Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 05:23 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 05:09 AM)natachan Wrote:  I disagree. My conclusion as an atheist is simply that the god claim has not been sufficiently justified. That's it. If I am wrong, then prove it. Justify the belief. I will change my mind in an instant if I find that I am wrong.

Atheism does not have beliefs. Only the statement that the theist has not demonstrated their claim. So if you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Define your claim coherently and then justify it.
Atheism is a claim as well though, and too could be used to prove theists wrong, but similarly can't be proven.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

No, it is not a claim. Not accepting your unevidenced claim is not itself a claim.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-10-2016, 01:15 PM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:33 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 07:23 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Argumentum ad populum, Argument from popularity - what could possibly go wrong?

Drinking Beverage

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

[Image: bigfoot-625x440.jpg]

[Image: pdY6tpc7Qnum6iXGASIc_img-thing.jpg]

[Image: witch-riding-broomstick.jpg?interpolatio...de%7C660:*]
Woe....I'm not saying that the belief of the masses makes a thing true by any means. I was simply asking if one considers the testimony of literally billions of people to be of no worth as any sort of evidence whatsoever.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Since there is nothing outside of people's belief, then no, it is not evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2016 06:49 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 12:57 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm sorry you think the only truth is the material sort

We were discussing what constitutes evidence. You alluded that if many people believe a thing then it must be seen as evidence. I showed you examples why this isn’t so.

Now you throw in the concept of “truth” and “material” neither of which was being discussed. This is known as deflection and usually employed by people who are losing an argument. Drinking Beverage

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
09-10-2016, 03:34 PM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 11:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Look here you deceitful....;

Too "holy" to type out a cuss word? The only one being deceitful here is you, Pops.

Quote:though the masses are stuck on a stumbling block created by men and their vanity doesn't mean that they are utterly wrong completely.

Where did you pull that out of? Your ass must be getting empty by now.

Quote:You are being deceitful in asserting such.

Since that isn't anything I asserted it is you that is being deceitful in putting words in my mouth. Your god isn't going to like that, is it?

The question was whether long-term, widespread belief in various gods was evidence that there is something to the claim. I said no, that is a fallacious appeal to popularity. That DOES NOT MEAN that there is not god and it DOES NOT MEAN that all those people are wrong. It DOES mean that they are not believing for rational reasons. Stop trying to twist what people say to you into something else. Your reading comprehension is so abysmal that I'm surprised you manage to function at all.

(09-10-2016 12:57 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm sorry you think the only truth is the material sort

Again, who said that? We said that there needs to be evidence before belief is warranted. If it is true that there is a god but there is no evidence to support the claim then it does not make sense to believe it. Faith and whatever other irrational reasons you use do not provide a path to truth. If you happen to stumble onto something that is true that way you would never know because you can't distinguish it from a belief arrived at the same way that is actually false. If nobody can determine if a claim is true or false then it is irrational to believe the claim.

You do not understand the difference between truth and evidence for that truth. You understand only delusion. You need help. Get some.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 04:00 PM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 01:24 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 12:57 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm sorry you think the only truth is the material sort

We were discussing what constitutes evidence. You alluded that if many people believe a thing then it must be seen as evidence. I showed you examples why this isn’t so.

Now you throw in the concept of “truth” and “material” neither of which was being discussed. This is know as deflection and usually employed by people who are losing an argument. Drinking Beverage
I'm sorry...what examples did you give?



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 04:09 PM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 03:34 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 11:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Look here you deceitful....;

Too "holy" to type out a cuss word? The only one being deceitful here is you, Pops.

Quote:though the masses are stuck on a stumbling block created by men and their vanity doesn't mean that they are utterly wrong completely.

Where did you pull that out of? Your ass must be getting empty by now.

Quote:You are being deceitful in asserting such.
Again you are missing something.

If material, empirical evidence isn't the limit of what you accept as evidence of any sort, then, indeed the faith of the masses for centuries is a sort of evidence.

Refuting this while exclaiming that you don't limit what is evidence or compartmentalize what is acceptable as evidence except in the extenuating circumstances of GOD is dishonest to me, others, and yourself. But please; feel free to keep shifting around and twisting things all while accusing me of such.

By the way; if my reading comprehension sucks then I cannot twist others words....


And no, I am noone


Peace
(09-10-2016 12:57 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm sorry you think the only truth is the material sort

Again, who said that? We said that there needs to be evidence before belief is warranted. If it is true that there is a god but there is no evidence to support the claim then it does not make sense to believe it. Faith and whatever other irrational reasons you use do not provide a path to truth. If you happen to stumble onto something that is true that way you would never know because you can't distinguish it from a belief arrived at the same way that is actually false. If nobody can determine if a claim is true or false then it is irrational to believe the claim.

You do not understand the difference between truth and evidence for that truth. You understand only delusion. You need help. Get some.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 04:00 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 01:24 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  We were discussing what constitutes evidence. You alluded that if many people believe a thing then it must be seen as evidence. I showed you examples why this isn’t so.

Now you throw in the concept of “truth” and “material” neither of which was being discussed. This is know as deflection and usually employed by people who are losing an argument. Drinking Beverage
I'm sorry...what examples did you give?

I can’t decide if you are trolling or dense.

But then why not both?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-10-2016, 04:18 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 06:53 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 04:00 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm sorry...what examples did you give?

I can’t decide if you are trolling or dense.

But then why not both?
No really; what examples did you give.

Are you talking about the pics of fantastical creatures. Those aren't examples of anything as everyone knows those are fantasy. Your point is moot. Try using real or at least better examples.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 04:18 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 06:53 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I can’t decide if you are trolling or dense.

But then why not both?
No really; what examples did you give.

Are you talking about the pics of fantastical creatures. Those aren't examples of anything as everyone knows those are fantasy. Your point is moot. Try using real or at least better examples.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I'll take dense for 30 points Alex.

[Image: you-are-my-density.png]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
10-10-2016, 06:00 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 04:09 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Again you are missing something.

If material, empirical evidence isn't the limit of what you accept as evidence of any sort, then, indeed the faith of the masses for centuries is a sort of evidence.

Is your head hard to hold up with a brain made of osmium?

What you are saying, translated from Pops-speak, is: if you consider irrational clams then they can lead you to irrational beliefs. Those limits on what constitutes evidence are what prevent you from accepting any random bullshit that comes along.

The "faith of the masses" is an argument to popularity. When the evidence for any individual's belief amounts to zero it doesn't matter how many you add together. The sum is still zero.

Quote:Refuting this while exclaiming that you don't limit what is evidence or compartmentalize what is acceptable as evidence except in the extenuating circumstances of GOD is dishonest to me, others, and yourself. But please; feel free to keep shifting around and twisting things all while accusing me of such.

Having standards of evidence is not the problem. Accepting things that "support" your belief even if they are without merit is the problem.

Quote:By the way; if my reading comprehension sucks then I cannot twist others words....

Facepalm
You really are that stupid, aren't you?

(10-10-2016 04:18 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Are you talking about the pics of fantastical creatures. Those aren't examples of anything as everyone knows those are fantasy. Your point is moot. Try using real or at least better examples.

Yes, everyone knows that they are fantasy creatures. Many of us realize that your god is in that same category. The evidence for any of them is the same "quality". You'd have understood that if you weren't so thick.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: