Belief is Irrational

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Belief is Irrational

If you believe in invisible, intangible beings with magical powers, you can NOT claim to be 100% Rational.
This doesn't mean you are unintelligent, stupid or insane. It means what it says, you can not lay claim to being completely rational.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13867
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I didn't make an

Quote:
I didn't make an absolute claim. It was based on the claim that God is a being that exists outside of space and time.

Stop dodging. I told you I don't care if this non material thinker is inside or outside space and time. I told you that YOU have no evidence other than "it just does" , I don't care if you are claiming this god critter being inside or outside space and time.

I can pull that dodge too.

Allah exists outside space and time.

Vishnu exists outside space and time.

My pink unicorn exists outside space and time.

My invisible Lamborghini exists outside space and time.

And on top of that you cant even demonstrate what mechanism this god would think with.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10738
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: Prove it. 2: Prove it. 3:

1: Prove it.
2: Prove it.
3: Unsupported conclusion.
4: Prove it.
5: Prove it.
6: Unsupported conclusion.

There. It's been refuted. Again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I didn't

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I didn't make an absolute claim. It was based on the claim that God is a being that exists outside of space and time.

Stop dodging. I told you I don't care if this non material thinker is inside or outside space and time. I told you that YOU have no evidence other than "it just does" , I don't care if you are claiming this god critter being inside or outside space and time.

I can pull that dodge too.

Allah exists outside space and time.

Vishnu exists outside space and time.

My pink unicorn exists outside space and time.

My invisible Lamborghini exists outside space and time.

And on top of that you cant even demonstrate what mechanism this god would think with.

This was me responding to Lee's accusation that I made an absolute knowledge claim - I guess Lee's reading issues spread with lengthy exposure Smiling

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:The claim

Louis_Cypher wrote:

The claim "There is no god." is perfectly logical, because it is easily falsified, all you need do is offer evidence that a god exists.
On the other hand, the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable, because I can't offer 'no god' as evidence.

LC >;-}>

Actually, it isn't.  In formal logic, it is generally impossible to prove a negative.  Saying "you can't prove X exists, therefore X doesn't exist" is a kindergarten logic fallacy.

And the notion that something which can't be falsified is non-existent, that's just really =bad= logic.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

The claim "There is no god." is perfectly logical, because it is easily falsified, all you need do is offer evidence that a god exists.
On the other hand, the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable, because I can't offer 'no god' as evidence.

LC >;-}>

Actually, it isn't.  In formal logic, it is generally impossible to prove a negative.  Saying "you can't prove X exists, therefore X doesn't exist" is a kindergarten logic fallacy.

And the notion that something which can't be falsified is non-existent, that's just really =bad= logic.

That would work if he was asking for proof (which you couldn't give unless you could do so mathematically)

He wants evidence (which you seem to be against giving.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
ill logic

Quote:
Actually, it isn't.  In formal logic, it is generally impossible to prove a negative.

 

Hardly... I can state "There are no ducks in my bathtub"... and easily prove it.
I can't however state that "There are no ducks in bathtubs" it's not the 'negative' I can't disprove, it's the UNIVERSAL statement... it's just as impossible to prove a universal positive assertion.

Quote:
Saying "you can't prove X exists, therefore X doesn't exist" is a kindergarten logic fallacy.


But, I didn't say anything of the kind. I just said the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable and it's not. I didn't make any assertion as to the truth of falsehood of the claim. I do maintain that all efforts to shift the burden of proof fails for this reason. I CAN'T show evidence that 'no god' exists. You could however if you had any, that is, show evidence that god DOES exist.

 

Quote:
And the notion that something which can't be falsified is non-existent, that's just really =bad= logic.

I agree and it's a darned good thing I never said that.

LC .;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Ktulu

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It would appear that all of the gods you don't believe in fall into the category of "idol worship".  Which means that conveniently I very likely don't believe in all of the gods that you don't believe in.

I knew you were a closet atheist Smiling

Panentheism isn't like most "theisms".

 

  We have had encounters with panentheism before, but perhaps before you joined RRS.   His username was Paisley and he was the most annoying ...narcissistic  ...verbose member of this forum I have ever encountered.   You just wanted to slap him because he was soooo condescending. 

 

On the other hand, if I remember correctly a young lady named Eloise was also a panentheist of sorts but she was quite pleasant and well spoken as well as being highly educated in scientific matters.  Too bad she doesn't visit anymore.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
True/False. Yin/Yang. Guilty/Not Guilty. Theism/Atheism.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Actually, it isn't.  In formal logic, it is generally impossible to prove a negative.

 

Hardly... I can state "There are no ducks in my bathtub"... and easily prove it.
I can't however state that "There are no ducks in bathtubs" it's not the 'negative' I can't disprove, it's the UNIVERSAL statement... it's just as impossible to prove a universal positive assertion.

Quote:
Saying "you can't prove X exists, therefore X doesn't exist" is a kindergarten logic fallacy.


But, I didn't say anything of the kind. I just said the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable and it's not. I didn't make any assertion as to the truth of falsehood of the claim. I do maintain that all efforts to shift the burden of proof fails for this reason. I CAN'T show evidence that 'no god' exists. You could however if you had any, that is, show evidence that god DOES exist.

 

Quote:
And the notion that something which can't be falsified is non-existent, that's just really =bad= logic.

I agree and it's a darned good thing I never said that.

LC .;-}>

 

 

The statement "X exists" can be falsified by causing X to cease existing. (I killed God, a black hole destroyed the universe, etc.)

 

Thus, the statement "X does not exist" can be shown to be true - thereby logically falsifying its opposite.

 

Logical positivism or logical negativism are two sides of the same coin.

 

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:The statement

Lion IRC wrote:

The statement "X exists" can be falsified by causing X to cease existing. (I killed God, a black hole destroyed the universe, etc.)

 

Thus, the statement "X does not exist" can be shown to be true - thereby logically falsifying its opposite.

 

Logical positivism or logical negativism are two sides of the same coin.

The onus of proof is on the positive claim.  A default position is that of doubt, hence a negative claim, is not really a claim at all, but stating the default.  If I default that X doesn't exist, I don't have to actively search for such a proof, I can just sit my ass on the couch and be proven correct until such time as the someone making the POSITIVE claim picks up X and smacks me over the head with it.  Or explains to me logically why X must exist.

Let's assume X is Gravity.  I can claim that Gravity doesn't exist, which is the default position prior to knowing WTF gravity is.  One holding the position that gravity exists can point out what gravity is, and the fact that the earth doesn't just suck... so on and so forth.  By logically and empirically exemplifying Gravity (mathematical proof is not necessary in all but very few exceptions), my negative default position would have been proven wrong.

It's so easy being a skeptic Smiling you just have to say no to everything until such time as you're proven wrong (sarcasm).  At that point the difference between a skeptic and an idiot is that the skeptic has the intellectual honesty to admit that they were wrong.  Hence the Agnostic Atheist I consider myself to be, and most everyone else with an Atheist tag on this forum. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13867
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Louis_Cypher

Lion IRC wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Actually, it isn't.  In formal logic, it is generally impossible to prove a negative.

 

Hardly... I can state "There are no ducks in my bathtub"... and easily prove it.
I can't however state that "There are no ducks in bathtubs" it's not the 'negative' I can't disprove, it's the UNIVERSAL statement... it's just as impossible to prove a universal positive assertion.

Quote:
Saying "you can't prove X exists, therefore X doesn't exist" is a kindergarten logic fallacy.


But, I didn't say anything of the kind. I just said the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable and it's not. I didn't make any assertion as to the truth of falsehood of the claim. I do maintain that all efforts to shift the burden of proof fails for this reason. I CAN'T show evidence that 'no god' exists. You could however if you had any, that is, show evidence that god DOES exist.

 

Quote:
And the notion that something which can't be falsified is non-existent, that's just really =bad= logic.

I agree and it's a darned good thing I never said that.

LC .;-}>

 

 

The statement "X exists" can be falsified by causing X to cease existing. (I killed God, a black hole destroyed the universe, etc.)

 

Thus, the statement "X does not exist" can be shown to be true - thereby logically falsifying its opposite.

 

Logical positivism or logical negativism are two sides of the same coin.

  

Linguistic games do not constitute lab testing and falsification which DO NOT work like that. That is just mental masturbation.

Nor does it constitute a mythological cosmic dictator invented by tribal goat herders in a a scientifically ignorant past.

You are falsely trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5912
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
There is matter AND energy, at the very least. String theory and other hypotheses may suggest the possibility of more.

Uh, no.  There really is only "energy".  "Solid matter" is mostly not at all "solid".  A "table" feels "solid" because of electrostatic repulsion.  Going further into the atom, there is a large space of "nothing" between the electrons and nucleus.  Inside the nucleus, most what is "there" isn't "there" -- quarks behave essentially as "points", one dimensional nothings, and the nucleons are all made up of three quarks -- up-up-down for protons, up-down-down for neutrons.  Given enough pressure (gravity), electrons are forced into the nucleus and all those protons become neutrons.  Go up the energy scale, and you wide up with quark soup, not even any neutrons or protons or the rest of your "matter particles."

Seriously -- all the evidence is trending in a direction in which nothing is actually "matter".

Furry, quarks are 'matter particles'. 

CERN wrote:

Everything around us is made of matter particles.These occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons.

Read this page: http://user.web.cern.ch/public/en/Science/StandardModel-en.html,

then we can resume this discussion, if you like....

Quote:

Quote:
Quantum Theory tells us that the probability that any macro object such as a piece of furniture will change state or position at random over the life of the universe is so incredibly tiny that we really can safely ignore it. It says that the chance of it ceasing to exist is essentially zero, since that would be a massive violation of matter/energy conservation. "Idealism" is just a primitive philosophical idea, not relevant is a serious discussion.

That sounds a bit like "First assume a frictionless pulley".  There is no such thing as a "frictionless pulley".

Utterly irrelevant comment.

Quote:

Quote:
Black holes only require gravity and matter particles. As do stars and planets and galaxies. Not so special. No universe could exist without a version of matter particles, ie particles which persist for useful time periods. As does life.

Big stars do not require the existence of black holes. It has been suggested that big galaxies, ie collections of stars, are made more likely to form around big black holes. But stars only require clouds of gas and/or dust of sufficient size.

Mostly wrong again -- matter doesn't know where matter is without bosons, which aren't "matter".

Another meaningless comment.

Forces are mediated by mediated by bosons, the other kind of particle, yes. SO??

You have a very faulty understanding of particle physics, if you don't even know that quarks are 'matter particles', according to the people at CERN. BUt hey, what would those dumb-asses know about Physics?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13867
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

The claim "There is no god." is perfectly logical, because it is easily falsified, all you need do is offer evidence that a god exists.
On the other hand, the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable, because I can't offer 'no god' as evidence.

LC >;-}>

Actually, it isn't.  In formal logic, it is generally impossible to prove a negative.  Saying "you can't prove X exists, therefore X doesn't exist" is a kindergarten logic fallacy.

And the notion that something which can't be falsified is non-existent, that's just really =bad= logic.

I am glad science labs don't take that approach.

Scientist quack, "I can create a perpetual motion machine"

Scientist two "No you cant"

Scientist quack, "Prove I cant"

Scientist two, "Don't have to not worth considering in the first place"

Scientist quack, "You don't know everything"

Scientist two, "I can't prove there is no invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter either, but you don't see me wasting time on that".

AGAIN WE KEEP POINTING OUT YOUR ERROR and you keep refusing to accept it.

There are tons of unproven naked assertions humans make.

WHAT COUNTS is what can be tested and falsified in a lab and independently peer reviewed . If you cannot do that it is NOT worth considering.

And there is also the issue of dealing with probability as a likely vs unlikely ratio and NOT a 50/50 proposition. Not all claims are true or equal because someone else cant disprove it.

STRICTLY semantically no one knows the future. But we do know past claims and we do have current data that points us in a better direction, which allows us to discard claims that are infinitely approaching zero chance. Like the teapot and the perpetual motion machine and NON MATERIAL THINKING ENTITIES, all so unlikely that they are not worth considering like believing the sun is a god is worth considering.

WHICH IS WHY A LAB AND PEER REVIEW makes your claim bullshit.

You simply refuse to use the trash can of bad ideas. If scientists never did that there would never be scientific method in the first place. We could merely make up whatever bullshit we want.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5912
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If what is claimed to exist

If what is claimed to exist has attributes that would make the consequences of its existence universal, then absence of evidence is very much evidence of absence.

If an entity is so defined that its existence would cause the sky to be green rather than blue, then it can be proven that it doesn't exist.

God is close to being in the same category - the Abrahamic God is supposed to be all-powerful and omni-present, so even if we can't strictly disprove its existence, strong arguments can be made against it, depending on what are defined to be its various qualities.

Logically, you can prove A doesn't exist, given further conditions, such as if the existence of A was incompatible with the existence of B. Then all you have to prove is that B exists.

Furry, you need to read up on Logic as well as Physics.

You may not be at kindergarten level, but aren't at graduate level, maybe not even high school.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Uh, no.  There really is only "energy".  "Solid matter" is mostly not at all "solid".  A "table" feels "solid" because of electrostatic repulsion.  Going further into the atom, there is a large space of "nothing" between the electrons and nucleus.  Inside the nucleus, most what is "there" isn't "there" -- quarks behave essentially as "points", one dimensional nothings, and the nucleons are all made up of three quarks -- up-up-down for protons, up-down-down for neutrons.  Given enough pressure (gravity), electrons are forced into the nucleus and all those protons become neutrons.  Go up the energy scale, and you wide up with quark soup, not even any neutrons or protons or the rest of your "matter particles."

Seriously -- all the evidence is trending in a direction in which nothing is actually "matter".

Furry, quarks are 'matter particles'.

Take two quarks.  Add energy by trying to pull them apart.  What do you observe?

Right, spontaneous creation of two new quarks out of thin air!  Where do they come from?  "Energy particles".  It's f*cking magic, I tell you.

Go study physics.  Then we'll talk, because right now, you're reading the comic books and insisting that's the end of the story, but it's really just the comic book version of physics for people who can't understand real Physics.

As to my comment that nothing =really= exists, if you follow the "History of Physics", the current "Trajectory" is that nothing =actually= exists.  There are still hypothetical particles well above what we're able to produce and some of those particles are required for the observed Universe to function.  The Standard Model isn't the end, it may not even be anywhere near the end.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13867
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Right, spontaneous

Quote:
Right, spontaneous creation of two new quarks out of thin air!  Where do they come from?  "Energy particles".  It's f*cking magic, I tell you.

You know what you get when you try to jump gaps? Evel Kanievel. He tried to jump the Grand Canyon, but like you he didn't make it because he miscalculated.

HOW does this get from "quarks do this" to "non material thinking entities exist". There is a HUGE FUCKING GAP THERE.

You have no work between the statement above to show other than "POOF".

If not knowing constitutes truth by default then you can fill the gap with ANYTHING.

Quarks come from pink unicorns since they can come from nothing.

Quarks come from Allah since they can come from nothing.

Quarks come from Vishnu since they can come from nothing.

Quarks come from snarfwidgets since they can come from nothing.

 

You keep crashing even before your argument leaves the ramp and when you jump you immediately drop into a HUGE FUCKING GAP!

Here is how you work.

Naked assertion<=quarks can come from nothing<=therefor my god did it.

You are working backwards which is why your gap crashes your argument.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5912
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So the official website of

So the official website of CERN, the organization that runs the Large Hadron Collider, is a 'comic book'??

Pulling two quarks apart" would require energy input, so there is no problem there, energy can be converted into virtual particle pairs. Doesn't mean they are not 'matter particles' in this case. 

Please read that link I provided, and learn something, at least about what 'matter' is, in the context of Physics. And please don't confuse it with 'mass'. Even energy has 'mass', as per a certain famous equation.

Are you that afraid that your pet theory of how your cult beliefs are so consistent with Science will fall apart if you have to reconcile it with a complete and accurate account of modern understanding of the subject??

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13867
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Where's your proof

Quote:
Where's your proof I've made this up? This is just your assertion.

We are not accusing you of making it up, we are saying you fell for it.

Don't look now, but your shoe is untied.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37