Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Zhavric]

As I've explained, not all claims are created equal, Kam. I know most agnostics want an even 50-50 split, but that's simply not the case.

"There is a Flying Sphagetti Monster"
"There is no FSM."

These claims, technically have no evidence. Can you honestly say they have the same likelyhood of being true? If not, please support how it's possible for the FSM to be real. If so, then why would you allege no-FSM takes "faith"?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Kam, I like you. You've beaten on Fonceai almost as much as I have.

Don't do that. It's harassment and rude and all sorts of other reportable goodness. If you want to do a Special Debate with me now that I'm done with my research, you're more than welcome to start one.

In the meantime, keep these kinds of comments out of threads.

It's an attack, pure and simple, and is against the rules of the thread. It also had absolutely nothing to do with your post.

Quote by: rez I disproved the method in which humans invent god(s).

This inspired me to create a new thread. I think it would be a fun thought experiment for those who can handle the maturity the topic requires without dragging in their same old repetition.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric As I've explained, not all claims are created equal, Kam. I know most agnostics want an even 50-50 split, but that's simply not the case. "There is a Flying Sphagetti Monster" "There is no FSM." These claims, technically have no evidence. Can you honestly say they have the same likelyhood of being true? If not, please support how it's possible for the FSM to be real. If so, then why would you allege no-FSM takes "faith"?

You are comparing denial of a particular religion with the validity of that specific religion.


There are an infinite amount of claims of deism that contradict the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, and there's only one that proposes it. They all have the same theoretical probability, but the odds of the FSM are infinity to one.

The odds of a non-specific god existing, however, are 2-1, because there are two equally likely claims regarding it.

"God(s) exist(s)."

And

"No god exists."

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Fonceai BAD Lullaby!! Ad ignorantiam.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hate to quote Fonce, here. Ad ignorantium. Hey, Fonce, would you say that Lull's statement doesn't constitute logic?

BAD Fonceai!! BAD Kamehameha34!!

You confuse PROOF with EVIDENCE.

There seems to be a LACKING of EVIDENCE of any elephants ever being in my shower. Absence of EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE of absence.

BAD you!! BAD.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The Christian god is irrelevant, just as flying purple elephants are irrelevant in a discussion about the existents of elephants in general.

Actually, "god" is by itself.. a useless term. Define "god" and I will let you know if I accept it.

Skeptics of alternative medicine don't freaking need to have their evidence and papers ready to disprove every yet-to-be-thought-up medical practice. That's incredibly silly of you to think.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Fonceai Don't do that.

btw Fonceai.. you're being a hypocrite right there. You were just condescending me a bit back yet you've found two instances in other people within a short amount of time in which you feel the need to criticize. If you're going to criticize people for being rude, don't do it yourself.

[Jack]

The odds of a non-specific god existing, however, are 2-1, because there are two equally likely claims regarding it.

The claims are not equally likely. Nearly every god suggested by people violates natural laws, especially those of physics and biology. Supposedly, gods live outside time and are otherwise beyond the confines of nature.

To discount the notion of gods does not require violating any known science or even subjective experience.

This "every imaginable god" line is nonsense. It's a blatant attempt to create a parameter that can't be addressed. Sure, you can suppose god is a garden slug. Garden slugs exist. So, god exists!!
Such a sad attempt at a logical discourse. Theists suppose gods. Those are the only gods we're discussing. The ones for which there is a lack of evidence.

[RickSp]

I am getting increasingly amused by the theists who apparently feel the need to claim that atheists are motivated by faith. The claim is farcical on its face yet I suppose those who live by faith must lack the capacity to imagine those who do not.

This gets especially amusing when they trot out the old, "well, no one can prove God's existence, but you can't disprove it either". One might think that anyone with an intellectual maturity greater than twelve might just understand that if this God, however the concept may be defined, cannot be proven, then there is no need or even the possibility to disprove he/she/its' existence. The suggestion is meaningless.

Or to paraphrase Pen Jillette, "I can positively prove that God does not exist, so long as I define God as a large purple elephant living in the trunk of my car."

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer BAD Fonceai!! BAD Kamehameha34!! You confuse PROOF with EVIDENCE. There seems to be a LACKING of EVIDENCE of any elephants ever being in my shower. Absence of EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE of absence. BAD you!! BAD.

You're just exchanging one fallacy for another. Now you employ appeal to ridicule - a favorite among atheists who have to conceptualize their argument for it to make sense.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp I am getting increasingly amused by the theists who apparently feel the need to claim that atheists are motivated by faith. The claim is farcical on its face yet I suppose those who live by faith must lack the capacity to imagine those who do not. This gets especially amusing when they trot out the old, "well, no one can prove God's existence, but you can't disprove it either". One might think that anyone with an intellectual maturity greater than twelve might just understand that if this God, however the concept may be defined, cannot be proven, then there is no need or even the possibility to disprove he/she/its' existence. The suggestion is meaningless. Or to paraphrase Pen Jillette, "I can positively prove that God does not exist, so long as I define God as a large purple elephant living in the trunk of my car."

You can't disprove the fact that atheists depend on faith by insulting it.

Faith is belief not based in evidence.

Atheists have no evidence to prove that no god exists.

Therefore, atheists, or those that believe that no god exists, depend on faith.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're just exchanging one fallacy for another. Now you employ appeal to ridicule - a favorite among atheists who have to conceptualize their argument for it to make sense.

Oh please, are you really incapable of seeing past the "BAD" word? Don't even pretend like you have a response if this is all you can muster. If the "BAD" word is just too caustic to you, ignore it.

Also, Kamehameha34, the use of the word "BAD" is NOT in the argument, thus it is not replacing the argument. Thus, no.. it's not an appeal to ridicule either.

Nice try.. now please, if you have any response at all.. please say it.

While you've done a fine job of dodging the bullet, you've yet to even attempt to dodge my other arguments..

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You can't disprove the fact that atheists depend on faith by insulting it. Faith is belief not based in evidence. Atheists have no evidence to prove that no god exists. Therefore, atheists, or those that believe that no god exists, depend on faith.

Please address my argument regarding the alternative medicine example.

Also, please address my argument regarding absence of evidence.

Thank you, and don't ignore/dodge them this time please.

Like Isherwood said, "This "every imaginable god" line is nonsense. It's a blatant attempt to create a parameter that can't be addressed. Sure, you can suppose god is a garden slug. Garden slugs exist. So, god exists!!
Such a sad attempt at a logical discourse. Theists suppose gods. Those are the only gods we're discussing. The ones for which there is a lack of evidence."

Which goes along with my example regarding alternative medicine.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You can't disprove the fact that atheists depend on faith by insulting it. Faith is belief not based in evidence. Atheists have no evidence to prove that no god exists. Therefore, atheists, or those that believe that no god exists, depend on faith.

Each of these three comments is equally ludicrous and your repetition of them does absolutely nothing to change that. Do you mistake this for a logical argument?

If your god or gods are, by definition, unprovable, then it is simply foolish to claim that "atheists have no evidence to prove that no god exists." Of course not. By definition, there is no evidence. You are asking for evidence of no evidence. This is absurd.

Anyone who would even bother responding to that blatant sophistry would have to be fool. The atheists that I have run across are many things, good and bad, yet I can't say that any that I have encountered are fools.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Oh please, are you really incapable of seeing past the "BAD" word? Don't even pretend like you have a response if this is all you can muster. If the "BAD" word is just too caustic to you, ignore it.

You don't understand what I was referring to.

Here is your example:

There seems to be a LACKING of EVIDENCE of any elephants ever being in my shower. Absence of EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE of absence.

There have obviously been no elephants in your shower. This is obvious because elephants are seldom found in showers, because they are too large.

You tried to take this obvious claim, and tangentially apply it to any claim of the possibility of a being that could create the universe.


So, in closing, you are defending one fallacy (ad ignorantium) with another (appeal to ridicule).

[Jack]

There have obviously been no elephants in your shower. This is obvious because elephants are seldom found in showers, because they are too large.

But Kam, you're ignoring all the possible elephants and all possible showers. And "seldom" does not preclude the possibility.

See how nonsensical it is to debate that way?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp Each of these three comments is equally ludicrous and your repetition of them does absolutely nothing to change that. Do you mistake this for a logical argument? If your god or gods are, by definition, unprovable, then it is simply foolish to claim that "atheists have no evidence to prove that no god exists." Of course not. By definition, there is no evidence. You are asking for evidence of no evidence. This is absurd. Anyone who would even bother responding to that blatant sophistry would have to be fool. The atheists that I have run across are many things, good and bad, yet I can't say that any that I have encountered are fools.

Compelling. Tell me, are you a fool for calling the existence of negative proofs "absurd"?


Interestingly, the claim ""A supernatural force does not exist, for I have not seen proof that something supernatural does exist." is listed as a fallacious usage of negative proofs.

The argument you are persuing is an example used to conceptualize a fallacy. That's a hint that you should persue a different one.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood But Kam, you're ignoring all the possible elephants and all possible showers. And "seldom" does not preclude the possibility. See how nonsensical it is to debate that way?

But as soon as probability begins to tilt towards one option, it is immediately incomparable to the "gods vs. no gods" argument.

Now, will you cite proof that no gods exist or concede that there's no proof either way?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Compelling. Tell me, are you a fool for calling the existence of negative proofs "absurd"? Interestingly, the claim ""A supernatural force does not exist, for I have not seen proof that something supernatural does exist." is listed as a fallacious usage of negative proofs. The argument you are persuing is an example used to conceptualize a fallacy. That's a hint that you should persue a different one.

You can prove a negative just as well as a positive.

Square circles do not exist because they would be self-contradictory.

The Christian god, for example, does not exist because it would be self-contradictory.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Actually, "god" is by itself.. a useless term. Define "god" and I will let you know if I accept it.

I go by dictionary definitions.

"Creator and ruler of the universe" is the first definition of god on this particular site.

Skeptics of alternative medicine don't freaking need to have their evidence and papers ready to disprove every yet-to-be-thought-up medical practice. That's incredibly silly of you to think.

Quite different. Alternative medicines have the prevalent potential to harm human life.

And before you cite examples of "religious wars", I'll have you know that acceptance of the possibility of a universal creator isn't synonomous with organized religion.

[Jack]

Now, will you cite proof that no gods exist or concede that there's no proof either way?

You just don't get it. RickSp said it best, "You are asking for evidence of no evidence. This is absurd.".