I was unaware that the subject ‘people’ included children (young); which by the way do not choose religion as per his and your arguments.
So, when the question is asked: “Do people use their brains in choosing a religion?”, I immediately deduce that young children have no choice and hence they do not choose a religion. They are simply walking through the door that is opened unto them where through they ignorantly and obediently enter. Ergo, the term ‘people’ must mean adults.
Now, as for your rebuttal of my rebuttal, I will only affirm this:
There is a night and day difference betwixt opening the door and turning around and walking out versus opening the door, walking in, and locking the door behind yourself.
Albeit, the argument I refuted basically asserted that any man who opens the door is condemned for doing so, despite the result or later consequence of opening the door. All of which was admitted by implication in his argument.
Did he not enter the door he opened? And did he not also walk out the same?
I would like to jump in on this discussion.
Let’s see if you have an intelligent contribution?
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God.
Sure I am. Scientific observation comporting with the scientific method. Where is your god now?
Are you aware that you have jumped in to a discussion which is an epistemological question of a metaphysical issue (the scientific method is not an instrument for this task)?
Sure you are! Where is your scientific method now?
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
No. Assuming a god exists when there is no proof that it does exist is a belief grounded in ignorance.
Was I requesting proof, or was I requesting evidence? The distinction betwixt the two is of utmost importance. There must be evidence in order to begin the process of determining whether or not the evidence is sufficient for proof; even when it means the absence of certain evidences.
Your argument essentially boils down to that if science has gaps in knowledge of the natural world then we should just assume those gaps to be filled by a god.
Patently wrong! That is your false-inference of an argument wherein I have not purported the same.
THAT is actually an argument from ignorance or more commonly referred to as the "god of the gaps" method of argumentation. It is a logical fallacy. You defer to god as the explanation with no positive evidence yet demand evidence that you cannot provide yourself.
If I have, then quote my argument. (Why do I get the impression you did not read a word of what I asserted or requested?)
A proposition is not true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false.
Obviously! But what is the relevance of stating a truth that is not contrary or contradictory of any aspect of my argument?
It is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence.
You are again confusing ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’.
Evidence, sufficient, leads to likely proof. But to take the absence of proof as evidence of the truth of the proof is bullshit. This is circular reasoning, and a bad example at that.
It takes an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind to open the door to something so obviously flawed.
Don’t take offense, it is not intended.
If you are confident that religion is flawed, your assertion is the result of considering religion itself.
Please explain to me how it is possible to know religion is “so obviously flawed” without you yourself opening the door to religion. Furthermore, it can be affirmed that you have considered religion, but have failed to find a religion you are comfortable with.
You have indicted yourself with the same accusation when you assert that religion is obviously flawed; unless of course you have not studied religion. And if you have not, your argument is from ignorance and thusly baseless.
If this is true, it is not the remedy for a problem that is the result of inadequate moderation by the authors of the debates wherein we participate.
Solution:
Moderators, as responsible authors, can either A: start moderating their debates and banning the abusers therefrom, or B: lose the authorization to create debates. And thusly the enforcement of these measures shall create a debating atmosphere that is intolerant of abusive argument which is abusive for the sake of being abusive.
Furthermore, let’s not abandon the advancement of the pursuit of greater intelligence because of quasi problems with quasi solutions for the sake of quasi intelligence. And let it be known any attempt to now negate ‘hasty generalizations’ because of an uncomfortable ‘hasty generalization’ (and it is about sentiment towards certain generalizations) will lead to the slippery slope of more negations of other categories of generalizations. All of which concluding with the last generalization: There is truth!
Do we not think some truths are offensive?
But whatever is decided, take heed:
Don’t ban generalizations; ban moderators who derive some sense of pleasure from the un-restrained intellectual sadists who get their rocks off by practicing intellectual sadism. For if it is decided to ban one category of generalization, that decision sanctions intellectual sadism in all other generalizations.
(We can’t ban stupidity, but intellectual abusiveness must be moderated.)
The debate question could have been : Black people steal.
In which case a simplified question would have been, are generalizations wrong. To which I wholly agree.
As a stand-alone statement, which lacks a context of the intent of the speaker, it is not a generalization. It is by itself only a statement of fact wherein the subject ‘Black people’ is understood as an undistributed subject. However, what normally occurs when people encounter a statement such as that they often falsely understood it as a generalization.
This is all about inference from the undistributed quantity of the subject of an assertion or premise. And yet when the distribution is uncertain people tend assume the assertion is universal; especially when the assertion is capable of invoking an emotional inference.
Here are some examples of what I speak. Judge for yourself how you apply quantity when the quantity is not certain. Also, take note of when you tend to infer universality according to the color (emotional attachment) or nature of the assertion; and its impression on your sentiments.
Water in Mexico is not safe to drink.
Poor people are hungry.
Rich people are wealthy.
Democrats were clothing in public.
Conservatives hide homosexuality.
Popes bless lovers of boys.
Bagpipes make wonderful sound.
Oil-leaks destroy the environment.
White people collect un-employment benefits.
Black people collect welfare.
Red People collect food-stamps.
Black people are dark in skin color.
White people are pale.
Does that help?
"You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true."
That response is your answer to my question:
From what evidence do you infer: "God does not exist."?
You did not answer my question! You answered the question of “how” you infer. That doesn’t provide the evidence from which you infer the absence of God.
I did not ask the question: How do you infer, “God does not exist” from the absence of evidence? Your response evidences the assumption of ignorance. This is what your post evidences:
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God. Therefore because of the total lack of knowledge of the necessary evidence, the evidence of the absence of God’s existence is inferred from a total lack of evidence, which, is not known.
You claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, but you miserably fail to state the evidence you looked for from which you can infer the absence of God. In essence you do not know what it is you are looking for, which, can be used as evidence for or against the presence of God.
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
America is more conservative today than twenty-years ago. As a liberal, your judgment is more perceptive to the nuances of the departures from your ideals. I therefore concede your judgment on that matter.
Consequently, I also withdraw my previous argument.
Furthermore, in retrospect, you have provided an explanation that accounts for my observation of the recent surge of the liberal volume. Meaning, there is less liberalism now than then, but the liberals are shouting louder to be heard to compensate for the loss of liberal impetus and increase of neo-conservative voices.
I have yet to admit this.
I did not assert you did. I presumed you would reference the thread betwixt Zombee and I.
But you have not actually demonstrated the invalidity of the inference: "...based on x-characteristics, god does not exist." I'll be waiting for that "valid and verbose" explanation.
That is not the purpose of the examples. The examples evidence the distinction of truth and validity. Had she provided a syllogistic argument that validates her conclusion, I still would not have put it on trial. Why? She admits her position is "an un-provable belief.
However, if you care to submit a syllogistic argument in support of your position, I will respond with a valid and verbose critique of its validity or invalidity.
(I can't assume to know what your syllogistic argument is by a single pseudo-premise: ...based on x characteristics.)
Before I scrutinize your post I would like for you to consider the following reply resulting from the dispute betwixt Zombee and I.
(I think it explains my perspective.)
Although I have a valid and verbose explanation of why I think your inference is invalid, I now have no necessity to put your belief on trial; for when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I was not going to prove that your assertion is false, and as a result my assertion is true.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion. None of which proves your assertion is false and mine true.
Consider these examples that demonstrate the differences betwixt truth and validity.
Example 1)
All men are males.
No males are females.
Therefore, some men are bald-headed.
All three propositions are true to fact. But the conclusion does not follow the premises; it is therefore invalid, yet it is true nonetheless.
Example 2)
All unicorns are warm-blooded animals.
All warm-blooded animals are mortal.
Therefore all unicorns are mortal.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
(Our arguments are not capable of being the evidence of God’s existence or non-existence.)
Closing:
I respect the Atheist position as well as the anti-Atheist position. While simultaneously respecting the importance and limits of logic and knowledge.
But I do recognize that for what it is; an unprovable belief, not a fact. All I ask from religious people is the same intellectual honesty.
Although I have a valid and verbose explanation of why I think your inference is invalid, I now have no necessity to put your belief on trial; for when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I was not going to prove that your assertion is false, and as a result my assertion is true.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion. None of which proves your assertion is false and mine true.
Consider these examples that demonstrate the differences betwixt truth and validity.
Example 1)
All men are males.
No males are females.
Therefore, some men are bald-headed.
All three propositions are true to fact. But the conclusion does not follow the premises; it is therefore invalid, yet it is true nonetheless.
Example 2)
All unicorns are warm-blooded animals.
All warm-blooded animals are mortal.
Therefore all unicorns are mortal.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
(Our arguments are not capable of being the evidence of God’s existence or non-existence.)
Closing:
I respect the Atheist position as well as the anti-Atheist position. While simultaneously respecting the importance and limits of logic and knowledge.
You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true.
Okay, let’s apply your reasoning to a different subject.
There is no evidence for the inference that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
Therefore, because of the evidence of that absence of evidence, Intelligent, extraterrestrial life does not exist.
Do you agree?
The same way the lack of a giant crater is evidence there wasn't a massive meteor strike on my front lawn last night.
This analogy is irrelevant. We are questioning the inference of attributes of the subject, God. We are not questioning whether a subject can or has effected an observable affect.
Albeit, allow me to apply a similar analogy of that analogy.
There is no evidence that multiple meteors passed over my front lawn yesterday afternoon. Therefore no meteors passed over my front lawn yesterday afternoon. This a fallacious argument!
Reaching a conclusion based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and believing it no matter what is faith.
All conclusions are inferences. All valid inferences are derived from supporting evidence.
From what evidence do you infer: "God does not exist."?
When has reason persuaded men of wealth and power to relinquish their hard won spoils to they who are judged as lesser folk?
To them, corpocrats, wealth and power confirm their natural right to rule.
(We might be able to take a man out of corpocracy; but we can’t take the corpocracy out of corpocrats.)
people dont put stupid answers very often
As a veteran at CD, I can attest to the fact you are clearly underestimating the non-intelligence of stupidity.
Prior to the arbitrary, 50 Character requirement, many of the now and then veterans were quite annoyed by commentary rebuttals that read something like: WHAT?, SO!, LOL, aldhfaljksdhf, and many others. Consequently, the base requirement that you now ridicule is the result of our annoyance. So, I guess you can thank us for your assessment of the 50 Character requirement, i.e., : ”people dont put stupid answers very often”.
Your welcome!
Debate, logical, (if it is not logical it is not a debate) is a skill that is learned. We don’t accidentally learn logic and learn argument; they must be studied, learned, applied, and practiced. Just because we can utter words or type an argument does not mean that the flap of the mouth, click of the mouse, or flicks of the keyboard constitute logical argument.
Albeit, the only restrictions I have at CD are self-imposed according to the following:
1) Do I have the time and energy to argue the validity of my argument and the invalidity of the counter argument?
2) Does their argument evidence independent cognitive thought or punch-line and buzz-word parroting?
3) Can I learn a truth of which I was otherwise ignorant? Is it objective?
Would not that argument evidence that liberals are adept in the use of propaganda, while at the same time supporting the argument that conservatives are inept in the use of the propaganda? And thusly liberals are so much more effective with propaganda that their skills render it nearly undetectable?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with propaganda in its initial phases. Though, after that all bets are off ( liberal or conservative).
Propaganda: propagation of confidence.
I do think the U.S. is more liberal today than it was twenty-years ago; it evidences to me that the liberal propaganda is more effective, for better or for worse.
Not really, although that is true.
Explanation:
If the debate was titled: “Some Male canines lick their testicles.”; no one will dispute that. That is obvious and not worthy of debate.
Yet, as currently stated, the title allows room for the reader’s imagination or misunderstanding of the meaning.
Some would imagine:
1) All dogs lick testicles, and debate that imagination.
2) Homosexuals are dogs and lick one another’s…
3) Some dogs lick their owner’s testicles.
4) Blah, blah, blah.
We as a people ought to learn to be specific and logical in our assertions and arguments. Otherwise, our arguments are not worthy of a reasoned evaluation. (I think this problem pervades nearly all public debates.)
One example:
Republicans argued that Americans do not want the Democrats version of healthcare reform. Democrats argued that Americans want healthcare reform.
Those assertions are identical in quality to my “dogs lick testicles” assertion. Yet, neither party argued ‘some’ Americans…!
"The childhood obesity epidemic in America is a national health crisis."-White House
"We have a roadmap for implementing our plan across our government and across the country," -Michelle Obama
Obviously, both her and it can exercise the right of free speech. I will not object to the exercise thereof. And according to the same right, I too shall exercise free speech.
“The adulthood stupidity epidemic in the U.S. is a politician’s dream come true.”-Lawnman
”And they (politicians) have a roadmap for implementing the exploitation of stupidity across the government and across the country.”-Lawnman
(I will not dignify bullshit by giving it merit by a counter argument. It is a war of bullshit; if you want to prevail you must use the same ammo as your opponent. )
I think that the people listed would not unanimously respond the same (as per example).
Correction, the examples do not support the inference of unanimity among the participant’s responses. But, they led you to that as the speaker’s intent didn’t they?
I find myself thinking about this as All Dogs Lick Testicles,
I think most of us do, at least initially. And after a few moments of thought we reason that the statement can only mean ‘some’ dogs lick testicles.
Now read this:
1) Blacks are rapists.
2) Conservatives are morons.
3) Liberals are intelligent.
4) Whites are oppressors.
At a KKK rally, example (1) will provoke hatred toward all blacks.
At a Liberal rally, example (2) will provoke a standing ovation.
At a Conservative rally, example (3) will provoke a standing ovation.
At a Black heritage rally, example (4) will provoke hatred toward all whites.
The provocations listed in those examples are responses of people who react as though the propositions are universal, i.e., all blacks, conservatives, liberals, and whites.
Answer the following questions.
Would the people listed in the examples respond the same if the statements read: A few Blacks…; A few Conservatives…; A few Liberals…; A few Whites…?
Is this a subtle means to appeal to emotion?
Politicians employ this tactic in a form that normally begins with: “Americans need…”; is it because they are more effective among the populace if they appeal to emotion rather than reason?
