Al Gore and Atheists

[Immanuel]

No not at all it is an arch enemy of religion and superstition.
You forget ID ?

Science is not an arch-enemy of religion. Although there are some "religious" people that view it as such and some "scientists" that think they must prove all religion or faith false.

Science in its most basic form is the search for answers. That does not make it an enemy of religion.

Immie

 

[Damocles]

Regardless of that Logos is not equipped to answer these questions... Completely oblivious of this type of thing, it is equally weak argument to say that becuase Logos cannot prove its existence must mean that you are stupid to believe in it as it is to say "I feel it so you are stupid for not believing!"....

In other words, AOI.... Your argument is equally weak.

 

[Damocles]

You argue that their argumet based on Pathos is weaker than one on the same subject based in Logos. That argument is rubbish Logos cannot prove/disprove is not equipped to even begin to study the question.

Nothing can prove anything. Proof is absolute knowledge, which is a fantasy.

I agree.

Logos is equipped to deal with any question, it is the method by which we evaluate the quality of an argument.

Rubbish, Logos uses only physical means to "prove/disprove" or argue a claim. It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos...

You use a shovel when you need a rocket, you aren't going to get to space using the shovel.

Relying on pathos is weak because it is ambigious. It creates obscurum per obscurius arguments only, explaining the obscure by the even more obscure.

Emotional argument doesn't provide us with an insight into the world but an insight into the person making the argument.

An argument that is supported by logic and empiricism is far strong than one based on ambigious feelings, merely saying 'I feel this is so'.

Except when you use it wrongly. In this case, the subject itself lies outside normal empiricism being a supernatural thing. Attempting to apply the natural to the supernatural is, once again, attempting to apply the wrong tool to get the job done...

Your crowbar will not seal the window... It is ill equipped to do so.

The history of man demonstrates this. Mankind once attributed phenomenon according to how they felt. They saw the complexity of the seas and anthropomorphically attributed it to the action of Posieden. Something as complex as that must be under the control of something.

Logos rolled this back, by presenting a structure by which we can evaluate the claims, and it is in this point that the strength of logos and weakness of pathos-based arguments lies.

Rubbish. There could still be people that believed in Poseidon, that we understand how tides work doesn't mean that it isn't controlled by a supernatural being... This did nothing of the sort. People simply chose other religions along the way and this one fell from popularity.

Logos based claims can be verified. Pathos cannot. We must merely accept.

This claim cannot be verified by Logos any more than you can make it to space using that shovel of yours.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Regardless of that Logos is not equipped to answer these questions...

Logos wouldn't really answer the question but provide a framework by which the solution can be found.

Completely oblivious of this type of thing, it is equally weak argument to say that becuase Logos cannot prove its existence must mean that you are stupid to believe in it as it is to say "I feel it so you are stupid for not believing!"....

I haven't called anyone stupid for believing in things, I have just asked them to challenge WHY they believe things and what makes them believe.

If the reasons are based on pathos, for eg because belief provided comfort or it is mere feeling, I have challenged them about the strength of that argument.

Demonstrating the fallacy of religion goes much further, into helping people understand how and why they adopted such beliefs, where the beliefs originated....

 

[AnyOldIron]

Rubbish, Logos uses only physical means to "prove/disprove" or argue a claim.

No it doesn't. It is used primarily to resolve metaphysical questions. Logic is used in mathematics and that is not a physical mean.

It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos...

What is 'unnatural'? Whatever exists is natural by definition, it is part of nature. Even if a deity existed it wouldn't be unnatural. Unnatural is a term we use to describe things that run against conventional norms.

Pathos is the use of, or appeal to, emotions.

You use a shovel when you need a rocket, you aren't going to get to space using the shovel.

If you use pathos without logos, you wouldn't even create a shovel.

 

[Damocles]

Regardless of that Logos is not equipped to answer these questions...

Logos wouldn't really answer the question but provide a framework by which the solution can be found.

Completely oblivious of this type of thing, it is equally weak argument to say that becuase Logos cannot prove its existence must mean that you are stupid to believe in it as it is to say "I feel it so you are stupid for not believing!"....

I haven't called anyone stupid for believing in things, I have just asked them to challenge WHY they believe things and what makes them believe.

If the reasons are based on pathos, for eg because belief provided comfort or it is mere feeling, I have challenged them about the strength of that argument.

Demonstrating the fallacy of religion goes much further, into helping people understand how and why they adopted such beliefs, where the beliefs originated....

The problem is there is no way to demonstrate the fallacy of the supernatural using the argument of the natural. It is a weak argument to say, "This is natural therefore that Supernatural thing cannot be!"

It isn't just a "challenge" it often is directly insulting to their intelligence. You do dismiss all Pathos, even though you know that just because their argument is based there doesn't mean that they are wrong. Or that because you attempt to stretch the natural over the supernatural that you are right in the assumption that their argument is weak.

You cannot subjectively judge their personal experience, therefore you just appear to be a fanatic objecting to their beliefs because their supernatural being cannot fit into your miniscule natural definition. To them you are just Plankton assuming superiority when you cannot understand.

 

[klaatu]

Anytime a person - of whatever convictions - indicates that he’s unquestioningly certain of the reason for being or how and why the universe began, I know I’ve found someone else to question.

 

[Damocles]

Rubbish, Logos uses only physical means to "prove/disprove" or argue a claim.

No it doesn't. It is used primarily to resolve metaphysical questions. Logic is used in mathematics and that is not a physical mean.

It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos...

What is 'unnatural'? Whatever exists is natural by definition, it is part of nature. Even if a deity existed it wouldn't be unnatural. Unnatural is a term we use to describe things that run against conventional norms.

Pathos is the use of, or appeal to, emotions.

You use a shovel when you need a rocket, you aren't going to get to space using the shovel.

If you use pathos without logos, you wouldn't even create a shovel.

I said "supernatural" not unnatural. There is a difference and the term is well-used as well as well-defined.

 

[AnyOldIron]

The problem is there is no way to demonstrate the fallacy of the supernatural using the argument of the natural. It is a weak argument to say, "This is natural therefore that Supernatural thing cannot be!"

There is no way to prove a negative on this scale but that doesn't mean that we should therefore accept an argument as valid.

You can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around a planet outside our universe but that doesn't therefore make it a valid statement to assert there is.

We must then look at how the argument came about. If the argument is based in pathos, that you feel it must be right, then that is weak. Boil the arguments for the existence of the transcendental down by Socratic questioning and you are left entirely with pathos-based arguments.

You do dismiss all Pathos, even though you know that just because their argument is based there doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Dismissing pathos in argument isn't wrong. It is unsubstantiated argument. If an argument is based on pathos then it is incredibly weak. That doesn't mean I am claiming absolute knowledge and it is therefore wrong, just that the argument is extremely weak. It is based entirely in the emotions.

You cannot subjectively judge their personal experience, therefore you just appear to be a fanatic objecting to their beliefs because their supernatural being cannot fit into your miniscule natural definition. To them you are just Plankton assuming superiority when you cannot understand.

I can judge the arguments that they present. If those arguments are based on subjective personal experience, which could derive from a variety of sources, then they are weak.

I could claim to you that fairies exist because I have seen them in my mind, but if I cannot verify the claim then it is incredibly weak. It is based entirely in my own emotions.

As for your pop-psychology, thanks but not really true. I don't need to feel superior to anyone, I don't invest emotions into philosophical discussions, and quite frankly this appears to be merely chaff deflecting from the argument.

 

[AnyOldIron]

I said "supernatural" not unnatural. There is a difference and the term is well-used as well as well-defined.

No you didn't....

"It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos... "

 

[Damocles]

The "prove a teapot" thing is once again an attempt to limit the supernatural to the natural laws... The analogy is worthless.

They give personal experience, stronger argument than "Your Supernatural being doesn't follow my Natural Law and therefore you have to prove he exists!" argument. It doesn't fly. When one of the conditions of belief is specifically Faith then arguing that having Faith isn't "logical" is a weak argument indeed. It is, in point of fact, exactly as weak as saying the opposite.

I do not say their argument is particularly strong, only that yours is equally weak. Particularly when you keep attempting to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

 

[Damocles]

I said "supernatural" not unnatural. There is a difference and the term is well-used as well as well-defined.

No you didn't....

"It is not equipped to deal with that which is unnatural and therfore will not fit into this type of "evidence". All of the "evidence" for this lies within Pathos... "

Excuse me. I meant Supernatural. In every other post I stated Supernatural in one I erred. I can live with that. It doesn't really undermine my argument.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Anytime a person - of whatever convictions - indicates that he’s unquestioningly certain of the reason for being or how and why the universe began, I know I’ve found someone else to question.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that all claims are equally valid.

 

[evince]

Gore isnt talking all athiests hes talking the ones who like to pretend it makes them better than others.

I will fully admitt I perfer fact over myth.

All religion that bases its self on stories with are unprovable such flying people ,horned guys livivng under the earths surface and people burning for enternity are based on myth.

This is truth.

I know others will see that as an insult but its really not its just how I seek truth.

You see everything I believe has to have some provability to it.

BTW science has found proof of black matter recently, I now believe in black matter.

 

[AnyOldIron]

They give personal experience, stronger argument than "Your Supernatural being doesn't follow my Natural Law and therefore you have to prove he exists!" argument. It doesn't fly. When one of the conditions of belief is specifically Faith then arguing that having Faith isn't "logical" is a weak argument indeed. It is, in point of fact, exactly as weak as saying the opposite.

Logic isn't a material entity. It deals with the metaphysical equally as well as the material.

Because people claim 'faith' doesn't mean that that faith, or the nature of faith itself, isn't open to question.

Stating that an explanation is provided by creating ambigious entities 'outside of our possible understanding' is not even an explanation, it is essentially a statement of agnosticism. It is stating 'I don't know but I feel it must be.'

It is based on pathos.

I do not say their argument is particularly strong, only that yours is equally weak. Particularly when you keep attempting to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Stating that logic (which isn't a natural law, it is a metaphysical tool) provides a structure for validating arguments that is stronger than the use of pathos isn't a weak argument.

This is simply because logic provides us with a method of verification, pathos only provides us with the ultimatum that we take someone's word for it or not.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Gore isnt talking all athiests hes talking the ones who like to pretend it makes them better than others.

Of course it doesn't. They have the better arguments in the case of religion, that is all....

 

[evince]

They have the better arguement as far as provable truth.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Excuse me. I meant Supernatural. In every other post I stated Supernatural in one I erred. I can live with that. It doesn't really undermine my argument.

If something exists, then it is natural.

Supernatural is a term used to describe ambigious notions that cannot be substantiated. It is 'the other'.

If a deity existed, it wouldn't be supernatural but natural. It may be a powerful entity but would exist and thus be natural.

 

[Damocles]

Stating that logic (which isn't a natural law, it is a metaphysical tool) provides a structure for validating arguments that is stronger than the use of pathos isn't a weak argument.

This is simply because logic provides us with a method of verification, pathos only provides us with the ultimatum that we take someone's word for it or not.

Once again, not taking their word for it isn't something that I am arguing against. I am arguing against the whole "My argument is better because Logos says this..." idea. One argument is not better than the other. Pathos is ill-equipped to give a substantive argument, Logos is ill-equipped to deal with the supernatural. Both arguments are weakened by the fact their positions begin from a weakened foundation.

Attempting to say that because a Supernatural being doesn't fit nicely within the rules you attempt to make it fit is equally weak as saying that because this being cannot be defined within those rules that means you must accept their personal experience. The whole reason to "question their belief" is to get them to see things your way, and you do it from a foundationless argument based in natural law against Faith based in personal experience.

Both arguments are weak, neither especially so.

 

[evince]

understood