serp777
Well-Known Member
It's extremely fallacious to say that all claims require the same amount of evidence.
Murder trials require vastly more evidence than other legal scenarios, for example.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The logical fallacy of atheism
- Thread starter vskipper
- Start date
It's extremely fallacious to say that all claims require the same amount of evidence.
Murder trials require vastly more evidence than other legal scenarios, for example.
Kielbasa
Lackey
Witch trials are still conducted in some parts of the world. "If she doesn't die when we burn her, then she's a witch!" That's a form of seeking evidence, isn't it?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
One that is easily falsified however.
No one suggested that all claims require the same amount of evidence--they require only what evidence they have--but a claim with no evidence stands on equal ground with a claim with no evidence, regardless of how mundane or startling the claim might be.
No evidence is no evidence.
outhouse
Atheistically
But we have plenty of evidence man creates deities. So we factually have evidence.
It is theist who have none.
We all have evidence of being fine storytellers.
IOW, plausibility is nothing. Without support, "I rode a dragon yesterday" is just as reasonable than "I rode a bicycle yesterday." Right?
outhouse
Atheistically
And factually evidence of following mythology as real events.
Plausibility is lovely. My point was not that the claims are reasonable or unreasonable, but that each have as much evidence as the other, and both have as much evidence as that there is a teapot orbiting Mars.
outhouse
Atheistically
Which is factually not true.
Thiest have none.
Atheist have a mountain of credible evidence gods were factually created by men.
You said that the two claims "stand on equal ground".
In terms of the subject, which was evidence. Plausibility doesn't happen for no reason--it implies that one has more evidence than the other.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
On the other hand atheists would have to provide evidence of being more plausible, not happening currently.
You implied that the claims had equal merit.
So you have more evidence that I rode a bicycle yesterday than that I rode a dragon yesterday? Since I didn't do either, I struggle to understand what evidence that would be. Could you enlighten me?
That wasn't anything I was talking about, no.
No, I don't--no evidence other than the statement.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But surely there is, at the very least, evidence of the existence of bikes; therefore the claim that he rode a bike is more plausible than the claim he rode a dragon.
Certainly there is evidence that bikes exist, but that isn't evidence that Jeff was riding one, and it never will be.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It is more plausible that Jeff was riding a bike rather than a dragon and the only school of thought that would say otherwise would be radical skepticism which has been more or less abandoned since the 50's.
Though I don't think it fully equates to the god debate.