Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: Can You Prove It Didn't Happen? [View all]
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
94. When you see a reply, you'll know there was something requiring a reply.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 03:45 PM
Jan 2015

The converse is also true.

Can You Prove It Didn't Happen? [View all] Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 OP
Excellent essay JDDavis Jan 2015 #1
The premise of this old essay is absurd. rug Jan 2015 #2
Wrong again. phil89 Jan 2015 #3
Obtuse again. rug Jan 2015 #4
So when Person A claims Bigfoot exists, and Person B claims that there's no good evidence... Silent3 Jan 2015 #5
This is the difference. rug Jan 2015 #6
That a person goes out of their way to define the object of their belief... Silent3 Jan 2015 #7
It's less an exemption than an inadequacy in human thought and language. rug Jan 2015 #8
If human thought is inadequate for dealing with proof and comparision of supernatural claims... Silent3 Jan 2015 #9
Not at all. rug Jan 2015 #10
And astrology will "survive" and Bigfoot claims will "survive". Silent3 Jan 2015 #17
Which are uniquely different things, aside from having a big foot. rug Jan 2015 #21
No, ignoring the special pleading of those who need special pleading for their supernatural... Silent3 Jan 2015 #35
I have the same internet list of fallacies you do. rug Jan 2015 #36
I have yet to hear valid justification for excluding claims about deities... Silent3 Jan 2015 #46
Because God is entirely nonmaterial. rug Jan 2015 #47
How are you, a being composed of material, supposed to have learned of this... Silent3 Jan 2015 #48
That question is the heart of religion. rug Jan 2015 #50
"no one can reason his or her way to this" Silent3 Jan 2015 #53
It comes down to this. rug Jan 2015 #54
And revelations edhopper Jan 2015 #61
That's why no one ever heard the story of The Lord of the Rings! Silent3 Jan 2015 #62
"You would only counter each offered experiment with reasons why that experiment was inadequate" rug Jan 2015 #63
Rug, thanks for these posts. thucythucy Jan 2015 #81
Thanks, thucy. rug Jan 2015 #95
"The short answer is revelation." Orrex Jan 2015 #64
Meh, yourself. rug Jan 2015 #65
That's an appeal to majority opinion, and it's unpersuasive in this context Orrex Jan 2015 #66
No, it's a statement of fact. rug Jan 2015 #67
That was not my statement Orrex Jan 2015 #68
This was your statement: rug Jan 2015 #69
Yes, that was my statement, and that statement remains correct. Orrex Jan 2015 #70
It's as incorrect now as when you first typed it. rug Jan 2015 #71
You are *STILL* depending entirely on majority opinion Orrex Jan 2015 #72
And you are ignoring a measurable phenomenon. rug Jan 2015 #73
Of course I'm not, though I understand that you need to believe that I am. Orrex Jan 2015 #78
Where is the evidence for this? rug Jan 2015 #79
Clearly, you are the believer for whom no evidence is necessary Orrex Jan 2015 #80
It appears obvious that honest and rational discourse is impossible with him. cleanhippie Jan 2015 #84
Au contraire, I'm a believer in the correct use of evidence. rug Jan 2015 #96
I think all people of average or better intelligence who believe religious dogma ..... tradewinds Jan 2015 #101
Oh this again. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #102
I just answered a question. One not from you. tradewinds Jan 2015 #103
And i am giving my opinion on your answer. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #104
So, you have no opinion? tradewinds Jan 2015 #105
My opinion is that believers are not deluded or irrational. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #106
That is an interesting opinion. tradewinds Jan 2015 #107
Thus you got the facepalm. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #108
Ok, "FACEPALM" it is !! tradewinds Jan 2015 #109
Are you calling me a moron? hrmjustin Jan 2015 #110
No, of course not, but the guy in the picture might be. tradewinds Jan 2015 #111
You should self delete these last two posts. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #112
No. tradewinds Jan 2015 #113
ok. i hope no one alerts on it and if they do I hope it is not hidden on my account. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #114
Kisses. tradewinds Jan 2015 #115
He's talking to the guy who posted the picture. rug Jan 2015 #118
Oh, rug. rug, rug. tradewinds Jan 2015 #121
Ah, so you are shy. rug Jan 2015 #124
.. tradewinds Jan 2015 #126
Considering we're discussing your posts, I'd have to agree. rug Jan 2015 #127
Then tell me exactly how you confirm one supernatural phenomenon but would reject another Orrex Jan 2015 #134
What? hrmjustin Jan 2015 #135
If you feel that believers are not deluded or irrational... Orrex Jan 2015 #137
Faith is not scientific nor is it meant to be. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #138
Ah. Special pleading, then. Orrex Jan 2015 #139
And? hrmjustin Jan 2015 #140
And you clearly can't handle simple questions about faith, either. Orrex Jan 2015 #141
Sure I can but if you are trying to prove that I am delusional or irrational, then I have no hrmjustin Jan 2015 #142
What makes you think that I'm trying to prove either? Orrex Jan 2015 #143
I am not trying to convince you of anything nor do I have a desire to. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #144
Refusal to examine one's faith is a sure sign of a weak faith Orrex Jan 2015 #146
I examine my faith all the time. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #147
Nothing in this discussion indicates that you're willing to do so (edited for typo) Orrex Jan 2015 #150
You judge me on this one thread? hrmjustin Jan 2015 #154
I don't care if you live in Narnia Orrex Jan 2015 #159
Since I have answered the question and you have nothing else I wish you a pleasant evening. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #161
That's still not an answer Orrex Jan 2015 #164
On faith. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #165
Ok, so you've gone with the non-answer Orrex Jan 2015 #166
I am heartbroken. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #167
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #169
You seem a bit frustrated. It shows. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #170
Deluded for sure, irrational is debatable. randys1 Jan 2015 #153
You're not very insightful either. rug Jan 2015 #116
insightful, either tradewinds Jan 2015 #122
QED rug Jan 2015 #123
Tell me exactly what you mean by God Orrex Jan 2015 #133
I'll give you the definition straight from the Baltimore Catechism. rug Jan 2015 #149
What can anyone do with such word salad. tradewinds Jan 2015 #155
If anyone can, it's you. rug Jan 2015 #160
You're probably right. tradewinds Jan 2015 #168
Point out the 'evidence' of your imaginary friend then. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #11
Point out what type of evidence you think fits. rug Jan 2015 #12
Let's start with evidence that a supreme supernatural being is required to exist at all. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #18
We could, but that would be a philosophical premise, not evidence. rug Jan 2015 #19
I didn't say test. I said evidence. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #25
You test a claim by using evidence. rug Jan 2015 #27
Wow, you are terrible at this. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #37
This is a fine example of moving the goalposts backwards. rug Jan 2015 #41
False narrative of the chain of questions that led here. Try again. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #43
You and Orrex both have demonstarted how it is impossible to have an honest and rational cleanhippie Jan 2015 #83
Of all the monkey-shit-flinging fights we've had, I think *this* was the one that finally got AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #85
I hate to stereotype, but... cleanhippie Jan 2015 #86
Wait--he's a lawyer?!? And that's how he constructs an argument?!? Orrex Jan 2015 #87
So I've been told. cleanhippie Jan 2015 #88
And he doesn't know what hearsay is? Orrex Jan 2015 #89
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #90
Hmm... Now I feel like you might be talking about me... Orrex Jan 2015 #91
Lol. I'm not. I'm simply speaking in generalities about no one in particular. cleanhippie Jan 2015 #92
It's apparent you're not. rug Jan 2015 #98
The evidence is clear that you have no grasp of logic Orrex Jan 2015 #136
I think you've just adequately demonstrated a failure to grasp logic. rug Jan 2015 #145
I assure you that your foolishness is a greater frustration for you than for me Orrex Jan 2015 #148
Lol, of course. rug Jan 2015 #152
I admit that I find religious special-pleaders to be extremely tiresome Orrex Jan 2015 #162
I see. rug Jan 2015 #163
Nope, you're not on it. No one is. rug Jan 2015 #97
Clearly, since you won't address the issue. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #100
I have. Sometimes the issue is not what you think it is. rug Jan 2015 #117
OR, sometimes the issue is something you don't want to address, because it invalidates AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #119
Or, this is not one of those times. rug Jan 2015 #120
It is a means to examine one class of actual material evidence that could establish that there must AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #125
Why should there be material evidence of a nonmaterial entity? rug Jan 2015 #129
There you go again. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #130
That's a much lesser burden. rug Jan 2015 #131
Sure, there's a supernatural group as well. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #132
Well, we are in the Religion Group. rug Jan 2015 #158
More of a philosophical thing to me. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #171
If you're referring to cour comments to me, it takes two to have an honest discussion. rug Jan 2015 #93
Sup, bro. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #82
When you see a reply, you'll know there was something requiring a reply. rug Jan 2015 #94
Yep, allrighty then. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #99
Well edhopper Jan 2015 #14
Specific physical claims are subject to evidentiary explanation, when available. rug Jan 2015 #20
I would ask for any evidence that edhopper Jan 2015 #22
Again, that is a philosophical premise. rug Jan 2015 #23
What is a philosophical premise? edhopper Jan 2015 #24
The datum. The most fundamental being "cogito, ergo sum". rug Jan 2015 #28
And it is generally edhopper Jan 2015 #32
The "God of the Gaps" appellation is not a rebuttal. rug Jan 2015 #33
Which often starts with a premise edhopper Jan 2015 #34
"If there is a God who created all" AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #38
You said that before at 12. rug Jan 2015 #39
I don't know what you're talking about. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #40
It's post 18, right below it. rug Jan 2015 #42
Fine. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #44
The premise is not about proving or disproving God. It's about a logical fallacy. DetlefK Jan 2015 #30
A logical fallacy does not require evidence. rug Jan 2015 #31
I dunno. I still don't get "choose to believe." Iggo Jan 2015 #13
True edhopper Jan 2015 #16
A good edhopper Jan 2015 #15
It seems there are about 40 replies I can't see. Somebody must have had an upset. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #45
That's what you miss edhopper Jan 2015 #49
I wouldn't say I "miss" it... trotsky Jan 2015 #55
Ignorance is bliss. rug Jan 2015 #59
Funny you should bring that up. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #60
That's what happens when you (periodically) wear blinders. rug Jan 2015 #51
I guess some just can't stand it when you challenge them. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #56
Well, at least this time he didn't say he was doing it for Advent. rug Jan 2015 #57
Yes that is true. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #58
Wait...don't you have people on your ignore list for the EXACT SAME REASON? Heddi Jan 2015 #74
I have no problem when people challenge me in this room. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #75
because you made an issue of it here and other threads Heddi Jan 2015 #76
It seems to me I was making an observation as warren himself was as well. hrmjustin Jan 2015 #77
Me too, what a coincidence (nt) mr blur Jan 2015 #52
I see it way too much Promethean Jan 2015 #26
Why don't you rebut the argument in your last pararagraph instead of characterizing it? rug Jan 2015 #29
Funny -- rogerashton Jan 2015 #128
As I can't see 116 of those replies I can only guess at the hot mess. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #151
UN-hide and live a little. tradewinds Jan 2015 #156
I turned off my ignore list during the Great Host What To Do To Do. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #157
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can You Prove It Didn't H...»Reply #94