(September 19, 2009 at 8:05 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I agreed with Ace's sentiment in the previous sig - I understand what he was trying to get across - but by the way it was expressed I agree with Arcanus, it was a fallacious statement: Saying God doesn't exist unless you have evidence to say otherwise, is indeed the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.
I can see you have changed your sig now Ace, to what you were trying to express before I believe? It's now not fallacious - and I also agree with it.
Finally, I also agree entirely with your previous sig Ace - if you meant it in the sense of God doesn't exist in the realms of science right? Because he is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable, and he lacks scientific evidence? Which I'm sure is what you meant, but it wasn't mentioned in the sig. The problem was that in your sig you didn't mention that you only meant 'in the realms of science'. So, out of context - it was misleading.
EvF
It was in the realm of science. I've changed it so it is more understandable. You see, I have a nasty habit of not adding a word or two in order to get straight to the point in the shortest of sentences. It's a habit I've had for a long time. Straight to the point even if it meant leaving some words out. You'd notice it from time to time in my posts.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.