• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists, quit confusing the two.

godless dave said:
Then your understanding is very, very wrong.

To use slingblade's example, when she says "I believe it will rain", she is basing it on evidence - the dark clouds in the sky. She has access to evidence that suggests it might rain.

The belief you are talking about - belief based on no evidence - is analogous to not being able to see the sky at all and having no information about past or current weather conditions, and saying you believe that frogs carrying pink umbrellas will fall out of the sky.

That's what believing in the deistic god is like. You agree that we have no idea why the universe is here, so you posit a specific explanation and choose to believe it while admitting that it has no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad Absurdum much?
 
"Argumentum ad Absurdum" isn't a logical fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a method of argument, and that's what I was doing.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
To use slingblade's example, when she says "I believe it will rain", she is basing it on evidence - the dark clouds in the sky. She has access to evidence that suggests it might rain.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I could also use words like "think," "assume," "suppose," or "opine," and they're all based on some sort of evidence.

I believe your pen is still on the desk; have you looked there?
I believe "Dexter" is a good TV show.
I believe you're right, but I'd have to check.
I'd believe you ran with the bulls in Spain, except I know you've never been to Spain. But you kinda like the music. :cool:
 
I might say I believe J. Edgar Hoover had a secret deal with Italian-American organized crime where he protected them from prosecution in exchange for them sabotaging and discrediting labor unions. That would be speculation based on virtually no evidence. Personally, I would be uncomfortable using the word "believe" for such a speculation, even though it's one of my favorite speculations. "Believe" implies I have more confidence in the claim than I really do.
 
I haven't been following this thread at all (and made my previous post oblivious to the fact that the thread was pages old already), however this is a pet peeve of mine:


TShaitanaku said:
Argumentum ad Absurdum much?
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a legitimate form of argumentation where you take a premise and show that it would validly lead to an absurdly false conclusion in order to argue that the premise is false.

ETA:
TShaitanaku said:
That's what all the employers of logical fallacies contend
Click to expand...
See above. If the person you're butting heads with employed argumentum ad absurdum--more properly called reductio ad absurdum, it's not a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
And here's the sound logic for getting a positive claim out of a lack of evidence:

P1: A person asserts that X exists.

P2: There is no empiric evidence suggesting the existence of X.

Therefore, X does not exist.
Click to expand...

First, there's no such thing as "sound logic," though there are "sound arguments." I would assume that's what you meant, but X is undefined, so that can't apply.

So perhaps you meant "valid argument." However, the above is not an example of a valid argumentWP.

(Argumentum ad absurdum talk)
Click to expand...

Godless Dave is correct when he points out that argumentum ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. However, neither his post nor any other so far has been an example of it, so I'm not really sure why we're having this discussion.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Please indicate anywhere that I have claimed or accepted my beliefs as "knowledge\truths."
Click to expand...
I said - “The problem with faith/beliefs is they are most often claimed/accepted to be knowledge/truths”. You aren’t mentioned at all (it‘s not all about you).

TShaitanaku said:
Yes, my beliefs are empirically unsupported speculation and purely subjective opinion, with no connection or relation to demonstrable fact
Click to expand...
Great! So you agree that your creator belief is irrational (aka stupid).

TShaitanaku said:
in the natural world, thus the reason that they entail a measure of faith to hold.
Click to expand...

Anything that is claimed to be more than “the natural world” is equally “empirically unsupported speculation and purely subjective opinion, with no connection or relation to demonstrable fact” so your “measure of faith” is 100%.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
"Argumentum ad Absurdum" isn't a logical fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a method of argument, and that's what I was doing.
Click to expand...

Only true if the premise of dispute is based upon upon a false dichotomy, if you would care to point out the absolutist "either/or, black/white" fallacy of my statement ("To my understanding that is largely what you are saying when you say 'I believe'."), I will cede to your position.
 
slingblade said:
Exactly. I could also use words like "think," "assume," "suppose," or "opine," and they're all based on some sort of evidence..."
Click to expand...

THey are based upon a presumption or subjective impression of evidence. These are at best ambiguous/inconclusive and often wrong. correlative at best. The same can be said for many religious and supernatural beliefs, which is why the standards of evidence and the language I (and science, in general) use, tends to be more rigorous.
 
godless dave said:
I might say I believe J. Edgar Hoover had a secret deal with Italian-American organized crime where he protected them from prosecution in exchange for them sabotaging and discrediting labor unions. That would be speculation based on virtually no evidence. Personally, I would be uncomfortable using the word "believe" for such a speculation, even though it's one of my favorite speculations. "Believe" implies I have more confidence in the claim than I really do.
Click to expand...

Personally, saying "I believe...", means "I've considered/thought about a subject, and see no evidence that contradicts or rules out this potential." This doesn't mean that I "know" this to be true or beyond reasonable doubt, which would require supportive empiric evidence or other forms of compelling evidences. "Believe," to me, is an expression of subjectivity and qualified doubt, not confidence.
 
ynot said:
...
Great! So you agree that your creator belief is irrational (aka stupid).
Click to expand...

"arational," but regardless, please cite any legitimate and reasonable reference source that equates "irrational" and "stupid."


rational - grounded in the faculty of reason rather than in sensibility

Reason - the process of vetting consideration in accordance with logic and evidences

Stupid - Lacking in intelligence, a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Personally, saying "I believe...", means "I've considered/thought about a subject, and see no evidence that contradicts or rules out this potential." This doesn't mean that I "know" this to be true or beyond reasonable doubt, which would require supportive empiric evidence or other forms of compelling evidences. "Believe," to me, is an expression of subjectivity and qualified doubt, not confidence.
Click to expand...
And that you can equally see no evidence that confirms or supports this potential is of no consequence in measuring the validity of your belief? Is that a rational method?
 
TShaitanaku said:
"arational," but regardless, please cite any legitimate and reasonable reference source that equates "irrational" and "stupid."


rational - grounded in the faculty of reason rather than in sensibility

Reason - the process of vetting consideration in accordance with logic and evidences

Stupid - Lacking in intelligence, a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience.
Click to expand...
Semantics
 
I Am The Scum said:
First, there's no such thing as "sound logic," though there are "sound arguments." I would assume that's what you meant, but X is undefined, so that can't apply.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Soundness and completeness are two fundamental properties that a logical calculus (e.g. propositional calculus, first-order predicate calculus; means of deriving statements) can have.

Such a logical calculus is sound if every statement that can be derived through its application to a consistent set of statements (i.e. a theory) is a consequence of that set (i.e. true when they are true; a theorem).

Such a logical calculus is complete if every theorem of a consistent set of statements can be derived using that calculus.
 
Last edited:
TShaitanaku said:
"arational," but regardless, please cite any legitimate and reasonable reference source that equates "irrational" and "stupid."


rational - grounded in the faculty of reason rather than in sensibility

Reason - the process of vetting consideration in accordance with logic and evidences

Stupid - Lacking in intelligence, a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience.
Click to expand...
Anyone can cherry-pick meanings to suit their purpose.

Rational - Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

Stupid - Lacking in common sense, perception, or normal intelligence. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupid

Good sense, common sense - essentially the same.

Believing in something for which you have absolutely no credible supportive evidence to do so, and doing so merely because you choose and want to believe, isn't having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom