|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 12/31/2006 : 11:22:01
|
Creationist seem to think that the default position in the argument over origins is god. As though, one should start with the assumption that god exist and created the universe unless she can be shown not to be needed. Consistently, science pushes back the veil of the unknown making god unecessary to fill the gap and reducing his responsibility. Even still, the creationist cling to what little gap remains as proof that god is needed, and thus, exists.
In reality, the default position is atheism. Intellectually one must not assume the unnecessary (parsimony), and instead, should utilize the known to describe the unknown. No one would start with the assumption that unicorns exist, or trolls, aliens, mermaids, hill giants, talking trees, four armed inter-dimensional beastmen, or any other fantastic things, yet creationist begin with the default on their side, constantly trying to establish themselves as equal to science. They make arguments such as "evolution is a religion" or "science works on faith too" as to equate themselves with science and skeptics.
It is the fact that, somehow this works in their favour with the public that bothers me. Even if they were to establish equal amounts of doubt into both sides, the default would still rest with the atheist. Rational debate is not about coaching things in shadow, as if the more doubt another argument has about it the stronger the opposition becomes. Instead it is about having the most and strongest evidence in your favour. The more light shed on your side the better. It is as though (and probably I am right in this) the creationist argue as politicians. Political strategy to slander and discredit their opponent (mostly with lies and exaggerations) to somehow win by default as the only other candidate.
In keeping with the political theme, even still, in this election there is no opponent. Instead, it is as though one candidate is running and the electorate must select between a tyrant and no leader at all. Certainly, in such a case, no leader would be preferable.
As it is abundantly clear, and even within the definition they establish, that science cannot show creationism to be true. In fact, most assert that even the idea and qualities of god are not subject to scientific verification. Aside from the obvious counter-argument that, in fact, anything that interacts with the universe is testable and anything that doesn't is impotent, what if they were right? Would that not render god as a unicorn or other supernatural being? Should not the default then be atheism anyway? Well of course, but often times it is not understood by the general public that:
1) There is benefit to thinking rationally and taking the default to be the critical position. Also, a general acceptance of Faith as a good thing that helps the world go round, is a falsehood and is the most dangerous threatening thing that may make the world stop.
2) God is a non-answer that is equal in potency to saying "I don't know".
God in our modern society has been reduced to, as Doctor Frink from The Simpsons puts it, "...an infinite nothing from nowhere, that has less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture." Yet still remains the default position on the tongues of the hopelessly confused. Answering, without providing an answer, the things science will tackle tomorrow, but why I ask? Why is it that science is always the loser, needing to one up an impotent god of the gaps? Should we not strive to turn this relationship on its head? I think that the burden is on god to uproot the default of atheism.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
Edited by - Neurosis on 12/31/2006 11:23:26
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 12:16:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Neurosis:
Creationist seem to think that the default position in the argument over origins is god. As though, one should start with the assumption that god exist and created the universe unless she can be shown not to be needed. Consistently, science pushes back the veil of the unknown making god unecessary to fill the gap and reducing his responsibility. Even still, the creationist cling to what little gap remains as proof that god is needed, and thus, exists.
In reality, the default position is atheism. Intellectually one must not assume the unnecessary (parsimony), and instead, should utilize the known to describe the unknown. No one would start with the assumption that unicorns exist, or trolls, aliens, mermaids, hill giants, talking trees, four armed inter-dimensional beastmen, or any other fantastic things, yet creationist begin with the default on their side, constantly trying to establish themselves as equal to science. They make arguments such as "evolution is a religion" or "science works on faith too" as to equate themselves with science and skeptics.
If evolution were to fall tomorrow, it will be because better evidence for some other natural process has come to light and been accepted by way of the usual scientific methods. Science is not about the existence or nonexistence of God. Only falsifiable evidence can be considered. I, therefore, reject either God or atheism as the default position in matters of science, since neither position falls in the realm of that which can be falsified.
Why don't we just call them on their God by default fallicy and leave it at that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 13:53:13 [Permalink]
|
Atheism is only the lack of theism. Even agnosticism is atheistic. Gnosis is knowledge. No one can ever claim knowledge that any thing does not exist, thus all atheist are agnostic (or sorely mislead). However, unless one claims to be a theist one must, therefore, be an atheist. Just as something cannot be both acircular and circular, nor can something be blue and yet red. Of course to not be a circle includes all other shapes and to not be blue includes all other colors. Something cannot be redish-blue as that is purple and has a seperate definition.
If you do not believe in a god (theism) than you are an atheist. Which was my point exactly. One must rest as an atheist as the default condition. It is that ambiguity of the term atheist that allows for them to snatch the default position. To truly take your position Kil, you allow for the possibilty that someone can both not believe in god and not be an atheist. This is about as feasible as water not being H20.
Agnostic means without knowledge. I know not the knowledge of god's existence, thus I am an agnostic toward god. I also do not believe in god thus I am an atheist. It is the general usage of these words that have allowed the erroneous continuem: Theist to Agnostic to atheist. As though agnostics are the fence sitters not sure one way or the other. In reality, all who do not know for sure god does or does not exist (which would be everyone) is an agnostic. All who do not believe (as insufficient evidence for such proposition has been demonstrated) is an atheist.
As a result of such definition (the prefix 'a' is medical and means without), the default position is atheism. It is necessary to understand and support this because without the default you are victim of your own fallicy Kil. For how is it that you would proove a negative (of course we can't, as you well know). Therefore, without the default position being lack of belief (the definition of atheism), then one must proove (for they gain a burden of proof) their lack of belief just as the believers do.
This is the reason we cannot simply call their fallicy without them returning the favor. In defense, we can only maintain the default position is lack of belief. Many speakers I have heard even go so far as to attack this position because they understand a burden is upon them. Without evidence, they cannot fulfill the burden, but to set equal burden to their opponents would even the playing feild and grant them a victory by default (which is what I am arguing against allowing) simply because people when given equal options will go with their 'gut' which means what makes them feel better (see issue 1 and 2 above).
Edited to add:
[quote] [i]Originally posted by Kil:
I, therefore, reject either God or atheism as the default position in matters of science, since neither position falls in the realm of that which can be falsified.[quote]
Science holds the negative position on all matters that are yet to be proven. It seems you are saying that science cannot enter the realm of religion, as though, they are seperate and each should handle its own.
Personally, I think that science and the thought process that follows from the scientific method can be used to discover truth and that at no time should we allow for philosophies that are not backed with logic to dictate our laws. But that is another issue.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/31/2006 14:22:19 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 14:33:36 [Permalink]
|
I'm afraid we lose the original point if we spend to much time on the atheist-agnostic war. Generally, I see agnosticism as a subset of atheism, but there can be a difference in people's minds. Atheism can be thought of as active disbelief in a deity, while agnosticism can be thought of as declining to believe in deities until such time as evidence is presented.
Most agnostics, like myself, also probably consider themselves atheists, simply because they have little or no expectation of ever seeing evidence of deities. But others may have greater expectation that they may find evidence.
Neur's original point about "default" positions is a good one, in that the ID and other Creationist/fundy folks have been doing that. But considering the varying usages of the terms atheism and agnosticism, perhaps it's best to say that agnosticism is the natural default position people should take at the start of any argument over a deity.
And, after all, Neur, if you feel all agnostics are atheists, you should have no problem with this.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 15:37:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Neurosis:
If you do not believe in a god (theism) than you are an atheist. Which was my point exactly. One must rest as an atheist as the default condition. It is that ambiguity of the term atheist that allows for them to snatch the default position.
They can't have God as a default position, scientifically speaking, without torturing logic. I have pointed that out in many a debate with creationists. I prefer to leave questions of God outside of the debate and force a naturalistic position. I try to focus the debate on science. You know, there are theists who accept evolution and the big bang as the best theories to describe life on earth and the origins our universe. I would prefer keeping them on our team by limiting the God debate to one of theology and not one of science. (I understand that the evidence for God is conspicuously lacking, so I do understand what you are saying, I think, but I still wouldn't move the debate in that direction.)
quote:
Neurosis:
To truly take your position Kil, you allow for the possibilty that someone can both not believe in god and not be an atheist. This is about as feasible as water not being H20.
How so? All I'm suggesting is that the God question does not belong in a scientific debate. That creationists want to fill the gaps with God just demonstrates the weakness of their science because “God did it” will never rise to the level of a scientific answer for anything. I think that pointing out that fallicy while supporting our scientific case with science, even if we must do that over and over again, is the best way to go. Countering the God as default argument with atheism as the default argument, while true, introduces an unnecessary element to the debate. Unless the debate is about default positions and not about the science that supports good science…
quote:
Neurosis:
Agnostic means without knowledge. I know not the knowledge of god's existence, thus I am an agnostic toward god. I also do not believe in god thus I am an atheist. It is the general usage of these words that have allowed the erroneous continuem: Theist to Agnostic to atheist. As though agnostics are the fence sitters not sure one way or the other. In reality, all who do not know for sure god does or does not exist (which would be everyone) is an agnostic. All who do not believe (as insufficient evidence for such proposition has been demonstrated) is an atheist.
I know. I have argued that many times…
quote:
Neurosis:
As a result of such definition (the prefix 'a' is medical and means without), the default position is atheism. It is necessary to understand and support this because without the default you are victim of your own fallicy Kil. For how is it that you would proove a negative (of course we can't, as you well know). Therefore, without the default position being lack of belief (the definition of atheism), then one must proove (for they gain a burden of proof) their lack of belief just as the believers do.
If we are arguing about beliefs, you are right. If we are arguing science, I don't see how I further the argument by bringing my beliefs, or lack thereof, into it. Again, I would hold their heads to the grindstone of science and call fallicy on their God |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 16:20:50 [Permalink]
|
Atheists versus agnostics versus creationists versus evolutionists..... Why all the fighting :)
Everything is philosiphy. There is as much falacy in "God dosen't exist because we can't prove it" as there is in "God exists because you can't prove it."
If God exists, maybe he tweaks a few things so you can't prove it. Maybe God wen't up playing with the stuff that made the "Big Bang." Maybe he/she/it is there, maybe he/seh/it isn't.
It's all quiet the waste of time trying to break it down to the level of existence. I think somethings there, you don't. Do I think it is the God of the Jewish, Christian, or Musim people, maybe.
Something created. It appears evolution took of from there.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 16:43:41 [Permalink]
|
Proving a deity is a burden for the deists, and in no way rests upon the atheistic ideological purity of doubters and unbelievers. Were the world made up only of Christian fundies and Wiccans, the fundies would still have the same burden, to prove the existence of their god. (As, I suppose, would the Wiccans for their gods/spirits/whatever, though my knowledge of Wiccans is admittedly more slight.)
If we say, and most of us do, that any notion based upon supernatural and/or religious beliefs is outside the realm of science because it is not falsifiable, then I think it follows that a statement that those supernatural things definitely do not exist is also not falsifiable, and is outside the reach of science. Thus, "I am unsure," (ie., at least a de facto position of agnosticism for the sake of argument) seems to be the logical starting position for an discussion about whether deities exist.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 21:17:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Proving a deity is a burden for the deists, and in no way rests upon the atheistic ideological purity of doubters and unbelievers. Were the world made up only of Christian fundies and Wiccans, the fundies would still have the same burden, to prove the existence of their god. (As, I suppose, would the Wiccans for their gods/spirits/whatever, though my knowledge of Wiccans is admittedly more slight.)
If we say, and most of us do, that any notion based upon supernatural and/or religious beliefs is outside the realm of science because it is not falsifiable, then I think it follows that a statement that those supernatural things definitely do not exist is also not falsifiable, and is outside the reach of science. Thus, "I am unsure," (ie., at least a de facto position of agnosticism for the sake of argument) seems to be the logical starting position for an discussion about whether deities exist.
OK, let's start wit the term agnostic. The question I wlways had, and not because it is relevent but becuase it always struck me funny..
Without knowledge...... Gnosis is a Christian term. Always struck me as condescending. "It's there, your just to stupid to see it." or "THe knowledge is irrefutable, your just ignorant".....
But then again I always thought atheist was a funny term as all theology is philosiphy and denying a diety is a part of theology. I always thought deitdenien, or theodenein would be better terms.....
But I digress.....
I do think that the default and honest postion for all of us is "agnostic". We do not have the knowledge to support or deny dieties. Using the known to describe the unknown is is still philosiphy, and a good place to start. But it is fallacious to claim knowledge of the unknown based on the known, as it is still unknown.
Faith does make the world go around for a lot of people. This is not something that is going to be changed in any of our great-grandchildren's lifetime. Critical thinking has a place in all of this, but that place is not to attack diests for being diests. By all means defend your belief, but do not offend for the sake of offending.
Religion is here to stay. It provides a lot to many people. It gives them a code some try to live by. It provides structure. It provides community. It provides comfort. It is a warm blanket to many in a cold hard world.
Religion will never be conquered by critical thinking, and the offending matter in which many have sought to do it only riles folks up, and shuts them down to opening thier minds up. Some will never open thier minds, and just want to go about life. Riling them up just makes for more eveangilists. The intellectuals get to feel smart for offending people, then get to gripe that it jsut get's worse.
There is no answer for this but respect. If people want to seek knowledge, then they will seek it. It will not be forced on them. That is just counter-productive.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 21:20:04 [Permalink]
|
In order to formulate a valid and sound argument(deductive or inductive) for any assertion your premesis must have a value of true.
The only way for a premesis to be true is if it is supported by evidence.
Any argument based on a false (lacking evidence) premesis is invalid.
The logical default postion, with regard to the existance of dieties, is indeed atheism (in the simple definition: lack of belief in deities).
Until such time as credible, verifiable, repeatable evidence for the existance of a deity is found, the assertion "god exists" may be dismissed as an irrational statement.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 21:24:51 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis said:
quote:
For how is it that you would proove a negative (of course we can't, as you well know).
You can prove a negative. You must simply prove a mutually exclusive statement.
I can prove "the sky is not red" by proving "the sky is blue".
It is always better to formulate an assertion in the positive however.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 22:42:07 [Permalink]
|
Doesn't look like we're going to agree with any exactitude. But maybe we can at least agree here agree that "God exists, unless you disprove him" is a totally unacceptable "default" position, logically on a a par with "blue fairies exist, unless you disprove them." Not for a moment should we accept the opposition's silly rules.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 23:18:34 [Permalink]
|
I did not say that God existed. I pointed outthat we are without knowledge one way or the other. I am not trying to disprove a theory that God dosen't exist, or prove that it does. It is totally unacteptable as well to say he dosen't unless we can prove it.
10000 years ago (or so) did atoms exist? Did those new creatures they found n Borneo(?) recently exist before we found them? I know those may seem like silly questions, but I hope you see my point.
I was using the term "agnostic" (with perenthesis) by the root definitions of the parts, and not as an insult by the meaning that is most commen;y used.
However, it is a default position by many based on faith, and calling it unacceptable is unacceptable to them, and will not do anything to further anybody. As skeptiks, shoudn't we try to learn what we can and teach what we can? People have to be open to receive something to ponder, and insult only closes that conduit off.
Some people aren't worth arguing with. What's that saying about fools. However, others are worth the effort, but cannot be made to feel belittled.
All of this should be part of schooling. Evolution in science class, religion in philosiphy, and critical thinking and respect in all subjsects.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2007 : 23:19:42 [Permalink]
|
O.I. said:
quote:
It is totally unacteptable as well to say he dosen't unless we can prove it.
I disagree. Because you have to make an exception for god. With regard to all other assertions that you can make, of imaginary things, even you would not allow this exception for. The invisible pink unicorn(IPU), the cosmic hypnotoad, faries, UFOs, green men from mars, and so on and so on.
When you start making arbitrary exceptions to logical rules, you may as well just throw logic and reason right out.
Unevidenced premises render your proposition meaningless.
I would agree that a person making the statement "god does not exist" is also breaking some logical rules. In order to demonstrate that assertion to be true, one would have to provide evidenced premises that support a mutually exclusive assertion. But this is a red-herring in the debate obout the assertion "god exists".
There is no stronger rejection of an assertion, in the realm of logic and reason, than to dismiss it as unevidenced. Unevidenced assertions have no value.
quote:
10000 years ago (or so) did atoms exist? Did those new creatures they found n Borneo(?) recently exist before we found them? I know those may seem like silly questions, but I hope you see my point.
Atoms exist now, we have evidence that they did, indeed, exist 10,000 years ago. The new species recently documented in borneo, obviously, existed before we documented them. If you had listed the characters of a species we have not discovered yet, and then predicted we would discover that species and went searching for it, people would laugh at you. Do you see the difference?
quote:
However, it is a default position by many based on faith, and calling it unacceptable is unacceptable to them, and will not do anything to further anybody.
There is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. This cannot be accepted by science. It would render science pointless. Equally, science renders faith pointless by insisting on evidence. The choice, as I see it, is one between fantasy and reality. I choose reality.
quote:
As skeptiks, shoudn't we try to learn what we can and teach what we can? People have to be open to receive something to ponder, and insult only closes that conduit off.
