• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Then I can't help you.

At most, only one claim in a set of mutually exclusive claims can be true. It doesn't mean that any of them are, it just means that more than one cannot.

This is pretty elementary stuff.
Click to expand...

True if you had been taling about which floor of a building you were on. But you were not. You were referring to religious beliefs. Of which there is no reason to assume that any position is true regardless of the nature of the other claims being false.

As I said it is nit picking as just a logical statement but relevant when discussing religion.
 
soylentgreen said:
True if you had been taling about which floor of a building you were on. But you were not. You were referring to religious beliefs. Of which there is no reason to assume that any position is true regardless of the nature of the other claims being false.

As I said it is nit picking as just a logical statement but relevant when discussing religion.
Click to expand...

Dude. How are you not getting this?

We don't have to assume or allow that any of them are true. But if they all claim to be the one true thing, and they all say contradictory things, we know that, at a maximum, only one can be true at a time. It doesn't mean any of them are true. But more than one cannot be.

Very. Simple.
 
soylentgreen said:
Correct what he said, not correct in logic. Because two claims contradict each other does not mean that one must be true.
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that.

It only means that two claims contradict each other.
Click to expand...
No it means both cannot be true. One could be true or both be false. No one is saying one must be true.



And then tagged the bit on the end that said one might be true.
Click to expand...
Is that wrong? Are you claiming it is absolutely impossible for any religion to be correct? Saying one might be true is not saying one is true or even that it is likely one is true.

Just because tw claims contradict each ther does not imply one must be true.
Click to expand...
No one is saying otherwise. I have no idea how you could possibly think anyone has said that.

Why would i assume that one is true?
Click to expand...
You shouldn't. No one has said you should. Saying that at most one is true is not assuming any are true.

then do not tag bits on the end that imply a such.
Click to expand...
He didn't

There are two claims, A and B. They contradict each other.
So there are three possibilities
A is true and B is false
A is false and B is true
A and B are false.


At most, one of those claims is true. Meaning either one and only one is true OR both are false.
How on earth are you getting that that argument implies one must be true?
 
Last edited:
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Dude. How are you not getting this?

We don't have to assume or allow that any of them are true. But if they all claim to be the one true thing, and they all say contradictory things, we know that, at a maximum, only one can be true at a time. It doesn't mean any of them are true. But more than one cannot be.

Very. Simple.
Click to expand...

No it you who does not get it. Your statement does not work in the context of the particular subject of religion.
The logic you apply would work well with your story about being on at least one floor in a tall building, because there is no doubt that buildings and floors exist.
However no such knowledge exists with religion. At best you can say that they all contradict each other. And that there is not even a good reason to assume even one is true.

The fact that many things can contradict in no way implies that even at a minimum one may be true. All that tells us is that many things contradict. Your adding on the bit that at a maximum, only one can be true at a time. Is playing the odds. It is basically a gamblers fallacy.
 
pinqy said:
No one is claiming that.


No it means both cannot be true. One could be true or both be false. No one is saying one must be true.
Click to expand...
Context is everything. If we are talking about something verifiable such as is it raining or not raining then true what you say. But we are not, the context is religion and in that subject just because two or more belief systems contradict does not mean that any of them might be true. It only means that they all contradict each other.

Is that wrong? Are you claiming it is absolutely impossible for any religion to be correct? Saying one might be true is not saying one is true or even that it is likely one is true.
Click to expand...
Until you can demonstrate the truth of one i have no reason too assume any to be true.

No one is saying otherwise. I have no idea how you could possibly think anyone has said that.
Click to expand...
When someone tacks onto the end of a statement, " At most, only one of them can be." Then someone is saying that.


You shouldn't. No one has said you should. Saying that at most one is true is not assuming any are true.
Click to expand...
So as i said it is an unnecessary statement that does not belong on the end of hos claim. Thank you for agreeing.

He didn't

There are two claims, A and B. They contradict each other.
So there are three possibilities
A is true and B is false
A is false and B is true
A and B are false.
Click to expand...
Third possibility contradicts the statement, " At most, only one of them can be."


At most, one of those claims is true. Meaning either one and only one is true OR both are false.
How on earth are you getting that that argument implies one must be true?
Click to expand...
Then as i have argued all along he should have left off the last bit.
 
soylentgreen said:
No it you who does not get it. Your statement does not work in the context of the particular subject of religion.
The logic you apply would work well with your story about being on at least one floor in a tall building, because there is no doubt that buildings and floors exist.
However no such knowledge exists with religion. At best you can say that they all contradict each other. And that there is not even a good reason to assume even one is true.

The fact that many things can contradict in no way implies that even at a minimum one may be true. All that tells us is that many things contradict. Your adding on the bit that at a maximum, only one can be true at a time. Is playing the odds. It is basically a gamblers fallacy.
Click to expand...

The rules of philosophy and epistemology work on all subject matter, not just ones you deem worthy. These are the same rules we use to come to the conclusion that a god very likely does not exist.

You can't simply ride the logic as far as you want and then do something else. That is, in a word, inconsistent. Need I remind you that this topic came up because a theist claimed no old texts exist to contradict an old religious text? Of course that is obviously wrong, by the argument I provided - many old religious texts exist from the same ancient time period, and they all contradict each other.
 
Last edited:
Dpetty said:
100%? So every time, is what your asserting? Thats an even tougher one to back up than the existence of God. What your describing is the chaos theory. Observing something up close makes it seem chaotic, but macro observation and with enough variables shows that it is organized. There is no compelling evidence for either argument, thats why neither have been proven.
Click to expand...

You are reading more into what I said that what was intended. You said in effect that it difficult to expect order to form from disorder. I showed you everyday examples of ordered structure being produced out of disorganized material. The odds are 100% that it occurs.

I will go one step further though since you prompted me. Matter is a form of organized energy. Therefore everything made of matter is an example of disorder to order. Quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons etc. assemble into atoms, atoms to molecules, and molecules into people and water. So yes, everything. The four fundamental forces govern the production of and all interactions between matter.

That's what we know. I there more? Who knows?
 
Dpetty said:
You cannot prove they do not exist, and i am not trying to prove their existence.



Id say your crazy.



Our current understanding of physics is what comprise the "Laws of physics" Do you honestly think we know all there is to know in that arena? I never said the laws of physics describe parallel dimensions, i said there are theories regarding them. We have many theories that are in dispute with each other, yet we cant totally eliminate either. That in and of itself is a contradiction. If you are so cocky as to think we humans know all there is to know, your worse off than i thought.


Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."
Click to expand...

Of course we don't know it all. We learn more every single day. That's why we do science. What a ridiculous comment you make in attribution to me.

You alluded to certain theories as if they are evidence for something. You can not logically use ignorance as an argument for existence. We can't turn to people's imaginations for evidence of existence. We can't even assess probabilities like you did by saying it's more likely order forms from order than from chaos. There is no basis for any belief lacking supporting evidence. Doing so is irrational.
 
Russell797 said:
You are reading more into what I said that what was intended.
Click to expand...

As you have done to me.

That's what we know. I there more? Who knows?
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. That has been the purpose to all of my comments so far. We dont know what we dont know, hence we cant with any certainty say that there is no God!
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Calling you a liar wasn't a rebuttal; it was simply an accurate observation based in fact. I clearly exposed many of your statements as lies and when challenged on others you ran screaming. YOU haven't validated any of your claims.

You're a liar because you've told blatant, obvious lies in your posts to me. It's irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with you; you simply cannot be honest.
Click to expand...

your right, its not a rebuttal, but it seems to be all that you have in your arsenal. Meanwhile, there are other people carrying on adult conversations.
 
Dpetty said:
your right, its not a rebuttal, but it seems to be all that you have in your arsenal. Meanwhile, there are other people carrying on adult conversations.
Click to expand...

LOL! "Adult conversations" do not include serial lying and running away from claims that one makes.

It's likely nothing you'd understand.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The rules of philosophy and epistemology work on all subject matter, not just ones you deem worthy. These are the same rules we use to come to the conclusion that a god very likely does not exist.

.
Click to expand...

The rules also take into account context. They are not just a blanket law to be made regardless of the situation. The rules are there to aide in thinking, not control what you think.
You can't simply ride the logic as far as you want and then do something else. That is, in a word, inconsistent. Need I remind you that this topic came up because a theist claimed no old texts exist to contradict an old religious text? Of course that is obviously wrong, by the argument I provided - many old religious texts exist from the same ancient time period, and they all contradict each other
Click to expand...
Yet it is the words in bold that i think you did. This time you said it correctly. You ended the logic train with the words , " all contradict each other." Had you again added on the thought, " At most, only one of them can be." Then you would have left logic and entered the gamblers fallacy.
 
Dpetty said:
You hit the nail on the head. That has been the purpose to all of my comments so far. We dont know what we dont know, hence we cant with any certainty say that there is no God!
Click to expand...
An hypothesis such as godidit requires more than just speculation. There is no evidence of a god, and no real reason to assume one. Just because we do not know how the universe started is not a good reason to assume a godidit theory.
It is not a case of, we cannot say with any certainty say that there is no God. It is a case of why would i even bother to bring a god into the picture.
 
soylentgreen said:
The rules also take into account context.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. The rules of philosophy are hard and fast.

Do you know what an axiom is? Or the meaning behind the phrase "self-evidently true"?

Yet it is the words in bold that i think you did. This time you said it correctly. You ended the logic train with the words , " all contradict each other."
Click to expand...

I said it the same way from the beginning. If you are going to accuse me of not saying something, you should probably pick a non-durable medium that is no so easily referenced.
 
Dpetty said:
As you have done to me.



You hit the nail on the head. That has been the purpose to all of my comments so far. We dont know what we dont know, hence we cant with any certainty say that there is no God!
Click to expand...

What we can say with certainty is that there is no evidence of god. We can also say that if god is defined as supernatural and unknowable then we can certainly say there never will be evidence of god. Lack of certainty does not mean that god could exist. It just means that people can make up anything they want which can be dismissed. The ability to imagine god demonstrates nothing about the possibility of god. It only demonstrates the ability to imagine something without evidence to back it. I can imagine hruyrs and then tell you that your lack of knowledge of hruyrs means you can't say with certainty that there is no hruyrs.
 
soylentgreen said:
Context is everything. If we are talking about something verifiable such as is it raining or not raining then true what you say. But we are not, the context is religion and in that subject just because two or more belief systems contradict does not mean that any of them might be true.
Click to expand...
No one is saying one might be true because they contradict. And saying that "at most" one might be true is NOT saying anything about whether any might actually be true.

Until you can demonstrate the truth of one i have no reason too assume any to be true.
Click to expand...
Please point out where anyone is asking you to.


When someone tacks onto the end of a statement, " At most, only one of them can be." Then someone is saying that.
Click to expand...
You'll have to walk me through that....how is saying that at most one claim could be true imply that a minimum of one must be true? That's not logical.



There are two claims, A and B. They contradict each other.
So there are three possibilities
A is true and B is false
A is false and B is true
A and B are false.
Click to expand...
Third possibility contradicts the statement, " At most, only one of them can be."
Click to expand...
How? "At most only one of them can be true" can be reworded as "Either one and only one is true OR both are false." How do you think that contradicts "both are false?" If both are false, then it is true that either one is true or both are false.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
No, they don't. The rules of philosophy are hard and fast.
.
Click to expand...
No, the rules of logic are hard and fast. Philosophy is open arena where all thoughts are contested.
Do you know what an axiom is? Or the meaning behind the phrase "self-evidently true"?
Click to expand...
Yes, Which has nothing to do with an argument where there is no evidence let alone self evidence.

I said it the same way from the beginning. If you are going to accuse me of not saying something, you should probably pick a non-durable medium that is no so easily referenced
Click to expand...

Not true, the first time you said it you added on the bit at the end i pointed out. where as this time you left it out. As you should have in a case where just because all cases contradict does not mean that even only one could be true. It is just a case of they all contradict.
 
pinqy said:
No one is saying one might be true because they contradict. And saying that "at most" one might be true is NOT saying anything about whether any might actually be true.
Click to expand...
I would normally agree had not the subject been religion where it there is no reason even to assume that particular possibility.


Please point out where anyone is asking you to.
Click to expand...
No one asked me to a butted in and gave an unsolicited opinion.

You'll have to walk me through that....how is saying that at most one claim could be true imply that a minimum of one must be true? That's not logical.
Click to expand...
Must!!! Your adding a word that does not belong just as he did. What you mean to say is, " saying that at most one claim could be true implies that a minimum one could be true.
Yet why would anyone assume that in a bunch of contradictory theories of god that any would be true. It simply is an unnecessary statement that begs the question of whether one could be true.



How? "At most only one of them can be true" can be reworded as "Either one and only one is true OR both are false." How do you think that contradicts "both are false?" If both are false, then it is true that either one is true or both are false.
Click to expand...
Depends on the subject matter which brings us back to context. When dealing with religion where none have been shown to be true then tacking on the end bit becomes nothing more than a fallacy.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, the rules of logic are hard and fast. Philosophy is open arena where all thoughts are contested.

Yes, Which has nothing to do with an argument where there is no evidence let alone self evidence.



Not true, the first time you said it you added on the bit at the end i pointed out. where as this time you left it out. As you should have in a case where just because all cases contradict does not mean that even only one could be true. It is just a case of they all contradict.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that an atheist (you) is hung up on a piece of logic for being "too philosophical", while another atheist (me) used that logic to contest and defeat a theist's point.

You clearly do not understand the original point. I'm not trying to be rude, but it is very obvious, to everyone, that you are out of your depth on this one.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I find it hilarious that an atheist (you) is hung up on a piece of logic for being "too philosophical", while another atheist (me) used that logic to contest and defeat a theist's point.

You clearly do not understand the original point. I'm not trying to be rude, but it is very obvious, to everyone, that you are out of your depth on this one.
Click to expand...

I see it the other way around. Your statement is more the kind of mistake a theist would make. Indicating that there are many religions that contradict each other but of them all at least one may be correct. The kind of whishful thinking that is what theists usually do.

I understood the original point, i also understand that it was in context of religion just wishful thinking.
 
soylentgreen said:
I see it the other way around. Your statement is more the kind of mistake a theist would make. Indicating that there are many religions that contradict each other but of them all at least one may be correct. The kind of whishful thinking that is what theists usually do.

I understood the original point, i also understand that it was in context of religion just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I never said the part in bold, or even suggested it. No part of what I said, anywhere, could possibly be construed that way with an honest reading and understanding of what I wrote.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I never said the part in bold, or even suggested it. No part of what I said, anywhere, could possibly be construed that way with an honest reading and understanding of what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Excuse me for paraphrasing. And we are not talking about any form of honest reading when it comes to theists claiming a god exist. Instead we are looking at the kind of fallacious arguments that the part you tacked onto the end of your original statement is.

Your statement is not better than a theist saying that because we do not know how the universe started we could speculate a god did it. That is not reasoning it is wishful thinking. Your saying that because all religions contradict then at best only one could possibly be right is nothing more than a sneaky innuendo.

As i keep saying it is all about context. had you made that remark about being on a floor in a building then it would be correct. if you make that remark about religion then your creating a fallacy. It is nothing more than slack thinking to say an adage has the same meaning in every circumstance.
 
soylentgreen said:
I would normally agree had not the subject been religion where it there is no reason even to assume that particular possibility.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make any difference what the subject is because it is NOT necessary to assume anything about possibilities.
If A, then Not-B
If B, then Not-A
So it cannot be the case that both A and B are true. At most one is true. This means that, at least, none are true.
It doesn't matter what we plug in for A or B, or whether either A or B is logically possible.


Must!!! Your adding a word that does not belong just as he did.
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't either Gonzo or I that inserted "must," it was you:
soylentgreen said:
Because two claims contradict each other does not mean that one must be true. It only means that two claims contradict each other.
Jusst because tw claims contradict each ther does not imply one must be true.

Why would i assume that one is true?

then do not tag bits on the end that imply a such.
Click to expand...
And that was just the most recent post. You were the one insisting that saying "at most one can be true" meant that at least one must be true.

What you mean to say is, " saying that at most one claim could be true implies that a minimum one could be true.
Click to expand...
No, I did not mean to say that at all. Because it does not imply that at all. Saying that at most one claim could be true does not in any way imply that any could be true.

Depends on the subject matter which brings us back to context. When dealing with religion where none have been shown to be true then tacking on the end bit becomes nothing more than a fallacy.
Click to expand...
A: All fairies are good.
B: All fairies are evil.
C: Fairies are more like a force of nature and no fairy is either good or evil.
D: Some fairies are good, some are evil.
IF any of those are true, then only one is. This is the same as saying at most one is true. This does not imply that any of them could be true. I'm not sure why you think it does. Would it make it easier if we added one more claim:
E: Fairies do not exist.
By adding that on we can change it from "at most one is true" to "One and only one of those claims is true."
So if fairies do actually exist (and we're not assuming they do, or even that it's possible they do), then they would fall into one of the categories of A through F (yes, C is a little fuzzy, but still applicable to all cases where fairies exist, but concepts of good and evil don't apply).
If they do not exist then they fit into category E.

Saying at most only one is true is simply admitting the implicit claim that none are true.
 
soylentgreen said:
Excuse me for paraphrasing. And we are not talking about any form of honest reading when it comes to theists claiming a god exist. Instead we are looking at the kind of fallacious arguments that the part you tacked onto the end of your original statement is.
Click to expand...
The only fallacies are the strawman fallacies that "at most one could be true" implies that one must be true or at least one could be true, and the fallacy of special pleading that somehow talking about religion changes rules of logic.

Your statement is not better than a theist saying that because we do not know how the universe started we could speculate a god did it. That is not reasoning it is wishful thinking. [/quote]
Of course we can speculate a god did it. We can also speculate that the universe was farted into existence by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. We can speculate anything we want, but that doesn't mean the speculations are rational or reasonable, we can still do it.

Your saying that because all religions contradict then at best only one could possibly be right is nothing more than a sneaky innuendo.
Click to expand...
And what is the "at worst" or "at least" in his argument?

It is nothing more than slack thinking to say an adage has the same meaning in every circumstance.
Click to expand...
IF A, then not-B AND not-C.
IF B, then not-A AND not-C.
IF C, then not-A AND not-B.

Give me values where all three of those statements are true, but that it is not the case that at most one is true.
 
soylentgreen said:
As i keep saying it is all about context. had you made that remark about being on a floor in a building then it would be correct. if you make that remark about religion then your creating a fallacy. It is nothing more than slack thinking to say an adage has the same meaning in every circumstance.
Click to expand...
...you're doing it wrong.

If I say, "Some people think a god exists," that is a true statement. And it implies that I think a god exists about as much as any of my earlier statements.

There's nothing wrong with admitting it, dude. Nobody is going to judge you for getting it wrong. Sticking to an obviously faulty line of thinking, however....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom