Posts by C0ntr013r

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

Semantics aside at some point with fallacy and all you have to say

Would you say the same if I said:

There is no evidence that God does not exist, therefor God must exists?

You would take issue with this fallacy would you not?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

So not believing in fairies is NOT a belief (according to you). That's great.

More straw men? Read my comment again. Belief did NOT enter science.

You didn't answer the second question: How did scientists get to that belief/non-belief (insert whatever semantics you want)

It does not deal with belief in the first place...

Science is not a entity that can hold a belief... It is a system we use to investigate the world, it has no beliefs.

And by your own admission non-belief is not a matter of faith at all.

???

So what is it then because it is used in science every day?

No...

So just as non-belief in fairy's is scientific, so non-belief in god is also scientific.

You put beliefs into science, not me...

Now you can argue that 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is the most valid course in life for your own special exceptions.

But it is a logical fallacy... Therefore it is a faulty way to think, you are going to come to wrong conclusions when you use it like all the other logical fallacies...

Its not a belief as you specifically pointed out, therefore not a matter of faith.

Well it is not that either, but It does not deal with belief

Atheism - scientific.

Just like Atheism never deal with science and science never deal with Atheism...

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

and in the meantime we can appropriately say, "No, those things do not exist."

I am confused, you say that but don't mean it?

The sharper minds would say that we can "know" nothing except those thing that are known thorough definitions. A examples of what we can "know" is:

A triangle has 3 edges and 3 sides because it is it very definition.

I have not understood Saintbertholdt comments to mean "No, those things do not exist." but I don't know.

If I understand correctly he is trying to prove through evidence that God can't exist.

Hence my responds: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And that's where the discussion started.

I respect you're view and share it.

65

[Day 4 - 31/7]The Royal Commissions investigation of child sexual abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses. + VIDEO

by C0ntr013r in

by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .

part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

what do you guys wish to accomplish? is there a belief you are trying to promote? or just arguing for the sake of circular arguing? Are you trying to make a case for the abrahamic god? or any other myth? if not then we are all in the same boat.

Is this directed towards our discussion?

Atheist are all agnostic technically.

Many Atheists are Agnostic but some are also Gnostic.

I don't believe anyone who would be labeled and atheist would be stupid enough to say they are certain there is not

Well, yes there are some. Many people get there beliefs from other sources that careful study. You are probably familiar with this as an ex JW. This is true for Atheists as well, some adapt a popular belief without a good understanding of it etc...

Not saying that all Gnostic's do this of course.

If understand correctly Saintbertholdt is one of those few Gnostic's and I am trying to show him that this position is unreasonable because it is based on a logical fallacy. Hence all the links to logical fallacies

Maybe it is pointless, I get the feeling he is starting to understand that he is wrong but wont admit it, idk.

Anyone else with similar beliefs might alter them after reading this thread. All Gnostic's, both Theists and Atheist (most Gnostic's are probably Theists) might benefit from this discussion, idk

65

[Day 4 - 31/7]The Royal Commissions investigation of child sexual abuse within Jehovah’s Witnesses. + VIDEO

by C0ntr013r in

by popular demand i give you day 4, and i will finally get a couple of days to sleep .

part 1 has been uploaded and part 2,3 and 4 will soon be available.. part 1:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmlcdqesa0&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui&index=11.

C0ntr013r

The Catholic Church is next.

why does that matter?

Maybe because they have already been up and they have been given a part 2, so maybe JWs will get a part 2 in a few months as well?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

One also cannot prove that Elves do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Fairies do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Lord Xenu does not exist.
One also cannot prove that the universe is not the ejaculate of a Giant Space Penis.
...............
Absence of evidence is good enough to discount ALL of the above for any practical and scientific purpose.

And all of these statement you made are examples of this fallacy.

Do you see the resemblance?

"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist"

There is no evidence of fairies, and therefore, fairies do not exist

There is no evidence of God, and therefore, God does not exist

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

1. So how did belief enter science?
2. How did scientists get to that belief?

It did not, that was my point.

Science have not investigate santa or the flying spaghettimonster either, to my knowledge at least.

Science is not a entity that can hold a belief... It is a system we use to investigate the world, it has no beliefs.

What I meant was that; maybe the reason for this is that most PEOPLE don't believe in them...

And this conversation is again derailing, it is not about fairies. It is about; lack of evidence does not prove non existence.

So lets forget about the fairies and get back on topic.

One of the examples in the link I gave is that which the discussion started with. It should prove to you that you are incorrect in your understanding:

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.
Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

I know you don't like Wikipedia, but since you apparently prefer to use Wikipedia's reference I thought I use it anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A false dilemma may take the form:
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
There are plenty of examples of this fallacy, both on Wikipedia and it's sources.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Yeah, good quote. Thanks!

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

C0ntr013r

On what basis can science dismiss fairies, or is stating that fairies don't exist unscientific?

You can't prove the non existence of fairies, if that is what you are asking.

But since the argument would stem from; "fairies exist" the burden of proof would be on the person making the claim, so we would not believe in fairies unless the evidence is provided.

What we would not do is claim; "there is no evidence for fairies, therefor fairies can't/don't exist".

It is really a waste of time to argue this since it has been established as a logical fallacy. Here is a short summery of what it is and how it works:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

As for it being a scientific question.

Science deals with proving and disproving theories and hypothesis through evidence. And I don't think fairies qualify to be dealt with scientifically. Have some scientific paper or study been done about them? Since most don't believe in them it would be a waste of time.

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
	A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
		Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true.	Statement not-p is unproved. p is true.

	B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.