Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Portal Star wrote:

Not what I would go out of my way to label logic, but I can see your pattern of thinking. If somthing is instinctual, is it logical?

No, but it is possible.

Quote:

Or do you need to follow steps or a deliberate thought process?

Yes

Quote:

Logic is a discipline, because people tend to be illogical (instinct often follows emotions which are not rational) lt needs to be honed, fine tuned, worked at. Affirmed with testing.

This statement is predicated on the notion that some use logic more than others, and more adeptly. It does not preclude the fact that all sentient humans use logic every day to some degree.

0 Replies

Frank, Conger? Smile

0 Replies

Frank,

If I have the time and this is civil I will indeed pursue it. My question:

There is no way to disprove that in another parallel universe you are a cross-dressing dancer.

What is the criteria through which you determine that some of the contructs are absurd and others are not? Unless you remain agnostic about all of them you are differentiating them somehow.

What do you use to differentiate between a contruct you consider absurd (but which you can't provide evidence to disprove) and one that you do not consider absurd and decide to remain agnostic on.

I use examples that are comical on purpose. Is comical value the criteria for absurdity? If not, then if you decide to remain agnostic about god, yet at the same time are not agnostic about the cross-dressing dancing frank in another dimention then there is a differentiation being made whose criteria I'd like to know.

0 Replies

Monger wrote:

Frank, Conger?

Sorry, Monger.

I'm having my brain overhauled this afternoon -- and I probably won't make stupid mistakes like this again.

Can't get over that I screwed your name up.

Sorry!

0 Replies

I knew it was unintentional, Frank. Was just messing with ya. Wink

Conger sounds pretty cool actually...

0 Replies

Just to stir the pot a little, when it comes to comical constructs, i can think of few as hilarious as the god of the old testament--what a putz ! ! !

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank,

If I have the time and this is civil I will indeed pursue it.

I have no control over whether or not you have the time.

This definitely will be civil so long as you are civil. I am always civil until someone acts uncivilly towards me -- in which case I kick ass.

Quote:

My question:

There is no way to disprove that in another parallel universe you are a cross-dressing dancer.

That is correct.

Quote:

What is the criteria through which you determine that some of the contructs are absurd and others are not? Unless you remain agnostic about all of them you are differentiating them somehow.

In rigorous debate, why would I not be agnostic about this?

If we were discussing this over a beer in a bar -- or while doing a bone and some wine in my living room or yours -- I would just laugh at the notion -- and do my best to change the subject.

But if we were engaged in debate in an Internet forum, I would defer to the more rigorous standards that accrue to the more formal setting.

In this particular instance, I would simply say:

To anyone who is suggesting that in a parallel universe, I exist as a cross-dressing dancer...

...what evidence do you have for that assertion? I'd like to evaluate it.

To anyone who is suggesting that there are no parallel universes -- or that no matter how many parallel universes there are, in none of them can Frank Apisa be found as a cross-dressing dancer - what evidence do you have to back that up? . I would like to evaluate that evidence also.

MY GUESS: There would be no evidence presented from the proponents of the proposition that in a parallel universe, I exist as a cross-dressing dancer.

I would, and I think reasonably so, aver that I am unwilling to "believe" (guess) that there is a parallel universe and that I am a cross-dressing dancer in it -- based on the mere assertion that it is so.

MY GUESS; There would be no evidence presented from the proponents of the proposition that there are no parallel universes -- and that even if there were, there are none in which Frank Apisa is a cross-dressing dancer -- OTHER THAN "well they cannot produce evidence that there is a parallel universe and that you are a cross-dressing dancer in one of them."

I would, and I think reasonably so, aver that I am unwilling to "believe" (guess) that there are no parallel universes or that I am not a cross-dressing dancer in one of them -- based on the mere assertion that it is so -- OR ON THE REASONING "they cannot prove it is so -- so it is not so."

DO KEEP IN MIND that I am talking about how I would handle this in rigorous debate rather than in the casual setting -- where I would more than likely simply dismiss stuff like this -- or invisible unicorns -- or purple certified public accountants on a moon of Saturn.

Let's discuss this.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

When was Portal Star elected dictator? I missed that one.

The second grade. Anyhow, I posted the thread. Are there dictator perks? Can I get some coffee, Maybe a gift card... Wink

?

I agree with Apisa on that last point. Burden of proof lies on the person claiming the new view, and without evidence (this can be theoretical), there cannot be conclusiveness. There no theoretical evidence in the "parallel dimension" case, unless it is possible for us to somehow observe/interact with that dimension.

Whereas, with the case Craven usually uses, one could theoretically determine the sex of the poster (becuase they are affecting our physical universe they must be material or part material, and there is possibility for evidence).

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Setanta wrote:
When was Portal Star elected dictator? I missed that one.

The second grade. Anyhow, I posted the thread.

An elementary school ethos does seem appropriate to the tone you take with others here. Your having posted the thread gives no rights with regard to what other people post here, unless you feel you have a complaint worthy of being brought to the attention of moderators. Apart from which, you just play the fool by attempting to tell others what they can and cannot post here.

0 Replies

Again, Craven, have I beaten anyone with a stick? I make suggestions. Take them or leave them.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cephus, I agree that belief does not equate to fact. However, it is fact that many believe in a god.

It's a fact that many people believe Elvis is still alive. So what?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is a quote:

Quote:
How do you know that this, or previous postings aren't just products of evolution?

How do you know that you aren't arguing with a bunch of monkeys typing away at keyboards in some zoo somewhere?

According to evolution theory, given enough time, its possible.

You're quoting someone that doesn't have clue one what evolution is?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In rigorous debate, why would I not be agnostic about this?

The problem as I see it is that you are assuming that there are three positions:

Theist: I absolutely know without doubt that there is a god or gods.
Atheist: I absolutely know without doubt that there are no god(s).
Agnosticism: Everything else.

In that case, sure, agnosticism is the only rational position because you've simply defined the others out of existence. However, things are not that black and white. There are theists who believe without absolute knowledge (and who have quite a bit of doubt). There are atheists who reject deities on the basis of their construction and say nothing about 'generic gods'.

Ultimately, this argument is a strawman. You've built up the theist and atheist positions to something they simply are not and then claimed moral superiority to your creations.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In rigorous debate, why would I not be agnostic about this?

The problem as I see it is that you are assuming that there are three positions:

Theist: I absolutely know without doubt that there is a god or gods.
Atheist: I absolutely know without doubt that there are no god(s).
Agnosticism: Everything else.

In that case, sure, agnosticism is the only rational position because you've simply defined the others out of existence. However, things are not that black and white. There are theists who believe without absolute knowledge (and who have quite a bit of doubt). There are atheists who reject deities on the basis of their construction and say nothing about 'generic gods'.

Ultimately, this argument is a strawman. You've built up the theist and atheist positions to something they simply are not and then claimed moral superiority to your creations.

Talk about creating strawmen!!!!!

This entire argument of yours is a strawman, Cephus.

I do not assert the things you say I assert.

I do not claim that theists are people who claim to absolutely know without doubt that there is a god or gods.

I do not claim that atheists are people who claim to absolutely know without doubt that there are no god(s).

Nor have I ever tried to paint atheists and theists as such so I can claim "everything else."

I most assuredly have acknowledged that "there are theists who believe without absolute knowledge (and who have quite a bit of doubt)" and I most assuredly have acknowledged that "there are atheists who reject deities on the basis of their construction and say nothing about 'generic gods'."

THAT WAS A PURE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!

If you have something to say about my arguments, say it. But use my arguments -- not the distortions you are dreaming up.

Try quotes.

Pick out something I've actually said -- quote it -- and comment or rebut it.

That way there are no misunderstandings.

0 Replies

Portal,

I am not sure if you got mized up in teh conversation but I am really not beating anyone with a stick.

Frank,

Is one reason you would dismiss the parallel cross dresser theory in a bar with your friends due to their nature that you know well and the probability of the theory to have been earnestly raised?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank,

Is one reason you would dismiss the parallel cross dresser theory in a bar with your friends due to their nature that you know well and the probability of the theory to have been earnestly raised?

Not trying to be difficult here, Craven, but I don't understand the question.

Allow me to make some guesses -- and if I have misunderstood what you are asking, please ask the question again.

In a bar, if someone brought this cross dresser in a parallel universe up -- I would attribute it to the booze -- or to someone just having a bit of fun.

Here in a forum, I am taking it more seriously, because I suspect you are bringing it up as an analogy of some sort.

Stuff like cross-dresser in a parallel universe; purple certified public accountants on a moon of Saturn; and unicorns are, to me, NOT analogous to the possibility that REALITY involves a Higher Intelligence.

The latter is not offered for consideration to be comical -- or to try to refute some other item under discussion. It is offered in deadly (I mean that) ernest by people who suppose that the answer to the question "What is the nature of REALITY?" involves (or may involve) a Higher Intelligence.

People offering those other things are not truly offering them in ernest.

If we were here in my home shooting the breeze and you offered any of that stuff, Craven, I would simply change the subject to baseball playoffs or football or golf.

But in a rigorous discussion -- I have to give them their due.

You apparently want to make a point -- using this cross-dresser in a parallel universe bit.

I want to give you the chance.

I hope I understood your question enough so that what I've given in reply goes to the thrust of the question.

Please feel free to question me as much as you want.

I truly want you to understand where I am coming from on this.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

We're all glad you live by Webster and all, but the dictionary is not the end all, be all of reality. Sorry, try again.

0 Replies

Frank,

So youyr criteria for how you evaluate these theories is the setting in which they are proposed?

So do you remain agnostic about alien abductions and the like? There are a few paranoid folk here who take that seriously.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

We're all glad you live by Webster and all, but the dictionary is not the end all, be all of reality. Sorry, try again.

It is of definition arguments, which is what you were arguing about. If not from the dictionary, where do you get your definitions of words from? It's not like you personally invented the english language. You can interpret a word however you would like, but the dictionary is the standard philosophical and english agreement on the definitions of words. Do you have a better suggestion for common agreement of definitions?

The agreement on the meaning of words is what makes those words meaningful and communicative.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know