exist than fairies? Unicorns? Dragons? etc. Or is god more likely to exist than a giant flying snake that is circling your head right now but cant be seen or detected?

 

I don't know, but equating the plausibility of all gods to fairies is a much better analogy than equating them to The Santa Claus.

 

As for the invisible flying snake revolving around my head, you conceived of that particular idea for the sole purpose of equating something I personally deem as absurd to something you personally deem as absurd (appeal to ridicule). God was conceived in an attempt to answer the philosophical question of our existence. Something's telling me that one theory's a bit more believable than the other...

 

I'm still interested in seeing your response to this:

 

I assert that Santa Claus does not exist - at least not the one we're talking about. As for you, you seem to be insinuating that you are open to the possibility of a man in red going through chimneys and giving presents to little boys and girls across the world in one night, since you said that you don't completely reject the possibility of a god and are equating the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know, but equating the plausibility of all gods to fairies is a much better analogy than equating them to The Santa Claus.

 

As for the invisible flying snake revolving around my head, you conceived of that particular idea for the sole purpose of equating something I personally deem as absurd to something you personally deem as absurd (appeal to ridicule). God was conceived in an attempt to answer the philosophical question of our existence. Something's telling me that one theory's a bit more believable than the other...

 

Okay then let me concoct another example. Gravity occurs because tiny tiny invisible undetectable men are inside objects, and these men use the power of telekinesis to move objects toward one another. This explanation is conceived to answer a question. Is this theory as legitimate as the god theory?

 

I'm still interested in seeing your response to this:

 

I assert that Santa Claus does not exist - at least not the one we're talking about. As for you, you seem to be insinuating that you are open to the possibility of a man in red going through chimneys and giving presents to little boys and girls across the world in one night, since you said that you don't completely reject the possibility of a god and are equating the two.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking me to respond to, since you didn't really ask a question here. I think Santa and God are both equally ridiculous to believe in. Or maybe if we gauge them on a scale of 1-100, I would say that God gets a 99 and Santa might get a 99.5


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and to think otherwise isn't very scientifically minded. I would call it "religious thinking".

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence.

 

Whoa there, I've never been arguing that it's more logical to assume a god does exist. Just that it's illogical to assume that he is merely a fairytale, on par with Santa or the Toothfairy. The most logical stance to take would be pure agnosticism (or ignorance) because there is no evidence for or against him. Santa, however, does have evidence against his existence. It could also be argued that there is evidence against Zeus or the Christian god, but those are specific gods and there is nothing to suggest that any god cannot exist.

 

Let's say hypothetically that a god did exist. How would we ever find evidence of him? We can't observe him so we wouldn't be able to find the obligatory physical evidence anyway. This is when a logical problem arises. "Since we have not found any physical evidence of him, it is more logical to hold god to be untrue, even though he would be unobservable if he did exist."

 

 

Ad ignorantiam

 

States that a specific belief is true because we dont know that it isnt true.

 

 

Is that not your argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ad ignorantiam

 

States that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

 

 

Is that not your argument?

 

Not at all. I think it's equally ridiculous to assert there is or isn't a god because we as humans simply do not have such knowledge.

 

Okay then let me concoct another example. Gravity occurs because tiny tiny invisible undetectable men are inside objects, and these men use the power of telekinesis to move objects toward one another. This explanation is conceived to answer a question. Is this theory as legitimate as the god theory?

 

No, this explanation was only conceived in order to be a ridiculous theory. Again, appeal to ridicule.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking me to respond to, since you didn't really ask a question here. I think Santa and God are both equally ridiculous to believe in. Or maybe if we gauge them on a scale of 1-100, I would say that God gets a 99 and Santa might get a 99.5

 

You don't fully reject the idea of a fat man in red flying around the world with reindeer and giving you presents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

religion herp non-religion derp. all the same to me. at the end of the day only the arrogant ones are wrong.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, this explanation was only conceived in order to be a ridiculous theory. Again, appeal to ridicule.

 

 

None of what I've said has anything to do with appeal to ridicule.

 

What I've done is create a scenario that is exactly like yours. You propose some supernatural cause for the creation of the natural world, and I don't see why this isn't comparable to tiny men causing gravity.

 

The only reason it sounds ridiculous is because the idea of god is ridiculous. If we had any other "theories" that were conceived in the same logic that god is conceived in, they sound INSANE. Yet god is okay to believe in simply because billions of people share the same ludicrous idea.

 

I'm not trying to compare god to anything ridiculous, I'm trying to make theories that use the same logic as the "god hypothesis". "We don't know something, therefore an undetectable intelligent being is responsible for it" It is ridiculously stupid, and anyone can see how stupid it is when we use it to explain ANYTHING ELSE. But when it comes to creation, magically people decide that it is a respectable theory.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.