xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.
You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.
No here's how it works:
I make an assertion with evidence. Until you can prove that my evidence is irrelevant, that the conclusion can't follow from it or that there is better evidence supporting the opposing argument, I am right.
Someone else makes an assertion not only without proof, but without evidence. Until he finds
something to back it up, I dismiss it.
Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.
No, I don't believe in the existence of a higher being because there is no evidence for it and because it massively contradicts what we already know.
I believe the world would be better off without religion because I have evidence: religion causes greater harm around the world than good. Like priests raping little boys and popes covering up for them.
You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.
I know it's a commonly-used expression, but I don't like it. "Nigger" is also a commonly used expression, but some people don't like it.
And I didn't label either of your posts wrong based on one thing. I respond to every relevant point. Your assertion is absolutely baseless and absolutely wrong.
He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.
I was hasty in saying "all", but it doesn't matter. Your argument would still have been nonsense even if only limited to angry atheists. I actually responded to you when you first made this complaint. You seem to have ignored what I said and concentrated on one miswording, as if it negated everything else I said.
What was it that you were saying about calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of someone's post? And what did you say about hypocrisy?
While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.
tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.
If I'd said this, the mods would have been all over me for making personal attacks.
Incidentally, this quote proves my point about the malign influence of religion. Just look how upset people get when you insult their imaginary friend.
1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.
We could also say that there are plenty of creatures that don't like Justin Bieber, and that they're less intelligent than we are. So without Bieber fandom, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.
2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).
Not every evolved trait is useful, or still useful. Some of them are just leftovers that were useful at one time (just goes to show that our design is not "intelligent").
If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate. If you eliminate religion, what else do you do?
And therefore I don't advocate the killing of spiders. In fact, I've always liked them.
But religion is not analogous.
You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity.
Oh yes, I forgot, you're not a sceptic about everything. You apply higher epistemic standard to some questions than to others. Try being more consistent with your scepticism in future.
If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right. But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently.
And would we have evolved as well?
The eye is something that has evolved separately in many different creatures. It's a remarkably useful adaptation and it therefore does not follow that we'd do just as well without it. There appears to be something uniquely useful about the eye for creatures in the animal kingdom.
No, supply and demand. If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher. Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams.
It would have taken a lot longer for them to reach the same level. Without guns, weaponry would always have been one step behind what it currently is.
You can make wild guesses appear educated. Lawyers do it all the time.
How do I do so? At the moment, it just looks like you're complaining because you can't refute me.
So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden. And you say that I insult you.
I don't remember comparing you to Osama bin Laden, but you're reminding me of him now.
The rapist bit was a
joke about what might happen if the logic you used when debating with me were used during your everyday life.
You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view.
As a great man once said, one should try not to be so open minded that one's brains fall out.
As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas. I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."
I don't either. I say "because he used all of these words in this combination, he's wrong".
I can't refute your ideas for the simple reason that they're so vague that they can't be engaged with. Fortunately, another great man said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.
But you said that you already know why I think the way I do? Are you admitting that you were wrong?
Anyway, I shouldn't bother you any more. If you feel that you need to have a few months of therapy, I shouldn't get in your way. Give my regards to your therapist.