Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[One Bad Pig]

I would expect an agnostic to able to take either side of the debate, to not only be able to explain the best arguments for and against theism but also describe the weaknesses of those arguments. Can Jimmy do this? I rather doubt it.

Very few agnostics are likely to be able to do that. Most agnostics are functionally atheists, as in "it's impossible to know whether or not God exists, but I'm going to live as if He doesn't."

[Adrift]

Very few agnostics are likely to be able to do that. Most agnostics are functionally atheists, as in "it's impossible to know whether or not God exists, but I'm going to live as if He doesn't."

I think that's probably true of a lot of agnostics we see online (especially in religious forums), but I'd like to think that isn't really the case...that there are plenty of people out there who sincerely don't know, or who think that they can't know.

[KingsGambit]

Wouldn't the term for what OBP describes be "apatheists"?

[Sparko]

Wouldn't the term for what OBP describes be "apatheists"?

You invented a new word! One day you will be famous and I will say, "I knew him before he even thought of that word"

[KingsGambit]

You invented a new word! One day you will be famous and I will say, "I knew him before he even thought of that word"

I can't take credit for it. Well, I could, but I'd be lying...

[Sparko]

I can't take credit for it. Well, I could, but I'd be lying...

Fame is fleeting. Oh well.

[JimL]

This is such a weird claim. You live on a planet where the VAST majority of those who live on it believe in some sort of divinity or spirituality. Have always believed in some sort of divinity or spirituality. It's practically the default state on this planet. It should be the atheist who is required to prove that these things do not exist. You're the tiny, itty-bitty minority. Why should we have to prove anything to you (outside of Evangelical reasons)?

I don't believe that the percentage of believers vs non-believers has anything to do with the truth of a belief. If the overwhelming majority position were that the universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster, it would, regardless of the majority belief, be up to the adherents of the belief to prove it true, not the dis-believers to prove it false. But, you don't have to prove anything about your belief to anyone unless you actually want to, problem is you can't, because there is no evidence of a god, there is only evidence of the natural world. Not knowing the answers to our questions about the world is not evidence that a god did it.

[Adrift]

I don't believe that the percentage of believers vs non-believers has anything to do with the truth of a belief. If the overwhelming majority position were that the universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster, it would, regardless of the majority belief, be up to the adherents of the belief to prove it true, not the dis-believers to prove it false. But, you don't have to prove anything about your belief to anyone unless you actually want to, problem is you can't, because there is no evidence of a god, there is only evidence of the natural world. Not knowing the answers to our questions about the world is not evidence that a god did it.

Of course it has nothing to do with the truth of the belief. It'd be really weird if that's what I were saying since I've always insisted that truth on this matter cannot be based on majority acceptance (you should know that by now). I'm saying that if you're in the extreme minority, then it's you with the burden, not us. Almost everyone already accepts theism. You're the one who has to fight up hill to convince people of your strange, and exceptional views, not us. And of course there is evidence for God. There's reams and reams of material on the subject. People have been offering evidence for god/s and other supernatural concepts for ages. But we've had this conversation a number of times in the past. You can't seem to get over the hurtle that just because you don't accept a certain type of evidence doesn't mean that there is no evidence.

[JonathanL]

Yes, we should never make the mistake of letting reason and observation be our guide.

God knows you're trying your best.

[Tassman]

This is weak stuff Tass, even for you.

Sufficient to refute your false claims!

[Tassman]

This is such a weird claim. You live on a planet where the VAST majority of those who live on it believe in some sort of divinity or spirituality. Have always believed in some sort of divinity or spirituality. It's practically the default state on this planet.

Nevertheless they have not believed in the same divinity or spirituality and most began as an attempt to explain how we came to be. A task since undertaken more successfully by modern science!

It should be the atheist who is required to prove that these things do not exist.

You're the tiny, itty-bitty minority. Why should we have to prove anything to you (outside of Evangelical reasons)?

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, you naughty boy!

[Adrift]

Sufficient to refute your false claims!

It wasn't.

[Adrift]

Nevertheless they have not believed in the same divinity or spirituality and most began as an attempt to explain how we came to be. A task since undertaken more successfully by modern science!

So?


If you don't take it seriously, that's your business. Again, you're the one swimming upstream here. If you think the anti-God hypothesis is so strong, you're the one who needs to back your claim against the majority view that accepts it.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, you naughty boy!

I really wish you'd stop name dropping logical fallacies when you don't know what they mean. An Argumentum ad populum fallacy is when someone says that something is true because a lot of people believe it is. As I already explained to JimL, that's a fallacy I've argued against dozens of times over the years, sometimes when you yourself were guilty of it, so it doesn't make any sense that all of a sudden I would now allow myself to be guilty of it. Nowhere in my post have I stated or implied that because lots of people believe in God, therefore God exists, or because most people are religious, thus religion is true. Had I made some sort of statement in that regard, I would definitely be guilty of the Argumentum ad populum fallacy. The point of my post, though, is that if most people on the planet are already theists...if theism is practically the default state, then it would be up to you, the anti-theist, to do the convincing. You're the one who has the exceptional claim, not me. That doesn't mean my view is true, only that you have your work cut out for you. Anytime we've ever seen someone or someones in any field of science, or politics, or philosophy (or anything really) that held a peculiar or exceptional view, it's always been up to the ones with that exceptional, or rare view to change the minds of the majority, not the majority to change the minds of the minority. For some reason when it comes to god/s, atheists think that this should go the other way, and it doesn't really make any sense. You're the one with the oddball claim that goes against the common view. For my part, I'll always attempt to support my own claims, but you have far more obligation to support your peculiar view than I do mine.

[Sparko]

I really wish you'd stop name dropping logical fallacies when you don't know what they mean. An Argumentum ad populum fallacy is when someone says that something is true because a lot of people believe it is. As I already explained to JimL, that's a fallacy I've argued against dozens of times over the years, sometimes when you yourself were guilty of it,

Like in the other thread where he says we should accept AGW because that is the scientific consensus.

[JimL]

Like in the other thread where he says we should accept AGW because that is the scientific consensus.

Well it would be stupid not to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, its empirically evident. Whats wrong with you?