Pseudoskepticism and logic

What if we compare Native Americans to Imperial Britains?Very different "general concerns" imho, yet they both believe in god. Those isolated tribes in the Amazon would have no problem murdering you...I'm not so sure there is as much continuity as you're alluding to. read: not that well at all. I was comming at it more from the angle of it simply being an objectively unevidenced claim regardless of the history of the reliability of past claims.It was in reply to this:

quote:

---

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.

---

which doesn't take into account the history of making up fake gods.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to use debating tactics or anything. I'm honestly trying to discuss the issue. They're both possible.In order for them to be mutually exclusive, so that you can conclude that one is more probable than the other, we'd have to have objective evidence to suggest that the concepts are entirely human constructs. I don't think we do.We have objective evidence of the possibility of them being invention, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of them being real. Whoa, you edited that while I've been replying with the peek window open. I was all: "where the hell did those words pop up from..."The concept of god could be a combination of actuality and imagination. Something real with aspects of it invented.You're using the fact that some aspects have been shown to be invented to offer a plausibility on the actuality of the thing itself. I don't think it follows.

I don't think so, not entirely.Now, we do have evidence that the specifics of certain concepts are indeed imaginary, but we don't have any objective evidence towards the concepts in their entirety being imaginary.Although, if your just talking about the capability of them being imaginary, then I suppose its possible, but how would that be objectively evidenced? It seems more of a logical deduction.Also, that the concept of god is so prevalent throughout most cultures across time suggests that it is not entirely a product of the human mind.

I suppose. And I think I could go two ways with this...On one hand, I do believe that morality is god-given so, well yeah...On the other hand, there seems to be some kind of unintended emergence of ethics that is outside of the human mind's productive capabilities.Also, haven't they shown that some monkeys also have a kind of ethical system? Suggesting that it evolved before we were human? Are ethics even really a product of the human mind in the first place? Yeah, that's reasonable.I see much more starking similarities that I wouldn't expect and an unexpected lack of major/categorical differences. And I don't feel that "a commonality of human experience and basic thought process" is a good enough explanation. It seems wanting, although its a good start for comming at it from a materialistic perspective.

Ummm...this thread has it defined in the exact opposite way you are using it.Someone who dimisses it because there is no evidence, while not supporting the negetive claim, is defined as a psuedoskeptic, not a skeptic. The skeptic is the one who, because there is no evidence, claims to not know.

I don't know about being a fundamental quality of the universe, and of course its not proof, but yeah, I think it suggests that language is not a product of the human mind.You could easily look at our non-human hominid ancestors and find language to see that it is not. We can even go past homonids and find something-that-could-be-called-language in other genera.Certainly, humans didn't produce the concept, nor the facilitation, of communication as it is something that gradually evolved.Or am I missing the point? Yeah, I must be missing the point. What's so troublesome about that explanation?Can you elaborate?

A little, because basically there's just too much going on there. Although, I could be being too incredulous....And there's also a terminology problem in that I don't see the unintentional gradual emergence of something as invention.Then there's the point of it being the "entire" concept, which I find improbable because from the range from simple to complex subjective experiences that people have had in regards to religions, I doubt that they could all be imaginary. If I was an atheist with a naturalistic approach, I see how these would be palatable explanations... but I'm not. That's a mouthful...How about: No.In the spirit of this thread, you know... providing support for the negetive claim, why don't you explain to me how the possibility that the very concept of immaterial supernatural god(s) is better and more objectively evidentially explained by the possibility of human misinterpretation and invention than it is by the actual existence of said immaterial and non-empirical entities.and don't use some mutually exclusive dicotomy. Show the evidence itself.ABE:Sorry, that was a little snarky. I forgot we were friends now. But I've lost interest (for right now today at least) in always being on the defense in these threads. For this thread, the atheists are suppost to be on the defense but it got turned around anyways.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Then you're not a psuedoskeptic...and that sure sounds like agnosticism to me (at least in the way I use the word). I heard a strange noise in the back yard last night. I was gonna go look to see what it was but because I didn't have any objective evidence I concluded that I made it up Then you don't qualify for psuedoskepticism. The whole point is that there isn't an assumption either way... that agnosticism is the default. That's agnosticism, not atheism. That's just not the way I use the word, but I don't really care enough to argue over what words mean.I don't think you're really arguing against the position in the OP, nor do you qualify as the psuedoskeptic that its against. I think you're using the terminology differently enough to think that you are when you aren't.

Oh god I remember that you like to make up your own definitions for words, like bigotry. I'm not really in the mood for that bullshit.If you're not going to use the definitions set out in the OP then GTFO.

That was my point. How do I know? But we just don't know, do we?

My reply would be: "I don't know." Right, you are in a position of not knowing until further evidence comes along. Okay, so there's our con evidence which changes our answer to: "No, significant other, we should not pack a wrench." The reasons were: "you cannot predict any reason you would use it during the trip" and "It seems completely unnecessary". I think the default position is not knowing if you're going to pack something until you decide if you need it or not. Then you're a psuedoskeptic, as defined by the OP.

Oh okay. So if it was a voice and it said: "I am god and I exist".Now how competent would I be? Oh, so you have evidence that I have, in fact, lied eh? You've jumped to the conclusion that I'm unreliable and dishonest so you're unreasonably ignoring anything I claim. Huh?

Its not. And that fits within agnosticism. But this thread is about atheism that is, not simply withholding a theistic position but, holding the position that god does not exist.In other words, your saying that we don't need to bring a wrench, to which a proper reponse would be: "why not?" Sure you would. You'd decide on what needs to be packed and what doesn't. Then by what evidence are you rejecting the hypothesis? A true skeptic doesn't reject it because of a lack of evidence, at that point they remain at the position of not knowing. A null hypothesis is for stats and it contrasts against another hypothesis. It doesn't fit within the scope of this thread, in which atheism is a claim that god does not exists and unless it is supported by evidence, then the person holding the claim is a psuedoskeptic.

I haven't suggested heaven.... No, I was suggesting that you couldn't know it was an objective phenomenon or not and that concluding that I made it up because we don't know that it was objective is unreasonable.

IMMA combine replies...From Message 285: Thus pseudoskepticism. You fit the definition well.From Message 287Sure, so where's the evidence to determine the likelyhood that god is made-up?