|
doc_zeta: [100] hamster says that "because there is no evidence of god, therefore there is no god" - that was his quote - classic "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy
doc_zeta: [101] hamster is just a wee bit too stupid to debate here
johnlv85: Good morning from Las Vegas, NV
atomic_attack_hamster: [16] durty that's the current idea
durtyolman2: the source of virus's then becoem the question
atomic_attack_hamster: [17] durty they form naturally form Carbon polomers
id_ologist: [54] I don't see any leprechauns
atomic_attack_hamster: [18] from
mAd.HaTtEr2k* [216] sips his tea c(_)
doc_zeta: [102] KASPAR, if you're going to equivocate leprechauns to God, first prove they are in fact equal in both quality and likelihood
doc_zeta: [103] NEXT
durtyolman2: hamster ahh. thank you
atomic_attack_hamster: [19] durty as you can see no god needed
atomic_attack_hamster: [20] just lots of time
doc_zeta: [104] kaspar, if you cannot find evidence for something, it does NOT mean X is true or untrue
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [217] Zeta that was indeed a fallacy but there is a difference between saying "there is no god" and "i don't believe in god"
durtyolman2: hamster, I never saw a god as being needed, and if tehre was a "ceator" can't see he created all of this for humans
doc_zeta: [105] mad, perhaps, but in hamster's case it was a classic ad ignorantiam argument, i told him about this....and he ignored me
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [218] so if an atheist were to simply not believe in god because of a lack of evidence that would not be argumentum ad ignorantiam
doc_zeta: [106] actually it would be
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [219] you're right his quote was
atomic_attack_hamster: [21] durty I know but I was really pointing it out to you
atomic_attack_hamster: [22] wasn't
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [220] no it wouldn't Zeta
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [221] there is a difference between the 2 statements
doc_zeta: [107] if an atheist CONCLUDES there is no god based on a lack of evidence, he's committed the fallacy ad ignorantiam of reasoning
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [222] one statement wasn't a conclusion
durtyolman2: there's documantoin of some plant infecting virus's carrying genetic material from one plant to a different species of plant
doc_zeta: [108] kaspar, you've equivocated concepts -- fallacy
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [223] just a statement as to why they don't believe
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [224] there is a difference between belief and knowledge
doc_zeta: [109] mad, but it's their conclusion
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [225] in the one case it is
atomic_attack_hamster: [23] durty and bactira does that as well
doc_zeta: [110] it's their belief based on a lack of evidence
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [226] "there is no god" is a conclusion
durtyolman2: hamster, yep
doc_zeta: [111] yes
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [227] "i don't believe in god" is not a conclusion
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [228] "i don't believe in god" could be coming from an agnostic
doc_zeta: [112] yes it is once they explain their reasoning
id_ologist: [55] mAd.HaTtEr2k zeta's usually right with thsi stuff. The situation - lack of evidence ,, has led to a conclusion- lack of belief
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [229] Zeta argumentum ad ignorantiam only applies to conclusions
doc_zeta: [113] yes, but if we ask them, WHY dont you believe in god, if they say the lack of evidence: wham. ad ig.
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [230] that is where you are twisting things around
doc_zeta: [114] mad, i agree
durtyolman2: I only don't believe in named gods
doc_zeta: [115] mad, but they're concluding
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [231] no they aren't
doc_zeta: [116] yes they are, otherwise, they're not atheists
atomic_attack_hamster: [24] durty so the unnamed god is real then?
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [232] as an agnostic atheist I do not believe in god mainly because of the lack of evidence for a god
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [233] but I'm still an agnostic
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [234] I've made no ultimate conclusion
humpy_mcspanky: lephrachauns were hallucinations brought on by faery rings... magic mushrooms
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [235] I just state the fact that I don't believe and why
durtyolman2: hamster, perhaps... woudl even know what defition such a thing would have
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [236] I'm not arguing that there isn't a god because of the lack of evidence
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [237] hence it's not argumentum ad ignorantiam
durtyolman2: once soemone defines a god, then I'm certain such a thing doesn't exist
durtyolman2: lol xiph
humpy_mcspanky: u cant describe a color no one has seen
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [238] it's only argumentum ad ignorantiam when you say it has been proven that there is no god based on lack of evidence
doc_zeta: [117] yes it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, he's concluding BASED on a lack of evidence
atomic_attack_hamster: [25] well durty it would have the same defintion as all named gods but without a name
*** reconnecting...
Yahoo: Congratulations! Your account is verified and you now have access to chat rooms.
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [239] Hamster? I agreed with that.
durtyolman2: I need to nap at soem point today, want to catch a band at later
doc_zeta: [119] mad, not true, the fallacy argument cannot say "it's been proven based on lack of evidence" from the get go
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [240] that I disagree that anyone who doesn't believe in something based on a lack of evidence is committing argumentum ad ignorantiam
durtyolman2: hamster, I don't believe in any concious god
doc_zeta: [120] if you conclude there is no god based on a lack of evidence, as did hamster, then you've concluded based on an illogical line of reasoning
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [241] Hamster was seemingly concluding in that quote you posted
durtyolman2: migt believe in aforce, but would not agree is was sentient of it's actions, or even that it coudl be called an it
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [242] but I am not
doc_zeta: [121] hamster's quote: "the lack of evidence proves there is no god" and "there is no evidence for god, therefore there is no god"
atomic_attack_hamster: [26] LOL just the unconscious god? kool grab it's wallet before it regions consciousness
doc_zeta: [122] mAd.HaTtEr2k, if you're not concluding there is no god, then you're agnostic
doc_zeta: [123] not atheist
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [243] I am just saying I don't believe and here is why. I'm not saying that there is a god because of a this.
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [244] doc_zeta I don't believe in god. I'm an atheist
id_ologist: [56] kaspar_hauser4076 I think it's safe to assume that if you see leprachauns, you are deranged
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [245] just because I don't believe doesn't mean I have come to a conclusion
doc_zeta: [124] mad, based on what
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [246] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
durtyolman2: lol dead
doc_zeta: [125] mad, you havent concluded there is no god, you've just sort of wobble near atheism?
humpy_mcspanky: kill urself and see if theres a god
doc_zeta: [126] mAd.HaTtEr2k, what is your atheism based on?
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [247] I haven't concluded. but I do not believe. there is no real "wobble".
durtyolman2: if there's a better life waiting for you, why are you still here?
doc_zeta: [127] mAd.HaTtEr2k, ok so what is your atheism based on?
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [248] it's based mainly on the fact that I have no reason to believe
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [249] that being a lack of evidence or experience with any deity
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [250] any reason one could name for believing in god I lack
durtyolman2: if there were no leprechauns, explain rainbows
atomic_attack_hamster: [27] well if you have a better place to go then why are you staying here. take the next bus
id_ologist: [57] kaspar_hauser4076 I think it's safe to assume that if you see leprachauns, you have problems. Common sense
doc_zeta: [128] being unable to find reason is slightly different from saying FOR THE LACK of evidence i assume x
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [251] not really Zeta
humpy_mcspanky: aethiests just havent experienced anything spiritual
humpy_mcspanky: YET
doc_zeta: [129] if not, then you've committed ad ig
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [252] if you can't find a reason then obviously there is a lack of evidence
durtyolman2: spiritual stuff doesn't require a god
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [253] if there were evidence then you'd have found a reason
doc_zeta: [130] mAd.HaTtEr2k, OR, we just can't FIND the evidence
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [254] exactly
id_ologist: [58] dead_snoopy Then i apologise to your stome idol
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [255] hence agnosticism
id_ologist: [59] stone
atomic_attack_hamster: [28] humpy_mcspanky the one who claims the spritiality is real have yet to prove it
doc_zeta: [131] there isn't necessarily a lack of evidence... it's that we are unable to TIE what we see around us TO a god necessarily
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [256] I'm agnostic because I don't rule out the possibility that there may be a god
doc_zeta: [132] so to say there is a lack of evidence is an arrogant and assuming position
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [257] and yes maybe there could be some future evidence or experience.
doc_zeta: [133] right, so to be safe, don't say for the lack of evidence i assume x... like hamster did
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [258] how is it arrogant?
id_ologist: [60] kaspar_hauser4076 Seriously though, your argument doesn't work. As Zeta said, you are equivocating
doc_zeta: [134] id_ologist, he is
doc_zeta: [135] mAd.HaTtEr2k because the evidence might be all around us
tazzinqldau: Greetings fellow bags of steaming guts
durtyolman2: all matter, all energy in this universe is tied together in soem way... if you want to call that congraloration a god, go ahead, just don't tell me what it thinks
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [259] there is nothing wrong with saying you disbelieve in something because of a lack of evidence
doc_zeta: [136] tazz, nice greeting
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [260] it's only an issue when you reach a conclusion
tazzinqldau: doc.. lol
tazzinqldau: yea.. i got tons of them
tazzinqldau: lol
doc_zeta: [137] mAd.HaTtEr2k, it is if you don't know the parameters ...it's illogical
tazzinqldau: I live in a bullshit free zone myself
durtyolman2: turns magic herbs into plain ash
id_ologist: [61] kaspar_hauser4076 Maybe. Maybe i need to find the magic once more
doc_zeta: [138] anyway, i have to bail, i can't play anymore, i have to go, bbl
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [261] Zeta you really need to understand that argumentum ad ignorantiam is only being committed when someone is stating something as being proven or a fact based on a lack of evidence
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [262] not simply that they believe or disbelieve
id_ologist: [62] kaspar_hauser4076 But there are no leprechauns, you poor thing !
durtyolman2: follow the leprchauns and get a pot of gold .... don't even have to die to be rewarded by leprechauns
id_ologist: [63] i see.
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [263] heh. Logic is a system for people to be WRONG with AUTHORITY.
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [264] I WIN
durtyolman2: lol mad
id_ologist: [64] mAd.HaTtEr2k I believe you are right, and i know you are wrong
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [265] zeta's undefeated streak ended tonight
mAd.HaTtEr2k: [266] HIT MY MUSIC!
|
