|
Also lol that someone actually went for the "atheists are irrational because there's no proof god doesn't exist. " I mean this is a wrong argument on basically every level but will start with the obvious point; burden of proof is in the affirmative. I could assert that there is an invisible pink unicorn right behind you this moment and would you really try to argue "well the rational mind would acknowledge the possibility of this being true even in a complete absence of evidence". Nah you'd conclude with near certainty I was making poo poo up. You might be willing to change your mind should proof arise (as I'm sure most atheists are), but there's no need to pussyfoot around "well I can't prove a negative therefore I have to give equal merit to both sides".
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Ahhh poo poo, this kid is on fire! Never... before have I seen such ownage... gently caress...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
you're gay if talking about religion is still interesting to you like poo poo nigga NO ONE knows poo poo gently caress it learn about space or chemistry and you'll be closer to "god" maaaaannn
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
lol was going to go through the martian teapot untill i read "asserting" "pink unicorn"... we have clearly all read the same material.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Also lol that someone actually went for the "atheists are irrational because there's no proof god doesn't exist. " Lol I'd look over my shoulder and find out whether or not I too could see a pink unicorn behind me. Yes the burden of proof is in the affirmative; but in the default position the burden is on those making the assertions, either the positive or the negative. So since neither party (positive affirmer or negative affirmer) can present evidence to qualify the assertions, the rational person must remain in the default position. That's what agnostics are doing. If I were arguing that god does exist, your criticism would be totally valid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:Okay i don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions but gently caress your reasoning is horrible
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
the other thing I like about dawkins is how he attacks alternative medicine poop. the useless drat money sinks deserve to perish if you disagree i hope you get stabbed with needles
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Lichy posted:the other thing I like about dawkins is how he attacks alternative medicine poop. the useless drat money sinks deserve to perish The problem in general with "militant rationalism" is that you're probably not reaching a new audience / converting / convincing anyone out of those beliefs, rather you're just bolstering the egos of people who already agree with you, and the circlejerk breeds shitheadedness But yeah alternative medicine lol wanna meet some altmed troons someday, find out how the echinacea is helping their new tits
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:Lol I'd look over my shoulder and find out whether or not I too could see a pink unicorn behind me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
You know a circular argument and your needless blob of unfunny jokes are painful to read, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:The pink unicorn is invisible though. You can't see it. I know its there because I have special invisible pink unicorn detecting powers. There is no way for you to confirm either its existence or lack thereof, would you say you give equal merit to the possibility of it existing as you do to the possibility of it not existing, or would you feel fairly comfortable dismissing it until such a point where someone could offer you tangible evidence. I would give equal epistemological merit to the possibility of it existing or not existing, but not formulate any beliefs or behaviour concerning it (which would include giving the existence of it or not the real time of day / consideration). However I would know that you believe in the pink unicorn, and since this would make you quite different to almost anyone I have ever known I might be more inclined to be wary around you in general(as I am around both atheists and theists)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
i liked the selfish gene, but then he went crazy I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Gould was a better evolutionary biologist 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
This does a better job than Dawkins anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
big duck equals goose posted:You know a circular argument and your needless blob of unfunny jokes are painful to read, right? How is it circular? Its the classic celestial teapot argument that shot down "hur dur well you don't have proof god isn't real so who's the rational one now" years ago and tbh I'm kinda depressed people still try to use it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Copley Depot posted:Gould was a better evolutionary biologist Dawkins would eviscerate you with a no-caps twitter post if he read that
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:How is it circular? Its the classic celestial teapot argument that shot down "hur dur well you don't have proof god isn't real so who's the rational one now" years ago and tbh I'm kinda depressed people still try to use it. Jesus, give me holy power to murder this retard in RL. *Raises hands up into the air and floats like goku*
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
don't get me wrong when i was 15 reading all the atheist rage comics and being smug about everyone was great but now that im older it just pushes a lot of otherwise nice people away. i do think it was a beneficial experience for my bullshit detector tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:How is it circular? Its the classic celestial teapot argument that shot down "hur dur well you don't have proof god isn't real so who's the rational one now" years ago and tbh I'm kinda depressed people still try to use it. But there is a difference between rejecting one argument and accepting another. This is about the rejection of both, not the acceptance of one on the basis of rejection of the other (basically I'm not arguing on the theist's side here at all, but that not being a theist does not mean you are necessarily - in the formal logic sense - obliged to be an atheist)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
unfortunately my bullshit detector wasn't good enough to prevent me from buying plat on the something awful forums
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:But there is a difference between rejecting one argument and accepting another. This is about the rejection of both, not the acceptance of one on the basis of rejection of the other (basically I'm not arguing on the theist's side here at all, but that not being a theist does not mean you are automatically an atheist) the entirety of the scientific method that internet atheists have come to worship in place of a catechism is based on a pragmatic disavowal of certainty toward positive conclusions. i.e. even when the evidence is heavily in favor of a proposition, there's always an inescapable margin of error built into the entire system. if you're going to base your worldview on that built in margin of error, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
yea yea yea the teapot is not provably there the blue emerald will never be the next one you find something something cultural relativism something ends.... means... special topics in the philosophy of science was a great class i took at a catholic jesuit university that leaned secular harder than dorkins dick, it also was about how and why this thread, like ancient philosophers deciding that nothing was real or provable, is dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
