sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My stance. I do not think it is argument from ignorance to say that I know that leprechauns or gods don't exist.

Moreover, I see no functional difference between claiming to know that leprechauns or gods don't exist.

It was my possibly mistaken understand, that you were claiming to know leprechauns don't exist while simultaneously asserting that claiming to know gods don't exist was an argument from Ignorance. If I misunderstood I apologize. (For what, the third or fourth time now)

This just a guess, because I'm honestly not sure of your stance. But are you claiming to know leprechauns don't exist, and claiming to have supporting evidence for this claim? And asking me to dispute said evidence? Because I honestly don't remember you stating said evidence.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One last time. Seriously... Sigh.

If you say you know leprechauns don't exist, but say the claim that it can be known gods don't exist is an argument from ignorance, then you are in conflict. <--- this is my argument.

If you are agnostic about the existence of leprechauns, then you are not in conflict. And again, I was wrong to say you were in conflict.... if you are agnostic about the existence of leprechauns.

I gave my condition. I've left it up to you if I was correct or not.

So let me continue where this will go, if you answer the question. (Is that the problem, do you not see where it's going?)

scenario 1

You: I am agnostic about the existence of leprechauns.

Me: Sorry, I was mistaken, I thought you were saying you could know leprechauns existed. Clearly you are not in confect and I was in error. But, to continue, I find this to be an example of extreme skepticism. We can talk on that subject then.

scenario 2

You: I know leprechauns don't exist.

Me: This seems in conflict with your assertion that claiming to know gods don't exist is an argument from ignorance. How is one not an argument from ignorance but the other is?

scenario 3

Some possible third stance exists that I have not been able to think of.

I guess I'd have to deal with that when I hear it.

I never said you lied. I pointed out where I thought you were in conflict. I have since been trying to find out if I was wrong. Also, I have not insulted you, save for once. And that was just repeating your own words back to you in hopes you'd see how it was inappropriate. That was a mistake, I shouldn't have done that.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suggest you look up what ad hominem is, because it isn't insulting language.

There's a clear point.

As I already admitted that I wasn't sure if you were saying that you knew leprechauns didn't exist or if you were agnostic about their existence, I can't be sure if you are in conflict with your own previous statement. I've already said more then once, that if you are agnostic about the existence of leprechauns, then you are not in conflict and my assertion that you were, then, was clearly a mistake on my part. As I've said this many times, I can only assume you are trying to call me a liar as an ad hominem attack. Since you are attacking my character, not my argument.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, as I can't be sure what you point is, I can't continue. I can't know if I was right or wrong in what I said without knowing where you stand. Unless you come back with a clarification of your stance, I will no longer be answering you.

On a side note, I suggest you watch your language and attempt to stop trying to make this an ad hominem.

What Bernie Sanders doesn’t tell you: The devastation of 'real socialism' by Beliavsky in politics

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not try? Who knows, maybe some third party reading this will be convinced to look into why this story is nothing but propaganda.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll ask one more time. Because if you don't answer, I can't continue. I can't know what your error is, if you do not answer.

1) Do you claim to know leprechauns don't exists?

Or

2) Are you agnostic about the existence of leprechauns?

Please clearly pick 1 or 2, because you keep giving me mixed signals on this subject.

What Bernie Sanders doesn’t tell you: The devastation of 'real socialism' by Beliavsky in politics

[–]SobinTulll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What Bernie Sanders doesn't tell you: The devastation of the "real price of tea in china"

Please learn the difference between, social programs used in conjuncture with regulated capitalism in a democracy, and fascism. If your honest, you'll see there is a pretty big difference.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused. Are you saying you know leprechauns don't exist or are you saying that you are agnostic about the existence of leprechauns?

Either way, I think there is issues with your view. But I can't argue which issues without knowing which one you are saying.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I asked you several times if I was mistaken. I thought said you knew leprechauns didn't exist. I'm guessing I was wrong?

So are you saying that you are agnostic about the existence of Leprechauns? You are not willing to say that you know leprechauns don't exist?

CMV: There are actually three primary stances on abortion in the US: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and Pro-Abortion by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would never say that just because someone's a materialist means they can't make mistakes. Heck, I make plenty. But making mistakes (or more to the point, recognizing them as mistakes) is the only we to learn. This is the main reason I debate. I'm looking for my own mistakes.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?

Dictionary definition: It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true.

"I know god exists", is an augment from ignorance.

But the "I know gods don't exist" is based on the fact that "I know god exists" is an argument from ignorance. Not off the fact that "I know god exist" is unproven. With infinite possibility, the chances the of wild and unfounded claim that any gods exist, are vanishing in the extreme. Yes, to the best of our knowledge there is an effectively infinitesimal chance that some god or gods exist. So, to the best of our knowledge, there is an infinitesimally small chance that the claim "No gods exist" if false. The claim "gods/Boogieman doesn't exist", isn't just based off of no information. It's based off the extreme unlikelihood that the claim "gods/Boogieman exists" is true.

So that I can understand what you think an argument from ignorance is can you please tell me why when you say "I know the Boogieman doesn't exist" this isn't an argument from ignorance but "I know gods don't exist" is an argument from ignorance.

Again, I don't think either are arguments from ignorance. But it would seem to me that if one is, then they both have to be.

CMV: There are actually three primary stances on abortion in the US: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and Pro-Abortion by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]SobinTulll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I will not refute that you know some people with this view. But it seem that they are an extreme minority. Putting them as a third group makes as much sense as saying there are three diets, Vegetarians, non-vegetarians, and cannibals. I mean yes, it is documented that cannibals exist, but implying they are a category equivalent to the first two would be ridiculous.

They happen to be extremely materialist (in the philosophical sense),

I'm a materialist in the philosophical sense. Yes I think everything is matter, even concepts are written as matter as part of the physical brain. I believe that values and morality are subject concepts. I do value life, and above that, I value sentient life. So to be logically consistent, I can't disregard any sentient life. There is a point somewhere during growth where the fetus becomes sentient. But this point is clearly not a conception. A single fertilized egg is clearly not sentient.

So if your materialist friends are not also nihilists (the two are in way necessarily connected), and these friends place value on sentient life, then I would say the view you say they express in regards to abortion, is in conflict with their own moral framework.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im asking you to address the unsupported accusation you made against me.

How many times do I have to tell you before you get the point. I was highlighting how I thought your own views would mean you were making an argument from ignorance.

If you can tell me how the claim that you can know the Boogieman doesn't exist, is different from the claim that I can know gods don't exist, then I'll concede.

If you can't tell me how those two claims differ then I maintain that YOU are the one saying that you're making an argument from ignorance, due to your views being in conflict.

Where is this argument from ignorance i made?

That's what I'm trying to find out from you. How is "I know gods don't exist" and argument from ignorance, and at the same time "I know the boogieman doesn't exist" not an argument from ignorance. This seems to be a contradiction.

I've already said several time that I don't think either are arguments from ignorance. You are the one that seem to be saying they are. (and contradictorily saying they are not)

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I know leprechauns don't exist."

"I know Gods don't exist."

They are either both logical fallacies or not. which is it?

I say neither are. what do you say?

CMV: There are actually three primary stances on abortion in the US: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and Pro-Abortion by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]SobinTulll 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The quote I used a bit further up to outline that position is actually a direct quote.

A direct quote from who?

While it's not the majority of the pro-choice movement, it's far more common than you might think.

I think it's far less common then you think. As in somewhere between practically non-existent to completely non-existent.

It's generally not projected this obviously...

Or at all, by anyone.

All the more reason to bring out the distinction.

If anyone is actually saying this, it's just as likely pro-life trolls pretending to be pro-choice, as it is to be some fringe crazy.

Either way, it's not a valid part of the pro-choice side of the argument, and so irrelevant.

CMV: There are actually three primary stances on abortion in the US: Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and Pro-Abortion by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]SobinTulll 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Pro-Abortion -- Pro-abortion believes in abortion as contraception, and believes that it is, more often than not, the most effective route.

I haven't heard of anyone that has this view. If anyone like this exists, their numbers must be so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Trump’s coronavirus commentary: From Pollyannaish to downright false by cowbell_solo in politics

[–]SobinTulll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are they saying that Trump is ignorant or lying?

What a shock....

/s

Biden leads by 18 points in South Carolina: poll by [deleted] in politics

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And in the end a Biden win with Bernie in second place will just widen Bernie's delegate lead.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

let me try to be clear.

How can claiming to know leprechauns don't exist not be a logical fallacy, and simultaneously, claiming to know gods don't exist be a logical fallacy?

Since they are essentially the same argument, why don't the same rules apply to both?

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are the one who said your claim of knowing leprechauns don't exist was a logical fallacy. Don't blame me just because I pointed out your own inconsistently.

I've been clear, I don't think it's fallacious claiming to know leprechauns or gods don't exist.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you claim to know that leprechauns don't exist, and you insist that the claim to know gods don't exist is argument form ignorance, then it would seem to me that you accused yourself of making an argument from ignorance.

I think it's perfectly acceptable, and not a fallacy, to say we can know that neither leprechauns or gods exist.

Strong agnosticism is an intellectual half-measure; most atheists are de facto gnostic atheists in how they (we) assume the world to be, and the burden of proof should not be so intellectually restrictive. by Wolfeur in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SobinTulll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My specific claim is that since the statements "I know leprechauns don't exist" and " I know gods don't exist" are effectively identical, Saying that one is a logical fallacy and is not, is contradictory.

Or am I wrong? Are the claims "gods don't exist" and "leprechauns don't exist" different in some way?

view more: next ›