Pseudoskepticism and logic

This is a general reply to all those now climbing onto the "atheism is the null hypothesis" bandwagon in an attempt to show that they don't need to bear the burden of providing logical proofs or substantiating evidence for their claim that the "most likely" explanation is that there are no god/s.Null+hypothesis Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

null hypothesis —noun
(in the statistical testing of a hypothesis) the hypothesis to be tested.

---

Now if someone is actually doing a statistical testing, then there must be some empirical data that has been collected eh?Null hypothesis - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (Ho) formally describes some aspect of the statistical "behaviour" of a set of data. This description is assumed to be valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption. Thus, the null hypothesis is contrasted against another or alternative hypothesis. Statistical hypothesis testing, which involves a number of steps, is used to decide whether the data contradicts the null hypothesis. This is called significance testing. A null hypothesis is never proven by such methods, as the absence of evidence against the null hypothesis does not establish its truth. In other words, one may either reject, or not reject the null hypothesis; one cannot accept it. This means that one cannot make decisions or draw conclusions that assume the truth of the null hypothesis. Just as failing to reject it does not "prove" the null hypothesis, one does not conclude that the alternative hypothesis is dis-proven or rejected, even though this seems reasonable. One simply concludes that the null hypothesis is not rejected.

---

Amusingly, what this means is that if you claim that atheism is the null hypothesis, that then you "cannot make decisions or draw conclusions that assume the truth of the null hypothesis."Curiously, that would mean that the default position would be agnostic. Certainly that would be the case when there is no set of empirical data for testing the hypothesis.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) • • •

Hi Modulus, Thanks. Those that are paying attention can take my response as answering them as well for the repeated points.I am also putting people on notice that I'll be marking posts "noted" when they have not added anything new to the debate and only continue to dodge the issue. I could also say that it is made up - as you have given me less information than people have on religious experiences for justification - but I don't think that argument is worth using to dismiss concepts you don't like. What I would like to see is some basis for calculation that is not confirmation bias. So your default response is that the explanation is almost necessarily false without even knowing what it is? Does this apply to things that we currently don't have the technology to detect? From Susan Blackmore, Message 1:

quote:

---

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, ... but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . "

---

To do science you also need an open mind in order to explore new concepts, and develop testable hypothesis.Curiously, the emphasis some on this thread place on skepticism being doubt and dismissing the element of uncertainty:

quote:

---

skepticism also scepticism (skěp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy
- a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
- b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
- c.A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

---

We are talking Philosophy, and thus uncertainty is more applicable than doubt. This element of uncertainty is stressed by Truzzi when he says that the "true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."Thus the true skeptic agnostic says that the concept of god/s is not proven, not that it is any degree of unlikely.Doubt is not complete enough for the scientific approach: if all new concepts are doubted and dismissed as being most likely wrong before testing even begins, then a lot of valuable science fails to get done. Which explains how such experiences occur, but not necessarily why. You now have a mechanism to explain how, and the next step is to test it, to try to show that this mechanism applies to all religious experiences. Surely (hi Shirley) you would agree that such a positive hypothesis should be tested and supported by empirical study.We also have evidence that Buddhist Monks and Catholic Nuns can develop the same brain patterns via religious practices:Atheist Empire: God and the Brain

quote:

---

Though skeptics may argue that God lives only in the mind of the faithful, Newberg suggests that the opposite conclusion is equally valid: "If there is a God, it makes perfect sense that He would create a way for us to communicate with Him."

---

How, but not why eh?Page not found - Mind & Life Institute

quote:

---

These dialogues on mind and life confront the questions: Are these disciplines simply incompatible, or might they rather be regarded as complementary? Are there scientific ways of testing Buddhist theories and Buddhist ways of testing Western science? This meeting enables experts in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neuroscience, and Buddhist theory and practice to clarify key concepts in neuroscience and Buddhism for the purpose of improving cross-cultural understanding among Buddhist scholars and Western scientists.

---

This is open-minded skepticism, agnosticism at it's best, imho(ysa)o. Then let's use X = religious or spiritual experience for starters. One could measure the "green-ness" of leaves in a forest and determine that each leaf is different from the next, and conclude that being able to pick the "green-est" one would leave (heh) you with at very low probability of picking the right one.However one can look at not only green, but red and brown and yellow leaves and find that the common element that leads to the appearance of green is the chlorophyll. But are you sure that the concept must necessarily be unverifiable/unfalsifiable or that this is just a result, an artifact, of the framing of the question. If you don't have enough evidence to demonstrate a positive or a negative, then you don't know if evidence could mean it is verifiable?Does the fact that "there are no god/s" is a falsifiable hypothesis mean that it is true? Yes, you asserted that this was the case, however I see it as comparable to the creationist "calculation" of the probability of life with the hurricane in the junkyard argument, and I've described reasons why your assumption that they are all distinct and separate concepts is not a valid assumption. Which then must be shown to necessarily apply to all the religious and spiritual experiences, and this has not been tested. And if I say that it is possible that they all have features in common, kernels of commonality, that indicate a possibility or some supernatural or spiritual essence, and thus that they do not disprove the hypothesis that there may be god/s, and that because of this, the claim is not proved rather than disproved, and you have not borne the burden of proof for a negative claim that god/s are "highly unlikely."You are left with agnosticism as the logical conclusion.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) • • •

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?

Hi Stile, The agnostic position is that there is not enough information to discern whether the idea is from imagination or not. See Message 1 again and what Truzzi says about the "true skeptic". Yes the need to provide evidence and substantiation of a positive claim is well established and recognized on this thread.What this thread is about is the equal "burden of proof" for the claim that "X is false" and that without such evidence or logical proof that it is not rational to conclude that "X is false" or even that it is a "better" explanation. And the True Skeptic of Message 1 says that the only rational (and consistent) thing to do is to ignore basing decisions for OR against such propositions. Quintessential agnosticism. Or one could remain unconvinced that any such doubt\fear\hope is sufficiently proven by evidence or logical argument to make a decision. Consider a friend of mine: he says that he is an "apatheist" because "he doesn't know and he doesn't care." Then one should be equally skeptical of claims that the concepts are false. Curiously, I had a similar discussion with Onifre on one of the other threads, and the conclusion was that it was okay to allow the probability that X was true while not feeling encumbered to test it, rather than to dismiss it without any evidence suggesting that it was false. Let those who are interested in the question study it and then if they come up with more evidence then I can revisit it.Notice that this is being both open-minded AND skeptical. And assuming that a claim is false or that it is based on imagination without having sufficient evidence to make that claim is not being rational.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) • • •

Thanks bluegenes, Thanks for admitting this. That makes 4 or 5 (I've lost count, mostly because I don't really care) atheists who have ended up saying this. And the absence of evidence over a 64 million year period means that the Coelacanth did not exist between the time of dinosaurs and the present?Curiously what the absence of evidence is evidence for is the absence of evidence to rationally form a decision.Phage0070 has a similar problem in understanding the agnostic position. The agnostic says that there is not enough evidence to show that a dragon could or could not exist, and that therefore the logical response is to say that it is not proven rather than it is shown to be false. Or that there was a magical invisible chasm that was waiting to trap only me. Did you read my responses?Similar your suggestion of omphalism, which again, is a concept where there is no evidence to base a decision on, so the concept is not proven, and it is not falsified.Or do you have evidence?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) • • •

