Pseudoskepticism and logic

The most recent message you supply the list, therefore I reply to that message.I would file myself somewhere around 6 - Now you are looking for "proof" of why I hold this position. I hold this position because I find no reason to hold the opposing position. I find there to be a total lack of evidence for God's existence.Now of course, this falls into the category of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".In the fossil evidence debate, creationists raise the point of the lack of transitionals fossil evidence. To which one reply could be that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But in that case it is not a total lack of evidence situation. Rather is is a gap in a chain of evidence. Such gaps are to be expected, and it is also expected that at least some of the gaps will later be filled. Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be legitimate.For God on the other hand, there is not the situation of being gaps in a chain of evidence. There is a total lack of what I would find to be compelling evidence. Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be illegitimate. The phrase mutates into "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".Moose

I'm not sure you can prove a reason. That doesn't seem to make syntactical sense to me. I can certainly provide a reason, justify that reason and explain it. I certainly ask 2's to provide their reason and may occasionally attempt to show potential problems with it, but I won't ask them for proof.If their reason is something like 'faith', I'll probably criticize it as a non-answer to the challenge in question. I'm not sure why you think they should be a 5 rather than a 6, could you do me the courtesy of explaining why, given the words I used, it follows that one should be a 5? Could you explain why someone who says, 'I cannot know for certain' is being 'too certain'? Could you explain how their concession that they do not know for certain renders them unqualified for the title, 'agnostic'?

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have a topic?
If it isn't that, then what is it? Just what are you trying to say?

---

​

see Message 1

---

See Message 10If we're just going to repeat the same call-and-response, then we aren't going to get anywhere. What part of "attempts to be so general that no actual statement was made" are you having trouble with?What is it you want to discuss?Be specific.

quote:

---

Curiously, I am surprised to see the appeal to popularity from you, Rrhain.

---

Huh? What "appeal to authority"? I didn't say anybody was right. I simply said everybody agreed. You do understand the difference, yes? You seem to be trying to pick a fight, essentially saying that there are some people who want to be able to deny other people's points without providing justification for said denial.I'm simply pointing out that you'll have a hard time getting any takers for such a discussion. Everybody agrees that negative claims are claims nonetheless and thus require justification.Do you have evidence to the contrary? It would help if you could be specific. Who thinks negative claims need no justification?

quote:

---

You should also know that claiming that buckets of evidence exists is not the same as showing what that evidence is: that is the kind of argument one gets from creationists.

---

Indeed.Do you have any evidence that anybody here disagrees with the concept of having to provide justification for negative claims?So far, all you've done is insult Straggler for something he doesn't advocate.What is it you want to discuss?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

My "probably a product of human invention" atheism is not based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Rather it is based on the objective evidence available. The same evidence in favour of the human ability and proneness to invention which strangely you also implicitly rely upon whenever you dismiss the Immaterial Pink Unicorn (or any other such unknowable and irrefutable concept) as "obviously made-up". With regard to any given god concept there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. Either it is a product of the human mind. Or it is a real entity. That the god concept in question could be a product of the human mind is evidenced beyond any doubt whatsoever. The possibility that said immaterial entity could be real is a completely objectively unevidenced claim. Really? Then explain what are your reasons. Be very specific. Don't just say "it is obviously made up". What facts underly this "obviousness". If the proven ability of humans to invent such concepts is not a requirement for your answer with regard to the IPU then what is? If it is a requirement (indeed THE main requirement) then what exactly are you disagreeing with? Really? Explanation of the unknown? Higher purpose? Companionship? Comfort? What very human needs, desires, wants and fears are met by spiritual beliefs CS? Are these not a motivation to unconsciously create answers? Possibly irrefutable answers......? How? What is different? Be specific.

Well the Immaterial Pink Unicorn was designed specifically to counter the sort of argument you are citing. The fact you do not like the IPU and cannot counter it's negation of your position does not make it off topic. But I will rephrase my question to avoid the "IPU is off-topic" evasion tactic:Can you demonstrate how atheism rather than agnosticism with regard to any inherently irrefutable entity that you deem to be "absurd", "ridiculous" or otherwise worthy of your own dis-belief (e.g. but not necessarily the IPU) can be justified by the criteria you are insisting upon?If you cannot then why do you think your criteria are valid? Or are you agnostic with respect to absoluetly every conceivable irrefutable entity?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The notion of an undefined immaterial "something" is as meaningless as ICANT's notion of indefinable physical "nothingness". These are just meaningless collections of words.

But its not that ability and proneness to invention that leads me to believe the IPU was made-up. Its the websites and absurdity of the claims that suggest it. I disagree. A person could be describing a real entity and also add specifics that are a product of their mind. How could an immaterial entity's possibility of existing be directly objectively evidenced?Indirectly though, and this makes the claim not completely unevidence; Most people do believe in god and it is more likely that a god exists than all those poeple being deluded. This is objective and suggests a possibility of god existing. The websites and the absurdity. That the ability is the main requirement. They could be but we were talking apecifically about the god I believe in which was arrived at without those 'very human needs, desires, wants and fears'. Because you're using the human ability to invent to justify disbelief in gods and I'm not using that for the IPU, and because my god concept is not something that is easily made-up. As I said in Message 58:

quote:

---

None of your justification for atheism towards the IPU are applicable to the god that I believe in.

---

Its simply a different plea.

At first I was going to ignore this topic, especially after the first page of "Ah, Straggler, I've been expecting you..." nonsense.Then I was going to write an absurdly long post on the subject.But now I'm cranky.This whole thread is a strawman. Which atheist here has claimed that god(s) definitely don't exist?Atheism, for me and many others has absolutely nothing to do with claiming that god(s) do not exist.Instead, I simply recognize that incorporating a bare assertion into your worldview without any sort of evidence to back it up is irrational. Since every single concept of god(s) that has ever been proposed is in fact a bare assertion without any sort of evidence to back it up, positive belief in god(s) is irrational.I could go on again about how the human mind manufactures what it wants to believe (confirmation bias, altered of completely made-up memories, filled-in details for incomplete sensory data, emotional reactions, etc) and so it is more likely under the principle of parsimony that such mundane, known-to-exist phenomenon are the cause of god concepts instead of the leap that such extraordinary claims might actually be valid.But I don't need to, because I'm not making a negative claim. I didn't claim that god(s) don't exist.Theists claimed that god(s) do exist. I simply said "I see no reason to believe you."I don't claim knowledge. I don't know that Yahweh doesn't exist. I don't know that Wigwah, Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Waggoo, Quetzallcoatl, Jupiter, Santa, Darth Vader, Toilet Trolls, Immaterial Pink Unicorns, fairies, goblins, or Q don't exist. I've never claimed otherwise.I simply don't incorporate such assertions into my worldview because I see no reason to do so without objective evidence. That makes me a de-facto Atheist, and at the same time an Agnostic...all without making a negative claim. I would put such a description at a "6" on the scale.This entire thread is nothing more than a strawman, requiring that Atheists make the assertion that god(s) definitely do not exist. That's not the way it works, for any Atheist I've known. We don't know - we can't. The very nature of non-reproducible, unconfirmable, unfalsifiable claims that we criticize so much prevents us from being able to make such an assertion. Atheism is not about making claims, but rather recognizing which claims are irrational and not incorporating those claims into one's worldview.Since you seem so offended at the perception that Straggler has misrepresented your position, RAZD, perhaps you should find a house that is not made of glass?

Oh for Christs sake CS how much could you miss the point? If I send you to a website that tells us all gods are made up is that evidence that they are all made up? Hurrah! I don't need an argument just an appropriate Wiki entry.Pick any irrefutable "absurd" entity you like. Ideally one that doesn't have a wiki page that "proves" it isn't real. As long as you are effectively an atheist towards it the point is the same. You seem to be only saying that my atheism is unjustified towards X. Unless X is defined I don't know what you are talking about and I don't think you do either. I disagree. The commonality of human psychology is an objectively evidenced possible answer for this. The actual existence of gods remains objectively unevidenced. Based on the objective evidence alone which is the superior answer? Are we? I didn't realise. But OK. I am a "very probably a human invention" atheist towards your god (as much as I think I know what we both mean by 'your god'). Are you telling me that based on the objective evidence alone this is not the rationaly justified conclusion for me to make? And are you telling me that your god fulfils no needs in your life at all? This seems contradictory so what did you mean here? On what basis are you atheistic towards the IPU (or the non-wiki-disproved-variant)? Be specific. Well so you assert but I am still none the wiser as to why on the basis of the objective evidence alone I should be anything but a "very probably a human invention" atheist with relation to your god for all the same reasons that I cited for my equivalent atheism towards the IPU. On what objectively evidenced basis are they different?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But I'm not going to effectively be an atheist towards it... X = a nondescript god
!X = specific gods that are likely, or shown to be, the product of human invention I think its unlikely for so many people to have been so wrong. No, because I think it falls into the agnostic position that I have been advocating as the rational one since the beginning. Oops, sorry, I see the ambiguity now. I was answering "what exactly are you disagreeing with?" I was disagree with you that the ability to invent is the main requirement for my disbelief in the IPU. Do you really put the IPU on the level of "very probably a human invention" or do you actually take it as far as to say that you're certain, albeit not absolutely, that the IPU doesn't exist?Because it really seems that you're retreating a little here, and allowing for more possibility of god existing, and bringing yourself into the realm of agnosticism that I've been advocating the whole time.

Given no compelling reason why your definition of god is any better than another, I would have to say your logic follows. Then the question is how stringent your requirements of my qualifications would be for you to be convinced. Is there anyone who would be qualified to convince you one way or the other, or have you locked yourself into 3-5 on the scale by definition? There are some things that you *must* assume. For instance, when you jump you cannot be sure that you will come down. It is not a *fact* because you cannot possibly have experimented in the future. You appear to be claiming that jumping with the expectation of coming down is illogical because you (or anyone else) cannot possibly be qualified to state it as a fact.

Wow! You mean that pink elephant was real? « Oldster's View

But you do. You think they are all entirely wrong regarding the specifics. You seem as atheistic to the specifics of past believed immaterial entities (fertility gods, fire demons, sea gods, Zeus, Thor, Apollo etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) as I am. You just retranslate their beliefs as consistent with a belief in "something". And thus cite it as evidence of "something".But The notion of an undefined immaterial "something" is as meaningless as ICANT's notion of indefinable physical "nothingness". These are just meaningless collections of words. Well if retreating is being entirely consistent with what I initially said then maybe so. With the dredging up of old posts in mind I refer to the following: I continue to maintain that with regard to any defined god concept a degree of "very probable human invention" is the rational objectively evidenced conclusion. A conclusion that is not the same as either "absence of evidence is evidence is evidence of absence" or "IF SOME THEN ALL".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To get back to the topic and to highlight exactly why it is that the IPU is a logical argument at least...........If RAZD cannot apply the criteria he himself has stipulated to demonstrate that a high degree of atheism is justified with regard to something that we all seem to agree is almost certainly a human invention then he cannot legitimately request that others meet these criteria with respect to "negative evidence" against anything more contentious.Can he?

Can you supply the objective evidence you promised, Straggler?Can you?THAT is the topic, straggler - providing evidence for your negative hypothesis, so you can demonstrate that you are not a pseudoskeptic. Amusingly that is NOT the topic, so all you have demonstrated so far is that you cannot provide promised evidence, cannot stick to the topic and try to misrepresent the topic.The topic is providing evidence for your negative hypothesis, so you can demonstrate that you are not a pseudoskeptic.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •