Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 06:35 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 06:00 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(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....
The evidence of the individuals believe doesn't equal 0 evidence. In many cases it may indeed be the product of indoctrination by man or gullibility, but as is evidence by my case alone, this is NOT always the case. Giving the exponential amount of people who have had faith in GOD throughout the ages, and the fact that my own faith isn't the product of man or gullibility, it is safe to say that the faith of at least some throughout the ages, and now, is of an actual truth, this truth being realized on a multitude of levels for said individual.

Do you forget I was an atheist? I'm not daft and don't use circular logic. Your not being dishonest in saying it isn't convincing for you.... I get that.

But it is evidence with value. That value is a variable dependent on the experiences of the individual. Yet still.... The faith in an ultimate creative force, by billions, along with the fact that all which is readily observable is too exactly definable with mathematics (intelligent design), and the fact that negating self from moral equations indeed shows objective morality to be true and too instilled by said creative force/ power/ energy/ spirit (the selfless conscience is within all as potential).

Yay sentence fragments.... The point, of course is that there is indeed evidence of GOD in most things if not all.

Gotta work...

Peace




(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.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 06:37 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Oh joy of joys, the village idiot is back.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2016, 06:55 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 09:16 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 06:35 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The evidence of the individuals believe doesn't equal 0 evidence.

Yes, it does. People believe all kinds of strange things. If they can't back up their beliefs with demonstrable, testable evidence then there is no justification for accepting their claims.

Quote: In many cases it may indeed be the product of indoctrination by man or gullibility, but as is evidence by my case alone, this is NOT always the case.

Your case IS NOT EVIDENCE. Even if I accept what you claim all it means it that you had an experience that you can't explain. You have NO justification for claiming that any sort of supernatural cause was involved. You have NO justification for claiming that you know anything about the attributes of some supernatural cause. You have NOTHING except a story about a strange experience.

Quote:Giving the exponential amount of people who have had faith in GOD throughout the ages, and the fact that my own faith isn't the product of man or gullibility, it is safe to say that the faith of at least some throughout the ages, and now, is of an actual truth, this truth being realized on a multitude of levels for said individual.

The argument from popularity remains a fallacy you matter how many times it is presented. Your own faith, from everything you have said, does appear to be a product of gullibility. That is certainly a more reasonable assumption than that you were actually contacted by a god and that it gave you special knowledge. We know people have delusions and we know they find them convincing. We do not know that any god ever existed or interacted with anybody.

Quote:Do you forget I was an atheist? I'm not daft and don't use circular logic. Your not being dishonest in saying it isn't convincing for you.... I get that.

Whether you were an atheist or not is irrelevant. You believe in a god now and you have provided no evidence to support that belief. Your personal experience may have convinced you but it can't possibly be evidence for anybody else. I don't see how it could be evidence for you either but, then again, based on your posts I do think that you are more than a bit daft.

Quote:But it is evidence with value.

No, it really isn't. You can make no causal connection between your experience and the actual reason for it. You have jumped to a wholly unwarranted conclusion and are too thick to understand that you have no justification for doing so.

Quote:That value is a variable dependent on the experiences of the individual. Yet still.... The faith in an ultimate creative force, by billions, along with the fact that all which is readily observable is too exactly definable with mathematics (intelligent design), and the fact that negating self from moral equations indeed shows objective morality to be true and too instilled by said creative force/ power/ energy/ spirit (the selfless conscience is within all as potential).

The argument from popularity remains a fallacy. The "negating self" and "selfless conscious" crap is meaningless woo-speak. There is no evidence of any objective morality or any creative force/power/energy/spirit. You continue to use all these vague descriptions of stuff you can't explain and [expect] people to take you seriously. You need help.

Quote:The point, of course is that there is indeed evidence of GOD in most things if not all.

No, there really isn't. You plug "god" into everything you see because that's the easy answer. If you think there is evidence of a god in anything please point out the evidence and explain how we can verify that it supports the conclusion that a god actually exists and isn't just a huge argument from ignorance.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
10-10-2016, 06:58 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 06:55 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 06:35 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The evidence of the individuals believe doesn't equal 0 evidence.

Yes, it does. People believe all kinds of strange things. If they can't back up their beliefs with demonstrable, testable evidence then there is no justification for accepting their claims.

Quote: In many cases it may indeed be the product of indoctrination by man or gullibility, but as is evidence by my case alone, this is NOT always the case.

Your case IS NOT EVIDENCE. Even if I accept what you claim all it means it that you had an experience that you can't explain. You have NO justification for claiming that any sort of supernatural cause was involved. You have NO justification for claiming that you know anything about the attributes of some supernatural cause. You have NOTHING except a story about a strange experience.

Quote:Giving the exponential amount of people who have had faith in GOD throughout the ages, and the fact that my own faith isn't the product of man or gullibility, it is safe to say that the faith of at least some throughout the ages, and now, is of an actual truth, this truth being realized on a multitude of levels for said individual.

The argument from popularity remains a fallacy you matter how many times it is presented. Your own faith, from everything you have said, does appear to be a product of gullibility. That is certainly a more reasonable assumption than that you were actually contacted by a god and that it gave you special knowledge. We know people have delusions and we know they find them convincing. We do not know that any god ever existed or interacted with anybody.

Quote:Do you forget I was an atheist? I'm not daft and don't use circular logic. Your not being dishonest in saying it isn't convincing for you.... I get that.

Whether you were an atheist or not is irrelevant. You believe in a god now and you have provided no evidence to support that belief. Your personal experience may have convinced you but it can't possibly be evidence for anybody else. I don't see how it could be evidence for you either but, then again, based on your posts I do think that you are more than a bit daft.

Quote:But it is evidence with value.

No, it really isn't. You can make no causal connection between your experience and the actual reason for it. You have jumped to a wholly unwarranted conclusion and are too thick to understand that you have no justification for doing so.

Quote:That value is a variable dependent on the experiences of the individual. Yet still.... The faith in an ultimate creative force, by billions, along with the fact that all which is readily observable is too exactly definable with mathematics (intelligent design), and the fact that negating self from moral equations indeed shows objective morality to be true and too instilled by said creative force/ power/ energy/ spirit (the selfless conscience is within all as potential).

The argument from popularity remains a fallacy. The "negating self" and "selfless conscious" crap is meaningless woo-speak. There is no evidence of any objective morality or any creative force/power/energy/spirit. You continue to use all these vague descriptions of stuff you can't explain and except people to take you seriously. You need help.

Quote:The point, of course is that there is indeed evidence of GOD in most things if not all.

No, there really isn't. You plug "god" into everything you see because that's the easy answer. If you think there is evidence of a god in anything please point out the evidence and explain how we can verify that it supports the conclusion that a god actually exists and isn't just a huge argument from ignorance.
Bs.

This is what I'm talking about.

You say you don't limit evidence, but then limit it.


Whatever.

Didn't read the rest.

There is no point.

Stop deceiving yourself for just a minute



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 07:08 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 06:58 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Bs.

This is what I'm talking about.

You say you don't limit evidence, but then limit it.

I limit it to things that are actually evidence. If your standards are so low that you accept personal anecdotes and arguments from popularity and arguments from ignorance then you are not evaluating evidence, you are just accepting bullshit.

Quote:Whatever.

Didn't read the rest.

There is no point.

Stop deceiving yourself for just a minute

The irony of that is just incredible. The only self-deceiver here is you Pops. You've bought into a delusion of your own making and your pathetic flailing around to find anything that might substantiate it are amusing at best.

You say that your experience was caused by a god. I say that the NSA beamed microwaves into your head to intentionally mess you up. Many people claim that things like that happen so that's evidence for the idea, right? That's the level of "evidence" you are giving and it is truly sad that you don't understand how ridiculous you sound.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
10-10-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 07:08 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 06:58 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Bs.

This is what I'm talking about.

You say you don't limit evidence, but then limit it.

I limit it to things that are actually evidence. If your standards are so low that you accept personal anecdotes and arguments from popularity and arguments from ignorance then you are not evaluating evidence, you are just accepting bullshit.

Quote:Whatever.

Didn't read the rest.

There is no point.

Stop deceiving yourself for just a minute

The irony of that is just incredible. The only self-deceiver here is you Pops. You've bought into a delusion of your own making and your pathetic flailing around to find anything that might substantiate it are amusing at best.

You say that your experience was caused by a god. I say that the NSA beamed microwaves into your head to intentionally mess you up. Many people claim that things like that happen so that's evidence for the idea, right? That's the level of "evidence" you are giving and it is truly sad that you don't understand how ridiculous you sound.
There is a difference in a claim such as you assert, and a thing that is known as a surety for so very many spanning from prehistory to now and also spanning the entire globe.

You can't admit it though.... For whatever reason.


Peace nonetheless

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 08:45 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.

You mean like my first one of a Flat Earth? Consider

You crack me up, you want me to give you a "real" example of an erroneous concept. Here's one, gods.

“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, 09:00 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 07:56 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There is a difference in a claim such as you assert, and a thing that is known as a surety for so very many spanning from prehistory to now and also spanning the entire globe.

Read this slowly Pops... it is not 'known as a surety'. It is 'believed as a surety'. It is 'asserted as a surety'. It is not known.

The argument from popularity remains a fallacy no matter how often you repeat it or how much you stomp your feet and block your ears. Try to let just a touch of reason into that osmium block you have in your head.

Quote:You can't admit it though.... For whatever reason.

I will admit anything for which there is actual evidence. Unevidenced claims and bullshit speculation is treated with the contempt it deserves.

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
10-10-2016, 09:02 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 09:00 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 07:56 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There is a difference in a claim such as you assert, and a thing that is known as a surety for so very many spanning from prehistory to now and also spanning the entire globe.

Read this slowly Pops... it is not 'known as a surety'. It is 'believed as a surety'. It is 'asserted as a surety'. It is not known.

The argument from popularity remains a fallacy no matter how often you repeat it or how much you stomp your feet and block your ears. Try to let just a touch of reason into that osmium block you have in your head.

Quote:You can't admit it though.... For whatever reason.

I will admit anything for which there is actual evidence. Unevidenced claims and bullshit speculation is treated with the contempt it deserves.
It is known. Perhaps only in part by many, and in inexpressible terms too, but it is known.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(10-10-2016 09:02 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It is known. Perhaps only in part by many, and in inexpressible terms too, but it is known.

That is a complete bastardization of the concept of knowing. Believing is not the same as knowledge.

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: