And reading Straggler's full post he seems to be quite keen on pointing out that he doesn't believe claims for which there is no evidence ...
And yet you\he are inconsistent in this.
There is no evidence for X You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in X
There is no evidence for Y You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in Y
Y = notX
However Straggler goes on to point out that there is evidence for the contrary position which it is his position gives us a heavy preponderance against the position for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Evidence for the position that god is made up in human imagination is evidence that god does not exist. Not proof that it definitely doesn't, but evidence nevertheless.
And which you have admitted is not evidence that god/s per se do not exist. This is just changing one fallacy for another.
There is no evidence for X People make things up ∴ X does not exist
There is no evidence for X Mushrooms grow in the forest at night during a new moon in the rain ∴ X does not exist
Both premises are true, but this doesn't get us to the conclusion. There is no connection between premise 2 and the necessary conclusion needed to suppport the "6" position, so it is an invalid structure.
He has more recently had you agree with this with regards to Santa.
Which is mixing folklore, myths and legends with supernatural deities. Paul Bunyan is not a god, but a folklore hero. Human history is rife with hero stories, but that does not mean that god/s per se do not exist. I don't think anyone has claimed that "Santa" is a god.
*Notice that what was shown was the growth of "hero" myth\legend\folklore around an actual reality human being. What this does NOT show is that concepts of supernatural beings are entirely made up, as Straggler et al are claiming, rather than based on some core reality that is at this time unknown.*
**This is what Straggler et al have not done, all they have done is assume that it is true. As I pointed on re Santa, Straggler has a model for how to do this, and his failure to do so must indicate an inability to do so - either through lack of evidence or lack of willingness, or because the task is not possible. Basing a conclusion on an assumption is not a scientific process. It may seem rational, but it is only appealing for people to whom the assumption conforms to their world view/s (confirmation bias) and that are not skeptical of their own beliefs and assumptions (inconsistent, cognitive dissonance, conflict avoidance, etc).**
The way out of this dilemma, by the way, is to argue that it is possible that there is a real supernatural Santa spirit that inspires gift giving and inspired the historical personage and is the reason why we have evolved to gain pleasure from gift-giving.
Which, curiously, I have said: the spirit of St Nick lives on, and inspires people to be better, more benevolent, people. I also referenced the newspaper editorial "Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Clause" as part of the whole issue.
*Interestingly, there is also no dilemma when one considers the difference hero myth\legend\folklore and concepts of supernatural beings that may also (a) have a core reality, and (b) also have been embellished in much the same way. That such embellishments are made up does not mean the core concept is made up. Again, this is the difference between the map and the mountain: the map has lots of unknown areas marked "here there be demons" - made up embellishments - that are not actually found on the mountain, and the reality of the mountain can be different from what the map shows, but it is still a mountain.*
Anyway I don't see him actually saying that he thinks the lack of evidence for a deity is on its own evidence for the lack of a deity ...
And even admitted that it is probably not possible to have such evidence. Hence being inconsistent:
There is no evidence for X You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in X
There is no evidence for Y You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in Y
Y = notX
The way out of this dilemma is to allow that god/s are possible, that not-god/s are possible, and that one cannot say one way OR the other without having empirical objective evidence that speaks to the existence\non-existence issue.
absence of contradictory evidence is evidence of possibility.
Yes, but so what? It's just a meaningless tautology: Unless it has been ruled out, it hasn't been ruled out.
There is no evidence for X You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in X
There is no evidence for Y You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in Y
Y = notX
You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I take the claim 'God does not exist' and I believe that it is true. There is evidence for the claim that gods are figments of our imagination, and if that hypothesis is true that would mean gods don't exist. I do think, therefore, that there is a preponderance of evidence for the claim 'God does not exist' - but I wouldn't commit to saying that the claim is definitely true.
And which you have admitted is not evidence that god/s per se do not exist.
What you think I have claimed and even what I have actually claimed is actually irrelevant to what I was saying. I was pointing out that you were still erroneously painting Straggler as someone who was saying something that he explicitly wasn't saying.
There is no evidence for X People make things up ∴ X does not exist ... Both premises are true, but this doesn't get us to the conclusion.
And nobody is claiming 'therefore god does not exist'. So I fail to see why you insist on bringing it up every three seconds. Perhaps the strawman is easier to fell than the real deal? They usually are, and they are so much fun to pound - but when your real opponents are attacking you in the flank - it's usually a good idea to turn your attention to the matter at hand, yes?
Which is mixing folklore, myths and legends with supernatural deities.
Are you telling me that a troupe of flying ungulates pulling a sleigh and visiting all children on earth, assessing their annual tally of morality, and distributing gifts accordingly without being seen, squeezing through impossible gaps etc etc is not supernatural? Oh. Right.
But no - we are talking about the characters within myths and folklore. Don't think the philosopher's god or the deist's god are not folklore - they are just limited to a smaller group of folk. A being created the universe and is now doing other things isn't an appealing folk story to most - but some people like it.
Paul Bunyan is not a god, but a folklore hero.
Right. Folklore, myths and legends can be about many things. Including gods. Are you really arguing this?
Human history is rife with hero stories, but that does not mean that god/s per se do not exist.
Right. Nor does it mean that Santa or Paul Bunyan per se does not exist.
I don't think anyone has claimed that "Santa" is a god.
Exactly - which is why I am confused as to what you are talking about. (Though many cultures through history would have called Santa a god if we described him to them.)
Notice that what was shown was the growth of "hero" myth\legend\folklore around an actual reality human being. What this does NOT show is that concepts of supernatural beings are entirely made up, as Straggler et al are claiming, rather than based on some core reality that is at this time unknown.
You really do a terrific job at misunderstanding things RAZD. Nobody is suggesting that this shows that concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'. I think everybody is comfortable with the idea that Santa wasn't some brain fart based on nothing at all, that became popular - but instead that it was based on natural facts about the world. We're just saying that you seem happy to accept that the 'core reality' behind Santa is based on natural facts about the world, but you seem to think it a terrible thing to suggest that god is likewise based on a 'core reality' of natural facts. Such as human psychology, the psychology of hierarchical social groups (eg, people claiming to be divine for political purpose), hyperactive agency detection, the theory of mind, embellishment of stories etc etc.
Which, curiously, I have said: the spirit of St Nick lives on, and inspires people to be better, more benevolent, people.
Let's try not to equivocate over the word 'spirit' shall we? I don't mean 'widespread mood' I mean an actual self aware being made of non-material things independent of the minds of humans. If you want to argue the claim 'the concept of god exists' then you won't find any sane dissenters.
Interestingly, there is also no dilemma when one considers the difference hero myth\legend\folklore and concepts of supernatural beings that may also (a) have a core reality, and (b) also have been embellished in much the same way
It's only marginally interesting. But we atheists been saying this to you for some time. But when we say that people might have 'embellished' religious experiences, revelations, whose core reality seems to be embedded into idiosyncracies in our brain structure (which being an evolved organ is likely to be imperfect and filled with such idiosyncracies as we obsever with optical illusions): You say that we're dismissing god as being 'made up' and therefore impossible. We're really only saying that given the way things seem to operate: Claims like Santa and the like are often based on some real (and rather mundane) thing (either a person, or an unexplained (from the experiencer's perspective) phenomena etc) and the story grows in the telling until it meets skeptical querying and then it starts to become more of an undetectable being that only interferes in the affairs of humans in non obvious ways (like our philosopher's Santa).
The way out of this dilemma is to allow that god/s are possible, that not-god/s are possible, and that one cannot say one way OR the other without having empirical objective evidence that speaks to the existence\non-existence issue.
Agreed. Which is what atheists have been doing around here. I've argued that without evidence one should not believe a claim. There is evidence for the claim that gods, like Santa, are embellished ideas and stories stemming from mundane things such as real people, peculiarities in human psychology etc. It isn't, nor can it ever be (due to the unfalsifiable nature of many of the entities in discussion) 100% proof. But it is a claim, and it does have supporting evidence. You might choose not to believe the claim, which is fine.
absence of contradictory evidence is evidence of possibility.
Yes, but so what? It's just a meaningless tautology: Unless it has been ruled out, it hasn't been ruled out.
Exactly. To claim otherwise is not rational.
Right - but like I said - so what? Nobody has claimed otherwise.
quote:Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Message 332: 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.
(color for later reference)
And yet you\he are inconsistent in this.
There is no evidence for X You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in X
There is no evidence for Y You don't believe in things with no evidence ∴ You don't believe in Y
Y = notX
You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I take the claim 'God does not exist' and I believe that it is true. ... I was pointing out that you were still erroneously painting Straggler as someone who was saying something that he explicitly wasn't saying.
We were talking about Straggler's position in the quoted post. Putting Straggler's quoted words in the above form I get:
Now, I may seem to be obtuse, but this looks to me like a clear claim that he does not believe in the actuality of gods, AND that this claim is based on the perceived absence of evidence for god/s. I don't see any "wiggle room" in those statements.
The Y form would be:
There either is evidence that directly shows that no-god/s exist, or he\et alia are being inconsistent in what they do not believe in.
And nobody is claiming 'therefore god does not exist'. So I fail to see why you insist on bringing it up every three seconds.
quote:atheist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.
The non-existence of god/s is the defining theme of atheism. Just by claiming to be an atheist you are de facto discussing the non-existence of god/s. This also means that any logical conclusion to support the "6" or "7" position must inevitably relate to the non-existence of godd/s.
Therefore, if you are supporting such a position, your conclusion must necessarily speak directly to the non-existence of god/s, and not to the fact that mushrooms grow in the woods at night in the pouring rain during a new moon.
Are you telling me that a troupe of flying ungulates pulling a sleigh and visiting all children on earth, assessing their annual tally of morality, and distributing gifts accordingly without being seen, squeezing through impossible gaps etc etc is not supernatural? Oh. Right.
No, I've said that these aspects have been documented actually being added by poets, illustrators and other people to the growing myth\legend\folklore surrounding around the actual (enlightened?) individual human being. Certainly the spirit of St Nick visits people old and young alike, inspiring them to give gifts to those less fortunate. Pity it's only once a year.
Let's try not to equivocate over the word 'spirit' shall we? I don't mean 'widespread mood' I mean an actual self aware being made of non-material things independent of the minds of humans
Why does your spirit need to be "an actual self aware being" when the spirit of a person can be:
quote:spirit (spĭr'ĭt) n. ... 5. a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit. . b. The essential nature of a person or group. .... The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The essence of the person that lives on after death - even if only in the minds of people. The fact that this essential spirit of benevolence to others (especially to those less fortunate) lives on, centuries after death, is telling.
Exactly - which is why I am confused as to what you are talking about. (Though many cultures through history would have called Santa a god if we described him to them.)
Or would have called the original person a hero that then was embellished with godly traits.
The point being that demonstrating that Santa had "feet of clay" does not mean that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, just that this one case demonstrates hero embellishment based on a single actual person. The Greeks (and others) believed that heroes could become gods through doing heroic deeds and then taking on supernatural aspects as we see with Santa.
You also see actual living individuals becoming "deified" - regarded as gods after death. Perhaps the best example of this is Gautama Buddha, where there is some actual evidence of his living in ancient India, with reference in court records of the large crowds drawn to his teaching place, and who is regarded as a deity in some forms (not all) of Buddhism. An actual living Jesus could be a similar person that was then deified, adapting in the process the supernatural aspects of Mithra.
Can people actually become deified, become god/s (or semi-gods)? Interesting question. Some cultures think so. I believe that people can become enlightened individuals, but am unconvinced of further development. Such enlightenment can certainly lead to one's spirit living on after death, as we see with St. Nick, Gautama Buddha, Gandhi, Thoreau and Muir: people that inspire certain behavior in people long after they are dead.
The point being, that there are people that walked the earth at some point in time, people of an inspirational nature, whose spirit lives on in myths\legends\folklore, sometimes embellished with supernatural abilities, but at the core actual people, and then there is the question of whether god/s exist: it is a different question.
You really do a terrific job at misunderstanding things RAZD. Nobody is suggesting that this shows that concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'.
At which point the argument that god/s are creations of human imagination falls to pieces.
We're just saying that you seem happy to accept that the 'core reality' behind Santa is based on natural facts about the world, but you seem to think it a terrible thing to suggest that god is likewise based on a 'core reality' of natural facts. Such as human psychology, the psychology of hierarchical social groups (eg, people claiming to be divine for political purpose), hyperactive agency detection, the theory of mind, embellishment of stories etc etc. ... It's only marginally interesting. But we atheists been saying this to you for some time. But when we say that people might have 'embellished' religious experiences, revelations, whose core reality seems to be embedded into idiosyncracies in our brain structure (which being an evolved organ is likely to be imperfect and filled with such idiosyncracies as we obsever with optical illusions): You say that we're dismissing god as being 'made up' and therefore impossible. We're really only saying that given the way things seem to operate: Claims like Santa and the like are often based on some real (and rather mundane) thing (either a person, or an unexplained (from the experiencer's perspective) phenomena etc) and the story grows in the telling until it meets skeptical querying and then it starts to become more of an undetectable being that only interferes in the affairs of humans in non obvious ways (like our philosopher's Santa).
Or that it is based on a core reality that god/s do exist. The difference is that I don't assume one is true, but not the other. Ie - I take the agnostic position, until such time as you\Straggler\et alia can demonstrate that the argument "concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'" is actually based on evidence of same applied to god/s.
The way out of this dilemma is to allow that god/s are possible, that not-god/s are possible, and that one cannot say one way OR the other without having empirical objective evidence that speaks to the existence\non-existence issue.
Agreed. Which is what atheists have been doing around here. I've argued that without evidence one should not believe a claim. There is evidence for the claim that gods, like Santa, are embellished ideas and stories stemming from mundane things such as real people, peculiarities in human psychology etc. It isn't, nor can it ever be (due to the unfalsifiable nature of many of the entities in discussion) 100% proof. But it is a claim, and it does have supporting evidence. You might choose not to believe the claim, which is fine.
Except where one possibility is claimed as being more likely than the other. That is a claim based on a personal opinion about the validity of the argument/s, not on any actual evidence that god/s are in fact all made up. As such, it is as relevant as the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that mushrooms grow in the woods at night during a pouring rain under a new moon.
Which is fine for a "5" atheist, as I keep saying, but if you want to claim more than a "5" position, if you want to discuss the relative likelihood, then you need to put up some actual evidence that speaks directly to the issue of existence\non-existence. You need to connect the dots with evidence, not assumption and conjecture.
You seriously think so? I guess others can decide that for themselves.
RAZD writes:
You are making two conceptual errors here. The first is that you can make a calculation when you only know part of the possibilities and have no idea how large the set is.
In the most simple sense there are two possibilities. Either immaterial undetectable unknowable gods actually exist as part of some external reality. Or they are the products of human invention. In a more complex sense where gods are invoked for explanatory reasons the possibilities are infinite. The creation of the universe by god, for example, is no more evidenced than any one of the other myriad of other possible causes. Pixie dust, the farts of celestial cows etc. etc. ad-infinitum. Why does god get special consideration over and above any of these other possibilities?
Secondly in ANY evidence based argument assessment of probability is just inevitable. It is necessary and wholly unavoidable. There isn't a scientific or any other evidence based conclusion in existence that is not essentially a statement of probability. Even those conclusions that we are all but certain of. Evidence based conclusions are necessarily tentative. My quote of the moment:
Bertrand Russel Writes: "To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
RAZD writes:
Second, you are making a logical leap, confusing the map with the mountain, and resulting in a logical fallacy:
there is not evidence that gods exist there is evidence that people make things up ∴ gods do not exist
The only fallacy here is your base assumption that this "mountain" necessarily exists. All of the objective evidence tells us that humans are predisposed to creating such "maps" to fulfil a variety of very human needs. Needs that persist regardless of the existence of any "mountain". The need to explain the world. The psychological need to contemplate mortality. The need for meaning, comfort, companionship, purpose etc. etc. etc. All reasons that strongly suggest that the "map" is of far more import to the culture that creates it than any "mountain". All reasons that would seem to tell us far more about the commonality of human psychology than they do about some unknowable reality inhabited by unknowable supernatural beings. Can you please explain why do you conclude that there is a mountain at all?
If we strip down your silly euphamisms all we are left with is the circular argument that belief itself is evidence upon which to justify belief.
Well it seems that we have all learnt something from this string of related threads. Should we ever find any atheist (or indeed an agnostic) making the absence of evidence argument I assume that you will join me in eductaing them as to the fact that there is not, and can never ever be, a complete absence of all objective evidence in any practical sense?
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
What you can never ever ever do again is legitimately proclaim that the atheist position necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Once again, confusing the agnostic position with what is observable from atheists does not mean that atheists do not use this logical fallacy.
You and I have spent the last ten months in an on-off debate about the rationality of atheism. Throughout this you have maintained that there is no objective evidence relevant to the existence of gods at all. You have relentlessly and remorselessly asserted that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". In response I have attempted to show you that no claim can ever operate in a complete vacuuum of all objective evidence. In addition I have also attempted to show that this objective evidence strongly implies that in all probability god concepts are the product of human invention rather than aspects of an "unknowable" reality.
Given your bewildering need to translate my arguments into the simplistic straw man of "people make stuff up therefore everything Straggler disagrees with must be made-up" and other such imbecilic misrepresentations I decided in this thread to try a different approach. In this thread I have made no attempt to show that the objective evidence available justifies anything. I have instead simply restricted myself to forcing you to acknowledge that relevant objective evidence exists. That there is no "absence of evidence". That there can in fact never be an absence of all objective evidence. That ALL claims are necessarily, inevitably indisputably and inarguably made in the context of human history, culture and psychology.
Rather than wade our way through this silly charade any further why don't you just tell us explicitly what your view is on the absence of objective evidence? And whether this is even possible in any practical sense? Are deistic claims made in a complete vacuum of all objective evidence OR are deistic claims necessarily and inevitably made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology?
Are you still wedded to your foolish notion that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? Or have you at last been swayed by the facts away from this much asserted and long time misconception of yours?
I am guessing that you won't actually answer these questions.
There is evidence for the claim that gods, like Santa, are embellished ideas and stories stemming from mundane things such as real people, peculiarities in human psychology etc. It isn't, nor can it ever be (due to the unfalsifiable nature of many of the entities in discussion) 100% proof. But it is a claim, and it does have supporting evidence. You might choose not to believe the claim, which is fine.
Except where one possibility is claimed as being more likely than the other. That is a claim based on a personal opinion about the validity of the argument/s, not on any actual evidence that god/s are in fact all made up. As such, it is as relevant as the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that mushrooms grow in the woods at night during a pouring rain under a new moon.
Which is fine for a "5" atheist, as I keep saying, but if you want to claim more than a "5" position, if you want to discuss the relative likelihood, then you need to put up some actual evidence that speaks directly to the issue of existence\non-existence. You need to connect the dots with evidence, not assumption and conjecture.
Where are you on the Dawkins scale with regard to the Easter Bunny? The Tooth Fairy? Magical sleigh riding jolly Santa?
The problem with your entire argument is that A) You cannot prove that magical Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy "do not or can not exist". But this doesn't stop us being justifiably far from agnostic about these concepts. B) Nobody here is claiming to be able to disprove anything anyway. That just isn't how evidence based arguments work.
You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa "does not, or can not exist". You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa is logically "impossible". You have simply cited objective historical evidence to demonstrate that notions of magical Santa are in all probability a human invention. Exactly as the rest of us are doing with regard to concepts of supernatural gods. Concepts that originated to explain aspects of nature, which then evolved to reflect aspects of human culture and society and which have since evolved to be compatible with scientific progress. As per here: Message 499
Which part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
Now, I may seem to be obtuse, but this looks to me like a clear claim that he does not believe in the actuality of gods, AND that this claim is based on the perceived absence of evidence for god/s.
Yup. It's pretty clear. Straggler does not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. Exactly what I said earlier in Message 252.
The non-existence of god/s is the defining theme of atheism.
The absence of belief in the existence of god/s is the defining theme of atheism.
Therefore, if you are supporting such a position, your conclusion must necessarily speak directly to the non-existence of god/s, and not to the fact that mushrooms grow in the woods at night in the pouring rain during a new moon.
Nope - unless you are claiming that god/s do not exist all you need to do is justify why one lacks belief in a claim that has no evidence.
The point being that demonstrating that Santa had "feet of clay" does not mean that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, just that this one case demonstrates hero embellishment based on a single actual person.
Correct. It is evidence that a group of humans over time can (and often do) take a mundane event that seems extraordinary and spin it into a fantastic tale of magic and supernatural beings with wonderful powers who act as arbiters of right thought and actions.
You really do a terrific job at misunderstanding things RAZD. Nobody is suggesting that this shows that concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'.
At which point the argument that god/s are creations of human imagination falls to pieces.
I'm not sure what argument you are arguing against. Most of us here are perfectly comfortable with the idea that god/s are ideas based on real phenomenon (such as epilepsy, brain hiccups, hyperactive agency detection, conflicts with the 'theory of mind' and so on) and have been expanded upon by imagination.
By 'completely made up' I mean out of nowhere, based on nothing whatsoever. Which I don't remember seeing anybody actually arguing. That's why I said: Nobody is suggesting that this shows that concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'.
That's what the next few sentences were saying but you chose to interject with that for some reason as if it were a killer rejoinder.
Why does your spirit need to be "an actual self aware being" when the spirit of a person can be {something else}
Because I was talking about the self aware type of spirit since that is something which I don't think exists. I do think some of the other definitions of spirit exist. And I asked you to not equivocate between them.
Or that it is based on a core reality that god/s do exist.
Yup - a claim for which there is no evidence. So there is a claim that the core reality is something mundane - something which you accept there is evidence for as with Santa and other such figures who poets have imbued withe supernatural powers. And a claim that gods actually do have supernatural powers - something which you accept has no evidence for it.
So the preponderance of the evidence weighs towards?
The difference is that I don't assume one is true, but not the other.
So you are no longer a deist? Or are you one of those people that uses a word 'deist' to mean 'agnostic'?
Except where one possibility is claimed as being more likely than the other. That is a claim based on a personal opinion about the validity of the argument/s, not on any actual evidence that god/s are in fact all made up.
It's based on the concept that most entities that can be conceived of do not exist. It is based on the idea that most claims that can be made are false. It is based on the evidence in favour of human's very strong tendency to imbue mundane brain hiccups with supernatural backgrounds.
Which is fine for a "5" atheist, as I keep saying, but if you want to claim more than a "5" position, if you want to discuss the relative likelihood, then you need to put up some actual evidence that speaks directly to the issue of existence\non-existence.
So why do you not believe a claim unless there is evidence for it? I'm still bereft of an answer to this question.
the NON RIP of the Absence of Evidence argument as used by atheists
Small point here
Throughout this you have maintained that there is no objective evidence relevant to the existence of gods at all.
This is a different issue than showing that some atheists use the (logically false) argument that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" justifies their belief/s.
Should we ever find any atheist (or indeed an agnostic) making the absence of evidence argument I assume that you will join me in eductaing them as to the fact that there is not, and can never ever be, a complete absence of all objective evidence in any practical sense?
I will happily join you in pointing out that such arguments are logical fallacies regardless of the actuality of any other evidence pertaining to the question.
I will point out that people making statements like this ...
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. ...
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.
(color for reference)
... are making just that logically false argument.
In logical (premise+premise/conclusion) format we have:
Or, more simply put, belief in the absence (non-actuality) of gods, due to the absence (non-existence) of evidence for gods.
Re: the NON RIP of the Absence of Evidence argument as used by atheists
This is a different issue than showing that some atheists use the (logically false) argument that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" justifies their belief/s.
Razd, would you cease and desist if all we atheists just agreed that what most of us believe is:
Absence of evidence causes us to have absence of belief ?
I believe this is the majority of opinion among atheists, though I may be wrong. At any rate, this is my belief.
Question: What is the difference between atheism and deism?
Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.
With the implication that anyone NOT an atheist doesn't meet his "evidential or intellectual consistency" criteria.
What I have found since then, is that Straggler in particular, and some other strong atheists in general, do not meet his own criteria, and are (a) pseudoskeptics and (b) inconsistent.
Pseudoskeptics for making a claim that the non-existence of gods is more likely than the existence of gods, but without providing the objective empirical evidence that shows that god/s do not, or could not, exist can rationally be concluded.
Inconsistent for claiming that the non-existence (absence) of compelling objective empirical evidence for god/s is reason to "have absence of belief" in god/s, but ignoring the logically equivalent argument that the non-existence (absence) of compelling objective empirical evidence for no-god/s is reason to have "absence of belief" in no-god/s.
I also see Straggler in particular, and some other strong atheists in general, basing his\their arguments on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, rather than on evidence and intellectual consistency.
quote: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.
I really don't seem much argument with this position. We could also revise the revised "dawkins scale" be:
quote:
(+3) Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (+2) Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (+1) Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. ( 0) Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (-1) Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (-2) Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (-3) Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.
The true skeptic is also critical of the evidence, or lack or it, supporting their own position.
The open-minded skeptic remains open to the possibilities of concepts that have not been invalidated.
When you can put the Easter Bunny through your silly formula and come out with an answer that isn't agnosticism I might start taking you seriously again.
With regard to absence of evidence - You have been forced to accept that there is not, and can never be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not consider the existence of gods to be objectively evidenced. Therefore it must be the case that ALL of the objective historical, anthropological and psychological evidence supports human invention. Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion is tentative atheism.
What else is there left to say on this matter?
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
Amen to that. And if you feel compelled to start talking about maps and mountains again you can start by explaining why you think there even is a mountain to make maps of.
Re: Maps and Mountains - Modeling Logical Fallacies against reality
Hi Straggler,
You seriously think so? I guess others can decide that for themselves.
Especially as you have no answer to the refutation, so yes, you have been refuted on this as on so many other points where you think you have accomplished something but have only made it up in your mind.
Some people DO make things up you know.
In the most simple sense there are two possibilities. Either immaterial undetectable unknowable gods actually exist as part of some external reality. Or they are the products of human invention.
Nope. False logic once again: people could have made up everything, and god/s could still exist, PLUS god/s could be detectable, just not detected in your worldview: once again we see a false dichotomy logical fallacy, one that has been pointed out before, but seems to fall on deaf ears.
The true two possibilities are (1) god/s exist or (2) god/s don't exist. That is the simplest conception of this issue. Anything that does not relate to one or the other is irrelevant and misleading.
That some people make some things up sometimes does not prove in any way shape or form that (A) god/s are made up, and (B) god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Proving that all maps are made up representations of mountains, no matter how well documented, does not mean that the mountains do not exist.
Let's review this logical fallacy once more:
Argument 1 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
And mushrooms grow in the woods at night during a new moon and a pouring rainstorm. These premises do not lead to a valid conclusion. What is involved is are a couple of hidden assumptions that are due to bias, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance (just for Rrhain).
As amusing as that is, we can also use the same "evidence" in a counter argument with a different hidden assumption:
Argument 2 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do or can exist.
Which still suffers from hidden assumptions and doesn't reach a valid conclusion due to the incomplete form of the argument.
Now let's put in the missing pieces ...
Argument 1 + hidden assumption • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up* ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
(* an unsupported conclusion, with no evidence presented for it's validity: made up by Straggler to support his pseudoskeptic position.)
Fascinatingly, this is STILL not a valid argument, because (as pointed out before) subjective experience can be made up and god/s can STILL exist: there is still a hidden assumption here, the assumption that god/s don't exist if all subjective experiences are made up.
Now the counter argument with it's hidden assumption:
Argument 2 + hidden assumption • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • NOT all subjective experiences of god/s are necessarily made up* ∴ God/s do, or can, exist.
(* a rational conclusion about the current state of knowledge until such time as it is prove that all subjective experiences are in fact made up, as I'm sure most skeptics would agree)
Thus we see, that until you prove that all subjective experiences are in fact made up, AND that this means that god/s do not, or cannot exist, that god/s are just as much a possibility as they were without your evidence.
Because of this simple logic we see that your argument is indeed refuted again. It certainly is not worth repeating until you figure out some amusing way to fix it. Perhaps another logical fallacy?
Did you see this graph on [tid=538851]?
