Uhm, regardless? That’s the error in your argument, and you come back with “regardless”?
Feel free to prove that God doesn’t exist then.
That’s argument by assertion. You haven’t demonstrated the contradiction that logically falsifies God.
You still do not understand what a negative proof is, even after I explained that belief in God, and disbelief in God are both positive claims.
The negative proof, is saying, “Because it is not proven that God exists, God cannot exist.” That’s a logical error. The absence of proof, is not proof of absence. In other words, because you have never seen a Yeti or a Lochness monster or aliens from Mars, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Superstition? I think that Austrian economics provides some logical proofs which refute many of the things people believe to be logical and scientific, which are in fact, not. That said, a preference for Austrian economics is only that. A preference. Someone who prefers Keynesianism or Mercantilism or Monetarism has different preferences. However, I think the logical premises of Austrian economics undermines the validity of those economic systems as science. They can still be religions though.
Your whole post at Jul 4 2010 3:15 PM is nonsense.
The fraudsters who run the different revealed relgions make all sorts of “positive claims” (to use your jargon) and they NEVER prove those claims. They lie for personal gain - they are fraudsters.
When you feel like dealing with those FACTS, let me know. So far all you’ve done is wave your hands and go off in different tangents.
By the way, it seems you don’t even understand the logical argument showing that a benevolent and omnipotent god CAN’T exist? Or are you playing dumb?
That is argument by assertion. You would have to prove the opposite of what I wrote in order to make that claim stick.
If they knowingly misrepresent something, then it is fraud. If they believe in their religion, it is not. Again, fraud has a very simple definition. It is not applicable to every act of intellectual error only those with malintent.
You haven’t proven any facts. You have only made positive claims. When I ask you to support them, you refuse to. By your own standard, you are engaging in fraud in this discussion.
I’m not playing dumb, I am asking you to prove it if there is a logical argument. Most logical arguments only require a sentence or two to demonstrate the contradiction. You have not done that. You are asking me to take your proof on faith. And I am suggesting that you don’t have a proof but only faith.
One fool believing another fool is silly, not science.
Quite so. As a classicist it reminds of Caesar’s famous comment, as recounted in Plutarch that he would “rather be the first man in a [barbarian] village than the second man in Rome”.
Did you understand the earlier conversation about irrefutable truth? I don’t have perfect knowledge hence why I am a skeptic. And a skeptic acting without perfect knowledge, is acting on faith.
Revealed relgions are unproven frauds. For instance, the jews have never proven that the jewish god created the universe. The catholics never proved that jesus is the son of god whatever that’s supposed to mean. Et cetera.
Now, try to understand this : if A tells a lie to B and B believes the lie, the fact that A is lying remains. Also, when A lies for profit, it’s called fraud.
Still, organized religions belong to this category :
fraud : deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
deceit perpetrated for profit : fraud.
I also illustrated how a negative can be proven - the non existence of a benevolent and omnipotent god is proven by showing that the concept is self-refuting and can’t exist.
You can of course continue your jihad against common sense…I guess it’s…funny?
You don’t know what a reductio-ad-absurdum is, do you? It’s way to prove that certain ‘things’ can’t exist. For instance a benevolent and omnipotent god can’t exist - the concept is self-contradictory. Dunno, maybe you need to google “problem of evil” or something.
But again, that’s simply diversion. The existence of ‘god’ is not the issue - not to mention that you didn’t define ‘god’ - so we don’t even know wha you mean by “prove that god does/doesn’t exist”
What we are sadly lacking are PROOFS coming from the theocrats you support. These theocrats make claims that they never prove - And they abuse people by lying to them - for personal profit.
Also, skepticism is a sort of fringe position, and it’s of course self-refuting (something you don’t seem to grasp). The thing is, the fraudsters who run the different organized religions are definitely NOT skeptics. So, trying to help them using skepticism doesn’t really work - and that’s forgetting for a second that skepticism is self-refuting.
I can agree with that. Logic is only a diversion to secular atheists.
I don’t support any theocrats. That is a strawman fallacy.
Theocrats aren’t compelled morally to prove their claims, anymore than anyone is compelled to prove their beliefs or disbeliefs. If they lie to people for money, then the person paying them money has a claim for fraud, if they feel it is fraud. Not because you say so. There are people who like to be lied to, just like there are people who liked to be whipped and chained and sexually abused in dungeons. That is their business.
Argumentatum ad populum?
Skepticism is the foundation for scientific discovery. Without skepticism, there is intellectual stagnation. The irony is, you argue against people who believe in nonsense, but you claim skepticism (the lack of belief in nonsense) is self-refuting. After several hundred words back and forth, I’m not sure you even know what you are talking about anymore.
So then they are NOT self-refuting (according to you)? I thought your claim was that organized religion was self-refuting.
I’m not interested in helping anyone. I am only interested in intellectual honesty. Claims about the validity or invalidity of religion must be proven, they cannot be asserted, and the absence of proof is not proof itself. To deny that is to deny logic. Which is fine. There are people who behave without logic, but if you want to argue coherently (without contradiction) then it seems to me that logic is a must.
Libertystudent, is everyone accused of a crime guilty? Let’s say there is no evidence. Still convinced the jury that wants to imprison him has a case?
It would seem that there are two types of people wrong in the jury of an innocent person. Those who refuse to say anything: skeptic. And those who say what is false either through maliciousness or through some technical ‘can’t totally prove this’ argument: sophists or theologians.
But, even worse, I would say religion is less like a trial of a human said to have committed a crime. And more like a block being accused of fitting in a smaller round peg. Or a giant crying Jesus face trying to get through the atmosphere.
Why can’t a skeptic say exactly what he’s thinking? “There’s a lot of evidence for guilt, and my caveman brain says to trust induction. However, I make no claim to absolute knowledge of the case.”
Yes it is. The concept of a benevolent and omnipotent god is self-contradictory, absurd and…false.
Are you kidding? Where did I make that claim please?
You got that wrong. The claims made by religious fraudsters must be substantiated, if not, they are false by default. That is called BURDEN OF PROOF. Can’t recall if that little detail was mentioned in this conversation? Furthermore, it’s not even clear what you mean by the “validty/invalidity” of organized religion. For instance, as a scam, organized religion is a “valid” and “useful” scam for the theocrats.
Anyways, I’m still waiting for you to tell me which one of the various organized religions out there is the true and only organized religion. Or you’d rather admit now that they are all frauds, run by fraudsters?
Also, for a militant skeptic you sure make lots of bold & strong assertions…Maybe it’s a double standard of sorts? Do you have faith in your idiosyncratic version of ‘logic’ too? Or is logic, just like science, “riddled with superstition”?
You said negatives cannot be proven. And that the same time say that in order to believe something isn’t true, a negative, you must provide proof. Which makes an impossible situation. At the same time, with this impossibility, it is the case that no evidence would be sufficient to prove someone has not committed a crime. Since this would be ‘proving a negative’ in the sense you use.
Skepticism is really the in between point of not knowing and knowing. Once something can be said it presupposes the truth of what is said. And thus becomes a knowing and not a skepticism. All language has such presuppositions built into it.
skepticism as ‘a position’ in that way is self-refuting. In the same way nihilism is. It cannot be a position. skepticism as a concept is not self-refuting, to my knowledge. But as ‘a position’ to bring into discourse is. Thus it is a necessary condition of skepticism to remain silent. Or only assert silence.
You’re making assertions again. You still haven’t offered a proof. And I don’t see how that qualifies as a reductio.
My mistake, you claimed that belief in God and skepticism of God were both self-refuting, is that corrrect?
Now that is you applying a negative proof. Which is a logical fallacy.
I don’t know what any of them are true. I can’t prove they are or are not. Can you?
I’m simply applying logic in order to think without contradiction. I’m trying to utilize reason to draw conclusions that are not based on false premises.
If you could point out my assertions (second time you have made this claim), I would be happy to back them up or retract them.