Hi, RAZD Only if you assume, as many creationists implicitly do when they use its gaps as evidence, that the fossil record is complete. As you know it's very incomplete, I'll leave you to judge the relevance of your comment. I think the mastodon is extinct. It no longer exists. This view is formed entirely on the absence of evidence for its existence, combined with an estimation of the likelihood of it escaping detection in modern times. Same for the mammoth.With principled agnosticism, I'm a 6 on the Dawkins scale on the existence of these two creatures. 6 is "I cannot know for sure, but I think it very unlikely that they're extant". My conclusions can only be based on absence of evidence being evidence for their absence.According to your bizzare way of thinking, that makes me a pseudo-skeptic. Would you like to think again? Proven? Proven? Who suggested that evidence automatically "proves".I have no problem in understanding the real meaning of agnosticism. The agnostic position on dragons is that you cannot know whether they exist or not. The intelligent agnostic then thinks in terms of evidence, not proof, and can make an assessment of likelihood. In the post you replied to, I told you what your position was. It is the same as mine. "6" on the Dawkins scale."I cannot know for sure, but I think it's very unlikely that dragons exist."You see how useful six is? And you think it is pseudo-skeptic.If there's complete absence of positive evidence for a proposition, then the true agnostic skeptic will always start at six. Take any example:Universes are created from the farts of celestial cows.There's zero evidence for this, and therefore no reason to move it ahead of all the other (essentially infinite) propositions that could be made about an area outside our current knowledge, so it's a "six", because we cannot give it a 7, as seven is defined as knowing. If we promote it to a "5" even, we are practising pseudo- skepticism unless we can present support for it. Nearly right, but complete absence of evidence is, in a sense, a non-existent concept, because it becomes evidence for a probability assessment, as I demonstrated with the mastodon. I chose omphalism as an example, because, unlike the efforts of creation science which do not fit observation, omphalism, by definition, does. So omphalism, for the thinking agnostic, is a six, for exactly the same reason as the celestial cow described above. All such mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions on the ultimate origins of the universe are equally likely/unlikely.I suggested that you were a "6" on omphalism, while you, attempting a naive 50/50 version of agnosticism, opted for the Dawkins "4". But I was right. You are a 6 on omphalism, and you can justify your six (very unlikely) by pointing to all the other (effectively) infinite alternative propositions with equal evidence (zero). [my brackets above] Of course not. As with islam, deism etc. So, the thinking agnostic, the atheist/ agnostic fits all such evidenceless propositions into the six category:"We cannot know for sure, but (random evidenceless proposition) is very/extremely unlikely."Any promotion to "5" or above of one of these mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions on origins would require a pseudo-skeptical unjustified bias (or positive evidence). Curiously, I do. Cheers.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

Now if someone is actually doing a statistical testing, then there must be some empirical data that has been collected eh?

---

What makes you think there hasn't? Once again, you ignore the mountains of evidence around you simply because you don't like the implications of that evidence compared to your theology.And I'll take the previous definition over Wikipedia:An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications, Second Edition. Richard J. Larsen, Morris L. Marx. 1986. Chapter 6, "Hypothesis Testing," page 287: It would seem my textbook on actual statistics contradicts your Wikipedia entry. Shall I start pulling out my other textbooks and see what they have to say on the subject? I notice that you hacked your quotation from Wikipedia. The very next words that follow from where you cut off: It would appear that your interpretation is perhaps not accurate. Oh, what the hell. Let's pull out another textbook and see what it says:Probability and Statistics, Second Edition. Morris H. DeGroot. 1987. Chapter 8, "Testing Hypotheses," page 437: Again, it would seem your Wikipedia entry is incorrect. The entire point behind the creation of H₀ and H₁ is that they cover the entire space and are disjoint. Thus, it necessarily follows that the result is either H₀ or H₁. If you reject H₁, then you must accept H₀.But to start, we "presume" (notice that this is an important word) that H₀ is true so that we can develop a test to see if it really is.How on earth do you test for something if you don't know what the something is in the first place?

quote:

---

Curiously, that would mean that the default position would be agnostic.

---

Incorrect, for your "agnostic" concept would mean that you think both H₀ and H₁ have the same truth value, and they don't.

---

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.

