Valid critique (to give you the benefit of the doubt) - philosophical language = jabbering hot air
:shrug:
best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
:shrug:
@Signal --
Believe it or not, but Sarkus' goal with this whole debacle was to shine a nice, illuminating light on LG's hypocrisy. In post #226 Sarkus parodied the "you must believe before you can see the evidence" argument that theists make so very often(I can't remember if LG ever made such an argument, but I know that he's been active in threads and not had a problem supporting others who have made the argument), after which LG rejected the notion. It's an entirely hypocritical stance to take in light of the fact that LG doesn't mind this sort of reasoning when it's coming from theists.
(I must admit that it was a very elegant trap, one that I'm actually a bit jealous of, I'm just glad that I could play my part in post #230, which LG immediately tried to counter with a "that's not all you need", which isn't what I said at all, so we can add another straw man argument to LG's list of crimes.)
And he did describe one method but LG merely dismissed it as not being arbitrarily accurate enough though accuracy wasn't mentioned in the original question, thus qualifying LG's statement as a "moving the goalposts" fallacy. However the problem goes deeper than that.
LG's basic argument here is that since we can't do one we can't do the other, however the comparison he's making is invalid. For starters in the tape measure dilemma we know that there is something to measure. In other, perhaps less stupid, words, in his "example" we all agree that there is something to measure(temperature), and even if he's right and there is no way to measure it accurately to the arbitrary degree that he desires with the tool he wants us to use, there is still something to measure. God, on the other hand, is not so self evident that we needn't establish that there is, indeed, something to measure.
Beyond that even, LG asserts that not only is there something to measure, but that science is empathetically the wrong tool to use in it's measurement. He gives us literally nothing to support his assertion, we're just supposed to take it on blind faith, which is a horrendous tactic to use in a debate against people who see literally no value in religious faith.
Believe it or not, but Sarkus' goal with this whole debacle was to shine a nice, illuminating light on LG's hypocrisy. In post #226 Sarkus parodied the "you must believe before you can see the evidence" argument that theists make so very often(I can't remember if LG ever made such an argument, but I know that he's been active in threads and not had a problem supporting others who have made the argument), after which LG rejected the notion. It's an entirely hypocritical stance to take in light of the fact that LG doesn't mind this sort of reasoning when it's coming from theists.
(I must admit that it was a very elegant trap, one that I'm actually a bit jealous of, I'm just glad that I could play my part in post #230, which LG immediately tried to counter with a "that's not all you need", which isn't what I said at all, so we can add another straw man argument to LG's list of crimes.)
And he did describe one method but LG merely dismissed it as not being arbitrarily accurate enough though accuracy wasn't mentioned in the original question, thus qualifying LG's statement as a "moving the goalposts" fallacy. However the problem goes deeper than that.
LG's basic argument here is that since we can't do one we can't do the other, however the comparison he's making is invalid. For starters in the tape measure dilemma we know that there is something to measure. In other, perhaps less stupid, words, in his "example" we all agree that there is something to measure(temperature), and even if he's right and there is no way to measure it accurately to the arbitrary degree that he desires with the tool he wants us to use, there is still something to measure. God, on the other hand, is not so self evident that we needn't establish that there is, indeed, something to measure.
Beyond that even, LG asserts that not only is there something to measure, but that science is empathetically the wrong tool to use in it's measurement. He gives us literally nothing to support his assertion, we're just supposed to take it on blind faith, which is a horrendous tactic to use in a debate against people who see literally no value in religious faith.
The question is valid. But a question is not an argument.
The comment which prompted the observation of argument from incredulity was as follows, along with the general tone of dismissal of the claim with nothing but his incredulity to support his position:
lightgigantic said:
Oh yes. The "I believe". Absolutely.Signal said:
Notice how fallacious it is when trying to argue with that alone?
Indeed.
I guess the only flaw in the plan was that he tried to spring it on a theist who doesn't make the claim "you just gotta believe"
meh
if you are going to play "How can one know before one knows?" as the legitimate basis for grounding epistemological issues I guess all knowable claims are in the same boat.
:shrug:
To the best of my knowledge and experience with you, your stance basically comes down to "you just gotta believe" - even if you state this is more sophisticated terms.
ditto below
I think - and I may well be shooting myself in the foot here - there is a formal principle in philosophy as far as the application of reflexive criticism is concerned. Ie. there is a formal principle that states that at a certain level, reflexive criticism does not apply.
I can't remember more about this, unfortunately.
Cheer up and help us out then.
There is a basic epistemic doubt - How do I know I know? - which quickly leads to infinite regress (and the associated madness and vexation).
How can one avoid that?
What about those of us for whom the act of doubting seems to be the only ground of being (as opposed to God or beauty, for example)?
One needs a ground of being. But when the ground of being is the act of doubting, this is not much of a ground of being!!
If you can manage to cross the road or drink a glass of water you are not one of those people
@lightgigantic --
I'll get around to finding that link as soon as you support your arguments here, you remember, the one's we've been begging you to support for the better part of fifty posts now?
You need to demonstrate three things.
1. That there is something to "measure".
2. That science can't measure this thing.
3. That your tool can, when properly calibrated(and I promise not to pull useless semantics out of my ass the way you did), measure this thing.
Until you demonstrate all three your argument is nothing more than assertion and I can dismiss it without further ado.
I'll get around to finding that link as soon as you support your arguments here, you remember, the one's we've been begging you to support for the better part of fifty posts now?
You need to demonstrate three things.
1. That there is something to "measure".
2. That science can't measure this thing.
3. That your tool can, when properly calibrated(and I promise not to pull useless semantics out of my ass the way you did), measure this thing.
Until you demonstrate all three your argument is nothing more than assertion and I can dismiss it without further ado.
This is not reassuring enough.
I'm afraid these are not my arguments .. so whenever you are ready to find that link
you mean to say you had faith that i wouldn't make that argument?
If you can manage one scenario without doubt than doubt is not the all encompassing be all and end all of your epistemological limits.
Thank you, but that doesn't ease my mind when it comes to dealing with theists.
" I create the notion that temperature cannot be measured accurately. The reason you cannot is because I require the exclusive use of tape measures only.
Attempt to disprove Mr A when he says temperature cannot be measured accurately. The reason atheism has not been disproved lies within. "