Religion is the science of defeating logical thinking, page 3

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

Two mistakes you are making. One, strawman argument, sure you will find some that use that simular argument but that does not encompass all arguments from that quarter. It's altogether possible that this reality does have a creator, we are in no position to decide one way or another really. Rather like equating belief in a higher power *hard to prove or disprove if not impossible* with belief in unicorns *comparitively easily if you confine your search to Earth, but, it's altogther possible there are lifeforms that we would call the mythical unicorn exist on other planets meaning they do have a possibility of existing albeit not on Earth*. Second, you are assuming I do not believe in Zeus. And I am sorry and please don't take this as an attack but it sounds like you are taking textbook arguments and parrotting them.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

---

Well, if you had properly "defined the variables" of the argument, you would know that the question isn't whether unicorns exist, it is whether unicorns exist on earth or not. Which also makes you argument a staw-man, as it's incomplete and easily refuted. One might even say tautological false, in the way you stated it.

Also, I'm not parroting any arguments. I'm responding to an argument which I PRESUME you were *TRYING* to make, but couldn't, due to lack of an ability to string together a cogent post.

Whether you agree with me or not, I don't care. Have a nice day.

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

How passive aggressive of you. But go ahead and run off, I know how some cannot stand criticism despite their propensity for leveling it greatly on others. I'm used to it. And considering I plotted out the complete unicorn argument and included all the possible factors, I fail to see how you can claim it's a strawman. Other than simply spuriously labeling it, which you do seem to be good at thus far. You are reducing contrary arguments into absurdity and not to mention confusing apples with oranges. By shifting the scope for what would be a rather smally scoped thing to prove or disprove and call it simular to a rather largely scoped question and thusly harder thing to prove or disprove. And when someone points out that it is altogether possible for a creature one would call a "unicorn" you attempt to keep the scope small. Proportion my good friend, proportion. Your arguments lack it. Now, do I need to use smaller words for you?



[edit on 30-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

---

Let me get this strait.. Your argument is unicorns don't exist. BUT, unicorns might exist elsewhere in the universe.

...

That's a great argument. I guess unicorns do exist (on mars). You've blown my mind.

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

*Face palm*
No, my argument was not that. It was an example of an argument you have used before. I think it's pretty obvious that unicorns do not exist on Earth. But it IS possible that such a creature has evolved elsewhere. I do NOT say that it has, would be rather silly claim for me to make that claim and rather silly of you to claim that is what I am saying. I merely said it's not impossible. We are talking about a rather large universe that we haven't really even seen close up the smallest fraction of are we not?
Could you please stop abusing the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy?

Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1] or reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous"), is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:

If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy! (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule a human observer will not notice.)
If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla! (False, since the theory states that humans and gorillas evolved from a common early ancestor and clearly states evolution took many more than 5 generations.)
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

Appeal to Ridicule is often found in the form of challenging one's credentials or maturity;

Nobody believes in objectivism after college! Grow up.
The argument is ridiculed on the basis that having a view commonly associated with youth is somehow invalid.

Other such fallacious arguments may include:

You haven't even graduated from college yet! Come back and talk to me when you have your Ph.D
It's funny you think you know so much about people, even though you're not a psychologist.
It's funny you think you know so much about money, even though you're not an economist.
He is not married, therefore he must not know anything about relationships!
She is not a parent, therefore she must not know anything about children!
She is not a man, therefore she must not know anything about men!
She is younger than I am, therefore she cannot know more than I do!
Don't like X? What's the matter? Too deep for you?

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

---

Listen, you asked me a question earlier, which was very vague, and I gave you the best answer I could.

Kaytagg, what do you think the logicality of taking out possible variables without sufficient reason to do so?

Then you said

Well, you are claiming that those who put variables in needlessly are being illogical I was merely asking about how you feel about those that take it out needlessly.

What makes you think I said that???? I don't remember saying it, but I indulged what I thought you meant, anyways.

Now you're saying I parrot arguments from a textbook, that I've presented a strawman, and that because we haven't looked underneath every single rock in the universe, unicorns might exist somewhere. What exactly are you trying to say, here? That because we haven't examined every atom of the universe, we can't know that God isn't pulling the strings on at least one of them?

This is why I made this thread to begin with. I don't appreciate the lack of thought that goes into making such a terrible argument, from people who expect me to prove a negative.

I can only address the questions you ask me. That's what I did. What more do you want?

Next time, try being more specific. "Kaytagg, what do you think the logicality of taking out possible variables without sufficient reason to do so?" is a terrible question. I barely even understand what you mean by it, and I tried to answer it as best I could.

Same thing with "Well, you are claiming that those who put variables in needlessly are being illogical I was merely asking about how you feel about those that take it out needlessly." I never made that claim, but I tried to answer your question anyways, inserting what I thought you meant into the question. If you didn't mean that, then be more specific next time. This is what I meant by "cogent sentence."

Finally, if you want to address my actual comments, without needing to say that unicorns might exist on mars, then feel free to do so.

The question is:

Why would you add something MORE complex, to explain how complexity exists?

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

What a load of waffle!!!

Presumably these are the wise words of an atheist?

Or is it simply written to rile believers in God? Believer-bating if you will.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the notion that God doesn't exist the same as trying to prove a negative, i.e. impossible? So the atheist position is dumb to begin with. The old 'burden of proof' arguments that somehow the believer has to reduce God down to scientifically testible means is equally dumb. How could the creator of the universe - being therefore bigger than the universe be reduced to fit inside the universe?

Also atheists are typically evolutionists. Evolution has no acceptable or scientific means of beginning, I refer mainly to big bang, origins of 'natural' laws, how life began, or the origin of moral laws. Yet, paradoxically the theory evolution relies on missing links as evidence i.e. the evidence is not demonstrable, observable and only inferred to exist. Evolutionists believe in missing links!

So if evolutionists believe in missing links, which by definition are missing or non-existant or imaginary, then belief in God which is personally demonstratable to the individual by God himself and the Bible is a more than logical choice.

reply to post by speakplain

---

Let me reply to this nonsencical post.

isn't the notion that God doesn't exist the same as trying to prove a negative

Its a notion. Lol.. that answers your question.

There are lots of made up things, fairies, cartoons, elves, dwarfes, odin and loke. Yahweh is probably just one of those made up things. No evidence for any of these things.

To say that you KNOW they dont exist, isnt possible,
so i doubt anyone would say that. But you can indeed believe, which is a completely different thing than knowing.

Evolution has no acceptable or scientific means of beginning. I refer mainly to big bang...

You dont even know what evolution is do you? What the hell does big bang have to do with evolution? To believe in evolution isnt to believe in the big bang.

paradoxically the theory evolution relies on missing links as evidence

Transitional fossils have been found plenty of... if you didnt know that, i dont know what backwards uneducated country you crawled out of. LEARN ABOUT IT... its 2009!

Evolutionists believe in missing links!

BINGO! Smartest thing you've said so far! Only thing is, we believe in the missing links we've FOUND and dug up. Note: every fossil is a in transition.

then belief in God which is personally demonstratable to the individual by God himself and the Bible is a more than logical choice.

If you'd get your head out of your , you MAY one day realize that there are and have been THOUSANDS of religions, gods, deities etc!! I dont know HOW many said their god was personally demonstratable, and the ONE who is real. They are all right?

It isnt ANY more logical to choose YOUR oh so super duper god. If you had not drowned your brain in god dogma every day you could maybe also see that its STUPID to go around saying how right YOU are, when you KNOW just as well as me that its FAITH based! NOONE has proved any of those claims about gods etc.



To live your life by the bible is retarded:

Leviticus 11:20-22
"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you"

No insects (including grasshoppers) are 4-legged


Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Well...

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

I would urge all Christians to research into the history of their religion instead of taking it for face value. Text book Christiantiy has changed, evolved some might say (pun intended) over the years. Does this mean that being a Christian today is the same as it was in years past?

Christianity absorbed elements of the pagan religions as it spread throughout Europe, such as the so called 'Jesus fish'.


[edit on 30-9-2009 by freeradical]

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

In other words, if a christian doesn't want A=C, and yet states A=B, and B=C, no amount of talking to them will convince them that A=C.

Could you give examples?

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

Star and Flag!!!!!! ( wish I could star and flag this post ALL DAY LONG )

I totally agree...I go through this EVERYTIME I try to have a logical or sensible debate with religious people, but that's an oxymoron in itself; there is no logic with religious people...

When I posted my thread "Heaven is the sky and Angels are aliens", I was on the phone talking to a friend of mine who's practicing to be an ordained minister...we were debating Christianity and I was asking him to be a bit more logical in his answers and you know what he did?

He accidentally said " but I don't want to use logic!!"

Then we were silent and I was right.

Religious people do no like using logic because it removes the comfort-blanket type sheild off of the world...it makes YOU responsible for getting that job or getting through that problem, it forces you to have to get up off of your rear and get it done if you want it done and not sit back and rub your magic genie in a bottle for it...

You are right on the money with this one OP!!!


[edit on 30-9-2009 by ButterCookie]

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

Star and Flag!!!!!! ( wish I could star and flag this post ALL DAY LONG )

I totally agree...I go through this EVERYTIME I try to have a logical or sensible debate with religious people, but that's anoxymoron in itself; there is no logic with religious people...

When I posted my thread "Heaven is the sky and Angels are aliens", I was on the phone talking to a friend of mine who's practicing to be an ordained minister...we were debating Christianity and I was asking him to be a bit more logical in his answers and you know what he did?

He accidentally said " but I don't want to use logic!!"

Then we were silent and I was right.

Religious people do no like using logic because it removes the comfort-blanket type sheild off of the world...it makes YOU responsible for getting that job or getting through that problem, it forces you to have to get up off of your rear and get it done if you want it done and not sit back and rub your magic genie in a bottle for it...

You are right on the money with this one OP!!!

reply to post by ButterCookie

---

Thanks brother

reply to post by Kaytagg

---

You're welcome ( but its sister)

"God is an Imaginary Friend" Athiest Billboards in Denver-
  Posted 19 days ago with 31 member flags

Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 6 days ago with 14 member flags

What if all the major religions started out with the same story and it slowly diverged from there
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags

I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 5 days ago with 11 member flags

What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 17 days ago with 7 member flags

The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 12 days ago with 7 member flags

Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags

The real Jewish people. Torah Jews Against ZIONISM
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: