Mayor says giving atheists equal treatment is like favoring the Nazis or the KKK

[CaptainObvious]

Correct, it is not reasonable. First off, lots of people were crucified back then, and people from all walks of life had every right to be legitimately afraid of that consequence despite their continued actions endangering them... not that anybody, from Jesus' followers to the next "messiah" half a block down's fear of crucifixion really makes anything more or less reasonable. Don't forget that history is written by the victors; just because we have 19-20 century old records from the religion that ended up winning out saying "we've always been right" doesn't mean that there weren't dissenters and deserters at the time who's voices have been lost in the thousands of years of history since then. There is a far greater incentive for the followers of Jesus to assert their correctness over time than there is for those who did not believe to ensure their opinions retained a historic value.

1 Corinthians 15:6 holds that 500 people witnessed Jesus after his resurrection... This sounds impressive (though only a little, as even 500 people isn't all that many when considering that such an outlandish claim would require a very high burden of proof, and the fact that they viewed something from the sort of distance required for 500 people to all see something) until you take into account that this was written 20 years after the fact by someone who benefits greatly from an impressive sounding story (it shouldn't even be necessary to ask "but what reason would he have to lie?" and it's worth noticing that only the apostles are on record as being close enough to touch him [Luke 24:37-43]). Paul tells us there were 500 people, where are ANY of their stories backing up his claims? Do, of course, correct me if I'm missing some key biblical lines here--do, however, take into consideration that even within the different sects of Christianity there are wildly contradictory beliefs, so please do try to find something that they all agree on if you'd like to bring it up.


.

You're completely missing the point. You're giving me reasons why you think Jesus wasn't the Son of God, all of which could lead one to reasonably conclude he wasn't. But the truth of the matter is they are just reasons, not known facts. I also gave reasons why many believe he was the Son of God. Also reasons why one could reasonably conclude he was. But again, the truth of the matter is they are reasons, not known facts. It comes down to whether one has faith or not, but I would still argue both conclusions are reasonable.
------

Since you have admitted that it's not "unreasonable not to believe them" (catch that double negative?) and that "it's reasonable to doubt them to be sure" than it is your own assertion that there is no certainty in the matter, since certainty is the antonym of doubt. Steadfast and certain belief in something that is reasonable to doubt and about which there is no certainty is not reasonable, though it is faithful. As far as viewing the matter objectively, it is absolutely not objective to take the bible as the final word on the matter without weighing it against the far more logical alternatives.

Far more logical to whom? Since neither side can prove nor disprove the existence of God, what makes one alternative more logical than the other?
------

I actually know quite a bit about the history of Christianity and religion in general. I've explained in detail why a non-believer's perspective is reasonable (something you actually agree with several times in your post) and I've given many examples of how any given faith is unreasonable. But y'know, thanks for the dismissive assumption, and for ignoring and steamrolling past all the points I've made.....

.

Right, sure you do. I didn't roll past anything. I got your points. "My side is reasonable while yours isn't". See? I got the gist of them.
------

So we're on the same page that atheists' beliefs are reasonable. Great.

Now find me a definition from any non-religious source of the word "faith" that doesn't explicitly mention a lack of proof. Block yourself off some time for that search, it might take a while. Belief without proof is not generally considered to be "reason". It's less that one side has a monopoly on reason, as that the other side isn't using any.

.

Proof? Whoever said anything about proof? My ONLY argument is it's incorrect to argue having faith is unreasonable. I never said anything about proof. Talk about steamrolling past points made.

I believe there is life on another planet somewhere. The vast size of the universe leads me to conclude the odds of life existing on another planet is exponentially high. I have no proof of this life, but it's silly to say my belief is unreasonable.
------

Sorry to give you the impression that I was telling you what you personally believe, I assure you I only use the word "you" in the universal sense. Frankly, I don't really care and it's not really relevant what you personally base your faith on or what sort of spiritual journey you've gone on... unless it's somehow based on objective, observable, testable evidence, the moral of the story is that it is, as you said in your own words, faith. Just because you have reasons for believing something does not mean you are utilizing reason... My buddy went on a spiritual journey into the woods and after tripping hard and petting a wild animal he now believes in The Divinity of the Seven Raccoons, but since nobody but him can see or test for the healing miracles of The Great Procyonidae, one must logically consider him devoutly faithful but entirely without reason.

As far as telling you what Christians base their faith (there's that word again) on, it's uh, a pretty well documented subject? Hardly presumptuous or ignorant having taken classes and done research on the subject, one might be more accurate to call my assertions in this regard well-versed. That being said, it's not even about you, or specifically Christians or the bible (though the fact that it's a very popular religion which many people know a lot about does make for lots of convenient examples to use), it's that religion in general demands belief despite a lack of evidence whereas atheism promotes belief as a result of overwhelming evidence.

---

Now don't take it the wrong way, I'm not saying one doesn't have every right to their beliefs. Though a Christian believes in the word of the Bible, a Muslim believes in the word of the Quran, and my friend believes in word of The Great Tree Story, each individual is entitled to their beliefs... if it comforts you, or provides you some positive benefit without negatively impacting others, I can't help but support that. But don't delude yourself, or attempt to spread that delusion to others--unless you're a non-believer, you're faith is based on, well, faith. As I mentioned earlier: if that's upsetting to you, I'm truly sorry for your consternation, though again, it's not out of your control to change to a system of belief that's based instead on reason.

Actually there is plenty of evidence, you just find it unconvincing. Which is fine, I really don't care, I can still find your lack of faith reasonable. It's just incorrect to say those who find the evidence unreasonable since you can't prove God does not exist.

 

[Daemonic]

Ridiculous comparison, but.....

Why set it up right next to the prayer station? The only reason to even consider this it to try and start problems. It could be set up anywhere, this is like when I see articles about Atheist putting stuff up right next to holiday displays. What is the point other than trying to cause drama? Believe what you want wherever you want; but the moment you stand in front of a place with different beliefs whining and moaning you want to be right next to them or in front of them you look like a drama queen. It's like screaming, " hey there, I'm a attention whore and wanna set up a place that protest your place right next to you just so I can be a douche."

 

[SenatorB]

You're completely missing the point. You're giving me reasons why you think Jesus wasn't the Son of God, all of which could lead one to reasonably conclude he wasn't. But the truth of the matter is they are just reasons, not known facts. I also gave reasons why many believe he was the Son of God. Also reasons why one could reasonably conclude he was. But again, the truth of the matter is they are reasons, not known facts.

No, I'm not missing the point, I'm just disagreeing with it. The difference between my "reasons, not known facts" and yours is that mine are based on observable, testable evidence that is logically consistent with humanity's understanding of the universe whereas yours are based solely on the bible. All 7 billion people on earth can test my reasoning and come to an identical conclusion; many disparate minorities of those people have chosen to reject and ignore observable reality in favor of what's written in different books of their choice. It's not a matter of both sets of people having unfounded beliefs in equally unprovable unestablished facts. The situations are far from comparable.

It comes down to whether one has faith or not
It comes down to whether one has faith or not
It comes down to whether one has faith or not
It comes down to whether one has faith or not
It comes down to whether one has faith or not, but I would still argue both conclusions are reasonable.

The "or not" actually has a label--a dictionary definition--that is commonly used: reason.

You've said it yourself, it's either one... or the other. Faith... or reason.

Merely making an argument doesn't lend your argument validity, it's based on the logical strength of the points made supporting it... and the points supporting your argument are flawed and fallacious.

Far more logical to whom? Since neither side can prove nor disprove the existence of God, what makes one alternative more logical than the other?

...To anyone who can objectively utilize logic without being blinded by their personal beliefs. When a claim is made, it is on the maker of that claim to provide proof of their claim. "Burden of proof" is the name of the logical fallacy you have used here... so uh, that's what makes one alternative more logical than the other.

Right, sure you do. I didn't roll past anything. I got your points. "My side is reasonable while yours isn't". See? I got the gist of them.

Getting the gist of something, ignoring and refusing to address the specifics, and then continuing to make the same points as have already been disproved... totally not steamrolling past anything. It's easy to disagree with a single summarizing sentence--that's what you're doing. It's much harder to disagree when you actually attempt to address the points that have been made to establish that summary--something you continue to fail to do. Getting the gist of something might work to write a book report, but it's not a worthy level of understanding to participate in a serious or mature discussion of a topic.

Proof? Whoever said anything about proof? My ONLY argument is it's incorrect to argue having faith is unreasonable. I never said anything about proof. Talk about steamrolling past points made.

The only steamrolling here is how you ignore the part where i said:

Belief without proof is not generally considered to be "reason".

It's a red herring to get semantic and talk about how nothing in life can truly be proven... it's not really worth talking about in this context, and serves only as a distraction. Instead, you could understand that what is commonly meant by "proof" is to entail a high level of observable, testable evidence.

Care to actually address the point, that faith--by definition--is not compatible with reason?

I believe there is life on another planet somewhere. The vast size of the universe leads me to conclude the odds of life existing on another planet is exponentially high. I have no proof of this life, but it's silly to say my belief is unreasonable.

Hey, that's a kinda unconventional viewpoint for a Christian! Cool! I wonder how that fits in to the bible... did Jesus die for their sins too, even though he lived in a time where people thought the sun revolved around the earth, or do they have their own alien version of Jesus, or do they just all automatically go to hell because they were unlucky enough to be born off of earth? Maybe best not to let the worms out of that particular can, at least in this discussion.

To the point you're attempting to make here: there is observable, testable evidence about your givens when it comes to alien life--the size of the universe, the distribution of life-giving chemical compounds in the universe, the existence of exoplanets, etc.. Every year we make vast strides in our understanding of the potential for other life, and it becomes a more reasonable belief as we improve our evidence and ability to test it. There is far more evidence that the universe has the capability to support other life than the zero evidence that supports religious beliefs. To that end, it is a far more reasonable belief despite the fact that neither can be proven (though belief in alien life is a subset of unprovable, and belief in god is also a subset of unprovable, it does not imply that the two subsets are equal or even similar in any other ways).

Actually there is plenty of evidence, you just find it unconvincing. Which is fine, I really don't care, I can still find your lack of faith reasonable. It's just incorrect to say those who find the evidence unreasonable since you can't prove God does not exist.

You're right about this, there is plenty of unconvincing evidence for religion. Between the bible, and a rich history of tradition passed down from parents and pastors, Christians have a lot to go off of as far as reasons for their beliefs. But I challenge you: provide evidence that does not commit a genetic fallacy or an appeal to tradition. Give me facts, give me evidence I can observe, give me the conditions and let me test what you're claiming. Again, the burden of proof is on the religious here, not the non-believers.

Why set it up right next to the prayer station? The only reason to even consider this it to try and start problems. It could be set up anywhere, this is like when I see articles about Atheist putting stuff up right next to holiday displays. What is the point other than trying to cause drama? Believe what you want wherever you want; but the moment you stand in front of a place with different beliefs whining and moaning you want to be right next to them or in front of them you look like a drama queen. It's like screaming, " hey there, I'm a attention whore and wanna set up a place that protest your place right next to you just so I can be a douche."

I actually agree with you here that it does seem likely that the primary reason for setting up such a booth is to make a point about the invalidity of the other booth... which is why I think it's inappropriate for either booth to be established on governmental property. Though it may be confrontational, and some might consider that unnecessary or dramatic, the point being made is still valid--a religious booth on government property is discriminatory and wrong. It's absolutely a shame that merely asking a mayor "please remove that booth, it bothers and offends me" (or a holiday display, or whatever) won't accomplish as much as practical action visibly highlighting the problem.

 

[CaptainObvious]

No, I'm not missing the point, I'm just disagreeing with it. The difference between my "reasons, not known facts" and yours is that mine are based on observable, testable evidence that is logically consistent with humanity's understanding of the universe whereas yours are based solely on the bible. All 7 billion people on earth can test my reasoning and come to an identical conclusion; many disparate minorities of those people have chosen to reject and ignore observable reality in favor of what's written in different books of their choice. It's not a matter of both sets of people having unfounded beliefs in equally unprovable unestablished facts. The situations are far from comparable.
.

Wait, you have "observable testable evidence" that God does not exist? Well hell, why didn't you say so? By all means show it to us. Enlighten us. I would LOVE to see it.
------

The "or not" actually has a label--a dictionary definition--that is commonly used: reason.

You've said it yourself, it's either one... or the other. Faith... or reason.

.

Um, no it doesn't. Neither can be proved or disproved. I said that? It's either faith or reason? When? That has never been my point. I suggest you go back and read it again.
------

Merely making an argument doesn't lend your argument validity, it's based on the logical strength of the points made supporting it... and the points supporting your argument are flawed and fallacious.

Do you know what those words mean? My point is it isn't unreasonable to have faith and believe in God. Please show me where the logic is flawed and it's fallacious.
------

...To anyone who can objectively utilize logic without being blinded by their personal beliefs. When a claim is made, it is on the maker of that claim to provide proof of their claim. "Burden of proof" is the name of the logical fallacy you have used here... so uh, that's what makes one alternative more logical than the other.

You mean how EVERYBODY is blinded by their beliefs? And no, I'm not using anything, you REALLY need to go back and read what I said. Logic does not lead me to conclude whether God exists or not. There is no evidence that proves or disproves his existence. If I choose to believe however, that belief isn't unreasonable.
------

Getting the gist of something, ignoring and refusing to address the specifics, and then continuing to make the same points as have already been disproved... totally not steamrolling past anything. It's easy to disagree with a single summarizing sentence--that's what you're doing. It's much harder to disagree when you actually attempt to address the points that have been made to establish that summary--something you continue to fail to do. Getting the gist of something might work to write a book report, but it's not a worthy level of understanding to participate in a serious or mature discussion of a topic.

Addressing what specifics? Your claim of "my lack of faith is reasonable while your faith isn't" isn't a point, it's an opinion. You've done nothing but make broad generalized opinions about "it's either faith or reason" as if these words are mutually exclusive.
------

The only steamrolling here is how you ignore the part where i said:

Belief without proof is not generally considered to be "reason".

By this definition you are unreasonable since you believe God does not exist without being able to prove it.
------

It's a red herring to get semantic and talk about how nothing in life can truly be proven... it's not really worth talking about in this context, and serves only as a distraction. Instead, you could understand that what is commonly meant by "proof" is to entail a high level of observable, testable evidence.

Care to actually address the point, that faith--by definition--is not compatible with reason?

Who said nothing in life can truly be proven? No, because that isn't the definition of faith. YOUR definition is a red herring.
------

Hey, that's a kinda unconventional viewpoint for a Christian! Cool! I wonder how that fits in to the bible... did Jesus die for their sins too, even though he lived in a time where people thought the sun revolved around the earth, or do they have their own alien version of Jesus, or do they just all automatically go to hell because they were unlucky enough to be born off of earth? Maybe best not to let the worms out of that particular can, at least in this discussion.

To the point you're attempting to make here: there is observable, testable evidence about your givens when it comes to alien life--the size of the universe, the distribution of life-giving chemical compounds in the universe, the existence of exoplanets, etc.. Every year we make vast strides in our understanding of the potential for other life, and it becomes a more reasonable belief as we improve our evidence and ability to test it. There is far more evidence that the universe has the capability to support other life than the zero evidence that supports religious beliefs. To that end, it is a far more reasonable belief despite the fact that neither can be proven (though belief in alien life is a subset of unprovable, and belief in god is also a subset of unprovable, it does not imply that the two subsets are equal or even similar in any other ways).

I don't know how alien life would fit with God, and I don't care.


Nevertheless, one could argue there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth and thus it does not exist and it would be a reasonable conclusion.
------

You're right about this, there is plenty of unconvincing evidence for religion. Between the bible, and a rich history of tradition passed down from parents and pastors, Christians have a lot to go off of as far as reasons for their beliefs. But I challenge you: provide evidence that does not commit a genetic fallacy or an appeal to tradition. Give me facts, give me evidence I can observe, give me the conditions and let me test what you're claiming. Again, the burden of proof is on the religious here, not the non-believers.

No it isn't, I don't have to prove anything to you, quite frankly I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe. I can say the same thing, give me facts that prove God does not exist. You can't, yet it's still reasonable to conclude he doesn't.

 

[SenatorB]

Wait, you have "observable testable evidence" that God does not exist? Well hell, why didn't you say so? By all means show it to us. Enlighten us. I would LOVE to see it.

It is beyond easy to observe and test for a lack of evidence of god's existence: I'm observing reality right now, and I do not observe god. In fact, I've never observed god in my entire life, and neither have you, and neither has any other person alive today or who has ever lived throughout all of history (delusions, liars, and salesmen excluded). I can set up any test invented by our best and brightest minds to search for god, and every single one will fail. every. single. time. I can test for gravity, and I can test for magnetism, and I can test for germs and I can test for evolution, and I can test for love, and I can test for morality, and I can test for colors, and I can test for everything that is considered to be known about our reality... with the right tests, anything that exists can be observed, even invisibly tiny and incredibly short-lived particles like the Higgs Boson can be tested for as our technology increases, and yet not one test that has been invented or imagined has revealed god. This doesn't prove god doesn't exist, but it does prove that there's zero observable, testable reasons to think god does.

But that's all completely besides the point, the point that you continue to miss completely is that...

The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim. Burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and it is fallacious to insist that your claim is reasonable unless I'm able to prove the antithesis.

Um, no it doesn't. Neither can be proved or disproved. I said that? It's either faith or reason? When? That has never been my point. I suggest you go back and read it again.

It comes down to whether one has faith or not

When you say "it comes right down to" it sounds a lot like you're describing your point. When you say "whether one has faith or not" it sounds a lot like you're describing two opposing viewpoints. So that's when you said that and stated that as your point. Right there.

And again, it doesn't matter that my viewpoint can't be proved or disproved, since you are the one making the claim I'm opposing. The burden of proof is on you, which means your lack of proof is significant and mine is irrelevant... this is not due to opinion or bias, but to the principles of classical logic and reasoning.

Do you know what those words mean? My point is it isn't unreasonable to have faith and believe in God. Please show me where the logic is flawed and it's fallacious.

In my last post I said that "Merely making an argument doesn't lend your argument validity" because you said you would make an argument but did not support it in any logical way.

In this post, I'll remind you that "Merely restating your argument doesn't lend your argument validity" because while you've repeated the conclusion to your argument numerous times, you still haven't brought up any logical backing to your claims.

Though I've already explicitly pointed out where your logic is fallacious, I'll do so again since you're asking (that is, seem to be ignoring those parts). To start, perhaps you ought to look up the word "fallacious"... since you've questioned my understanding, lets both make sure we're both on the same page. When I looked it up to confirm my knowledge, I got a pretty good sense that I know what the word means because your point I was calling fallacious is actually the example the dictionary uses for fallacious: <it's fallacious to say that something must exist because science hasn't proven its nonexistence>. Ouch, right? So go ahead and pick a different dictionary of your choice, I'm sure not all of them will call you out directly, like Merriam-Webster is doing.

So you asked me to show you "where the logic is flawed and it's fallacious" and there's your answer: your logical fallacy is burden of proof.

You mean how EVERYBODY is blinded by their beliefs? And no, I'm not using anything, you REALLY need to go back and read what I said. Logic does not lead me to conclude whether God exists or not. There is no evidence that proves or disproves his existence. If I choose to believe however, that belief isn't unreasonable.

Everybody is blinded to a certain extent by their beliefs, but some are blinded more so than others. My eyes are open, show me a single piece of convincing evidence that god exists, and I'll believe it's reasonable to have faith... on the other hand, when you refuse to acknowledge (despite the evidence) that your logic is fallacious, it shows how truly blind you are.
Just to examine exactly what you're saying here:
"Logic does not lead me to conclude whether God exists or not." means... your conclusions are not based on logic. You go on to explain what, as opposed to logic, your conclusions are based on...
"There is no evidence that proves or disproves his existence." which is, as previously shown, a logical fallacy. Every one of the many times you make this statement, you are using a logical fallacy.
So you've said your conclusions are not based on logic, and explained that instead, your conclusions are based on a logical fallacy. And then you say that your conclusions are reasonable. The differences between these blatant opposites (conclusions based on fallacies and lack of logic and conclusions that are reasonable) would almost be comedic to try and reconcile, and I'd usually laugh at such an assertion thinking it was a sarcastic joke... and yet, despite the odds, you honestly seem to think that conclusions based on fallacies and lack of logic are also reasonable to believe in.

Addressing what specifics? Your claim of "my lack of faith is reasonable while your faith isn't" isn't a point, it's an opinion. You've done nothing but make broad generalized opinions about "it's either faith or reason" as if these words are mutually exclusive.

Well, one of the specifics is where I explained several times and in a variety of ways how those words are mutually exclusive. In fact, that is specifically the point I've been making this whole time. And, more than just stating an opinion, I've backed it up using principles of philosophy, hard logic, common societal understandings, and dictionary definitions. Just because you use the same fallacious and non-specific response ("neither can be proven or disproven") regardless of what I've said does not mean that I haven't brought up specifics... it just means you've failed to appropriately address them. For the record, I won't be repeating them here, as a simple re-read of the thread should suffice to reveal where you have responded incompletely.

By this definition you are unreasonable since you believe God does not exist without being able to prove it.

Burden of proof. Seriously. I'd explain it in detail here, but I've already explained it really thoroughly. As an illustrative example, read Carl Sagan's "The dragon in my garage".

Who said nothing in life can truly be proven? No, because that isn't the definition of faith. YOUR definition is a red herring.

To recap:
I stated "Belief without proof is not generally considered to be "reason""
and then asked you to "find me a definition from any non-religious source of the word "faith" that doesn't explicitly mention a lack of proof."
To which you responded "Proof? Whoever said anything about proof?" which completely ignored the first statement I made correlating proof to reason.

I tried to see and respond to a possible explanation for why you would have ignored part of what I'd written, but I guess since you literally were just ignoring that part afterall, I was lead to misinterpret your statement. My bad, but next time try to actually address what I've said, so I don't have to try and fill in the gaps.

I asked you again to "address the point, that faith--by definition--is not compatible with reason?" You've now ignored this request twice, but I continue to insist upon it... You have asserted otherwise, but have yet to explain the discrepancy between your assertion and the dictionary definition of the words. Will you ignore me a third time?

I don't know how alien life would fit with God, and I don't care.
Nevertheless, one could argue there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth and thus it does not exist and it would be a reasonable conclusion.

Really? It seems like it would make kind of a big difference. It's a pretty serious issue with a lot of theological significance for many religious people... though I guess it shouldn't surprise me that your statement of what you believe is more important to you than the presence of any explanation for your belief.

You're right though, it would be a reasonable conclusion to state that "there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth and thus it does not exist" just as it would be unreasonable to state that "though there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth, I faithfully believe that it absolutely exists". It is also reasonable to not believe in Santa, dragons, and leprechauns, and unreasonable to have faith in them.

That being said, as I stated in my last post (more specifics that you ignored), there IS proof that the universe has the conditions necessary to support extraterrestrial life. Because we have a lot of observable and testable evidence about this, and we're developing more all the time, it is somewhat less reasonable to have adamant beliefs about aliens not existing and somewhat more reasonable to be open to their existence. Though for the time being, neither god nor aliens can be proven, there is a massively different amount of evidence in support of each. Aliens are getting more believable every day as we discover more, while god continues to occupy the same level of evidence as Santa, dragons, and leprechauns.

No it isn't, I don't have to prove anything to you, quite frankly I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe. I can say the same thing, give me facts that prove God does not exist. You can't, yet it's still reasonable to conclude he doesn't.

You're right, of course, you don't have to prove anything to me (though if you're not interested in trying, get out of the debate and discussion forums), and I'm sure it matters very little to you what I believe in (though your continued responses demonstrate otherwise). I have given you several challenges, and you have ignored and failed to meet them... instead, you reverted to your oft-used logical fallacy of asking me to prove your point's antithesis, and remained unconvincing as a result. As stated in Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Dame, the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false". Since I hold the position "I do not believe that god exists" in response to your claim, you need to provide proof of your claim or be deemed unreasonable... meanwhile, since you have failed to provide such proof, as you said above, "it's still reasonable to conclude he doesn't."

---

Didn't you say you used to be a prosecutor? I'd think you'd understand a little better about how burden of proof works. The prosecutor is the one claiming the defendant committed the crime, and therefore it is on them to provide evidence and prove that to the jury. As I'm sure you know, our legal system holds that you are innocent until proven guilty. Conversely, using your logic (as repeatedly stated by you), it would be equally reasonable to consider a defendant guilty as innocent, even if there was no evidence of guilt... since neither position can be proved, both are totally reasonable?? I'm not so sure about that.

 

[CaptainObvious]

It is beyond easy to observe and test for a lack of evidence of god's existence: I'm observing reality right now, and I do not observe god. In fact, I've never observed god in my entire life, and neither have you, and neither has any other person alive today or who has ever lived throughout all of history (delusions, liars, and salesmen excluded). I can set up any test invented by our best and brightest minds to search for god, and every single one will fail. every. single. time. I can test for gravity, and I can test for magnetism, and I can test for germs and I can test for evolution, and I can test for love, and I can test for morality, and I can test for colors, and I can test for everything that is considered to be known about our reality... with the right tests, anything that exists can be observed, even invisibly tiny and incredibly short-lived particles like the Higgs Boson can be tested for as our technology increases, and yet not one test that has been invented or imagined has revealed god. This doesn't prove god doesn't exist, but it does prove that there's zero observable, testable reasons to think god does.

But that's all completely besides the point, the point that you continue to miss completely is that...

The burden of proof lies with the maker of the claim. Burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and it is fallacious to insist that your claim is reasonable unless I'm able to prove the antithesis.
.

Dear God this isn't difficult. I'm arguing "you can't prove God doesn't exist therefor he exists". Quit using phrases you don't understand. This isn't a burden of proof fallacy because I'm not asking you to prove ANYTHHNG. My argument you can't prove God does not exist therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does. This is very simple, for the life of me I don't understand what's so hard to grasp.

And you have NO idea what I have seen or haven't seen, experienced or haven't experienced. The way you presume however is comical.

Still waiting for that proof, by the way.

 

[CaptainObvious]

When you say "it comes right down to" it sounds a lot like you're describing your point. When you say "whether one has faith or not" it sounds a lot like you're describing two opposing viewpoints. So that's when you said that and stated that as your point. Right there.

And again, it doesn't matter that my viewpoint can't be proved or disproved, since you are the one making the claim I'm opposing. The burden of proof is on you, which means your lack of proof is significant and mine is irrelevant... this is not due to opinion or bias, but to the principles of classical logic and reasoning.

Honestly, I don't know what the problem is here. There is no burden on anybody because I'm not making the argument you or I need to prove anything. I'm not saying ANYBODY'S proof or lack thereof is significant or irrelevant, only that having faith in God isn't unreasonable. You live with the misguided assumption faith and reason are opposites.
------

In my last post I said that "Merely making an argument doesn't lend your argument validity" because you said you would make an argument but did not support it in any logical way.

In this post, I'll remind you that "Merely restating your argument doesn't lend your argument validity" because while you've repeated the conclusion to your argument numerous times, you still haven't brought up any logical backing to your claims.

Though I've already explicitly pointed out where your logic is fallacious, I'll do so again since you're asking (that is, seem to be ignoring those parts). To start, perhaps you ought to look up the word "fallacious"... since you've questioned my understanding, lets both make sure we're both on the same page. When I looked it up to confirm my knowledge, I got a pretty good sense that I know what the word means because your point I was calling fallacious is actually the example the dictionary uses for fallacious: <it's fallacious to say that something must exist because science hasn't proven its nonexistence>. Ouch, right? So go ahead and pick a different dictionary of your choice, I'm sure not all of them will call you out directly, like Merriam-Webster is doing.

So you asked me to show you "where the logic is flawed and it's fallacious" and there's your answer: your logical fallacy is burden of proof.

And for the 100th time, that isn't my argument. I never argued God must exist because science hasn't proven His nonexistence. My argument, for the 100th time, is His nonexistence hasn't been proven therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does. I even went to great lengths to point out NOT believing in God is a reasonable point of view as well.
------

Everybody is blinded to a certain extent by their beliefs, but some are blinded more so than others. My eyes are open, show me a single piece of convincing evidence that god exists, and I'll believe it's reasonable to have faith... on the other hand, when you refuse to acknowledge (despite the evidence) that your logic is fallacious, it shows how truly blind you are.
Just to examine exactly what you're saying here:
"Logic does not lead me to conclude whether God exists or not." means... your conclusions are not based on logic. You go on to explain what, as opposed to logic, your conclusions are based on...
"There is no evidence that proves or disproves his existence." which is, as previously shown, a logical fallacy. Every one of the many times you make this statement, you are using a logical fallacy.
So you've said your conclusions are not based on logic, and explained that instead, your conclusions are based on a logical fallacy. And then you say that your conclusions are reasonable. The differences between these blatant opposites (conclusions based on fallacies and lack of logic and conclusions that are reasonable) would almost be comedic to try and reconcile, and I'd usually laugh at such an assertion thinking it was a sarcastic joke... and yet, despite the odds, you honestly seem to think that conclusions based on fallacies and lack of logic are also reasonable to believe in.

I can come to these conclusions: 1) you lack critical thinking skills; 2) you lack reading comprehension skills; 3) you don't know what logical fallacies are; 4) all of the above.


You conclusions aren't based on logic because your conclusions are based on things not argued.
------

Really? It seems like it would make kind of a big difference. It's a pretty serious issue with a lot of theological significance for many religious people... though I guess it shouldn't surprise me that your statement of what you believe is more important to you than the presence of any explanation for your belief.

You're right though, it would be a reasonable conclusion to state that "there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth and thus it does not exist" just as it would be unreasonable to state that "though there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth, I faithfully believe that it absolutely exists". It is also reasonable to not believe in Santa, dragons, and leprechauns, and unreasonable to have faith in them.

Not really. I have no idea whether God has also made His presence known to any aliens or why He neglected to tell us about life on another planet, or whatever. I don't think science and religion are polar opposites as many do.


Sure it's reasonable to not believe in those things. So?
------

You're right, of course, you don't have to prove anything to me (though if you're not interested in trying, get out of the debate and discussion forums), and I'm sure it matters very little to you what I believe in (though your continued responses demonstrate otherwise). I have given you several challenges, and you have ignored and failed to meet them... instead, you reverted to your oft-used logical fallacy of asking me to prove your point's antithesis, and remained unconvincing as a result. As stated in Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Dame, the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false". Since I hold the position "I do not believe that god exists" in response to your claim, you need to provide proof of your claim or be deemed unreasonable... meanwhile, since you have failed to provide such proof, as you said above, "it's still reasonable to conclude he doesn't."

---

Didn't you say you used to be a prosecutor? I'd think you'd understand a little better about how burden of proof works. The prosecutor is the one claiming the defendant committed the crime, and therefore it is on them to provide evidence and prove that to the jury. As I'm sure you know, our legal system holds that you are innocent until proven guilty. Conversely, using your logic (as repeatedly stated by you), it would be equally reasonable to consider a defendant guilty as innocent, even if there was no evidence of guilt... since neither position can be proved, both are totally reasonable?? I'm not so sure about that.

Do you google these books and cite them here, because if you've actually read them then I'm puzzled by your lack of understanding them, but that would account for the lack of reading skills. I don't need to prove anything or be deemed unreasonable, unless you are someone who lacks critical thinking skills. My claim isn't that God exists, only that it's reasonable to believe he does. Your response to my claim is "I don't believe he does"....so? That does not negate my argument, but it does solidify my previous argument "My reasoning is reasonable because I say it is" which is what you have been employing throughout.


Glad you brought that up. Innocent until Proven Guilty is a legal standard used in a courtroom ONLY. For example, I believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. In my opinion the evidence is overwhelming but the prosecutor's office did a horrible job in presenting that evidence. That position, based on the evidence is reasonable. A jury thought otherwise however and found him Not Guilty. Based on the presentation of the evidence they found the state failed to meet their burden, likewise THAT isn't unreasonable. Both positions are reasonable and you can't argue "my reasoning is logical and your isn't because I said so" because we don't really know if OJ killed them or not. Most oftentimes it's reasonable to conclude the guilt or nonguilt of someone arrested until there is a conviction or an acquittal, in other words until it is proven or disproven, much like here.

 

[SenatorB]

Oh gosh, I haven't responded to this yet? I guess I just read your responses (nice double post by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's an edit feature for situations like that), and after scoffing, face-palming, and mentally constructing the childishly obvious rebuttals your post, I just moved on before actually writing anything down.

I guess when a debate reaches the point where one party resorts to ad hominem attacks instead of trying to make points (or in your case, provide even a single shred of evidence for the one point you've stated), I start to lose interest. What ad hominem, you ask?

I can come to these conclusions: 1) you lack critical thinking skills; 2) you lack reading comprehension skills; 3) you don't know what logical fallacies are; 4) all of the above.

Oh yeah, right there. Very convincing, and I think you're really making some good arguments and are explaining your well documented point in a reasonable manner we can all understand. Oh wait, that's right, they're actually off-topic and insultingly false, while neither supporting your point nor rebutting mine. Your comments probably don't count as "excessive flaming" but it's a big stretch to see them as a constructive or appropriate part of a debate... honestly, it just makes you look desperate, and like you don't have anything relevant to contribute (an appearance which is only reenforced by the rest of your post). u mad bro?

I lose even more interest when one party reveals that they literally aren't even finishing reading what I've written before they respond. You've shown you can't even make it through a whole paragraph before you've already dismissed it.
When I say

You're right though, it would be a reasonable conclusion to state that "there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth and thus it does not exist" just as it would be unreasonable to state that "though there is NO proof of existence of alien life outside of Earth, I faithfully believe that it absolutely exists". It is also reasonable to not believe in Santa, dragons, and leprechauns, and unreasonable to have faith in them.

and you respond

Sure it's reasonable to not believe in those things. So?

it shows that you have only read the part I highlighted here in bold.

Seriously? Try reading the sentences before the one you responded to, they clearly answer your question of "So?". Whether you just happened to miss the phrases "just as" or "it is also" that would generally tip someone off to the fact that the context is important, or whether you're ignoring them on purpose, the end result is the same: you aren't responding to what I'm saying, and therefore you are de facto bowing out of this discussion. When someone acts this way in a debate, it pressures me to bow out too... it begins feeling futile to construct a point (in this case an analogy) when 85% of it will be ignored in favor of an out of context 15%.

So... this will most likely be my last post in this thread; I'll thoroughly address all your points as I have reliably done so far, and that'll be that since I refuse to be brought down to your level of discussion.

I'm arguing "you can't prove God doesn't exist therefor he exists". Quit using phrases you don't understand. This isn't a burden of proof fallacy because I'm not asking you to prove ANYTHHNG

You are directly contradicting yourself. When you say I can't prove something, that is you asking me for proof. You can't challenge my ability to prove something and then claim you haven't asked for proof.

My argument you can't prove God does not exist therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does. This is very simple, for the life of me I don't understand what's so hard to grasp.

It's not hard to grasp at all. In fact, I've already moved pretty far past grasping it and onto disagreeing with it and doing a rigorous job of disproving it.

Again, as far as burden of proof is concerned, when you say "you can't prove God does not exist therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does" it is a fallacy. The word "therefore" implies that what comes before it justifies what comes after it, and the the part before it is your claim requiring your proof. Every single word of that phrase starting with and after "therefore" can be ignored because my ability to prove a claim I haven't made is irrelevant.

And you have NO idea what I have seen or haven't seen, experienced or haven't experienced. The way you presume however is comical.

So you're saying you've observed god? Not terribly canon of you, given Exodus 33:20 says you can't observe god and live. I made my statement about the complete lack of observable evidence for god's existence with confidence, knowing that even the bible admits it can't be done. But speaking of comical, I'm sure we'd all love to hear your experience in this regard!

Still waiting for that proof, by the way.

This isn't a burden of proof fallacy because I'm not asking you to prove ANYTHHNG

Uh. I guess there's nothing to say here, since you've made such a good point and are relaying such a totally consistent message.

Honestly, I don't know what the problem is here. There is no burden on anybody because I'm not making the argument you or I need to prove anything. I'm not saying ANYBODY'S proof or lack thereof is significant or irrelevant, only that having faith in God isn't unreasonable. You live with the misguided assumption faith and reason are opposites.

Lets break it down... we've got two things going here, whether proof is relevant and, if so, on whom does the burden fall:
1) You're claiming faith and reason are not opposites, I'm claiming faith and reason are opposites... this has been the debate from the beginning.
2) I'm saying the dictionary, common use of the words, philosophy and logic (which I've explained thoroughly and in a variety of ways) supports my claim. You patently ignored what I said to make numerous statements of "you can't prove God does not exist therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does" in support of your claim.
3) Your assertion in the way you phrase it is cause and effect, but since the premise is debatable in its own right, it makes more sense and is only worth addressing if it is rephrased it in the form of an if-then statement: "IF you can't prove god doesn't exist, THEN it isn't unreasonable to believe he does". With me so far?
4) In other words, where I used a number of different verifiable methods to support my point, you made an if-then statement (with my ability to provide proof as the conditional, and your initial claim as the result) to support your point.
5) Since the "if" in an if-then statement is significant and relevant to determining the truth of the "then" part of the statement, you have claimed that my ability to provide proof is significant and relevant to your initial claim being accurate.
6) While you claim my ability to provide proof is important, I claim it is not important.
7) You are the one claiming there's a god to begin with; if it weren't for the religious claiming "I believe there is a god", there would be no counter-claim of "I don't believe there is a god".
8) Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Asking me to provide proof is a fallacy.
9) You are unable to provide proof and it is fallacious to ask me for proof, therefore the "if" conditional fails.
10) When the "if" fails, the "then" also fails, so your statement is false.

So where's that put us? We've each made our claims, we've each provided evidence to support them. You have yet to respond to my compelling evidence in any satisfactory manner, in fact it's been almost entirely ignored. Meanwhile, I've responded to your evidence by showing it to be false.

Since you've made it clear that you have a hard time responding to complete thoughts (see the beginning of the post), I numbered the points above so that should you disagree with any of it you can reference those parts specifically... if that is the case, explain how the logic in that/those specific point/s is faulty and it'll be assumed that otherwise you agree with the rest.

And for the 100th time, that isn't my argument. I never argued God must exist because science hasn't proven His nonexistence. My argument, for the 100th time, is His nonexistence hasn't been proven therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does. I even went to great lengths to point out NOT believing in God is a reasonable point of view as well.

What you really mean is "IF his nonexistence hasn't been proven THEN it isn't unreasonable to believe he does". When it comes to that conditional statement, your "if" fails due to burden of proof and your inability to provide proof. It's completely relevant that you can't provide proof, and strictly insignificant that his nonexistence hasn't been proven. And yeah, it's starting to feel like you've made that same false argument 100 times... maybe you should try bringing something else with more validity to the table instead of repeating yourself over and over as though that'll make it true.

You're right about the last part though, where you say "NOT believing in God is a reasonable point of view as well".

Not really. I have no idea whether God has also made His presence known to any aliens or why He neglected to tell us about life on another planet, or whatever. I don't think science and religion are polar opposites as many do.

I guess it's kind of a non-sequitur, but I might make a new thread to discuss aliens and god coexisting in a universe, could be an interesting discussion in its own right. Would have been nice if you'd read and responded to the rest of the part you quoted though.

I don't need to prove anything or be deemed unreasonable, unless you are someone who lacks critical thinking skills.

I'll skip the ad-hominem above this quote, but would like to point out that if you want to say I don't understand something, you should probably point out the parts I didn't understand and correct them rather than just repeating yourself. Anyways...
Your need to prove something hinges on my capacity for critical thinking? That's... weird... I'd have thought it would hinge on your ability and desire to prove your point instead?

My claim isn't that God exists, only that it's reasonable to believe he does.

No no, really, I get it that that's your claim. I really really do. The part you're missing is that your one piece of evidence for why your claim is accurate (if god's existence can't be proven, then it's reasonable to believe in him) hinges on your ability to provide proof of god. I'm not saying your claim is that god exists, I'm saying that the validity of your evidence relies on proof that he does. Proof you must provide. If there's no proof, the evidence is faulty. If the evidence is faulty, it's not reasonable. There is no proof, so therefore it's not reasonable.

Your response to my claim is "I don't believe he does"....so? That does not negate my argument, but it does solidify my previous argument "My reasoning is reasonable because I say it is" which is what you have been employing throughout.

Is that my response? Is it really? And here I thought I was making all sorts of citations and well explained appeals to logic... and oh, hey would you look at that, when I scroll back up through all this, that's exactly what I've been doing, and what's been noticeably absent from your posts.

Glad you brought that up. Innocent until Proven Guilty is a legal standard used in a courtroom ONLY. For example, I believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. In my opinion the evidence is overwhelming but the prosecutor's office did a horrible job in presenting that evidence. That position, based on the evidence is reasonable. A jury thought otherwise however and found him Not Guilty. Based on the presentation of the evidence they found the state failed to meet their burden, likewise THAT isn't unreasonable. Both positions are reasonable and you can't argue "my reasoning is logical and your isn't because I said so" because we don't really know if OJ killed them or not. Most oftentimes it's reasonable to conclude the guilt or nonguilt of someone arrested until there is a conviction or an acquittal, in other words until it is proven or disproven, much like here.

Wow, you're right, that legal standard is only used in a legal situation! Very astute! Do you really not see how it's very similar to the logical standard that we're using in this logical situation? Is it hard to believe that the legal standard might be based on the logical standard? In any case, you've said it yourself that basing your position on the evidence is reasonable, and that the ability of the person making the claim to present their evidence is what determines the jury's reaction. This isn't like OJ where there's enough evidence for some people to consider it overwhelming and others to not, since there's zero evidence at all. Literally none.

To use your same OJ analogy, imagine if you as the prosecutor walked up to the stand and said "It's reasonable to think OJ is a murderer," and the defense said "there's no evidence of that, so that's not reasonable" and you responded "you can't prove OJ didn't kill them therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He did". You'd be laughed out of the courtroom and never allowed back. There's a reason jury members are supposed to be impartial and not pre-judge, to base their opinions solely on the evidence presented... unfortunately when it comes to religion, you've already pre-judged the situation (for many, this process begins as children) such that you cannot be impartial when it comes to determining whether it's reasonable or not; you're so set in your ways that you can't even see the evidence or lack thereof.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Oh gosh, I haven't responded to this yet? I guess I just read your responses (nice double post by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's an edit feature for situations like that), and after scoffing, face-palming, and mentally constructing the childishly obvious rebuttals your post, I just moved on before actually writing anything down.

I guess when a debate reaches the point where one party resorts to ad hominem attacks instead of trying to make points (or in your case, provide even a single shred of evidence for the one point you've stated), I start to lose interest. What ad hominem, you ask?
Oh yeah, right there. Very convincing, and I think you're really making some good arguments and are explaining your well documented point in a reasonable manner we can all understand. Oh wait, that's right, they're actually off-topic and insultingly false, while neither supporting your point nor rebutting mine. Your comments probably don't count as "excessive flaming" but it's a big stretch to see them as a constructive or appropriate part of a debate... honestly, it just makes you look desperate, and like you don't have anything relevant to contribute (an appearance which is only reenforced by the rest of your post). u mad bro?

It's somewhat hypocritical to complain about insults and childish remarks when you are giving them yourself, no? I mean, if you are going to use them, why complain when they are returned? By anyway, I see now you are a sensitive fellow who can dish out insults but can't take them so I'll be more patient and less insulting with you, lest your feelings get hurt.


I know you keep throwing out "that's a logical fallacy" and "this is a logical fallacy" but I don't think you've quite grasped what they are, I'm just pointing it out, I'm not insulting you. If I made a point and you made a counterpoint and I said "you lack critical thinking skills" THEN that would be an ad hominem, see I'm attacking you personally rather than your counterpoint. But when you misconstrue my point repeatedly and your counterpoint is not addressing the original point it isn't, I'm just pointing out the truth. There is a massive difference.
------

I lose even more interest when one party reveals that they literally aren't even finishing reading what I've written before they respond. You've shown you can't even make it through a whole paragraph before you've already dismissed it.
When I say
and you respond
it shows that you have only read the part I highlighted here in bold.

Seriously? Try reading the sentences before the one you responded to, they clearly answer your question of "So?". Whether you just happened to miss the phrases "just as" or "it is also" that would generally tip someone off to the fact that the context is important, or whether you're ignoring them on purpose, the end result is the same: you aren't responding to what I'm saying, and therefore you are de facto bowing out of this discussion. When someone acts this way in a debate, it pressures me to bow out too... it begins feeling futile to construct a point (in this case an analogy) when 85% of it will be ignored in favor of an out of context 15%.

So... this will most likely be my last post in this thread; I'll thoroughly address all your points as I have reliably done so far, and that'll be that since I refuse to be brought down to your level of discussion.

You need to understand, I'm not addressing everything. For one most of your posts are just ramblings about things I never said. I'm not going to address a misconstrued counterpoint. One shouldn't conclude I didn't read it, the more accurate conclusion is it wasn't worth responding to. I'm only addressing the original discussion, not faulty conclusions.
------

You are directly contradicting yourself. When you say I can't prove something, that is you asking me for proof. You can't challenge my ability to prove something and then claim you haven't asked for proof.

No, once again, I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm saying you CAN'T prove anything. Neither can I for that matter.
------

It's not hard to grasp at all. In fact, I've already moved pretty far past grasping it and onto disagreeing with it and doing a rigorous job of disproving it.

Again, as far as burden of proof is concerned, when you say "you can't prove God does not exist therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does" it is a fallacy. The word "therefore" implies that what comes before it justifies what comes after it, and the the part before it is your claim requiring your proof. Every single word of that phrase starting with and after "therefore" can be ignored because my ability to prove a claim I haven't made is irrelevant.

Again, no. It would be a logical fallacy to say "you can't prove God does not exist therefore he does". To say "therefore it's incorrect to say I'm unreasonable for having faith that he does" is not a logical fallacy.


To be clear, I'm not interested in your personal opinion. You can think it's unreasonable all you want, I'm only interested in whether it is logical to make those conclusions. I can say it's unreasonable to be an atheist all day long, that doesn't mean that it is.
------

So you're saying you've observed god? Not terribly canon of you, given Exodus 33:20 says you can't observe god and live. I made my statement about the complete lack of observable evidence for god's existence with confidence, knowing that even the bible admits it can't be done. But speaking of comical, I'm sure we'd all love to hear your experience in this regard!

Again, I'm not being insulting here, I'm being gentle, but you need to reread what I said. I never said I observed God. What I said was you have no idea what I have observed or haven't observed. I have observed things that to me is evidence of His existence.


And no you wouldn't. It wouldn't convince you of anything, especially given your comical comment. To be honest I have no desire to get into a theological discussion with you and discuss whether God exists or not, my only purpose here it to discuss it's rational to believe. I don't wish to because quite frankly I don't care what you believe or don't believe, the salvation of your soul is 100% on you and on you alone. I have no interest in your belief, or lack thereof.
------

Lets break it down... we've got two things going here, whether proof is relevant and, if so, on whom does the burden fall:
1) You're claiming faith and reason are not opposites, I'm claiming faith and reason are opposites... this has been the debate from the beginning.
2) I'm saying the dictionary, common use of the words, philosophy and logic (which I've explained thoroughly and in a variety of ways) supports my claim. You patently ignored what I said to make numerous statements of "you can't prove God does not exist therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He does" in support of your claim.
3) Your assertion in the way you phrase it is cause and effect, but since the premise is debatable in its own right, it makes more sense and is only worth addressing if it is rephrased it in the form of an if-then statement: "IF you can't prove god doesn't exist, THEN it isn't unreasonable to believe he does". With me so far?
4) In other words, where I used a number of different verifiable methods to support my point, you made an if-then statement (with my ability to provide proof as the conditional, and your initial claim as the result) to support your point.
5) Since the "if" in an if-then statement is significant and relevant to determining the truth of the "then" part of the statement, you have claimed that my ability to provide proof is significant and relevant to your initial claim being accurate.
6) While you claim my ability to provide proof is important, I claim it is not important.
7) You are the one claiming there's a god to begin with; if it weren't for the religious claiming "I believe there is a god", there would be no counter-claim of "I don't believe there is a god".
8) Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Asking me to provide proof is a fallacy.
9) You are unable to provide proof and it is fallacious to ask me for proof, therefore the "if" conditional fails.
10) When the "if" fails, the "then" also fails, so your statement is false.

So where's that put us? We've each made our claims, we've each provided evidence to support them. You have yet to respond to my compelling evidence in any satisfactory manner, in fact it's been almost entirely ignored. Meanwhile, I've responded to your evidence by showing it to be false.

Actually you've shown nothing.


Let's take the definition of reason:


Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


: a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way
: a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc.
: the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way


None of these show to be the opposite of faith. Sure faith implies a lack of proof, but a lack of proof isn't unreasonable necessarily. Faith is more of an opposite of proof rather than reason, but reason and proof aren't synonymous. Logic doesn't tell me whether God exists or not, logic only tells me I can't prove either one.
------

I guess it's kind of a non-sequitur, but I might make a new thread to discuss aliens and god coexisting in a universe, could be an interesting discussion in its own right. Would have been nice if you'd read and responded to the rest of the part you quoted though.

This is an example of skipping things that aren't relevant. What do you want me to say? In my opinion whether aliens exist or not has no bearing on whether God does or not. Maybe he created them and didn't tell us. Maybe He created them afterwards. I don't know, and I don't care. None of it is relevant to this discussion.
------

Is that my response? Is it really? And here I thought I was making all sorts of citations and well explained appeals to logic... and oh, hey would you look at that, when I scroll back up through all this, that's exactly what I've been doing, and what's been noticeably absent from your posts.

I'm not sure if you are being willfully obtuse or not, and I'm not being insulting, I'm just confused by your post. You haven't offered anything citations or appeals to logic at all. Your argument is premised on faith and reason being opposites and even said the dictionary backs you up....and it doesn't.
------

Wow, you're right, that legal standard is only used in a legal situation! Very astute! Do you really not see how it's very similar to the logical standard that we're using in this logical situation? Is it hard to believe that the legal standard might be based on the logical standard? In any case, you've said it yourself that basing your position on the evidence is reasonable, and that the ability of the person making the claim to present their evidence is what determines the jury's reaction. This isn't like OJ where there's enough evidence for some people to consider it overwhelming and others to not, since there's zero evidence at all. Literally none.

To use your same OJ analogy, imagine if you as the prosecutor walked up to the stand and said "It's reasonable to think OJ is a murderer," and the defense said "there's no evidence of that, so that's not reasonable" and you responded "you can't prove OJ didn't kill them therefore it isn't unreasonable to believe He did". You'd be laughed out of the courtroom and never allowed back. There's a reason jury members are supposed to be impartial and not pre-judge, to base their opinions solely on the evidence presented... unfortunately when it comes to religion, you've already pre-judged the situation (for many, this process begins as children) such that you cannot be impartial when it comes to determining whether it's reasonable or not; you're so set in your ways that you can't even see the evidence or lack thereof.

You aren't understanding. The OJ Simpson example was used to show the lack of proof regarding whether he killed Nicole and Ron or not, yet it's reasonable to believe either way. And you are incorrect, there is evidence of the existence of God. You may find it inconclusive, but it's illogical to conclude it's unreasonable to conclude it as such.


I love it when non lawyers tell what would happen in a courtroom, as if they would know. First off as a prosecutor the burden is on me to prove he killed them, the defense has no burden so I COULDN'T make that argument. Secondly I've prejudged nothing. You do understand I'm the one saying both sides are reasonable, correct? You do understand I'm not judging anyone for NOT believing in God, correct? I've made NO judgment here, in fact YOU are the one judging those who DO have faith as unreasonable, you do understand that, don't you?

EDIT: I should ask, don't you have faith in anything? I have faith in myself, that is whatever I attempt I will put in my best effort and succeed, school, work, etc. I have faith in humankind, that whatever is put before us we will survive, I have faith cures will be found for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and other illnesses, I have faith that no matter how bad our leadership may be or has been, we as a country will survive, I have faith in all these things even though I can't prove any of them will come to fruition, are they unreasonable? How is having faith unreasonable? It's sad to think there are those with no faith in anything. What a sad, pessimistic existence.