"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Kamehameha34]

I said that "creator of the universe" was the definition for this thread. Hence:

..for the purposes of this thread..

Also, look at the first definition on dictionary.com.

[Fonceai]

In the time it took for me to come home and take a nap, I was beaten to my own point.

Not only are you committing other problems with your posts which have been clarified very politely, but you are committing the Redefinition Fallacy... specifically defining something in a way to prove your own argument, but rejecting another aspect that doesn't agree with it.

[Kamehameha34]

Not only are you committing other problems with your posts which have been clarified very politely, but you are committing the Redefinition Fallacy... specifically defining something in a way to prove your own argument, but rejecting another aspect that doesn't agree with it.

1) I explained how this is not the case.

2) Look at the first definition.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 1) You're appealing to ridicule. That's a logical fallacy. The inconsitency you're trying to convey with unicorns on pluto isn't one of logic, so you're trying to sway the argument with ridiculous examples. Don't spend your time on those. Analogies are an infamous fallback for atheists who can't defeat theism logically

Appealing to ridicule isn't a logical fallacy if it is truly an analogous argument. The only difference between my analogy and what you are saying is the fact that pink unicorns sounds a little bit absurd. Explain how my analogy is incorrect. I could just as well change it to "Magical Bacteria" in order to sound scientific. Change it to "God" and you pretty much have the argument that is actually going on.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 2) We have evidence to suggest that life can not propagate in extreme temperatures. We have no evidence to suggest that our universe can't facilitate a god. It's not analogous.

Quote by: Jagged Magical pink unicorns

Appealing to ridicule is only a logical fallacy when the ridicule is the only portion of the argument, as in the debater does not even attempt to logically reason with the argument, aka a horse laugh (Atheism requires faith? Haha sure... when pigs can fly!). I can barely recreate the analogy without sounding ridiculous anyways, because when i cite anything thats magical but not God it automatically registers to anybody as absurd. However, i don't see any difference between God and Magic other than the fact that way more people believe in God, and thats not a valid argument.

[Kamehameha34]

Appealing to ridicule isn't a logical fallacy if it is truly an analogous argument.

No, it's fallacious because you're trying to tangentially make my stance sound subjectively ridiculous.

The only difference between my analogy and what you are saying is the fact that pink unicorns sounds a little bit absurd.

No.. I actually said that we have evidence against life living in extreme temperatures.

Appealing to ridicule is only a logical fallacy when the ridicule is the only portion of the argument

No, appeal to ridicule is to create an analogy, or conclusion based on your opponents reasoning that sounds ridiculous.



Something appearing "ridiculous" is not grounds for an argument, because ridicule is subjective. If you have anything to prove, do so objectively.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Theism - Active belief in a deity, or divine power. Atheism - Active belief that no higher power exists. Agnosticism - Admission of lack of knowledge either towards or against gods. Theism is obviously a faith. I doubt anyone will argue that. Atheism, however, is much more controversial in this context. There are many who claim to be atheists because of a lack of proof for theism. Without proof for a complete lack of divine presence, however, means that they hold a faith. Each group holds a different analysis of the following statement: "There is a divine power" Theists say that there is. Atheists say that there isn't. Agnostics say that the claim is unknown. This is the only logically valid claim, because there is no proof supporting either end of the spectrum. Thus, if you believe that there is a god, or is not a god with a complete lack of proof either way, you hold a faith.

I am bumping this thread back up to the main Philosophy page to show that your claims are dishonest and contradicting. I think this whole debate is so far off topic that we need to start over again.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I have no answer regarding whether or not we will ever know if there's a god. I hold to traditional agnosticism

I was right when I said this...

Quote by: Quote by: Kamehameha34 View Post I'll conceptualize it: There is a new, untested medicine. Without researching or running tests, three doctors hold a conference to discuss it. One says "this medicine will help people." His colleague disagrees. "There's no proof that it will help. The only logical conclusion is that it won't help." Then there's me in the corner, watching television, waiting for the lab results to arrive for the medicine. When asked if I think it would help, I simply respond "I'unno." Quote by: rez's rebuttal An agnostic never will know. As an agnostic, you would think that the test results would never arrive. If you actually follow the definition of "agnosticism" in your little story, then the most logical position is the atheistic one.

and here is more ambiguous bullshit you have spewed over the past 20 threads.

Quote by: Kam And by traditional agnosticism, I mean agnosticism that holds to the "only follow your reason as far as it takes you" philosophy.

Quote by: Kam Atheism - Active belief that no higher power exists.

Never once did you state which kind of atheism, and really it does not matter. I do not know who made these terms "weak and strong atheism", but they are not articulate at all. And the fact that you used this definition shows how you are dishonest in this whole debate.

You obviously tied two different definitions into one retarded definition to support your argument. An atheist lacks of a belief in god(s). Agnosticism and atheism are two different things that are both used describe a certain viewpoint. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with the lack of belief in gods.

When someone claims they lack a belief in something it has to deal with the lack of knowledge in the subject. This simple logic can not be refuted, no matter how many times you post during a day.

The very first response in this disorganized debate was mine, in which I showed you a chart that illustrates the difference between dogma and knowledge.

As an atheist I stop at the part where it says "Imagination, simple beliefs, and thought" when it comes to the subject of gods. As you can see, thought and simple beliefs are the same thing. To say an atheist holds a simple belief can be argued because anybody can easily change "belief" to "think".

"I believe god(s) do not exist" is not the same statement as "I think god(s) do not exist". The former of the statements deals with the idea of faith or having confidence with the subject, whereas the latter deals with a possibility or a prediction. I am sure you know that making a prediction has nothing to do with having knowledge, but a lack of knowledge.

To suggest an atheist believes that no god exists is your own personal choice. As an atheist, I am without theism and consequently beliefs. Beliefs and theism go and hand, right? Beliefs can not be questioned and do not desire question. Beliefs are absolute, so to say an atheist believes is backwards and dishonest on your part.

I am a free thinker that is entertained with what has been verified and experienced. I think the universe is governed by a set of rational laws that can be discovered and understood. Of course I do not know this because humans exist in a very microscopic part of the universe, but the fact that I can make predictions and use thought is very promising considering how advanced humans have become over the past 200 years.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No.. I actually said that we have evidence against life living in extreme temperatures.

Not magical life.

No, appeal to ridicule is to create an analogy, or conclusion based on your opponents reasoning that sounds ridiculous. Something appearing "ridiculous" is not grounds for an argument, because ridicule is subjective. .

You just said that ridicule is subjective, so you cannot prove that the concept put forth in my example is ridiculous. I am not using the notion that my analogy sounds ridiculous as an argument. I am asking you to agree that my analogy is completely analogous from your completely logical and nonsubjective stance. Because it is.

I didn't know you could argue everything completely objectively and then dismiss the concept put forth in an analogy from the way it subjectively sounds.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Jagged Not magical life.

Occam's razor makes magical life, concurrent with non-magical life less probable than simple non-life.

You just said that ridicule is subjective, so you cannot prove that the concept put forth in my example is ridiculous.

Correct, so applying it to my argument doesn't accomplish anything.

I am asking you to agree that my analogy is completely analogous from your completely logical and nonsubjective stance. Because it is.

No, it isn't. I've already shown that Occam's razor makes your supposition improbable.

In the case of a "god" however, we have no knowledge as to what probably exists in its place, or if anything could.

[Kamehameha34]

Rez

There seem to be a lot of thought gaps in your post. Please clarify it.

[Jack]

I said that "creator of the universe" was the definition for this thread.

No, I'm sorry, but you cannot limit definitions as being only "for this thread" then turn around and attempt to use them to make sweeping generalizations about matters not confined to this thread.

You attempt to define atheism and god using only the definitions you want to use in a thread you ostensibly started to explain your own agnostic position.

So either you're invalidating your own OP or you must allow for any definition that's considered legitimate. In that case, using your own link, Zeus and Thor are both gods per definition #3:

(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

god - Definitions from Dictionary.com

So why do you not hold that the reality of Zeus and Thor are unknown, as likely to exist as not? No one will ever provide evidence that they don't exist, after all.

Personally I prefer definition #10 of god from your link;

(used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

(emphasis added)

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Occam's razor makes magical life, concurrent with non-magical life less probable than simple non-life.

"the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood...While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred." Wikipedia: Occam's Razor

Am i missing something? I don't understand your interpretation of Occam's Razor. It is used to select the better of two theories; it has nothing to do with taking neither one.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I'm sorry, but you cannot limit definitions as being only "for this thread" then turn around and attempt to use them to make sweeping generalizations about matters not confined to this thread.

Here's that "willfull" ignorance thing you were talking about. You know very well that my definition of god only applied to creator of the universe.

Here's a clarification:

It's irrelevant. Drop it.

So why do you not hold that the reality of Zeus and Thor are unknown, as likely to exist as not?

Let me tell you about my friend Occam, and his razor:

Thor constitutes an explanation for natural phenomena.
We already have a seperate, and observable explanation for natural phenomena.
Therefore, Thor would constitute another variable.

In the case of a god, however, we have no evidence as to how universi collide, what propels them, or if they are manipulatable.

[Kamehameha34]

Am i missing something? I don't understand your interpretation of Occam's Razor. It is used to select the better of two theories; it has nothing to do with taking neither one.

It is applicable against Thor, but not against "god", because any non-god theory would propose just as many variables.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Rez There seem to be a lot of thought gaps in your post. Please clarify it.

I explained how your definitions and the thread you started were ambiguous by showing examples. I went into explaining how your definitions were spliced together forming new definitions. I then explained the true meaning of the words atheism and agnosticism.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I see a lot of unproven absolutes, and I saw no examples of "splicing".. I'm afraid that most of the relevance of that posts still exists in your head. Put it in words.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I see a lot of unproven absolutes, and I saw no examples of "splicing".. I'm afraid that most of the relevance of that posts still exists in your head. Put it in words.

Quote by: Kam Atheism - Active belief that no higher power exists.

You claim that an atheist has knowledge that a god does not exist. Prove it. You use gnosticism and theism and apply it to atheism.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I read "belief", not "knowledge".

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I read "belief", not "knowledge".

theists have belief that god exists. Theists know god exists. Theists are gnostic.

[Kamehameha34]

I said that atheists hold the belief that no gods exist. If anything, I was saying that they are not gnostic - hence my use of the term "belief".

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I said that atheists hold the belief that no gods exist. If anything, I was saying that they are not gnostic - hence my use of the term "belief".

Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; faith. 2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true; especially, a particular tenet, or a body of tenets, accepted by a group of persons.


tell me how I place trust, confidence in the fact that god does not exist?