Pseudoskepticism and logic

Do you seriously doubt the capacity of the human mind to invent the entire concept of supernatural gods? Why?Why does the commonality you speak of not suggest a commonality of human psychology? A commonality of need for explanation or higher purpose? An explanation for desires, wants, needs. emotional support, etc. etc. etc. etc..........Explain to me how the possibility that the very concept of immaterial supernatural god(s) is better and more objectively evidentially explained by the actual existence of said immaterial and non-empirical entities than it is by the possibility of human misinterpretation and invention?It seems obvious to me but apparently I am missing something. What is that "something" if it is not just unevidenced faith?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think this is a great analogy. And I would thus be interested to hear the views of the theist/diest contingent in this thread regarding this matter.

RAZD's point seems to be that "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism should be the defualt position with regard to any otherwise completely unevidenced claim. This is a ridiculous position requiring as much evidence as any alternative.My point is that in the absence of any other evidence whatsoever the evidence in favour of human invention takes precedence. Curiously the exact same evidence that you or RAZD implicitly apply when you describe the Immaterial Pink Unicorn or the god Mookoo (or any other such inherently irrefutable entity) as "obviously made-up".How many gods do I need to cite before you accept the fact that all gods, indeed the very concept of immaterial supernatural gods itself, is very possibly a human invention?

Until RAZD defines what he means by "god(s)" nobody will ever know. I am not holding my breath................ Nor do I as long as there is some mechanism that allows said "force" to be potentially objectively knowable in principle. If said "force" is some aspect of nature as yet unknown then (rationally or otherwise) I might even go so far as to say I think it more probable than not!! Thus I, the arch atheist apparent, am less of an atheist than you with regard to this at least it seems. England are in the World Cup. I was at Wembley itself for the Croatia game. I am not only still hungover from that night, nearly two weeks ago, I fear I am still inebriated from that game.Uraguay. Hah! We won but nobody cares anyway! INGGEERRRRLAND INGEEEERRRLLLAAND!So when are you coming across the pond? I am meeting Mod this weekend which is very exciting. My first ever EvC (indeed my first ever internet) meetup.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You constantly accuse me of not paying attention or listening to your points. And yet you persistently and relentlessly refuse to anwer my explicit questions regarding your position.On the basis of the objective evidence alone is "probably human invention" atheism a justifiable rational conclusion? If not whay not. Be specific. If you search all threads on EvC in which atheism is mentioned you will find that RAZD plays a prominent role without ever specifying what it is he is saying atheists are not rationally justified in not believing in.His "absence of evidence" assertions are nonsense until he specifies what it is he is actually talking about.I too am curious about how Zen fits into anything but I have no doubt that RAZD will tell us this is "Off-Topic" because he does not wish to discuss his beliefs. God forbid he might have to pin himself to an actual position rather than what he doesn't believe in.

I think the fundamental difference between the two sides in this never-ending series of threads boils down to this question.The atheists assume without further thought that human invention is so evidenced as to be unnecessary to actually cite evidence for. It is the default position. In the absence of any other objective evidence, direct or indirect, it is implicitly assumed without any further thought being given to the situation.The deists/theists on the other hand seem to consider the "It's 50-50 I just don't know" as the rational position in the absence of any other stated evidence. They too do this without any further justification or thought.Thus the two sides (and I obviously include myself here) relentlessly talk at cross purposes throughout.The question is - Which default position is the most evidenced and thus rational? Who are the "pseudoskeptics" in their assumptions? Who are those unwittingly denying objectively evidenced facts in their assumptions? There can be only one.... (to quote Highlander)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The logical position is only "50-50 I just don't know agnosticism" if you deny the vast and overwhelming evidence that humans explain the unexplained with tales of the unexplainable. If you accept this blindingly obvious capacity for human invention then the reality of immaterial supernatural gods becomes so moot as to be irrelevant.I ask again - On the basis of the objective evidence alone is a degree of "probably human invention" atheism justified?

On the basis of the objective evidence alone is a degree of "probably human invention" atheism the rational conclusion with regard to supernatural immaterial gods? Or not?If not why not?

You seem to be citing the fact that people believe "something" as evidence upon which to believe in that "something". Surely this is circular. Well as a scientist what warrants naturalistic explanations and what does not? You seem to be citing the fact that people believe "something" as evidence upon which to believe in that "something". Surely this is circular.If belief is in itself objective evidence of that which is believed surely Santa Claus is one of the most objectively evidenced entities on the planet? I wanna get drunk with you does not mean I agree with you! In fact the reverse in every way is true (i.e. lets get beered up and then have a well meaning fight!) Do you honestly think people would not invent gods whether any supernatural immaterial gods exist or not? I think all of the objective evidence we have overwhelmingly suggets that we would. Feel free to disagree.

None needed. The mutually exclusive alternative possibility is evidenced to an extent that even you cannot deny. The premise of your silly thread is just a giant straw man of your own construction.The fact that your vague and ambiguous deistic god cannot actually be disproven (any more than the Immaterial Pink Unicorn or Mookoo can be disproven) does not detract from the very evidenced possibility that your gods and your immaterial experiences of said gods are internal products of your mind.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes that propensity is evidenced. As is the propensity to see monsters where science finds only windmills (to quote Phat I believe) Nobody is denying this as a possibility. But a far more evidenced possibility is that people are simply mis-interpreting very natural (although maybe not yet understood) phenomenon. Do we as a species not have a long history of invoking the supernatural and then later finding natural answers? Is this trend in fact not itself evidence that our propensity for invoking the supernatural is unhelpful rather than helpful as a means of progressing understanding? Firstly that simplistic assertion is not what is being said. Secondly does not the fact that the supernatural answers people have invoked throughout history have been found wanting in every single instance lead you to conclude that perhaps invoking the supernatural as an answer to anything just may not be the most sensible way forward?

Good grief you got a description of RAZD's deity out of him! Exactly. Biased guessing.I would not go as far as 7 on the Dawkins scale on the basis that he may possibly have guessed correctly. But that is the only reason why. Same with any other such entity.

Just an acknowledgement that evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative exists and is valid would be a start. Actually not really. Well given that you and RAZD are so dissapointed by the "off-topic" responses you are getting how about you lead the way on this. Why don't you or RAZD take an uncontentious example that we are presumably all atheistic towards and then demonstrate to us how you would go about justifying your own negative hypothesis. With this in mind I put it to you that your toilet is full of invisible immaterial ethereal and entirely empirically undetectable toilet goblins. Are you a toilet goblin pseudoskeptic LindaLou?If you cannot lead by example and justify your negative hypothesis towards something we are all uncontentiously atheistic towards then I don't see how you or RAZD can legitimately require anybody else to do so with regard to anything else.Edited by AdminModulous, : fixed quote tags

You may trivialise it but it is an incredibly objectively evidenced fact. Now why people might have cause to invent answers that effectively amount to explaining the unexplainable by invoking the supernatural is a very interesting question. But before we can move forward and ask that question we have to get past the ridiculous assertion that "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is the default position with regard to any otherwise unevidenced claim.We have to get past RAZD's mantra that any form of atheism amounts to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". In short we have to acknowledge that no claim is made in a complete vacuuum of objective evidence. RAZD's silly straw man criteria result in any atheism towards any immaterial or undetectable supernatural claim (yes including immaterial toilet goblins) being classed as "pseudoskepticism". If he (or you) cannot apply the criteria being insisted upon to justify aheism towards something that we all agree is made-up then to require that anybody else meet those criteria is obviously unjustifiable.So the whole premise of the thread is not only a straw man, it is a self defeating straw man. Where is your evidence that immaterial toilet goblins don't exist? Or are you citing the high probablity that they are a human invention and the human ability to create such concepts as evidence against such entities actually existing? Surely not LindaLou?But if so welcome to world of rationality and reason. You old "pseudoskeptic" you.

Then try actually explicitly answering questions rather than evading them all the time. Maybe it is that your position is unjustifiable under scrutiny and questioning? I think this is highly likely. I wish them luck geting any explicit answers out of you. Pots kettles and black all spring to mind. You don't answer questions because you cannot and then you tell me that I am at fault for not understanding your position. I know what your position is. I am just asking you to justify it. With that in mind here are some questions that you have never explicitly answered:

Are you still claiming that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?

​

Are you still claiming that "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is the default position for any wholly objectively unevidenced claim?

​

Can you explain to me why you are not a "pseudoskeptic" in relation to immaterial toilet goblins despite the fact you can offer no evidence as to their non-existence other than evidence in favour of them having been made-up? Which strangely is exactly the same as my position with regard to gods and deities.

​

I won't hold my breath.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.