Although if you approach it emotionlessly, it's not scary. But with all the mucking about that the god supposedly has done, I would hope such a cruel being that is depicted in the bible isn't real anyway.
I would disagree with your assertion. I find the idea that after you die that's the end and nothing else happens, you simply cease existing, to be a lot more peaceful/less scary than the idea that after you die your entire life would be put on display and judged.
I'm not really all that scared of being judged. I'm not better than the average person, I guess, but I'm living my life in a way which doesn't actively hinder others and I try to help others whenever I can. If God exists and he's good, he'll see that I'm trying to do the best I can with the tools I've got available to me.
In any case: if there is nothing after death, nothing you do in life really matters. Your actions will have some consequences for you during life, and may continue to percolate for a while after you're gone. But eventually, no matter who you are, what you did: all recollection of you will be lost. All of the fingerprints of the lives you touch will eventually fade away.
Furthermore: I like being. I love my senses, my imagination and my rational thoughts, limited as each of them are. Knowing that all of this will be gone within just a few decades, how could that not be scary?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
In any case: if there is nothing after death, nothing you do in life really matters.
I disagree. If there is nothing after death, then what you do in this life is all that matters, because that's all you have. You must make the best of this life. If there is nothing after death, then our life most certainly has meaning, not the other way around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
In any case: if there is nothing after death, nothing you do in life really matters.
Siddhartha and the likes argued that your actions in life didn't matter anyway, even if there was some god, so what? You don't have to do what it says to do, they are merely another aspect of the universe. Besides, there's also what dechs says, if you only have a limited amount of life, you should only value it more.
In any case: if there is nothing after death, nothing you do in life really matters.
In any case, if there is heaven after death then life doesn't matter.
That was one of the million unfortunate things that bothered me when I was christian - the fact that life is pointless if you believe that the next existence is much grander and longer than this one. This existence was just a pointless stepping stone that must be endured so I could go to heaven. I've heard many christians refer to this life as hell and I can see why. One of the many liberating things about becoming an atheist was being able to appreciate life to its fullest and to see it for the precious, beautiful thing that it is.
In any case: if there is nothing after death, nothing you do in life really matters.
I disagree. If there is nothing after death, then what you do in this life is all that matters, because that's all you have. You must make the best of this life. If there is nothing after death, then our life most certainly has meaning, not the other way around.
Indeed. This life is all we have, and it's a very small slice of something so near to infinity that it damn sure doesn't make a difference. Sure, we should make most of our lives, but not because it has actual meaning, but because then we can at least feel somewhat good about ourselves when we return to nothing.
EDIT: Also: just out there for the mods and the OP: should we make a new thread for this? It's kind of off-topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Wow I'm just full of quotes today. Must be my inner god-fearing bible-thumper trying to escape this phony atheist shell!
Beat me to it. This is the most ignored basic ground rule when debating religion with someone who believes in a higher power. Often times they will argue as if a god already exists which is breaking a rule of logic that one cannot argue persuasively if they argue their point is already true.
If it's already true, then there should be no more debate.
Sorry if I bumped an older thread, this is a pet peeve of mine that I try to avoid running into. OCD-ish
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Wow I'm just full of quotes today. Must be my inner god-fearing bible-thumper trying to escape this phony atheist shell!
Beat me to it. This is the most ignored basic ground rule when debating religion with someone who believes in a higher power. Often times they will argue as if a god already exists which is breaking a rule of logic that one cannot argue persuasively if they argue their point is already true.
If it's already true, then there should be no more debate.
Sorry if I bumped an older thread, this is a pet peeve of mine that I try to avoid running into. OCD-ish
Such an assertion is not actually a formal fallacy, just an INformal one based on how one defines the standards for being evident. If you state you can fly but do not demonstrate that you can't, then logically the possibility cannot be ruled out even if you arbitrary assign a high likelihood that you can't. Even if you say you lied, in an open system (not closed) such as the universe, there could still possibly be some mechanism that makes you fly when asked to demonstrate it. The problem is that unless you declare it a falsehood in a closed system, an outside observer could never know that it's a lie, there's no evidence that actually determines that it is in fact a lie.
As a former serious Christian...
I lost my faith long before I lost my church, if you understand my meaning.
I've been God-free and church-free for quite some time. At least 9 years or more.
However,
Once in a while, I beg for a sign, I sincerely wish that if God exists, it would reach out and say hello to me.
It hasn't happened. I'm left empty handed.
I want to know the TRUTH, and if the truth is that there is a God out there, I'd really really like to know. I just have never had it proven to me, spiritually, scientifically, or in any way.
