We don't know exactly what happened...

[bilby]

When you have no way to win an argument, destroy the conversation.

"People who believe in a make-believe god are delusional. There is no god."

Like that?

No, that's a poor example, because it is demonstrably true.

"You cannot prove (to my satisfaction) that god exists."

Or that?

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. "You have no evidence that any gods exist" would be better.

"Fundies are so stupid."

Again, not a great argument, but true nonetheless.

"Brights are smart, and moral, and everything."

WTF is a 'Bright'?

"God is wicked and evil."

That's silly. God is fictional.

I mean, God IS wicked and evil (If we take the more popular tales about him, such as the Christian, Islamic, and Judaic stories, as canon), but it isn't a big deal. Darth Vader is wicked and evil, but as he too is fictional, it isn't a big deal.

"Shut up and get out of here. Nobody is on your side."

Not bad advice if you are looking for approbation. I guess it all depends on what you want.

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster - ha, ha, ha, ha, ha".

Showing your opponent's position to be ridiculous is a very good argument; If you don't want to be shown up as ridiculous, then simply stop making ridiculous assertions.

These are a few of the countless ways atheists destroy the conversation.

Yes, we are good at it, eh.

The big difference being that we are also good at contributing rationally to the conversation.

'Destroy the conversation' is one of the options at our disposal; but the important point is that it isn't the ONLY option we have, other than mindless conformance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think the following is remarkably similar.

At least somebody is obsessing about me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is a mode of discussion that is so common that, given time, it comes up in almost every debate. I am not taking about the well known Godwin's Law, which has become so well known as to be (in many cases) self correcting - indeed people who have arguments where comparison to Hitler or Nazism are completely justified now often shy away from such comparisons to avoid the accusation of Godwin.

The debating technique I am talking about I think of as the 'Blank Slate Argument'; However as it is very common, no doubt those who (unlike me) have made a study of logical fallacies and debating errors, will recognise it as something that already has it's own name, and if so, I would be grateful if they could let me know.

The Blank Slate Argument uses a couple of fallacies to arrive at an erroneous conclusion; Usually it is presented wrapped in a cloud of obfuscation, in an apparent attempt to make it less obvious that the speaker is presenting a totally unsupported claim.

In essence, it is structured like this:

1) You agree that we do not have perfect knowledge of the subject, situation or events.
2) We therefore do not know anything useful about the subject, situation or events. (Fallacy of composition)
3) As nothing is known, any assertion made is equally likely to be true as any other assertion. (False equivalence)
4) I am making an assertion
5) Therefore what I say is true, or is at least as reasonable and plausible as anything anyone else might say.

I see this argument used all over the place; Creationists use it a lot, and in an abbreviated form, it can be expressed in just three words: "We you there?"; I have also seen it used by lawyers seeking to establish doubt as to the facts of a case.

Another abbreviated form, which serves to highlight (rather than conceal) the erroneous nature of the argument, would be "Nobody knows, therefore I know".

Do others here share my frustration with the frequency with which this form of argument is used, where a debater sweeps away all evidence as valueless, to create a blank slate upon which he can write his opinion and declare it to be fact? Can anyone tell me the formal name of this type of error (if it has one)?

As I see it, "perfect knowledge" is the same as knowledge and "imperfect knowledge" would be an oxymoron so the arguments presented above are essentially gobbledygook.

We could say, however, that we do not have complete knowledge of reality, which is of course what we all accept here.

Personally, I also don't think we know the material world at all. However, I also think we do know certain things so in effect we do have an incomplete knowledge of reality. Yet, I agree that the inference that if you don't have complete knowledge therefore you know nothing is just plain idiotic (because self-contradictory). What you know you know. That what you know is incomplete is just not very cool but it doesn't magically change the fact that you know something.

I will refrain from going further into the analysis of this issue for fear of giving the god-fearing lot much better arguments.
EB

 

[Malintent]

Those are all great ways to destroy the conversation.
I was a hostile atheist.. .destroyed many opportunities for conversation in the past.
Now, I no longer seek 'conversations' with people that need humoring and baby gloves to get through it.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is definitely the most common fallacious argument used to dismiss all of the "soft" sciences as not being any form of science at all.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nobody knows, therefore God. God of the gaps. Of course often, really somebody does know but many people don't bother to do their homework before invoking this form of argument from ignorance.

 

[fromderinside]

Nobody knows, therefore nothing.

Does that mean God is nothing.

just askin'

 

[fast]

Nobody knows, therefore nothing.

Does that mean God is nothing.

just askin'

A 200 year old box has been unearthed. Nobody knows if something is in the box. The truth of the matter (as to whether or not something is in the box) is unknown. Yet, it's nevertheless true that either something is or something isn't in the box. The truth of the matter, therefore, is independent of our knowledge. We can discover the truth (by opening the box) and then know the truth.

So, of a couple choices in logic: 1) nobody knows, therefore something and 2) nobody knows, therefore nothing: I'd say the lack of information shouldn't lead us to accept either argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Nobody knows, therefore nothing.

Does that mean God is nothing.

just askin'

A 200 year old box has been unearthed. Nobody knows if something is in the box. The truth of the matter (as to whether or not something is in the box) is unknown. Yet, it's nevertheless true that either something is or something isn't in the box. The truth of the matter, therefore, is independent of our knowledge. We can discover the truth (by opening the box) and then know the truth.

So, of a couple choices in logic: 1) nobody knows, therefore something and 2) nobody knows, therefore nothing: I'd say the lack of information shouldn't lead us to accept either argument.

Since its a box, opaque to those looking, not touching, weighing, etc, from the outside, it may also be true that it is not a box and what you see is what your get.

I'm saying lack of information doesn't let us conclude it is a box, empty or containing on its inside. Don't even try to characterize something by how it appears. One cannot even conclude, just because of appearances, it is a box. Try another paradox setup. This one just doesn't work.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nobody knows, therefore nothing.

Does that mean God is nothing.

just askin'

A 200 year old box has been unearthed. Nobody knows if something is in the box. The truth of the matter (as to whether or not something is in the box) is unknown. Yet, it's nevertheless true that either something is or something isn't in the box. The truth of the matter, therefore, is independent of our knowledge. We can discover the truth (by opening the box) and then know the truth.

So, of a couple choices in logic: 1) nobody knows, therefore something and 2) nobody knows, therefore nothing: I'd say the lack of information shouldn't lead us to accept either argument.

You are making it look like a logical argument but that's clearly wrong. What you find on opening a box is not necessarily what there was when it was closed. The question of what there is in a box which is closed to scrutiny cannot be answered.

Now of course if you lower the standard to make it a pragmatic question then your point is OK and good enough as far as moving through security checks at airport are concerned.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Since its a box, opaque to those looking, not touching, weighing, etc, from the outside, it may also be true that it is not a box and what you see is what your get.

I'm saying lack of information doesn't let us conclude it is a box, empty or containing on its inside. Don't even try to characterize something by how it appears. One cannot even conclude, just because of appearances, it is a box. Try another paradox setup. This one just doesn't work.

Whatever you're taking at the moment keep going, you're doing very well here!

EB

 

[DBT]

Now, I no longer seek 'conversations' with people that need humoring and baby gloves to get through it.

Minds tend to become consolidated. A 'conversation' is largely a wasted effort. Hardly any agreement and very few are open to the difficulties of faith based belief.

 

[fromderinside]

Now, I no longer seek 'conversations' with people that need humoring and baby gloves to get through it.

Minds tend to become consolidated. A 'conversation' is largely a wasted effort. Hardly any agreement and very few are open to the difficulties of faith based belief.

So don't do it? What happened to fun, challenge, and all those other qualities we consider interesting but don't know what will happen? We'll never know what happened. I'm pretty sure we will keep trying to know.

 

[DBT]

Minds tend to become consolidated. A 'conversation' is largely a wasted effort. Hardly any agreement and very few are open to the difficulties of faith based belief.

So don't do it? What happened to fun, challenge, and all those other qualities we consider interesting but don't know what will happen? We'll never know what happened. I'm pretty sure we will keep trying to know.

Maybe the posters who abuse someone for daring to question their beliefs when they themselves post their propositions on a public forum, presumably to be examined and argued, should be told that.

 

[fromderinside]

I have a hammer and saw.

 

[DBT]

I have a hammer and saw.

That's a good start, but I fear that it's not sufficient for the task.

 

[fromderinside]

I have a hammer and saw.

That's a good start, but I fear that it's not sufficient for the task.

What. I hammered and I saw! What else is needed? Witnesses? No one should trust a witness.

 

[DBT]

That's a good start, but I fear that it's not sufficient for the task.

What. I hammered and I saw! What else is needed? Witnesses? No one should trust a witness.

There's the problem straight away....we are told that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Christ,for example, and that this proves that it happened.....oh, yes it did, of course it did, how can it be doubted....