Atheist's Disrespectful Attitude towards not only Religion but the Religious

[CaptainCourtesy]

No captain, your misapplyig the logical falacy. The falacy (also known as god of the gaps) refers to when someone states that since you can not give me a cause or explaination for phenomenon A then the cause must be X (in most cases a god) . The falacy is fueled by no evidence for X is forthcoming. In fact that is exactly the argument being presented by the theists for the last several pages, with their demands of if god didn't do it who did.

As opposed to what your calling the falacy. Which is someone saying that something unsupported by evidence is delusional.

No my application of the fallacy is on target. As usual in these discussions, atheists misrepresent theists positions in order to straw man and attack... while never actually addressing the theist position. If you state definitively that God does not exist, the burden of proof is now on YOU. If you base this claim on indicating that there is no evidence that God DOES exist, you have committed the fallacy, clearly and completely. If you choose to debate this topic, it would probably be better if you chose your words more carefully, so you and others don't constantly commit this logical fallacy. I don't mind pointing it out, but doing so in every thread is a bit redundant.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Seriously, first you misuse the argument from ignorance falacy now your throwing out strawman falsely.

Seriously. First you err on the argument from ignorance fallacy and then you, seemingly can't pick up with someone is strawmanning.

 

[iangb]

Compare

No, it simply depends what you define as 'the universe'.

Im not going to play definition games. Find someone else if you want to do that.

with

I believe we were discussing the Christian God.

There are many many variations of that god as well. I will not invent a definition for you or anyone else. It must be provided to me or the term is meaningless.

I'm happy if you want a claimant to define their terms. I'm equally happy if you want a claimant to have their terms defined for them. What I'm not so keen on is when you demand both at once. Pick one, and we can continue - I'm not going to do all the defining while you sit back and look for semantic holes to shoot.

I'm asking you to define 'the universe', so that we can discuss how God can lie without it. You're asking me to define 'God', so that we can talk about... something you haven't let me in on yet. Either hold up your own end, or don't expect me to hold up mine. Pick one, and we can continue

I have argued before that there is adequete justification for taking the negative position based on what we KNOW from science, psychology, culture, history, and humans frailities.

You believe that there is evidence of the non-existence of God? What would that be?

 

[Dogger807]

...it's "fallacy."

Granted. ...

 

[mac]

Those assumptions being? The Cosmological Principle? That physical laws are universal?

Gravity is mere speculation, eh mac?

Yeah, exactly. More importantly, there is no explanation for the Bang...only from that point on. Listen, I'm not saying that it didn't happen the way the theory suggests, I'm saying it may not have happened and that if it did, it doesn't necessarily rule out God's existence. :shrug:

More importantly, until something is ruled out...it must be possible.

 

[Dogger807]

No my application of the fallacy is on target. As usual in these discussions, atheists misrepresent theists positions in order to straw man and attack... while never actually addressing the theist position. If you state definitively that God does not exist, the burden of proof is now on YOU. If you base this claim on indicating that there is no evidence that God DOES exist, you have committed the fallacy, clearly and completely. If you choose to debate this topic, it would probably be better if you chose your words more carefully, so you and others don't constantly commit this logical fallacy. I don't mind pointing it out, but doing so in every thread is a bit redundant.

This still is not a strawman. No position is being proposed and torn down.

Also the double negative used to shift the burden of proof is disengeniuous.

I can say god does not exist at the same level I say fairies do not exist. Absolute disproof is not possible, but that does not increase the probability of the existence of either.

Your entire paragraph illustrates the difference between how an atheist must be as close to the truth as possible where as a theist can just make stuff up.

 

[scourge99]

More importantly, until something is ruled out...it must be possible.

Incorrect. There can be things that you can imagine to be true that are impossible. Just because you (the general 'you') are ignorant of its impossibility doesn't make it possible. It just makes you wrong.

 

[mac]

Incorrect. There can be things that you can imagine to be true that are impossible. Just because you (the general 'you') are ignorant of its impossibility doesn't make it possible. It just makes you wrong.

What's the impossibility of the existence of God?

 

[Ikari]

Yeah, exactly. More importantly, there is no explanation for the Bang...only from that point on.

Of course not. Because all measurable data thus far has pointed to the Big Bang, but no measurable has yet been observed which would have explained previous to it.

 

[Ikari]

What's the impossibility of the existence of God?

High. Magic is most likely the least likely correct answer. For things that we do not know, it is well more probable that events were caused by natural phenomenon and not magic.

 

[scourge99]

What's the impossibility of the existence of God?

Depends on which god(s) you are referring to. Its currently unknown whether most gods are impossible or possible.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

High. Magic is most likely the least likely correct answer. For things that we do not know, it is well more probable that events were caused by natural phenomenon and not magic.

And considering how many things in the universe have a cause, it's more probable that the universe had a cause than not. It's funny how probable changes depending on what you're looking at.

 

[Ikari]

And considering how many things in the universe have a cause, it's more probable that the universe had a cause than not. It's funny how probable changes depending on what you're looking at.

Likely, yes. What's your point? We don't know the cause yet, you want me to believe it was magic? Or should I sit back and wait to see if we figure it out first?

 

[mac]

High. Magic is most likely the least likely correct answer. For things that we do not know, it is well more probable that events were caused by natural phenomenon and not magic.

Highly improbable =/= impossible. And what you are calling magic could just as easily be described as unexplained phenomena. Further, I think if the existence of God is ever proven we'll find that he is completely natural.

 

[Ikari]

Highly improbable =/= impossible. And what you are calling magic could just as easily be described as unexplained phenomena. Further, I think if the existence of God is ever proven we'll find that he is completely natural.

Exactly, I know the words I was using. I wasn't saying "impossible", I'm saying highly improbable. Given the choice of nature vs. magic, I will likely side with nature less there is sufficient measurement to prove magic.

 

[mac]

Exactly, I know the words I was using. I wasn't saying "impossible", I'm saying highly improbable. Given the choice of nature vs. magic, I will likely side with nature less there is sufficient measurement to prove magic.

Lightening was once magic. Fire was once magic. You obviously have a contemptuous view of religion, so you are unable to see it as anything other than magic. It may indeed be proven that God is a completely natural, and sentient, phenomena with incredible abilities in comparison to man.

God may be a sentient race far more advanced than us that created the bang with some sort of device we can't imagine...and then later, created us by genetically altering chimpanzees....Of course, there is a fair bit of imagination thrown in there, but much of science was discovered because someone had the imagination to consider other possibilities.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Lightening was once magic. Fire was once magic. You obviously have a contemptuous view of religion, so you are unable to see it as anything other than magic. It may indeed be proven that God is a completely natural, and sentient, phenomena with incredible abilities in comparison to man.

God may be a sentient race far more advanced than us that created the bang with some sort of device we can't imagine...and then later, created us by genetically altering chimpanzees....Of course, there is a fair bit of imagination thrown in there, but much of science was discovered because someone had the imagination to consider other possibilities.

So why pray to that? I don't request lower life (insects, birds, etc.) pray and adore me, why must "god" be cherished?

Also, if "god" is, simply, a superior race then how can superior race establish an afterlife?

Using that old thing "Ockam's Razor" one could establish:

- there is a universe
- there is a universe and "god" is the origin of said universe

Now, the second answer is not wrong, per se, but it is wrong to adopt the second.

 

[mac]

So why pray to that? I don't request lower life (insects, birds, etc.) pray and adore me, why must "god" be cherished?

Does anyone think lightening is a God trying to scare us anymore?

Also, if "god" is, simply, a superior race then how can superior race establish an afterlife?

Maybe he didn't. But then, what does the bible actually say about the "afterlife"?

Using that old thing "Ockam's Razor" one could establish:

- there is a universe

something we had to discover...

- there is a universe and "god" is the origin of said universe

possible...

Now, the second answer is not wrong, per se, but it is wrong to adopt the second.

Non-sequitor, at least in terms of Occam's Razor. You must assume that current theories are correct and that there was no instigation of the big bang in order to make that work. Assumption, no matter how plausible, is not necessarily truth.

 

[Ikari]

Lightening was once magic. Fire was once magic. You obviously have a contemptuous view of religion, so you are unable to see it as anything other than magic. It may indeed be proven that God is a completely natural, and sentient, phenomena with incredible abilities in comparison to man.

Lightening and Fire are measurable. While once thought to be magic, they were later studied, measured, quantified, and added to the human knowledge database. Gods are defined to be immeasurable. Thus they are a magical answer. It's not a contemptuous view of religion, it's just reality.

 

[mac]

Lightening and Fire are measurable. While once thought to be magic, they were later studied, measured, quantified, and added to the human knowledge database. Gods are defined to be immeasurable. Thus they are a magical answer. It's not a contemptuous view of religion, it's just reality.

They are now, at one point they were not. The big bang (itself) is not measurable now, are you saying it's likely that it never will be? In which case, is the big bang...God?

 

[Jryan]

They are now, at one point they were not. The big bang (itself) is not measurable now, are you saying it's likely that it never will be? In which case, is the big bang...God?

Errr, the big bang is AKA white noise. Go to your tv and find a station with the white fuzzy noise that buzzes. 1% of that is the universe being created .

 

[mac]

Errr, the big bang is AKA white noise. Go to your tv and find a station with the white fuzzy noise that buzzes. 1% of that is the universe being created .

That means nothing. No-one is disputing that it happened.

 

[Jryan]

That means nothing.

Sorry for adding science to your post which you included yourself. I'll STFU.

 

[Ikari]

They are now, at one point they were not. The big bang (itself) is not measurable now, are you saying it's likely that it never will be? In which case, is the big bang...God?

No, fire and lightening ALWAYS belonged to the measurable world. We merely needed the experience and proper tools to measure them. The Big Bang theory exists in the measurable world as well, as it is the theory which explains the observables. Thus it has predictions which can be measured. Gods are DEFINED to be immeasurable. Fire was defined as fire. We didn't know what it was, we thought it had mystical powers. Humans studied, humans learned, humans conquered. Done, figured out what it was. But humans have DEFINED their gods to be immeasurable. You cannot measure them, they exist outside the measurable world. Hence it is the magic answer. I'm not a particularly strong believer in magic.

 

[mac]

Sorry for adding science to your post which you included yourself. I'll STFU.

You didn't add anything at all.