Even when I believed in God and Jesus, and everything my parents indoctrinated me with growing up, I never had that "magic touch". I believed because I was raised to believe.
When you were stained deeply by a belief system, it is no surprise you can't wash every minuscule spot of that stain away.
I have a good memory, which means I can't bleach the idea from the back of my mind.
I have no problem admitting that I am sometimes conflicted.
I also know that I can say with complete honesty, I am an anti-theist agnostic.
I'm not a Christian anymore either, but I'm still a theist. I like to think a God exists, but it is not Yahweh.
Anyway, if you guys want to start a new thread or continue discussing in this thread, I don't mind. If you feel it's too off-topic then start a new thread.
If you state you can fly but do not demonstrate that you can't, then logically the possibility cannot be ruled out even if you arbitrary assign a high likelihood that you can't.
That's not the point, though. If you claim you can fly the onus is entirely on you to prove it.
This is true of anything. Nobody gets around it by arguing that something is obviously true or self evident. A skeptic could demand evidence that dogs exist on the basis that she has never seen one and has no good reason to believe they are real. That's entirely reasonable request and it does require the person who believes in dogs to provide evidence.
Seriously, could you imagine someone getting self-righteous and reaching for epistemological arguments just because someone asked to see their dog?
That's not the point, though. If you claim you can fly the onus is entirely on you to prove it.
But you are essentially creating that out of thin air that it is up to them to prove anything. If I state " can fly", there is nothing about that statement that suggests I "have" to prove it, it's just that an outside observer, aka not me, they would have no means to confirm weather it is true or not. You can say "I have not seen evidence you can fly therefore I have no reason to assume you can fly".
A skeptic could demand evidence that dogs exist on the basis that she has never seen one and has no good reason to believe they are real. That's entirely reasonable request and it does require the person who believes in dogs to provide evidence.
No it doesn't actually "require" anything it's just that if the said person at all cares that other people doubt them (which they might not) they will decide to make some attempt at providing evidence
Seriously, could you imagine someone getting self-righteous and reaching for epistemological arguments just because someone asked to see their dog?
Someone could, it might be pure coincidence that there is some good reason they can't show someone their dog. Someone could say "There aren't purple invisible unicorns walking around". You don't have evidence they are there, but that doesn't mean the possibility itself can be ruled out, what if there was life that developed in a different set of spacial dimensions and was thus invisible?
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Wow I'm just full of quotes today. Must be my inner god-fearing bible-thumper trying to escape this phony atheist shell!
Beat me to it. This is the most ignored basic ground rule when debating religion with someone who believes in a higher power. Often times they will argue as if a god already exists which is breaking a rule of logic that one cannot argue persuasively if they argue their point is already true.
If it's already true, then there should be no more debate.
Sorry if I bumped an older thread, this is a pet peeve of mine that I try to avoid running into. OCD-ish
Such an assertion is not actually a formal fallacy, just an INformal one based on how one defines the standards for being evident. If you state you can fly but do not demonstrate that you can't, then logically the possibility cannot be ruled out even if you arbitrary assign a high likelihood that you can't. Even if you say you lied, in an open system (not closed) such as the universe, there could still possibly be some mechanism that makes you fly when asked to demonstrate it. The problem is that unless you declare it a falsehood in a closed system, an outside observer could never know that it's a lie, there's no evidence that actually determines that it is in fact a lie.
I feel like we are about to split hairs here and get into the faith debate and seeing is believing and so on. If they weren't able or didn't show me they could fly with or without a mechanism then I wouldn't believe it, until I saw it. Religion uses many mechanisms to try and prove it's existence through changing the psyche of the un-indoctrinated ("saving them" from hell) or the indoctrinated (growing up through christian faiths for example more emphasis is put on serving god as they get older (missions, through giving their life as a clergymen or woman, having children even for example) all without empirical evidence.
One can define the standards of evidence in so many ways to have it fit for their personal reality. If your personal reality is that everything in the bible is true then okay, great. However, there is no 100 percent proof that a god or higher power of any kind exists and I tend to focus my personal time on this earth of ours by enriching others lives who come into contact with me via a positive humanist aspect. And religions do this too, but religions have also been the base cause for a lot of blood shed that is hard to overlook and not very humanist (and if I have to list out wars I will)
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Wow I'm just full of quotes today. Must be my inner god-fearing bible-thumper trying to escape this phony atheist shell!
Beat me to it. This is the most ignored basic ground rule when debating religion with someone who believes in a higher power. Often times they will argue as if a god already exists which is breaking a rule of logic that one cannot argue persuasively if they argue their point is already true.
If it's already true, then there should be no more debate.
Sorry if I bumped an older thread, this is a pet peeve of mine that I try to avoid running into. OCD-ish
Such an assertion is not actually a formal fallacy, just an INformal one based on how one defines the standards for being evident. If you state you can fly but do not demonstrate that you can't, then logically the possibility cannot be ruled out even if you arbitrary assign a high likelihood that you can't. Even if you say you lied, in an open system (not closed) such as the universe, there could still possibly be some mechanism that makes you fly when asked to demonstrate it. The problem is that unless you declare it a falsehood in a closed system, an outside observer could never know that it's a lie, there's no evidence that actually determines that it is in fact a lie.
I feel like we are about to split hairs here and get into the faith debate and seeing is believing and so on. If they weren't able or didn't show me they could fly with or without a mechanism then I wouldn't believe it, until I saw it. Religion uses many mechanisms to try and prove it's existence through changing the psyche of the un-indoctrinated ("saving them" from hell) or the indoctrinated (growing up through christian faiths for example more emphasis is put on serving god as they get older (missions, through giving their life as a clergymen or woman, having children even for example) all without empirical evidence.
One can define the standards of evidence in so many ways to have it fit for their personal reality. If your personal reality is that everything in the bible is true then okay, great. However, there is no 100 percent proof that a god or higher power of any kind exists and I tend to focus my personal time on this earth of ours by enriching others lives who come into contact with me via a positive humanist aspect. And religions do this too, but religions have also been the base cause for a lot of blood shed that is hard to overlook and not very humanist (and if I have to list out wars I will)
As I said saying something lacks evidence is based on one's standards for evident, making it an arbitrary statement and thus not a formal fallacy of logic, just of an inability for something to maintain traits of a certain set of standards. You can choose to believe it, or not believe it, or choose that either are possible but not determined to exist, you can't really 100% confirm it either way.
Plus, religion isn't exactly "why" wars happen, history has shown that wars occur regardless of religion (i.e. that groups of many many different religions fight) and that things such as groups of monkeys fighting occur in nature, religion is merely something that can exacerbate the volatility of those traits.
Saying god is on the same level as unicorns is ignorant.
Unicorns are a product of a certain classic culture.
But all cultures have god or gods.
Nobody cant prove there isnt a god or a god. So anyone who says god is the same as a spaghetti monster is a ......
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer. Religious people like to say that whole "prove there is no god bit" but it's philosophically flawed.
If I told you "i can fly" you'd say "prove it!" And if I said back to you - "well, you can't prove that I can't fly so therefore it must remain a matter of debate" you probably would be pissed.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Wow I'm just full of quotes today. Must be my inner god-fearing bible-thumper trying to escape this phony atheist shell!
Beat me to it. This is the most ignored basic ground rule when debating religion with someone who believes in a higher power. Often times they will argue as if a god already exists which is breaking a rule of logic that one cannot argue persuasively if they argue their point is already true.
If it's already true, then there should be no more debate.
Sorry if I bumped an older thread, this is a pet peeve of mine that I try to avoid running into. OCD-ish
Such an assertion is not actually a formal fallacy, just an INformal one based on how one defines the standards for being evident. If you state you can fly but do not demonstrate that you can't, then logically the possibility cannot be ruled out even if you arbitrary assign a high likelihood that you can't. Even if you say you lied, in an open system (not closed) such as the universe, there could still possibly be some mechanism that makes you fly when asked to demonstrate it. The problem is that unless you declare it a falsehood in a closed system, an outside observer could never know that it's a lie, there's no evidence that actually determines that it is in fact a lie.
I feel like we are about to split hairs here and get into the faith debate and seeing is believing and so on. If they weren't able or didn't show me they could fly with or without a mechanism then I wouldn't believe it, until I saw it. Religion uses many mechanisms to try and prove it's existence through changing the psyche of the un-indoctrinated ("saving them" from hell) or the indoctrinated (growing up through christian faiths for example more emphasis is put on serving god as they get older (missions, through giving their life as a clergymen or woman, having children even for example) all without empirical evidence.
One can define the standards of evidence in so many ways to have it fit for their personal reality. If your personal reality is that everything in the bible is true then okay, great. However, there is no 100 percent proof that a god or higher power of any kind exists and I tend to focus my personal time on this earth of ours by enriching others lives who come into contact with me via a positive humanist aspect. And religions do this too, but religions have also been the base cause for a lot of blood shed that is hard to overlook and not very humanist (and if I have to list out wars I will)
As I said saying something lacks evidence is based on one's standards for evident, making it an arbitrary statement and thus not a formal fallacy of logic, just of an inability for something to maintain traits of a certain set of standards. You can choose to believe it, or not believe it, or choose that either are possible but not determined to exist, you can't really 100% confirm it either way.
Plus, religion isn't exactly "why" wars happen, history has shown that wars occur regardless of religion (i.e. that groups of many many different religions fight) and that things such as groups of monkeys fighting occur in nature, religion is merely something that can exacerbate the volatility of those traits.
The crusades weren't about religion? That was specifically fueled by religion (and greed). Hitler? Although Hitler may have had a bunch of different motives we can safely say he was not fond of jews.
Regardless of how it starts, a lot of killing in the name of a higher power in war has happened.
Also, monkeys don't indoctrinate monkeys to fight on their behalf. I have never seen a national geographic commercial where ten monkeys charged another group.
That's not the point, though. If you claim you can fly the onus is entirely on you to prove it.
But you are essentially creating that out of thin air that it is up to them to prove anything. If I state " can fly", there is nothing about that statement that suggests I "have" to prove it, it's just that an outside observer, aka not me, they would have no means to confirm weather it is true or not. You can say "I have not seen evidence you can fly therefore I have no reason to assume you can fly".
Your final statement is exactly the position of essentially every atheist I know. I'm not going to humor theists any more than I'm going to humor people who say they can fly (although I'm less likely to push them off buildings :p).
A skeptic could demand evidence that dogs exist on the basis that she has never seen one and has no good reason to believe they are real. That's entirely reasonable request and it does require the person who believes in dogs to provide evidence.
No it doesn't actually "require" anything it's just that if the said person at all cares that other people doubt them (which they might not) they will decide to make some attempt at providing evidence
In a discussion about "Do dogs exist?" the person who says dogs are real does have to be the one to provide evidence. They can refuse, of course, but then they're not actually having a discussion they're just being whiny and self-righteous. I hold theists to the same standard.
I just read the last comments and personally if I debate the god question, this is the first assumption we have to agree on:
0.
The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer.
1. Despite the fact that there is no proof for or against god's existence, this is not an even or 50/50 situation. The theist can't proof god because of the lack of evidence and the atheist can't disprove god because it is logical impossible - and I can prove this.
2. Proof.
It is impossible to disprove a general existence question.
"God does exist." is equivalent to "There is an object in or outside the universe that is equal to God."
To prove the negation,
NOT ("There is an object in or outside the universe that is equal to God.")
=("All objects in or outside the universe are not equal to God.")
you would have to check all objects in the universe, which is an absurd claim and therefore
it is impossible to disprove God in a mathematical 100% way.
3. Remark.
This is the same reason that there are no proofs in natural sciences for theories.
Example: It is impossible to prove Newton's theory that "all point masses attract each other".
But this is not a problem for sience, ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Believe in non-existence isn't the same as non-belief in existence. The first is a positive claim and therefore requires evidence. The second does not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
The crusades weren't about religion? That was specifically fueled by religion (and greed). Hitler? Although Hitler may have had a bunch of different motives we can safely say he was not fond of jews.
But if religion was the sole "cause" why would they not abide by the teachings of Jesus and things like "turn the other cheek"? Instead what happened is there were human emotions first, and then religion was used to sort of exacerbate them. Religion doesn't "cause" emotions to exist.
Regardless of how it starts, a lot of killing in the name of a higher power in war has happened.
But there's so many different religions and different types of what may be called "higher power" but not necessarily limited to a single omnipotent being that it cannot be shown that a particular religion on it's own is responsible for wars, there's no concise predictable pattern, there's no evidence that suggests "he believes in god, therefore he has a 70% chance of going to war". People have emotions like jealousy, greed, hate, sorrow, ect, and religion is often based off of some of those emotions or incorporates them and so is why they get thrown into the mix. You could argue the in the crusades that they merely used religion as an excuse to fuel their greed.
Also, monkeys don't indoctrinate monkeys to fight on their behalf. I have never seen a national geographic commercial where ten monkeys charged another group.
Actually there are records of entire groups "charging" another if you want to look through Jane Goodall's research, and even in the insect world it happens. The point is that you don't need any indoctrination in order for it to naturally happen, people already had the capacity for that sort of violence before any religion was ever created and it was spliced into various religions because religions are built upon their feelings and attempts to explain/analyze the world supernaturally. The only way it could be otherwise is if somehow religion evolved before any emotions.
Your final statement is exactly the position of essentially every atheist I know. I'm not going to humor theists any more than I'm going to humor people who say they can fly (although I'm less likely to push them off buildings :p).
Stances similar to yours are the ones I see more often in real life, "I personally find it unlikely, it does not fit my standards of being evidence, therefore even though I know it's not in any way logical, I will assume without proof that it is utterly wrong and that it cannot be true in any way even though that is completely hypocritical of my reasoning that something shouldn't be believed unless it has proof". If you care about being logical more than feeling correct, you will accept that you cannot rule out possibilities merely because they cannot be confirmed to have happened. If I flip a coin and it turns out heads, that doesn't mean it can't ever be tails it couldn't have been tails anyway, and if you have no proof or really evidence to confirm something either way, it may as well be the flip of a coin that it's holds any accuracy.
A skeptic could demand evidence that dogs exist on the basis that she has never seen one and has no good reason to believe they are real. That's entirely reasonable request and it does require the person who believes in dogs to provide evidence.
No it doesn't actually "require" anything it's just that if the said person at all cares that other people doubt them (which they might not) they will decide to make some attempt at providing evidence
In a discussion about "Do dogs exist?" the person who says dogs are real does have to be the one to provide evidence. They can refuse, of course, but then they're not actually having a discussion they're just being whiny and self-righteous. I hold theists to the same standard.
And once again, the illogical arbitrary applications of words such as "whiny" to generalize a whole group of people that hold not even a specific stance, but a certain type of stance. You can easily have a discussion by arguing the logic of assuming their existence or non-existence or impact if they do exist or ect.
Your stance is one I see more often in real life, "I personally find it unlikely, it does not fit my standards of being evidence, therefore even though I know it's not in any way logical, I will assume without proof that it is utterly wrong and that it cannot be true in any way even though that is completely hypocritical of my reasoning that something shouldn't be believed unless it has proof".
And once again, the illogical arbitrary applications of words such as "whiny" to generalize a whole group of people that hold not even a specific stance, but a certain type of stance.
When people insist that something is true then refuse to give a reason and get upset or angry when I tell them that it isn't good enough for me I feel very comfortable describing them as whiny and self-righteous. I could go with childish if you prefer. Pharisaic is a good word, too. How about smug and peevish?
Oh no reason, just some of evidence from posts, which I assume is fine by your standards (and, an axiom that uses itself as proof to prove itself also isn't a formal fallacy either), that you just seem to prefer saying "it doesn't exist unless there's evidence" rather than "we can't confirm it exists or doesn't exist without further evidence". Of course yoou're more than welcome to bring some new evidence or change stances or ect.
And once again, the illogical arbitrary applications of words such as "whiny" to generalize a whole group of people that hold not even a specific stance, but a certain type of stance.
When people insist that something is true then refuse to give a reason and get upset or angry when I tell them that it isn't good enough for me I feel very comfortable describing them as whiny and self-righteous. I could go with childish if you prefer. Pharisaic is a good word, too. How about smug and peevish?
But the problem is that you still cannot confirm that it is false and it's not a logicl fallacy when you assume it is false because you don't have evidence that it's true, you in fact yourself have no logical reason to "assume" it is false.
But the problem is that you still cannot confirm that it is false, and it's not a logicl fallacy, you in fact yourself have no logical reason to "assume" it is false.
No one's assuming it's false; they're just saying it's pointless to waste time considering. With no evidence, it doesn't matter whether it's false, it's not worth thinking about.
Whether someone told me they had been abducted by aliens as a kid or that they saw Jesus in a vision, my response would be the same. "Ok." And that's the last I'd think about it. They can't prove it. I can't disprove it. I'm not assuming it's false. I'm making the judgement that I don't care enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
No one's assuming it's false; they're just saying it's pointless to waste time considering. With no evidence, it doesn't matter whether it's false, it's not worth thinking about.
But saying "it's not worth thinking about" is purely subjective, someone could easily disagree on it's worth.
Whether someone told me they had been abducted by aliens as a kid or that they saw Jesus in a vision, my response would be the same. "Ok." And that's the last I'd think about it. They can't prove it, I can't disprove it. I'm not assuming it's false. I'm making the judgement that I don't care enough.
You can personally decide not to consider a possibility, but logically the possibility still exists, and so really people who use things like "I don't feel like considering it because it doesn't fit my standards of being evident" aren't acting any more logical. All you're really doing is saying "Let's agree to disagree", nothing was really solved.
Whether someone told me they had been abducted by aliens as a kid or that they saw Jesus in a vision, my response would be the same. "Ok." And that's the last I'd think about it. They can't prove it, I can't disprove it. I'm not assuming it's false. I'm making the judgement that I don't care enough.
You can personally decide not to consider a possibility, but logically the possibility still exists, and so really people who use things like "I don't feel like considering it" aren't acting any more logical.
Would you consider it's a possibility that I'm actually your mother?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Whether someone told me they had been abducted by aliens as a kid or that they saw Jesus in a vision, my response would be the same. "Ok." And that's the last I'd think about it. They can't prove it, I can't disprove it. I'm not assuming it's false. I'm making the judgement that I don't care enough.
You can personally decide not to consider a possibility, but logically the possibility still exists, and so really people who use things like "I don't feel like considering it" aren't acting any more logical.
Would you consider it's a possibility that I'm actually your mother?
I honestly have no idea who you are, I haven't seen my mother for a while and I do not see my mother in front of my typing on a computer to rule out that it isn't her assuming, the possibility exists, and it's kind of interesting to think I would randomly encounter her online, what it if actually was her? That would be pretty ironically interesting. Maybe you use to be a woman and had amnesia and forgot about having a kid anyway.
I honestly have no idea who you are, I haven't seen my mother for a while and I do not see my mother in front of my typing on a computer to rule out that it isn't her assuming, the possibility exists, and it's kind of interesting to think I would randomly encounter her online, what it if actually was her? That would be pretty ironically interesting. Maybe you use to be a woman and had amnesia and forgot about having a kid anyway.
If you consider any of this logical, then we don't have anything more to discuss.
Thanks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
But the problem is that you still cannot confirm that it is false and it's not a logicl fallacy when you assume it is false because you don't have evidence that it's true, you in fact yourself have no logical reason to "assume" it is false.
I'm not trying to "confirm that it is false", I'm merely noting that I've been given no reason to believe it is true. I cannot go about acting as though knowledge is impossible so I go around believing only in things that act as if they are true.
People can say "Believe this!" and I can say "Why?" and then if they say "Because it might be true." I can leave because they've just rejected all knowledge and it would be impolite to step on the toes of their philosophy by assuming they're speaking English. People who are willing to say "I can know nothing for certain!" with any degree of seriousness are invited to go jump off a bridge, hard to say what will happen at the bottom.
I'm not really all that scared of being judged. I'm not better than the average person, I guess, but I'm living my life in a way which doesn't actively hinder others and I try to help others whenever I can. If God exists and he's good, he'll see that I'm trying to do the best I can with the tools I've got available to me.
In any case: if there is nothing after death, nothing you do in life really matters. Your actions will have some consequences for you during life, and may continue to percolate for a while after you're gone. But eventually, no matter who you are, what you did: all recollection of you will be lost. All of the fingerprints of the lives you touch will eventually fade away.
Furthermore: I like being. I love my senses, my imagination and my rational thoughts, limited as each of them are. Knowing that all of this will be gone within just a few decades, how could that not be scary?
I disagree. If there is nothing after death, then what you do in this life is all that matters, because that's all you have. You must make the best of this life. If there is nothing after death, then our life most certainly has meaning, not the other way around.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Siddhartha and the likes argued that your actions in life didn't matter anyway, even if there was some god, so what? You don't have to do what it says to do, they are merely another aspect of the universe. Besides, there's also what dechs says, if you only have a limited amount of life, you should only value it more.
That was one of the million unfortunate things that bothered me when I was christian - the fact that life is pointless if you believe that the next existence is much grander and longer than this one. This existence was just a pointless stepping stone that must be endured so I could go to heaven. I've heard many christians refer to this life as hell and I can see why. One of the many liberating things about becoming an atheist was being able to appreciate life to its fullest and to see it for the precious, beautiful thing that it is.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
I did address a point you made.
Guess that it is and see why it's so hilariously ironic.
Indeed. This life is all we have, and it's a very small slice of something so near to infinity that it damn sure doesn't make a difference. Sure, we should make most of our lives, but not because it has actual meaning, but because then we can at least feel somewhat good about ourselves when we return to nothing.
EDIT: Also: just out there for the mods and the OP: should we make a new thread for this? It's kind of off-topic.
Beat me to it. This is the most ignored basic ground rule when debating religion with someone who believes in a higher power. Often times they will argue as if a god already exists which is breaking a rule of logic that one cannot argue persuasively if they argue their point is already true.
If it's already true, then there should be no more debate.
