RE: standard of evidence
October 2, 2013 at 7:27 pm
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 7:28 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 2, 2013 at 6:43 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I think the problem that Irrational AKD is having is equating "I don't believe in X because there's no evidence for it" with "X is impossible because there's no evidence for it." The former is logical and rational, and the latter fits his irrational fallacious argument idea. But when we say we don't believe, we're not totally closing our mind to other evidence and concluding beyond any doubt that there not only is no god, but it's impossible for one to exist.
If he refuses to realize this then it's not my problem. He can continue to make claims of "You're being irrational and fallacious!" all he wants, but he'll be wrong. Saying "If there's no evidence, I don't believe" is not argument from ignorance.
Yep.
He seems to arguing against an army of straw men.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