I agree. An open mind is required to examine new evidence. As Sagan said though, not so open that it falls out.
As for insults, ridicule is a valuable tool. Pointing out the absurdity of other people's erronious logic is an excellent way to illistrate their mistakes. I'd agree that insults just for the sake of insults are pretty pointless in any situation though.
quote:
All of this should be part of schooling. Evolution in science class, religion in philosiphy, and critical thinking and respect in all subjsects.
Religion only if you are talking about the entire concept of religion. Not the teaching of one specific religion or set of beliefs. Critical thinking, absolutely, as long as it is taught as a universal skill, not like the DI would want to teach it. As for evolution, the introductory material does belong in HS biology classes.
As for respect, we should teach respect for persons. Not respect for the gibberish that many people believe. In no way should people respect the unevidenced assertions of other people. All unevidenced assertions should be ridiculed, torn to shreds, and the shreds used to flog the person who put it forth.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2007 : 23:43:53 [Permalink]
|
Nicely expressed, Dude.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 08:56:41 [Permalink]
|
| Well, the above is all well and good, but it has little to do with the OP which I thought was an interesting question of how to deal with the God as default position in a debate with creationists... My thinking is that we don't allow God into the debate, and force them to use science to validate their objections to evolution. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 09:58:41 [Permalink]
|
Maybe I was unclear about what I am talking about here. I am not arguing that science can prove there is no god or that we should even try to consider that question worthwhile (philisophically speaking I don't think it would matter either way. To me, the question is totally irrelevent).
I am arguing about defintions and about what is more rational to hold, atheism or theism as a default position. As I stated in the opening, I hate the common use of terms. To use words freely in a everyday coversation is fine, but it is still very important to maintain that words are not fluid. The reason we have technical terminology, legal terminology, and sceintific terminology (and etc.) is because we must have a clear definition and usage in a debate, as well as, when we are trying to solve a problem. Basically, to me, it means that when a coversation matters, the definitions should hold and the correct usage of words should be held. (Once in a debate Hovind refered to all elements as minerals, Pigluicci, in humor, allowed his definition but I am sure some individuals walked away thinking that Pigluicci conceeded the definition and use it unwittingly)
The point I am making breaks down as:
1) The social stigma of atheism should be switched out to be theism in its place because atheism is a lack of belief (most likely due to lack of evidence) in a god. Theism is a belief in god. There is no inter-position because one must believe or not believe. Some people say erroneously that they are not sure if they believe and are agnostic. But this is the same as: I am not sure that aliens don't exists nor am I sure that they do exist, and yet, I am still a non-believer in aliens. I am an a-alienist. There is no inter-position between theism and atheism because they are inclussive terms.
2)We should strive to insist on accurate usages of words in order to unclutter the argument over creation/evolution. (mainly these are seperable arguments as evolution says nothing about god. However, the definitions people make up an attibute to words allows slight of hand to murk the waters of arguments just like this one.)
3)All agnostics, by definition are atheist. All non-theist are atheist. And no one can disprove anythings existence that doesn't have all of its dimensions described in the claim, thus atheist cannot assert that god does not exist, only that a particular god is illogical. (This illustates another point. Christians use god (general) in place of their god (specific) within arguments constantly. Using atheism and agnostic fluidly is as much of a falicy as that is.)
4) What people believe in the common realm is not necessarily logical. People believe what they are told, and if no one makes it clear that intelligent thought and correct usage of terms, even in casual conversation, is important the stigma will be reinforced.
quote:
Originally posted by Original Intent
Everything is philosiphy. There is as much falacy in "God dosen't exist because we can't prove it" as there is in "God exists because you can't prove it."
I never made that claim. Atheism is not (and cannot be without fallicy) a position of negative assertion. It is a position of not asserting god exists. Which is the default to everything elses existence or nonexistence also. Not believing in unicorns is the default on the question, so is atheism the default to believe in god. This point should be asserted without bending, because allowing special pleading for the god argument is a fallicy.
I am an advocate that the debate world is not different to the real world. A little bending on the casual level is ok, but can create problems. I agree with Kil that we should utilize all of our allies (those theist who recognize science), however that does not mean accepting theism as any more rational than belief in unicorns or trolls etc. Of course, I am NOT Politically Correct. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
