Religion of peace wants death for French first lady

[Metsfanmax]

What makes it the "right" answer?

It's the only rational answer.

Also, fundemental properties of observability aside, your position is useless. We have to make decisions in life and semantic arguments about definitions do f*ck all to help us. Rational choices are not based on the fundamental objective truth of reality but on statistics.


"The only rational stance is agnosticism" argument is irrelevant, boring and simply not true.

It may be a purely philosophical argument; I never claimed it was a pragmatic argument. However, the argument is logically correct independent of its (lack of) pragmatic benefits. You have provided no warrants for the assertion that the argument is untrue.

If you don't really care about the difference between agnosticism and atheism, then why are you arguing about it in the first place?

[Snorri1234]

What makes it the "right" answer?

It's the only rational answer.

Only if your definition for rational is pointless.

Rational thinking means you take the best explanation as true. It doesn't mean you don't even try to asses which explanation makes the most sense.

In the case of mermaids battling spermwhales the rational answer is that they don't battle, unless you're presented with some good evidence that they do.

Also, fundemental properties of observability aside, your position is useless. We have to make decisions in life and semantic arguments about definitions do f*ck all to help us. Rational choices are not based on the fundamental objective truth of reality but on statistics.


"The only rational stance is agnosticism" argument is irrelevant, boring and simply not true.

It may be a purely philosophical argument; I never claimed it was a pragmatic argument. However, the argument is logically correct independent of its (lack of) pragmatic benefits. You have provided no warrants for the assertion that the argument is untrue.

If you don't really care about the difference between agnosticism and atheism, then why are you arguing about it in the first place?

It's a purely philosophical argument, but you're the one bringing terms like "rational" in it. While Hume no doubt proved that thinking cause and effect exist is not very logical, the rationality of thinking that way can not be ignored. Logic and reason are not the same thing, reasoning is what people do and logic is a mathematical system for determining whether arguments make sense.

My problem is not that your argument isn't pragmatic, it's that it's not rational. It basically says that reason is not valid, which might be true but it is of no consequence.

[Metsfanmax]

Only if your definition for rational is pointless.

Rational thinking means you take the best explanation as true. It doesn't mean you don't even try to asses which explanation makes the most sense.

In the case of mermaids battling spermwhales the rational answer is that they don't battle, unless you're presented with some good evidence that they do.

No, the rational answer is that you have no idea whether they're battling or not. You may continue to dress up the argument in different ways if you like, but that doesn't make it any less devoid of content.

It's a purely philosophical argument, but you're the one bringing terms like "rational" in it. While Hume no doubt proved that thinking cause and effect exist is not very logical, the rationality of thinking that way can not be ignored. Logic and reason are not the same thing, reasoning is what people do and logic is a mathematical system for determining whether arguments make sense.

And rationality is not the same thing as reason, so don't conflate the two. Rationality is indeed the paradigm of only making choices that are based on reason, but it can't just be a tautological (and circular) argument; those reasons must be logical. Your assertion is equivalent to saying that "I have a reason to believe that atheism and agnosticism are the same, and since I have a reason it is therefore rational, thereby making my reason legitimate." The problem is that you don't actually have a real reason in the first place. There is no evidence for the claim that no higher powers exist, and therefore there can be no logical reason for believing the assertion that no higher powers exist.

[tzor]

Reductio ad absurdem is not mockery, it's logical extension. The impossiblity of proving that faeries at the bottom of your lake don't exist does not stop you from believing they do/do not, futhermore believing that they exist is in no way as rational as believing they don't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure as f*ck gives you a good reason to disbelief in something. Atheism is not about fundamental knowledge, but just the simple likelihood of a particular belief being true.

What is also important is that every belief in god or gods or whatever mythical beast you like at some time makes a prediction that should be observable by us. It simply has to because there would be no point otherwise. A personal God who affects the lives of his people has to have some observable effects, right? Even if God is not observed directly we must be able to see that being a devout believer makes a difference, right?

So why do studies show that prayer has no effect? Why do hurricanes and other natural disasters affect the believers and unbelievers alike?

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true. This of course only works if it is not a false dichotomy. Meaning that, if there are other choices than true or false (like undefined or something entirely different), then this form of proof is a logical fallacy.

First of all, one might argue that you are not using “Reductio ad absurdum” in the first place, since you are not arguing the argument that there possibly exists a god to any extreeme form. One might argue that it is in fact a straw man argument. In any event, logical fallacies appear to the the bullwark of the strong athiest.

But let’s get back to your argument, or lack thereof. You stated quite boldly, “futhermore believing that they exist is in no way as rational as believing they don't.” This is quite true; if something is unprovable either way then it is just that. One can say “I can’t prove it but I think this is true.” One can also say “I can’t prove it so I think it is false.” One cannot say “I can’t disprove it but since I can’t prove it I know it is false.” The last line is a logical falacy.

I can point into the sky and ask, “see that star over there … is there life on one of the planets that orbits it?” Clearly we cannot prove this false or true. One might say that they think the answer is false, but they cannot prove it. “Don’t know” is the logical answer given all the facts.

By the way, did you just end your argument with the Fallacy of many questions?

[heavycola]

If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'?

Based on your statements, no, I would not expect that answer. Nevertheless, it is the right answer.

Is it really? Is it just as illogical to believe in jewish zombies, virgin births, omniscient beings who live in space and read our minds, etc etc etc... or to dismiss all of that as extremely unlikely, as fairies in gardens or trolls under bridges are unlikely?

There's a difference between finding the existence of fairies unlikely, and the positive assertion that no God could exist.

dude, I understand the distinction you are making - i am trying to say that it is also understood by a lot of atheists, it just doesn't really matter. We are all, logically speaking, agnostics. But that's not much use on a census form, or as a distinction between attitudes to religion. I felt that in this thread, proving that atheists are really agnostic meant dragging them closer to admitting belief in god - after all, 'i don't know if god exists or not' sounds closer to religious faith than 'there is no god'.

So fair enough, we are all agnostics, philosphically speaking. But atheist is a more useful term, fwiw.
I'm also agnostic about whether I will be hit by a bus tomorrow, but i'm quite happy carrying on with life as if that is not going to happen. This is why I am about to do some laundry, instead of wanking myself to death.

[Baron Von PWN]

The whole tolerance thing is a one way argument. Sure, you can find examples for intolerance in America to probably anything. However, in the case of Islam, there are too many examples of 0 tolerance to ever be able to justifiably introducing the issue of tolerance against the American side.

I have provided many examples of Muslim tolerance. I suppose unlike America you can paint all of Islam with a broad brush?

[Phatscotty]

The whole tolerance thing is a one way argument. Sure, you can find examples for intolerance in America to probably anything. However, in the case of Islam, there are too many examples of 0 tolerance to ever be able to justifiably introducing the issue of tolerance against the American side.

I have provided many examples of Muslim tolerance. I suppose unlike America you can paint all of Islam with a broad brush?

haha. in this thread? I will have to go back and look. I wasn't painting anything with a broad brush, just questioning the accusers right to accuse anyone of intolerance

[Baron Von PWN]

The whole tolerance thing is a one way argument. Sure, you can find examples for intolerance in America to probably anything. However, in the case of Islam, there are too many examples of 0 tolerance to ever be able to justifiably introducing the issue of tolerance against the American side.

I have provided many examples of Muslim tolerance. I suppose unlike America you can paint all of Islam with a broad brush?

haha. in this thread? I will have to go back and look. I wasn't painting anything with a broad brush, just questioning the accusers right to accuse anyone of intolerance

Not specifically in this thread. However in others I have. Why does the intolerance of some Muslims excuse the Intolerance of some Americans ? Both are idiotic and do nothing positive.

[HapSmo19]

Dove World Outreach Centre
5805 NW 37th St
Gainesville, FL 32653

There's the address for the church that will be burning the Koran(however you spell it) on 9-11. There's only four business days left for you to send them an additional copy if we want to achieve the goal of burning a huge fucking pile of Quran(is that plural for Kuran?) in the name of expressing our tolerance for burning shit that might actually mean something to someone else. I'm including a couple shipping options below.

http://www.ups.com
http://fedex.com

[Neoteny]

lol stupid fucks are funny.

[HapSmo19]

funny fucks are stupid olo

[Neoteny]

A compliment and concession all at once; good call.

[Metsfanmax]

dude, I understand the distinction you are making - i am trying to say that it is also understood by a lot of atheists, it just doesn't really matter. We are all, logically speaking, agnostics. But that's not much use on a census form, or as a distinction between attitudes to religion. I felt that in this thread, proving that atheists are really agnostic meant dragging them closer to admitting belief in god - after all, 'i don't know if god exists or not' sounds closer to religious faith than 'there is no god'.

So fair enough, we are all agnostics, philosphically speaking. But atheist is a more useful term, fwiw.
I'm also agnostic about whether I will be hit by a bus tomorrow, but i'm quite happy carrying on with life as if that is not going to happen. This is why I am about to do some laundry, instead of wanking myself to death.

If you think I'm saying that we are all agnostics, then actually, you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that atheists are different from agnostics, and if you assert positively the non-existence of any gods, then you are not an agnostic.

[john9blue]

lol stupid fucks are funny.

dear God is that your face??

[Neoteny]

No. But that would be awesome. If only i'd take the time to shrink the gif down so you could see it in its full glory. Or maybe I'll post it sometime when I'm at my computer.

[heavycola]

dude, I understand the distinction you are making - i am trying to say that it is also understood by a lot of atheists, it just doesn't really matter. We are all, logically speaking, agnostics. But that's not much use on a census form, or as a distinction between attitudes to religion. I felt that in this thread, proving that atheists are really agnostic meant dragging them closer to admitting belief in god - after all, 'i don't know if god exists or not' sounds closer to religious faith than 'there is no god'.

So fair enough, we are all agnostics, philosphically speaking. But atheist is a more useful term, fwiw.
I'm also agnostic about whether I will be hit by a bus tomorrow, but i'm quite happy carrying on with life as if that is not going to happen. This is why I am about to do some laundry, instead of wanking myself to death.

If you think I'm saying that we are all agnostics, then actually, you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that atheists are different from agnostics, and if you assert positively the non-existence of any gods, then you are not an agnostic.

OK third time:
YES. YOU ARE RIGHT. And so people like tzor post rubbish like this: 'logical fallacies appear to the the bullwark of the strong athiest'. If i declare myself to be an atheist, then I am being illogical. So boo yaa, sucks to be me, etc etc. But - it really, really doesn't matter. It is a meaningless distinction in any practical sense.
Unless you are tzor, of course, in which case you have obviously just proved the existence of god.

[Metsfanmax]

OK third time:
YES. YOU ARE RIGHT. And so people like tzor post rubbish like this: 'logical fallacies appear to the the bullwark of the strong athiest'. If i declare myself to be an atheist, then I am being illogical. So boo yaa, sucks to be me, etc etc. But - it really, really doesn't matter. It is a meaningless distinction in any practical sense.
Unless you are tzor, of course, in which case you have obviously just proved the existence of god.

There's a reason I point this out: Atheists really do like to think that their view is more logical than that of religion, and I firmly believe that it is not more logical. Both sides have zero evidence to support their claims, and therefore both are equally logically wrong (the fact that religious people are obviously delusional notwithstanding).

The practical importance? We can all agree that religious people are stupid, but we don't need to defeat their belief to show it ;P

[natty dread]

I guess I'll have to post this again

[heavycola]

OK third time:
YES. YOU ARE RIGHT. And so people like tzor post rubbish like this: 'logical fallacies appear to the the bullwark of the strong athiest'. If i declare myself to be an atheist, then I am being illogical. So boo yaa, sucks to be me, etc etc. But - it really, really doesn't matter. It is a meaningless distinction in any practical sense.
Unless you are tzor, of course, in which case you have obviously just proved the existence of god.

There's a reason I point this out: Atheists really do like to think that their view is more logical than that of religion, and I firmly believe that it is not more logical.

It's not about feeling superior, it's really occam's razor: all the fact-twisting and philosophical contortions and paradoxes and fudging necessary to explain god simply vanish if he doesn't exist, and that makes it a more rational position. In strictly logical terms, belief in god and belief in the absence of god are equivalent, yes, but which is more likely?

[john9blue]

of course they vanish, but you forgot about all the universal origin questions that spring up once you decide that God didn't exist

[Metsfanmax]

In strictly logical terms, belief in god and belief in the absence of god are equivalent, yes, but which is more likely?

That's an utterly meaningless question to ask. You can't assign a probability to something which we literally have no ability to understand or know. Asking which is more likely implies we can even assign a probability to such a question in the first place, which we obviously can't. It's easily evident that if humans cannot possibly have knowledge of a "higher power," than to say that it might or might not exist is pure speculation no matter which way you spin it.

[heavycola]

In strictly logical terms, belief in god and belief in the absence of god are equivalent, yes, but which is more likely?

That's an utterly meaningless question to ask. You can't assign a probability to something which we literally have no ability to understand or know. Asking which is more likely implies we can even assign a probability to such a question in the first place, which we obviously can't.

And... the perfectly rational donkey starves to death. Assigning such probabilities is exactly what we all do, all the time. I would assign a very low probability to a flying imp hovering behind me wherever i go, and always staying out of eyesight whenever I turn around - because it would mean that imps exist (how? where from?), they can fly silently (how?) etc etc. However, assigning that probability is not meaningless. Might be illogical to you, but in practical terms it makes perfect sense.

[Metsfanmax]

In strictly logical terms, belief in god and belief in the absence of god are equivalent, yes, but which is more likely?

That's an utterly meaningless question to ask. You can't assign a probability to something which we literally have no ability to understand or know. Asking which is more likely implies we can even assign a probability to such a question in the first place, which we obviously can't.

And... the perfectly rational donkey starves to death. Assigning such probabilities is exactly what we all do, all the time. I would assign a very low probability to a flying imp hovering behind me wherever i go, and always staying out of eyesight whenever I turn around - because it would mean that imps exist (how? where from?), they can fly silently (how?) etc etc. However, assigning that probability is not meaningless. Might be illogical to you, but in practical terms it makes perfect sense.

No. It doesn't. I haven't assigned that probability, and I go about my life just fine, not really ever wondering if there is or isn't a God, because I know it doesn't matter.

[heavycola]

In strictly logical terms, belief in god and belief in the absence of god are equivalent, yes, but which is more likely?

That's an utterly meaningless question to ask. You can't assign a probability to something which we literally have no ability to understand or know. Asking which is more likely implies we can even assign a probability to such a question in the first place, which we obviously can't.

And... the perfectly rational donkey starves to death. Assigning such probabilities is exactly what we all do, all the time. I would assign a very low probability to a flying imp hovering behind me wherever i go, and always staying out of eyesight whenever I turn around - because it would mean that imps exist (how? where from?), they can fly silently (how?) etc etc. However, assigning that probability is not meaningless. Might be illogical to you, but in practical terms it makes perfect sense.

No. It doesn't. I haven't assigned that probability, and I go about my life just fine, not really ever wondering if there is or isn't a God, because I know it doesn't matter.

Well maybe that's the difference then. I was brought up going to church every week, i got confirmed, baptised etc. And given what these religions tell us is at stake - an immortality of either heaven or damnation - it seemed to matter rather a huge amount whether god's existence was likely or not.

[jonesthecurl]

In strictly logical terms, belief in god and belief in the absence of god are equivalent, yes, but which is more likely?

That's an utterly meaningless question to ask. You can't assign a probability to something which we literally have no ability to understand or know. Asking which is more likely implies we can even assign a probability to such a question in the first place, which we obviously can't.

And... the perfectly rational donkey starves to death. Assigning such probabilities is exactly what we all do, all the time. I would assign a very low probability to a flying imp hovering behind me wherever i go, and always staying out of eyesight whenever I turn around - because it would mean that imps exist (how? where from?), they can fly silently (how?) etc etc. However, assigning that probability is not meaningless. Might be illogical to you, but in practical terms it makes perfect sense.

I understand that the yaqui think just this. The imp is your death, and you don't ever want to be doing anything silly or petty like (say) sulking when the imp taps you on the shoulder. You should spend your life ready at any point to account to the imp.