This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Gnomes, a serious debate

edited May 2008 in Flamewars
I don't want to argue religion again. I just wanted to point out that a few of the arguments against religion were invalid. Let's break down the Gnomes example:

Accepted premise: People that believe in Gnomes should be ridiculed. (true)
Evidence #1: People that believe in God are delusional. (true)
Evidence #2: People that believe in Gnomes are delusional. (true)
Conclusion #1: People that believe in God are equivalent to people that Believe in Gnomes. (true?)
Conclusion #2: People that believe in God should be ridiculed. (true?)

Now let's replace "People that believe in God" with Lambs, "People that believe in Gnomes" with Camels, and "delusional" with "vegetarians".
Let's replace the accepted premise with something true about Camels: Camels can travel through the desert for days without dehydrating.

Accepted premise: Camels can travel through the desert for days without dehydrating. (true)
Evidence #1: Camels are Vegetarians (true)
Evidence #2: Lambs are Vegetarians (true)
Conclusion #1: Camels are equivalent to Lambs (true?)
Conclusion #2: Lambs can travel through the desert for days without dehydrating. (true?)

This is a slight variation an a classic example.

Another meaningless argument:
Evidence: People that believe in religion are possibly dangerous. (true)
Conclusion: People that believe in religion should be entirely discounted and avoided. (true?)

Now let's replace People that believe in religion with anything else that makes a true statement:
People that own knives
People that play violent video games
People that read comic books
People that have the flu

How valid/rational are these conclusions now?

Comments

  • edited May 2008
    Accepted premise: People that believe in Gnomes should be ridiculed. (true)
    Evidence #1: People that believe in God are delusional. (true)
    Evidence #2: People that believe in Gnomes are delusional. (true)
    Conclusion #1: People that believe in God are equivalent to people that Believe in Gnomes. (true?)
    Conclusion #2: People that believe in God should be ridiculed. (true?)
    To the first example, I think perhaps that you haven't really taken the same premise the rest of us were considering. How about this:-
    People that are delusional deserve ridicule (except where this is the result of mental illness).
    Note also that "deserving of ridicule" is not the same thing as "should be ridiculed".
    Evidence: People that believe in religion arepossiblydangerous. (true)
    Conclusion: People that believe in religion should be entirely discounted and avoided. (true?)
    I don't think anyone was arguing for this specific conclusion.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • You still do not understand the flying spaghetti monster argument. You have not refuted it. Every reply we have to what you have just said already exists in past threads. You obviously didn't read them. Go read them and come back later when you understand.

    From now on, anyone who attempts to make an argument in favor of religion that fails to refute the flying spaghetti monster argument will be closed. I know this might make us seem cowardly, like we are avoiding the argument, but if you look at our history of debate in this forum I think you will see we are nothing if not afraid to defend our position. The reason for this policy is because we do not have the time for this bullshit anymore. We have posted the same exact arguments repeatedly in multiple threads, and you people still do not comprehend the basic tenets of logic, reason, and burden of proof.

    If someone can manage to actually make a new argument that actually warrants a reply that we have not already posted a billion times, we will let the thread live. If you want to attempt this, I suggest you start by trying to refute the flying spaghetti monster argument. You must make it at least that far.

    For the final time on this forum I will post the FSM argument.

    There is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster.
    It is possible that it could exist.
    Do you believe in the FSM? No, that would be crazy.

    There is a mountain of evidence that suggests the sky is blue.
    There is a possibility that the sky is not blue.
    Do you believe the sky is not blue? No, that would be crazy.

    There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, including any god or gods.
    It is possible that supernatural things could exist.
    Do you believe in god or gods? If you do, you're as crazy as someone who believes in the FSM or someone who believes the sky is not blue.

    Everything you can think of has a philosophical possibility of being true. For all we know we are in the Matrix, it is possible. Also, everything you think you know has a philosophical possibility of being false. Grass might not be green. It could be a trick and grass is actually all magenta. Discussing those possibilities is interesting, for philosophy.

    In reality and practical every day living, philosophy doesn't matter. The infinitesimally small possibility that things with no supporting evidence might be true, or the infinitesimally small possibility that things with mountains of evidence might be false are ignored. Instead we look only at evidence. Everything claim is false by default, and things are shown to be true by supporting them with scientific evidence. If you make a claim, especially an extraordinary one, you will be required to provide evidence to support that claim. If you can not support the claim it is false by default.

    Nobody has to prove things wrong. They are false by default until proven. If things were true by default, then everything would be true. Instead you have to prove things right. You will never prove something 100%, because of the philosophical doubt. But rational people ignore the philosophical doubt outside of philosophical discussions. For purposes of reality and every day life that doubt does not exist. If you were to seriously take that doubt into consideration or believe something exists in that small space, then you are as irrational as someone who believes the sky is plaid.
This discussion has been closed.