Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except no I did not. And you can not show I did. You are just making it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Cutting and pasting another persons words back at them IS becoming what you condemn
Except no it is not. You are just making it up.
Once again my goal was to demonstrate that throw away empty remarks can be slapped in anywhere, by anyone, and they remain equally useless and meaningless. I think I have demonstrated this fact just fine thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I don't need lessons in English.
Not my conclusion based on observation. Which is why I was compelled to give you one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
The matter HAS been "settled"
Except no it has not. You have not offered even the FIRST shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate your claim there is a god. The only thing you do is hide behind an appeal to majority which you cling to with the desperation of a drowning man on a rotting piece of wood.
Statistics of opinion do not make facts. Nor does insulting people by calling them blind evidence that there actually is something to see.
If you find (for YOU) no evidence that God exists...the ONLY logical conclusion/determination you can come to is either, "I find no evidence", or "I don't know".
ANY other conclusion/determination is a fallacy based in The Argument from Ignorance or Argument from Silence.
A premise of "no evidence" is not a valid premise from the standpoint of Pure Logic/Reasoning.
If there is no evidence, then the conclusion that there is no evidence certainly is a logical one to make. You didn't know this?
No...just indicative of it's great ability to inspire and stimulate care and concern for fellow man.
Well, my personal take on it is that all those non-believers who "lack intuitive and perceptive abilities"may very well "inspire and stimulate care and concern", in spite of some of those bewildering passages in Leviticus 21:17-23.
Well, my personal take on it is that all those non-believers who "lack intuitive and perceptive abilities"may very well "inspire and stimulate care and concern", in spite of some of those bewildering passages in Leviticus 21:17-23.
I agree...the lack of ability to perceive "God" does not preclude the ability to be able to inspire and stimulate care and concern...or to be caring and concerned.
Many need to shake their headtrips over writings from three thousand years ago that were based in ancient ignorance.
If there is no evidence, then the conclusion that there is no evidence certainly is a logical one to make. You didn't know this?
Yes I did/do...what I am pointing out is that many Atheists obviously don't know this.
They don't just conclude "there is no evidence" or "I/We don't know"...they go on to determine/conclude for themselves that God does not exist based upon them not perceiving any evidence for God. This is a Logical Fallacy..."no evidence" is not a valid premise to make ANY determination or draw ANY conclusion off of.
Not that I have any problem with Logical Fallacies...I use them and endorse them. With proper discernment, they can be a very informative tool.
But the Atheists can't condemn the use of Logical Fallacy and demand that arguments comport with the dictates of Pure Logic/Reason...then employ that which they proscribe to come to their defining determination of "no God(s)"
Yes I did/do...what I am pointing out is that many Atheists obviously don't know this.
They don't just conclude "there is no evidence" or "I/We don't know"...they go on to determine/conclude for themselves that God does not exist based upon them not perceiving any evidence for God. This is a Logical Fallacy..."no evidence" is not a valid premise to make ANY determination or draw ANY conclusion off of.
Not that I have any problem with Logical Fallacies...I use them and endorse them. With proper discernment, they can be a very informative tool.
But the Atheists can't condemn the use of Logical Fallacy and demand that arguments comport with the dictates of Pure Logic/Reason...then employ that which they proscribe to come to their defining determination of "no God(s)"
You are making generalized statements about a group of people that, frankly, I, as an atheist, find to be wholly unconvincing. What logical fallacy do you suggest that atheists use with any frequency? Because open skepticism about the supernatural is not a logical fallacy. It is an internally consistent and reasonable reaction to the lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
Moreover, I find that assigning labels to people who are skeptical of the supernatural is silly, and unnecessary. We don't call people who don't believe in Zeus to be "azeusists", do we?
You are making generalized statements about a group of people that, frankly, I, as an atheist, find to be wholly unconvincing. What logical fallacy do you suggest that atheists use with any frequency? Because open skepticism about the supernatural is not a logical fallacy. It is an internally consistent and reasonable reaction to the lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
Moreover, I find that assigning labels to people who are skeptical of the supernatural is silly, and unnecessary. We don't call people who don't believe in Zeus to be "azeusists", do we?
A couple actually.
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio)
ANY conclusion drawn or determination made from a premise of "No evidence" does not meet the standards of "Pedigree Logic" and is a Logical Fallacy.
You claim that the fact that there is no evidence supporting the supernatural is an argument from Ignorance. Yet you yourself provide no evidence to support the claim of supernatural existence. It isn't as if the subject hasn't been studied ad infinitum and found to be sorely lacking in evidence, because it certainly has been. For all intents and purposes, the case for supernatural cause is a null hypothesis.
As for your second alleged logical fallacy, I have seen no example here. Perhaps you could elaborate.
You claim that the fact that there is no evidence supporting the supernatural is an argument from Ignorance. Yet you yourself provide no evidence to support the claim of supernatural existence. It isn't as if the subject hasn't been studied ad infinitum and found to be sorely lacking in evidence, because it certainly has been. For all intents and purposes, the case for supernatural cause is a null hypothesis.
As for your second alleged logical fallacy, I have seen no example here. Perhaps you could elaborate.
God is not "supernatural". Nothing is "supernatural".
Though many "natural" things are "super". That is because of the "Godly" attributes they possess. Which would figure...since God is the Source/Essence of it all.
As far as the Argument from Silence...many times an Atheist will ask/demand a Theist to present objective/empirical evidence for the existence of the God(s) that person believes in. If the Theist presents none (said "silence)...Atheists will then typically take their not presenting objective/empirical evidence (silence) as a premise to base a determination and/or declaration that they can now conclude that the God(s) they claim to believe in do not exist.
Any determination (in any way you want to describe the assessment) that is made based upon a premise of a lack of evidence...is a Logical Fallacy.
Of course, that doesn't mean the determination is false/wrong...just that it was made in a way that didn't follow the protocols of Pure Logic.
A true conclusion is guaranteed to follow only a formally flawless argument, based upon a perfectly true premise.
Any flaw in the form of the argument or the premises...invalidates the deductive guarantee. The conclusion can then either be true or false.
You cannot logically base a conclusion (ANY conclusion what-so-ever) on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence. "No evidence" cannot be evidence.
Not even the conclusion that you will adopt a position of disbelief can be logically taken...since that is STILL a conclusion.
The matter HAS been "settled"...just not to the very, very small percentage that lack the intuitive and perceptive abilities to "see" God.
And just how many of these "believers" who check a box that corresponds to their favorite religion on a poll sheet actually believe? You seem to think that calling oneself a Christian or a Hindu or whatever MAKES a person a true believer. The fact is that the vast majority of people, I would argue, haven't given their religion two seconds worth of thought in the last year. They'll say they believe but haven't prayed or gone to church in ages and they certaintly haven't "seen" God in any way whatsoever. They just "go along to get along" and have no real connection with their faith much less some lurking supernatural entity.
So I wouldn't be so quick to start playing the numbers card or claiming that atheists simply "lack the intuitive and perceptive abilities" to see God. I think the numbers are on OUR side when it comes to who is "seeing" God. In any case, we tend to institutionalize people who are seeing gods and angels. Thus to an atheist, it's a bit like saying we sane people lack the intuitive and perceptive abilities to see that the guy in cell 4b is Napoleon. Well, that is something we should be very happy about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
This accounts for almost all the people that have ever lived. That isn't a ad pop appeal...it is a STATISTICAL FACT.
You say this as if an "ad pop" argument is mutually exclusive of a statistical fact. It's not. Your argument is both a statistical fact AND an "ad pop" argument. In fact, ALL "ad pop" fallacies are based on statistical fact. Otherwise, it would be some other fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
The main fallacy used on this board is the Appeals to Ignorance/Silence used by the Atheists. The ONLY logical conclusion or determination one can come to based upon a premises of "no evidence"...is either, "There is no evidence" or "I don't know". ANY other conclusion or determination is fallacy based.
Essentially what you're saying here is that believing in something purely on faith is logical - and that NOT believing in it is the fallacy. Now, c'mon, Gldn Rule, don't let desperation back you into an indefensible corner (which your argument certainly is).
I know I've explained at least twice that the perceived "fallacy" is a derivitive of religion's conceit - that we MUST grant it respect and consideration simply because it is the majority viewpoint (and the fact that it has enjoyed a hands-off status for countless centuries). There is quite literally a googol-plex number of things I COULD believe in without evidence and you would call me insane for doing so. Yet, because religious belief is popular (for many reasons that have nada to do with truth), I'm closer to insanity for NOT believing in it.
Which, my friend, is just a fancy, round about way of saying - *ahem* it's an "ad pop" fallacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
