Originally posted by inimalist
pffft....
Well im pretty bloody sure if humans decided to stop killing each other and put their resources into helping each other we would be more productive than insects.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, what I am saying is more along the line of: "There is no universal standard by which 'power' can be measured, and therefore 'powerful' can have no value without a specific premise as to what 'power' is". The whole concept of one thing being more powerful than another is an anthropic principle because we can use our brains and come up with anthropic principles. One being cannot be more powerful than another without defining what power is, and in pretty much all cases, the concept of God is just a more powerful version of what makes humans very well adapted to their environment.
Ok.
Originally posted by inimalist
Yup, kinda goes along with my point. I am saying there is no way that humans can be more powerful than anything else, so I don't get what you are arguing here...
Well this is part of the post.
"As humans, we do have something that makes us unique in the animal kingdom. Whatever we want to define it is (totally unimportant here) it allows us to do the thing that we like to think makes us "better" than other animals."
It sounded like you were implying that you cant compare humans to ants because humans are unique. So eventhough you were not really saying humans are more powerful you were saying that in some ways humans are special. I was just saying no humans are not even unique or special thats our limited perception.
QUOTE=9380540]Originally posted by inimalist
The concept of a powerful being looking down on a weaker being is an anthropic concept because the powerful being in this case is just a more powerful version of a human with power defined as the things that humanity would find powerful or familiar. [/QUOTE]
Ok.
Originally posted by Schecter
lol bible charms
I'd go with religion charms myself, that way you could have all kinds of religious symbols in there.
hearts, stars, and horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots o' gold and rainbows, and the red balloon
Ankhs, stars and crosses... etc...
Originally posted by Goddess KaliYou can't prove a giant penis didn't create anything.
I simply tire of the counter argument [b]"You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.
You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.
You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.
You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.
You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.
All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".
All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.
Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.
Understand ? [/B]
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'd go with religion charms myself, that way you could have all kinds of religious symbols in there.hearts, stars, and horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots o' gold and rainbows, and the red balloon
Ankhs, stars and crosses... etc...
like a hardline evangelical would ever swallow a marshmallow star of david. your marketing skills are lacking, my friend.
Originally posted by Creshosk
No, the conclusion is "we don't know." Not, we don't know, therefore it's not.
The conclusion is a personal one in this case, not a fact 🙄
Originally posted by Creshosk
A lack of evidence does not constitute proof of the negative.
I know that.
Originally posted by Creshosk
So long as they don't claim their stance to be true.
If the Atheist makes the claim that God doesn't exist as Fact, then the Atheist needs to support what they say. If the Atheist asks the Theist to prove that God exists, the Theist should admit that they cannot prove it, not ask the Atheist to prove the negative.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam in the slightest do you?
Yes I do, I just don't see how it applies here.
Originally posted by Creshosk
An argument from ignorance is logically fallicious.
You obviously don't get my point. If one personally concludes that there is no God, because:
-lack of evidense
-contradiction to logic
-contradiction to science
Then that person has the right to disregard that beleif, the same way a Theist disregards Santa Clause.
If a person tells a Theist that Santa Clause exists, the Theist will demand proof/evidense. If a person tells the Theist that there are many Gods, other than thier own, the Theist will demand proof/evidense.
Likewise, if the Theist tells the Atheist that God exists, the Atheist will demand proof/evidense.
It would be totally wrong and stupid for the Theist to respond "well prove that God doesn't exist" when asked to prove or back up God's existance. This is many times the case on KMC.
On KMC, I find that Theists are more convicted in thier beleif in God, than Atheists are convicted in thier disbeleif. Usually, the Theist will make claims such as Salvation, Damnation, etc. and the Atheist will simply state thier disbeleif, and critisize those notions.
The Atheist need not prove anything, they are denying what seems unlikely to them.
The Theist, if persistantly claiming the truth of thier words, need prove it.
Do you get it now ?
Originally posted by Goddess KaliNaturally, those the commit a fallacy more often than not don't understand it.
The conclusion is a personal one in this case, not a fact 🙄
I know that.
If the Atheist makes the claim that God doesn't exist as Fact, then the Atheist needs to support what they say. If the Atheist asks the Theist to prove that God exists, the Theist should admit that they cannot prove it, not ask the Atheist to prove the negative.
Yes I do, I just don't see how it applies here.
Originally posted by Goddess Kaliargumentum ad ignorantiam
You obviously don't get my point. If one personally concludes that there is no God, because:-lack of evidense
Originally posted by Goddess Kaliontological argument
-contradiction to logic
Originally posted by Goddess KaliArgumentum ad ignorantiam.
