The Case for Atheism

[pocaracas]

.......for the same reason other people have not come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?

I did not ask why, I asked how...
As in "what was the chain of events that...."


And the others have come across the notion, through accounts and brainwa... oh... indoctrination.

[Love]

You do realize that that is all a large helping of pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook?

I am not particularly impressed with your rebuttal.

Perhaps you do not understand the philosophical concepts involved, in which case it is obviously going to come across to you as incomprehensible.

That which is without evidence is not worth squat.

What kind of evidence?

[Angrboda]

The argument from ignorance is encapsulated within the philosophical framework of empiricism

No, the argument from ignorance fallacy is encapsulated within the framework of classical logic. That you make basic errors like this with respect to philosophy and science makes your claims that you base your conclusions on a possession of advanced knowledge of philosophy and epistemology seem like the evident boasting of a crank who doesn't know shit.

[frz]

.......for the same reason other people have not come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?

Could not parse this sentence....

If you mean a thing is more likely if many others "come across" a notion, then no, that doesn't work either.

Lots of folks "came across" Zeus. Hence, Zeus exists. We ain't go no evidence though! Absence of evidence don't make Zeus not so!

Uh huh.

All gods are in the same realm as Zeus and my ten foot tall martian robot spiders until we get us some evidence.

God of War killed Zeus. Jesus is his replacement. Though I don't know why because, Jupiter is still out there somewhere.

[Raven]

<Love wrote:Because God cannot be adequately defined in rational terms using rational language. It is an experience that cannot be communicated from one person to another. In terms of theoretical and conceptual reflection on the idea of God, I can endeavour to communicate my perception of what God might be by using reasoned language. I postulate that all of the genuine mystics (not the charlatans or corrupt governments) were experiencing the same force; they tried to make sense of it by using rational language, which ultimately comes across to intelligent people as incoherent, contradictory and irrational nonsense.>

If God cannot be adequately defined in rational terms, and cannot be communicated then what is the purpose of this whole business? I mean that quite seriously, I'm not trying to bust your chops. Help me out here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That you make basic errors like this with respect to philosophy and science makes your claims that you base your conclusions on a possession of advanced knowledge of philosophy and epistemology seem like the evident boasting of a crank who doesn't know shit.

That came off a little snobbish, don't you think? You could have just pointed out the error and let it go at that. He never claimed to have an "advanced knowledge"? You're putting words in his mouth in order to insult him, which isn't very classy.

[Love]

No, the argument from ignorance fallacy is encapsulated within the framework of classical logic. That you make basic errors like this with respect to philosophy and science makes your claims that you base your conclusions on a possession of advanced knowledge of philosophy and epistemology seem like the evident boasting of a crank who doesn't know shit.

Apophenia, do you have a compulsion to belittle other people in order to come across as an intellectual authority? Also, do you have an intellectual inferiority complex? In your response, you have proved that there are major gaps in your philosophical knowledge.

Firstly, at which point did I say that "arguments from ignorance" are not logical fallacies? Secondly, do you care to provide a link to confirm the thrust of your rant (that "arguments from ignorance" are limited to classical logic)? There are different schools of thought in terms of the classification of "arguments from ignorance". For example, Douglas Walton has classified "arguments from ignorance" into three separate categories: epistemic, inductive and dialectic. Furthermore, I am sure that there are other philosophers who have different interpretations in terms of the abstract classification of such.

Also, you completely missed the point I was making; you twisted my words to make it seem as though I made an error. My point is as follows: in the mind of a scientific realist, emprical evidence is required in order to fill the knowledge "gap", hence my statement that the "argument from ignorance" is encapsulated within the philosophical framework of empiricism.

---

That came off a little snobbish, don't you think? You could have just pointed out the error and let it go at that. He never claimed to have an "advanced knowledge"? You're putting words in his mouth in order to insult him, which isn't very classy.

Indeed, apophenia is not interested in discussing anything; I very much doubt that I will receive a response. I suspect that her main objective here was to belittle, insult and to come across as intellectually authoritative to other members.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Apophenia, I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are ...not interested in discussing anything;.... She appears to have been successful at fooling people into believing that she is very bright;... The truly bright people in this world are humble and respectful, not arrogant and spiteful.

Don't be too hard on Apo; that's just her way. She makes a good sparing partner once you get beyond her...style.

[Love]

.....

[ebg]

Atheist or religious persons would't know what scientific proof IS if it was thrown in their faces!! 75% of you all didn't even take Trig...let alone calculas...maybe got B+ in High School chemistry. Oh, yes I know there's smart people from Harvard that are atheist, but their also religious people too from Harvard. Most atheist replace biblical gods with scholastic ones. Atheist always argue for scientific proof, but most of them don't have the education or only have a psuedo knowledge from wikapedia to know what exactly is scientific proof. Just keeping attributing you reasoning to your scholastic gods because obviously the majority just don't have the brains to for reasoning or contemplation