Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 To propose a lack of logical contradictions as evidence is ad ignorantium. You were almost there.

No, dear, wrong again. It seems so weird that you could distort my post when it was actually very short.. a sentence in fact.

I'm not proposing a lack of logical contradictions.

Listen very closely, please.

Logical contradictions CANNOT exist.

A square circle is a logical contradiction and CANNOT exist.

Does that not make sense to you? So much so that you must change around what I've said?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer lol, once again.. learn what an example is. Religion could cost lives too, as irrelevant as that is. I'm sorry Kame, but if you don't have any response just don't reply..

If something could have negative consequences, the burden of proof shifts.

And yes, religion can cost lives. Talk to the theists about that.

You're confusing theism with agnosticism. Agnosticism is an admission of a lack of evidence.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, dear, wrong again. It seems so weird that you could distort my post when it was actually very short.. a sentence in fact. I'm not proposing a lack of logical contradictions. Listen very closely, please. Logical contradictions CANNOT exist. A square circle is a logical contradiction and CANNOT exist. Does that not make sense to you? So much so that you must change around what I've said?

Ok, so what are you proposing? Pick a horse. At least you were consistent when you rode in on your logical fallacies.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hmm, perhaps you can find me where it says "supernatural" in the first definition of "god". I keep looking, and I just can't find it. And it was a rebuttal to his refutation that his argument is entailed in an example of a fallacious argument by Wikipedia.

No, Kame.

Look up what supernatural means. Then read what a god is. If you need help, post the two definitions here from the same source and I'll walk you through it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ok, so what are you proposing? Pick a horse.

Okay? Did you just say okay? Progress! Now, simply go back to the post of mine you mutilated and read it for what it says and not what you want it to say. :]

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, Kame. Look up what supernatural means. Then read what a god is. If you need help, post the two definitions here from the same source and I'll walk you through it.

Supernatural means above the laws of nature.


The laws of nature have nothing to do with the definition of god I provided.


And I'd be delighted if you "walked me through" the evidence you have against the existence of a being that created the universe.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If something could have negative consequences, the burden of proof shifts. And yes, religion can cost lives. Talk to the theists about that. You're confusing theism with agnosticism. Agnosticism is an admission of a lack of evidence.

No, Kame. -slaps forehead-

I haven't even mentioned agnosticism.

I'm talking about theism and atheism.

Those who believe in alternative medicine and those who don't.

[Kamehameha34]

Once you redefined your terms, your post becomes meaningless and incoherent.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, Kame. -slaps forehead- I haven't even mentioned agnosticism. I'm talking about theism and atheism.

Then I'm afraid you don't grasp the point of this thread.

Those who believe in alternative medicine and those who don't.

I accept your concession.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Supernatural means above the laws of nature. The laws of nature have nothing to do with the definition of god I provided.

Exactly. Gods have nothing to do with the laws of nature. They are supernatural. You're welcome to try to explain what a god is with the laws of nature in mind.

Quote by: Kamehameha And I'd be delighted if you "walked me through" the evidence you have against the existence of a being that created the universe.

You haven't given me any evidence to examine. How can I begin to do this when you haven't presented a worthy idea? You're asking the alternative medicine skeptic to disprove "a medicine that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science." wtf? Details? This is ambiguous and completely meaningless.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I accept your concession.

No, Kame.. those who believe would be the theists. -.-; You can't be serious..

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Exactly. Gods have nothing to do with the laws of nature. They are supernatural. You're welcome to try to explain what a god is with the laws of nature in mind.

Attempted witticisms won't buy an argument.

Name the law of nature that a "creator of the universe" contradicts.

You haven't given me any evidence to examine. How can I begin to do this when you haven't presented a worthy idea? You're asking the alternative medicine skeptic to disprove "a medicine that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science." wtf? Details? This is ambiguous and completely meaningless.

So you agree that the idea of a "creator of the universe" is unfalsifiable?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, Kame.. those who believe would be the theists. -.-; You can't be serious..

Ok, explain to me how those who oppose it know it doesn't work.




The situation has to many variables and stigmas, chiefly the fact that medicine that will have unknown effects on a patient should not be put into practice because it could have negative effects.

It's a bad example. Move on to another.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 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.

Again you miss the point. The basis of the belief in god is faith. Most Christians living later than David Hume acknowledge that there is no evidence of the existence of your god and therefore faith is the real basis on which one would believe. If by definition, no evidence exists then you preclude even the possibility of evidence within your own definition. This is indeed the logical fallacy of the "negative truth" which you seem to wholly misunderstand.

Now if you are willing to define your deity less broadly, things change. If your deity can be defined within a specific doctrine then there is indeed something to discuss.

Nevertheless a lack of a belief in god, whatever you may mean by that vague and amorphous term, does not require faith, merely a willingness to question.

[Zhavric]

So you agree that the idea of a "creator of the universe" is unfalsifiable?

This is a very loaded question. Theists often argue that god is for some reason "immune" to science... which is ridiculous. WHY is god immune to science? As I've explained, this stance is highly dishonest.

Your question is also a gross oversimplification.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So you agree that the idea of a "creator of the universe" is unfalsifiable?

No, KAME. My god..

Ok, You're asking the alternative medicine skeptic to disprove "a medicine that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science."

What you lack are details. Your request is ambiguous and meaningless.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp Again you miss the point. The basis of the belief in god is faith. Most Christians living later than David Hume acknowledge that there is no evidence of the existence of your god and therefore faith is the real basis on which one would believe. If by definition, no evidence exists then you preclude even the possibility of evidence within your own definition. This is indeed the logical fallacy of the "negative truth" which you seem to wholly misunderstand.

I don't believe in a god. I an an agnostic. A admit that there is no proof either way.

Now if you are willing to define your deity less broadly, things change. If your deity can be defined within a specific doctrine then there is indeed something to discuss.

Oh, so you want me to conventiently define "god" into impossibility?

Even if I did that, the concept that the word now represents will still exist, and will not bear any evidence either way. You just want to disprove the word.

Nevertheless a lack of a belief in god, whatever you may mean by that vague and amorphous term, does not require faith, merely a willingness to question.

A simple lack of belief would constitute agnosticism. Belief that no god exists constitutes atheism.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The situation has to many variables and stigmas, chiefly the fact that medicine that will have unknown effects on a patient should not be put into practice because it could have negative effects.

That would be irrelevant. You really really don't understand what an example is.. do you?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, KAME. My god..

Then try to be a little more precise in your language. You're presenting a moving target.

Ok, You're asking the alternative medicine skeptic to disprove "a medicine that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science." What you lack are details. Your request is ambiguous and meaningless

If the medicine contained arsenic, that would be evidence that the medicine would not be beneficial.


And no, that really isn't what I'm asking. There is no practicable way to "test" the concept of god. Use a different example.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That would be irrelevant. You really really don't understand what an example is.. do you?

You are relying on the stigmas placed on experimental medicines to further your point.

The fact is, before evidence exists of the medicine's affect, the affect is unknown.

If someone can not prove that the medicine wouldn't be beneficial, then it would remain unknown, unless someone can prove it would be beneficial.


In the analogy, atheists can be compared to people who reject any possible benefits of the medicine before it is tested.