-contradiction to science
Originally posted by Goddess KaliEt tu fallacy.
Then that person has the right to disregard that beleif, the same way a Theist disregards Santa Clause.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliTwo different stances of faith. *shrugs*
If a person tells a Theist that Santa Clause exists, the Theist will demand proof/evidense. If a person tells the Theist that there are many Gods, other than thier own, the Theist will demand proof/evidense.
Likewise, if the Theist tells the Atheist that God exists, the Atheist will demand proof/evidense.
It would be totally wrong and stupid for the Theist to respond "well prove that God doesn't exist" when asked to prove or back up God's existance. This is many times the case on KMC.
On KMC, I find that Theists are more convicted in thier beleif in God, than Atheists are convicted in thier disbeleif. Usually, the Theist will make claims such as Salvation, Damnation, etc. and the Atheist will simply state thier disbeleif, and critisize those notions.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliWith just as much evidence for their stance as the theist. 🙄
The Atheist need not prove anything, they are denying what seems unlikely to them.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliJust as an Atheist would... its really no different.
The Theist, if persistantly claiming the truth of thier words, need prove it.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliYeah, you're trying to justify a double standard with an et tu fallacy as well as ad ignoratiam.
Do you get it now ?
You tried to say that the Atheist was justified and one of your reasons was the lack of evidence. So no matter how many times you say you understand the fallacy, each time you commit it shows that you don't.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Naturally, those the commit a fallacy more often than not don't understand it.argumentum ad ignorantiam
ontological argument
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.Et tu fallacy.
Two different stances of faith. *shrugs*
With just as much evidence for their stance as the theist. 🙄
Just as an Atheist would... its really no different.
Yeah, you're trying to justify a double standard with an et tu fallacy as well as ad ignoratiam.
You tried to say that the Atheist was justified and one of your reasons was the lack of evidence. So no matter how many times you say you understand the fallacy, each time you commit it shows that you don't.
OMG...
You still don't get it... 🙄
The whole point to this thread is the fallacy of using the argument "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a solution to the demand to prove God's existance.
Like I said before, IF the Atheist makes a claim that "God doesn't exist", then yes he or she must prove this. However, if this is simply thier belief, then no, they need not prove a thing.
If the Theist makes thier claims as beleif and not as fact, then no, they don't have to prove anything either.
However... on KMC, the average Theist makes thier claims as fact. They claim their beleifs as TRUTH, not just personal conclusions.
Therefore, if the Theist is trying to convert the Atheist into a beleiver (which is highly the case in the religion forum), then the Theist must provide support, proof, or evidense for thier claims.
The Burden of Proof falls upon them.
If you argue to me that Santa Clause exists, and I say no he doesn't, you are the one who has to prove your claim, not me. I have the right to deny your claim if you cannot prove it to me, while you would not be in the right to expect me to beleive something you cannot prove.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliNaturally you're going to keep saying that until I agree with your using fallacy to defend more fallacy. Which I won't because its highly illogical.
OMG...You still don't get it... 🙄
Originally posted by Goddess KaliWhich isn't actually a fallacy. How is it different from pointing out the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy?
The whole point to [b]this thread is the fallacy of using the argument "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a solution to the demand to prove God's existance.[/b]
"Just because I can't doesn't mean that I'm wrong."
Originally posted by Goddess KaliWhich is different from the Theist how?
Like I said before, [b]IF the Atheist makes a claim that "God doesn't exist", then yes he or she must prove this. However, if this is simply thier belief, then no, they need not prove a thing.[/b]
Originally posted by Goddess KaliSure you say that now, but any itme someone states their beilef you jump on their back with what I can only imagine is a response you have saved to a text document with THE BURDAN OF PROOF IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS saved in it. Complete with bold tags and everything including your prewritten up snide remarks about the way YOU PERSONALLY define God to be in such a way that makes it easy for you to claim they don't exist. DESPITE not know wether or not that's what the person you're attacking actually thinks.
If the Theist makes thier claims as beleif and not as fact, then no, they don't have to prove anything either.
Then when you're called on your OWN inability as part of their retort you went and made this thread as one big "haha! aren't they illogical twits!" defense, in nothing more than you on a soap box trying to preach down to us about the bad bad theists.
Oh no, I understand your point perfectly, in fact I see right through your ruse. I was able to see right through your ruse by your repeating that "I don't get it" over and over. You don't want a nice well thought out discussion you want to preach to us about the bad little theists and their illogical little beliefs in an invisible man who lives in the sky.
I got news for you, satire is NOT a logical retort. It is nothing more than a strawman, an exagerated version of another's claims which is easily dismantled but totally ignores the other person's ACTUAL claims.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali"Oh those bad little theists, aren't they big dumb doodoo heads?" vin
[b]However... on KMC, the average Theist makes thier claims as fact. They claim their beleifs as TRUTH, not just personal conclusions. [/b]
Get off your damn soapbox, there's obviously nothing in this threads to discuss, as you don't want opposing points of veiw, you want us to "get it" .. as in blindly agree with YOUR personal beliefs.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliAnd if the Atheist is trying to make the Theist into an Atheist?
Therefore, if the Theist is trying to convert the Atheist into a beleiver (which is highly the case in the religion forum), then the Theist must provide support, proof, or evidense for thier claims.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliDitto.
The Burden of Proof falls upon them.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliAnd that's usually how strawmen work, you pick another example and use that something which is much easier to disprove. But still ignores the other person's claims.
If you argue to me that Santa Clause exists, and I say no he doesn't, [b]you are the one who has to prove your claim, not me. I have the right to deny your claim if you cannot prove it to me, while you would not be in the right to expect me to beleive something you cannot prove. [/B]
As I said before this is nothing more than a personal sopabox thread for you to bemoan your woes of how other people have treated you, isn't it Czarina... er I mean Kali?
You don't want a discussion.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
OMG...You still don't get it... 🙄
You want us to "get it"...
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
[b]However... on KMC, the average Theist makes thier claims as fact. They claim their beleifs as TRUTH, not just personal conclusions. [/b]
In addition to often claiming this Truth is of such a high quality that it should define Government policies on everything from stem cells to abortion to what gets taught in class rooms.
The Burden of Proof falls upon them.
Which is essentially correct - the onus always lies with the side presenting a hypothesis/theory/action as a factual reality.
Just like a legal case a defendant operates from a position of innocence, it is the prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence to prove the hypothesis that he exists, due to proven actions, as a criminal.
The problem with the religious parallel is that it has been given and accepted socially for so long that "God is automatically real and responsible for all attributed actions until proven otherwise" is a mind set despite the fact this is backwards in terms of, logically, where the burden of proof would normally lie.
As such Theists can say:
"we don't have to prove God is real and actually committed the actions we say he did, it is automatically accepted as fact. It is your responsibility to find proof that proves he doesn't exist and as such is not responsible for said actions. And be aware that the fact no proof can be raised to support the claims he exists or did the actions attributed to him does not equal evidence of his non-existence."
While most Atheists will say:
"Wait, that isn't right, by any logical standard of proof the burden lies with the claim of existence and action, and lack of evidence to support those claims would be applicable to whether they were judged as real or not. The prosecution can not win a legal battle by saying "While we have no proof to show the defendant has committed criminal acts, the defense has no proof that he hasn't committed criminal acts, thus proof that something didn't happen, so he is guilty".
Originally posted by Creshosk
Naturally you're going to keep saying that until I agree with your using fallacy to defend more fallacy. Which I won't because its highly illogical.Which isn't actually a fallacy. How is it different from pointing out the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy?
"Just because I can't doesn't mean that I'm wrong."
Which is different from the Theist how?
Sure you say that now, but any itme someone states their beilef you jump on their back with what I can only imagine is a response you have saved to a text document with [b]THE BURDAN OF PROOF IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS
saved in it. Complete with bold tags and everything including your prewritten up snide remarks about the way YOU PERSONALLY define God to be in such a way that makes it easy for you to claim they don't exist. DESPITE not know wether or not that's what the person you're attacking actually thinks.Then when you're called on your OWN inability as part of their retort you went and made this thread as one big "haha! aren't they illogical twits!" defense, in nothing more than you on a soap box trying to preach down to us about the bad bad theists.
Oh no, I understand your point perfectly, in fact I see right through your ruse. I was able to see right through your ruse by your repeating that "I don't get it" over and over. You don't want a nice well thought out discussion you want to preach to us about the bad little theists and their illogical little beliefs in an invisible man who lives in the sky.
I got news for you, satire is NOT a logical retort. It is nothing more than a strawman, an exagerated version of another's claims which is easily dismantled but totally ignores the other person's ACTUAL claims.
"Oh those bad little theists, aren't they big dumb doodoo heads?" vin
Get off your damn soapbox, there's obviously nothing in this threads to discuss, as you don't want opposing points of veiw, you want us to "get it" .. as in blindly agree with YOUR personal beliefs.
And if the Atheist is trying to make the Theist into an Atheist?
Ditto.
And that's usually how strawmen work, you pick another example and use that something which is much easier to disprove. But still ignores the other person's claims.
As I said before this is nothing more than a personal sopabox thread for you to bemoan your woes of how other people have treated you, isn't it Czarina... er I mean Kali?
You don't want a discussion.
You want us to "get it"... [/B]
Woah..where is all this coming from ? 😬
You are pretty much imagining things. You are making up your own conclusion about what I am trying to say, accusing me of enacting a "ruse" and such.
Even Imperial gets my point, the basic gist of it, while you yourself continue to turn this into something it's not.
I have made my peace with Christianity long ago. I am arguing the fallacy of using the statement "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a justification for not being able to prove he exists. It clearly is a fallacy to use that argument, as I explained atleast six times already.
You are making this too personal.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
In addition to often claiming this Truth is of such a high quality that it should define Government policies on everything from stem cells to abortion to what gets taught in class rooms.
That's where the problem arises. 👆
If you wish to have some control over my life, or the lives of others, than prove you are correct. Do not enforce your morals and way of life upon myself or others, if you cannot even prove you know what's right from wrong.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is essentially correct - the onus always lies with the side presenting a hypothesis/theory/action as a factual reality.Just like a legal case a defendant operates from a position of innocence, it is the prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence to prove the hypothesis that he exists, due to proven actions, as a criminal.
The problem with the religious parallel is that it has been given and accepted socially for so long that "God is automatically real and responsible for all attributed actions until proven otherwise" is a mind set despite the fact this is backwards in terms of, logically, where the burden of proof would normally lie.
As such Theists can say:
"we don't have to prove God is real and actually committed the actions we say he did, it is automatically accepted as fact. It is your responsibility to find proof that proves he doesn't exist and as such is not responsible for said actions. And be aware that the fact no proof can be raised to support the claims he exists or did the actions attributed to him does not equal evidence of his non-existence."
While most Atheists will say:
"Wait, that isn't right, by any logical standard of proof the burden lies with the claim of existence and action, and lack of evidence to support those claims would be applicable to whether they were judged as real or not. The prosecution can not win a legal battle by saying "While we have no proof to show the defendant has committed criminal acts, the defense has no proof that he hasn't committed criminal acts, thus proof that something didn't happen, so he is guilty".
I agree with you 100%
Now, if only Creshock could understand this 🙄
Originally posted by Goddess KaliGee.. let me think.. where could I possibly be picking up the idea that this is just a soap box for you to try and lecture people from?
Woah..where is all this coming from ? 😬
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Now, if only Creshock could understand this 🙄
Hmm.. I just can't think of where I could possibly get that idea from..
Could it have something to do with the willful ignorace you display and how if I don't agree with you "I don't get it."
You're not trying to have a civil discussion. You're trying to teach us all something. And none of this denial:
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You are pretty much imagining things. You are making up your own conclusion about what I am trying to say, accusing me of enacting a "ruse" and such.Even Imperial gets my point, the basic gist of it, while you yourself continue to turn this into something it's not.
I have made my peace with Christianity long ago. I am arguing the fallacy of using the statement "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a justification for not being able to prove he exists. It clearly is a fallacy to use that argument, as I explained atleast six times already.
You are making this too personal.
Is is anything more than you covering your own ass after being caught.
Originally posted by inimalist
productive is an anthropic principle 😉
Well both ants and humans seek to be more productive and hence become prosperous. Im not sure if I fully understand the concept of anthropic principle but from what I understand what you're saying is that by saying that we would be more productive I am imposing human ideals on ants, correct? If this is the case I think you are wrong because productivity is a universal concept all creatures even plants try to be more "productive" so they can "prosper".
Originally posted by Creshosk
Gee.. let me think.. where could I possibly be picking up the idea that this is just a soap box for you to try and lecture people from?Hmm.. I just can't think of where I could possibly get that idea from..
Could it have something to do with the willful ignorace you display and how if I don't agree with you "I don't get it."
You're not trying to have a civil discussion. You're trying to teach us all something. And none of this denial:
Is is anything more than you covering your own ass after being caught.
You need to stop acting like a child. You are making this debate into a personal argument, and I won't get involved in that.
I already explained my point to you repeatedly. You don't have to agree with it, but don't try and accuse me of sending mixed messages, when I have made my point perfectly clear to everyone on this forum.
You are the only person on this thread trying to turn this into something it's not. Go find something to do.