Made me think of you ....
Secondly in ANY evidence based argument assessment of probability is just inevitable. It is necessary and wholly unavoidable. There isn't a scientific or any other evidence based conclusion in existence that is not essentially a statement of probability.
Curiously, you do not have an evidenced based argument, you do not have the numbers. Without the numbers you do not have a base on which to build a "assessment of probability" ... it's that simple.
There isn't a scientific or any other evidence based conclusion in existence that is not essentially a statement of probability.
quote:Science Dictionary
probability ( prŏb'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē ) A number expressing the likelihood of the occurrence of a given event, especially a fraction expressing how many times the event will happen in a given number of tests or experiments. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, the probability of rolling a particular side is 1 in 6, or 1/6 . The American Heritage Science Dictionary
You do not have that degree of ability, that degree of knowledge, because you have no idea what the possibilities actually are, so pretending that your "assessment of probability" is scientific is YOU making things up and pretending that it is true.
Re: The Practical Problem With Incessant Agnosticism
Hi Straggler,
The problem with your entire argument is that A) You cannot prove that magical Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy "do not or can not exist". But this doesn't stop us being justifiably far from agnostic about these concepts. B) Nobody here is claiming to be able to disprove anything anyway. That just isn't how evidence based arguments work.
Actually this is your problem, as I don't need to decide one way or the other at this time.
Curiously, what the Santa\StNick issue showed was that there was a real event, a real person, and that subsequent folklore, legend, myth and fiction were added. Thus it is logical to assume a real event for any similar persona.
Thus the problem for you is that this demonstrates a real origin for such stories, and therefore - for you to support your argument - it is up to you to demonstrate that such a real origin for portrayals of god/s are not due to the actual existence of such beings.
Once we have actually addressed the issue of the existence or non-existence of god/s, then we can return to discussing Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or any other member of folklore, tradition, myth, legend, fairy tale. Until that time, such a discussion does not address the issue and only serves to disctract from the issue.
You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa "does not, or can not exist". You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa is logically "impossible".
Agreed, but I thought that was relatively evident. What was shown was that the whole entire story of Santa\StNick was not made up, but rather that it was based on a core reality. Thus it is logical to assume a core reality for similar situations, and logically this means considering the possibility that god/s do, or can, exist.
Which part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
The part where this actually shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Again, I thought that this was relatively evident.
Proving that all the known current and past maps of a mountain are made up representations, some with wildly inaccurate portrayals, some with rather vague descriptions, some cartoonish, and some more accurate than others (but still not capturing the essence of the mountain), ... proving that all of these known maps are actually made up representations, no matter how accurate they are, does not show that the mountain does not exist.
What part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
Now, I may seem to be obtuse, but this looks to me like a clear claim that he does not believe in the actuality of gods, AND that this claim is based on the perceived absence of evidence for god/s.
Yup. It's pretty clear. Straggler does not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. Exactly what I said earlier in Message 252.
quote:Message 258 We were talking about Straggler's position in the quoted post. Putting Straggler's quoted words in the above form I get:
Now, I may seem to be obtuse, but this looks to me like a clear claim that he does not believe in the actuality of gods, AND that this claim is based on the perceived absence of evidence for god/s. I don't see any "wiggle room" in those statements.
Straggler does not believe in the actuality of god/s. This is not a passive lack of belief, but an active disbelief.
Now I realize that this is not your statement nor your claim, what it is, rather, is evidence that he bases his belief about the non-actuality (absence) of god/s on the lack of evidence of god/s.
When you can put the ... through your silly formula ...
When you can refute the issue, rather than use more logical fallacies in reply, then I might start taking you seriously again.
Failure to respond in any way to the logical analysis, the analysis that shows your position is logically false and invalid, does not mean that it is silly, rather it implies that you are completely and totally unable to come up with any other answer.
Enjoy.
ps - still a deist. Deists must, almost by definition, be agnostic for the most part:
quote:deism (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-) n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
This rather assumes that evidence will not be forthcoming eh? And by logical analysis we see that the best one can derive logically is the possibility of god/s, and a "3" position is the most that can be defended by logic and reason.
™ Version 4.2
