JackC
-
Content
2,153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by JackC
-
Argumentum ad populum in never logical. Ever. You seem to want to, when it suits. Why else would you be giving me such a hard time over it? I answered this already. Break the problem down and start with the bits you do know the answer to. Then work the problem through logically. And we're right back to argumentum ad populum. What D should do is think the problem through and see if the others have got it right or not. Any opinion is worth absolutely fuck all unless you can explain why you hold that opinion and back it up with fact. Simply buying whatever you're fed just because a couple of people say so is stupid and lazy. Seriously dude, this is getting really old.
-
Vortexring, your point is not something I can logically explain because it is not logical. If a thing that you can conceive of is not logical, that's pretty good evidence that it's bollocks. For example, circles cannot simultaneously be squares. When logic is applicable, yes. Logic is a particularly effective bullshit filter. To ignore logic would leave you open to believing all kinds of baloney. Is that how you live your life? C'mon!
-
Finally! It took you long enough to figure it out. Your argument is not logical, that is why everyone who understands logic will dismiss it.
-
It is if you think that because other people believe what you do then it is more likely to be true. Other than that, all you've got is a red herring.
-
You are. You are trying to suggest that because lots of people believe in God that God is therefore more likely to exist. That is agumentum ad populum. If that is not what you are saying, then why bring up the point that lots of people believe in God? So what if lots of people believe in God? That means precisely fuck all for Gods existence.
-
AND, have you noticed global warming seems to be taking a break this year. Coincidence? I think not. Obviously not
-
Yawn. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm 10) MORAL ARGUMENT (II) (1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard. (2) That all changed once I became religious. (3) Therefore, God exists.
-
So what? An eyewitness experiences something and tells people about it court and allegedly 75% of them are mistaken. It doesn't take Einstein to see that if your visual experiences are suspect, then maybe the rest of your experiences could be suspect too. Your attempt to suggest that an appeal to the majority somehow makes your experience more likely to be true is exactly Argumentum ad Populum. For goodness sake, look it up! Really, it isn't. You are mistaken.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Huh?
-
I dunno, any of the things on the long list of things that people can be. Including right. Without something to verify your experience, you could easily be mislead. Take eyewitness testimony for example. This reference suggests that up to 75% of eyewitnesses are mistaken in their conclusions. So given that personal experience is so unreliable, isn't it better to have something known to be objectively true to back it up before you base your decisions on it? Personally, if it's something I've got no experience of and I need to know about it, I'll try to break it down and attack it from first principles. Start with something I know is correct and build from that. But as with any opinion, you've got to be prepared to change it when new evidence is produced. And that only plays merry hell with your conclusions if you're a stubborn old bugger and don't like change. Otherwise you should be grateful that you've been shown the error of your ways.
-
Just launder it a bit.
-
Agreed. But this just shows that personal experience isn't much use as evidence. The position of both God and no God cannot be simultaneously true if god is real. They could be mistaken, they could be lying, they could be fools or they could be something else entirely. Without external evidence to verify one of these positions, it is impossible to tell. And this is precicely why external evidence is crucial to validate the truth of any belief. Without it, no one (including the person experiencing it) can know if it was (objectively) real or not.
-
That's not true. Science fits together very well. One of the main criterion for being accepted as a valid scientific theory is that it is self-consistent and fits in with everything else we know to be true. If it fails any of those tests, it gets dumped. Just because you can't explain how science fits it all together doesn't mean that others can't.
-
But you can prove a negative. http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf Right now I don't have Ebola. I'm experiencing not having Ebola. I quite like it.
-
Have you tried a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster? I really want to try a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster but I just can't seem to find one (and I've tried). Now why do you think that is? There are lots of things I'd consider it better not to experience. Testicular Cancer, Schizophrenia, Ebola... the list goes on.
-
That's not necessarily true though is it. It could be argued that an atheist might have just as much "personal experience" for no god as the believer has for a god. If you are to give credit to one set of personal experiences you should also give it to the other. Unfortunately, neither set are useful for discerning the truth as halucinations and delusions are very common. Which is why actual physical evidence is the best way to tip the balance. But in the case of god, there is no evidence and the usual response to outlandish stories that have no supporting evidence is skepticism.
-
Now flip that around. God botherers quite regularly claim God does exist without ever producing a God of any kind, nor do they use any caveats like "probably" or "alegedly". So hows that for arrogance?
-
If someone with a gun is trying to kill you, you have the right to self defence yes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5zjUbWpXY
-
Apparently, the British Humanist Association has paid to have adverts put on buses that read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Now apart from the giant "who cares" that these adverts deserve, apparently Christian Voice have complained to the Advertising Standards Agency. Stephen Green [of Christian Voice] has challenged the adverts on grounds of "truthfulness" and "substantiation", suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god. ~ http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/stephen-green-challenges-atheist-bus-adverts-bha-responds-$1259438$365873.htm Pure genius.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641289144 Remarkably similar story. Almost word for word.
-
Exactly. Physical theories exist because we understand the blocks they are built from. If you understand that 1+1=2 you can get to algebra and calculus and if you understand symmetry and conservation and a few more things you can get to Quantum Mechanics and if you understand light speed and the principle of equivalence you get to Big Bang Cosmology. But fundamentally 1+1=2 is still just part of an axiomatic theory. As long as people hear the word "theory" and "uncertainty" without knowing what those words actually mean in a scientific context, they will continue to miss the point completely. The most frustrating part of these types of discussion is continually having to destroy the same misconceptions over and over and over and over and over...
-
According to http://www.optimumpopulation.org the absolute maximum sustainable world population is about 5 billion. Right now, we're overspending the earths resources and sooner or later they'll run out.
-
Should the taliban negotiate with the US of A?
JackC replied to shropshire's topic in Speakers Corner
Sorry but the guy was talking about nuking the Taliban today (and anyone else that happened to be in the way), commiting genocide today, not what people got up to 2000 years ago. -
Should the taliban negotiate with the US of A?
JackC replied to shropshire's topic in Speakers Corner
So you think genocide is a joke? I really don't get your point. You think that god commands you to detroy and kill everything and everyone? If that is your idea of Christianity, I find it absolutely fucking disgusting. Really. -
Should the taliban negotiate with the US of A?
JackC replied to shropshire's topic in Speakers Corner
For a Christian, you seem rather willing to commit genocide. Have you actually read that book you claim to believe?