How do people become so brainwashed?

[p1stonhead]

smn159 said:

p1stonhead said:

Logic is the main thing which serparates those who believe and those who don't. Logically someone shouldn't believe in a god without proof. For some people belief can override logic.

Belief is largely related to culture and upbringing though. It's not a good reason to accept something unconditionally as being true in the absence of any further supporting evidence.

No then someone can say 'I don't know' not 'I've filled in the gaps myself'.

[smn159]

p1stonhead said:

No then someone can say 'I don't know' not 'I've filled in the gaps myself'.

So you're suggesting that existence / non existence of God are equally likely propositions and that 'I don't know' is the logical position?

[p1stonhead]

smn159 said:

p1stonhead said:

No then someone can say 'I don't know' not 'I've filled in the gaps myself'.

So you're suggesting that existence / non existence of God are equally likely propositions and that 'I don't know' is the logical position?

Yes as said 'I don't know but I don't believe there is because there isn't any evidence' is my position. It's called agnostic atheism and is most certainly the logical choice.

I'm happy with not knowing. I don't need to make something up to make myself feel better.

No one knows categorically if there is or isn't. But I'm not concerned with undiscovered things there are trillions of them I'm sure. There is certainly zero evidence for a higher being though. Everything we currently know about the universe suggests that what has happened has done so without a god being involved.

[smn159]

p1stonhead said:

Yes as said 'I don't know but I don't believe there is because there isn't any evidence' is my position. It's called agnostic atheism and is most certainly the logical choice.

I'm happy with not knowing. I don't need to make something up to make myself feel better.

No one knows categorically if there is or isn't. But I'm not concerned with undiscovered things there are trillions of them I'm sure. There is certainly zero evidence for a higher being though. Everything we currently know about the universe suggests that what has happened has done so without a god being involved.

You sound like a de facto atheist to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic...

[gregs656]

p1stonhead said:

Logic is the main thing which serparates those who believe and those who don't. Logically someone shouldn't believe in a god without proof. For some people belief can override logic.

This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about before.

You are completely unable to attack the logical argument above (which you had no idea existed!) but you are also quite happy to posit your own beliefs above others because you believe they are more logical.

Amazing.

[p1stonhead]

smn159 said:

p1stonhead said:

Yes as said 'I don't know but I don't believe there is because there isn't any evidence' is my position. It's called agnostic atheism and is most certainly the logical choice.

I'm happy with not knowing. I don't need to make something up to make myself feel better.

No one knows categorically if there is or isn't. But I'm not concerned with undiscovered things there are trillions of them I'm sure. There is certainly zero evidence for a higher being though. Everything we currently know about the universe suggests that what has happened has done so without a god being involved.

You sound like a de facto atheist to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic...

I didn't know there were that many categories but sound about right one

[Greg_D]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - that's where religion falls down. there is none because a deity does not exist.

[p1stonhead]

gregs656 said:

p1stonhead said:

Logic is the main thing which serparates those who believe and those who don't. Logically someone shouldn't believe in a god without proof. For some people belief can override logic.

This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about before.

You are completely unable to attack the logical argument above (which you had no idea existed!) but you are also quite happy to posit your own beliefs above others because you believe they are more logical.

Amazing.

How can 'I don't know therefore I assume there isnt' be anything other than the most logical argument?

There isn't evidence either way. As noted previously by a lot of people, the onus is on the believer not the non believer. Having a default of 'I don't know so therefore I have faith it exists' isn't the most logical.

Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 24th February 16:59

[gregs656]

p1stonhead said:

How can 'I don't know therefore I assume there isnt' be anything other than the most logical argument?

Because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

[grumbledoak]

p1stonhead said:

How can 'I don't know therefore I assume there isnt' be anything other than the most logical argument?

Technically, if "I don't know" is all you've got then your estimate of the odds for yes vs. no should be 50:50!

[p1stonhead]

grumbledoak said:

p1stonhead said:

How can 'I don't know therefore I assume there isnt' be anything other than the most logical argument?

Technically, if "I don't know" is all you've got then your estimate of the odds for yes vs. no should be 50:50!

It's not so much I don't know I guess - it's the overwhelming evidence suggests there isn't one. Everything we have ever witnessed in the universe can be explained with the science we know so far. God isn't required for anything we have discovered using our existing understandings.

A god would mean that everything science has discovered was ultimately put there by an intelligent being who then disappeared never to be seen or evidenced again.

That's a hell of a stretch.

[grumbledoak]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

Possibly you have other information. Did you buy a ticket? What are the odds of a jackpot if you did buy a ticket?

Maybe the answer to all of these and others is actually "I don't know", but you do appear to be able to use the internet...

[PhilboSE]

gregs656 said:

There are lots of them, theologians and philosophers have been writing on the subject for Millenia after all.

I quite like the modal ontological argument which is:

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.
(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

(taken in this form from - http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proo...

This is bks.

Rule 1 says "if X then Y"
Rule 9 says "if Y then X" and uses this to attempt the proof.

Logical fallacy.

[robemcdonald]

DoubleTime said:

You think that's brainwashing?

Oh my fking GOSH, trust me, this ones a stinkah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk

Lovely stuff.

[Dr Jekyll]

p1stonhead said:

Yes as said 'I don't know but I don't believe there is because there isn't any evidence' is my position. It's called agnostic atheism and is most certainly the logical choice.

I'm happy with not knowing. I don't need to make something up to make myself feel better.

No one knows categorically if there is or isn't. But I'm not concerned with undiscovered things there are trillions of them I'm sure. There is certainly zero evidence for a higher being though. Everything we currently know about the universe suggests that what has happened has done so without a god being involved.

+1

I can't actually prove there isn't an invisible armadillo in my garage, but if there is it's undetectable and I can't see how it could have got there so I work on the presumption that there isn't one.

[gregs656]

PhilboSE said:

This is bks.

Rule 1 says "if X then Y"
Rule 9 says "if Y then X" and uses this to attempt the proof.

Logical fallacy.

They are premises, not rules. There is no fallacy there.

[citizensm1th]

id like to know if gods die when people stop believing in them? or is Aphrodite just living it up is a gods retirement home somewhere?

[PhilboSE]

gregs656 said:

PhilboSE said:

This is bks.

Rule 1 says "if X then Y"
Rule 9 says "if Y then X" and uses this to attempt the proof.

Logical fallacy.

They are premises, not rules. There is no fallacy there.

OK, change the word "Rule" to the word "Premise" above.

if X -> Y then Y -> X cannot be used as part of a proof.

[smn159]

gregs656 said:

PhilboSE said:

This is bks.

Rule 1 says "if X then Y"
Rule 9 says "if Y then X" and uses this to attempt the proof.

Logical fallacy.

They are premises, not rules. There is no fallacy there.

It's a clever argument but has been shown to be unsound - it used a form of modal logic but makes invalid assumptions. Plantinga himself has admitted that it doesn't prove the existence of God.

http://counterapologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/cou...

[gregs656]

PhilboSE said:

OK, change the word "Rule" to the word "Premise" above.

if X -> Y then Y -> X cannot be used as part of a proof.

Specifically what is the fallacy?