First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
About Making or Dismissing a Claim! Based on Logical Sound Judgment!!
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/27/09
See how logical mind thinks in my educated opinion is if there is no evidence for a tooth fairy, so the rationale thing to do is dismiss tooth fairy as being nothing more than a false claim until evidence is found to show otherwise.
The fact that there is no evidence to show that it is not real has no barring or meaning. Because evidence does not work that way. If there is no evidence for something that is evidence in it self that something is most-likely false.

It is the burden of the person making the claim that something is real, to show the evidence for that thing. If no evidence is shown than there claim is false to the rational thinking person.

Some religions make claims that Gods or God is real. And so they must show evidence that there is gods other-wise there claims are empty and false. That will be the case till the time evidence is found for that claim.

I do not need to disprove flying trolls... But if I claim them to be real I have to show evidence to prove that claim.
I do not need to show evidence that Cows do not fly on there own... But if I claim they can I have to show evidence for that claim.
A rational man or woman would expect the same from religion, rape or abuse claims, and UFO sightings as they do from everything else in the world.

(Especially the rape or abuse claims! I had a friend falsely accused of that because his ex-girlfriend was angry at him for not taking her with him to the bar. You see how she acts wen she is drunk you know why we did not invite her.)


That is my Opinion based on my logical sound judgment.



PS.. Feel free to aiding me with finding a better title for the thread...

Thanks!!
114140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 10/27/09 , edited 10/27/09
even if wat u said is true humans dont all think in a logical sense. Early man wasnt educated as we r so they used illogical methods to rationalize the world around them. Even today they're things we can't find evidence for yet theres a possiblity of it exists
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

uhohimdead wrote:

even if wat u said is true humans dont all think in a logical sense. Early man wasnt educated as we r so they used illogical methods to rationalize the world around them. Even today they're things we can't find evidence for yet theres a possiblity of it exists

Those are known as an Hypothesis There not yet proven because there just an idea. One uses one of those in order to have a place to start at wile seeking out the facts. If no evidence is found for the Hypothesis, that Hypothesis is dropped till new evidence comes around.
So Hypothesis are ok as long as there not treating ii as if there facts, or even scientific theories.
2121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Usa
Offline
Posted 10/27/09
Interesting if there is no evidence or proof then obviously it is false, thus it would prompt me to dismiss the idea completely. Many say god(s) exist yet they have never seen or heard form them nor can they give you proof of their claims: the only reason they can give is a so called holy book that was written by man. Does god exist? Yes, how do do you know the bible says so, how do you know its true cause the bible says it is true, how do you know Jesus love cause it says so? Its not up to me to prove he doesnt exist you made the claim that god is real so show me your proof. Its like someone saying the air is green today, the only way you could disprove them is if you were to go outside if they are seeing green air then something is probably wrong and they should seek help. People can believe what they want just dont force your beliefs on every ones else, believing that yours belief is the only one that is true. Your absolutely correct to bad there arent as many people who think like us.

My brothers ex is putting him on child support and she could tell the judge that he never took care of his daughter, but the truth is he raised her more than anyone. Who will the judge believe his word or hers he has no proof? Given the person she is i know shes gonna try to be a nasty as she can.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 10/27/09 , edited 10/27/09
Well this is obvious if you want to prove something to be fact, scientifically.

But people don't need to scientifically prove that God exists to have good, valid reasons to believe in one.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

Yei wrote:

Well this is obvious if you want to prove something to be fact, scientifically.

But people don't need to scientifically prove that God exists to have good, valid reasons to believe in one.



That just where we can not agree it seems. In my humble yet strong opinion, Religion should NOT be placed above anything else wen it comes to the reasoning process. It should be placed in the same boat as all other Ideals and Ideas.
You should be taking the time to evaluate all things.
I do not believe in tooth fairies , I do not believe in Ogres, nor magic at this time.. Until Evidence is found for them... So its not that I am not open minded. For If evidence is found I am more than happy to believe. But till that time believing in something without the backing of some form of evidence is just illogical, do to lack of a better word.

'Yes I think like a Vulcan! ' Nothing Is above the reasoning process.
maffoo 
66807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / England
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Yei wrote:

Well this is obvious if you want to prove something to be fact, scientifically.

But people don't need to scientifically prove that God exists to have good, valid reasons to believe in one.



That just where we can not agree it seems. In my humble yet strong opinion, Religion should NOT be placed above anything else wen it comes to the reasoning process. It should be placed in the same boat as all other Ideals and Ideas.
You should be taking the time to evaluate all things.
I do not believe in tooth fairies , I do not believe in Ogres, nor magic at this time.. Until Evidence is found for them... So its not that I am not open minded. For If evidence is found I am more than happy to believe. But till that time believing in something without the backing of some form of evidence is just illogical, do to lack of a better word.

'Yes I think like a Vulcan! ' Nothing Is above the reasoning process.


Cold logic is fine for some people, but a lot of people find that their religious beliefs bring comfort and meaning to their lives. If believing in something makes someone feel happier, surely it is irrelevant whether or not they have evidence for those beliefs? (On the other hand, if someone wants to convert people to their belief system, they shouldn't be too surprised if the potential convertees want objective evidence.)

Besides, what counts as evidence? I accept evolution, because I have been taught that that is how life came to be as it is today, and it doesn't sound unreasonable. I have never studied the fossils etc that are used as evidence. I accept that quarks exist, but I don't have access to a synchrotron to carry out the necessary experiments to confirm their existence with my own eyes. A lot of the time we put our faith in evidence that people deemed experts in their fields say exists - is this any less irrational than believing in gods/ogres/tooth fairies?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Yei wrote:

Well this is obvious if you want to prove something to be fact, scientifically.

But people don't need to scientifically prove that God exists to have good, valid reasons to believe in one.



That just where we can not agree it seems. In my humble yet strong opinion, Religion should NOT be placed above anything else wen it comes to the reasoning process. It should be placed in the same boat as all other Ideals and Ideas.
You should be taking the time to evaluate all things.
I do not believe in tooth fairies , I do not believe in Ogres, nor magic at this time.. Until Evidence is found for them... So its not that I am not open minded. For If evidence is found I am more than happy to believe. But till that time believing in something without the backing of some form of evidence is just illogical, do to lack of a better word.

'Yes I think like a Vulcan! ' Nothing Is above the reasoning process.


People do have their own evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs, but according to you none of them are valid because they don't lead to indisputable scientific fact, right? Most people don't care if they are scientifically viable, as long as it makes logical sense.

ideas or logic involving things outside the laws of our universe cannot be proven to be fact, so do you think we shouldn't try to think about anything outside our universe?
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/27/09
If every atheist people only referring to one holy book, that's sad. There's another holy book to prove that claim based on scientific explanation entirely. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-573155/qualiasoup-putting-faith-in-its-place/#28297987
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

If every atheist people only referring to one holy book, that's sad. There's another holy book to prove that claim based on scientific explanation entirely. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-573155/qualiasoup-putting-faith-in-its-place/#28297987



Yes I took a look at that page.. It was a nice manipulation of the words to try to get it to fit with science. A few things it pointed out was dress up like science, but was found to be false statements. But I take the time to look at it closer.

Just so you know lets not turn this into a religious debate. This is about all things.. not just religion wen it comes to making claims.
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

See how logical mind thinks in my educated opinion is if there is no evidence for a tooth fairy, so the rationale thing to do is dismiss tooth fairy as being nothing more than a false claim until evidence is found to show otherwise.
The fact that there is no evidence to show that it is not real has no barring or meaning. Because evidence does not work that way. If there is no evidence for something that is evidence in it self that something is most-likely false.

It is the burden of the person making the claim that something is real, to show the evidence for that thing. If no evidence is shown than there claim is false to the rational thinking person.

Some religions make claims that Gods or God is real. And so they must show evidence that there is gods other-wise there claims are empty and false. That will be the case till the time evidence is found for that claim.

I do not need to disprove flying trolls... But if I claim them to be real I have to show evidence to prove that claim.
I do not need to show evidence that Cows do not fly on there own... But if I claim they can I have to show evidence for that claim.
A rational man or woman would expect the same from religion, rape or abuse claims, and UFO sightings as they do from everything else in the world.

(Especially the rape or abuse claims! I had a friend falsely accused of that because his ex-girlfriend was angry at him for not taking her with him to the bar. You see how she acts wen she is drunk you know why we did not invite her.)


That is my Opinion based on my logical sound judgment.



PS.. Feel free to aiding me with finding a better title for the thread...

Thanks!!


i dont believe that logical/rational/reasoning skills are limited to the scientific method. You dont live your life by that method, so why argue everything by it?can you prove you exists through the scientific method? Same could be said for the religious method. And the legal method.

Each has its own definition for rational, reasonable thinking.

Such as in the legal field. If u present your evidence for your rape/abuse claims in an unprofessional way, people will interpret it as false or a forced confession. and people on the jury ARE rational thinkers by law. Thats how they get on the jury. They represented the average USA citizen.

evidence can be interpreted in many ways.

If your friend is smart, he shouldnt get convicted by the claims, remember that in the court of law u have to make a room full of people believe your story when none of them were there. And everybody lies in court. A professional lier is called a lawyer. And with imcopetent cops screwing up the crime scene, the system isnt build to install "justice", but rather social control.




in the religious field its a little different- faith is based on logic, reasoning, and critical thinking skills. not everybody follows this method, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exists.

the religious text can be interpeted in many ways.

and believing in God is a terrible example of measuring someone's rational thinking abililty. What does believing in God have to do with everyday logic? or believing in the tooth fairy? it doesnt affect people's lives in a secular sense.

And if u want to argue conflicting philosophys, please remember that philosophy A can always be disproven by philosophy B. But philosophy C can disprove both.Philosophy D may be a conbination of all philosophys that proves everything ( a multiple truth).Philosophy E can reverse the entire order of things, ect.

just plz be aware when arguing different types of philosophys, it becomes a game of rock, paper ,scissors. All 3 playing by the rules of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking.

the world as we see it doesnt exists.i bet animals dont see the world the same way we do.i bet bacteria dont see the world as we do, or apes,plants, ect. So who has the "true" vision? Who is the most rationale? peace over war

4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Yei wrote:

Well this is obvious if you want to prove something to be fact, scientifically.

But people don't need to scientifically prove that God exists to have good, valid reasons to believe in one.



That just where we can not agree it seems. In my humble yet strong opinion, Religion should NOT be placed above anything else wen it comes to the reasoning process. It should be placed in the same boat as all other Ideals and Ideas.
You should be taking the time to evaluate all things.
I do not believe in tooth fairies , I do not believe in Ogres, nor magic at this time.. Until Evidence is found for them... So its not that I am not open minded. For If evidence is found I am more than happy to believe. But till that time believing in something without the backing of some form of evidence is just illogical, do to lack of a better word.

'Yes I think like a Vulcan! ' Nothing Is above the reasoning process.


no one is saying you are closed minded, But how is religion placed above "anything else?"

"It should be placed in the same boat as all other Ideals and Ideas."

are you saying that science and religion are on equal terms? doesnt that logic conflict with your own "reasoning process"?peace over war
Posted 10/28/09

JJT2 wrote:
And if u want to argue conflicting philosophys, please remember that philosophy A can always be disproven by philosophy B. But philosophy C can disprove both.Philosophy D may be a conbination of all philosophys that proves everything ( a multiple truth).Philosophy E can reverse the entire order of things, ect.

just plz be aware when arguing different types of philosophys, it becomes a game of rock, paper ,scissors. All 3 playing by the rules of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking.

the world as we see it doesnt exists.i bet animals dont see the world the same way we do.i bet bacteria dont see the world as we do, or apes,plants, ect. So who has the "true" vision? Who is the most rationale?
peace over war

You're forming judgment based on scepticism; when "From the point of view of the sceptic, the reason for the mistake is not so important as the fact that the mistake itself is possible".

But remember that as long as your argument is based on point of views, aka perception. Don't you think that it's illogical to perceive the world that's other than humans'? When your audiences are human beings with critical thinking and reasoning based on human languages and human experiences. After all, human knowledge was formed from us humans questioning the world that we exist in.
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

DomFortress wrote:


JJT2 wrote:
And if u want to argue conflicting philosophys, please remember that philosophy A can always be disproven by philosophy B. But philosophy C can disprove both.Philosophy D may be a conbination of all philosophys that proves everything ( a multiple truth).Philosophy E can reverse the entire order of things, ect.

just plz be aware when arguing different types of philosophys, it becomes a game of rock, paper ,scissors. All 3 playing by the rules of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking.

the world as we see it doesnt exists.i bet animals dont see the world the same way we do.i bet bacteria dont see the world as we do, or apes,plants, ect. So who has the "true" vision? Who is the most rationale?
peace over war

You're forming judgment based on scepticism; when "From the point of view of the sceptic, the reason for the mistake is not so important as the fact that the mistake itself is possible".

But remember that as long as your argument is based on point of views, aka perception. Don't you think that it's illogical to perceive the world that's other than humans'? When your audiences are human beings with critical thinking and reasoning based on human languages and human experiences. After all, human knowledge was formed from us humans questioning the world that we exist in.


lol, ok ok ok, i get it, but i was just trying to get phynix to accept that other perceptions of the world can be just as logical as his perceptions of it peace over war
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/09 , edited 10/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

See how logical mind thinks in my educated opinion is if there is no evidence for a tooth fairy, so the rationale thing to do is dismiss tooth fairy as being nothing more than a false claim until evidence is found to show otherwise.


I think that the rational response to anything is agnosticism until you’ve researched it. Sadly, nobody in the world is completely rational. I’ll give you a good example.

Have you ever seen Antarctica? No, but you believe that it exists because you’ve been told it exists. But wait, we have satellite images and proof that Antarctica exists…or at least you’ve been told that we have evidence that Antarctica exists. But have you actually gone and viewed this evidence yourself? Possibly, but I’m guessing probably not. What evidence do you have that the evidence exists?

Well, you have the word of somebody in a position of authority. For all we know Antarctica could be an imaginary land invented as a part of an international conspiracy, a term invented to be brought up while talking about this non-existent global warming thing.

You believe that there’s evidence of stars billions of light years away, of Antarctica, of tribal spear chucking barbarians in the Amazon rainforest because you’ve been told!

Just like so many religious people believe their religion because they've been told. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I think the only rational people being entirely intellectually honest with themselves in the whole world are the agnostics. Only the people who know that they don't know really know anything, because you can't KNOW anything except that you don't know something (saving that you exist.) It's that whole cogito ergo sum boundary.

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.