(November 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Therefore you don't understand logic, science or atheism.

welcome to the forum and pretty much that guy you just replied to keeps on going on and on about how stuff like this is illogical. Atheism has more supporting evidence from humanity, science, education.

(November 19, 2014 at 3:45 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Therefore you don't understand logic, science or atheism.

welcome to the forum and pretty much that guy you just replied to keeps on going on and on about how stuff like this is illogical. Atheism has more supporting evidence from humanity, science, education.

Hey, thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting evidence from humanity, science, education". Surely you don't mean supporting evidence for atheism? Atheism, as I'm sure you well know, is a lack of belief; a "negative" belief. And you can't prove a negative. So I must be missing something there. Or we'll have to make a new thread for a totally different debate

(November 19, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 3:45 pm)dyresand Wrote: welcome to the forum and pretty much that guy you just replied to keeps on going on and on about how stuff like this is illogical. Atheism has more supporting evidence from humanity, science, education.

Hey, thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting evidence from humanity, science, education". Surely you don't mean supporting evidence for atheism? Atheism, as I'm sure you well know, is a lack of belief; a "negative" belief. And you can't prove a negative. So I must be missing something there. Or we'll have to make a new thread for a totally different debate

IDScience does not now what he is talking about nor know what atheism is. But didn't dismantle atheism in anyway.

(November 19, 2014 at 5:01 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Hey, thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting evidence from humanity, science, education". Surely you don't mean supporting evidence for atheism? Atheism, as I'm sure you well know, is a lack of belief; a "negative" belief. And you can't prove a negative. So I must be missing something there. Or we'll have to make a new thread for a totally different debate

IDScience does not now what he is talking about nor know what atheism is. But didn't dismantle atheism in anyway.

Well, to be fair, he also gave himself a name that's an oxymoron. This alone tells us what we need to know about him.

(November 19, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 5:01 pm)dyresand Wrote: IDScience does not now what he is talking about nor know what atheism is. But didn't dismantle atheism in anyway.

Well, to be fair, he also gave himself a name that's an oxymoron. This alone tells us what we need to know about him.

I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and "start fresh" with a reply. I know from experience that when you piss into the wind you get piss all over yourself and that's what's happening here, but hey, this time for sure, right?

(November 19, 2014 at 3:06 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 9:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: Um no. This is bad logic. It is merely splitting the baby out of some well intended but wrong headed sense of fairness and empathy.

Logic is a tool we use to make sense of this world, but it is not a perfect tool for knowledge about everything.

I never claimed life is perfect. Logic is a tool, but there is still good ways to approach how logic works better and simply going "that feels right" which is laypersons use of the term "logic". Another BS cliche is "common sense".

You don't simply use the word "logic" anymore than it is to argue the laws of thermodynamics separately like some theist do trying to attack science.

What you really mean by "logic" is that humans evolved to seek patterns. But that by itself is not "logic". Even in science the procedure is to test your data with control groups and then have independent peers review it to insure your own bias has not crept in.

People have reasons for lots of things that feel logical and they look for reasons to call that "logic". No that is simply fishing for excuses to hold a position.

There is a way to approach problem solving as to gaining knowledge and there are simply people looking for excuses to justify the positions they hold.

I don't see how any of that is some sort of claim that there is perfect knowledge. There still are things in life, when confirmed consistently you can use and build upon, and other things that simply hold no weight and are not worth considering once they are known to be irrelevant to our current and best data.

---

ID science is a silly as trying to explain how lift happens in air flight by using Harry Potter and brooms as your evidence.

(November 19, 2014 at 9:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 3:06 pm)Irrational Wrote: Logic is a tool we use to make sense of this world, but it is not a perfect tool for knowledge about everything.

I never claimed life is perfect. Logic is a tool, but there is still good ways to approach how logic works better and simply going "that feels right" which is laypersons use of the term "logic". Another BS cliche is "common sense".

You don't simply use the word "logic" anymore than it is to argue the laws of thermodynamics separately like some theist do trying to attack science.

What you really mean by "logic" is that humans evolved to seek patterns. But that by itself is not "logic". Even in science the procedure is to test your data with control groups and then have independent peers review it to insure your own bias has not crept in.

People have reasons for lots of things that feel logical and they look for reasons to call that "logic". No that is simply fishing for excuses to hold a position.

There is a way to approach problem solving as to gaining knowledge and there are simply people looking for excuses to justify the positions they hold.

I don't see how any of that is some sort of claim that there is perfect knowledge. There still are things in life, when confirmed consistently you can use and build upon, and other things that simply hold no weight and are not worth considering once they are known to be irrelevant to our current and best data.

If something is irrelevant to our current and best data, then all this means is that it's not reasonable to believe in that something. But it isn't proof that, therefore, that something does not exist. Nor does it mean we should never consider the possibility of its existence and base our views on such a consideration.

Okay, I've been reading back over this thread and I'm finally convinced.

I'm no longer an atheist

All Hail Odin AllFather.

I hate to say it, but you caught me.

*holds hands out*

Cuff 'em and bring me in. I'm tired of being on the run with this ponzy scheme of a philosophy of mine.

(November 19, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Quantum1Connect Wrote: I hate to say it, but you caught me.

*holds hands out*

Cuff 'em and bring me in. I'm tired of being on the run with this ponzy scheme of a philosophy of mine.

Be careful about asking to be chained while Losty's about . . .