To the Anti-Religious

[dogsgod]

I don't believe theists, that's why I am an atheist. I have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[darkendless]

Belief in nothing is still a belief.

I chose my words carefully. I said non-belief which is the abscence of belief. How can not believeing be beleiving? Its not.

 

[DarkSun]

I chose my words carefully. I said non-belief which is the abscence of belief. How can not believeing be beleiving? Its not.

I've answered this... several times....

You should give up and realize that words have more than one meaning and varying uses. Also, there is no such thing as proof or evidence for the non existence of things, it's a misnomer, so you are misled on more than one count.

Are you saying one can never find proof for a negative statement?

Wait... Why am I bothering? :areyoucra

 

[Apex]

I chose my words carefully. I said non-belief which is the abscence of belief. How can not believeing be beleiving? Its not.

Rush | Freewill lyrics

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

 

[DarkSun]

Hey guys, I just thought of something.



1 - Let's say I don't believe in reindeer. And let's say no one has discovered Reindeer yet.
2 - Someone shows me a photo of a reindeer.
3 - My belief has been invalidated by evidence.

4 - Let's say I don't believe in pink fairies.
5 - No one can show me pictures of pink fairies.
6 - However, no one can prove that pink fairies do not exist either.
7 - I will go with my original belief that pink fairies do not exist.

8 - Let's say I believe in pink fairies.
9 - No one can prove to me that pink fairies do not exist.
10 - However, no one can prove to me that they do, either.
11 - So I will go with my original belief that pink fairies do exist.

12 - Let's say person A disagrees with person B about the existence of fairies.
13 - Since there is no evidence for or against pink fairies, both people should be equally justified.
14 - However, person A sees person B's view as illogical. How could pink fairies exist?
15 - Person B sees person A's view as illogical. How could pink fairies not exist?
16 - They squabble over this for hours, neither side making any headway, each side demeaning the intelligence of the other.
17 - An "us" and "them" mentality arises, resulting in disunity.

18 - Let's say that all beliefs held by a person, without empirical evidence to back them, are equally justified.
19 - Person A is just as justified as person B, even though neither can understand the other.
20 - Person A and person B stop arguing over such an arbitrary thing as whether pixies exist. They get along and admit that each are being as logical as the other.



Sound good?

 

[DarkSun]

It was indeed a logical fallacy. You wanted to equivocate between two fundamentally different things, and you used the word faith in its broadest, and most nuance-ignoring, sense in order to make the equivocation. It is as close to a textbook example of the equivocation fallacy as you are ever likely to get.

You also ignored the examples where I explicitly highlighted this fallacy. To give another one:

1) I have faith that my wife won’t kill me in my sleep.
2) I have faith that DarkSun isn’t actually a person but an extremely advanced artificial intelligence that is practicing its diplomacy skills before it embarks on an attempt to take over the internet.

Using the same fallacy as you did, I could claim that both of these claims are doing the same thing and are of equal reasonableness.

While I didn’t know the terminology at the time I had realised the problem with this line of reasoning when I was about 8 after my PP tried to use it on me.

Yes, both are examples of faith. But whether they are both equally reasonable is up for you to decide. Obviously you don't see 2 as being very reasonable, so apparently you don't believe it anyway.

 

[dogsgod]

Are you saying one can never find proof for a negative statement?

Wait... Why am I bothering? :areyoucra

No, I didn't say one can never find proof for a negative statement, so there's no need for you to bother.

 

[dogsgod]

Hey guys, I just thought of something.



1 - Let's say I don't believe in reindeer. And let's say no one has discovered Reindeer yet.
2 - Someone shows me a photo of a reindeer.
3 - My belief has been invalidated by evidence.

4 - Let's say I don't believe in pink fairies.
5 - No one can show me pictures of pink fairies.
6 - However, no one can prove that pink fairies do not exist either.
7 - I will go with my original belief that pink fairies do not exist.

8 - Let's say I believe in pink fairies.
9 - No one can prove to me that pink fairies do not exist.
10 - However, no one can prove to me that they do, either.
11 - So I will go with my original belief that pink fairies do exist.

12 - Let's say person A disagrees with person B about the existence of fairies.
13 - Since there is no evidence for or against pink fairies, both people should be equally justified.
14 - However, person A sees person B's view as illogical. How could pink fairies exist?
15 - Person B sees person A's view as illogical. How could pink fairies not exist?
16 - They squabble over this for hours, neither side making any headway, each side demeaning the intelligence of the other.
17 - An "us" and "them" mentality arises, resulting in disunity.

18 - Let's say that all beliefs held by a person, without empirical evidence to back them, are equally justified.
19 - Person A is just as justified as person B, even though neither can understand the other.
20 - Person A and person B stop arguing over such an arbitrary thing as whether pixies exist. They get along and admit that each are being as logical as the other.



Sound good?

Let's say I have some ocean front property for sale in Cape Cod but it's going to be sold by tomorrow because the price is so reasonable, in fact there's going to be bidding war to buy it, but if you send me a few thousand dollars to me right away I'll put it aside for you. I can secure a loan for you so that you can buy and then sell the property doubling your money before your first mortgage payment is due. Sound good?

 

[Commoner]

Sound good?

No, it doesn't. You keep repeating yourself over and over again, while disregarding counter-arguments. Must I tell you the definition of that?

 

[rageoftyrael]

Here's the difference. The reason why we do not agree that believing in something for which there is no evidence is reasonable, even though there is no evidence against it either, is because if you have no evidence for it, someone made it up! You yourself said you believe in pink fairies. Why? you have no reason to believe in pink fairies. This is why your position is unreasonable, because you have chosen to believe in something for which you have no evidence. Even if you think you have evidence for yourself, if you cannot present this evidence for other people, this in and of itself should make you think something is off about your belief.

 

[blackout]

I generally 'believe' nothing...

but actively suspend my dis-belief for my own reasons & purposes.

I also act in accordance with the "assumptions" I assign to my reality construct,
for my own reasons & purposes.

These "reality assumptions" are all suspendable, turnable, discardable & "tradable" at any given time,
at the altar/alter of my own reasoning & purpose.

 

[themadhair]

Yes, both are examples of faith. But whether they are both equally reasonable is up for you to decide.

It appears that you do not agree with the above. Consider your example from just a few posts before:

[SIZE=-3]1 - Let's say I don't believe in reindeer. And let's say no one has discovered Reindeer yet.
2 - Someone shows me a photo of a reindeer.
3 - My belief has been invalidated by evidence.

4 - Let's say I don't believe in pink fairies.
5 - No one can show me pictures of pink fairies.
6 - However, no one can prove that pink fairies do not exist either.
7 - I will go with my original belief that pink fairies do not exist.

8 - Let's say I believe in pink fairies.
9 - No one can prove to me that pink fairies do not exist.
10 - However, no one can prove to me that they do, either.
11 - So I will go with my original belief that pink fairies do exist.

12 - Let's say person A disagrees with person B about the existence of fairies.
13 - Since there is no evidence for or against pink fairies, [/SIZE][SIZE=+3] both people should be equally justified. [/SIZE][SIZE=-3]
14 - However, person A sees person B's view as illogical. How could pink fairies exist?
15 - Person B sees person A's view as illogical. How could pink fairies not exist?
16 - They squabble over this for hours, neither side making any headway, each side demeaning the intelligence of the other.
17 - An "us" and "them" mentality arises, resulting in disunity.

18 - [/SIZE][SIZE=+3]Let's say that all beliefs held by a person, without empirical evidence to back them, are equally justified. [/SIZE][SIZE=-3]
19 - Person A is just as justified as person B, even though neither can understand the other.
20 - Person A and person B stop arguing over such an arbitrary thing as whether pixies exist. [/SIZE][SIZE=+3]They get along and admit that each are being as logical as the other. [/SIZE]

It is again the exact same fallacy. You are trying to equivocate the reasonableness of two ideas by using a concept that applies UNIVERSALLY. This is textbook fallacy of equivocation.

And more to the point you do not believe in your own example. You do not have absolute proof that the next time you post here your computer won’t explode killing you. Yet you will post not having this absolute proof. Your retort will be that you have used a computer for x number of years so you have experiential and empirical evidence that your computer will not explode. But this very same line of reasoning applies to your example. Neither of the two chaps have ever seen fairies, and this experiential and empirical evidence is not dissimilar to your experiential and empirical evidence with your computer.

It should also be noted that your example also relies on the concept of negative proof which is another realm of fallacy. The expectation inherent in your example that disproof of an existence claim should be considered comparable to the proof of an existence claim is pretty clear is not reasonable.

Sound good?

Not really. And the whole “we shouldn’t argue” is pretty pointless considering the hope that has been pointed out to you. And pointed out to you repeatedly at this stage.

 

[DarkSun]

To TheMadHair,

You are absolutely right. How could I be so stupid?

Regards,
SolOscura.

PS - Please inform Oxford and Cambridge University about their erroneous mistakes, so that they can correct their false definitions of the words: 'faith' and 'belief', as soon as possible.

 

[DarkSun]

It appears that you do not agree with the above. Consider your example from just a few posts before:


It is again the exact same fallacy. You are trying to equivocate the reasonableness of two ideas by using a concept that applies UNIVERSALLY. This is textbook fallacy of equivocation.

And more to the point you do not believe in your own example. You do not have absolute proof that the next time you post here your computer won’t explode killing you. Yet you will post not having this absolute proof. Your retort will be that you have used a computer for x number of years so you have experiential and empirical evidence that your computer will not explode. But this very same line of reasoning applies to your example. Neither of the two chaps have ever seen fairies, and this experiential and empirical evidence is not dissimilar to your experiential and empirical evidence with your computer.

It should also be noted that your example also relies on the concept of negative proof which is another realm of fallacy. The expectation inherent in your example that disproof of an existence claim should be considered comparable to the proof of an existence claim is pretty clear is not reasonable.

Not really. And the whole “we shouldn’t argue” is pretty pointless considering the hope that has been pointed out to you. And pointed out to you repeatedly at this stage.

Dear themadhair,

My retort wouldn't have been that at all. My response would have been that the belief that my computer won't explode is an act of faith - because I have no scientific proof of such a thing. Inductive reasoning dictates that my computer won't explode, but there is no way to apply deductive reasoning to such a thing.

And if I could use statistical analyses to count up the number of days my computer has been working, to prove with a certain percentage of certainty that my computer will not explode at all tomorrow - then I would have proof right there. However, you can't statistically analyse God. So there is no proof either way.

Regards,
SolOscura.

 

[themadhair]

My retort wouldn't have been that at all. My response would have been that the belief that my computer won't explode is an act of faith - because I have no scientific proof of such a thing. Inductive reasoning dictates that my computer won't explode, but there is no way to apply deductive reasoning to such a thing.

I note how you stopped at the inductive reasoning just before you equivocate the two scenarios as being, in your words, ‘equally justified’. Interesting that.

 

[themadhair]

To TheMadHair,

You are absolutely right. How could I be so stupid?

Regards,
SolOscura.

PS - Please inform Oxford and Cambridge University about their erroneous mistakes, so that they can correct their false definitions of the words: 'faith' and 'belief', as soon as possible.

Run out of red herrings I take it?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I note how you stopped at the inductive reasoning just before you equivocate the two scenarios as being, in your words, ‘equally justified’. Interesting that.

What amazes me most is how much trouble people seem want to go through to try an undermine what someone else holds to be true: When A) It does no harm to anyone else; B) It is entirely a choice left up to that person; C) Personal experience is the "best" evidence we have.


At least make an appeal to pragmatism... Application of extreme sollipsism/nihilism/skepticism results in total life failure. So attributions of "we can't know this for sure" fail in application. The application is what is important. If someone wants to believe in "God" and doesn't put people to the sword (literally or metaphorically), then there is Absolutely nothing you can argue which would undermine that person's Right to do so IF they actually do believe it to be true. It is only when a person's actions bespeak a lack of respect for others (individuals or society) that you can start to come down on personal belief.


If someone is scared of the dark, then how does it benefit them to "explain to them that there are no monsters, and then immediately take away their night light?" Inside each and every one of us there is a primordial fear of the unknown. How we deal with this is something which rightly belongs to each one of us (up until it causes harm to others). And if someone needs a "teddy bear" to be able to go about their day in a civil and sociable manner, then I say don't let go of that "teddy bear." Perhaps it would be best if over time we could learn to do without "teddy bears," but we are not all the same genetically, emotionally, or cognitively (and that complete ignores the possibility of a spiritual component to consciousness or essence). We all may not ever be able to do without "teddy bears" and I find ramming people's clinging to "teddy bears" down their throats just as anti-social as the ramming down people's throats of religious dogma.

Note: In this case "teddy bear" is not a euphemism for religion alone; there are all manner of things which humans cling to which maintain powerful symbolic value in their lives.

MTF

 

[themadhair]

What amazes me most is how much trouble people seem want to go through to try an undermine what someone else holds to be true: When A) It does no harm to anyone else; B) It is entirely a choice left up to that person; C) Personal experience is the "best" evidence we have.

And none of this has any bearing on whether those ideas are true or not. And given that I live in a country where an oath to a higher power is required to hold public office I reject outright that this doesn’t involve me. Whenever someone attempts to place an idea beyond scrutiny in the way you are doing it makes me suspicious.

At least make an appeal to pragmatism... Application of extreme sollipsism/nihilism/skepticism results in total life failure. So attributions of "we can't know this for sure" fail in application. The application is what is important.

It is so good to know that you regard my life as a failure.

If someone wants to believe in "God" and doesn't put people to the sword (literally or metaphorically), then there is Absolutely nothing you can argue which would undermine that person's Right to do so IF they actually do believe it to be true. It is only when a person's actions bespeak a lack of respect for others (individuals or society) that you can start to come down on personal belief.

Why do I have to respect the ideas of another person? I have to respect their right to hold those ideas, but I certainly do not have to respect the ideas themselves. If you want to construe this as a lack of respect for other people then fill your boots. Just don’t expect others to buy into it.

There is also some amount of irony in this point given the inherent lack of respect for non-believers inherent in many commonplace theologies. This is a case of point the finger at me and having three fingers pointing back.

If someone is scared of the dark, then how does it benefit them to "explain to them that there are no monsters, and then immediately take away their night light?"

Are you seriously making this analogy? Look at what you are saying about believers with this.

Inside each and every one of us there is a primordial fear of the unknown. How we deal with this is something which rightly belongs to each one of us (up until it causes harm to others).

Pretending such unknowns don’t exist, or labelling them with terms like god, isn’t dealing with them now is it? And regardless, none of this has any bearing on whether those ideas are true or not. No idea should be beyond the realm of discussion.

We all may not ever be able to do without "teddy bears" and I find ramming people's clinging to "teddy bears" down their throats just as anti-social as the ramming down people's throats of religious dogma.

If an idea cannot stand up to scrutiny then I don’t have any qualms about calling that idea out. By painting believers as extremely fragile in this way is more insulting than anything I have ever wrote on this forum. And, I really have to insist on this, attacking an idea is not the same as attacking a person. Learn the difference.

Note: In this case "teddy bear" is not a euphemism for religion alone; there are all manner of things which humans cling to which maintain powerful symbolic value in their lives.

If people want to hold to an idea they have every right to do so. If you want to paint me as someone who doesn’t respect that right then feel free. I will attack the ideas purely because I value honesty. People who believe will almost certainly still be believers after interacting with me – but I am simply not prepared to leave my intellectual honesty at the door when confronted with a flawed idea. And I think it outrageous that any person be asked to reign in their critical thinking for fear of causing offence. Every day millions of ideas are attacked and debated on forums all over the internet – and this particular idea should be no different.

Since when did this thread go from a “presenting of evidence” to “leave our precious idea alone because we are too fragile”? It does amaze me when, simply by being honest to both myself and others, I get told that I should stop using my critical thinking.

 

[PureX]

I chose my words carefully. I said non-belief which is the abscence of belief. How can not believeing be beleiving?

When you're lying about what you believe and don't believe.

If you claim that you don't believe that God exists, but you also claim that don't believe that God doesn't exist, then what you're really implying is that you don't know whether God exists or not, because it's the only other alternative. If this is true, and you simply don't know, then to claim otherwise ("I don't believe God exists") is to be deliberately misleading. If you don't know, why not just say, "I don't know" and quit deliberately misleading people?

When you deliberately tell people a half truth, and hide the other half from them, you are being dishonest with them.

 

[Magic Man]

When you're lying about what you believe and don't believe.

If you claim that you don't believe that God exists, but you also claim that don't believe that God doesn't exist, then what you're really implying is that you don't know whether God exists or not, because it's the only other alternative. If this is true, and you simply don't know, then to claim otherwise ("I don't believe God exists") is to be deliberately misleading. If you don't know, why not just say, "I don't know" and quit deliberately misleading people?

When you deliberately tell people a half truth, and hide the other half from them, you are being dishonest with them.

Or, over here in reality, it's called being honest. Most theists don't believe 100% in their god all the time. I could say "God does not exist no matter what, and I am 100% sure of that", but that would not be very reasonable. Instead, many atheists say "I don't believe there is a god, but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm wrong". It's called being reasonable and honest with yourself. I know it's probably a hard concept for you to follow.