Sorry if I bumped an older thread, this is a pet peeve of mine that I try to avoid running into. OCD-ish
Such an assertion is not actually a formal fallacy, just an INformal one based on how one defines the standards for being evident. If you state you can fly but do not demonstrate that you can't, then logically the possibility cannot be ruled out even if you arbitrary assign a high likelihood that you can't. Even if you say you lied, in an open system (not closed) such as the universe, there could still possibly be some mechanism that makes you fly when asked to demonstrate it. The problem is that unless you declare it a falsehood in a closed system, an outside observer could never know that it's a lie, there's no evidence that actually determines that it is in fact a lie.
I'm not a Christian anymore either, but I'm still a theist. I like to think a God exists, but it is not Yahweh.
Anyway, if you guys want to start a new thread or continue discussing in this thread, I don't mind. If you feel it's too off-topic then start a new thread.
That's not the point, though. If you claim you can fly the onus is entirely on you to prove it.
This is true of anything. Nobody gets around it by arguing that something is obviously true or self evident. A skeptic could demand evidence that dogs exist on the basis that she has never seen one and has no good reason to believe they are real. That's entirely reasonable request and it does require the person who believes in dogs to provide evidence.
Seriously, could you imagine someone getting self-righteous and reaching for epistemological arguments just because someone asked to see their dog?
But you are essentially creating that out of thin air that it is up to them to prove anything. If I state " can fly", there is nothing about that statement that suggests I "have" to prove it, it's just that an outside observer, aka not me, they would have no means to confirm weather it is true or not. You can say "I have not seen evidence you can fly therefore I have no reason to assume you can fly".
That's because people like to think that they "know" things and can rule out other possibilities at will because they think they are unlikely.
No it doesn't actually "require" anything it's just that if the said person at all cares that other people doubt them (which they might not) they will decide to make some attempt at providing evidence
Someone could, it might be pure coincidence that there is some good reason they can't show someone their dog. Someone could say "There aren't purple invisible unicorns walking around". You don't have evidence they are there, but that doesn't mean the possibility itself can be ruled out, what if there was life that developed in a different set of spacial dimensions and was thus invisible?
I feel like we are about to split hairs here and get into the faith debate and seeing is believing and so on. If they weren't able or didn't show me they could fly with or without a mechanism then I wouldn't believe it, until I saw it. Religion uses many mechanisms to try and prove it's existence through changing the psyche of the un-indoctrinated ("saving them" from hell) or the indoctrinated (growing up through christian faiths for example more emphasis is put on serving god as they get older (missions, through giving their life as a clergymen or woman, having children even for example) all without empirical evidence.
One can define the standards of evidence in so many ways to have it fit for their personal reality. If your personal reality is that everything in the bible is true then okay, great. However, there is no 100 percent proof that a god or higher power of any kind exists and I tend to focus my personal time on this earth of ours by enriching others lives who come into contact with me via a positive humanist aspect. And religions do this too, but religions have also been the base cause for a lot of blood shed that is hard to overlook and not very humanist (and if I have to list out wars I will)
As I said saying something lacks evidence is based on one's standards for evident, making it an arbitrary statement and thus not a formal fallacy of logic, just of an inability for something to maintain traits of a certain set of standards. You can choose to believe it, or not believe it, or choose that either are possible but not determined to exist, you can't really 100% confirm it either way.
Plus, religion isn't exactly "why" wars happen, history has shown that wars occur regardless of religion (i.e. that groups of many many different religions fight) and that things such as groups of monkeys fighting occur in nature, religion is merely something that can exacerbate the volatility of those traits.
The crusades weren't about religion? That was specifically fueled by religion (and greed). Hitler? Although Hitler may have had a bunch of different motives we can safely say he was not fond of jews.
Regardless of how it starts, a lot of killing in the name of a higher power in war has happened.
Also, monkeys don't indoctrinate monkeys to fight on their behalf. I have never seen a national geographic commercial where ten monkeys charged another group.
Your final statement is exactly the position of essentially every atheist I know. I'm not going to humor theists any more than I'm going to humor people who say they can fly (although I'm less likely to push them off buildings :p).
In a discussion about "Do dogs exist?" the person who says dogs are real does have to be the one to provide evidence. They can refuse, of course, but then they're not actually having a discussion they're just being whiny and self-righteous. I hold theists to the same standard.
Believe in non-existence isn't the same as non-belief in existence. The first is a positive claim and therefore requires evidence. The second does not.
But if religion was the sole "cause" why would they not abide by the teachings of Jesus and things like "turn the other cheek"? Instead what happened is there were human emotions first, and then religion was used to sort of exacerbate them. Religion doesn't "cause" emotions to exist.
But there's so many different religions and different types of what may be called "higher power" but not necessarily limited to a single omnipotent being that it cannot be shown that a particular religion on it's own is responsible for wars, there's no concise predictable pattern, there's no evidence that suggests "he believes in god, therefore he has a 70% chance of going to war". People have emotions like jealousy, greed, hate, sorrow, ect, and religion is often based off of some of those emotions or incorporates them and so is why they get thrown into the mix. You could argue the in the crusades that they merely used religion as an excuse to fuel their greed.
Actually there are records of entire groups "charging" another if you want to look through Jane Goodall's research, and even in the insect world it happens. The point is that you don't need any indoctrination in order for it to naturally happen, people already had the capacity for that sort of violence before any religion was ever created and it was spliced into various religions because religions are built upon their feelings and attempts to explain/analyze the world supernaturally. The only way it could be otherwise is if somehow religion evolved before any emotions.
Stances similar to yours are the ones I see more often in real life, "I personally find it unlikely, it does not fit my standards of being evidence, therefore even though I know it's not in any way logical, I will assume without proof that it is utterly wrong and that it cannot be true in any way even though that is completely hypocritical of my reasoning that something shouldn't be believed unless it has proof". If you care about being logical more than feeling correct, you will accept that you cannot rule out possibilities merely because they cannot be confirmed to have happened. If I flip a coin and it turns out heads, that doesn't mean it can't ever be tails it couldn't have been tails anyway, and if you have no proof or really evidence to confirm something either way, it may as well be the flip of a coin that it's holds any accuracy.
And once again, the illogical arbitrary applications of words such as "whiny" to generalize a whole group of people that hold not even a specific stance, but a certain type of stance. You can easily have a discussion by arguing the logic of assuming their existence or non-existence or impact if they do exist or ect.
Why do you assume that is my stance?
When people insist that something is true then refuse to give a reason and get upset or angry when I tell them that it isn't good enough for me I feel very comfortable describing them as whiny and self-righteous. I could go with childish if you prefer. Pharisaic is a good word, too. How about smug and peevish?
Oh no reason, just some of evidence from posts, which I assume is fine by your standards (and, an axiom that uses itself as proof to prove itself also isn't a formal fallacy either), that you just seem to prefer saying "it doesn't exist unless there's evidence" rather than "we can't confirm it exists or doesn't exist without further evidence". Of course yoou're more than welcome to bring some new evidence or change stances or ect.
But the problem is that you still cannot confirm that it is false and it's not a logicl fallacy when you assume it is false because you don't have evidence that it's true, you in fact yourself have no logical reason to "assume" it is false.
No one's assuming it's false; they're just saying it's pointless to waste time considering. With no evidence, it doesn't matter whether it's false, it's not worth thinking about.
Whether someone told me they had been abducted by aliens as a kid or that they saw Jesus in a vision, my response would be the same. "Ok." And that's the last I'd think about it. They can't prove it. I can't disprove it. I'm not assuming it's false. I'm making the judgement that I don't care enough.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
But saying "it's not worth thinking about" is purely subjective, someone could easily disagree on it's worth.
You can personally decide not to consider a possibility, but logically the possibility still exists, and so really people who use things like "I don't feel like considering it because it doesn't fit my standards of being evident" aren't acting any more logical. All you're really doing is saying "Let's agree to disagree", nothing was really solved.
Would you consider it's a possibility that I'm actually your mother?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I honestly have no idea who you are, I haven't seen my mother for a while and I do not see my mother in front of my typing on a computer to rule out that it isn't her assuming, the possibility exists, and it's kind of interesting to think I would randomly encounter her online, what it if actually was her? That would be pretty ironically interesting. Maybe you use to be a woman and had amnesia and forgot about having a kid anyway.
If you consider any of this logical, then we don't have anything more to discuss.
Thanks.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I have never said that or even expressed that opinion.
Are you certain you're replying to the correct person?
I'm not trying to "confirm that it is false", I'm merely noting that I've been given no reason to believe it is true. I cannot go about acting as though knowledge is impossible so I go around believing only in things that act as if they are true.
People can say "Believe this!" and I can say "Why?" and then if they say "Because it might be true." I can leave because they've just rejected all knowledge and it would be impolite to step on the toes of their philosophy by assuming they're speaking English. People who are willing to say "I can know nothing for certain!" with any degree of seriousness are invited to go jump off a bridge, hard to say what will happen at the bottom.