Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Mountain Man]

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

Really? Is that why the numerous models and predictions have been hilariously wrong? Because global warming is "empirically evident"?

[Sparko]

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

The difference is if you are accepting it BECAUSE it is the consensus and not because of the evidence. If you are merely arguing that I should accept it just because most of the scientists do, then you should believe in God just because most of the world does. Same argument.

[JimL]

The difference is if you are accepting it BECAUSE it is the consensus and not because of the evidence. If you are merely arguing that I should accept it just because most of the scientists do, then you should believe in God just because most of the world does. Same argument.

No, actually most scientist, some 99% of them, agree with climate change because of the evidence. Its all about the evidence. You come up with such evidence for god and I'll believe you too!

[Sparko]

No, actually most scientist, some 99% of them, agree with climate change because of the evidence. Its all about the evidence. You come up with such evidence for god and I'll believe you too!

99% of Christian theologians believe in God because of the evidence. Therefore you should too.

[JimL]

99% of Christian theologians believe in God because of the evidence. Therefore you should too.

Nope, no evidence. Like I said, you show me the empirical evidence for god, then I'll believe too. Unverifiable assertions made by ancient authors is not evidence of the validity of those assertions. You believe that a man walked on water simply because thats an assertion someone made 2000 years ago.

[Tassman]

99% of Christian theologians believe in God because of the evidence. Therefore you should too.

99% of atheist theologians and biblical scholars DON'T believe in God because of the lack of evidence. Therefore you shouldn't either.

[Starlight]

99% of atheist theologians and biblical scholars DON'T believe in God because of the lack of evidence. Therefore you shouldn't either.

As an atheist theologian I hereby certify that I don't believe in God.

[Tassman]

So?

Belief in the myriad religions, spiritual beliefs, and totems etc is nothing more than attempts to explain the otherwise unexplained. A task since undertaken more successfully by modern science!

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.

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.

You're wrong.

You argued that:

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.

What a pathetic attempted rationalisation of your logical fallacy.

It wasn't.

It was!

[Sparko]

Nope, no evidence. Like I said, you show me the empirical evidence for god, then I'll believe too. Unverifiable assertions made by ancient authors is not evidence of the validity of those assertions. You believe that a man walked on water simply because thats an assertion someone made 2000 years ago.

Oh there is evidence aplenty. YOU just don't accept it. But since the Theologians DO accept it and you say you should accept the consensus of the experts in the field, then you should accept it too! The evidence itself doesn't matter, right?

Just like in AGW. If the scientists believe the evidence it doesn't matter if anyone else does, we should all believe the consensus of the experts! That is what you and Tassman have been saying. Yet when it comes to something YOU don't believe, all of a sudden it is not the consensus that matters, but the evidence itself!

Thank you for finally admitting I was correct to tell Tassman that the consensus doesn't matter, only the actual evidence does.

Once again Jimmy shoots himself in the foot.

[Sparko]

As an atheist theologian I hereby certify that I don't believe in God.

But you are not the consensus. Only the consensus matters right? Billions of people believe the consensus of Christianity. Atheists are a small minority view so they don't matter. only the Consensus matters. At least according to Tassman and JimL.

[Adrift]

Belief in the myriad religions, spiritual beliefs, and totems etc is nothing more than attempts to explain the otherwise unexplained. A task since undertaken more successfully by modern science!

So what? Even if this is the case, that has nothing to do with the fact that most people on the planet believe in the divine or the supernatural, and always have.

Who in the world do you think you're fooling? Don't tell me there's no anti-god hypothesis. You wouldn't be here nearly every single night if there wasn't one. If you merely lacked belief in the existence of gods, you'd have no opinion on the subject, and would never discuss it. But you are absolutely obsessed with gods. So much so that you and other like-minded people have adopted a label for your belief concerning the nature of the supernatural that most people in the world accept. You totally do not lack a belief about the existence of gods, you have a very clear stance about the existence of gods, namely, you believe they do not exist. More to the point, you seem to believe that they cannot exist.

You're wrong.

You argued that:

I myself should know my own implications. I know what I was saying, and I was careful with my language so that it could not be read wrong. You either read it wrong because your reading comprehension sucks, or because you think this is a good way of scoring cheap rhetorical points. Yes, I'm saying that the majority who believe in some sort of divinity could be wrong. I have not been making any argument for the truth of the divine or the supernatural. That should have been abundantly clear from the context of the conversation. Had I been making an argument for the truth of the divine and supernatural I absolutely would NOT have asserted that popularity makes that case. Again, it wouldn't even make sense for me to make that sort of argument since I've argued against that sort of arguing for years now. Why would I intentionally advocate for something I reject? That doesn't make any sense. My argument has nothing to do with the truth of the existence of gods, it had to do with the burden of responsibility for claims that have been made. You, the atheist, are making the exceptional claim. You have greater burden than I, the one who holds the majority position, to make a convincing case for your claim. That has absolutely NO bearing on the truth of the claims, it has to do with the responsibility of the claim maker. How that wasn't clear to you from the offset is, again, either due to bad comprehension or cheap point scoring.

What a pathetic attempted rationalisation of your logical fallacy.

I mean, think what you want. I know what I meant, and I'm pretty sure it was clear to others here as well. We can take it to a poll if you'd like.

It was!

Nope.

[Adrift]

Oh there is evidence aplenty. YOU just don't accept it.

Couple points about his post that I'm not sure you noticed. First, he moved the goalpost. He was originally asking for any evidence (post #318), then he specified "empirical evidence" (post #320). As I understand it, there are a number of things that scientists accept (at least, tentatively) without empirical evidence (e.g., I believe the composition of the atom is an example, the existence of the multiverse comes to mind, for awhile string theory couldn't be accounted for empirically). Some things we arrive at by deductive or inductive reasoning, through mathematics or logic. Most popular arguments for the existence of the divine, the supernatural, the soul, etc., do not rely on "unverifiable assertions made by ancient authors...2000 years ago" Quite a bit of it is logically arrived at by relatively recent authors. In the past, I've offered the example of Natural Theology that attempts to provide evidence for these things which do not directly rely on any religion's special revelation, but through our experience and understanding of nature.

[JimL]

Oh there is evidence aplenty.

Okay, show me the evidence. Not simple assertions, or the fact that many people believe ancient assertions, and not god of the gaps arguments, but show me the actual evidence of a god.

YOU just don't accept it.

Well, lets see it. Just one piece of actual, factual, evidence of a supernatural being.

But since the Theologians DO accept it and you say you should accept the consensus of the experts in the field, then you should accept it too! The evidence itself doesn't matter, right?

Wrong, the evidence does matter, and unlike the evidence fo General relativity, Theologians have no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Thats why they call belief in one faith!

Just like in AGW. If the scientists believe the evidence it doesn't matter if anyone else does, we should all believe the consensus of the experts! That is what you and Tassman have been saying. Yet when it comes to something YOU don't believe, all of a sudden it is not the consensus that matters, but the evidence itself!

Wrong. In science there is not only the consensus of the scientists, but there is also actual evidence upon which they either come to consensus or do not. Theologians may come to a consensus on their belief in a supernatural being, but its a consensus based on faith, not on actual evidence. A gap in our knowledge concerning the natural world is not evidence of the supernatural.

Thank you for finally admitting I was correct to tell Tassman that the consensus doesn't matter, only the actual evidence does.

Once again Jimmy shoots himself in the foot.

The consensus itself isn't what matters, the evidence does. The consensus among the experts in the field just re-inforces the validity of the evidence for those of us who are not experts in the field.

[Sparko]

Thank you for finally admitting I was correct to tell Tassman that the consensus doesn't matter, only the actual evidence does.

The consensus itself isn't what matters, the evidence does.

Thank you once again for making my point for me! JimL, I think you would make an excellent conservative.

[JimL]

Thank you once again for making my point for me! JimL, I think you would make an excellent conservative.

Slanderous!