The logical fallacy of atheism

[outhouse]

Though I don't think it fully equates to the god debate.

There is no debate lol


Only those who willfully refuse credible knowledge, theist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It certainly is more plausible, yes.

So was Jeff riding a bike?

At this point we have to define the logical separation between what is and what is more plausible. The most plausible isn't necessarily what is but to say two things would be equal in possibility or plausibility.

For example I can deduct that it is possible and possibly plausible to the point of belief or acceptance of the claim he rode a bike. It doesn't make it apodictic. Though at the same time I can be fairly certain that there is enough established to draw the conclusion that he did not ride a dragon.

There is no debate lol


Only those who willfully refuse credible knowledge, theist.

The debate exists but I agree that it is one sided in many ways. I think the best or at least the most constructive way to establish these debates would be to deal with specific god claims such as Christianity, Islam ect. Find ways to falsify them and falsify them.

 

[Willamena]

At this point we have to define the logical separation between what is and what is more plausible. The most plausible isn't necessarily what is but to say two things would be equal in possibility or plausibility.

For example I can deduct that it is possible and possibly plausible to the point of belief or acceptance of the claim he rode a bike. It doesn't make it apodictic. Though at the same time I can be fairly certain that there is enough established to draw the conclusion that he did not ride a dragon.



The debate exists but I agree that it is one sided in many ways. I think the best or at least the most constructive way to establish these debates would be to deal with specific god claims such as Christianity, Islam ect. Find ways to falsify them and falsify them.

Does the ability to eliminate the claim that Jeff rode a dragon really get you any closer to knowing if Jeff rode a bike? If not, it's only because each had no evidence to begin with.

 

[Bunyip]

Does the ability to eliminate the claim that Jeff rode a dragon really get you any closer to knowing if Jeff rode a bike? If not, it's only because each had no evidence to begin with.

Why obfuscate? You seem determined to pretend not to understand every point made to you. It is the opposite of communication.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Does the ability to eliminate the claim that Jeff rode a dragon really get you any closer to knowing if Jeff rode a bike? If not, it's only because each had no evidence to begin with.

True. But the only point I'm trying to convey is that even if both claims have no proof the plausibility of each claim does affect which one is more logically coherent. Both claims, regardless of lack of evidence, are not equal.

 

[Willamena]

True. But the only point I'm trying to convey is that even if both claims have no proof the plausibility of each claim does affect which one is more logically coherent. Both claims, regardless of lack of evidence, are not equal.

Okay, but their logical coherence wasn't the issue.

When I said both claims are equal, I was speaking about the amount of evidence each has. No evidence is no evidence, for each.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, but their logical coherence wasn't the issue.

When I said both claims are equal, I was speaking about the amount of evidence each has. No evidence is no evidence, for each.

But the existence of bikes provides evidence for the claim that bikes exist, over the lack of existence of dragons. While you have no evidence that he actually RODE one, you still have evidence which strongly suggests that, of the two claims, the one involving the existence of something which has evidence is the more likely.

Therefore, the claims are not equal.

 

[Stormcry]

One should not forget that there are scientific proofs (Recorded proofs) of rebirth / reincarnation...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One should not forget that there are scientific proofs (Recorded proofs) of rebirth / reincarnation...

Such as...?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Okay, but their logical coherence wasn't the issue.

When I said both claims are equal, I was speaking about the amount of evidence each has. No evidence is no evidence, for each.

There is evidence against one. If we look at it mathematically if one has zero evidence and the other has "negative evidence" then the one with no evidence still has a greater value of evidence. 0 is larger than -1.

 

[Willamena]

There is evidence against one. If we look at it mathematically if one has zero evidence and the other has "negative evidence" then the one with no evidence still has a greater value of evidence. 0 is larger than -1.

There is evidence against both, but I've no argument with that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is evidence against both, but I've no argument with that.

But you would agree that "riding a dragon" has more evidence against it than "Riding a bicycle".

 

[Castaigne]

Well, I have actually received evidence from God which is a validation of what I am claiming for me.

What is this evidence, please?
I'd like to see it.

I am incapable of showing you the Spirit that resides in me.

So all we have is your claim that you have evidence. How do we know you are not lying? Why should we believe you are telling the truth?

Most of what we know is true is because we experience the reality of it being true.

That is false. Most of we know is FACT is because of observation, experimentation, and reproducibility.

I say God exists because I experience the existence of God.

And how do I know you are not experiencing a delusion?
Or a manifestation of Satan disguised as God?

Just as you have not seen the rivers that I have seen does not mean the rivers I've seen do not exist. Perhaps I can't remember where the rivers I've seen exist, but I can surely say that I have seen the rivers I've seen, whether or not I can show you them is another matter altogether.

That doesn't mean we should accept what you claim either. I can claim to have raised unicorns and experienced riding unicorns. That does not mean I have done so.

I am free to believe that which I believe.

Correct. And everyone else is free to disbelieve you. And belief is not fact.

What you believe concerning what I believe is of little significance to what I believe, unless of course you could show that what I believe is false, which of course, you can't.

I won't say that what you believe is false.
I will say that what you believe and purport as fact is not supported by objective evidence outside of your claims.
Or more succintly "Anecdotes aren't data."

You can't even choose to be convinced.

That is not true. Science does not work that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you would agree that "riding a dragon" has more evidence against it than "Riding a bicycle".

It's not a matter of evidence. Neither one actually happened. Plausibility isn't about what DOES happen; it's about what COULD happen. The only link between plausibility and what actually happens is that things that can't happen don't happen.

 

[TheGunShoj]

That is not true. Science does not work that way.

I think that's true. It might be the one point that Son and I actually agree on. You can't just choose to be convinced or to believe all of a sudden. Yes you can critically examine your beliefs and constantly question them but there is no switch you can flip to convince yourself of something which you think is false. I'm an atheist, I can't just choose to be convinced that God exists at this very second if I wanted to.

 

[Willamena]

But you would agree that "riding a dragon" has more evidence against it than "Riding a bicycle".

Of course not. There's no evidence for either, other than the statement which is the initial claim.

There is evidence that bikes exist.
There is evidence that dragons do not.
There is no evidence that Jeff was riding a bike.
There is no evidence that Jeff was riding a dragon.
It is plausible that Jeff was riding a bike.
It is not plausible that Jeff was riding a dragon.
The plausibility of Jeff riding either is a separate claim from the claim that Jeff was riding either.

 

[Willamena]

There is evidence against one. If we look at it mathematically if one has zero evidence and the other has "negative evidence" then the one with no evidence still has a greater value of evidence. 0 is larger than -1.

There is evidence for, and there is evidence against. Else, there is no evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is evidence for, and there is evidence against. Else, there is no evidence.

Agreed. But that lone makes the claims unequal even if there is no definitive evidence for either.

 

[Willamena]

Agreed. But that lone makes the claims unequal even if there is no definitive evidence for either.

They are equal in evidence. There is zero evidence for both.

There is no such thing as 'negative' evidence.

 

[outhouse]

There is evidence for, and there is evidence against. Else, there is no evidence.

Red herring.


We have a mountain of evidence and factual cases of men creating gods.

We have a mortal man called "son of god" just before Jesus death, and his followers were competing with this Emperors divinity.

We see man compiling multiple previous deities into one to create the Abrahamic deity.


We have thousands of years worth of evidence.


It is only theist who have NO evidence for any deity existing in reality.