"Lack of evidence of something =/= not exist"

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-30 01:22pm

LINKEE!

I'm not losing yet. But I'd like some advice, since I don't know what this guy might pull out of his ass. And any help on squashing him early on before it gets tiring would be much appreciated.

So far, I think he's just going "just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. and it means it exists and the lack of evidence is not a good arguement....bla bla bla".

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-04-30 01:42pm

ROFLMAO!!!

Your style is colorful, and it's pwning him quite successfully too. I hope there's no flashback from that link...

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-30 01:44pm

Flashback? I'm just afraid that like bacteria, he'll somehow wiggle himself to a position where he can fire back. I'm not the most experienced in this kind of thing, so I need help so I can keep this damn thing in my control.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-30 02:52pm

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

So ask him why he doesn't believe in leprechuans.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-30 02:54pm

Even if lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, until evidence arises, logic dictates us to assume lack.

And yeah, I mentioned leprechauns along with garage dragons and star-hippos.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-04-30 03:04pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Flashback? I'm just afraid that like bacteria, he'll somehow wiggle himself to a position where he can fire back. I'm not the most experienced in this kind of thing, so I need help so I can keep this damn thing in my control.

Flashback is when the fundy forum looks at the refer links and notices this forum. Then they invade(or try to).

We have had this happen a number of times, which is why the normal practice is the break links so they are not clickable directly to forums which might take it poorly that some guy asks for help in defeating their bullshit.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-30 03:14pm

Yeah. Better ask a mod to break the link.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-04-30 03:21pm

You can say that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and while it may be accurate it is a complete and utterly worthless statement. What the hell is that suppost to prove? If you think something exist than get off your ass and produce some evidence or shut the fuck up. Those of us truely interested in discovering the secrets of the universe have little time for useless unproductive statements. We have better things to do.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-04-30 03:26pm

What IS key is that the absence of evidence in other circumstances does not disprove another example which demonstrated evidence.

This is a disproof of Star Wars canon purism (evidence is demonstrated in the EU, but the absence of corroboration in the film is not disproof).

People frequently confuse this with creationists and theists' bullshit. But there's no evidence of God at all anywhere. One does not unnecessarily multiply entities arbitrarily. Therefore the logical conclusion is that there's no reason to suppose anything called "God" exists if nothing meets a standard of proof as the entity is defined.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-30 03:57pm

Keep in mind that a lot of people who say there is no evidence for something (a good example being the idiots who deny that there is an Alderaan shield) are simply lying; there is evidence for it, but they simply demand stronger evidence than what has already been presented.

Don't let them confuse that kind of situation with an Occam's Razor violation where there is literally zero reason to add the extra term.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-30 05:48pm

AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

To get on Topic, I have to agree with Shroom that the Bible isn't an accurate or reliable source of information nor does it contain solid facts necessary to prove or disprove anything.

I must also agree with Sole that despite all the witiness in shrooms post and the clear logic behind it all, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

So, where does that leave us?

Proving and Disproving the bible is theoretically impossible. Realistically, it's impossible, and even if someones god came down and had a chat with us all, it would still be relatively impossible. Why?

Because I don't have to believe what i'm told, and neither do you.
Let's take this scenario: God himself comes down to Earth in the true form of God and speaks in plain (whatever the hell you speak, preferablly: ) English and explains the Bible and somehow manages to explain how every event in the bible is true.

I could come back with a counter-argument stating that the being was Not god, and the whole ordeal was a conspiracy by Christianity as a whole (probably organized by the new Pope). That God was a mere illusion and a lie, and the logic is the same crap we've been fed throughout the centuries that allegedly prooved the bible.

Now, say they managed to prove it was in fact, God. I could simply refuse to believe what he said because I didn't see all of history myself. Then assume God shows me all of the Earths history. I could dismiss it as another illusion, probably a hallucination caused by some drug, or better yet a bad dream. The final irrefutable argument is that it's all electrical impulses sent directly to my brain from a machine. I could convince myself that, no matter how stacked the evidence is in one direction, that I'm still right and they're still wrong.

This is how it is for all sides of the Bible is True/False argument. On the one hand, supporters are all convinced that the events really did happen and have archaic reasons as to why all written evidence of this (beyond the Bible, naturally) was destroyed. On the other hand, there are those who oppose it who deem the lack of evidence proving its existence is clear indication of its falsehood, and refuse to believe any evidence that comes to light.

My views on the Bible: It cannot be proven false nor true based on the simple fact that humans are stubborn, and all of its facts are based on "faith". The faithless see falsehood. The faithful see truth.

Bah, i'm being interrupted. I'll try to finish this later.

~Drak

WHAT THE FUCK?!

I replied with a:

me wrote:Oh...in that case NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT THE WORLD IS ROUND AND IS NOT FLAT!!!!1 hte existence of firebreathing, gold-hoarding dragons co-existing with dinosaurs has never been once proven wrong!!!! BECAUSE I SAID SO!!! RAR!!!

I mean...what the fuck?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-04-30 06:11pm

You're running in the a common problem faced when debating the overly religious, they simply don't have the mental tools necessary to analyze the world in a rational way. The whole concept of evidence is foreign to them, as far as they are concerned emotional fullfillment from and faith in a particular belief makes it accurate, period dot.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-05-01 12:01am

Darth Wong wrote: Don't let them confuse that kind of situation with an Occam's Razor violation where there is literally zero reason to add the extra term.

Speaking of Occam's Razor, what's the easiest way to explain that it shows that the universe with god is less-likely? I've tried to say it a few different ways, but every time people don't get it.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-05-01 03:23am

I think I need help. Someone with experience in demolishing walls of ignorance.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2005-05-01 03:36am

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who uses the invisible dragon analogy.

I advise you equate the Bible with various fantasy texts. (I like to use The Silmarillion or The Odyssey.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-05-01 03:57am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Don't let them confuse that kind of situation with an Occam's Razor violation where there is literally zero reason to add the extra term.
Speaking of Occam's Razor, what's the easiest way to explain that it shows that the universe with god is less-likely? I've tried to say it a few different ways, but every time people don't get it.

Ask them to show you how you can explain even one mystery of life by invoking the name of a deity who is inscrutable and beyond analysis by definition, when the very concept of a rational explanation requires analysis.

And if you cannot produce a rational explanation of even one mystery of life by invoking this "God" term, then it is obviously redundant.

Alternatively, you can make up fanciful alternative explanations for the origins of life on Earth. For example: "my theory is that Yoda created life on Earth. Remember that he lived a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And we also know that he likes humans, and has superior technology. Not to mention existing outside of space and time because he's a ghost. He's definitely a strong candidate for an alternate theory of creation. And the Yoda theory can also explain why we've never found the Garden of Eden, so it definitely beats the Bible theory."

Of course, when they point out that Yoda is a fictional character who only "exists" in movies, point out that God is a fictional character who only "exists" in books.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2005-05-01 04:15am

Thank you Darth. The sheer number of people who have marked "Jedi" as their religion make that quite possibly the best counter ever concieved.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-05-01 04:34am

Gandalf wrote:It's nice to see I'm not the only one who uses the invisible dragon analogy.

I advise you equate the Bible with various fantasy texts. (I like to use The Silmarillion or The Odyssey.)

How do I do that? Sounds really fun...because...just look at THIS!

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-05-01 04:40am

Ghetto edit:

Where can I get a bigass list citing all the historical inaccuracies of the Bible? And just outright disproving portions of the Bible without a shadow of the doubt, and where "lack of evidence" can't be used by these fucktards.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-05-01 04:44am

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Ghetto edit:

Where can I get a bigass list citing all the historical inaccuracies of the Bible? And just outright disproving portions of the Bible without a shadow of the doubt, and where "lack of evidence" can't be used by these fucktards.

Besides SAB? (Although I reccomend you check their errors yourself before posting them.)

I know that there's no evidence of as many Jews as Exodus claims ever living in Egypt.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-05-01 08:51am

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Ghetto edit:

Where can I get a bigass list citing all the historical inaccuracies of the Bible? And just outright disproving portions of the Bible without a shadow of the doubt, and where "lack of evidence" can't be used by these fucktards.

Just go to infidels.org and check out their library, they'll give you fairly authoritative stuff that's trustworthy.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-05-01 10:52am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Ghetto edit:

Where can I get a bigass list citing all the historical inaccuracies of the Bible? And just outright disproving portions of the Bible without a shadow of the doubt, and where "lack of evidence" can't be used by these fucktards.
Besides SAB? (Although I reccomend you check their errors yourself before posting them.)

I know that there's no evidence of as many Jews as Exodus claims ever living in Egypt.

As far as I know, Exodus never claims a specific number...just that they started out with seventy, and increased from that point until they could be called "numerous".

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-05-01 08:45pm

Molyneux wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Ghetto edit:

Where can I get a bigass list citing all the historical inaccuracies of the Bible? And just outright disproving portions of the Bible without a shadow of the doubt, and where "lack of evidence" can't be used by these fucktards.
Besides SAB? (Although I reccomend you check their errors yourself before posting them.)

I know that there's no evidence of as many Jews as Exodus claims ever living in Egypt.
As far as I know, Exodus never claims a specific number...just that they started out with seventy, and increased from that point until they could be called "numerous".

In Numbers they're like 7 million.