Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think I was being overly general in my posts before (I'm looking at it from a scientific, not a religious standpoint), so I'm going to attempt to write this as clearly as possible. The reason why I'm leaning so heavily on the 'guilty until proven innocent' approach is because I believe it's the better way to address the question of the existence of God. For one to say that God doesn't exist, one would not have to provide evidence of this non-existence (which has been stated already). From an analysis standpoint, this creates major problems, let's examine the options:

Hypothesis 1: God does not exist unless evidence proves otherwise

This would be the most reasonable hypothesis to take and it's probably the choice I would take in most situations. In this case, the existence of God would have to be shown through evidence. Not a bad concept, but the evidence which proves the existence of God is non-existent (note the irony). This is a problem because it does not allow acceptance of either claims, but rather, disqualifies the entire test.

As an example, say you don't reject the claim of "God does not exist" based on a lack of (no) evidence. Now, lets say that later on, some evidence comes up which indeed supports God... now you are clearly in poor shape for having made an erroneous judgment from lack of evidence.

Hypothesis 2: God exists until evidence proves otherwise

Here's where shit starts hitting the fan. Because there are inherent issues with Hypothesis 1, I've resorted to wording Hypothesis 2 in this fashion. This forces one to present evidence which disproves the existence of god, as opposed to one proving the existence of God. Some might say that this is unfair, though I can't say it's much different from the bias presented in Hypothesis 1 (any method of testing in this case introduces bias one way or another). Many of you have blasted me for taking away from the atheist's so-called immunity from the "burden of proof." I'm merely organizing logic in this manner for the sake of introducing a usable test (perhaps it is easier to disprove the existence of God rather than proving it?)

Here are the 3 consequences of this thought process:

You accept the legitimacy of this hypothesis, and use it as a basis for a test.
You reject the hypothesis, stating incorrect logic, or
You reject the hypothesis on the grounds of a lack of evidence to disprove the existence of God. Rejecting this hypothesis makes the entire test inconclusive, which is tantamount to saying "there is the same amount of evidence supporting the existence of God as there is evidence disproving the existence of God"; in my opinion, this puts the argument that 'God exists' at the same level as the argument that 'God does not exist.'

At 8/9/10 04:44 PM, The-universe wrote: From what I gather, according to him if someone makes a claim that a god does/doesn't exist, one needs to produce a hypothesis, produce observable and testable evidence and then present their work. For most things having this need for a claim to be backed up and researched is a good mentality to have.

But what he doesn't realise is he's trying to apply a method that has never and will never be able to be applied to the subject we're talking about. Most gods are generally supernatural creatures, so how can you apply a science (a method of explaining naturally occurring phenomenon) to proving/disproving a god?

Maybe this approach can be applied to this subject, maybe it can't, or maybe it can be but the method for application hasn't been discovered yet. Either way, I value an approach such as this one more than I would an approach which pieces together ideas from a collection of social 'scientists' (I use the term 'scientists' in a very broad sense of the term).

My goal here was not to argue the existence of God, I honestly don't give a fuck, but rather, to point out the fallacy that no evidence is the same as bad evidence.

Oh, and pic somewhat related.

The reason atheists don't have to prove anything is because they are not making any positive claim. I think you confuse what it means to say "I do not believe in God". This statement is a negative. It simply means that they do not have a belief in God. I think you are confusing it with "I KNOW there is no God," which is a positive statement, and also an assumption. Atheists don't say "I know for a fact that there is no God." The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is not that atheists are sure and agnostics are undecided. It is that agnostics are willing to ponder the existence of God or other deities, while atheists do not see any practical reason for doing so. Most atheists would consider supernatural forces to be in the realm of possibilities, but they simply dismiss them because there is no practical reason for thinking about such things since no factual answers will come of it.

At 8/10/10 01:20 AM, MrFlopz wrote: I think you confuse what it means to say "I do not believe in God". This statement is a negative. It simply means that they do not have a belief in God. I think you are confusing it with "I KNOW there is no God," which is a positive statement, and also an assumption. Atheists don't say "I know for a fact that there is no God."

I think we were debating 2 different things, because this makes sense. I was interpreting the initial comment using your second line and not the first, and that was a big part of the resulting shit storm.

At 8/10/10 12:58 AM, Moarsauce wrote: My goal here was not to argue the existence of God, I honestly don't give a fuck, but rather, to point out the fallacy that no evidence is the same as bad evidence.

Not really. You're arguing against a position that nobody is proposing and then trying to chuck in a method that explains naturally occurring phenomena by saying "prove/disprove the supernatural".

Until you understand the actual definitions, terms and usages all you've done is waste your own time talking about things everyone else has already answered.

There's plenty...

Here's some:

Insinuating that eating raw snails aren't bad because we have been eating raw fruits and vegetables.

That sources regarding certain country's history can't be trusted just because it's written in English.

Just about anything posted on the comment section on youtube.

There's more but it's a long list.

At 7/1/10 11:35 AM, Scarface wrote: The fact that gays can't fight in the military because (1) they are too weak and (2) they would be too busy having sex to fight.

I'll quote this as useless, thnx.

I find it correct tbh. Don't ask why, just something I find correct. :)

At 7/1/10 11:35 AM, Scarface wrote: The fact that gays can't fight in the military because (1) they are too weak and (2) they would be too busy having sex to fight.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the stupidest argument ever.

At 7/1/10 11:35 AM, Scarface wrote: The fact that gays can't fight in the military because (1) they are too weak and (2) they would be too busy having sex to fight.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the stupidest argument ever.

At 7/1/10 11:16 AM, lapis wrote: I personally have the "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" kind of logic that is often used in (invasion of) privacy discussions pretty high in my list of dumb arguments.

Yep, this is probably the most common stupid argument i come across frequently.

The thing with arguments is that no matter how stupid or absurd it is people will still believe it because it's opinion based!

Anything with ThunderLegion.

Personal favorite:
Argues Catholicism wasn't really Christianity, then entered "conversion mode" with avie and basically said it "didn't matter" which denomination he converted to, after 10+ pages of saying it mattered GREATLY which denomination you were, because one was blatantly false.

Not surprisingly, he left right after that.

Runner up:
Him arguing translation with me, and me pointing out the passage he picked was mistranslated in the ones based off the Textus Receptus.

God designed women so that they would get pregnant by 12 years old. He said that since a girl CAN get pregnant at 12 that God intends them to be pregnant by that age. He says that laws against pedophilia go against the word of God.

Of course this lunatic doesn't realize that girls who are pregnant at 12 can have potentially fatal injuries from being prematurely pregnant.

I saw this one political cartoon making a statement against The Face on Mars the more current images with better resolution that Viking 2 that to me looks less like a human face more like a Martian's face but that's a whole different argument. In this cartoon depicted what was supposed to be The Face on Mars with two cartoon astronauts standing in front of it declaring "Sure don't look like a face!" and as I'm looking at this I recognize this rock formation, to which I say "Of course it doesn't, it looks more like a rock face in Montana because it is a rock face in Montana, dummy. Not exactly the perfect crime you didn't change the sky from blue to pink or the rocks from yellow to 'rust' not orange. You see, the trick is, find an archive photo off of the internet unless you have an actual one from the place you've visited like a canyon or a bluff easier to do one with no vegetation use photoshop tint the rock formation a darker shade of orange the one you want is 'rust' between orange and red if it's the color of blood you've gone too far, if it's peach you haven't gone far enough. be sure to leave the skyline out of that then go to the skyline and tint the sky pink." You can't fool me with that! I been doin' that same trick on photoshop since I was fifteen!

pending further any legitimate Photograph some wise ass has the audacity to declare "It was done on photoshop" which includes but is not limited to Aliens, UFOs, Sasquatch, El Chupacabra, Mothman and there's also concentration camps and other war pictures that are to graphic for The Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, even CNN still declare "it was done on photoshop" the actual discussion goes as follows:

wiseass: It was done on Photoshop.
Me: What makes you think that?
Wiseass: I don't think I know.
Me: Are you adept at using Photoshop?
Wiseass: No.
Me: Do you know how to use Photoshop?
Wiseass: No.
Me: Have you now or ever used Photoshop?
Wiseass: No.
Me: WISEASS!!!

Just about any post made by ShaggyTheClown makes an effective case for the theory that lobotomized cats can use the internet.

I heard an argument from a homophobic once. It was pretty funny if you believe me and absolutely wrong.

" Gays brought AIDS to America ".

Discuss.

Mac vs Win vs Linux

Opensource vs Corporate

Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

I remember talking with a conspiracy theorist early this year.

He stated that the major media companies are controlled, edited and maintained by 6 people to make sure that government cover-ups are not discovered.

That's right, just SIX people are monitoring, writing and maintaining every single news outlet in the country, whereas it takes thousands of people just to work for one.

When I mentioned this, he changed his argument. It wasn't actually "6", it was 60 and his original argument was a typo. Then when I elaborated the problem he said 600 while deleting all his previous posts.

Luckily I already saved his comments so I made mention of them again. He pissed and moaned, called me weak minded and didn't reply to my criticisms.

Conspiracy theories are called conspiracies for a good reason.

Pretty much anyone saying gay marriage is allowed or trying to prove there is a god.
Both stupid arguments.

The argument went as follows:

Men have natural urges which cannot be controlled. Therefore, if the manner in which a women dresses can be interpreted as lewd, she is at fault for having been raped. The man couldn't help it.

At 8/10/10 01:20 AM, MrFlopz wrote: T Atheists don't say "I know for a fact that there is no God."

Untrue, some atheists try to argue that science has proven there can't be a god (or at least the god of the Bible). I think Hitchens might be one, not sure about it though.

At 8/30/10 03:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

Now THAT is really really stupid.

Any of you know of a woman who considers breast feeding to be a form of masturbation or sexually arousing?

At 9/1/10 08:17 PM, Black487 wrote: The argument went as follows:

Men have natural urges which cannot be controlled. Therefore, if the manner in which a women dresses can be interpreted as lewd, she is at fault for having been raped. The man couldn't help it.

That's right men lose all free will when looking at women dressing lewd.

I hope the asshole saying that realizes
A. How incredibaly stupid and wrong that is
B. The argument would be a HUGE help to anyone trying to ban porn, or the swimsuit issue of sports illustrated (or even violent games).

At 8/30/10 06:21 PM, DaftDog wrote: Pretty much anyone saying gay marriage is allowed

You must've meant something else. Gay marriage is allowed in some states and some countries.

At 9/2/10 04:32 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 8/30/10 03:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

Now THAT is really really stupid.

Any of you know of a woman who considers breast feeding to be a form of masturbation or sexually arousing?

I am most certain it is sexually arousing for women to be breast feeding they're just better at not showing it. Women are MUCH BETTER at that than men. I pitched to my cousin who did breast feed her baby "Doesn't that hurt?" I said. "Quite the contrary, it's quite pleasant." she said.

At 7/10/10 05:46 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 7/10/10 05:21 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh heres another one Ancient astronauts.

... the first time I heard that theory it caused me physical pain.

And everybody who has ever made such a statement ironically possesses a God Complex who would eventually be part of a crew landing on an Alien world of development by our standards be between 5000 BC and 500 AD land and be revered by the indigenous as "Gods" because they came down from the sky. They will play to this that they are a "God" and play God in the indigenous society which will irrevocably lead to destruction the consequences of which the indigenous will rise up and put your "Godhood" to the test the test of which is that if you are a true "God" you cannot die and when you do they will be all the better for it.

"Barak Obama is a Nazi" Seriously what kind of moron would believe that? Everyone who's ever watched the History channel can tell you that's a load of shit! You see the nazis would never let him in. The nazis were all about filtering out what they deemed to be "inferior" Not Jewish, not gay, not having a mental illness, not gypsy, not inclined to speak out against the nazis, not Jehovah's witnesses, not a twin, not being white. They called it "Eugenics" I call it "Übercracker" I can say that, I'm German. That type of thing should never happen again.

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
you can literally use that for any argument...

I especially hate the "think of the children" mentallity when it comes to the legalization of marijuana.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S AN AGE LIMIT.
And it beats going to creepy drug dealers with guns and hookers.

This happened at work just after the new Ipad came out.

The conversation started with him saying:

"I've got the new Ipad!, isn't that cool?"
"Personally, no"
"Why?"
"Because I don't like it."
"Nah, it's cool!"
"I don't think so"
"Oh yeah? Well...have YOU ever used one?"
"Nope"
THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW???"
"I know I'll die if I jump into a pit of fire."
"That's just stupid, how is the Ipad shit?"
"No removable battery so if it degrades you have to pay Apple to replace it. There's no Adobe flash support and no USB or CD drive. All songs, movies, shows etc have to be bought from Itunes, no file sharing with computers, no drag and drop, no multitasking and no camera/webcam. That's just the stuff I can think of from the top of my head and Ipad's are supposed to be an ALTERNATIVE to laptops yet they're more expensive and do less. So tell me how the fucking hell can you justify buying it?"
"But...apple will fix it..."
"Okay, you can waste your own money buying something that's more expensive and less powerful than even simplistic computer".

Baring in mind, I'm not talking to a spoiled 15 year old brat who adores every gadget on planet earth. I'm talking to a 27 year old with a wife and full time job....who adores every gadget on planet earth, no matter how stupid they are.

anything that states that God made the planet, water, day and night, animals and humans(humans arent considerated animals in the bible, as we actually are), and more in just 7 days.

Oh also someone said that God made the time and universe. Lol.