Pseudoskepticism and logic

I didn't mean that kind of "know". I meant, how could I tell? Don't you think its silly that you have to resort to "empirically undetectable entity", something that couldn't have been there in the first place, in order to justify your claim that one is evidently more possible to the other? Doesn't that even suggest to you that your position is flawed? That you have to bust out your favorite tautology, either you could have sense it or you couldn't have sensed it, to make the point? Yeah, because you must argue against a non-ballpark in order to have your point.

The OP sets up the discussion and we go from there. For the purpose of this discussion, having the default be non-existence is what pseudoskepticism is. True skepticism is agnosticism. If you disagree with the OP, then its up to you to do the justification.

Nuh-uh!

Actually, my scenario had nothing to do with gods in the first place. For a single isolated experience (the scenario I brought up), yes.

NO! not necessarily. The challenge is to disporve anything you hold a negetive claim for.You were the first person to mention god in this thread. They're both none. As in, we don't have objective evidence for me hearing either one of those things.

---

Heh, if you were in a full church then god's existing would be mundane as well

Not always. Well that's where we get to the point that people take a negetive claim towards those things in the absense of sufficient evidence. I'm just playin' Like the position that a lack of objective evidence means that the thing is made-up. And that when we lack sufficient information to assign possibilities then the default position should be that of not knowing over tkaing the negetive claim.

Hey, combing posts here.From Message 307: Alrighty then. Oh come on, you know about that woo-woo. You should know:

quote:

---

Heaven is in a cow's ass.

---

Why does being asked a question necessitate an assumption?Does schwag exist?What have I assumed there? If people aren't taking a negetive position, then there's no issue with the OP. To that question I would answer: "I don't know."I would not answer: "No." because I lack sufficient information make a claim. That's the point of the topic.From Message 308What premise? That people who hold a negetive claim without sufficient evidence are pseudoskeptics? Its not like it isn't in the dictionary Why? And not dealing with the claim would be being agnostic towards it.I get your point though. I'm just saying that its not out of line with the OP. I don't think the OP needs god to be defined to remain sound.

I was directly responding to this:

quote:

---

You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.

---

Message 227I think we do. I don't know how the fuck this dog came in, but the masses of information about the human proclivity to erroneously attribute things and experiences that they don't understand to the supernatural is not sufficient to discount the reasons for the beliefs in god as being imaginary enough to claim that it is more likely that god does not exist.And this is where you would bring forth the evidence and we would hash it out, if we were inclined, in a thread where that was the topic, kinda like where Rahvin tried earlier, in Message 141, where he responded to this:

quote:

---

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.

---

If my argument looks blatantly silly, then its most likely that either I am being silly or you are misunderstanding me. No, I am not, as you can see from the clarification above. ridiculing the strawman, tsk tsk Not a problem. I've agreed to this before.

You don't know if schwag exists or not, do you? Why don't you want to claim that it doesn't?And what assumption(s) have I made by asking?But of course it has meaning, and I think Oni knows what it is.

{None on-topic part of message hidden. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : None on-topic part of message hidden.

Phage brought up the null hypothesis in Message 277.Along the lines of: The penis-lover also has claimed that atheism is not actually a negetive hypothesis.Neither "the null hypothesis" nor "atheism not being a negetive claim" have anything to do with this thread.So what gives?