You post illustrates exactly what I was pointing out about one group not actually understanding the perspective or argument or application of what each group considers evidence......
Supporting equal rights for gays
- Thread starter PMKeates
- Start date
You post illustrates exactly what I was pointing out about one group not actually understanding the perspective or argument or application of what each group considers evidence......
I'm not saying that people in group 1 don't believe they have evidence, just (as I said) they lack the basic understanding of what's required to make such a claim (such as - Deity X exists).
Evidence isn't subjective - it's independently verifiable.
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth.
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof".
While people may choose not to recognise this definition, it's just another way of denying reality.
Not much else I find more tiresome than the opinion of the "mid-grounder" - who has nothing of value to say in a discussion other than.
"People from both groups do X, Y or Z", "Theists & atheists both often lack logic" (ad infinitum) - offering nothing of value to the actual subject.
Contrary to popular belief, the mid-road of a discussion isn't the intellectual high-ground (in discussions in which an assertion is either true or false)
Last edited:
That doesn't counter anything I stated.......you seem to be assuming that scientific evidence is the only kind and that because scientific evidence is not apparent to the observer then that proves the contrary position.
Fact is that God is subjective so any evidence for or against (not the lack thereof) must be judged according to each subjective definition.....in many cases a faith position simply is not subject to a scientific perspective and vice versa.
It is for each to assess the evidence as it is presented and determine its validity or not in the absence of definitive scientific proof to the contrary.
:
Scientific evidence is the only evidence which eliminates the possibly of bias, outright fibbing & the only method of determining what's actually true.
You can flip your argument on it's head & replace the terms with anything, replace the word god with "flying pink unicorns" & you see how ridiculous the argument is.
As by that criteria, you could defend person A believing in "A massive cloaked & undetectable mushroom that sits in the sky, sending love & thoughts during the night" with exactly the same weight.
So I'm a mid grounder because I counter the assumption that everyone in the atheist camp is rational and logical and everyone in the theist camp is therefore irrational and illogical......
Hohum!!!!
False logic because you are not actually considering the evidence that any given religion such as Christianity presents......you are simply being reductive to try and prove your own opinion.
And this is the point I was making, without considerable knowledge of what you are arguing against you cant really make an objective argument against it.
In fact you are guilty of exactly that which you stated only a few minutes ago of what really annoys you.
Besides this argument has been done to death so there isn't really much point to regurgitating it all over again....except to say that science doesn't really say much about God or whether God exists or not, science deals solely in evidence and if there is no evidence either for a position or against a position then science is agnostic on that position. And its too hard doing this on a phone.
Last edited:
Firstly, nobody claimed that all atheists are rational (nice straw-man argument unless you can find a specific posts which says that specifically)
Secondly - everybody in the religious camp is irrational (at least on the subject of religion), this isn't up for dispute.
Some of the people in the atheist camp are also irrational - this isn't up for argument either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality
Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.
Please read these & get back to me how holding a belief in a giant mushroom which sends out love & friendship is rational, I'll ask you respond to the giant mushroom one, not the deity one(as I know you have no grounds in which to differentiate logically or empirically the two).
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
But no one has made the claim that thiests are irrational and illogical, you've just introduced a strawman.
Theists are not irrational because of atheists.
Theists are irrational by definition because they believe in the supernatural - that is irrational.
False logic, how exactly? - please explain.
Considering the evidence?, for me to consider the evidence I'd need to see some - as none exists it's hard to consider the evidence.
If you have some valid verifiable evidence you have come across which you would like to share with us (which isn't anecdotal or requiring the suspension of critical thinking) I'd love to hear it.
If you consider thing's which are objectively not evidence, as evidence then I guess you are right.
But changing the meaning of terms to fit an argument isn't wining the argument.
Pfft.....show me the people that believe in the giant mushroom......you are basically saying that anyone you believes in God is irrational.......something you just said was a straw man.....
No, you made an argument against the assertion that anybody who is an atheist is "rational & logical" this is a straw-man - as nobody said that.
But I do stand by the comment made a few posts back - "believing in the supernatural is irrational" fully.
You get me wrong, I'm not angry at all.
I know full well you are a contrarian, I'm just highlighting that one requires flawed reasoning skills to believe in any mythical concept - be that religion, magic healing hands, ghosts, tarot cards, magic 8 balls & Jonathan Edwards.
My anger is at the clear exploitation involved in many of these practices, tithing for religion & the associated financial cost of the others groups.
I don't like the idea of the mentally disabled being exploited.
The claim "god made the universe" is a scientific claim.
I fail to see why it's so much to expect scientific evidence to support it.
Last edited:
Read what I actually said instead of framing the argument to suit a scientific expectation. Like I said one cannot necessarily be used to counter the other.
From wiki - "In common usage, it is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them."
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,678
- Location
- London
This is where the karma or reincarnation system I think works. (not sure which is more appropriate as Im not that well read in other of them)
Lets say *YOU* where gay, felt gay etc... you look at your self and think, Im not an evil person, I dont wish ill on anyone, I just want to be happy and be the person I believe I was born to be.
We are all part of the same common consiousness and so discriminating against one minority is totally unfair and unjust, just becuase *YOU* dont share the same emotions that someone else does.
Your view would be differntly if you *felt* the same way.
In other words *feeling* the same way is something you cannot help, so being victimised for it is not fair.
How this relates to Karma?... well the person you victimise could so easily have been you, if a different set of random events took place.
Lets say *YOU* where gay, felt gay etc... you look at your self and think, Im not an evil person, I dont wish ill on anyone, I just want to be happy and be the person I believe I was born to be.
We are all part of the same common consiousness and so discriminating against one minority is totally unfair and unjust, just becuase *YOU* dont share the same emotions that someone else does.
Your view would be differntly if you *felt* the same way.
In other words *feeling* the same way is something you cannot help, so being victimised for it is not fair.
How this relates to Karma?... well the person you victimise could so easily have been you, if a different set of random events took place.
Last edited:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself, or as they would like to be treated.
The golden rule should be enough to cover this also.
Elmarko...I can't quote on an Android phone..but Ascendancy referred to Christians...and your sophistry is pretty transparent regarding calling theist positions irrational.......and if you cannot see what I am referring to considering your magic mushroom argument then to be fair it is pointless continuing.
I don't actually know who you are arguing with given half of what you've said.....because it certainly isn't me or anything I have stated as I am not defending the positions you have listed, just disagreeing with the oft stated position regarding assumption irrationality of opposed positions.
I don't actually know who you are arguing with given half of what you've said.....because it certainly isn't me or anything I have stated as I am not defending the positions you have listed, just disagreeing with the oft stated position regarding assumption irrationality of opposed positions.
Last edited: