|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Gosh, Straggler, other people don't seem to have a problem with what the topic is. Read the OP, and if still in doubt see Message 22.
RAZD writes:
I and many others have shown this to be false. The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence. They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.Message 58 We can trade message citations all night, but in Message 332 you actually posted this:
straggler equivocating writes: RAZD started this argument by relentlessly declaring that the atheist position amounted to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". He relentlessly and repeatedly asserted this despite numerous actual atheists telling him that this was not their position at all.... There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant. ... I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible. Curiously, I fail to see how your last two paragraphs quoted there is not claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I and many others have shown this to be false. Will you acknowledge this fact? No, what you have done is ASSERT that it is false. To show that it is false you will need to provide that evidence you keep promising.
Message 11Every single time that you assert that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" you are denying the mass of objective evidence that many atheists, myself included, would cite in favour of the possibility that gods may just be human inventions. Amusingly this is not evidence that god/s do not exist.
Message 17If you want to take the atheism example I gave in my previous post and make this thread specifically about the evidence in favour of the possibiliy that gods are human inventions then that is fine by me. If not then just say so and I might go and start my own thread explicitly on that topic. Interestingly, trying to convert subjective experiences of god/s into mental inventions is the same as saying that the PSI experiences are the result of some other artifact, with the result that there is no evidence of god/s that is not explained by your beliefs\worldview\opinion/s. Fascinatingly, you denied this was your argument: In response to my Message 18 quote: You replied (Message 1):
This is essentially what you are claiming yes?
Not really. So you must have some other killer evidence for you to assert a negative hypothesis is true.
If that is your claim then, yes, the burden is on you to provide evidence that supports it.
If you are asking me to to justify my claim that the the objective evidence available suggests that gods are most likely the product of human invention then I am more than willing to accept that challenge. And to discuss the evidence in favour of that conclusion. As I have already clearly stated. So we have seen three (so far empty) promises to provide evidence that conclusively proves that all religious experiences are necessarily the result of imagination. Your contention is that this argument negates all arguments for god/s, so yes you have the burden to provide evidence that substantiates your position. Your other option is to back up the assertion bus and go to the intermediate position that Izanagi provided in Message 24:
Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism, according to wiki, just means that certain claims are not known (there is no currently available data to support or refute the claim) or are unknowable (there can never be any data to support or refute the claim). What this entails, though is admitting that there is no conclusive evidence pro or con, but that you have chosen to believe in the absence of god/s, or you are left with his other position:
On the same token, I don't like atheists doing the same thing, although admittedly, I haven't met as many atheists who do. But if an atheist knows that God doesn't exist, then the atheist also needs to provide empirical data to support their claim. Of course this gets us right back to the beginning of Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? Message 4 The rational conclusion based on evidence is agnosticism, the uncertainty of existence of god/s. Atheists are on one side of the line of agnosticism, deists are on the other. This may be a fine line, but the distinction is real, like the difference between negative numbers and positive numbers, with the zero position being your fine line. And I take this again back to the OP and Marcello Truzzi's comment:
quote: So what is it? Evidence negating the possibility of god/s, or admitting that there is inconclusive evidence one way or the other, and that the logical position is agnostic, with the provisio that an "agnostic atheist" can choose to believe that god/s do not exist, while "agnostic theists" can choose to believe that god/s exist. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added Izanagi arguments and final comments Edited by RAZD, : clarity by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: For the atheist, for example, one needs to demonstrate that there is more than an absence of evidence for evidence of absence. Most atheists are agnostics, RAZD, and there is certainly no burden of proof on us. Atheists who claim to know that there are no gods are rare birds. Two of the people quoted in your O.P. on the subject of "pseudo-skeptics" are anti-religious atheists, and one of them would probably regard you as suffering from a meme, and the other might well see you as a true pseudo-skeptic; a critic of genuine skeptics. So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, your O.P. suggests, and the burden of proof in relation to supernatural beings of any kind lies with those who believe in them. If you choose to describe yourself as an agnostic/deist, fine, but you must remember that any mention of belief in "subjective evidence" or any kind of personal experience in relation to gods would automatically remove your agnostic qualifications by definition. Agnostic theists exist as a definition, but can only believe via Faith alone, and presumably cannot know what they're believing in, which I find hilarious. Agnostic atheists require no Faith, for the same reason that it requires no faith not to believe in fairies, banshees or Djinns. Evidence-wise, gods share the same status as those three. Agnostics should agree on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi bluegenes,
Most atheists are agnostics, RAZD, and there is certainly no burden of proof on us. Atheists who claim to know that there are no gods are rare birds. That is fine as long as it is acknowledged that the default logical position is agnostic, and that the choice to be an atheist is because of certain personal beliefs about reality. You are free to tentatively conclude that god/s don't exist while waiting for more conclusive evidence, whether pro or con.
If you choose to describe yourself as an agnostic/deist, fine, ... Exactly, the default logical position is agnostic, as I said at the beginning, and I am a deist because of certain personal beliefs about reality. Likewise I am free to tentatively conclude that god/s exist while waiting for more conclusive evidence, whether pro or con.
... but you must remember that any mention of belief in "subjective evidence" or any kind of personal experience in relation to gods would automatically remove your agnostic qualifications by definition. Subjective evidence can suggest possibilities, and that doesn't mean knowing truth. Only if I claim that my beliefs are necessarily true, and try to convince others that my belief is true, does the mantle of agnostic fall. It is the assertion of knowing the truth that puts the burden of proof on the claimant, whether that purported truth is positive or negative. I have not done this, and in fact have refused to discuss what my belief entails, because (among other reasons) I don't know absolutely know the truth. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again bluegenes,
Most atheists are agnostics, RAZD ... Curiously, I give this as much credence as people claiming to be skeptics while still exhibiting bias in there posts - everyone likes to believe that they are rational and make decisions based on logic rather than emotions and (hidden?) beliefs. Perhaps we need to apply an objective measure to what we are talking about here: From the Google cached copy of website (so you can access without signing in) of "Where do you stand on the probability of God's existence?" quote: Most devout theists would be 2's with some (fundamentalists?) that can be classed as 1's. I'd say I'm a 3 - "agnostic deist." A 5 would be an "agnostic atheist." A 6 cannot really be regarded as agnostic according to this scale, because the uncertainty is so small in comparison to the certainty, would you agree?
Atheists who claim to know that there are no gods are rare birds. I would say that 2's (De facto theist) and 6's (De facto atheist) exhibit a certainty that bears the burden of proof for that certainty.
So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, your O.P. suggests, and the burden of proof in relation to supernatural beings of any kind lies with those who believe in them. This thread is focused on the equal burden of proof on those who assert the validity of the negative hypothesis. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added clarity Edited by RAZD, : clrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: straggler equivocating writes: RAZD started this argument by relentlessly declaring that the atheist position amounted to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". He relentlessly and repeatedly asserted this despite numerous actual atheists telling him that this was not their position at all.... There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant. ... I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible. Curiously, I fail to see how your last two paragraphs quoted there is not claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. RAZD, the default position is indeed the suspension of judgment when lacking any data. For instance: for a god that is consistent with our observations of reality and appears completely plausible to exist, yet lacking in any evidence of existence, it would be appropriate to suspend judgment as the truth is unknown. Straggler is not talking about that type of god, he is talking about one that lacks evidence to even think possible to exist; that is to say, a god that is supernatural. There is a point at which suspension of judgment becomes unreasonable. For example compare the difference between the unsubstantiated claim that there is a person in an adjacent room. We have no evidence indicating that there is, or is not, a person in the room so we truly cannot know one way or another. All we have is the claim, and depending on how much we trust the claimant would determine our reaction. Compare that example to the claim that there is a gargantuan dragon in the adjacent room. We again have no evidence supporting or disproving this claim, but the claim itself is implausible. Our experience and knowledge of the world suggests that dragons never existed, do not exist, *cannot* exist, and regardless would not fit in said room even if they did. The reasonable course of action would be to consistently not believe there is a dragon in the adjacent room. It is ludicrous to expect people to consistently operate on the assumption that *anything* could exist outside of their direct observation regardless of its confirmation to known reality. After all, don't you operate on the belief that there are not gnomes under your bed, even without looking? Don't you admit that this is reasonable, even though the lack of evidence proving that there are gnomes does not disprove the possibility of their existence under your bed? -- Now, to spark further discussion I propose that there are some circumstances where pure skepticism is insufficient for practical application. For instance, I assume you are fairly confident there is not a live armadillo in your living room. Is this reasonable? After all, armadillos exist and could possibly be in such a location, despite you having made it extremely difficult for one to attain such a position. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to operate under the assumption that there is no armadillo and to usher guests into the room without even a cursory check for armored intruders. Surely this is the application of "absence of evidence" being used as "evidence of absence", and is illogical. Inevitably it seems someone would be wrong in making such an assumption. However, is this behavior *unreasonable*?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I would say that 2's (De facto theist) and 6's (De facto atheist) exhibit a certainty that bears the burden of proof for that certainty. What do they have to prove? Do they have to prove that they "cannot know for certain" or do they have to prove that they "think God is very improbable" or do they have to prove that they "live {their} life on the assumption that {a god} is not there? The first is a statement of agnosticism (without knowing, a-gnostic). The others are difficult to prove because they rely on knowing what a person is thinking. I'm sure many could give reasons as to why they think what they think. They might even supply some evidence in support of their thought - but since they admit they cannot know, I don't see how we can expect a defninitive and compelling demonstration of the truth of the matter. You might, and presumably do, think those reasons are not compelling to you. What puzzles me is your idea that somebody that begins their position with 'I cannot know for certain' would not be regarded as agnostic or as being 'too certain'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2361 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
I step in here with some trepidation, and some wonderment at the persistence, heat and (occasional) opaqueness of the RAZD/Straggler dialog. Here's hoping I'm not making a fool of myself...
We have the very clear and concise synopsis of the current topic provided at Message 22 (thanks and kudos to petrophysics1), and we have the sense (not mentioned in the OP, but now obvious) of the intended ("real") focus of the topic: whether there is (or can be) an evidentiary basis for atheism. Let's try to consider a distinction: (a) atheism with respect to any and every possible conception of a deity, vs. (b) atheism with respect to particular deities. If someone were trying to assert a "positive claim for atheism," we might want to identify this as being in support of one or the other type of atheism, and the choice would boil down to (a) "proving a negative," or (b) positively falsifying specific assertions about the existence of a particular god. In one sense, option (b) could be very simple to establish: identify specific material claims about the past or (near) future actions of the chosen deity (e.g. life on earth as we know it will end later this week), and check that against the available evidence (as soon as it becomes available). If the claim is proven false, this may be taken as positive evidence that the deity does not really exist. That won't satisfy most folks, of course, because they can decide that the falsified claim itself was based on faulty knowledge of the deity, incorrect interpretation of scripture, etc. But this points to the fundamental problem in every discussion/argument/understanding about deities in general and any specific deity you would care to name or make up: as I understand it, it is in the nature of deities that the following are generally considered to be true (at least among theists):
It's item (C) that is the crux of the problem. Before going further with that, it'll help to focus on these two items from RAZD's 11-point "algorithm":
RAZD writes: ...9. if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it, 10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,... Okay, here's where we are: the theist has an assertion of an entity with deliberate intentions and direct influence, whose actual intentions and influences are essentially not knowable by humans. Is that philosophically tenable? I would say no, because it is essentially nonsensical. At this hour, I can't tell whether this summation meets RAZD's conditions of logical consistency, but I hope it suffices. This argument is applicable to every theist's deity I'm familiar with, and so it effectively applies to any theistic conception of a deity. The proof seems stunningly simple: if something is intrinsically unknowable by humans, then any assertion of human knowledge about it has an overwhelming likelihood of being in error. So here's my take on Straggler's position (or perhaps this is just a projection of my own position, which I think Straggler might agree with): whether we are talking about theism or deism, we are dealing with something that is by definition unknowable.(*1*) It is the very definition of this "deity" thing that marks it as an artifact of the human condition: it's the result of our linguistic potential for asserting the existence of something that we can only define by describing or enumerating what it is not. This is a very general and useful facility in human language, and given that our grammars all have this facility, it's no stretch at all to see how it can combine with our own sense of intentionality in this odd and extreme manner, creating a god and forming the basis for religious belief. Bottom line: maybe I misunderstand RAZD, but if he's trying to say that a "positive atheism" is somehow less supportable than "agnostic atheism", my response would be that theism/deism, and any form of agnosticism (just allowing a possibility of a deity) is the far less supportable position, by virtue of the fact that it simply extends a quirk of linguistic structure into a logical contradiction. (*1*) In the context of deism, this deity "thing" is not assumed to have any direct impact on our day-to-day existence, so what difference does it make anyway... it's just word-play with no particular relevance to anything at all. Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed spacing autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Can you demonstrate how atheism rather than agnosticism with regard to the immaterial pink unicorn can be justified by the criteria you are insisting upon?
If you cannot then why do you think your criteria are valid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Can you demonstrate how atheism rather than agnosticism with regard to the immaterial pink unicorn can be justified by the criteria you are insisting upon? If you cannot then why do you think your criteria are valid? An atheist disbelieves in deities and an agnostic believes that they do not yet have the capacity to believe or deny the existence of deities. These are distinguishing terms, are they not? For if they weren't distinguished from one another, how can one be an "Agnostic Atheist" if they are completely synonymous? That would be a needless redundancy if it were not this way, seems to me. The point that RAZD is making, and I am in agreement, is that atheism lends itself to a hardnosed approach towards questions of divinity. Agnostics tend to be open-minded on the fact that one cannot positively prove a negative false. One cannot disprove something does not exist if it in fact does not exist. That would be inclusive of immaterial pink unicorns. Your goal here, no doubt, is to point to the absurdity of "immaterial pink unicorns" to prove a point. But it proves nothing, other than the fact that one cannot disprove the non-existence of something. What in your mind distinguishes agnostics from atheists? "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
These are distinguishing terms, are they not? For if they weren't distinguished from one another, how can one be an "Agnostic Atheist" if they are completely synonymous? That would be a needless redundancy if it were not this way, seems to me. There are more options that mutually exclusive and synonymous. Agnotisicism is a statement of an epistemological position, it describes ones attitude as to whether or not it is possible to have knowledge of the subject at hand. If you are agnostic, then you are stating that you cannot know one way or another. I cannot know if we are in the Matrix, if there are any unverifiable deities, spirits or unicorns. I am equally agnostic about all of those things. However, I do not hold the belief that there are gods so I am 'without belief in god' thus I am an atheist. I do hold the positive belief that since there are lots of possible entities which I cannot know anything about it is entirely arbitrary to pick certain ones to believe exist while not believing that others exist. I also hold that given the sheer number of possible entities, and the number of entities which are mutually exclusive, the chances of being right with any set of essentially arbitrarily picked entities is incredibly low.
The point that RAZD is making, and I am in agreement, is that atheism lends itself to a hardnosed approach towards questions of divinity. Agnostics tend to be open-minded on the fact that one cannot positively prove a negative false. It sounds to me that you are defining atheism and agnosticism as 'hardnosed about divinity' and 'open minded about divinity' and then working from there. I am open minded to the possibility that Yahweh exists. I am equally open minded that the IPU exists, the FSM, a Santa whose miracle is to 'inspires' others to get gifts for each other, Ba'al, Moloch, Odin, Ra, any other god conceived of or otherwise, ghosts, goblins, gnomes, domovoi, leszi, djinn, dragons, etc etc etc. Apparently this makes me hardnosed? What strikes me as odd, is the number of people who suggest, or outright state, that atheists are closed minded while also dismissing the IPU or the FSM as 'obviously silly'. It is as if they won't open their minds to the possibility that the IPU exists and inspires skeptics (or if you prefer the term 'pseudoskeptics') to spread the word of her existence in a way which is mysterious to us mortals but will all make sense one day (presumably when we are supping from a beer volcano cursing the minions of the purple oyster or something).
What in your mind distinguishes agnostics from atheists? To me this is kind of like saying, what in your mind distinguishes red from cars. What distinguishes people that say they are agnostics versus those that say they are atheists is that agnostics tend to value the quality of 'open mindedness' and (I speculate) want to advertise that that is what they are. Most people I have spoken with who call themselves agnostics don't actually believe that there is a god or gods, I think they just fear that by saying that they don't believe there is a god or adopting the term 'atheist' will reflect poorly on them somehow. So practically, there is very little difference between the two terms as they are used. Though there are obviously some people who are geniunely unable to decide one way or another over a god entity and choose to literally remain on the fence on the decision. They may even swing regularly from belief to doubt and back again. In general though, they are commonly the same. Linguistically - one describes one attitudes towards the ability to know something and the other is a statement about whether you believe that something exists. If I express my views, people will generally label me as an atheist. So I use that term to describe myself. However, people have some unusual ideas about what atheists believe so rather than trying to convince the world to call me what I think they should call me, I'll try instead to convince people that those that are called atheists don't quite see things the way they think they do. If people think it is confusing to have an agnostic atheist, then they'll have to grow used to the funkiness of language. If you like we can have theists, atheists, and adeicisionists (those that have yet to make a decision one way about the existence of deities). In the end - it doesn't matter what the labels are, as long as everybody knows what is being talked about. So, given the possible ambiguity it might be worth making it clear which meaning of the word you are using if it might cause confusion.
Your goal here, no doubt, is to point to the absurdity of "immaterial pink unicorns" to prove a point. But it proves nothing, other than the fact that one cannot disprove the non-existence of something. She's so misunderstood. It also proves, by demonstration, that many people that harp on about the closed mindedness of atheists in not holding the belief that god exists (or those that hold the belief that god probably doesn't exist) will happily make those same strong statements about some other entity that they condemned in atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Hey Straggler,
In Message 3 you wrote:
quote: and in Message 11 you wrote:
quote: I think your misunderstanding the opposing position. First of all, that some gods are made-up is not mutually exclusive to gods existing so your first quote is already off. And that you use the fact that some gods are made up to support the position that gods do not exist is why you are being accused of the some=all fallacy. When that 'support' for your position falls away you are left with the absence of evidence. Or at least, that's how I'm seeing it. Explain to me how some gods being made up is mutually exclusive to any gods existing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. While I agree that it's not honest to hold to a position not having done the leg work of investigating, it also seems dishonest to claim someone hasn't done the research when no viable method of research is available. IOW, how would you, or Marcello Truzzi, suggest we investigate claims for which no method of investigating is available? He says:
quote: Is this in fact the only way one can know certain claims to be true or false, to try having a "psychic experience" -whatever that is- or altered states? Can you, or Marcello Truzzi, be more specific as to what that actually entails?
if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it. Fair enough, but what method exists to investigate the claim that would help provide proof against the claim?
People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position. But there is a method to do the research for or against evolution. What method of research do you suggest for investigating philosophical claims that would then yeild evidence for or againsts certain philosophical claims? If no method exists, then why would there even need to be a burden of proof for either side of the position? This may sound completely nonsensical, but to me, claiming to be a "deist" is the same as saying, "I believe nothing exists and that "nothing" is something in reality." If that doesn't make any sense, then I agree with you. In fact to me, deism positions don't make much sense either. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Hyro,
An atheist disbelieves in deities What is a diety? As an atheist, I simply hold to the position that established God(s) within religious beliefs lack evidence for their existance. But I'm not an atheist toward something that lacks any characteristic or that doesn't make any claims about the nature of reality. That seems to me to be completely unnecessary. If a diety is simply, some unknown force, then it seems to me that that lack of deifinition doesn't merit any position for or against it, since it really is an undefined "thing." Define it, then we can take a position for or against it.
The point that RAZD is making, and I am in agreement, is that atheism lends itself to a hardnosed approach towards questions of divinity. But what in fact are you suggesting that atheists are atheists towards? - Yahwah, Allah, Vishnu, Ra, Zeus...? - I think, since these concepts of God carry with it certain claims about reality, attributed to these God(s), an atheist position can be established on evidence against the claims themselves. But if your (or RAZD's) personal concept of God doesn't make any claims about reality, and as such has no established characteristics, then one need not be for or against your concept. IOW, I am not an atheist against RAZD's concept of God, because RAZD's concept of God makes no claims about reality; his concept exists solely in his mind. I don't think the burden of proof is required for or against a diety, because no one has explained what a diety is, yet. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Agnostics tend to be open-minded on the fact that one cannot positively prove a negative false. One cannot disprove something does not exist if it in fact does not exist. That would be inclusive of immaterial pink unicorns. Well exactly. But is RAZD an atheist or an agnostic with regard to the IPU? By the criteria of his flawed argument he would be an agnostic. I very much doubt this is the case. I doubt he is applying his own flawed arguments and assertions to himself.
Your goal here, no doubt, is to point to the absurdity of "immaterial pink unicorns" to prove a point. But it proves nothing, other than the fact that one cannot disprove the non-existence of something. The point I am making is that RAZD cannot claim open minded skepticism requires that we be agnostic about everything for which there is no evidence if he himself is not agnostic about the IPU. Hence my request for him to apply his own criteria and arguments to something I am fairly he sure he is atheistic about. Atheistic, I might add, for reasons that I suspect are wholly justified and all but identical to the reasons I would give for my atheism towards any other given god concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Explain to me how some gods being made up is mutually exclusive to any gods existing. That would be a ridiculous argument which is strangely why I have never made that argument.
I think your misunderstanding the opposing position. And you are definitely misunderstanding mine. CS why are you an atheist with regard to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn? Seriously. Think about that for a second rather than just kicking off at me. Is it because some gods are made up so therefore the IPU must be made up? No, I doubt that would be your answer. Nor is it mine. Is it because "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? No, I doubt that would be your answer either. Nor is it mine. Now before you leap down my throat in a mass of bad tempered indignation telling me that the IPU is "obviously" a made-up entity (as you have done previously and which I might add is a very justifiable conclusion and one that I wholeheartedly share with you) think about why this is so "obvious". What facts lie behind the "obviousness" of this conclusion? What evidence do you have that so thoroughly convinces you not just of the possibility that the IPU might be a human invention but that it almost certainly is? Is the objective evidence that suggests that the IPU is a human invention vastly superior to the (complete lack of) objective evidence that the IPU actually exists? I know why I am an atheist with regard to the IPU. But I want to find out why you are too?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024