{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
작성자: Uncanny_Vale
1/8/2019 8:03:47 PM
1
Explain how it is stupid to assume that something doesn’t exist if there is no evidence that it does. You can’t see it, you can’t detect it in any way known to science, everything in the universe can be explained without it and It only seems to exist in the minds of certain people. Why then is it stupid to assume it doesn’t exist?
This applies to everything. Not just god. If there is no evidence that Narnia exists in the real world and everything can be explained without the need for Narnia to exist - why is it stupid to assume that Narnia doesn’t exist?
To assume something can exist when there’s no evidence that it does surely opens the door to all sorts of illogical beliefs. You’d be in the position of assuming Narnia, vampires, Zeus, elves, fairies and every other fictional or mythical being existed.
English
-
[quote]Explain how it is stupid to assume that something doesn’t exist if there is no evidence that it does.[/quote] Because you asked which of the two logics was “stupider”. Your own question assumes the position that both are stupid in the first place.
-
My “which is stupider” question was a joke in response to OP’s comment. You are completely ignoring my question. So I’ll just ask it again: [quote]Explain how it is stupid to assume that something doesn’t exist if there is no evidence that it does. You can’t see it, you can’t detect it in any way known to science, everything in the universe can be explained without it and It only seems to exist in the minds of certain people. Why then is it stupid to assume it doesn’t exist? This applies to everything. Not just god. If there is no evidence that Narnia exists in the real world and everything can be explained without the need for Narnia to exist - why is it stupid to assume that Narnia doesn’t exist? To assume something can exist when there’s no evidence that it does surely opens the door to all sorts of illogical beliefs. You’d be in the position of assuming Narnia, vampires, Zeus, elves, fairies and every other fictional or mythical being existed.[/quote]
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/8/2019 9:31:46 PM[quote]My “which is stupider” question was a joke in response to OP’s comment. You are completely ignoring my question.[/quote] If it was a joke, then why have you typed three paragraphs challenging the response to the joke? Because it was perceived as not being funny? Why should that matter if it “was a joke”? And I’m ignoring your question(s) because they’re based on false presumptions you’re clearly not aware of by yourself. But that’s no reason why you and others with false presumptions can’t come together to solve the equation yourselves. Just please, for the love of God/Diva, don’t divide by imaginary values.
-
[quote]If it was a joke, then why have you typed three challenging the response to the joke? Because it was perceived as not being funny? Why should that matter if it “was a joke”? And I’m ignoring your question(s) because they’re based on false presumptions you’re clearly not aware of by yourself. But that’s no reason why you and others with false presumptions can’t come together to solve the equation yourselves[/quote] The “which is stupider” was clearly (I thought) meant to point out that I thought his position was the illogical one. I’m not sure why you’re getting hung up on those three words. But if I really need to clarify my position I will: I don’t think it’s stupid to assume something doesn’t exist if there’s no evidence that it does. You seem to think that this is an incorrect position to take. All I’m asking you to do is explain why you believe that’s the case. I’m asking you to explain your reasoning. Is that so unreasonable? Basically your argument as it stands is “your position is stupid but I’m not going to tell you why”. [quote]What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [/quote]
-
[quote]You seem to think that this is an incorrect position to take. All I’m asking you to do is explain why you believe that’s the case.[/quote] The only position I “claimed” was in regards to refusing to believe something because it could not be detected; because that logic casts an illusion on truths. Please realize that things can comprehend other things without direct correlation between a simple pair of them. Like dolphins being able to sense their surroundings using sonar and dogs smelling something that a human cannot detect inherently; humans do not have as refine a sense of smell as dogs and we sure as hell cannot use sonar with our natural bodies alone.
-
[quote]The only position I “claimed” was in regards to refusing to believe something because it could not be detected; because that logic casts an illusion on truths. Please realize that things can comprehend other things without direct correlation between a simple pair of them. Like dolphins being able to sense their surroundings using sonar and dogs smelling something that a human cannot detect inherently; humans do not have as refine a sense of smell as dogs and we sure as hell cannot use sonar with our natural bodies alone. [/quote] Those animal senses exist in the real world though. Sonar is just sound waves. Smell is just chemical detectors in the nose. They are physical things existing in the natural world which we [i]can[/i] find evidence for. When you are talking about god you aren’t talking about the natural world you’re talking about a supposed “supernatural” world. Theists are making the claim that such a world actually exists. There is no evidence that this is the case. The logical position is to assume that the claim is not true until evidence has been provided that it is. Innocent until proven guilty. I’m not saying something absolutely [i]cannot[/i] exist unless there’s evidence that it does. It may be possible that there is a world beyond ours despite there being no evidence for it. My position isn’t that it [i]can’t[/i] exist. My position is that it is more logical to assume that it doesn’t until sufficient evidence or justification has been provided that it does.
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/8/2019 10:26:30 PM[quote]Those animal senses exist in the real world though. Sonar is just sound waves. Smell is just chemical detectors in the nose. They are physical things existing in the natural world which we [i]can[/i] find evidence for. When you are talking about god you aren’t talking about the natural world you’re talking about a supposed “supernatural” world. Theists are making the claim that such a world actually exists. There is no evidence that this is the case. The logical position is to assume that the claim is not true until evidence has been provided that it is. Innocent until proven guilty. I’m not saying something absolutely [i]cannot[/i] exist unless there’s evidence that it does. It may be possible that there is a world beyond ours despite there being no evidence for it. My position isn’t that it [i]can’t[/i] exist. My position is that it is more logical to assume that it doesn’t until sufficient evidence or justification has been provided that it does.[/quote] ⬆️ This has nothing to do with me declaring the desire to not believe in something, because of the inability to detect it, “stupider” out of the “joke” you made. Do you see now why I wanted to ignore you on this topic? You’re defending a position I don’t care to attack.
-
[quote]⬆️ This has nothing to do with me declaring the desire to believe in something, despite the inability to detect it, “stupider” out of the “joke” you made. Do you see now why I wanted to ignore you on this topic? You’re defending a position I don’t care to attack.[/quote] And yet you did attack it. [quote]What’s stupider: Not believing something exists because you can’t detect it? Believing something exists despite not being able to detect it?[/quote] You claimed the first was “stupider”. Now you’re claiming it’s not?
-
작성자: Uncanny_Vale 1/8/2019 10:52:50 PMYou didn’t make me feel threatened. I never said you did. You said: [quote]You’re defending a position I don’t care attack. [/quote] I was pointing out that you did attack that position. Not that you attacked me personally. You said the first point was the stupider - I was arguing the opposite position. How do you interpret that as me saying you “threatened” me?
-
[quote]You said the first point was the stupider - I was arguing the opposite position. How do you interpret that as me saying you “threatened” me?[/quote] Because of how you responded to me answering a question you asked under the “premise” of it being a joke.
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/8/2019 11:18:46 PMI didn’t argue when I answered your question. I merely answered. The “debate” was a result of [b]how[/b] you responded to me answering your question. A question with only two options [b]you[/b] put fourth. A “joke”. And GTFO of here with that “if you didn’t want to debate, then you shouldn’t have answered” faulty logic. Not every question, (especially yours), uses an answer for initiating a debate.
-
[quote]I didn’t argue when I answered your question. I merely answered. The “debate” was a result of [b]how[/b] you responded to me answering your question. A question with only two options [b]you[/b] put fourth. A “joke”.[/quote] If you “answer” my question you’ve got to expect a response. Did you honestly expect to criticise my position and assume I wouldn’t try to defend it?
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/8/2019 11:37:08 PM[quote]If you “answer” my question you’ve got to expect a response. Did you honestly expect to criticise my position and assume I wouldn’t try to defend it?[/quote] According to you, your “question” was a joke. And a question is inherently objective. There’s no “position” to be criticized. Only the response to it. A response I gave, because you “asked”. If anything, [b]you[/b] criticized my answer. [b]You[/b] responded to an answer pertaining to “a joke”. Hence this “debate”. And your “response” is more indicative of a child tantrum than an actual debate.
-
[quote][quote]If you “answer” my question you’ve got to expect a response. Did you honestly expect to criticise my position and assume I wouldn’t try to defend it?[/quote] According to you, your “question” was a joke. And a question is inherently objective. There’s no “position” to be criticized. Only the response to it. A response I gave, because you “asked”. If anything, [b]you[/b] criticized my answer. [b]You[/b] responded to an answer pertaining to “a joke”.[/quote] I thought I’d clarified this? Only the “which is stupider” line was a joke. The rest wasn’t. If you want me to put it in a non-joke form I can: [quote]Which is the more logical approach: Not believing something exists because you can’t detect it? Believing something exists despite not being able to detect it?[/quote] There. Totally serious question. Can you get past the “joke” hang up now? Now we’ve spent 20 odd comments arguing about everything BUT my question. You have yet to explain [i]why[/i] you believe the first position is less logical than the second one. You made the statement that the first one was “stupider” but got defensive when I asked for your rationale. But at this point I really don’t want to argue about it anymore anyway.
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/8/2019 11:56:37 PM[quote]But at this point I really don’t want to argue about it anymore anyway.[/quote] You’re doing the same thing here like in our previous conversation regarding the “ninth planet” in the Sol system. And just like last time, you put all your half-baked queries into a single passage and [i]bail[/i] before a response is given. Even worse, you’re acting as if you have the “high ground” with that comment about me providing evidence to support my answer to your question without providing evidence that counter proves the other scenario. But my evidence about believing in something despite not being able to detect works for “my” answer and disproves your assertion simultaneously. Keep this up and I’ll be able to predict your next “temper tantrum” before you even establish a counter argument.
-
[quote]Your doing the same thing here like in our previous conversation regarding the “ninth planet” in the Sol system. And just like last time, you put all your half-baked queries into a single passage and [i]bail[/i] before a response is given.[/quote] Was that you? The weird thing about planets being colour coded? This whole conversation is making more sense now. Regardless there is absolutely nothing stopping you from responding. But I have a feeling you don’t want to respond anyway because you’ve avoided it throughout this conversation and still won’t respond now. So if you want to put aside the silly deflections about whether it’s a “joke” or not and actually answer the question properly then I’ll gladly respond. Otherwise I really am done.
-
[quote]Was that you? The weird thing about planets being colour coded? This whole conversation is making more sense now.[/quote] [b]And[/b] you’re “attempting” to lessen the blow of your wounded self-esteem by devaluing the previous conversation and likening it to a “minuscule one-off” encounter. Never mind about being able to predict your next tantrum. I had you figured out right from the start.
-
Dude quit deflecting. Simple question: Which is more logical: 1. Not believing something exists because you can’t detect it? 2. Believing something exists despite not being able to detect it? Your original statement was that the first was more illogical than the second. Please give me your reasoning for that statement. If you don’t want to that’s fine. But If that’s the case then we’re done.
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/9/2019 12:16:38 AM[quote]Dude quit deflecting. Simple question: Which is more logical: 1. Not believing something exists because you can’t detect it? 2. Believing something exists despite not being able to detect it? Your original statement was that the first was more illogical than the second. Please give me your reasoning for that statement. If you don’t want to that’s fine. But If that’s the case then we’re done.[/quote] I already did, multiple times in fact. Plus my reasoning for the first choice being illogical doubles as proof for why the second choice is more logical. But your childishness mentality won’t except that fact now will it? No, childish is too pure for the juvenile persona you cant help but cling too.
-
You have not explained why the first one is illogical. Please quote me where you have. Your one and only answer was a defence of the second statement regarding believing in things you can’t detect. You claimed that animals have different senses to us. Because dogs can smell things we can’t smell you assume the supernatural exists. This is completely illogical and also irrelevant. This says nothing about where the supposed flaw in the logic of the first statement is. It’s quite obvious you don’t have an answer because you still won’t provide one. Like I said. Stop deflecting and answer the original question. I’m not interested in exchanging childish insults. If you can’t simply argue the point then this is pointless.
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/9/2019 12:46:21 AM[quote]You have not explained why the first one is illogical. Please quote me where you have. Your one and only answer was a defence of the second statement regarding believing in things you can’t detect. You claimed that animals have different senses to us. Because dogs can smell things we can’t smell you assume the supernatural exists. This is completely illogical and also irrelevant. This says nothing about where the supposed flaw in the logic of the first statement is. It’s quite obvious you don’t have an answer because you still won’t provide one. Like I said. Stop deflecting and answer the original question. I’m not interested in exchanging childish insults. If you can’t simply argue the point then this is pointless.[/quote] Interesting mimicry of the word childish “out of nowhere” from you, right? I have never made the claim that the supernatural exist in any of these posts referring to your query. But of course your mentality “skipped” that detail, huh? And the evidence that supports believing in something that can’t be detected by humans inherently but by other things/creatures, like scent trails from insects, works against the former logic when comparing humans and dogs and their sense of smell. If a dog starts smelling something but the human does not believe in whatever is causing the smell, it could lead to a potential tragedy. Like if a dog smelled the nitroglycerin ingredient in a nearby bomb, but the human didn’t believe in the bomb’s existence or didn’t even know what a bomb is. The first logic is worse because it doesn’t even allow for a potential scenario to occur within a person’s line of thinking. And less variables means less chance of surviving or living.
-
So you’re going to pretend that this isn’t about god now? The WHOLE TOPIC is about atheism and theism. To claim you aren’t talking about the supernatural is completely dishonest. It’s just another attempt to deflect. Your argument about animals is also weak because, as I said before, everything animals sense actually exists in the physical world and can be detected in the physical world. This does not apply to god. Once again it doesn’t answer why statement 1 is less logical than statement 2.
-
작성자: Of 1000 teeth 1/9/2019 1:13:32 AM[quote]So you’re going to pretend that this isn’t about god now? The WHOLE TOPIC is about atheism and theism. To claim you aren’t talking about the supernatural is completely dishonest. It’s just another attempt to deflect. Your argument about animals is also weak because, as I said before, everything animals sense actually exists in the physical world and can be detected in the physical world. This does not apply to god. Once again it doesn’t answer why statement 1 is less logical than statement 2.[/quote] Pretend? I don’t need to factor in the concepts of the “supernatural”, Gods, or the surmising of their “existence” to point out which of the two choices you proposed would be objectively less variable or “stupider”. And no I’m not being dishonest, because the whole theism vs atheism BS never even occurred to me. You know why? It’s because I’m not limited by rudimentary mentalities that seek to distort humanity under the illusion of objective conflict. Humans with your flawed thinking and erroneous conceptions of what God, Jesus, or whatever, (doesn’t matter), always seek to attack one another because of your innate since of fear insecurities. And people always die and suffer because of it. But I won’t contribute to such volatile behaviors. Not just because it hurts me watching others be in pain, but because it makes the future less variable. And less variable futures lead to a more boring existence. One that [b]you[/b] can’t help but perpetuate as you are. I will take being subjectivity “wrong” over an objective betrayal of what is right anytime.
