Do You Believe in God?

[Hippopo]

yup

but even if i hadn't, i'd still know that you're committing the fallacy of burden of proof 

What?

Oh my...  Perhaps you should have payed better attention in class.  I'm not the one who's committing the fallacy.  "Appeal to ignorance" doesn't work in the manner you're saying.  If I were to be committing this fallacy, I would be saying that Coz's theory is untrue because their is no proof....  I never said that.  In fact, I fought for his theory because it's difficult to disprove.  I never came to a conclusion, though, and neither did Coz.  Once again, we were just questioning, which is fair to do.

Likewise, if I was committing this fallacy for the existence of God, I would have said that God doesn't exist because you can't prove his existence. Which, if you'll note, a lot of Atheists use this argument.

I could bring up that you're committing the fallacy of false accusation, but I never wanted to get into this type of argument in the first place.

yes 

yeah well a lot dont too 

...  Care to provide some examples? I'd love to know some of the famous philosophers who didn't share the same type of open mindedness and ability to question all aspects of life and reason without jumping head first into conclusions.  Out of my three years of studying philosophy, I really haven't run into "a lot" of them...  Other than the ones classified as mystics or contributed to some downfall in society.

Of course, there are the philosopher bishops of the middle ages, but that's when philosophy got entangled with theology. Bad time...

I don't think logic and faith go together.  

That's dangerous to say.  There are a lot of famous philosophers (St. Thomas Aquinas, the Mutazilities sect, ect.) who have stated that if faith was truth, then it should go hand in hand with logic.  Makes sense, no?  After all, why would anyone want to follow an illogical belief?  Fundamentalists, however, try to argue the opposite.  Logic does not need to be involved, because faith does not need to be examined.  They often read the Bible literally because of this belief.

Therefore, religion and faith SHOULD be logical, but often times it's not.

[guff]

What?

Oh my...  Perhaps you should have payed better attention in class.  I'm not the one who's committing the fallacy.  "Appeal to ignorance" doesn't work in the manner you're saying.  If I were to be committing this fallacy, I would be saying that Coz's theory is untrue because their is no proof....  I never said that.  In fact, I fought for his theory because it's difficult to disprove.  I never came to a conclusion, though, and neither did Coz.  Once again, we were just questioning, which is fair to do.

the fallacy of the burden of proof is not equivalent to appeal to ignorance

...is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

lol

Likewise, if I was committing this fallacy for the existence of God, I would have said that God doesn't exist because you can't prove his existence. Which, if you'll note, a lot of Atheists use this argument.

you sure do like strawman arguments a lot don't you

concerning the second statement, i cannot speak for all atheists but i'd be willing to bet that it's commonly used as proof in and of itself; rather, it's a supplement to other arguments
even then, i would fathom a guess that only the vocal, but comparatively small, group of militant atheists assert that they can prove the nonexistence of god; most, including myself, simply believe that because the religious folk have a tendency to build safeguards into their beliefs (oh well he can't be seen, don't try to test him because he won't fall for it, he is a very tiny teapot floating around the solar system, etc.) that make it impossible to disprove but again i am of the school that the burden of proof is on the party that makes a claim and that science would just be wasting time to disprove every crackpot theory offered without proof

I could bring up that you're committing the fallacy of false accusation, but I never wanted to get into this type of argument in the first place....

oh well i applaud you for rising above th...hey wait a minute 

also i couldn't find any mention of that fallacy on mr. google maybe i'm not open-minded enough 

[Hippopo]

the fallacy of the burden of proof is not equivalent to appeal to ignorancelol

It is the same.

is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Yup, that's both. 

you sure do like strawman arguments a lot don't you

Too bad you don't know what the strawman actually is.  It could only be used in an offensive style when specifically attacking the original argument, which I didn't do.

concerning the second statement, i cannot speak for all atheists but i'd be willing to bet that it's commonly used as proof in and of itself; rather, it's a supplement to other arguments
even then, i would fathom a guess that only the vocal, but comparatively small, group of militant atheists assert that they can prove the nonexistence of god; most, including myself, simply believe that because the religious folk have a tendency to build safeguards into their beliefs (oh well he can't be seen, don't try to test him because he won't fall for it, he is a very tiny teapot floating around the solar system, etc.) that make it impossible to disprove but again i am of the school that the burden of proof is on the party that makes a claim and that science would just be wasting time to disprove every crackpot theory offered without proof

Well good for you?  I'm just saying I've heard quite a few times that God doesn't exist because He can't be proven.  It's a fallacy;  the very one you mentioned.

also i couldn't find any mention of that fallacy on mr. google maybe i'm not open-minded enough 

Or maybe you should use a better source than google?  I don't know.

I'm just referencing from my logic book, under informal fallacies.  It's called "False Accusation of a Fallacy."  Go to a library, dude.  Don't depend on google for everything.

[Bolivian Army]

Care to provide some examples? I'd love to know some of the famous philosophers who didn't share the same type of open mindedness and ability to question all aspects of life and reason without jumping head first into conclusions.  Out of my three years of studying philosophy, I really haven't run into "a lot" of them...  Other than the ones classified as mystics or contributed to some downfall in society.

Off the top of my head, Francis Bacon.

Of course, there are the philosopher bishops of the middle ages, but that's when philosophy got entangled with theology. Bad time...

Now now, don't jump to conclusions. It might have been a swell time.

[guff]

It is the same.

no not really
burden of proof deals with two contradictory propositions, one of which is claimed to be false because of a lack of evidence for the falsehood of the other

Too bad you don't know what the strawman actually is.  It could only be used in an offensive style when specifically attacking the original argument, which I didn't do.

you're arguing against a misconception; close enough for me

Well good for you?  I'm just saying I've heard quite a few times that God doesn't exist because He can't be proven.  It's a fallacy;  the very one you mentioned.

and i'm just saying that you're an idiot to assume that's the norm what with you being open-minded and all 

Or maybe you should use a better source than google?  I don't know.

oh my dear lord

I'm just referencing from my logic book, under informal fallacies.  It's called "False Accusation of a Fallacy."

in english, "of" is not distributive so you probably shouldn't move it around like that

Go to a library, dude.

"bbl gotta go to the library so i can argue on the internet"

i'm at a hospital with a laptop, dude ~_~

Don't depend on google for everything.

i don't 

Now now, don't jump to conclusions. It might have been a swell time.

yeah, hippo are you sure you can trust those historians

[Hippopo]

Now now, don't jump to conclusions. It might have been a swell time.

It seemed like basically a bad time for philosophical progress to me.  But I am kind of biased when it comes to faith philosophy.    But you are right, there were advancements made during this time.

Bacon wasn't irrational, though.  He was an empiricist and a materialist, but he did have very powerful reasons to back up his statements.  He wasn't blind to the world.

Knowledge is power after all.

[Nyerp]

guys my college professor really opened my mind omg now i can argue on the internet

[Hippopo]

Guff,

I hope that you seriously take a philosophy class.  Hopefully upper level so you can get involved in discussion.  I feel you'd benefit from it.  As of right now, I see no reason to continue discussing anything with you because it's pretty obvious you have no basis for argumentation.  You are clearly not educated in philosophy like a few others here, so really, I feel like you're waisting my time (which is partly my fault for coming to a forum for this type of discussion).  Googling your responses seems rather unacademic.  It's not always, I'll give you that, but it seems like you're not getting accurate information.  If you're in a hospital and can't get good resources, I'm sorry.  However, maybe it's best not to respond and risk making a fool of yourself.

As for trusting historians, no, you can't always.  But that's neither here nor there, and since you don't understand breaks in arguments, I wouldn't want to be accused of a strawman.

[Daddy]

[spoiler]God is still fake[/spoiler]

[Slim]

Guff,

I hope that you seriously take a philosophy class.  Hopefully upper level so you can get involved in discussion.  I feel you'd benefit from it.  As of right now, I see no reason to continue discussing anything with you because it's pretty obvious you have no basis for argumentation.  You are clearly not educated in philosophy like a few others here, so really, I feel like you're waisting my time (which is partly my fault for coming to a forum for this type of discussion).  Googling your responses seems rather unacademic.  It's not always, I'll give you that, but it seems like you're not getting accurate information.  If you're in a hospital and can't get good resources, I'm sorry.  However, maybe it's best not to respond and risk making a fool of yourself.

This kind of sneering condescension is unwarranted, especially coming from a pretentious hack like you.

No one cares that you've taken philosophy classes, so stop mentioning it at every opportunity you get. It's clear that all they've taught you is how to have a high opinion of yourself--nothing more. If people here aren't worthy of discussing things with you, then maybe you should just stick to circlejerks with your philosophy buddies from school. I'm sure you get off a lot more easily with people who are as educated and "open-minded" as you are.

[guff]

i'm open-minded so i'll just concur with what slim said

but yeah your elitism is a charming quality ~_~

[Veal]

the thing about science is that it's okay with not having an answer for everything at the moment 

it's okay with science not having an answer for everything at the moment but if religion doesn't have an answer for everything at the moment then well it's all hogwash and haberdashery.

although separating religion and science is absolutely ridiculous. For anyone who believes in a God to see something in science that clearly contradicts what their belief system says and not think twice about it is ignorant and pretty dumb.

[Daddy]

it's okay with science not having an answer for everything at the moment but if religion doesn't have an answer for everything at the moment then well it's all hogwash and haberdashery.

Well it's more of religion not having an answer for anything that can't be cited elsewhere through the contradiction-full Bible(which I don't get how people can use it in 2 ways, and when they agree with it say it's the infallible word of God, yet once a contradiction or something retarded is pointed out, it's a mistake by many translations by men.)

although separating religion and science is absolutely ridiculous. For anyone who believes in a God to see something in science that clearly contradicts what their belief system says and not think twice about it is ignorant and pretty dumb.

YES

And because I can't resist pissing people off:

....anyone who believes in a God...is ignorant and pretty dumb.

[Veal]

And because I can't resist pissing people off:

Atheists can be so original sometimes it just blows my mind.

[YPrrrr]

And because I can't resist pissing people off:

I'm so angry I think I'll just have to go out and inquisition some nonbelievers for that remark