OneArmedScissor Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Ok... The most annoying thing ever. How do you argue against someone who makes wild claims without evidence supporting any of them when they simply respond, "Well... without evidence, how do you know it doesn't exist?"?Most annoying thing ever. Basically, some person tried to argue with me that souls exist. I simply said I don't think there are souls because there is no evidence (that i know of) that supports that souls exist.And he posed the "without evidence, how do you know it doesn't exist?" thing. I mean... without evidence, doesn't that suggest there is nothing there in the first place?I'm not just talking about souls, but with anything in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Good question. It is a typical fallacious argument - it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. So anyone claiming that something CAN exist and therefore is worth discussing should be aware that the burden of proof lies on them, not the other way round. In science, many things must be assumed without evidence. But we need to base that assumption on something and develop theories. If nothing in the theory can be predicted and proven, it is an ontological issue, ie simply based on faith, and therefore not scientific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneArmedScissor Posted May 29, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Thank you for the prompt reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Good question. It is a typical fallacious argument - it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. So anyone claiming that something CAN exist and therefore is worth discussing should be aware that the burden of proof lies on them, not the other way round. In science, many things must be assumed without evidence. But we need to base that assumption on something and develop theories. If nothing in the theory can be predicted and proven, it is an ontological issue, ie simply based on faith, and therefore not scientific.Tormod! are you failing to realize, (i assume NOT!) that all scientific theories are based on postulates which are based on faith because apprently some people have agreed that some past observations over some perhaps 100 years or so have statistically yielded some results based on them?No one can say for sure that these postulates or axioms will not just become just hogwash in the next second!As you know by now, my religious slant, differs from yours, but you may not know that my may concern is I am trying to save a few "necks" because I am 100% convinced in my faith in this regard.What a sorry state personally I feel life offers your belief system! You actually are going to tell me science is the cure-all? OMG! I can not hardly at all believe THAT! Is THAT TRUE? Please inform us. Or am i wrong in what you are trying to convey to me. i am actually going to try to reason with the #1 poster of this group in quantity at some level of quality if i can. So if you can without just scoffing and calling it a another post, respond and amplify/clarify your position. THEN you can add to your quantity.now do not feel insulted anymore than i do when you diss what by far is the majorities view that there does exist a supreme being! :naughty: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 ___Indeed it is all a matter of faith/belief in regard to science or religion. The variable is each individual's experience which leads them to one particular belief or another. In science, belief is accorded on the basis of reproducability, in religion belief is accorded in response to authority.___I'll take care of my own neck thank you very much. :naughty: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Tormod! are you failing to realize, (i assume NOT!) that all scientific theories are based on postulates which are based on faith because apprently some people have agreed that some past observations over some perhaps 100 years or so have statistically yielded some results based on them? I do fail to realize that *all* scientific theories are based on hogwash. I do accept that *some* are. No one can say for sure that these postulates or axioms will not just become just hogwash in the next second! I agree with this in general - for all we know, everything we believe to be true might be completely wrong in the General Mish-Mash of Everything. Scientists proved over 70 years ago that it was impossible to know everything about anything. ...I am 100% convinced in my faith in this regard. I fail to see the point here but I am sure there is one. What a sorry state personally I feel life offers your belief system! You actually are going to tell me science is the cure-all? Albert Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.". Nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Tormod! are you failing to realize, (i assume NOT!) that all scientific theories are based on postulates which are based on faith because apprently some people have agreed that some past observations over some perhaps 100 years or so have statistically yielded some results based on them?No one can say for sure that these postulates or axioms will not just become just hogwash in the next second!What postulates are you referring to, those that are observably true? Those that have been observed to be true over 1000s of years? This is comparing apples and oranges since no one has ever observed any God even once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 I've given up on arguing with anyone. The more you argue with someone, the more they are convinced of their own ways. The best way to win an argument is to retreat from the fray. You can't force intelligence down anyones throat. DFINITLYDISTRUBD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted June 2, 2005 Report Share Posted June 2, 2005 "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- Author Unknownor "Never argue with a German when you're tired" -- Grace Slick Two quotes I try--and some times fail as can be seen in these pages--to live by. Philosophically,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlfreak Posted June 2, 2005 Report Share Posted June 2, 2005 now me my self i enjoy a good argument and belive that the only way to win one is to belive in what u are arguing for if they do say prove it the easyiest way is to say e.g that if i have a soul and the soul is a extended part of god then the soul should not allow me to do domething which would break the ten commandmits then go onto point out some of the mass murders u can think of say ivan malit or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted June 2, 2005 Report Share Posted June 2, 2005 What a sorry state personally I feel life offers your belief system! You actually are going to tell me science is the cure-all? OMG! I can not hardly at all believe THAT! Is THAT TRUE? Please inform us. ...now do not feel insulted anymore than i do when you diss what by far is the majorities view that there does exist a supreme being! ;) Dude... If anything, either science or religion, is the "cure-all", you are implying that there is a problem. That needs to be cured. I fail to see any problem needing curing, except the infinite boundaries of human stupidity, maybe. The fact that the majority might believe in a supreme being does not make it true. A couple of years ago, the majority of Romans believed in Jupiter, Minerva, and hosts of other gods and demigods. According to them (the most advanced bunch back in those days, except for maybe the Chinese), those gods must have existed simply by virtue of the majority of Romans believing in them. Did they all dissappear with the birth of Christ? Didn't they exist in the first place? If they didn't exist, your argument falls flat. Oh boy. Despondently yours, Boerseun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chacmool Posted June 2, 2005 Report Share Posted June 2, 2005 Don't worry about me and the other atheists. I really don't think my life is in a "sorry state" simply because I don't believe in a supreme being. In fact, I like my life just the way it is. And when I do good deeds and I'm a good person in general, it's because of my own personal choice, and not simply because I'm afraid of burning in hell forever. DFINITLYDISTRUBD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted June 2, 2005 Report Share Posted June 2, 2005 People sometimes wants you to prove a negative. In some cases I ask them to disprove the existence of invisible dragons, or anything else they don't believe in. I don't think any of them ever realises that their beliefs are on the same level, basically. As for souls, that brings a whole lot of problems with it. Do only humans have them? Did Cro Magnon or the Neanderthals have souls? What about animals, and plants and bacteria? Intelligent computer systems? What kind of genes gave us souls? Etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.