U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-09-2019, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,156 posts, read 559,216 times
Reputation: 520

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
Harry if "probability is evidence to most people" then following your logic of relying on probability and % then with 3% of USA atheists (current Pew data) and 5% or 7% atheists worldwide (and continuing to decline) the data shows very little support for atheism. Atheism is a fringe position that continues to decline as a % of world population.
You are confusing probability with proportion. Also, argument from authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
Whereas prayer and religion are what people choose overwhelmingly: 92% of the world population (and on the increase) either identifies with a religion or prays on their own individually.
And around 100% of people will jump when someone pulls a hosepipe in the garden to make it look or act like a snake. Yet they will all still be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
My point is to show the inconsistency and flawed logic on the forum of people supposedly using data to make decisions and as evidence of support for their choices based on "high probability" and "probability is evidence for most people" ...until they don't. Until they dont like what the data shows and then they have a laundry list of why data is not reliable and why it should be rejected.
Your point used nothing but logical fallacies; and was irrelevant to how probability works, and how people use probability, often without knowing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
That's what I am pointing out. File it under "if atheism made sense"
They are your errors, not that of atheism.

Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 01-09-2019 at 08:37 AM.. Reason: Wrong word order corrected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2019, 11:13 AM
 
11,269 posts, read 4,387,630 times
Reputation: 1237
The "water hose" is an excellent example of my position.

They jumped because there is something, not "nothing". The same goes with this god thing. They are jumping because its something, its just not things like the biblegod.

The question is, what are they responding too? Its not an external stimuli. Like the hose, the high probability is that only one, or a lot less than the whole, would jump if it was internal.

what is the external stimuli.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 09:17 PM
 
Location: TX
6,121 posts, read 5,034,293 times
Reputation: 2597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
As an atheist but one who frequently defends religious belief, I'm quite willing to accept the definition that anti-theists typically offer - namely "belief without evidence". Because it only gets them in more trouble, as evidentialism is pretty much bankrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
IOW you are ignorant of logic and probability. Because logically if you have no evidence for a claim, you are probably wrong.
That's a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that because we (hypothetically) lack evidence for x that therefore x probably doesn't exist. It says nothing about the probability one way or the other, that we don't have evidence.

Quote:
One has to ask why you as an alleged atheist insists on defending Christianity
Because it's something being attacked unnecessarily. Anti-theists have not shouldered their burden of proof, so as to justify their opposition of theism. They just get by on empty rhetoric. I don't see the Christians defending themselves adequately (not yet), so I feel obliged to point out the fallacies they fail to notice. I'm a logician first, atheist second. And you're not on my side of the fence, as I see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,146 posts, read 7,827,620 times
Reputation: 14259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
That's a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that because we (hypothetically) lack evidence for x that therefore x probably doesn't exist. It says nothing about the probability one way or the other, that we don't have evidence.
I think that it does.

If a thing exists, it tends to leave a footprint in the world around us. We can detect its influence on other known things, we can measure the resources it uses, we can see it directly, etc. If a thing leaves absolutely no evidence, that in itself is a data point against its existence.

We can lack evidence for a great many things. We can lack evidence for tens of thousands of theoretical gods, creatures, and supernatural beings. That does not give them a 50/50 chance of existing in reality, it most likely gives them a less than 50% chance of existing.

I base this thought on the fact that I can sit here all day and invent imaginary creatures. Those creatures obviously have no evidence for their existence. Are you are you really going to say that we can say nothing about the probability of their existence?

Elaborating on that point, religion typically goes beyond simply claiming the existence of a god. Religion gives god attributes, and makes claims and demands on human behavior as a result. Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and we cannot assign a probability to existence, do you really think it rational that we act as if a thing actually exists and live our lives accordingly? Atheism simply says we do not accept the claim of divine existence, and therefore live our lives according to the best evidence we can actually lay claim to, which is effectively a neutral state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 10:13 PM
 
3,808 posts, read 1,384,094 times
Reputation: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
.

Harry and others are trying to illustrate the fact that we use past experience, rather than faith, as a benchmark for reliability, and it boggles the mind that people are actually arguing against that.

hmmm
So how much of a “Past experience” you and Harry have of dying and finding out that there is no afterlife and there is no God? Zero, Zilch.

On one hand you claim that you go by past experiences, yet, you BELIEVE that there is no afterlife and there no God *WITHOUT* having any past experience to support this belief.


Fact of the matter is, and I have said it a million times that we don’t really “know”.

Both the Atheists and theists have faith and no past experience or evidence when they believe whether there is an afterlife or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 10:44 PM
 
Location: TX
6,121 posts, read 5,034,293 times
Reputation: 2597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
That's a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that because we (hypothetically) lack evidence for x that therefore x probably doesn't exist. It says nothing about the probability one way or the other, that we don't have evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
I think that it does.

If a thing exists, it tends to leave a footprint in the world around us.
Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence where, if x did exist, we should expect to see more evidence than what we do. And so the question would be What sorts of evidence should we expect? But the argument I referred to above is a non sequitur. There needs to be an actual argument to get you from "We have no evidence" to "God probably doesn't exist".

Quote:
We can lack evidence for a great many things. We can lack evidence for tens of thousands of theoretical gods, creatures, and supernatural beings. That does not give them a 50/50 chance of existing in reality, it most likely gives them a less than 50% chance of existing.
It's neither. You can't calculate probability at all if you have no relevant data.

Quote:
I base this thought on the fact that I can sit here all day and invent imaginary creatures. Those creatures obviously have no evidence for their existence. Are you are you really going to say that we can say nothing about the probability of their existence?
Depends on the creature, that's the point. If you were to invent some color of frog that no one's ever seen, that'd be more probable than a flying unicorn just based on the data we already have. But the reasons we can give, if they are valid, count as evidence against such beings; it isn't a matter of having no evidence either way. This is why the typical Santa Claus comparison doesn't work. We don't base our conclusion that Santa doesn't exist on not having evidence, but on having positive evidence (e.g., a visible being flying around at night with no video footage) that he doesn't exist.

Quote:
Elaborating on that point, religion typically goes beyond simply claiming the existence of a god. Religion gives god attributes, and makes claims and demands on human behavior as a result. Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and we cannot assign a probability to existence, do you really think it rational that we act as if a thing actually exists and live our lives accordingly?
Only if you have good reason. Me personally, I don't feel like I have good reason to change my life here. But Christians often do.

Quote:
Atheism simply says we do not accept the claim of divine existence, and therefore live our lives according to the best evidence we can actually lay claim to, which is effectively a neutral state.
Some atheists can say that about themselves, others can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2019, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,156 posts, read 559,216 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
That's a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that because we (hypothetically) lack evidence for x that therefore x probably doesn't exist. It says nothing about the probability one way or the other, that we don't have evidence.
Guess my birthday. Yes, sans evidence, you are probably wrong. What car do I drive? Yes, sans evidence, you are probably wrong. Because the number of possible things always outnumbers the number of actual things.

Therefore it does logically follow, once you apply probability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Because it's something being attacked unnecessarily.
As is atheism. And Islam. And homosexuality. On this board. Yet you defend Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Anti-theists have not shouldered their burden of proof, so as to justify their opposition of theism. They just get by on empty rhetoric.
Oh, I think you will find 9/11 did happen. The SA condom scandal. The murder of atheists for not believing. Why do you thing anti-theists are anti-theists in the first place?

I don't see the Christians defending themselves adequately (not yet), so I feel obliged to point out the fallacies they fail to notice. I'm a logician first, atheist second. And you're not on my side of the fence, as I see it.[/quote]

No, because I see no evidence of you being a logician. Your dependence on WLC is a big clue. I also have doubts about the second claim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2019, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,156 posts, read 559,216 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
hmmm
So how much of a “Past experience” you and Harry have of dying and finding out that there is no afterlife and there is no God? Zero, Zilch.

On one hand you claim that you go by past experiences, yet, you BELIEVE that there is no afterlife and there no God *WITHOUT* having any past experience to support this belief.


Fact of the matter is, and I have said it a million times that we don’t really “know”.

Both the Atheists and theists have faith and no past experience or evidence when they believe whether there is an afterlife or not.
You still have it the wrong way round. What evidence do YOU have FOR an afterlife? A few anecdotes by dubious people? Whereas we have studies that show NDEs are cultural products, and therefore probably a product of the brain, not real events. This is our evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2019, 01:14 PM
 
12,735 posts, read 13,320,346 times
Reputation: 9050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
You still have it the wrong way round. What evidence do YOU have FOR an afterlife? A few anecdotes by dubious people? Whereas we have studies that show NDEs are cultural products, and therefore probably a product of the brain, not real events. This is our evidence.
more flawed logic. "probably" is not evidence.
your post is evidence. of flawed logic.

"probably a product of the brain, not real events."
your logic is a product of your brain. so therefore your logic is not a real event.
according to your logic. which is flawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2019, 03:18 PM
 
3,808 posts, read 1,384,094 times
Reputation: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
You still have it the wrong way round. What evidence do YOU have FOR an afterlife? A few anecdotes by dubious people? Whereas we have studies that show NDEs are cultural products, and therefore probably a product of the brain, not real events. This is our evidence.
I do *NOT* have an evidence and I do NOT need one because my religious belief is based on *FAITH* and religious faith is *NOT* based on evidence.

How hard is to understand?

I am adding 2 + 2 to get 4, and you are asking me where is the division sign?

You are asking me whats the coffee taste like that is with milk gotten from an Ox or a bull?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top