Faux probabilities

Atheists often unnaturally shove terms like "most likely" into places they don't belong, as a rhetorical ploy to make themselves appear more reasonable and to give themselves an excuse to ignore refutations. However, the scenario where they're arguing something is true and the scenario where they're arguing it's "most likely" are indistinguishable. For example, Hume's argument against miracles is an absolute and universal rejection of miracles, as there is no circumstance under which they would accept a miracle, and no miracle they would accept, yet they inappropriately describe it as "more likely" that miracles didn't happen, when their actual belief is that it is absolutely impossible. This is intellectually dishonest at best, and a motte and bailey fallacy at worst.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you assume all atheists agree with Hume’s argument?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I don't.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    OP is most likely a homosexual

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    most likely snakes can't talk

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Cute snek

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      but it was satan though?
      who thinks it was just a snake?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone before the NT was written.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Penis

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Most likely, God doesn't exist

    I suppose it's possible that God exists, but what are the odds that Christianity (a mythological guess) is correct? The other religions - Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc - have just as much chance of being correct as Christianity does. But they're all guesses, so probably none of them are true.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >have just as much chance of being correct as Christianity does.
      I thought that, then I checked the internal consistency of said religions as well as their consistency w/ the observable world.
      For all of its problems Christianity is most internally and externally consistent of all of them. Just bear in mind that by "Christianity" I mean the Old and New testaments and not necessarily syncretic religions like catholicism.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Christianity is bollocks

        Where's the evidence that Jesus was divine? Oh he did miracles? And I'm supposed to believe that because it's written in a book?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          its not really a secret that it requires faith*
          I apologize for those who keep trying to "definitely prove" faith claims.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Well then I guess I lack such faith because I don't see compelling reasons to have it

            No they don't, I can disprove all of those false religions including yours.

            Christianity is not a "guess", nor is it a theory. It is not an autonomous human thing at all, but its source is divine revelation. We believe, not because we "figured it out", but because God revealed Himself to us.

            Your mother is a shape-shifting lizard - I know this because she revealed herself to me. Prove me wrong.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No arguments. I accept your concession.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't make any arguments either

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I did, here:

            Well then I guess I lack such faith because I don't see compelling reasons to have it

            [...]
            Your mother is a shape-shifting lizard - I know this because she revealed herself to me. Prove me wrong.

            Argument 1: I don't see reasons to have faith in Christianity

            Argument 2: You should be able to figure out what I meant by the shape-shifting lizard

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >For all of its problems Christianity is most internally and externally consistent of all of them.
        The first two chapters of Genesis have two different accounts of creation that contradict with each other. There are also incorrect genealogies obviously plagued by human error. Failed predictions which have to be smoothed over by interpretations. How is it any more consistent than the Avesta, the Vedas, or any other religious book?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          you really havent looked into these purported issues very far, have you?
          if you want to go one by one Id be happy to oblige.
          laying them all out at once without explanation isnt helping anyone.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have to look deep into them, because if your religious text needs apologism in order to justify its inconsistencies then it's hardly any more consistent than other religious texts which all suffer from the same issue of human error. Other religions also have similar Apologetic arguments for them, so how do they differ in this regard?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Is it possible for one person to say something that is true, and another person to say something that is not true?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      No they don't, I can disprove all of those false religions including yours.

      Christianity is not a "guess", nor is it a theory. It is not an autonomous human thing at all, but its source is divine revelation. We believe, not because we "figured it out", but because God revealed Himself to us.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really understand what you mean
    Could you tell an example

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >there is no circumstance under which they would accept a miracle
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190704065822/http://www.xenosystems.net/gnon-theology-and-time/

    "Gnon suspends ontological decision about God. It begins from what is real, whether God exists or not. A Gnon-trance is unsettled. It is not yet agnostic, any more than it is decidedly theistic or atheistic. It concerns itself primarily with that which has been accepted as real before anything is believed, and subsequently with whatever can be attained through methodical negation of intellectual haste. Since suspension is its only positive determination, it collapses towards a raw intuition of time.

    Evidently, Gnon-Theology cannot be dogmatic, even in part. Instead, it is hypothetical, in a maximally reduced sense, in which the hypothesis is an opportunity for cognitive exploration unshackled from ontological commitments. The content of Gnon-Theology is exhausted by the question: *What does the idea of God enable us to think?*

    And ‘the idea of God’? — what in the name of Gnon is that? All we know, at first, is that it has been grit-blasted of all encrustations from either positive or negative faith. It cannot be anything with which we have historical or revelatory familiarity, since it reaches us from out of the abyss (epoche), where only time and / or the unknown remain.

    Glutted on forbidden fruit, Gnon-Theology strips God like an engine, down to the limit of abstraction, or *eternity for-itself*. Does any such perspective exist? We already know that this is not our question. All such ‘regional ontology’ has been suspended. We are nevertheless already entitled, through the grace of Gnon (which — remember — might (or might not) be God), to the assumption or acceptance of reality that: for any God to be God it cannot be less than eternity for-itself. Whatever eternity for-itself entails, any God will, too."

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      2/2

      "What it entails, unambiguously, is time-travel, in the strong sense of reverse causation, although not necessarily in the folk/Hollywood variant (which has also had serious defenders) based on the retro-transportation of physical objects into the past. Knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from counter-chronic transmission of information. This is perhaps the single most critical insight in realistic time-travel research — we’ll get back to it. (If anyone finds it less than logically irresistible, use the comments thread.)

      To accelerate this discussion with bloggish crudity, on a heading out of Gnon-Theology into Occidental religious history (and to the possibility of sleep), we can jump to one simple, certain, and secure conclusion: No Christian can consistently deny the reality of time-travel. The objection ‘if (reverse) time-travel if possible, where are the time-travellers?’ is annulled by the Christian revelation itself. Messianic Incarnation (of God or eternity for-itself), along with all true prophecy, providential history, and answered prayer, instantiates time-travel with technical exactitude. There can be no truth whatsoever to the Christian religion unless time-travel has fundamentally structured human history. Whatever else Christianity might be, it is a time-travel story, and one that at times appears to be peculiarly lacking in clear self-understanding.

      (Time-travel, it should perhaps be noted explicitly, has no obvious dependency on Christianity, or even upon the God of Gnon-Theology. That is a topic for other occasions.)"

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Saying that we're never justified believing in a miracle is not the same as saying that miracles are absolutely impossible. One is an epistemological claim, the other is a metaphysical claim. I'm sorry if you're not able to understand the difference. Also, Hume's argument isn't even against ever believing in miracles, it's against ever believing in a miracle based on human testimony.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Saying that we're never justified believing in a miracle is not the same as saying that miracles are absolutely impossible
      This is a distinction without a difference however, as saying "I don't believe it" and "I believe it is not true" are the same thing, since the object of belief is the truth of propositions.
      >Hume's argument isn't even against ever believing in miracles, it's against ever believing in a miracle based on human testimony.
      This is a logical inconsistency about the argument itself, since its reasoning would be applicable to all miracles (indeed, all unusual things) irrespective of its source.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you religious people go to such great lengths of denial and irrationality to hold on to your clearly false beliefs?
    Why does the fact that evolution is true get you SO angry? I don't get it

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It was real in your mind.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Evolution has been proven and you simply saying otherwise doesn't mean anything. Just like atoms exist and you simply saying otherwise doesn't mean anything. What about this is difficult for you to understand?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *