Professor's Proposition: Only Two Logical Choices

[IATIA]

(26th September 2012 02:51)Blackrook Wrote:  I mean, it seems illogical to believe the weatherman when he says a tornado is about to hit your town. Better for you to sit in your house and wait until the tornado comes right to your door before you pack up your bags and leave.

Not a good defense. Pascal's wager.

[Darkstar]

(26th September 2012 02:36)Blackrook Wrote:  If you were truly freethinkers you wouldn't believe anything your teachers told you or anything you read in books. You would be suspicious of all information and declare that all truth is unknown and unknowable.

And yet, you don't do that.

But at the same time, you blast away at Christians who rely on a book called the Bible for authority that there is a God.

In what way are you better than we are?

And what makes the Bible less reliable than all the books you rely on?

Factual errors, you can pick on, but don't all authors introduce errors into their books?

Every time I read a newspaper article about an event I know about, I see that the article is rife with errors.

But that doesn't mean the event described didn't happen.

If you're going to toss out the Bible than you have to ask yourself what DID happen to the Israelites all those thousands of years. Was everything the Jews wrote about themselves a LIE?

And if it was all a LIE what was the motive to make up all those lies?

Let's face it, the atheist position requires a lot of faith. You have to believe that the entire Bible is one lie after another and none of it never happened and a bunch of Jews got together one day and cooked up a bunch of lies to fool the world.

In other words, every religion other than Christianity was a bunch of cooked up lies, but Christianity is the One True Faith™? The reason the bible is less credible is because is is over 2000 years old and no other sources make any such supernatural claims as the ones in the bible (unless you count other holy books).

[System of Solace]

(26th September 2012 02:51)Blackrook Wrote:  You're relying on authority, which I've heard is a logical fallacy.

Holy shit. Did you even read what I said? I said "What if you do conduct your own experiments?" How the FUCK are you relying on authority when you can confirm it yourself?
(yes, I can what if you back if you what if me)

And the difference between your logic and atheist logic is that we use factual evidence and reasoning to back up our claims, while you make assumptions that make you look like a complete idiot.

[Darkstar]

(26th September 2012 02:47)Blackrook Wrote:  Wow, I seem to being committing all sorts of logical errors today.

Apparently you do.

Blackrook Wrote:Please explain why you are allowed to crack open a science book and read it and believe what you read without conducting your own experiments to find out if it is true.

They conducted experiments. You can also do this if you really don't believe them. No experiment has ever been done that has given evidence for god. Some have provided evidence against him, however. When we are reading from a 2000+ year old book based on hearsay, we can reasonably conclude that without any solid evidence we can safely assume that god does not exist.

[Blackrook]

(26th September 2012 02:58)Darkstar Wrote:  

(26th September 2012 02:47)Blackrook Wrote:  Wow, I seem to being committing all sorts of logical errors today.

Apparently you do.

Blackrook Wrote:Please explain why you are allowed to crack open a science book and read it and believe what you read without conducting your own experiments to find out if it is true.

They conducted experiments. You can also do this if you really don't believe them. No experiment has ever been done that has given evidence for god. Some have provided evidence against him, however. When we are reading from a 2000+ year old book based on hearsay, we can reasonably conclude that without any solid evidence we can safely assume that god does not exist.

You can't assume based on lack of evidence that something is true, that it is untrue.

For example, it has never been proven that 1 = 1.

Mathematicians start with that as an assumption because without it, all other mathematics is impossible.

But it has never been proven that 1 = 1.

---

(26th September 2012 02:53)System of Solace Wrote:  

(26th September 2012 02:51)Blackrook Wrote:  You're relying on authority, which I've heard is a logical fallacy.

Holy shit. Did you even read what I said? I said "What if you do conduct your own experiments?" How the FUCK are you relying on authority when you can confirm it yourself?
(yes, I can what if you back if you what if me)

And the difference between your logic and atheist logic is that we use factual evidence and reasoning to back up our claims, while you make assumptions that make you look like a complete idiot.

And when you've used up factual evidence and reasoning to back up your claims, you rely on cusswords and insults to browbeat your debate opponent.

Which makes me not want to join your side, even if you're right, because I don't want to associate with people like you.

[Annik]

Is there an award for being ridiculously obtuse?

[Darkstar]

(26th September 2012 03:02)Blackrook Wrote:  You can't assume based on lack of evidence that something is true, that it is untrue.

For example, it has never been proven that 1 = 1.

Mathematicians start with that as an assumption because without it, all other mathematics is impossible.

But it has never been proven that 1 = 1.

Mathematics are arbitrarily defined, and then related to the real world via arbitrarily defined measurements. 1=1 is proof of itself. Let's say proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Also, we can assume that based on a lack of evidence something is untrue. Or would you prefer guilty until proven innocent?

[IATIA]

Appeal to authority:

Quote:...the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

It is true that most any argument could eventually succumb to the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority', however, some authority must be recognized. This though, can lead to an 'appeal to popularity'.

In science and math, documentation of repeatable experiments and formulas can offer a solid stand. As to history? I have found over the years that some history was taught wrong. History is just that, His Story. (or Her Say )

The babble book is full of too much contradiction to offer any authority at all. Remember, it was 'divined' by a small group of deluded xtians. Their authority? Voices in their head or 'divine inspiration'. ALL without any authority.

---

(26th September 2012 03:02)Blackrook Wrote:  For example, it has never been proven that 1 = 1.

Mathematicians start with that as an assumption because without it, all other mathematics is impossible.

1=1 is one of several axioms. (look it up) They do not require proofs.

---

(26th September 2012 03:02)Blackrook Wrote:  Which makes me not want to join your side, even if you're right, because I don't want to associate with people like you.

[FallentoReason]

@OP

Einstein wasn't a theist, so by your 'logic' the most rational stance is of the atheist, not your dad's Roman Catholic belief.

[System of Solace]

(26th September 2012 03:02)Blackrook Wrote:  For example, it has never been proven that 1 = 1.

And it's never been proven that God exists.

What you don't understand is that you cannot simply take what has been proved to be true through scientific experiment and claim that it is not true because you didn't prove it yourself.

In your logic:
Christianity doesn't exist, what if people are just telling you it does?
God doesn't exist, have you ever seen God?
Churches don't exist, how can you prove that you were really in a church? What if it was a renovated Home Depot?
Crosses don't exist, how can you prove you don't have eyes and what you see is controlled by a plug that runs into your brain?

Quote:And when you've used up factual evidence and reasoning to back up your claims, you rely on cusswords and insults to browbeat your debate opponent.

Which makes me not want to join your side, even if you're right, because I don't want to associate with people like you.

Ad hominem.

I'm going to go ahead and put this post in the Hall of Shame. Way to completely dodge my question. All hope of you being a rational theist who actually considers arguments that contradict his beliefs has disappeared