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.
For many of the Atheists here, their Atheism is based upon what I called "The LOBBUNE Doctrine" (Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence)...a Logical Fallacy from the get-go: Argument From Ignorance.
Only if you are making a logical argument instead of an argument from probability (as most atheists are (even when they do not know they are doing this)).
But well done for admitting you have NO evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
They use "No Evidence" as evidence to make a determination as to what position they should take on the existence of a God Entity.
In Bayesian terms, no evidence is multiplication by zero. People do this ALL THE TIME, but for some reason this is not allowed for any gods, which is the special pleading fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Now add the "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" they constantly employ...and that's a wrap.
Ignoring the dishonest deny everything stalker, yes, that IS a straw man.
You have no "argument". Just insults...and whining that almost the whole world is Religious, has been, and getting more so.
Whether the Theologies are "true" or not...they wield incredible power and influence...leaving you at the bottom of the "pecking order".
Ya know...you Militant Anti-Religionists already haveThe Teapot, ...
Everybody has the teapot, the fact you need to dismiss this problem in logic as anti-religionist when it applies to everyone is just another example of either shallow or dishonest thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
... Invisible Pink Unicorn, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster...and you went through all the childish effort to invent them...so, just get behind one of them.
Yes, they are silly examples to prove a point. Pointing out they are silly does not refute them, they are silly for a reason.
And we also have Bayes, science, logic, the fact you need to rely on lies and fallacies, usw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It will have way more mojo then the concept you currently embrace (unless you are looking to be among the most hated and least trusted...it's good for doing that)...and you'd 'fit in" better.
Only if you are making a logical argument instead of an argument from probability (as most atheists are (even when they do not know they are doing this)).
But well done for admitting you have NO evidence.
In Bayesian terms, no evidence is multiplication by zero. People do this ALL THE TIME, but for some reason this is not allowed for any gods, which is the special pleading fallacy.
Ignoring the dishonest deny everything stalker, yes, that IS a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Everybody has the teapot, the fact you need to dismiss this problem in logic as anti-religionist when it applies to everyone is just another example of either shallow or dishonest thinking.
Yes, they are silly examples to prove a point. Pointing out they are silly does not refute them, they are silly for a reason.
And we also have Bayes, science, logic, the fact you need to rely on lies and fallacies, usw.
Reality has mojo. Try it some time.
I've argued hundreds of times...there is no "objective evidence", are no "absolute facts", and nothing is "objectively true"...everything is fallible. Which is telling, when y'all constantly interrogate and harass the Religious and demand they "put up evidence".
It is ALL just a "probability scale"...and has never been anything but. Bayes & Laplace just put math to what was no great revelation.
Then there is what REALLY counts in this world...MOJO! Power & Influence!
This comports with observation, as to THE REALITY OF THE WAY OF THE WORLD. I posted that scores of times as well.
The Reality of the Way of the World is such that your views on these matters, your position, and your argument, is severely lacking in every and any meaningful way.
You can pretend it's not, put up another few thousand posts backing it...but you are always gonna be the horse that finishes last relative to these ideas and issues.
You are in such a alternate Reality, you actually think it's the Theists that haven't "got it". Meanwhile, Theism is one of the most powerful and influential concepts in the history of humankind, with 8 to 9 out of 10 being Theist, and growing...and your position is well known for being viewed as among the most hated and least trusted.
You like REALITY?! Try THAT reality!
For many of the Atheists here, their Atheism is based upon what I called "The LOBBUNE Doctrine" (Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence)...a Logical Fallacy from the get-go: Argument From Ignorance.
They use "No Evidence" as evidence to make a determination as to what position they should take on the existence of a God Entity.
Now add the "Invincible Ignorance Fallacy" they constantly employ...and that's a wrap.
Hey Goldie - you feeling OK?
OK, so I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here.
So if there is no evidence for something then it is a logical fallacy to not accept that that something is true?
argument from ignorance.
So help me with this. Let's take what you said above. If there is no evidence for something then we should assume that what there is no evidence for is actually true? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Let's try something different to help me understand. Let's say there is no evidence for an approaching wild tornado about to hit. OK? No weather warnings, no sign of weather change, no nothing. Right? So should we, based on this total lack of evidence for this coming violent storm, pack up and evacuate before the storm hits? Is that what you are saying. We check on the global weather maps and there is nothing there, yet we must take evasive action? To not believe there is a devastating storm coming is a logical fallacy just because there is no evidence of such a storm coming?
Or am I missing something? I know I am not very bright (but hey, I can lift heavy objects) so enlighten me please.
OK, so I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here.
So if there is no evidence for something then it is a logical fallacy to not accept that that something is true?
argument from ignorance.
So help me with this. Let's take what you said above. If there is no evidence for something then we should assume that what there is no evidence for is actually true? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Let's try something different to help me understand. Let's say there is no evidence for an approaching wild tornado about to hit. OK? No weather warnings, no sign of weather change, no nothing. Right? So should we, based on this total lack of evidence for this coming violent storm, pack up and evacuate before the storm hits? Is that what you are saying. We check on the global weather maps and there is nothing there, yet we must take evasive action? To not believe there is a devastating storm coming is a logical fallacy just because there is no evidence of such a storm coming?
Or am I missing something? I know I am not very bright (but hey, I can lift heavy objects) so enlighten me please.
Because this is not what is really being said. Yes, what you said is true. If we are talking tornado's that are not there and we are sitting on the porch on a sunny day.
Lets use Santa because its just so dern good. And we don't know what pout the toys there.
We now are discussing what put the toys there.
Coke's santa
something did but we are not sure and we don't think nothing did.
deny everything said or avoid other claims than Coke's santa because some of those people are such jerks we have to stop them. (FFS Freedom from Coke's Santa)
Both your and mine analogy are simplified. Youre lucky, you can lift heavy stuff. I don't have any skill what so ever.
BTW, both gld and I are fine with FFS. And so is mystic.
OK, so I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here.
So if there is no evidence for something then it is a logical fallacy to not accept that that something is true?
argument from ignorance.
So help me with this. Let's take what you said above. If there is no evidence for something then we should assume that what there is no evidence for is actually true? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Let's try something different to help me understand. Let's say there is no evidence for an approaching wild tornado about to hit. OK? No weather warnings, no sign of weather change, no nothing. Right? So should we, based on this total lack of evidence for this coming violent storm, pack up and evacuate before the storm hits? Is that what you are saying. We check on the global weather maps and there is nothing there, yet we must take evasive action? To not believe there is a devastating storm coming is a logical fallacy just because there is no evidence of such a storm coming?
Or am I missing something? I know I am not very bright (but hey, I can lift heavy objects) so enlighten me please.
I dispute your "No Evidence For a God Entity" premise...so, the argument fails right there...and your analogy is moot.
OK, so I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here.
So if there is no evidence for something then it is a logical fallacy to not accept that that something is true?
argument from ignorance.
So help me with this. Let's take what you said above. If there is no evidence for something then we should assume that what there is no evidence for is actually true? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Let's try something different to help me understand. Let's say there is no evidence for an approaching wild tornado about to hit. OK? No weather warnings, no sign of weather change, no nothing. Right? So should we, based on this total lack of evidence for this coming violent storm, pack up and evacuate before the storm hits? Is that what you are saying. We check on the global weather maps and there is nothing there, yet we must take evasive action? To not believe there is a devastating storm coming is a logical fallacy just because there is no evidence of such a storm coming?
Or am I missing something? I know I am not very bright (but hey, I can lift heavy objects) so enlighten me please.
You're casting intellectual pearls before intellectual..... , well you know how the saying goes.
He throws out utter malarkey and then says nobody who disagrees even has an argument.
Our "argument" is that "his argument" is nothing but intellectual gibberish, and utter falsehood, aka LIES.
I dispute your "No Evidence For a God Entity" premise...so, the argument fails right there...and your analogy is moot.
Your dispute in no way amounts to a failure of opposing argument. In fact, it substantiates that argument. Your quiver is but a hollow tube devoid of arrows. Utterly devoid.
I dispute your "No Evidence For a God Entity" premise...so, the argument fails right there...and your analogy is moot.
there really is no closing this gap.
we are arguing from "how the universe works" and do any god belief, or indeed any belief, match that. What parts do and what parts don't.
Its called talking about different aspects of belief.
They are fighting religion and using deny any god claim, any trait, any science that that they deem hinders that primary goal. For them its really all about the word god and the pain that word has brought them.
There is no logic. As soon as the reliability net start closing in they just whip out "we don't believe you." like all fundy think types do.
They could explain why we should avoid actually comparing atheist claims to atheist claims to see what gives, but then that would bring their end game out in the open.
There is no rational "lack of belief" that we are not the top stack in the realty stack we are part of. Its just not rational. The best they can do "thats a strawman". strawman and not what they are arguing is not evidence tho. No matter who many of them say it can be used to dispute a more reliable claim.
But like all fundy think types ... they don't need evidence to have their beliefs. They don't rational to try and force it on others. All they need is the faith that they are saving the rest of us.
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.
