• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cemetery of Failed Arguments

Heyo

Veteran Member
This is my 5.000th post and thought I might attempt to do something useful.
(But I'm not sure everybody will agree that it's useful.)

There are ideas and arguments that get frequently repeated and debunked.
Wouldn't it be useful to have a repository of well formulated, short, widely agreed upon, comprehensible answers to those failed arguments? An FDA (frequently debunked arguments) thread (possibly pinned) to cite from right here at RF?

Just in the last few days I have encountered the argument from design (a.k.a. "Look at the trees!") three times. That hasn't worked for millennia.
I don't expect every noob to know all the arguments and their flaws but I also don't want to sound like a broken record. And what's most important, we won't get anywhere when we have to start at zero every time and just move in circles.

But that is assuming that somebody wants to go somewhere.

So what do You think, useful or not?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
This is my 5.000th post and thought I might attempt to do something useful.
(But I'm not sure everybody will agree that it's useful.)

There are ideas and arguments that get frequently repeated and debunked.
Wouldn't it be useful to have a repository of well formulated, short, widely agreed upon, comprehensible answers to those failed arguments? An FDA (frequently debunked arguments) thread (possibly pinned) to cite from right here at RF?

Just in the last few days I have encountered the argument from design (a.k.a. "Look at the trees!") three times. That hasn't worked for millennia.
I don't expect every noob to know all the arguments and their flaws but I also don't want to sound like a broken record. And what's most important, we won't get anywhere when we have to start at zero every time and just move in circles.

But that is assuming that somebody wants to go somewhere.

So what do You think, useful or not?

That any positive privileged claim of knowledge about metaphysics should be avoided. Not just for religious people.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
How about we throw out the failed idea that just because we cannot see God or see "scientific" proof of his existence, that proves God does not exist.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I hate it when someone makes me learn something.

The wiki entry says its veracity has been "strongly challenged" though. Maybe it's a failed argument. :D

In this case, "cognitive bias" may be no more than a highfalutin justification of willful ignorance.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem with attempting to come up with some list of debunked arguments is that all debunking relies on particular assumptions that can themselves be debunked.

Put another way, all positions can be rationalized as true granting certain assumptions and the converse is equally true.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
...in the eyes of...?
Every philosopher there is.
or did everyone agree and the thread wound up?
Pretty much so.

Everyone who has ever discussed Pascal's Wager knows that it's flawed and how.
The argument from design is only used by ignorant people and only once.
Epicurus trilemma only disproves the triomni god (in its most radical understanding).
I think those are common knowledge among most of the RF regulars and can be made understood to the noobs by linking to the FDA.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The problem with attempting to come up with some list of debunked arguments is that all debunking relies on particular assumptions that can themselves be debunked.

Put another way, all positions can be rationalized as true granting certain assumptions and the converse is equally true.
I may be just too optimistic and the argument may seem strange, coming from an Agnostic but there are things that can be known and are known.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Every philosopher there is.
Pretty much so.

Everyone who has ever discussed Pascal's Wager knows that it's flawed and how.
The argument from design is only used by ignorant people and only once.
Epicurus trilemma only disproves the triomni god (in its most radical understanding).
I think those are common knowledge among most of the RF regulars and can be made understood to the noobs by linking to the FDA.

Yeah, and so what? Justified true belief as knowledge is also flawed, yet there are still people who claim it.
Or people who confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

There are people on both sides of religion/non-religion, who can't in practice for some forms of subjectivity understand, that it is not evidence, proof or what not.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I may be just too optimistic and the argument may seem strange, coming from an Agnostic but there are things that can be known and are known.

No, not really. Only tautologies and some forms of logic qualify as knowledge in the Western tradition.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Every philosopher there is.
Pretty much so.

Everyone who has ever discussed Pascal's Wager knows that it's flawed and how.
The argument from design is only used by ignorant people and only once.
Epicurus trilemma only disproves the triomni god (in its most radical understanding).
I think those are common knowledge among most of the RF regulars and can be made understood to the noobs by linking to the FDA.
Brian Josephson, the Nobel physicist for what's called "the Josephson Effect," has said that he sees merit in the argument from design. But he didn't elaborate so I don't know why he said that.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
This is my 5.000th post and thought I might attempt to do something useful.
(But I'm not sure everybody will agree that it's useful.)

There are ideas and arguments that get frequently repeated and debunked.
Wouldn't it be useful to have a repository of well formulated, short, widely agreed upon, comprehensible answers to those failed arguments? An FDA (frequently debunked arguments) thread (possibly pinned) to cite from right here at RF?

Just in the last few days I have encountered the argument from design (a.k.a. "Look at the trees!") three times. That hasn't worked for millennia.
I don't expect every noob to know all the arguments and their flaws but I also don't want to sound like a broken record. And what's most important, we won't get anywhere when we have to start at zero every time and just move in circles.

But that is assuming that somebody wants to go somewhere.

So what do You think, useful or not?
There is a facility for pinning "stickies" to the various subforums. It maybe worth creating a sticky under "Evolution and Creationism" that deals with the Argument from Design. However the trouble I always find with these is that the way one expresses the argument may need to be a bit different each time, depending on how the counterargument is being presented. I always find I like to express things in my own words, rather than simply referring the writer to another thread, which I feel would tend to close down the debate.

On some of these topics we are doomed to repeat ourselves, just as a schoolteacher has to teach Newton's Laws every year to a new batch of students. I don't mind doing that, actually. Each time one thinks of a slighty different way of getting the message across. What one also has to recognise, sadly, is that most of the creationists who come to this forum do so with a mindset cast in concrete and zero intention of learning anything.
 
Top