ITT Stu admits belief in god is only a fantasy - Page 5 - Religion, God, and Theology

But in general, anybody's parents would be much much much much less reliable than a lot of science. Humans are fallible, and the checks and methods that are supposed to make science reliable are not present in your parents teachings. It's not like they have a big parents association which peer reviews each other's work and sticks to strict standards of evidence.

You seem to have this wrong no notion that science has declared "God does not exist"....it has not. Science makes no claims regarding the existence of God.

Quote

08-17-2010 , 11:38 PM

#103

SixT4

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,924

Eh, where do you get the idea I have that notion? I don't.

Quote

08-17-2010 , 11:43 PM

#104

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Rize I am not committing that fallacy because I am not claiming that since something is popularly believed it must be true any more than you are claiming that if something is popularly believed then it must be false.

The fact is it is not illogical to believe in something on the basis you were taught it. Is it a compelling reason to believe something? Maybe...maybe not but that is not what Max asked.

If I ask the pope why he is catholic and he says it is because it is the religion he was born into....the Pope has given me a logical reason for why he holds his belief...he does not give me a compelling reason.

Quote

08-17-2010 , 11:54 PM

#105

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Quote:

Originally Posted by SixT4

I.D.G.I wat ur O.M.Ging bout.

Have you read up on this clown?

WiKi

Couple tidbits in case you don't want to read it...

Quote:

Trudeau has been embroiled in a number of civil suits and was convicted in misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. He was convicted of larceny and credit card fraud in the early 1990s, and in 1998 paid a $500,000 fine for making false or misleading claims in his infomercials. In 2004 he agreed to a lifetime ban on promoting products via infomercials, excluding his books.

and

Quote:

After serving prison time for fraud in the early 1990s, Trudeau and a fellow inmate whom he met in prison joined Nutrition for Life, a multi-level marketing firm, where they were successful. He and his partner were sued by the Illinois Attorney General for running a pyramid scheme. Trudeau and his company entered into a settlement with Illinois and seven other states for US$185,000.
Trudeau then produced and appeared in infomercials, broadcast frequently on late night TV in North America and promoted a range of products, including health aids, dietary supplements (such as coral calcium), real estate investment strategies, memory-improvement courses, baldness remedies, addiction breaking strategies, and reading improvement programs, among others. The claims made resulted in regulatory actions by the FTC, based on his alleged misrepresentations and unsubstantiated claims. In 1998, he was fined, and in 2004 Trudeau settled an FTC contempt-of-court action by agreeing to a settlement that banned him from using infomercials to promote products, except for those publications protected by the First Amendment. He also agreed to pay a $2 million settlement

There's more along these lines if you, or even better, you Dad care to check it out.

I'm not trying to call your Dad an idiot, I don't know the guy at all. I'm just weary of anyone who cites Kevin Trudeau as a source for their beliefs on something.

Quote

08-17-2010 , 11:58 PM

#106

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

It's only a logical reason if they have not had to the ability/resources to research the claim in question.

So, if you asked someone who grew up in a remote village in a 3rd world environment, then sure whatever they were told by their parents could, imo, be considered a logical belief. You, not so much.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 12:19 AM

#107

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

If I ask the pope why he is catholic and he says it is because it is the religion he was born into....the Pope has given me a logical reason for why he holds his belief...he does not give me a compelling reason.

Really? So if I walk into a logic class and tell them everything they're talking about is wrong because my mommy told me so, I'm being logical?

I think maybe we need to clearly define what we mean by "logical" here...

You seem to be using it as a placeholder for when you actually mean "anything that I like or helps support me in this thread" which, isn't the usual way that logical is defined.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 02:33 AM

#108

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Rize I am not committing that fallacy because I am not claiming that since something is popularly believed it must be true

No, you're arguing that since something is popularly believed it becomes more likely to be true...which is virtually the same argument and contains the same fallacy as the original.

Is a logical argument for the non-existence of god citing that there have been atheists around who have believed it for a long time?

Quote

08-18-2010 , 03:47 AM

#109

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

Really? So if I walk into a logic class and tell them everything they're talking about is wrong because my mommy told me so, I'm being logical?

There isn't anything illogical about your actions thus far (unless your claim would be paradoxal, which isn't necessarily a given as it depends on what they are talking about).

You could say it isn't reasonable or sound, but those are not synomous terms with logical.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 10:14 AM

#110

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

There isn't anything illogical about your actions thus far (unless your claim would be paradoxal, which isn't necessarily a given as it depends on what they are talking about).

You could say it isn't reasonable or sound, but those are not synomous terms with logical.

The word I was thinking was compelling and its probably the word Max Raker meant to use.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 11:13 AM

#111

SixT4

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,924

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butcho22

I'm not trying to call your Dad an idiot, I don't know the guy at all. I'm just weary of anyone who cites Kevin Trudeau as a source for their beliefs on something.

I don't think you realise - I was calling my dad an idiot, and using the Kevin Trudeau belief as an example.

It's funny. I ask him what reason he has to take it as complete truth and he'll say "just read it!".

Quote

08-18-2010 , 12:44 PM

#112

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Quote:

Originally Posted by SixT4

Oh, my bad. And LoooooL! Do you think he would ever read dude's WiKi page?

Quote

08-18-2010 , 01:13 PM

#113

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butcho22

Oh, my bad. And LoooooL! Do you think he would ever read dude's WiKi page?

Phshaw. Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 01:16 PM

#114

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

The word I was thinking was compelling and its probably the word Max Raker meant to use.

By your definition almost nothing can be illogical so obv that is not what I or most people mean when they say logical. So replace with compelling if you are going to use that definition of logical.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 06:12 PM

#115

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

By your definition almost nothing can be illogical so obv that is not what I or most people mean when they say logical. So replace with compelling if you are going to use that definition of logical.

"logical" generally means in accordance with the rules of logic....this is not my definition but the one in common use. And yes you can have logical reasons to believe in just about anything.

I think your definition is logical is your own. Instead of asking me if it is "logical" why don't you show us it is "illogical" and perhaps I will get a better understanding of exactly what you mean by "logical".

Quote

08-18-2010 , 07:36 PM

#116

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Replace with compelling. I thought I already made that clear.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 09:40 PM

#117

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

Replace with compelling. I thought I already made that clear.

So you think "logical" means "compelling"? Whatever.....

I can't think of a reason to believe in Christianity that you would find compelling.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 10:59 PM

#118

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

So you think "logical" means "compelling"? Whatever.....

I can't think of a reason to believe in Christianity that you would find compelling.

I was asking if YOU find any compelling.

Quote

08-18-2010 , 11:19 PM

#119

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

I was asking if YOU find any compelling.

No....you did not ask that. You asked this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

So christians who claim that they have logical reasons that allows them to believe they are correct with probability greater than 95% are wrong in your opinion? (Or of course lying)

Your NEW question is silly since I already said I think my religion is a long shot to be true. Now if I had compelling reasons to think it was true I would not think it a longshot.

Quote

08-19-2010 , 07:23 PM

#120

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

No....you did not ask that. You asked this:

Your NEW question is silly since I already said I think my religion is a long shot to be true. Now if I had compelling reasons to think it was true I would not think it a longshot.

There is no new question, it is the same question all along with your crazy definition of logical replaced with compelling. Nowhere is what I find logical or compelling relevant. I had no idea you think your religion is a long shot to be true. Not sure if you are considered a christian by most standard definitions.

Quote

08-19-2010 , 07:46 PM

#121

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

And something def changed all this for Stu, since he was a clone of Jib for many months on here. Now he says he is a clone of RLK, but he won't say anything about how that happened because it might give credit to someone or something that he has been arguing against for years.

You don't just wake up one day after ardently arguing for your religion for years and say "Oh, now I think this is probably not true"

So what is it Stu? What forced this change? And yes, there was a change. Please do not make me go back and quote posts from you months ago that contradict what you are saying now.

Quote

08-19-2010 , 08:03 PM

#122

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

You don't just wake up one day after ardently arguing for your religion for years and say "Oh, now I think this is probably not true"

This isn't a new position for me. Search thru all my posts I've said this before.

Quote

08-19-2010 , 08:06 PM

#123

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Going camping this weekend. I will look when I get back.

Quote

08-19-2010 , 08:07 PM

#124

thirddan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11,695

i do recall stu saying the god he believes in is unlikey maybe 2 or 3 months ago...

Quote

08-19-2010 , 08:09 PM

#125

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

Quote:

Originally Posted by thirddan

i do recall stu saying the god he believes in is unlikey maybe 2 or 3 months ago...

Yeah same here. This isnt something new he just stated itt. Still would be interested in why he changed his views though.

Quote

Page 5 of 7

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 7

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last