Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: the religious argumentation fallacy

  1. #1 the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    it basically boils down to this:

    "we don't know whether there is a god or not."
    "Therefore, there is a god."

    its the same as arguing:

    "We do not know whether or not eggs can cause cancer."
    "Therefore eggs can cause cancer."


    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Artemis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    297
    I think this will be the everlasting struggle between atheistic scientist and theists. You can't proof the (non)existence of God therefore there is(n't) a good. Now tell me wich one is wrong and why? I bet a lot of people will disagree.

    I don't see any harm in believing there is a God, eventhough He can't be proven. I do see harm in having to convince people he does(n't) exist. But for that cause Atheists are just as much to blame as theists


    Student Neurobiology
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis
    I think this will be the everlasting struggle between atheistic scientist and theists. You can't proof the (non)existence of God therefore there is(n't) a good. Now tell me wich one is wrong and why? I bet a lot of people will disagree.

    I don't see any harm in believing there is a God, eventhough He can't be proven. I do see harm in having to convince people he does(n't) exist. But for that cause Atheists are just as much to blame as theists
    well, here's the atheist perspective.

    we don't know whether god exists or not.

    however, based on al lot of evidence, against god, it is highly likely that god does not exist.
    that does not mean god doesn't exist, it only means there's a 98% LIKELYHOOD he doesn't based on all the false proofs, lies, and miracles that aren't.

    and then the theist argument becomes,
    "we don't know if there is a god or not"
    "therefore there is a god, despite all the evidence to the contrary"

    its like argumenting that eggs cause cancer, when billions of people eat them every day, without getting cancer.
    then arguing "here's a few people who ate eggs, and got cancer!"
    that type of argument doesn't prove that eating the eggs caused cancer, the cancer could have come from a variety of other sources. maybe they lived in an area with natural radioactive material.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Artemis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    297
    I agree with you in your point of God probably not existing, yet the argumentation you give credit to theist is used be (some) Atheists as well. Not religious people tend to make those mistakes, but ignorant people.
    Student Neurobiology
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    it basically boils down to this:

    "we don't know whether there is a god or not."
    "Therefore, there is a god."

    its the same as arguing:

    "We do not know whether or not eggs can cause cancer."
    "Therefore eggs can cause cancer."
    I have never seen such an argument used. Theists who are this far gone as far as logic goes would never accept the first premise. I suspect therefore this is a strawman in order to justify the complimentary and equally illogical argument:

    "we don't know whether there is a god or not."
    "Therefore, there is no god."

    Unlike the syllogism which you have constructed I have seen this argument used numerous times. I can even see why such a syllogism is used. It is because lurking in the background is a version of the naturalistic premise that only that which is scientifically established can be true. This is usually coupled with the delusion that they only believe that what has been proven.

    No the argument which the rational theist typically makes is quite different from your strawman:

    "It is impossible to prove either that there is a God or that there is no God."
    "Therefore, my choice to believe that there is a God is as good as your choice to believe that there is no God."

    Could it be that you do not like this perfectly valid argument and so you try (unsuccessfully) to twist it into an argument that is as invalid as the argument that there is no God?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "however, based on al lot of evidence, against god, it is highly likely that god does not exist.
    that does not mean god doesn't exist, it only means there's a 98% LIKELYHOOD he doesn't based on all the false proofs, lies, and miracles that aren't. "

    This is a logical fallacy

    Evidence found to be wrong is not proof against what it was trying to prove

    Lying and presenting false evidence when defending yourself in court doesn't make you guilty of the crime your charged with. It might weaken your case and lessen your chances of convincing the judge of your innocence(warranted or not) but it does not change whether or not you did the crime.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    I have never seen such an argument used. Theists who are this far gone as far as logic goes would never accept the first premise. I suspect therefore this is a strawman you have constructed in order to justify the complimentary and equally illogical argument:

    "we don't know whether there is a god or not."
    "Therefore, there is no god."

