The issue here would be finding the premises that all can agree to. In Human Action’s example we all, I assume, accept the premises as true. If you don’t and can rationally explain why either premise fails then you can argue the conclusion. If you accept the premises then the conclusion follows.
Can you show premises which we can all agree to that lead to the conclusion that God exists?
:smack::smack::smack: I sincerely apologise for my stupid and boneheaded confussion of using proof and evidence in an inconsistent way. Where I said proof, it should read evidence.
What evidence could you produce AFTER YOU DIE that dthe universe still exists and how would you use such evidence? How would you let other know it? It’s not science if you simply “know it your heart to be true”, you have to show someone else.
The evidence, solid as it may be, that you present, does not in any way address the main point, i.e. how is that evidence good in any way after you die? How would apply the scientific method?
You keep dodging the point, as you should, because the consecuences of reaching the logical conclusion are not very nice for you.
Logical syllogisms are nice, and as you said, used in everyday life. They fall short, however, in science.
What “fiance” after you die? How would you know she exists? If something cannot be proven it isn’t true, isn’t that what you keep telling me
I won’t, lest Czarcasm accuse of another “hijack”.
The premises may be perfect, but they fail to address the point.
No, I can’t.
Did you just compare a logical syllogism with "knowing [something] in your heart to be true? Wow.
The null hypothesis is part of science.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
What “fiance” after you die? How would you know she exists?
[/quote]
I can’t know anything after I die.
Not that I recall, no. In the absence of proof, I’m happy to go with the most compelling evidence available.
Suit yourself.
This is a very bizarre qualification for evidence presentation. I don’t have to present it after I die-I just have to present it. Which I did. This is just another example of religionists setting the bar impossibly high, then dismissing all evidence that cannot obviously reach it. My evidence, based on the life and death of every single human being that has ever lived on this planet, is much more than enough than what is called for. Do you accept it, or not?
edited to add: Does this incredible qualification for evidence presentation make sense to anybody else?
Nobody is saying that. What some are saying is that if there is no EVIDENCE for the existence of something, then the null hypothesis, the general or default position, is that it doesn’t exist. Do you understand the difference between then former(your mistranslation) and latter(my statement)?
OK, guys. No one has to present evidence for the nonexistence of God. First, the burden of proof is on those who make fantastical claims (the existence of deities), not on anyone else to refute them. Second, it’s famously difficult to prove the nonexistence of anything. This basic fact is exploited by believers all the time: “Well, you can’t prove that He doesn’t exist!!!” Yes, but so what? We have to–if we are reasoning beings–treat claims that something exists that are unsupported by evidence as false. And yes yes yes, believers, we can’t absolutely prove your claims to be false—but that doesn’t mean that we should therefore treat them as true. THAT is the dichotomy between reason and religion–reason treats something very unlikely and unsupported by evidence as false; religion, as true.
Getting back to the OP’s original question (!), that time/money saved by dragging people out of church would only be useful if the faithful were taught courses in logic and empirical thinking. While the detox rate would be low, I’m sure that there are many people who regularly attend church and profess belief but in their hearts, harbor grave doubts about the whole thing–those people, at least, could probably be salvaged.
I am not sure to which poster you are referring. I have certainly made no claim that [a] god exists. I merely note that you have made several attempts to make a point supported by factual errors.
I am always amused when True Believers of any stripe think that they have made some point by declaring that their cherished belief is a FACT (in capital letters, of course). It is almost as though they think that shouting makes their argument more stable or persuasive.
I note that you express the same world view as the people your deride, because you do. You make the claim that even if your arguments are buttressed by errors, they are still “true” in some fashion. You differ on the individual data points of the discussion and you draw different conclusions from the claims you hold out as “evidence,” but, basically, you see your opponents as dangerous people holding “bad” ideas who must be condemned for their difference of opinion.
I note that your world view is not shared by every atheist. (It may not even be shared by a majority of atheists who are not driven by the same world view.) There are both believers and non-believers who are capable of discussing their views with those who do not share them without condemnation. One may reject the other’s position without requiring that one’s opponent be scorned. Fundies tend to be heavily into condemnation and scorn–and are generally not well able to discuss topics of belief dispassionately. Regardless whether one is a fundy theist or a fundy atheist, the same basic motivations and worldview drive their speech and actions.
You have demonstrated the same sort of fundy world view as any over-the-top Christian fundy preacher. It is no big deal. You share that trait with a tiny number of other atheist posters on this board. (The majority of atheist and theist posters on this board have somewhat different world views and most of the fundy theists were run off years ago.)
Thank you, that’s EXACTLY my point.
If you can’t know anything therefore nothing exist, becasue as I’m told all the time, if you can’t show it, it doesn’t exist. Therefore, as with all inaccessible-to-the-senses things (e.g. god), the null hypothesis is they don’t exist.
But the question is “after you die”, that’s the question, no other question is.
No, I don’t accept it because the question is not about any other human being but only you. You keep misunderstanding or avoiding it.
If MY question is “how do you prove, after you die, that the universe exists” and as it is evident, you can’t show evidencde, then, and I’ll quote a very intelligent person
If you, after you die, have no evidence for the universe, then it doesn’t exist. Sorry.
You want to answer the question you want, not mine. My question is about you, period.
You seem to misunderstand the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is “that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.” You are proposing a relationship between two measured phenomenon: the death of an individual, and the existence of the universe.
That death doesn’t end the universe is not a claim of a relationship between two measured phenomena, it’s the opposite.
And if god is inaccessible to the senses, how can we know anything about him, his nature, his commandments?
But the fact that Czarcasm is, by virtue of his being deceased, unable to present evidence for the existence of the universe by no means is indicative of there being no evidence to be presented. Coupled with the fact that Czarcasm had evidence supporting the continued existence of the universe after the deaths of innumerable persons and, as Human Action’s syllogism suggested, he has a strong, logical, rational, evidence based reason to assume that it will continue after he dies.
Sorry. that won’t fly; it’s already been tried by other posters here, with the same lack of success. Acknowledgement of facts isn’t the same as belief. The earth revolves around the sun, and that isn’t a “belief” no matter how you might label it. Religion’s lack of reason is, similarly, factual, in that no one has ever been able to prove the existence of a God or gods. Only a believer seeking to reinforce in his own mind his shaky beliefs would conflate beliefs with acknowledgement of facts, or (critically, in your case) “defend” his beliefs by calling another’s statement of facts as merely a statement of beliefs.
I don’t know why you’ve chosen “fundy” as your pejorative label for me, but it’s a pretty stupid appellation. For one thing, skepticism has never had an organizational/political/etc. structure even remotely approaching that of Christianity, so there’s nothing to be “fundamental” about. And by the way, I’m not an atheist at all, though I very much doubt you could possibly fathom the distinction. My beef is with religion.
In other words, O Believer, the burden of proof is on you. Show me some evidence for the existence of God and his magical fairies and I’ll duly acknowledge the error of my thinking. But careful–no one in the history of the human race has yet been able to do so (fools like Thomas Aquinas have tried to contort logic to accomplish that, but they just look silly in the process).
We are not discussing specific belief. We are discussing world views-how your personality causes you to express your beliefs, whatever they may be.
Yours is one that champions your beliefs to the exclusion and condemnation of others, even when you use errors to support your conclusions.
Irrelevant. I am aware of the motions of the sun, planets, galaxies, etc. Your beliefs have nothing to do with nature, only with your world view.
Now you are engaged in further errors of logic. The inability to prove the existence of a god does not make any system of belief to “lack reason.” It may make it wrong, but you are applying words improperly to rationalize your own belief system. ::: shrug ::: I expect no better based on your performance, to date.
Now you are just posting sophomoric nonsense. I have made no effort to “reinforce” or “defend” or even post my beliefs. You were caught out posting several errors of fact, (after claiming that “your side” was the only one interested in facts). When your errors were called to your attention, you have gone off on a series of rants to avoid addressing your own errors, pretending that you have some legitimate point to make just because you hold down the shift key when you type the word “fact.”
Fundamentalism arose as a specific movement within (American) Christianity that held the bible to be the source of all truth. The word fundamentalist has come to mean a religious person who holds a literal or nearly literal interpretation of his or her scriptures. Thus we now speak by analogy of Wahabbist or Hasidic fundamentalists. No atheist can be a fundamentalist because there is no sacred book with which one could associate atheism.
On the other hand, a nickname for Fundamentalists arose: fundy. That word was not so much associated with adherence to a particular view of scripture, as it was associated with unreasoning condemnation of those who did not share one’s beliefs. As such, fundy, not fundamentalist, is the perfect identifier for a particular variety of person, religious or not, whose world view is expressed in utter condemnation and contempt for anyone who has opposing or even separate views.
Your posts have demonstrated exactly that attitude.
Burden of proof for what? I have made no statements regarding any belief. You have irrationally jumped to the conclusion that I am trying to champion some theistic belief, even though I have already noted that I have no interest in such a discussion. I simply posted to point out the errors of fact with which you so frequently adorn your posts. Note that I am not challenging any of the atheists or theists in this discussion, as they have stuck to arguing beliefs and logic and not wandered into posting errors of fact. There have been errors of logic posted on both sides, but since I have no care for the outcome, I choose to not interfere with those exchanges. You have posted errors of fact and then irrationally tried to pick a fight with me regarding beliefs. That is your misunderstanding, not mine.
Aji de Gallina did not say that he believed in God while having no evidence for God. He said that he believed in God while having no scientific evidence for God.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think someone who won’t accept solid evidence that the universe isn’t going to end the day I die unless I can present it after I die is capable of knowing the difference between the two.
So he has…unscientific evidence?
tomndebb: Weasel it all you want, but it’s still a dichotomy of reason vs. faith. However much you choose to attack me, that will still be true; that simple truth exists regardless of my views or yours, or how we choose to express them, or how anyone chooses to (mis)interpret such expressions.
The ball is still in the Believers’ court. I’m waiting for evidence. (And parenthetically, let me say that if such evidence ever surfaced, I would be absolutely overjoyed. The difference between me and the Believers is I don’t let that false promise of joy blot out my skepticism.)
What weaseling? I noted that you are prone to posting errors of fact and you have tried to drag me into a discussion about belief that is utterly uninteresting to me.
No one has shown me (despite a few attempts) to be factually incorrect about anything I’ve said. They’ve offered opinions that contradict mine. Not the same thing, boyo.
What you fail to comprehend is that I was not making those statements to support my basic contention; I was giving examples. My basic contention, that religion and reason are incompatible, is self-evident and needs no support of any kind; it’s akin to “water is wet.”
The weasel aspect, then, is attacking my examples, the least important part of my argument, as if refuting them would also refute my basic contention. So let’s simplify:
My contention: that religion and reason are incompatible, because religion avows the existence of beings and/or phenomena for which there is no evidence.
Believers’ contention is that those things exist, despite the absence of evidence. Therefore, they would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to believe in those things.
If you’re on the side of belief rather than reason, that’s fine; in fact, a majority of people in this country are.
No. You were corrected. You just have a stronger belief in your errors than you do in ascertaining and posting facts. (You are, however, providing a good example of people baselessly clinging to unsupported beliefs. 
)
OK. Now I see weaseling.
The rest of your post is one more attempt to use our exchange to promote your beliefs. Your beliefs are not interesting to me. I have not bothered to challenge your beliefs and your persistence in trying to get me to engage in a discussion of such opinions is amusing, but hardly inviting.