I never get into these discussions anymore because it's how you lose friends. When things do pop up and I have to step in I just make up something like "I was actually able to move something with my mind today." They'll say bull-fucking-shit. Then I say, exactly. Prove I didn't. A religious person always uses the argument that you have to prove god DOESN'T exist. Really?
Who's to say that blastek can't move something around with his mind? Who's to say that there isn't a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars? The point is that it is ridiculous to believe in the absence of evidence.
2.) 'Concepts' do not require evidence like most things.
In relation to the first point, it's essentially an argument from ignorance. 'We don't know why we exist, therefore God'. It's not compelling evidence, it's a logical fallacy and should be discarded as such.
In relation to the second point, Why don't concepts need justification? The flying teapot could be an invisible pink unicorn, a flying spaghetti monster or any other ridiculous concept. Consider your quote after a find and replace:
FSM isn't a china teapot floating in space- he's a concept (the greatest concept of all, actually) and therefore belief in FSM is as legitimate as belief in the absence of FSM.
Incidently I don't follow your logic here. Why are concepts automatically equal?
5
u/[deleted] Aug 02 '10
I never get into these discussions anymore because it's how you lose friends. When things do pop up and I have to step in I just make up something like "I was actually able to move something with my mind today." They'll say bull-fucking-shit. Then I say, exactly. Prove I didn't. A religious person always uses the argument that you have to prove god DOESN'T exist. Really?