My invisible pink unicorn is a teapot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
The Dawkinites are clearly full of poo poo. They have rationally calculated that religion is false, and so people who are religious are victims of a well oiled manipulation machine who need help and rehabilitation to be atheists, and yet their attitude towards the victims of their opponent (the church) is invariably "lol u moron/don't tell me what to do mom". Essentially the same as libertarian 'bootstraps'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
i dont know if echinacea is good for your tits but it helps with vaginal infections
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
that what i was saying earlier. yes they are victims and they deserve better than lies from their grandparents. no, there is nothing you can do about this without being dawkins they dont want our help, they want their justification and their lies with their starbux and escalades and they will die this way. we will die frustrated and with more insight than anyone is asking for. did you want fries with that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Heath posted:the entirety of the scientific method that internet atheists have come to worship in place of a catechism is based on a pragmatic disavowal of certainty toward positive conclusions. i.e. even when the evidence is heavily in favor of a proposition, there's always an inescapable margin of error built into the entire system. if you're going to base your worldview on that built in margin of error, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction papers on what this has to do with this thread are due on monday, 2 pages MLA. read Descartes ch4 and kant ch7 for discussion and dont forget an effigy of acquinas to piss on for the exam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
lol if you go out of your way to identify as atheist. like anyone gives a poo poo one way or the other
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Eh, I signed up for a month a while back and it was actually pretty good all things considered
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:what did you get in return for 85 dollars? Self respect. It was only worth 85 bucks
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
yea im a dorkintologist a level VII operating bright to be exact 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
has anyone made a reason circle/anus joke yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Mad Lupine posted:Hitchens had a line he always brought up at debates that summarizes thus point well : "Name me an act considered good that can only be done by a religious person. (Pause) Then name me an act of evil that can only be done by a religious person" hitchens was never good. hth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:It just isn't. If someone is making a wild claim that not only can they not back up with any evidence, but the claim isn't even falsifiable in the first place, then its pretty reasonable to completely ignore their claims until such a time where they can actually provide tangible evidence. Its an Occam's razor situation. What evidence are you looking for? What evidence do you require. To the religious, the evidence is the Bible or the Koran or the Torah. It's the fact that they exist at all even. "God's creations". They look at a good harvest or a relative winning the lottery and say "God did this". And they look at a terrible car crash or someone getting cancer and say "what is God's plan here?" They already have the evidence. They don't say, "well uhh we don't need evidence but we have faith that there might be some." They see it every day. It's a worldview. It affects everything. You might think that's a low bar for proof but you'd have to ask yourself, what is it that would convince you? Is there something you expect to see? If there isn't, I think you're unnecessarily applying scientific "rigor" to real world issues. Science is as flawed as any other human endeavor. Biases creep in, statistics are nudged, conclusions inevitably follow the money. You might disagree, but maybe you're just as religious as them. They call it scientism. Good luck breaking free from the religious mindset. It affects everybody, as this thread is testament to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:Really hoping you don't think Dawkins tried to do something altruistic as opposed to what he actually did (sucked his own dick infront of an audience of self-suckers for a profit) lol he means jesus quote:The act that comes to mind for the second one is genital mutilation. haha wut?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:It just isn't. If someone is making a wild claim that not only can they not back up with any evidence, but the claim isn't even falsifiable in the first place, then its pretty reasonable to completely ignore their claims until such a time where they can actually provide tangible evidence. Its an Occam's razor situation. If it's an Occam's razor situation then the simplest and least complex answer is to say "I don't know either way" and not base life decisions on it (e.g. hateful behaviour towards people who believe the exact opposite) "god does not exist" and "god does exist" are far, far more complex and taxing positions than the obvious truth "we do not / cannot know" so I think you shot yourself in the foot there e: actually gently caress this gay argument, this gay thread and this gay earth; Hitler was atheist. Godwin's Law GGWP les fleurs du mall fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Quickscope420dad posted:If it's an Occam's razor situation then the simplest and least complex answer is to say "I don't know either way" and not base life decisions on it (e.g. hateful behaviour towards people who believe the exact opposite) if you don't know either way whether god exists, then you don't actively believe in god and thus you are technically an atheist so enjoy your time in hell, you loving idiot (the secret no one tells you is that you can be a smug, annoying internet god-believer just as easily as you can be a smug, annoying internet atheist. this poo poo is awesome, i should have converted ages ago)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Benedick Cuckold posted:if you don't know either way whether god exists, then you don't actively believe in god and thus you are technically an atheist That's cool and all but atheism is where you believe there is not a god, which isn't the same as saying you don't know either way (yeah i'm converting to Judaism now so I can also add the fact that i am loving CHOSEN to be a dick)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Tautologicus posted:What evidence are you looking for? What evidence do you require. To the religious, the evidence is the Bible or the Koran or the Torah. It's the fact that they exist at all even. "God's creations". They look at a good harvest or a relative winning the lottery and say "God did this". And they look at a terrible car crash or someone getting cancer and say "what is God's plan here?" They already have the evidence. They don't say, "well uhh we don't need evidence but we have faith that there might be some." They see it every day. If what you mean to say is we're all humans and we all have things we're rational over and things we're irrational over and being someone who doesn't believe in god doesn't inherently make you smarter or more logical than someone who does then sure I agree with that. Dick Dorkins and his merry men are evident enough of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:49
|
|