    Unlike the syllogism which you have constructed I have seen this argument used numerous times. I can even see why such a syllogism is used. It is because lurking in the background is a version of the naturalistic premise that only that which is scientifically established can be true. This is usually coupled with the delusion that they only believe that what has been proven.

    No the argument which the rational theist typically makes is quite different from your strawman:

    "It is impossible to prove either that there is a God or that there is no God."
    "Therefore, my choice to believe that there is a God is as good as your choice to believe that there is no God."

    But you do not like this perfectly valid argument and so you try (unsuccessfully) to twist it into an argument that is as invalid as the argument that you would prefer to make yourself.
    thats true.. if you do not believe the bible is true.
    without the bible, christians, and atheist are equal in their opinion.
    but God of the bible, can be easily proven wrong.
    also realize if i was to take the same position as you in relation to the norse gods,
    picking and choosing what i wanted to believe, i could say that "no, the part about thor being the one who creates lightning by swinging his hammer is just the old part of the norse mythology. of course we know better know"
    and then i could go on to saying that any argument towards the norse gods dealing with lightning actually being created by thors hammer, such as we know what causes lightning, and its definitely not thors hammer, i could brush off as a strawman argument towards my religion.

    so basically, the idea of the biblical god has evolved from an angry man who required burnt sacrifices to please him, or he'd fucking kill you all, into.. a benevolent guiding spirit life force thingie, who will take you to heaven when you die, if you only believe.

    Arguing against religion.. its like punching water.
    there's no clear ideas, no truths.
    its a bunch of boundless boundaries.
    if something is proven wrong, it was never the case in the first place.

    MarcusClayman, i put in some values to your court case equation:

    a man is guilty of killing someone. in court, he lies, and tells the judge he didn't kill that person. he also presents false evidence, which shows him he was not on the scene of the crime the night it happened.

    basically, i don't get your logic.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis
    I think this will be the everlasting struggle between atheistic scientist and theists. You can't proof the (non)existence of God therefore there is(n't) a good. Now tell me wich one is wrong and why? I bet a lot of people will disagree.

    I don't see any harm in believing there is a God, eventhough He can't be proven. I do see harm in having to convince people he does(n't) exist. But for that cause Atheists are just as much to blame as theists
    well, here's the atheist perspective.

    we don't know whether god exists or not.

    however, based on al lot of evidence, against god, it is highly likely that god does not exist.
    that does not mean god doesn't exist, it only means there's a 98% LIKELYHOOD he doesn't based on all the false proofs, lies, and miracles that aren't.

    and then the theist argument becomes,
    "we don't know if there is a god or not"
    "therefore there is a god, despite all the evidence to the contrary"

    its like argumenting that eggs cause cancer, when billions of people eat them every day, without getting cancer.
    then arguing "here's a few people who ate eggs, and got cancer!"
    that type of argument doesn't prove that eating the eggs caused cancer, the cancer could have come from a variety of other sources. maybe they lived in an area with natural radioactive material.
    Its not clear what evidence you are citing as a 98% likelihood
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    "however, based on al lot of evidence, against god, it is highly likely that god does not exist.
    that does not mean god doesn't exist, it only means there's a 98% LIKELYHOOD he doesn't based on all the false proofs, lies, and miracles that aren't. "

    This is a logical fallacy

    Evidence found to be wrong is not proof against what it was trying to prove

    Lying and presenting false evidence when defending yourself in court doesn't make you guilty of the crime your charged with. It might weaken your case and lessen your chances of convincing the judge of your innocence(warranted or not) but it does not change whether or not you did the crime.
    It's impossible to prove God doesn't exist. However it is acceptable to say that since we have not found any evidence for the existence of God, it should be evident that we are allowed to state, "In accordance with having no evidence for a claim, we can deny that claims existence until further evidence is demonstrated."
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    "It is impossible to prove either that there is a God or that there is no God."
    "Therefore, my choice to believe that there is a God is as good as your choice to believe that there is no God."

    Could it be that you do not like this perfectly valid argument and so you try (unsuccessfully) to twist it into an argument that is as invalid as the argument that there is no God?
    "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove, you might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it." ~~ Dawkins
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    It's impossible to prove God doesn't exist. However it is acceptable to say that since we have not found any evidence for the existence of God, it should be evident that we are allowed to state, "In accordance with having no evidence for a claim, we can deny that claims existence until further evidence is demonstrated."
    It is indeed quite correct to say, "In the absence of sufficient objective evidence (or indeed any objective evidence whatsoever) for a claim, we are quite justified in denying the truth of that claim until such evidence is forthcomming."


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove, you might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it." ~~ Dawkins
    It is indeed correct to say that the onus is on someone who believes something to prove his case with objective evidence IF he would demand that others believe so also. That goes for those who believe that God does exist and for those who believe that God doesn't exist. It also goes for those who have seen fairies, been attacked by ghosts, and been kidnapped by aliens. They may indeed have very good personal reasons for believing in the existence of such things, but without objective evidence they cannot expect others to adopt their beliefs merely on the force of their own subjective experiences. Without objective evidence others are quite as justified in concluding that such experiences do not reflect any objective reality, even though it is impossible to prove that this is the case or that these fairies, ghosts or aliens do not exist.

    It is in fact a principle of secular society in a free country that public decisions must be based on that which can be objectively proven to be the case. And that means that infractions of rules and laws cannot be justified by any appeal to things for which there is no evidence. But this also neccessarily means that unless you can PROVE that the object of someone belief does not exist then their belief does NOT constitute objective evidence of any kind of defect in that person. Just because they cannot expect others to adopt their belief does NOT mean that their belief is in fact false.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Just because they cannot expect others to adopt their belief does NOT mean that their belief is in fact false.
    If the beliefs of cults have not been shown to be valid in any way, then there isn't the slightest reason to continue believing in them, regardless of whether or not they are in fact false. Demonstrate the belief is valid and you'll have an argument. If you can't do so, then your claims for cult beliefs are as pointless as claims for ghosts.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    well, here's the atheist perspective.

    we don't know whether god exists or not.

    however, based on al lot of evidence, against god, it is highly likely that god does not exist.
    Pray tell what scientific evidence there is against a creator of the universe?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Pray tell what scientific evidence there is against a creator of the universe?
    there's a lot of evidence against the almighty creator, as mentioned in the bible.
    there's proof earth wasn't made in 6 days, there's proof that there wasn't a worldwide flood, there's proof that you're not going to get struck by lightning for not offering flesh offerings to said almighty creator.

    now if you take that creator OUT of the context of the bible.. well.. then you cannot claim to be a christian anymore.
    but then again, i said in the topic "theistic god" so its probably my fault for all the misconceptions.
    but by biblical god, it would be the abrahamic god, which has spawned judaism, christianity, and islam.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    ok, so where is the proof that the bible is meant to be a literal history of creation?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    ok, so where is the proof that the bible is meant to be a literal history of creation?
    in the bible.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    it basically boils down to this:

    "we don't know whether there is a god or not."
    "Therefore, there is a god."
    meh

    If that's what you think it boils down to you must be a dreadful cook!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    it basically boils down to this:

    "we don't know whether there is a god or not."
    "Therefore, there is a god."

    its the same as arguing:

    "We do not know whether or not eggs can cause cancer."
    "Therefore eggs can cause cancer."
    In all my years of debating theists, I'm not sure I've ever seen that exact argument. Typically, theists have accepted their particular brand of theism (usually via indoctrination by their parents) without a second thought. If you're raised from birth to believe that god exists, you're most likely never going to get as far as "we don't know" (because you already believe that you know...even though you really don't).

    Even when encountering someone who has progressed far enough to acknowledge that there is no evidence for a god or gods, their conclusion tends to be "but I believe anyway" (perhaps they recognize on some level that stating definitely, "therefore, there is a god" is only going to make the conversation continue, whereas "well, I believe because I want to" is a conversation killer). It's intellectually dishonest, but does end the dialog and cognitive dissonance heals all wounds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    In all my years of debating theists, I'm not sure I've ever seen that exact argument. Typically, theists have accepted their particular brand of theism (usually via indoctrination by their parents) without a second thought. If you're raised from birth to believe that god exists, you're most likely never going to get as far as "we don't know" (because you already believe that you know...even though you really don't).
    yep.... until they do. ...the same goes for the atheist that have "accepted their particular brand of atheism (usually via indoctrination by their parents) without a second thought". Eventually we grow up and have to make our own decisions and though it does not happen often in peoples lives, theists do decide that the god they have believed in all their life does not exist after all, and atheist do decide that the god they have not believed in all their life really does exist after all.

    BUT they change FOR THEIR OWN REASONS, and not because the "truth pushers" accomplish anything but convincing themselves of their own BS.


    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    Even when encountering someone who has progressed far enough to acknowledge that there is no evidence for a god or gods, their conclusion tends to be "but I believe anyway" (perhaps they recognize on some level that stating definitely, "therefore, there is a god" is only going to make the conversation continue, whereas "well, I believe because I want to" is a conversation killer). It's intellectually dishonest, but does end the dialog and cognitive dissonance heals all wounds.
    It is no more or less intellectually dishonest than the atheist refusing to acknowledge the fact that they do not believe because they don't want to. Yeah yeah I know they don't want to because they have no evidence that it is the case just as the theist wants to believe because they do have such evidence (talking about subjective evidence here of course). The real conversation killer here is the assumption that the whole point of dialog to convince others that you do in fact of have "the truth" if they would not so stubbornly refuse to admit this. This is an expectation that is doomed to be disappointed.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    yep.... until they do. ...the same goes for the atheist that have "accepted their particular brand of atheism (usually via indoctrination by their parents)
    this is wrong. 90% of atheists, have christian parents, and have themselves had a childhood indoctrination of christianity.
    my mother used to sing to me every night, "dear god, we are alright,thanks for all that we have received. you are kind, you provide for me, dear god never leaves me.
    look after small, and large, god preserve, father and mother.

    its a norwegian child song, translated to english, but i was sung this song every night, from i was 3 to i was 8.
    its for this reason i can't put myself in more than an agnostic camp, even though i'd rather be atheist. also, i instinctively avoid the number 13.
    atheist indoctrination much?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: the religious argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    yep.... until they do.
    Unless they don't.

    You make it sound as though it's inevitable. Curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    ...the same goes for the atheist that have "accepted their particular brand of atheism (usually via indoctrination by their parents) without a second thought".
    While I'm sure there might be cases where this is true, it strikes me a being largely inconsistent with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Eventually we grow up and have to make our own decisions and though it does not happen often in peoples lives, theists do decide that the god they have believed in all their life does not exist after all, and atheist do decide that the god they have not believed in all their life really does exist after all.
    Indeed. Being one of the former, I am well aware of that fact. However I would argue that there is a huge difference between accepting something that you were never conditioned to accept and rejecting something that you were conditioned to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    BUT they change FOR THEIR OWN REASONS, and not because the "truth pushers" accomplish anything but convincing themselves of their own BS.
    Ever heard of Jonestown?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It is no more or less intellectually dishonest than the atheist refusing to acknowledge the fact that they do not believe because they don't want to.
    Probably true, but again, the argument itself doesn't make much sense. I don't see how not accepting a claim for which their is no supporting evidence is intellectually dishonest. There is no self-deception going on there, so I can't see how it's applicable. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yeah yeah I know they don't want to because they have no evidence that it is the case just as the theist wants to believe because they do have such evidence (talking about subjective evidence here of course).
    Well if theists have all this evidence, then why don't they ever share it?

    I attended church for years and never saw any. How long must one be a theist before they get to see it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    The real conversation killer here is the assumption that the whole point of dialog to convince others that you do in fact of have "the truth" if they would not so stubbornly refuse to admit this.
    Sir, I think you'll find me to be a breath of fresh air then. I do not claim to have the truth regarding the existence of god. I will admit quite readily that I have no idea whatsoever.

    What I do argue though, is that neither do theists and therefore their claim to "the truth" (to borrow your term) is intellectually dishonest at best and deadly at worst.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    ok, so where is the proof that the bible is meant to be a literal history of creation?
    in the bible.
    Please cite some scripture. I'm not a biblical scholar but that doesn't mean I'm going to take someone's word for it. Nor am I going to go look: you make the claim, you have the responsibility to support it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman

    Please cite some scripture. I'm not a biblical scholar but that doesn't mean I'm going to take someone's word for it. Nor am I going to go look: you make the claim, you have the responsibility to support it.
    You could start from the beginning, with a little chapter called, "Genesis."

    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Q, the question was "so where is the proof that the bible is meant to be a literal history of creation?" Quoting Genesis's "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" doesnt answer that question at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    It's the (inspired?) word of god.

    It's own claim is the proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    Q, the question was "so where is the proof that the bible is meant to be a literal history of creation?" Quoting Genesis's "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" doesnt answer that question at all.
    As Phoenix succinctly points out, the bible is it's own claim to proof. The evidence is in the observation of theists making claims to that effect.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    It's the (inspired?) word of god.

    It's own claim is the proof.
    No, it is not. The claim that the bible is the inspired word of does not answer the question of where exactly in the bible itself does it make the claim that it is a factual account of world history? Divinely inspired means many things. Some see it as being directly authored, other see it as authored through the lens of human biases and interpretations. People in the fourth century A.D. believed accounts like Genesis were allegory.

    So, again, where exactly is the proof that the bible is a literal history of creation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 An atheist argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    A typical atheist argumentation fallacy:

    1)A belief is only rational if it is based on proof and or evidence.
    2)There is no proof or evidence for the existence of any God which is objectively valid.
    3)Therefore a belief in God is not rational.
    4)Therefore we should not believe in God.


    It has in fact been proven that it is impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent. This is a far more than can be established about the existence of God. I mean I certainly do not believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God objectively but I certainly have no proof that this is the case. So in any case, by the same argumentation fallacy above we must conclude that not only is a belief in the consistency of mathematics irrational but that we should therefore not believe that mathematics is consistent, (i.e. does not satisfy the minimal requirements of logic in order to be meaninful).

    A singular event witnessed by someone is more than sufficient evidence for that person to believe something even though he has absolutely no way to prove the truth of his belief or offer any objective evidence. This is so obvious, that it beggars the mind to understand why people stick the this typical atheist argumentation fallacy. I think there is only one explanation and it is an intolerance of diversity in human thought and belief. Just as the many of the religious have felt compelled by this same intolerance to demonize other religions and atheists, so have many atheists conveniently provided proof (for what should be obvious) that becoming an atheist is no cure to human irrationality, because we see these atheists doing exactly the same thing -- trying to demonize those who think and believe differently than they do. When we talk to the intolerant relgious we encounter the same irrational refusal to accept this obvious state of affairs that people have different experiences and thus naturally come to different conclusions.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixG
    It's the (inspired?) word of god.

    It's own claim is the proof.
    Please cite some scripture. I would like to see these statements in context and have the ability to decide for myself what they mean.

    Again, without support for your statements you give nobody any substance to agree or disagree with.

    If your aim is to be ambiguous enough that you can't be wrong then you've succeeded and you should be proud to know that you've had such a self destructive impact on the word simply by speaking in such a meaningless fashion.

    I never knew that it was the inspired word of God. I've heard people say that it is, but that doesn't make it so.

    Consider a religion popping up in a hundred years that worships "Zarathustra" and says that this man actually existed, all his recorded experiences happened, and that the man who wrote the book was divinely inspired.

    Would this prevent you from reading the book as it is?

    That's my attitude towards the bible. Other people's opinions, conclusions, right or wrong, do not influence my own.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: An atheist argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by KomradRed
    No, it is not. The claim that the bible is the inspired word of does not answer the question of where exactly in the bible itself does it make the claim that it is a factual account of world history? Divinely inspired means many things. Some see it as being directly authored, other see it as authored through the lens of human biases and interpretations. People in the fourth century A.D. believed accounts like Genesis were allegory.
    What people believe is of little consequence (because it is subjective). If the bible is the word of god then it is to be taken literally. I really don't see how this isn't clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A typical atheist argumentation fallacy:

    1)A belief is only rational if it is based on proof and or evidence.
    2)There is no proof or evidence for the existence of any God which is objectively valid.
    3)Therefore a belief in God is not rational.
    4)Therefore we should not believe in God.
    Please explain how this is fallacious. Simply declaring it "fallacy" does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    It has in fact been proven that it is impossible to prove that mathematics is consistent.
    I find this hard to accept considering that it's impossible to prove a negative.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is a far more than can be established about the existence of God. I mean I certainly do not believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God objectively but I certainly have no proof that this is the case. So in any case, by the same argumentation fallacy above we must conclude that not only is a belief in the consistency of mathematics irrational but that we should therefore not believe that mathematics is consistent, (i.e. does not satisfy the minimal requirements of logic in order to be meaninful).
    Speaking of fallacies, I see a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A singular event witnessed by someone is more than sufficient evidence for that person to believe something even though he has absolutely no way to prove the truth of his belief or offer any objective evidence.
    Again, hearsay != evidence.

    Hearsay = hearsay.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is so obvious, that it beggars the mind to understand why people stick the this typical atheist argumentation fallacy.
    One might say it's as plain as the holes in swiss cheese.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think there is only one explanation and it is an intolerance of diversity in human thought and belief.
    Try "intellectual honesty" or even "rigorous standards of proof".

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Just as the many of the religious have felt compelled by this same intolerance to demonize other religions and atheists, so have many atheists conveniently provided proof (for what should be obvious) that becoming an atheist is no cure to human irrationality, because we see these atheists doing exactly the same thing -- trying to demonize those who think and believe differently than they do.
    I think it important to remember that atheist = rational no more than atheist = scientist. Rational and irrational people come in all shapes, sizes, and flavors. That atheism is a more rational position is simply a feather in it's cap.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    When we talk to the intolerant relgious we encounter the same irrational refusal to accept this obvious state of affairs that people have different experiences and thus naturally come to different conclusions.
    More strawmen. No one is saying that people cannot have their own experiences. At the same time, they are neither permitted to have their own facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: An atheist argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A typical atheist argumentation fallacy:

    1)A belief is only rational if it is based on proof and or evidence.
    2)There is no proof or evidence for the existence of any God which is objectively valid.
    3)Therefore a belief in God is not rational.
    4)Therefore we should not believe in God.

    A singular event witnessed by someone is more than sufficient evidence for that person to believe something even though he has absolutely no way to prove the truth of his belief or offer any objective evidence. This is so obvious, that it beggars the mind to understand why people stick the this typical atheist argumentation fallacy. I think there is only one explanation and it is an intolerance of diversity in human thought and belief. Just as the many of the religious have felt compelled by this same intolerance to demonize other religions and atheists, so have many atheists conveniently provided proof (for what should be obvious) that becoming an atheist is no cure to human irrationality, because we see these atheists doing exactly the same thing -- trying to demonize those who think and believe differently than they do.
    you're right, atheism isn't a cure for irrationality. there's still a lot of irrational things other than gods we can believe in, like ghosts, the loch ness monster, monsters under the bed, etc.
    I'll take a stance on religion, similar to the stance i have on the loch ness monster. we don't know.
    and what we think we know, is not always how things actually are.
    there's people who believe they can dowse, and even when they are unable to dowse in a controlled experiment, they still believe they can dowse.
    thats one concrete example of an irrational belief/ delusion.

    btw, how can a non-believer "demonize" something :P
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: An atheist argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A typical atheist argumentation fallacy:

    1)A belief is only rational if it is based on proof and or evidence.
    Correct, it cannot be deemed anything else.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    2)There is no proof or evidence for the existence of any God which is objectively valid.
    Correct, I would add, there is no reasonable prove, that a theist can assert, that can show a god exists.
    To say affirmatively there isn't one in the entire universe, would be infantile in the extreme, you simply could not know.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    3)Therefore a belief in God is not rational.
    No! it's not reasonable, but it can be Rationalized has it been, after all since man first stood upright.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    4)Therefore we should not believe in God.
    Correction, "Therefore there is no good reason to believe god/gods exist."
    It is much wiser to lack belief in any and all gods that theist assert to exist, without further validating evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A singular event witnessed by someone is more than sufficient evidence for that person to believe something even though he has absolutely no way to prove the truth of his belief or offer any objective evidence.
    Correct, but for one point it is not witnessed, for want of a better term it is imagined. it can only be witnessed if it was real in the first place, given there is no evidence to show it is, it can only be imagined, IE an hallucination.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    This is so obvious, that it beggars the mind to understand why people stick the this typical atheist argumentation fallacy.
    Why! is there, an alternative reality your aware of somewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think there is only one explanation and it is an intolerance of diversity in human thought and belief. Just as the many of the religious have felt compelled by this same intolerance to demonize other religions and atheists, so have many atheists conveniently provided proof (for what should be obvious) that becoming an atheist is no cure to human irrationality,
    Who said that the atheist has the monopoly on rationality, remember babies are also atheist. Atheist is simply a label given to people by the theist, who happen to simply lack belief in the god/gods that they assert, it is not an a intelligence quotient.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    because we see these atheists doing exactly the same thing -- trying to demonize those who think and believe differently than they do. When we talk to the intolerant religious we encounter the same irrational refusal to accept this obvious state of affairs that people have different experiences and thus naturally come to different conclusions.
    Ok, but in fairness, one is coming from the reasonable stance and the other not.
    So can you really wonder at it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: An atheist argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Who said that the atheist has the monopoly on rationality, remember babies are also atheist. Atheist is simply a label given to people by the theist, who happen to simply lack belief in the god/gods that they assert, it is not an a intelligence quotient.
    So can you really wonder at it.
    hehe, and no atheist horse has ever won the nobel prize.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: An atheist argumentation fallacy 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Who said that the atheist has the monopoly on rationality, remember babies are also atheist. Atheist is simply a label given to people by the theist, who happen to simply lack belief in the god/gods that they assert, it is not an a intelligence quotient.
    So can you really wonder at it.
    hehe, and no atheist horse has ever won the Nobel prize.
    Nobody said they hadn't, but not all atheist are capable of winning are they.
    The religious can be just as likely to win.


    Incidentally why did you combine two replies, whilst removing this line
    "Ok, but in fairness, one is coming from the reasonable stance and the other not. "
    My actual quote should be thus:
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    (1st reply)Who said that the atheist has the monopoly on rationality, remember babies are also atheist. Atheist is simply a label given to people by the theist, who happen to simply lack belief in the god/gods that they assert, it is not an a intelligence quotient.

    (2nd reply)Ok, but in fairness, one is coming from the reasonable stance and the other not. "
    So can you really wonder at it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •