EvC Forum: Atheism Examined

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Atheism Examined

BMG

Member (Idle past 240 days)

Posts: 357

From: Southwestern U.S.

Joined: 03-16-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 44 of 300 (389130)
03-10-2007 11:21 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
03-10-2007 12:24 PM

Re: Rebutting myths about atheism

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence (for instance) for a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centuri is good reason to conclude that there is no such teapot.

I agree with the latter of your two statements, Crash. Your teapot analogy gives good reason to believe that there probably is no such teapot. But the former - "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"- to me, screams of fallacious reasoning.

argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable and misinterpreting your statement. If that is the case, then would you mind clarifying a bit for the slower-witted, such as myself?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2007 12:24 PM		crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2007 11:35 PM		BMG has replied

BMG

Member (Idle past 240 days)

Posts: 357

From: Southwestern U.S.

Joined: 03-16-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 46 of 300 (389132)
03-10-2007 11:45 PM

Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
03-10-2007 11:35 PM

Re: Rebutting myths about atheism

I'm aware that it's considered a logical fallacy, but all scientific reasoning is fallacious.

Probably not on topic, but would you mind clarifying your response?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2007 11:35 PM		crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 03-11-2007 12:10 AM		BMG has replied

BMG

Member (Idle past 240 days)

Posts: 357

From: Southwestern U.S.

Joined: 03-16-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 54 of 300 (389141)
03-11-2007 4:14 AM

Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
03-11-2007 12:10 AM

Re: Rebutting myths about atheism

You're not aware that induction is a fallacy?

Sure. I guess it would be a hasty generalization or the fallacy of composition.

If philosophy can't figure out how to reconcile scientific knowledge with the logical fallacies, the failing is in philosophy.

Agreed.

The problem of induction, according to Wikipedia, is basically that the only way to establish the effecacy of induction as a tool is inductively - it's always worked before. A little circular, don't you think?

Yes, I would think so.

Nonetheless I conclude that if science and logic are in conflict, then it's logic that's wrong, somehow. I don't know what that makes me (aside from a really shitty Vulcan.)

This message is a reply to:
	Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 03-11-2007 12:10 AM		crashfrog has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4