Well, you have a consistent worldview, but I guess it likely took you longer than most to obtain object permanence.Quote from pb4786
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude aliens don't exist.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that faster than light travel does not exist.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that those planets do not exist.
When formulating something from pure logic, the belief in "not-God" is simply the the belief in the negation of God: B(G) and B(¬G). Where "B" is the function of "belief in" and 'G' would be 'God.'Quote from pb4786This is you shifting the burden of proof. The phrase "not-God" still requires the assumption that God is an actual thing; and therein you have to entertain the God claim. I don't say "not-God", just like I don't say "not-Santa", because I can just say "where's your proof of your extraordinary claim of this thing called God." Until there is proof that even the concept of "God" is even an acual thing, I can say such a thing doesn't exist.
A undoubting theist would have B(G) and an undoubting atheist would have B(¬G), while a pure agnostic would have ¬B(¬G) and ¬B(G).
Because both B(¬G) AND B(G) would have to be justified.
Because one makes falsifiable claims and the other does not. A God that doesn't physically touch the world cannot be disproven by science (just most find such a God abject).Quote from pb4786
I've had this debate elswhere and there is no reason why a deist conception of God is any more reasonable than Allah.
No. You're wrong because the Negative Proof Fallacy is a Fallacy.Quote from pb4786
Am I wrong in thinking that you believe thought alone makes something possible?
"is an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true."
And this kind of thinking leads to the whole problem.Quote from pb4786Default positions are a starting point.
See, atheist think that God not existing is the starting point, since they come at it from the assumption He doesn't exists.
Theists think that God existing is the default position, since they come at it from the assumption He exists.
Now, this is the part were you claim babies are atheists, but we're not talking about babies; we are talking about grown men who have grown up to believe something a certain way. That "base belief" is what individuals take as the "default position," which is why people often fall for argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Fallacies happen because humans aren't wired to rely solely on logic, and those "known issues" in our programing reveal themselves as common fallacies in our thinking.
2
We have evidence that none of those things exist though. People have searched long and hard for big foot and based on our knowledge of other large mammals such a creature should not be capable of evading detection for such a long time.
Leprechauns have a similar issue, in all this time nobody has seen one, a creature of their size should have been detected in some of this time.
The celestial teapot is quite a bit different because the point of the teapot is to demonstrate why it's ridiculous to take belief in something as the default position. The teapot is also extremely specific and simply reasoning dictates that an object created by man that is undetectable to all instruments of all time would somehow find itself orbiting the sun is completely ridiculous. It is possible, but it is also very unlikely because of the number of nonsensical factors we would have to accept in order for it to exist.
However, the more general we get, the more likely something is of being true, and if we don't know how general something is relative to other things, then we should not take a default position. We have plenty of reasons to say that there could be no celestial teapot, we don't have plenty of reasons to say that there could be no X based on lack of evidence alone.
That doesn't mean our default position should be to believe in X, but that we should remain uncertain about X. We can hypothesize about X's existence, but it should remain neutral in our eyes.
1
1
1
1
Lol come on, you aren't even going to try and have a civilized discussion. You came in here and spouted off that anybody with a different opinion was ridiculous and then went to call them sophist virgins. Where do you get off? Because you are incapable of making a rational, well reasoned argument, you feel the need to resort to ad hominen? I don't think you really give a damn about gender equality, you just want to look angry.
If how I responded to your post made it look as though I didn't understand it, you failed to express whatever it was you were aiming for in your post.
What woman is murdered just for being a woman? Can you give us concrete examples of this? I don't even think you can come up with an example outside the west. Even if you did, I can't imagine it was for any sane reason (note: i do not mean rational) and thus we could probably find a similar case for somebody who murdered men simply for being men.
Secondly, when a man is raped, he is very much being raped because he is a man! If we are talking about homosexual rape then those male homosexual rapists certainly aren't going to rape a female. Likewise, if a man were raped by a hetereosexual woman it was because he was a man! Nobody is saying that men don't perpetrate rape more often than women do, what I said is that men are more often the victim of violent crime than women. That is a fact.
Look who can't read. The entire point of that was TO BE IRONIC. Perhaps you are so blinded with fervor that you are incapable of this.
Once again, the point was to mock how ridiculous your claim was. Look at how you treated what you thought to be my serious opinion and now realize that this is how you look to other people (and as far as we know, that is what you actually believe).
Lol what? I believe in gender equality, but I am not going to lie and spew nonsense to meet an agenda. You made up facts (IE: women are murdered simply for being women yet no men are murdered for that reason), attempted to twist my words to make it sound as though I was attacking women, and then you have the gall to say that I'm the one being irrational.
Men are the victims of homicide more often than women. That is a fact. If you want to bring other things up, please present some evidence. Here, let me show you mine:
http://www.feministjournal.com/women_as_victims.html
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/FVVC.PDF
Okay now that we've established that, let's analyze what else is wrong with your post. You originally claimed that because the most severe crimes happened to women, that they were therefore worse off.
First of all, I would argue that homicide is far and away the more heinous crime (not that rape is good) of the two you mentioned. I find it hard to believe that rape is worse than death. If you asked women who were raped at some point in their lives if they would rather be dead or never have been raped, I would venture that the majority would say they would prefer to not be dead. I cannot say this with certainty as I have been the victim of neither rape nor homicide but I think most people value life more than the physical and emotional abuse that is endured from a rape.
Secondly, since men are more likely to be the victims of a homicide, would that not then imply, given your logic, that they are actually worse off? In the end, what does it matter whether or not the crime is committed simply because of your gender? If by nature of being a man you are more likely to be subject to homicide, does it really matter whether or not the reason you were killed is because you were a man?
Thirdly, the entire analysis as a whole is using bunk logic. You assume that whichever gender is the victim of the more heinous act is automatically worse off. This is not necessarily true. If we are to rank heinous acts with numbers, the two sets could represent the trials and tribulations of two groups of people:
A: {10, 17, 20, 8, 100}
B: {50, 42, 67, 49, 71}
Group A has the most extreme act in its group yet its average is much lower than Group B's. Despite the fact that Group A contains the most heinous act, the sum of all evil perpetrated against Group B is greatest.
So please, try to reconcile this and please do so in a manner that doesn't devolve into name calling. I believe in gender equality, but making up crap and refusing to make a logical, reasoned argument to defend an aggressive and confrontational position is not going to help anybody.
1
1
You are dreamcrushing another person by allowing that guy to top 8 freely. The top 8 is a zero sum game so no matter what somebody is getting dreamcrushed.
1
1
lolwut?
1
You're trying to make big guys that don't need to be big. Combine this card with anything with zero power and evolve (like Elusive Krasis) and you get "1G: Put a 1/1 green ooze token onto the battlefield." That is a fairly powerful ability. It's much cheaper than Ant Queen.