Pseudoskepticism and logic

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.

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 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?

Are you actually denying that the possibility that any given god concept could be a human invention is an objectively evidenced fact?

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 god is real is a completely objectively unevidenced claim. My "probably a product of human invention" atheism is thus not based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Rather it is based on the objective evidence available.The same evidence 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". Are you actually denying that the possibility that any given god concept could be a human invention is an objectively evidenced fact? Yes or no?If you don't actually explicitly answer this question I will take it as a "no". A "no" that you won't actually admit to because it rather destroys your argument.If you answer "yes" then we can start looking at the evidence for this. Evidence that is accepted by everyone it seems but you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Irrelevant. The possibility that any specific god concept could be entirely a product of the human mind alone remains untouched. Do you doubt the human capacity to invent gods? Do I need to go through the pointless exerceise of inventing a host of mutually exclusive gods? (of which by definition only one could have been divinely inspired and thus unwitttingly "revealed" rather than invented by me). "The concept"? What concept CS? What do you mean? How can you believe in something if you don't know what it is you are believing in? Isn't this just nonsensical? You seem as athestic as me (possibly more so) about pretty much every god concept that has actually been defined in these discussions. If you are instead advocating some notion of a wholly undefined immaterial "something" then that is as meaningless as ICANT's notion of indefinable physical "nothingness". These are just meaningless collections of words. Sigh. Again. That isn't what I am saying. It isn't about having disproven that anything exists. It is about weighing up the evidence for the competing possibilities. Is it possible that any given god concept actually exists? Yes. Is it objectively evidenced? No. Is it possible that any given god concept is a human invention? Yes. Is the capacity for human invention objectively evidenced? Yes. Do the math and voilla we have a degree of objectively evidenced "probably human invention" rational atheism with regard to any given god concept. My position in a simplistic nutshel. Which argument? That belief in something completely undefined is rationally justified? I don't see how you can believe in "something" if you don't know what it is you believe in. Can you explain this to me?

I apologise for the overly aggressive spirit of my last post. I am having a bad day. Having just read it I think it was overly antagonistic.And you are stil free to call me whatever you want BTW

It is not a false dichotomy. Gods, all gods, the very concept of gods itself is either entirely a human invention or is derived from the actual detected existence of "something" godly that you point blank refuse to define.This "something" is it materially undetectable, supernatural and inherently objectively unknowable?If not then you are simply saying that there are potentially aspects of nature which we don't understand (and may indeed never know). Nobody will disagree with this and most would not call such potential unknowns 'god' anyway.If yes then all the indications are that what you are proposing is simply an extrapolated version of Zeus, Odin, Djinn, Kagutsuchi, Allah, Christ etc. etc. Extrapolated to a point of entirely irrefutable and utterly pointless ambiguity. The ultimate god of the ultimate gap.And if you are going to cite commonality of belief and experience in favour of a supernatural immaterial "something" ask yourself these questions: Is this commonality of belief and experience possibly the result of universally shared aspects of evolved human psychology? Or is this commonality of belief and experience an indication that "something" supernatural does exist in an immaterial reality that has somehow inexplicably been non-empirically detected? Which of these two possibilities is objectively evidenced? Which is not? Which, based on the objective evidence alone, is the most evidenced and rational conclusion?We can squabble over the degree of doubt that is justified until the cows come home. But the botttom line here is that my "probably human invention" atheistic position is not based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as RAZD relentlessly asserts. It is based on the weighing up of the objective evidence available. The objective evidence in favour of any given god concept actually existing (i.e. absolutely none) versus the objective evidence in favour of the possibility that gods are human inventions (i.e. the indisputable fact of our ability to invent and create such concepts). My position is based on the available facts.Thus I am not a "pseudoskeptic". Are you saying that the existence of birds is not objectively evidenced? Either directly or indirectly? If so I disagree.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you cannot and will not deny the objectively evidenced fact that gods could just be an entirely made-up human construct. But that isn't what I said. I have never once denied that gods are possibly real. Stop lying about me.The possibility that humans have invented the very concept of supernatural gods, the capacity for human invention itself, is an objectively evidenced fact. You are unable to deny this.The possibility that any supernatural immaterial god concept at all actually exists in reality remains wholly objectively unevidenced.Based on the objective evidence alone a degree of atheistic doubt is thus inevitable. To do otherwise, to adopt a "It's 50-50 I just don't know" agnostic position, is a denial of the objective evidence available.Thus a degree of atheism is justified on the objective evidence alone and thus I am not a pseudoskeptic. Case closed. Stop being a prick RAZ. My position is that gods are more likely human inventions than real entities NOT that they could not possibly exist.

Well if RAZD is going to be a bloody minded pedant and require evidence for the possibility that god concepts could be a human invention, if he is going to insist upon evidence for the capacity for human invention, then so be it. I suggest he starts in the fiction section of his local library and work his way through that first. Then when he has finished with that evidence for the ability of humans to create concepts in general we can consider some examples of gods and other things here too.Before he embarks on his quest to establish the human capacity for invention I would ask RAZD which god concepts cited by humanity he thinks could not possibly be a human invention? Either established ones or ones that I or anyone else can come up with here? I suspect he won't answer this because her agrees that there aren't any.In the meantime here are a few concepts that I think we can all agree possibly are human inventions (let me know if not). How many do I need to cite (Vs the expected none that could NOT have been invented) before we all agree that the possibility that humans can invent gods is objectively evidenced? This could be a stupidly long thread......Arianrod Nuada Argetlam
Morrigu Tagd
Govannon Goibniu
Gunfled Odin
Dagda Ogma
Ogryvan Marzin
Dea Dia Mara
Iuno Lucina Diana of Ephesus
Saturn Robigus
Furrina Pluto
Cronos Vesta
Engurra Zer-panitu
Belus Merodach
Ubilulu Elum
U-dimmer-an-kia Marduk
U-sab-sib Nin
U-Mersi Persephone
Tammuz Istar
Venus Lagas
Beltis Nirig
Nusku En-Mersi
Aa Assur
Sin Beltu
Apsu Kuski-banda
Elali Nin-azu
Mami Qarradu
Zaraqu Ueras
Zagaga* Bao A Qu (Malay) - Entity that lives in the Tower of Victory in Chitor
* Aatxe (Basque) - Spirit that takes the form of a bull
* Abassy (Yakuts) - Demons that have teeth of iron
* Abada (African) - Small type of unicorn reported to live in the lands of the African Congo
* bd (Tatar) - Forest spirit
* Abaia (Melanesian) - Huge magical eel
* Abarimon (Medieval Bestiaries) - Savage humanoid with backward feet
* Abath (Malay) - One-horned animal
* Abatwa (Zulu) - Little people that ride ants
* Abura-bō (Japanese) - Spectral fire from Shiga Prefecture, in which the shape of a monk can often be seen
* Abura-sumashi (Japanese) - creature from a mountain pass in Kumamoto Prefecture
* Acephali (Greek) - Headless humanoids
* Acheri (Indian) - Disease-bringing ghost
* Achiyalabopa (Puebloan) - Rainbow-feathered birds
* Achlis (Roman) - Curious elk
* Adar Llwch Gwin (Welsh) - Giant birds that understand human languages
* Adaro (Solomon Islands) - Malevolent merfolk
* Adhene (Manx) - Nature spirit
* Adlet (Inuit) - Vampiric dog-human hybrid
* Adroanzi (Lugbara) - Nature spirit
* Adze (Ewe people) - African vampiric forest being
* Aerico (Macedonian) - Disease demon
* Afanc (Welsh) - Lake monster (exact lake varies by story)
* Agathodaemon (Greek) - Spirit of vinefields and grainfields
* Agloolik (Inuit) - Ice spirit that aids hunters and fishermen
* Agogwe (East Africa) - Small, ape-like humanoid
* Ahkiyyini (Inuit) - Animated skeleton that causes shipwrecks
* Ahuizotl (Aztec) - Anthropophagous dog-monkey hybrid
* Aigamuxa (Khoikhoi) - Anthropophagous humanoid with eyes in its instep
* Aigikampoi (Etruscan) - Fish-tailed goat
* Aigamuxa (Khoikhoi) - Man-eating Ogres
* Aitu (Polynesian) - Malevolent spirits or demons
* Aitvaras (Lithuanian) - Household spirit
* Ajatar (Finnish) - Dragon
* Akabeko (Japanese) - Red cow involved in the construction of Enzō-ji in Yanaizu, Fukushima
* Akamataa (Japanese) - Snake spirit from Okinawa
* Akateko (Japanese) - Tree-dwelling monster
* Akhlut (Inuit) - Orca-wolf shapeshifter
* Akka (Finnish) - Female spirits or minor goddesses
* Akki (Japanese) - Large, grotesque humanoid
* Akkorokamui (Ainu) - Sea monster
* Akuma (Japanese) - Evil spirit
* Akupara (Hindu) - Giant turtle that supports the world
* Akurojin-no-hi (Japanese) - Ghostly flame which causes disease
* Al (Armenian and Persian) - Spirit that steals unborn babies and livers from pregnant women
* Ala (Slavic) - Bad weather demon
* Alal (Chaldean) - Demon
* Alan (Philippine) - Winged humanoid that steals reproductive waste to make children
* Al Basti (Turkish) - Female night-demon
* Alce (Heraldic) - Wingless griffin
* Alicanto (Chilean) - Bird that eats gold and silver
* Alicorn - Technically a unicorn's horn. In modern times is commonly misapplied to winged unicorns
* Alkonost (Slavic) - Angelic bird with human head and breasts
* Allocamelus (Heraldic) - Ass-camel hybrid
* Allu (Akkadian and Sumerian) - Faceless demon
* Almas (Mongolian) - Savage humanoid
* Al-mi'raj (Islamic) - One-horned rabbit
* Aloja (Catalan) - Female water spirit
* Alom-bag-winno-sis (Abenaki) - Little people and tricksters
* Alp (German) - Male night-demon
* Alphyn (Heraldic) - Lion-like creature, sometimes with dragon or goat forelegs
* Alp-luachra (Irish) - Parasitic fairy
* Al Rakim (Islamic) - Guard dog of the Seven Sleepers
* Alseid (Greek) - Grove nymph
* Al (Assyrian) - Leprous demon
* Alux (Mayan) - Little people
* Amaburakosagi (Japanese) - Ritual disciplinary demon from Shikoku
* Amala (Tsimshian) - Giant who holds up the world
* Amamehagi (Japanese) - Ritual disciplinary demon from Hokuriku
* Amanojaku (Japanese) - Small demon
* Amarok (Inuit) - Giant wolf
* Amarum (Quechua) - Water boa spirit
* Amazake-babaa (Japanese) - Disease-causing hag
* Amemasu (Ainu) - Lake monster
* Amorōnagu (Japanese) - Tennyo from the island of Amami Ōshima
* Amphiptere (Heraldic) - Winged serpent
* Amphisbaena (Greek) - Serpent with a head at each end
* Anakim (Jewish) - Giant
* Androsphinx (Ancient Egyptian) - Human-headed sphinx
* Angel (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Zoroastrian) - Heavenly being, usually depicted as a winged humanoid.
* Angha (Persian) - Dog-lion-peacock hybrid
* Ani Hyuntikwalaski (Cherokee) - Lightning spirit
* Ankou (French) - Skeletal grave watcher with a lantern and a scythe.
* Anmo (Japanese) - Ritual disciplinary demon from Iwate Prefecture
* Antaeus (Greek) - A giant who was extremely strong as long as he remained in contact with the ground
* Antero Vipunen (Finnish) - Subterranean giant
* Ao Ao (Guaran) - Anthropophagous peccary or sheep
* Aobōzu (Japanese) - Blue monk who kidnaps children
* Apkallu (Sumerian) - Fish-human hybrid that attends the god Enki
* Apsaras (Buddhist and Hindu) - Female cloud spirit
* Aqrabuamelu (Akkadian) - Human-scorpion hybrid
* Ardat-Lili (Akkadian) - Disease demon
* Argus Panoptes (Greek) - Hundred-eyed giant
* Arikura-no-baba (Japanese) - Old woman with magical powers
* Arimaspi (Greek) - One-eyed humanoid
* Arion (Greek) - Extremely swift horse with a green mane and the power of speech
* Arkan Sonney (Manx) - Fairy hedgehog
* Asag (Sumerian) - Hideous rock demon
* Asakku (Sumerian) - Demon
* Asanbosam (West Africa) - Iron-toothed vampire
* Asena (Turkic) - Blue-maned wolf
* A-senee-ki-wakw (Abenaki) - Stone-giant
* Ashi-magari (Japanese) - Invisible tendril that impedes movement
* Asiman (Dahomey) - Vampiric possession spirit
* Askefrue (Germanic) - Female tree spirit
* Ask-wee-da-eed (Abenaki) - Fire elemental and spectral fire
* Asobibi (Japanese) - Spectral fire from Kōchi Prefecture
* Aspidochelone (Medieval Bestiaries) - Island-sized whale or sea turtle
* Asrai (English) - Water spirit
* Astomi (Hindu) - Humanoid sustained by pleasant smells instead of food
* Aswang (Philippine) - Carrion-eating humanoid
* Atomy (English) - Surprisingly small creature
* Ato-oi-kozō (Japanese) - Invisible spirit that follows people
* Atshen (Inuit) - Anthropophagous spirit
* Auloniad (Greek) - Pasture nymph
* Avalerion (Medieval Bestiary) - King of the birds
* Awa-hon-do (Abenaki) - Insect spirit
* Axex (Ancient Egyptian) - Falcon-lion hybrid
* Ayakashi (Japanese) - Sea-serpent that travels over boats in an arc while dripping oil
* Ayakashi-no-ayashibi (Japanese) - Spectral fire from Ishikawa Prefecture
* Aziza (Dahomey) - Little people that help hunters
* Azukiarai (Japanese) - Spirit that washes azuki beans along riversides
* Azukibabaa (Japanese) - Bean-grinding hag who devours people
* Azukitogi (Japanese) - Spirit that washes azuki beans along riversides
(and that's just the A's. Take a look at this long list of things)Stolen from Message 123Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. You misunderstand. You seem resolutely determined to consider my argument only in the most specific of terms whilst making your own arguments in the most ambiguous of terms conceivable. This seems like a debating tactic. So lets stick to generics on both sides from now on.Is it a possibility that the very concept of supernatural immaterial god(s) itself is entirely a human construct (based on misinterpretation of perfectly natural phenomenon for example) and that no such supernatural immaterial "somethings" actually exist in reality at all? Could this logically be true?Is it a possibility that immaterial supernatural god(s) actually exist? Could this logicaly be true?Are these two possibilities mutually exclusive?
Are either of these two possibilities objectively evidenced? If so which one? That is just silly. Birds are material entities empirically and objectively known to exist. Telling me you have seen a bird is just evidentially incomparable to saying you have experienced an immaterial and ambiguously undefined godly "something" that cannot actually be "seen" and that nobody can ever possibly agree upon because it is inherently unknowable What false dichotomy? The very concept of god(s) is either a human invention or it isn't. It cannot be both.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In your case I don't really doubt that. But conscious or otherwise the comparison of highly particular specifics on one side with the most ambiguous of generics on the other is not a fair comparison or method of debate. Yes we do. We agree. No of course it doesn't. On that we also agree.But if one possibility is objectively evidenced and the other is not which is the rational one to go with? Sorry. I tend to bang out responses and then amend after reading back. It is a very flawed methodology on my part. I acknowledge that. It could be. Or it could be wholly invented. Either way "something" supernatural and immaterial either exists or it does not. Again, no. At this point I am attempting to be 100% generic on the basis that I feel you keep misinterpreting my argument everytime I give any specific example. With that in mind:Is it an objectively evidenced fact that humans create false concepts? Is it an objectively evidenced fact that the very concept of immaterial supernatural "god(s)" (whatever it is you mean by that) could be entirely a product of the human mind?Conversely is there any objective evidence in favour of the possibility that immaterial supernatural "god(s)" (whatever you mean by that) actually exist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well my current understanding (and that of Adminmooseus as well I think Message 117) of RAZD's position is that RAZD is indeed requesting evidence of this fact.If he isn't then I don't understand what evidence it is he keeps challenging me specifically to present.