So you agree, i did not dispute your "mocking" of theists, though i've stated I disagree with your generalization. You also agree that my comment is factual. I suppose my question would be, why didn't the conversation stop there? You instead responded as though I might somehow dispute the idea that praying to god cannot replace going to the hospital in case of illness. I said earlier, and I'll say again, you were argumentative without cause. Did I make a comment about your analogy on the whole? If anything I agreed praying would not heal you. What I did NOT and would not say, is that all theist have that type of belief system. I find that implication recurring through all your posts. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...1oSMBw&usg=AFQjCNGK25d0SwpQBxhaebeaqsAlfwP-og Uh, no. And, yes, Buddhists are theists. I am agnostic and I consider myself a theist as well, perhaps a very light weight Buddhist. At some point, when a religion focuses less on god the deity and more on god the ambient force, the lines between religion and philosophy become very blurry. Do you plan to then start arguments with philosophers? The concept sounds as silly as arguing the rightness or the wrongness of the color blue. I am an agnostic, you argued against prayer based healing. Yeh, i'd say you misrepresented my position. You went so far as to misrepresent the position of 95% of the religious on the planet. If that doesn't qualify your argument as strawman, I'm not sure what would. I did assume you were an atheist, only because of the anti-religious sentiment. I would say my rebuttal to your generalizations stand valid, regardless on your personal views. HEY! I said with all due respect..... I guess you didn't see the other thread. Neither would Hitler I'm going to get crucified for this, but what the hell. Here is something to consider. If you live in a country where men rule and women are servants. If you live in a country where you manipulate scripture, law, and belief to suit you purposes and oppress people, then the very existence of a culture that does not oppress people is a threat to your power. At some point, your servants/slaves will see what is happening in the outside world. They will be exposed to it, and then they will rebel. In essence, the existence of "free" people is a threat to your very way of life. In that spirit, recruiting "holy warriors" from your brainwashed masses to wage war against the infidel makes perfect sense. It very well may be self preservation more than hatred that motivates these people. Shake N' Bake is idiocy. Its mindless and meaningless drivel borrowed from Taladega Nights. It is the answer I use when those who i am communicating with cannot, or will not read, which reduces the conversation to idiocy. As often as possible. I'm a busy man, and at the end of the day, who really gives a crap about her pleasure. Something just ocured to me, and I will share it with you as a final thought. Perhaps your real beef is with people who manipulate other people, be they religious or otherwise. Perhaps your beef is with the mindless zombies who are so easily duped into repeating some mantra to fulfill someone else's agenda, without even thinking things through. If that is the case, you and I are probably on the same page, and every effort should be made to educate people and end that nonsense. I'm hopeful. Like the president says, "Yes we can!"
My questioning the persuasive value of one man's opinion as to the origins of the universe in no way implies this is my only argument. I simply exposed the fallacy of the scientific opinion as equivalent to fact. Well, if it were proven I would not be dissenting. It may be that I cannot prove to you the existence of God, and that you cannot prove to me the non-existence of God. Your retreat to the position that the big bang is a more plausible theory only proves that, in your mind, some theories are more likely than others, and proves nothing as it relates to divine inspiration as the origin of religious belief. I suspect you're arguing here without regard to the logical position you are advancing, but for polemics sake. I've never advanced that notion; I simply asked someone to answer the 'First Cause' argument. Your strawman fails the test. Red herring. I've not advanced that claim. Who is it that you cite who believes the soul is located in the brain? I didn't advance that notion. Or is this just another strawman? I think most theologians would say He is 'unseen' rather than 'invisible'. This may seem an unimportant distinction if you're hammering away without regard to precision, but there's a difference. I have yet to backpedal, in fact, it seems the fallacy of anti-theists is inherent in each of your arguments. You have answered nothing but advanced many unproven arguments. You have evidenced your faith in things which remain unproven, but mock those who lack that hypocrisy and admit to faith. Surely an atheist can advance a more coherent thesis for the lack of a supernatural being.
Yep, you pretty much nailed it. I'm still trying to get my head around your agnostic theist position, but I'll leave that for another thread. The good news is, I just spoke to the new owner of AgnosticForums.com and it'll be back soon!!
So. Obamanation is under fire here (get him guys!). I will not add my own artillery then. I am 1m88cm (6'2"). When visiting some of the many archeological sites that one would find in Israel in my vacation this week, I always have to bend my back in order to get pass the door entrance. And I think to myself: "These people in the roman & byzantine times were really midgets, damn short". Humanity is growing taller. Also US military records show that American men (measured at drafting day) grew taller in the 20th century by about 2cm in average. But not only: we are also growing smarter. less hairy. internal anatomy also changes. All of the above changes are facts, and are explained by a more general theory called "Evolution Theory". And: There is not even the slightest tiniest piece of evidence that support the existence of god, nor the slightest tiniest piece of evidence that refutes its existence. That's because god is an undefined entity. God, in its hundreds of different variations, is a matter of belief. Every person on earth see "it" differently. God and the physical world we live in live in parallel worlds that never intersect. Nothing can prove or disprove god's existence. Care to share the "evidence" you have? And: People, barely 150 years have passed since we managed to transfer electric current in a simple metal wire..... Stop talking about the creation of the universe. We are not there yet. We have more fundamental things to understand about our universe before we turn on to that issue. saying: All of the wisest people of our era (i.e. Einstein, Hawkins) do not know how the universe was created. They are just guessing based on the evidence they have. Hence I would be really surprised if every housewife, and obamanation, would know
impressive... that gorge carlin and the documents almost convince me. but i hope not. To whom shall i pray if i don't have a god then? lol
My point was a higher one. Sure that post alone doesn't prove it is your only argument. But I put it out there to be disproven. Spell it out section: Point being that religious followers' will always depend on the unknown and using their religion to explain it... until it is explained. This was just one example. It's not a retreat, it's trying to get to core point. Religious debate just goes in circles until someone attempts to cut away all the BS and "faith" escape device and handle it one argument/subject at a time. I'm Agnostic. I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist because I frankly accept that it "could" exist. However comma.... I'm not the one basing my beliefs on God existing as if it were a fact like many do. When clearly, as you yourself have demonstrated with this post, it's not a fact. In my opinion it's a theory gone horribly wrong and way too far Probably pushed in that direction by leaders since the beginning of civilization in order to control the masses. I've been accused quite a few times of arguing for argument's sake.... I don't know if that's meant to be a stealthy little subject changer to make the argument about me instead of the facts or what. But I feel duty bound to point out to you that you are in a politics and religion debate forum. Precisely what did you expect? A polemics free zone?? If you're not here to post arguments and consider counter arguments regarding politics and religion.... then why are you here? Spell it out section: Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. I didn't say that you did. My post was a generalization, completely open to be disputed. It just happened to come out as I was replying to your particular post and attempted to broaden the argument. You may feel free to create a straw man to represent my post as a straw man .... but crying straw man every time I make a good point will only get you so far. My post was a point of thought and a different perspective. If I'm wrong that's one thing... But if I'm right, then my point is still a valid one and something to consider. Whether you consider it a straw man or not. Good, then I'll take it that you agree. That is unless you'd like to do something other than dismiss it? Again you can call it that if you like but it's meant to invoke thought (a.k.a. it's a good point). What you should be asking is, if it's not in the brain, then where is it? That would be an interesting topic!!11one Unless you're one of those who just want to be left alone so you can blindly accept religion and not ask questions? (that's a question not an accusation) Nope I see the distinction. But the fact that you said "most" means even you acknowledge that different people would call it different things. What was that about "precision"? Guess it's a good thing we're not all theologians. Show me one... You should probably start with how the heart being nothing more than a muscle is unproven. Or maybe go on about how religion isn't about spirituality and accepting God into your heart? Hey maybe we could actually have a single discussion solely dedicated to refuting my assertion that religion solidly depends on the unknown. But be careful.... if you start trying to pick individual arguments to debunk and actually stay on topic for more than one post you risk falling into that dangerous and scary trap where a discussion on a single topic is allowed to progress to an end... lol wut? I evidenced faith? See I could be you right here... I could dismiss it and call it a "straw man" because you clearly misrepresented what I did here. But me being one of those pesky argumentative types, I'll point out to you sir that I have shown faith in zero, zilch, nada. I posed my formed thoughts and presented them to all here in an open forum to be disputed. I'm not a theist nor an atheist. I simply don't think either can present evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God. My position when it comes to followers of any given religion is that they are pretending that they not only have said evidence, but that their particular storybook version of man made values, dogma, and interpretations that they impose on God are the correct ones. Same goes for atheists who have "faith" that God (or some higher intelligence/creator) doesn't exist and never has in any shape or form.
I was taught the burden of proof is on the person who advances the thesis. Perhaps we do not share this common premise. You responded to my question about dealing with the 'First Cause' argument by linking to another theory, which you professed faith in as 'fact', but the fact was no more proven than anyone else's theories on this thread. I pointed that out and you seem uncomfortable accepting that truth. Merely because you believe it to be so does not make it so, anymore than the theist's belief in something makes it true. You lost me on the last sentence. If the theory has gone horribly wrong, it implies that at some point in the past, prior to the corruption, it was pure. At one point did you agree with it? Of course, I can't know what your previous interlocutors might have been referencing when they commented on your discourse in the past, but my posts should have made obvious that it was your writing, and not any intent to change the subject, that was evidence of a desire for polemics rather than an interest in 'truth'. I don't know that the great thinkers of history (Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas to cite a few), would have been consider lovers of polemics so much as disciples of truth. Perhaps this is too high a standard for this forum. You are implying here that because I have not accepted your arguments as convincing that my motives are open to question (or would it be ridicule you prefer?). While it might serve for self-gratification, it's not persuasive or conducive to good will. I prefer to remain on one topic at a time in order to define with the greatest precision possible what exactly is being advanced. I don't believe it is productive to offer the strawman, and so therefore it is not productive to 'take the bait'. You may choose to continue to advance these fallacies, and I will likely continue to swat them away for what they are. We each must decide whether that remains a productive activity. Now, if you wish to offer coherent arguments, even if they be wrong, I would greatly enjoy them. Should you reach the point where you have exhausted your ability or desire to defend the present thesis which you have previously offered, then we can consider whether it is mutually beneficial to advance to another topic, e.g., one wherein I might put forward a theory which I wish to defend. Clearly we have a different perception of what is a 'good point'. I appreciate the suggestion, and that would be one method of query. However, since the matter at hand is not whether there is a soul, whether it can be identified by its physical location, or whether it could be proven by scientific methods, I consider it a best a tangential matter and at worst an attempt to ridicule theists by introducing a new topic in a derisive manner so as to induce scorn. The use of most in this context certainly acknowledges a diversity of opinion on the matter albeit an attempt to establish an approximation of numbers which is more than half but less than all. I would be more precise if I had certitude about the number. Can you offer a more precise manner of numbering adherents to one or the other theory? Thankfully, we are not all theologians, for how would we eat? Defending that assertion is not something that interests me. Besides, you have advanced a theory and I'm interested in seeing whether it holds up to scrutiny. At this point, the only thing I've seen thus far are attempts to distract from the unproven thesis by ridiculing those who dissent. That's what I'm hoping for. I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, but my understanding was that you offered an argument, which remains unproven (unprovable?), which you appear to adhere to. I would call this 'faith'. Perhaps you dispute that the theory is unproven, or perhaps that it is unprovable, or maybe you admit to these things but call your adherence to the theory something other than faith. I welcome your clarification on this crucial point. Clearly I mistook your answer to my question regarding 'First Cause' to be representative of your position. If that is not your position, what would it be? Or are you saying that 'proof' exists solely in having offered formed thoughts in a public forum? Clearly this cannot be the case, since you have previously ridiculed the well-formed thoughts of others, also expressed in public forums. I presume that you meant to write, "My position when it comes to [some] followers of any given religion is...", since a man of your intellect and wisdom would clearly not attempt to paint ALL adherents to such diverse faiths as having embraced such a similar intentional fraud (pretense). The balance of the statement might make for interesting material for a future conversation, although I would prefer, for practical consideration, a reduction of the argument from 'any given religion' to something more manageable, such as adherents to Islam or Judaism, or perhaps Agnosticism, it being a man-made religion with similar presumptions, rules and interpretations as competing faiths. Best, Mark
I'm agnostic, meaning I'm not sure whether there is a god or not, but I'm not of the variety that thinks the answer is unobtainable. I'm willing to allow for the idea that we may one day know. ChaosTrivia, I pretty much share your view, or at least 99% of it, as described in your post. Perhaps the glaring difference is that I think the amount of order in the Universe is evidence of an intelligence behind it. stOx obviously differs on this, but I don't think there are many people who believe the "ordered" rocks at Stonehenge just appeared there at random, even though we may not know exactly who put them there. I think to deny the order in the universe is evidence shows a certain close mindedness normally only shown by the religious devout.
Perhaps Ahh but that is the point of me bringing it up. It is a theory, my opinion, my thought based on observation, whatever you'd like to describe it as. This may be yet another piece of evidence of how our perspectives draw us to opposite conclusions. I'll explain how it came about... I saw your post It reminded me of my own thoughts and observations from past religious debate and discussions I've taken part in. I replied to your post using it's context (not substance) to pre-stage the point I wanted to make. Perhaps I'm guilty of improper debate/forum ettiquitte, but I'm certain I am not "uncomfortable" discussing first cause. I simply didn't bother to give it any thought. Now I'll make an assumption about you. You seem fond to point out that my argument isn't proven. Almost as fond as I am to point out to you that the whole point of me posting those thoughts in the thread (that had nothing to do with the specific theory that I posed) is for it to be refuted (or agreed with). Would I be wrong to assume you did nearly the same thing when you brought up first cause? I was referring to you stating that the big bang theory was no more plausible than religious theory. If you are asserting that the existence of God is a fact then digitalpoint is, at this very moment, teetering on the cusp of sparking a revolution. As I am certain you will enlighten all mankind with your next post providing proof of that fact once and for all. Does it really imply that? In your world are all theory's pure even when they begin wrong? Based on misinformation or perhaps incorrect assumptions? As I stated in my last post and as is evidenced in my furtherance above, yes, that is precisely what I was doing with the exception of the lack of interest in truth part. I think we're on number 3 now? 3 being the number of times I've stated that I posted it in the P&R forum to be refuted. Because... well that's kinda what we do here. Perhaps it's not that the standard is too high but misplaced? With the right people any standard of discussion can be achieved no matter the medium. I didn't ask you to accept it. I posted it to be refuted. (4) I don't need you to accept it. All your other assumptions about my desires appear misplaced. ok. And therein lies the rub. Setting aside that we've gone from staw man to "fallacies", because you know... that would mean you can no longer dismiss them as straw man arguments and would have to refute them as fallacies... I'll reiterate my statement in my last post and urge you to understand that all the swatting in the world won't make my points any less valid. You'd have to demonstrate that they are flawed. I am deeply disappointed since you seem to be a worthy debate opponent. But I suppose if your qualifications place you in a league of debate where your reputation is widely known and your clout so beyond reproach that you can simply decide opposing arguments that include analogies, and thought processes outside your own are beneath you then you should probably look elsewhere for intellectual nourishment. We'll miss you. But if you ever want to come back and slum it with us, we'll be here. Well I'm obviously incapable of that. But if you'd like to get some practice in, you can go back and rip apart some of the false, straw man, incoherent points I made previously. Hey, even better, you can definitively prove the existence of God and I can try and keep up. That would be fun. I dunno. If you do that I may have to swat it away as a straw man without even attempting to refute it. But it's a free internet. Go for it. That's the beauty of the internet. Possible Translation: I'm not touching that because it requires an actual answer. The whole argument to an end thing again Truth of the matter is it was neither an attempt to scorn nor start you on a wild and tumbling tangent that ends in you admitting you have no idea.... ok maybe the latter But it was really just an example of a question I know religion doesn't have an answer to. Otherwise said answer would be well documented. Thinking of stating science doesn't have an answer either? You can try but then I'd have to link you to highschool anatomy text whereas your only rebuttal can be that it's invisible. Or "unseen" if you prefer Don't need to. My point is made. The fact is a number more than half but less than all -- is not all. You tried to pose the notion that the distinction between invisible and unseen is important! Because you think "most" theologians would agree with you. Then went on to imply that I might be hammering away without regard for precision. My irony-o-meter went off is all. If I went and found theologians that agree the distinction in the context of this discussion is irrelevant, would my theologians be less important than yours? What if most of them agreed with me? Wait I might be getting all straw man on you. If you'd kindly explain to me precisely how many levels of thought I am allowed to traverse before I am misrepresenting your original argument and am coming dangerously close to a swatting I'd be much obliged. Hmm, gonna have to disagree there. If you really were interested in how well it holds up to scrutiny you'd have at least made an attempt to scrutinize it yourself? lol, I don't need to distract from it. I put it out there so it could be scrutinized (5). Have faith when I tell you that had you actually gone after said theory instead of using what I will hereby dub the "Straw Man Escape Device (SMEAD)" we'd be scrutinizing it right now. I doubt that. You're too busy dismissing and asserting that these discussions are not something you have a desire to pursue. Certainly. I don't consider it faith because I am wholly willing to accept that it may be wrong. My beliefs do not span beyond what I can observe with my own natural senses and experiences. If an argument is posed that clearly disproves my position then I will accept that I was wrong. I don't just take it on "faith". Consider it clarified? You lost me, I was responding to you asserting that I had expressed faith in something. Sure, you may presume that. Follow me for a moment though. Because this points out one of those "flaws in religion" everyone talks about. Giving credit where it's due for your correction and conceding that not all religious followers believe the same thing, I ask how you can place faith in any of it? Who is right? Who is wrong? And that's assuming we're talking about just one of the hundreds of religions throughout history. If only "some" of the followers of a given religion believe their version is the correct one then what are the rest of them doing? My position was that all followers of religion believe theirs is the correct one. I suppose now I should change that to some so that it is clear for all that the rest of the followers are following a religion they don't actually believe is correct. Well what you just did there is follow a tried and true tactic of trying to inform agnostics that they are a religion. Or perhaps follow some sort of faith. It's not as simple as that and I have to assume you know that? Agnosticism, isn't a religion, it's a label. One given to people who don't follow a particular belief system and instead accept that we don't know. That principle is even more true for agnostics than atheists because we don't subscribe to either the belief nor disbelief. Now given that fact, the distinction between agnosticism and faith or religion is so profound that I just don't see how you're going to be able to reconcile the idea that they are similar. But of course, you are welcome to try.
Ok. My interest was to see if there were any takers for arguing against First Cause. In your previous comments you ridiculed theists for beliefs which are unproven, and yet you have asserted your own set. I find the two positions logically at odds one with another. I asked if there was an atheist who was willing to take up first cause, and you responded. I did not assert the First Cause argument as a fact, so therefore the burden was not upon me to prove it. I did not assert that the existence of God as a fact. I challenged you to defend your arguments. I believe your comment, which described an advancing deterioration in the purity or efficacy of a theory, implies that in a previous time it was either pure, or at least, less corrupted than you believe it to be today. Naturally, my assumptions could be incorrect. This goes back to the first question, as to whether we have different expectations for the burden of proof. I believe someone who advances a theory should prove it. Okay. I don't find either tactic as worthy of a much time in response. I point them out in hopes that, should we continue, we can dispense with them or conclude the argument cannot be advanced without your dependence on them. Your points have whatever validity they have based on their merits. If I point out a flaw in them, that does not change the nature of the theory, although it may change how others perceive it. As we have already established a substantial difference of opinion in terms of who has the burden of proof in dialogue, it's fair to say we won't ever reach a point where the time is likely to be enlightening. This reinforces my allegation that this forum lends itself to, or attracts those with a disposition towards ridicule and scorn rather than meaningful discussion; each dialogue tends towards the ad hominem. I find the conduct counterproductive. Well, that makes things easy. If all one need do to prove any argument is provide a link, then certainly we are fools for continuing any sort of dialogue since all truth is already known, and for that matter, in high school textbooks. If you could prove that the theologians you found represented "most", then it would be a worthy endeavor and relevant to the discussion. No doubt you could create a biased sample, but my estimation already characterized "most" as representing a majority of "all", not "some". We can therefore dispense with your idea as having interpretive value. As for the difference between "invisible" and "unseen", it is a distinction of some significance in Thomistic and scholastic circles. Of course, at its most basic the word "invisible" means that something cannot be seen by the human eye, and unseen merely references the fact that the object of discussion has not been seen. When applied to a theological discussion and your previous attempt to disprove the existence of a soul because it cannot be located in the brain, the consideration has relevance and importance. Under the circumstances, I regret you do not see it as important. Further, I didn't imply that you were hammering away without regard to precision, I stated it as my opinion. From the dialogue thus far it seems a reasonable conclusion. Forgiven; I'm accustomed to it. This would be dependent upon your capacities, which I cannot judge from this conversation alone. It could be that you require only one 'level' of thought to misrepresent my original argument, or you could spend a great deal of energy to accomplish the same end. I'm not sure how it's relevant. The fact that I have not done so in writing here does not mean that I have not already given the argument consideration. However, all that can be reasonably concluded is that I desire for you to support your assertion with argument before asking me to disprove it for you. I think we've now agreed that's not going to happen. That's one giant leap of faith. My continued presence should provide ample evidence that is not the case. No, I would define faith as a belief in something which is beyond empirical evidence or has been settled on without regard to an empirical process. Some have faith despite empiricism, some have faithout without regard to it, and some even have faith because of it, such as Augustine and others. In this regard, I believe you have 'faith' because you believe in something which is not proven, or cannot be proven. You claim to be an empiricist by your statement, "My beliefs do not span beyond what I can observe with my own natural senses and experiences", and yet you clearly adhere to things which neither your natural senses or experiences can confirm. Admitting your own fallible nature does not demonstrate that you have no faith, only that you acknowledge the potential for error (laudable, regardless). I believe a man should pursue the truth with all of his capacity, using every ability he possesses, and hold to that truth for as long as he finds that it is superior to every other theory known to him. Should he find that another idea reigns supreme, he should abandon his error and embrace that which he finds provides a superior explanation to all of the questions of his life. To do less would be a betrayal of himself (and lazy). This process demands acceptance of some things which are not, or possibly, could not be proven. I allege this is the same process which a scientist uses when he experiments using presuppositions which he has not ever himself verified, or which may even be beyond his abilities or resources to verify. He places faith in them as being accurate and as having predictive value within the framework of his own worldview. I cannot prove the world is a certain number of miles from the sun, but if I can reach the point where I have faith in the authorities who represent this to me as true, then it can form the foundation for my understanding of the structure of the galaxy. Well, that's easy. I'm right. Of course, if you believe in empiricism and objectivity, it is fair to conclude you will agree when I say there is objective truth, which would mean that if I am right and you disagree with me, you are not also right. Therefore, we can answer your question this way: "The rest of them [those other followers of religion who disagree with me], are in error. Their faith has led them to a false conclusion. Their error no more disproves 'faith' than a scientist's faulty conclusion disproves science. It does indicate that somewhere along the way an error crept in, and if it was early on or central to his premise, it may have manifested itself in substantial deviation from the truth. Yes, I believe it would be more accurate to say, "Some followers of religion believe theirs is the correct one." It is not difficult to find a relativist these days, and I would actually assert that many followers of religion would deny objective truth. They believe what they believe because they prefer it, for some reason, but not because they believe they are in sole procession of the truth or even that their notions are any better than any other. There is a pretty good consideration of the subject of faith and reason here, if you're interested.. Hopefully I have established in my previous answers how agnostics and atheists have created their own 'religion', at least insofar as your past criticisms of theists have unintentionally included them on the basis of faith in things which are not, or cannot be proven by empiricism. Of course it is also 'man made', to use a term of yours, because it has been created by man as a system of explanation, or even as a system of non-explanation. You may allege the same of the theists, but they will dispute the characterization, which leaves you in a position of admitting that your own positions are the result only of your own reason and intellect while the theist claims the use of both of these in addition to some form of divine revelation. Additionally, you may assert that agnosticism is not a religion, just like the anarchists claim their preferred form of government is the absence of government, but in reality it IS a government of a different nature. While matter may have it's perfect opposite in anti-matter, we have yet to find a perfect parallel within the rather simple confines of human society. I'm not sure we're going anywhere with this, but I'll check back in a few days. Mark
The fact that they are thinking about God is the proof that God exist even in the mind....Non-existent beings could not be thought of....
lol really? Have a think about that and get back to me if you still believe it to be true... I'll give you a chance.
This could be said with some more precision. I would suggest, "The fact that throughout the history of mankind there is a near universal belief in a supernatural being responsible for the creation of the material world suggests an innate desire to discover the truth about the question of whether or not there is a creator". You could also speculate as to the uniqueness of the conscience of mankind and the fact that he "knows that he knows" makes man unique among the rest of creation, but that's another matter altogether. Mark
I disagree. I did NOT say that a large number of people believing it makes it so (which would qualify as the 'bandwagon' fallacy). Read again, carefully. Mark
It seems Asimov, an Atheist, described a situation where that argument could carry weight. http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
CM- I apologize 100%, that is not an example of argumentum ad populum. My bad. However, it has inspired me to make a new fallacy- "Argumentum ad Mal-lego"- Argument to misreading Just because you read something and thought it said something doesn't mean it did. ON-The last answer has nothing to do with any of this, except insofar as it implies that your god is not quite so divine.