That is ad populum fallacy was committed every time you used the number of people who believe or disbelieve in something as evidence as to whether it is true or not.
Incorrect. I never made that claim even once. Every time I mentioned that many others agreed with me - and I think it's been thrice lately - it was in response to your claim that "that's just your opinion." I falsified that. No, it's not just my opinion.
You remind me of a child with a set of magnetized plastic numbers and arithmetic operators (+,-, etc.) randomly arranging numbers and thinking that she's doing math.
Who said I was emotional?
You: "I laugh uncontrollably every time I read your posts." I don't believe that, and I hope it's not true. I'm imagining you laughing maniacally with a bunch of cats and frightening them. The image is surreal.
Do you understand that I am a different person from you so we don't see things the same way?
Yes, I do. Is that intended to be justification for having your own form of reasoning?
He thought that marriage without sex is not justified and I think marriage without sex is justified
That's not how that word is used. Wanting sex is unrelated to demonstrating the correctness of an idea.
When you say I do not have any evidence that proves that God exists, you are saying that my belief that God exists is false because it has not yet been proven true by my evidence. That is an argument from ignorance.
First, will you never get it right? I say that what you call evidence in support of your belief doesn't justify it by academic standards for justification. And no, I am not saying that your God belief is false because it lacks justification. I am saying that it shouldn't be believed for that reason. I'm guessing that you don't see the difference in either case. And the argument from ignorance was a strawman of your own creation.
No, that comment was not falsified when you changed my mind about the time stamps. Since there was verifiable evidence for the time stamps, of course you changed your mind.
You misunderstand again. It's not about changing your mind at all. Claims that I cannot be budged by sound argument were falsified when I changed my position based on the evidence and insight you provided.
You said that you reject belief by faith and consider it unjustified belief, but since faith is the only way to believe in God what more is there to say?
How about the obvious conclusion, that belief in a god is unjustified? Here it is in syllogism form: Unjustified claims should not be believed, god beliefs are unjustified, therefore, god claims should not be believed.
It is not me who does not know what an argument from ignorance is. I have proven that you have committed the fallacy
No, you make the claim, post a cut-and-paste that isn't relevant, and consider that "proof." I just illustrated another example above. Sorry, but one of the skills critical thinkers learn is to properly identify and name logical fallacies. You haven't quite mastered that yet.
you have been unable to show me I am wrong.
Correct, but I have shown others.
As I have said a million times, I have no argument so I cannot have a sound argument.
I don't think you know what an argument is. You argue that your belief is justified.
Math is not religion so that is the fallacy of false equivalence.
Wrong again. Comparing and contrasting two items and identifying their similarities and differences is neither false equivalence nor a fallacy. Furthermore, what was being compared was the logic of a verbal argument and the logic of a mathematical process. Imagine reading that after you've compared the differences in beliefs between Baha'i and Christianity and being told that you have made a logical error comparing them, and worse, that you found them equivalent because you compared them.
You don't have a grasp of the principles of reason and can't tell a justified argument from a fallacious one, but have access to a list of informal fallacies, an Internet search engine, and the power to cut-and-paste, are because you are unable to understand or apply them properly, make random assertions about fallacies and call them proofs.
The same is not true in the arena of math as in the arena of religion, since math is not religion.
They are subject to the same laws of reason. This old apologist's ruse of trying to disqualify thought because it's about gods or faith is impotent here.
Answers in religion are beliefs and opinions, since they can never be proven true or false.
That doesn't exempt them from critical analysis. In fact, if one considers a proposition unfalsifiable, the next step is to declare it "not even wrong" and reject it.
Your inability to understand or even consider that possibility I just explained above has you locked in to where you are now. Ask yourself this: If I was right, is it possible to show you that and change your mind? Not if you can't reason properly.
More mimicry? It doesn't work here. Remember, you're Ham and I'm Nye. Like Nye, I'm the one who can be convinced by compelling evidence, which is the opposite of being locked into a belief. I see you didn't attempt to rebut the claim that faith locks one in to wrong answers and false beliefs as Ham so proudly declared.
Let me illustrate further:
“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
He's locked in to believing whatever his Bible tells him right or wrong, and he is proudly announcing that nothing could budge him from that position.
Here's another proclamation of faith over evidence from a prominent Protestant theologian:
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right" - William Lane Craig
Do you understand what that means? Now consider your comment again. You're calling me a faith-based thinker.
How about another proud faith-based thinker locked into his belief set however wrong evidence demonstrates it is:
“When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris
The difference between an empiricist's beliefs and religious faith is that the former is open- minded, that is, amenable to falsification in light of new evidence, but someone of a religious faith will just stick their fingers in the ears and say as we have seen repeatedly in the examples provided, 'There's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind.'
now you are making your own assumptions..
Yes. Did you want to rebut them? What's your alternative hypothesis and what suggests to you that it is correct?
What Harris wrote was, "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" Actually, that's not a question in the sense of it seeking information. It was a rhetorical statement written with a question mark, like "What's the use?" or "Who knows what the future holds," which should be understood as there is no use and nobody knows the future. Harris's comment is a restatement of my contention that there is no burden of "proof" with a faith-based thinker in the form of a rhetorical question or two.
You may frame it however you like, but it still remains that there is more than one Holy Book.
They are not necessarily all mistaken.
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that any human input into a holy book claiming to channel and speak for a god couple with no clear test for deciding if any of it comes from a god rather than men makes it unreliable.
