Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 16:01

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.

I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.

My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend.

As for your later assertions, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I will re-cap my earlier post as you clearly did not read it:

"I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.

It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.

Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?

Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?

Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt."

**BDC** · 11-09-2006, 16:43

I think we have the next Richard Dawkins here. Only rather better at it already...

**Redleg** · 11-09-2006, 16:56

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend.

I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.

To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.

Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 19:56

Originally Posted by Redleg

I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.

To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.

Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.

Oh dear, I had to assume that you hadn't read the original post because it basically answered the position you accused me of assuming.

A theist states or assumes that something exists, i.e. God, which cannot be either quantitatively or qualitatively proven by any sensible criteria, therefore the onus is on him to find proof of God's existence. The atheist doesn't have to do this because the lack of such proof already supports his position.

You have a penchant for this 'Straw Man' chap I have noticed, but I can assure you that he exists only in your own mind, and you call him 'God'.

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 20:01

Oh, and I am quite satisfied that my reasoning is valid. It may not ultimately be correct [Please no God, don't send me thereeeeeeee!

], but it ain't bogus.

**Redleg** · 11-09-2006, 20:01

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Oh dear, I had to assume that you hadn't read the original post because it basically answered the position you accused me of assuming.

It seems that your continuing your strawman arguement once again, pretty much the normal course of events for discussions concerning religion. For someone who attempted to strawman my statement into a logical fallacy that did not exist - you have demonstrated a penchant for making many different types of logical fallacies.

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 20:10

Lol! Being a generous sort I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. A desperate tactic, yet quite useful in maintaining a completely untenable intellectual position.

**Redleg** · 11-09-2006, 21:14

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Lol! Being a generous sort I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. A desperate tactic, yet quite useful in maintaining a completely untenable intellectual position.

Tsk Tsk - it seems your still maintaining the strawman method of approaching an arguement.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 11-09-2006, 21:16

It's not a strawman dude, he just misinterpretted what you wrote.

**Red Peasant** · 11-09-2006, 22:53

Originally Posted by Redleg

Tsk Tsk - it seems your still maintaining the strawman method of approaching an arguement.

Most amusing Redleg. You persist with this 'Straw Man' accusation, bandying the term about as if it was some magical formula to ward off the evil of a reasoned argument. Yet, you never take the trouble to advance your own position any further, or evince any understanding of the term.

So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.

Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.

Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket.