Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan Ginstrom wrote:
>>>> Actually, I agree that the active disbelief in any sort of deity is 
>>>> based on
>>>> faith. It must be faith, unless the negative -- no deity exists -- 
>>>> can be
>>>> proved. It does not require faith to assume no deity exists as the null
>>>> hypothesis, but to *believe* this to be the case requires faith.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a warped piece of logic. 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> How is it warped logic? Indeed, atheism is based on the logical 
>> fallacy with the fancy Latin name of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Of 
>> course, so is every other religion.
> 
> 
> Because it denies the possibility of concluding the non-existence of 
> magical beings, as opposed to assuming the non-existence. 

Since the conclusion is an inductive one, it *is* assumption. Is your 
argument really, "I'm not assuming, I'm concluding!"?

>>> I also believe that leprechauns don't throw parties in the 
>>> refrigerator after I close the door, only to disappear the moment I 
>>> open it. Does that require faith as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless the proposition can be proven true or false, it requires faith 
>> to believe in the positive or the negative.
>>
> I think you stretch the definition of "faith" beyond its limits. 

How? You adhere to a system of beliefs that has no empirical foundation, 
as do I.

> Just as 
> there is no evidence for refrigerator leprechauns, there is no evidence 
> for the existence of deities. 

Yes, and the fancy Latin tells us that saying, "There is no proof of X, 
therefore !X" is no more logically sound than saying, "There is no 
evidence against X, therefore X."

> To conclude that two people are using 
> equivalent logic when once believe in refrigerator leprechauns and one 
> concludes that they do not exist is pretty strange reasoning. 

I'm sorry that sound reasoning is strange to you, but I am hardly surprised.

> To extend 
> it to someone that claims to be able to tell you what refrigerator 
> leprechauns look like, what they like, what their hobbies are, etc. is 
> just ridiculous.

I don't know any such people so I cannot respond to straw man arguments 
involving them.

> Just think of how much fun you would have ripping a new asshole into 
> someone that believed in these things in the face of a complete absence 
> of evidence in their support. 

It is fun. I am doing it to you right now.

> If, for example, someone posted about how 
> they were convinced that they had magic pieces of bread that turned into 
> human flesh when consumed, you wouldn't be able to stop laughing at 
> them, except for the fact that you believe it yourself.

Not really. Lots of people believe things as part of their religion that 
I don't, but I don't mock them.

> Do me a favor: next communion, go home and puke afterwards. See the 
> bread chunk? See the grape juice? Are you going to claim it magically 
> turn back into bread if you vomit?

No. Why would I say that?

>> I'm guess you didn't do so hot in the logical reasoning/arguments 
>> section of the LSAT. Er, LLS *does* require the LSAT, doesn't it?
> 
> Actually, I scored in the 95th percentile. Just walked in and took it.

Then why are you going to a shitty night school? A score in the 95th 
percentile should have given you about a 175. You'd have your pick of 
any school you wanted.

-- 
Kevin
"This is the best election night in history."--Democratic National 
Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Nov. 2, 2004, just before 8 p.m. EST