Christians

[Retorth]

Absence of evidence infers one and only one thing:absence of evidence. It infers NOTHING ELSE.

I assert only "I do not believe"[ due to lack of evidence] I make no claim, explicit or provisional. I concede the possibility of error without qualification. The LIKELIHOOD of error is another matter entirely.

Argument from incredulity I know but,my thinking goes along these lines: Seeing no one has proved the existence of gods in the entire history of the world, I feel confident that such proof is not imminent.I may be wrong. There MAY also be the remains of civilisation a billion years old buried a mile under the surface of mars. Or not.

That is true. I accept that.

[Ace Otana]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

I've caught myself doing that occasionally too, and to counter it, I end up doing too many :S.

EvF

[Ryft]

Infallible, "absolutely trustworthy or sure." Irrefutable, "that which cannot be refuted or disproved."

Excellent, thank you. Now, using these definitions, let's examine your position. You suggested that you will not believe some P unless there is irrefutable proof for it in the nature of infallible evidence (Msg. #160). It can be concluded from this that every single belief you affirm satisfies such a rule. If you affirm some belief P which doesn't satisfy such a rule, you will need to explain why P is an allowed exception to the rule while Q is not, without walking into the Special Pleading fallacy. So let's now test that.

Do you affirm a belief that the universe is billions of years old?

As I said before, you are undoubtedly skilled at the use of complex words and sentence structures, but just because I am not as fluent as you, does not mean you should undermine or underestimate my intelligence or knowledge. If that is not your intention, I apologize, but the way you respond makes it seem that way.

At no time anywhere have I suggested anything of the sort. First of all, your "intelligence or knowledge" stands or falls under its own terms; my vocabulary or eloquence is absolutely irrelevant to that end. Secondly, even if it were true that you're not as fluent as I am, as a critical thinker it is my duty or obligation to bring my eloquence to bear in formulating your position in its strongest possible terms—i.e., interpreting it in a way that attributes to it as much validity and intelligence as I can with a careful and therefore critical reading.

If you are not here to show us why we should believe in God, then why are you here?

I have explained that several times in different threads, including my formal debate with Saerules—and now here in this thread, too. Stated concisely, I am here (i) to observe how the Christian world view stands up under scrutiny and (ii) to evaluate whether or not that scrutiny is itself valid. As early as my second day at this site, in my introduction thread I said, "I'm not here to unleash logical justifications that hopefully convert atheists. I leave people to believe whatever they want to believe. Some Christians feel a pressing mandate to evangelize everywhere all the time. I don't. There is absolutely nothing I can say about the gospel and salvation that people here don't already know, right? It would be a waste of my time and theirs."

---

I'm actually saying there is no evidence that suggests a God exists. So saying "God does not exist" is a conclusion based on lack of evidence to say it does. I'm sure everyone else got it!

Yes, I'm sure they did. And to conclude ¬P on the basis that P is not proven commits that fallacy I specified—which it seems they also got.

I have said I'm not claiming there is no God.

I know, which is why I said your signature should be changed. (And yes, I know you have now.)

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.

That's why I took the time to make the point with you. I thought that perhaps once you realized what your signature was asserting you would want to change it.

---

As with anything, if a theory or hypothosis should be true, then it should be able to be to disproved. Something that you don't have the chance to disprove cannot be regarded as a theory or a hypothosis.

Not according to Retorth, who apparently insists that no belief should be affirmed without proof that is irrefutable and evidence that is infallible. You two should talk. Perhaps you could clarify for him the fundamental principles that guide the scientific mind.

[chatpilot]

I personally am convinced that God or gods in any sense do not exist.I am also aware that you can neither prove nor disprove his/her/or its existence or non-existence directly and infallibly.My assertion is based more on a study and overview of the history of religions in general and the religious worldview.I am convinced that the origin of religious beliefs began with mans curiosity about the universe and the world he lived in this is evidenced by a careful scrutiny of ancient religions.Man at one time or another during a pre-scientific age began to try to explain the world around him.This is best evidenced in Greek mythology and even some ancient tribal religions where many natural disasters or calamities were attributed to man made gods.There was a time when man attributed the most basic occurrences (rain,wind,sea storms) to gods.Religion began as a polytheistic system of beliefs where many gods were named to account for the many mysteries that baffled mankind in a more primitive society.There was literally a god for every phenomenon not known or understood by man.Some of these gods required sacrifice in order to stay their wrath or to maintain the peace and prosperity of a society.The origins of religious beliefs are not a revelation from god or gods but rather the superstitious mindset,this is what makes me convinced that the biblical God or gods of old do not and cannot exist.They are a creation of man and not the other way around as many Christians profess.

[Ace Otana]

I'll be away for a touch. I'm somewhat tired of debating religion. The whole sig and debate pretty much was misunderstanding. Meh! Who cares?

See you lot in November. I'm off for a while.
Stay cool Arcanus.

Ace

[Ryft]

I wish you hadn't become frustrated, since I meant only to alert you to something I thought you might not be aware of (and then, of course, to support my point under criticism).

Stay cool, Ace. See you in November.

[Ace Otana]

I wish you hadn't become frustrated, since I meant only to alert you to something I thought you might not be aware of (and then, of course, to support my point under criticism).

Stay cool, Ace. See you in November.

I'm not frustrated. I'm just tired of talking about religion. I do this often. Once in a while I'll debate but then I'd go off and take my mind off anything religious. Eventually I become tired of debating and so I leave and do other things. I'm one atheist who doesn't spend much time debating religion.
In fact, I'd only debate it online and when I feel like it. Outside that I just don't want to hear about it.

Oh and for being a good debator I'm giving you a rep.

[chatpilot]

Take care Ace look forward to seeing you again soon.I too go through those times when I get sick of debating religion and I move away from the subject for awhile.

[Retorth]

Excellent, thank you. Now, using these definitions, let's examine your position. You suggested that you will not believe some P unless there is irrefutable proof for it in the nature of infallible evidence (Msg. #160). It can be concluded from this that every single belief you affirm satisfies such a rule. If you affirm some belief P which doesn't satisfy such a rule, you will need to explain why P is an allowed exception to the rule while Q is not, without walking into the Special Pleading fallacy. So let's now test that.

Do you affirm a belief that the universe is billions of years old?

No I do not affirm a belief that the universe is billions of years old. I am no scientist. This is what science has announced to the world. However, I much rather listen to science then to a book of fables, pardon my straightforwardness in this statement.