Featured Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

He likes to send really ugly and abusive messages, then block so you cannot rebut or reply.

Abuses the rules of RF pretty much all the time, too.

 

Argument from popularity logical fallacy.

Not logical, nor convincing.

Wasn't *that* long ago most of the planet believed the world was flat, and the center of the universe.

 

Yet another who has no idea what an ad hom is.

 

Very well. Let’s replace “plausibility” with “probability of being true”, then. Even thoght I use the the term “probability” very loosely here.

Do you agree then that the probability that claims X and Y, both with the same evidence, have a probability of being true that does not depend on the amount of people who believe it?

Ciao

- viole

 

I figured I got blocked as his excuse not to have to reply to the points I made. But I guess it turns out I'm really not all that special. Haha...

 

Even if you were granted your "but so many people are theists" idea as "evidence", then don't you still have to divide the efficacy of this evidence proportionally among the various brands of "theism?" As in, Hinduism gets its share according to the numbers of adherents it has, Christianity it's share, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, Ba'hai, etc. etc. etc. 'Cause I have a feeling that, without the "common enemy" of atheists to bring this against as "evidence", you various theists would still try to call on your numbers when arguing against one another about who is right. You'd be just as wrong to do so, of course... this "numbers game" as evidence is still a very superficial point to be made - for all the reasons already told to you.

 

I get where you are coming from, actually-- in Law, more witnesses seems to mean a greater chance of conviction or exoneration (depending). But Law is very different from the Scientific Method.

This is (sadly) especially true in US Law--which is more interested in winning or losing, than arriving at the truth of the matter. Truth seems to always take a back seat to a win or loss.

But under the Scientific Method? The number of people matters not at all-- indeed, the very first hints that the Universe was expanding, was some very unusual measurements among a very few astrophysicists. The majority held, strongly, to the steady state model.

So against what most people thought was true? Using the Scientific Method, and following what the facts said, the only reasonable conclusion was the universe was, indeed, expanding, and therefore a Steady State model could not be sustained.

It actually took a long time, before more astronomers agreed with the Expanding model, than agreed with the Steady model. People had to die, and remove their arguments/opinions, before the tables turned.

So. An argument from "lots of people said" should always be suspect.

Unless, naturally, the argument involves the flavor of pizza, or the beauty of art. Right?

Really, though, for common things, argument from popularity is quite reasonable.

Unfortunately? Cosmology is far from ... a common thing.

 

If we didn't exist then indeed we'd know nothing. So your proposition is correct but since we exist, not very helpful.

True, but science explores the world external to the self, examines what it finds, and seeks to explain it. Aware of the problem you mention, science also seeks to maximize objectivity, a practice not notably followed by religions.

Incoherent? Neither you nor I act as though we think that's true. Instead we act as though a world exists external to ourselves, that our senses are capable of informing each of us about it, and that reason is a valid tool.

Again, you don't act as though the world external to you is imaginary. Instead you employ it for breathing, eating, socializing, posting on the net, and I dare say you wear clothes, carry an umbrella when it rains (indeed, check the forecast), avoid stepping in front of moving cars, are careful round electricity, get sunburnt if you get too much sun, see the doctor when you're ill or injured, and so on.

Yet again I point out that your conduct in posting here shows you don't believe that.

There are no absolute statements in physics, based as it is on empiricism and induction, and what is best opinion today may not be best opinion tomorrow; so what? You still need air, water, food, shelter, society from the world external to you, and you act accordingly.

And meanwhile science puts rovers on Mars and maps the brain and creates new materials and pursues understanding of the genome and improves medicines.

What has religion done for the world lately?

 

As if any ESL student like me doesnt kind of know
plausuble, feasible, specious and so on.

iF the witnesses testified to something of a
customary and familiar sort, like
say, the colour of the getaway car, sure.

If they testified to conversation with a
talking donkey, corroborating evidence is
needed.

Except for your unfortunate case; the donkey
told them you did it. C'est la vie. For now;
ir's a hangin' judge, ya know.

 

I can think of quite a number of families, who are even now, mourning their missing loved ones, thanks to religion...

 

Why would you need your religion to teach you not to be selfish, these things are learned by interacting with each other. We are social creatures by nature, we learn this stuff on the fly, if we didn't we wouldn't be social creatures, I mean, duh.

 

How do you think that interacting with people teaches you not to be selfish?
What about people who limit their social interactions, how o they learn?

 

Once again, I feel I must point out I'm not talking about how much was poured, I'm talking about how much was added to the container.

You pour the first pint.

You start pouring the second pint. Once you are halfway through the second pint, you aren't adding any more into the container are you?

In any case, I can't help but think you know what point I was originally trying to make, but you are now playing games in order to muddy the issue. I'm not going to play anymore. Stick to the original point or don't reply.

And that original point was that there are things that can be proven and therefore do not require a belief.

 

Since when does "you" mean "I"?

 

Looking for your opinion.

I was wondering how you would address this.

I saw a argument once about the universe not following the physical laws. I actually didn't have a reply to the poster.
He said if the universe followed those laws it wouldn't be here because those laws didn't exist when the universe came into existence.
And then followed up with something like the universe created the laws, the laws didn't create the universe.

I had no response. Help me out.

 

Once again I point out that all you say is correct IF we're in the realm of formal mathematics (where the extra half pint is brought to account).

And that it doesn't have to be correct out there in the real world.

In other words, formal mathematics is a good thing, but not everything. Which, I suggest, is relevant before one says that one is completely certain that 1+1=2, instead of, completely certain that in formal mathematics 1+1=2.

That's all.