Hi Rrhain,Since the gist of your two recent posts to me is an argument about the scientific method in relation to theism, I'd like to make some general comments about that. Please let me know if you feel I've skipped over any major points. I'm getting an average of 8 messages to reply to in a 24-hour period.I have realised that it's been sloppy of me to start referring to atheism as the null hypothesis because that implies that the existence of the divine is suitable for the application of the scientific method. I think that this conflates science with ontology and it implies that science is the only basis for any ontological investigation. IMO this is specious reasoning. "Scientism" is an informal, derogatory term for the belief that empiricism can, now or eventually, find all truth, and this premise lays itself open to such a label.Let's look at why it's specious to apply the scientific method to ontology. The null hypothesis in ontology would seem to be solipsism. This is of course the premise that the only thing I can know for certain is that I exist. In order to get on with the business of living, I have to assume that you, this computer, the garden outside, etc all exist, though I have no way of proving it because it could all be something I'm dreaming. Science and reason are engaged only after we have already made assumptions about which bits of experience are real and which aren't. We're all complicit in the belief game, because it's the only way we can ever make sense of anything.Now according to you, we would rationally have to say that the null hypothesis (solipsism) is what we have to accept as truth unless new evidence comes along to prove otherwise. This would seem to suggest rather strongly that applying the scientific method to ontological questions is an erroneous use of the scientific method. The question of theism is an ontological one.I also still take issue with the assumption that a subject under scientific investigation is disproved, rather than unproved, in the absence of evidence. The OP covers this, as does RAZD in Message 377.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

The penis-lover

---

Dude, I'm not going to sleep with you, so stop asking.

quote:

---

Neither "the null hypothesis" nor "atheism not being a negetive claim" have anything to do with this thread.

---

Huh? Since you put such huge significance upon the original post, let's see what RAZD said in it, shall we? Thus, the concept of "agnosticism," and thus its connection to "atheism" since RAZD really was referring to that, is present from the very beginning. Let us not be disingenuous and try to claim RAZD wasn't talking about atheism as he has previously been quoted: RAZD did not have any problems with this statement when it was brought up in this thread. In fact, he brings it up all on his own in Message 20: So clearly RAZD is talking about atheism. Thus, negative claims are part and parcel of this thread. But just in case anybody missed it, RAZD states it directly in his own words: So clearly, RAZD is claiming that atheism is a negative claim and thus requires a burden of proof.What his interlocutors are pointing out is that his claim that atheism is a negative claim is false. Instead, it is the neutral claim for the burden of proof rests upon the one claiming god. Atheism is the null hypothesis: The model works. It is up to the ones proclaiming the alternative to show that something is missing.

quote:

---

So what gives?

---

Um...you've painted yourself into a corner and hope that nobody can remember the history of the thread? That's the thing about the internets, CS: Things that get put on it tend to stick around and it is not that difficult to reconstruct a history.

---

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.

Hi Onifre,

quote:

---

Boy that On(fire) follows me everywhere.

---

My mistake. Mind you, it seems a suitable monicker for a debate forum. It's also what your avatar will be if he's not careful with his cigarettes.

quote:

---

So am I supposed to give validity to your premise (taking a negative or positive position on it), even before you establish the evidence for your premise?

​

How can anyone be an atheist to nothing?

---

Well first of all I don't take a negative or a positive position on it; I suppose you could call me an agnostic pantheist, though I haven't come across that term before. If I did call myself a theist or an atheist then it would mean I've been lying through my teeth in all the posts I've written here. I might have leanings one way or the other but that would be through personal choice, not based on empirical evidence.The fact that you're still asking the question above means that you're sort of getting what RAZD, CS and I are saying here. Think about it.

quote:

---

please give me the method for investigating such a claim

---

Again, the impossibility of doing so -- which you seem to have recognised -- is precisely the point. Though perhaps some of the frustration I'm sensing is due to the fact that the scientific method just isn't very suitable for such an investigation; see Message 383.

quote:

---

I am not skeptical of the existance of god, because I don't yet know what god means.

---

Your position seems to fit the definition of "skeptical" in the OP. RAZD and I have been defining G(g)od(s) as deism or spirituality, or the kernel of possible truth within all such beliefs.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi again Bluegenes,

quote:

---

We don't know the origins of the universe and exactly what it is, so that's all there is to believe in that area at this point in time.

---

Well yes, I think it's rational to be agnostic about the origin of the universe. There's no evidence to suggest what that is.

quote:

---

but that might be a false dichotomy, because we know that nature can produce "conscious powers" like ourselves, so it could be a bizzare mixture of the two

---

Isn't it cool how this stuff can tie reasoning up in knots

quote:

---

You're fond of the singular "God", which, as I pointed out in the last post, is as remote a possibility as a billion gods working together.

---

As RAZD explained in a recent post, I'm using "God" as a handy label for a term. Deism/spirituality/G(g)ods(s) is a bit clumsy to type, but that's what I'm referring to. Maybe it's better just to call it "the divine" or "the transcendent."

quote:

---

What about a multi-verse created by a pantheon of gods and goddesses who, like some particles, can be said to both exist and not to exist at the same time, therefore offending no-one?

---

Sounds like a fun metaphysical discussion

quote:

---

What's wrong with this thread is that it's an effort to claim that one has to present evidence in order not to believe in an evidenceless proposition, like wood-elves, or ogres with green hair, when actually it's the norm not to believe in things until there's positive evidence for them.

---

It's not the norm to eat vegetables with breakfast either, but I do. Is that unscientific?
RAZD, CS and I have talked a number of times in this thread and elsewhere about hypothetical creatures and to be honest it's getting old. I wouldn't believe in wood-elves without evidence; nor would I see any reason to disbelieve in them without evidence to do so. I might decide that they are unlikely to exist but I would do that within the bounds of agnosticism. If someone claimed they'd experienced them and I'd investigated and eliminated every other logical possibility, then "I don't know" would seem to be the rational conclusion.

quote:

---

"Purely agnostic" actually means 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale for any specific god propositions made.

---

On a scale from 1 to 7, 6 is close extreme and 7 is extreme. The premise of this thread is that if one holds such certainty about an idea when there is no evidence either for or against, then one is not being truly skeptical.

In my previous first of three messages in this topic, I had argued that "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".Now, I'm presuming that all of the science side will accept that considerations of the supernatural are, by definition, outside of the realm of study via methodological naturalism. In generally has been said that "science is agnostic".I now argue that there is, by definition, a total absence of methodological naturalisticly derived evidence for anything filed under "the supernatural". This goes beyond "nothing yet has been found". Rather it is, "there is nothing (by definition) to be found".Thus, from the scientific perspective, the supernatural does not exist - The scientific method is atheistic.Which does not say that a person who does science (aka "a scientist") must be an atheist outside of when s/he is doing science.Moose

LindaLou responds to me:

quote:

---

Let's look at why it's specious to apply the scientific method to ontology.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously saying that it is apparently valid but actually invalid to use science to study reality? Did you misspeak yourself? Are you truly saying that science doesn't study reality?

quote:

---

The null hypothesis in ontology would seem to be solipsism.

---

Incorrect. The null hypothesis is simply the demand that claims require proof. There is a process by which you choose your null hypothesis. From An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications mentioned previously: Now, I realize that that's a lot to go through, but I hope you can see the point. The idea behind selection of the null hypothesis is not simply random but is based upon the idea that there is nothing new. The alternative is that something unexpected is going on.

quote:

---

This is of course the premise that the only thing I can know for certain is that I exist.

---

Complete non sequitur. The null hypothesis has nothing to do with solipsism. It has nothing to do with you. It has to do with processes and expected outcomes. The null hypothesis is that the expected outcome will actually be the outcome. The alternative is that something new has happened.

quote:

---

In order to get on with the business of living, I have to assume that you, this computer, the garden outside, etc all exist, though I have no way of proving it because it could all be something I'm dreaming.

---

Same response to you as to Catholic Scientist:Cartesian Doubt? That's what you're arguing? Hell, not even Descartes accepted such Doubt. The null hypothesis has no bearing on Cartesian Doubt.

quote:

---

Science and reason are engaged only after we have already made assumptions about which bits of experience are real and which aren't.

---

And there's an entire branch of human thought called "philosophy of science" that covers this concept. Do you seriously think that you're the first one to come up with these questions? Have you not read the work of Descartes and Popper and Kuhn or any of the other scientific philosophers?

quote:

---

Now according to you, we would rationally have to say that the null hypothesis (solipsism) is what we have to accept as truth

---

Hold it right there.Where did you get this "have to accept as truth"? For the third time, what part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with?The null hypothesis is not forced upon anybody in opposition to all claims to the contrary. Instead, it is merely presumed (and you do understand what the word "presume" means, yes?) to be true until we have other evidence that comes along that makes us reject it.Where is your evidence?Otherwise, you are claiming that any stray thought you might ever have must be considered perfectly rational and likely and we know that isn't true.I am not the eggman. I am not the walrus.

quote:

---

The OP covers this

---

Same comment to you as to Catholic Scientist:The entire point behind this discussion is that we are pointing out that the claims made in the original post are bogus. Just because it's the original post doesn't give it any special privilege of being accepted and agreed upon.We deny the very premises brought up in the original post. RAZD has built his philosophy on sand.

---

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.

Hi Stile,

quote:

---

You claim there is a difference? What, specifically, is the difference between an idea that "is made up" and one that "cannot be differentiated from the human imagination?"

---

There have been a couple of recent threads about this, but I'd ask you to read Message 383. How can I be sure that anything exists apart from me, eh?

quote:

---

Like black holes. They were imagined and made up by science-fiction writers and it turns out that they actually exist in reality.

---

So the rational response to the idea, before evidence existed to support it, would have been "I don't know." If you'd decided instead to say "That's ridiculous" then you would have been incorrect. IMO if a few more people were willing to have that extra degree of open-mindedness and say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe it" then science would make faster progress.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean. That response washes perfectly with me.

---

I think you must have skipped over the point I was making, because you've answered a rhetorical question. I wrote:

quote:

---

Some respond to the IPU with, "But that's just silly and we all know it." Why doesn't that wash with you guys? Because there are claims out there which may seem just as silly, in which people seriously believe. The question then becomes, what is real and what isn't, and how do we tell the difference?

---

If it did wash with you then you'd say, "I admit that the IPU is a silly entity in which no one believes, created for the purpose of ridiculing theists," and you'd leave it at that. Please note my emphasis above in bold. You can't tell me that something is made up unless you're certain of what is and what isn't, and that's a more profound question than would at first appear. But speaking within the general framework that we tend to agree is reality, people are capable of reporting experiences truthfully and accurately, and this capacity tends to be ignored by the "people make stuff up" claimants. Both are actually true.

quote:

---

Since you continue to move around, and it's an unevidenced idea that your very next move will immediately lead to your death (regardless of past movements)... then you are being inconsistent by not giving that evidenceless proposition a 50/50 chance.

---

Sure -- so why should that make a difference to how I live my life? It works for me. I could walk out my front door and get zapped by an alien raygun. The Morlocks could erupt from the ground and attack. If it happens, I'll deal. I won't be losing any sleep over it.

quote:

---

I'm calling your position irrational because it's inconsistent.

---

Please give an example of anything I've said that goes against the definition of skepticism in the OP.

quote:

---

Atheism is rational because it's consistent.

---

If consistency is your only criterion for rationality, then I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you. I will be consistent in my claims that the view is fine and the weather is lovely.

quote:

---

Agnosticism is certainly valid (logical). It's just very hard to keep it consistent when dealing with every and all possible non-evidenced ideas that cannot be differentiated from imagination.

---

It's actually really, really easy.Q: Do you think the IPU exists?
A: Without any evidence, I don't know.Q: Do you think the FLying Spaghetti Monster exists?
A: Without any evidence, I don't know.Q: Do you think the Earth was created last Thursday?
A: Without any evidence, I don't know.Got the hang of it yet?

Hi Greyseal,

quote:

---

You cannot prove there is not one.

​

Therefore I ask you, do you believe there is?

---

I explained to you why it is logically improbable. But I'm happy to say "I don't know." Teleportation isn't necessarily impossible either.

quote:

---

Maybe there's a teapot orbiting mars.
Maybe there's a boogeyman under your bed
Maybe ghosts exist, you just haven't seen one
Maybe pink unicorns are real
Maybe, maybe, maybe...

---

Why do you seem to have a personal problem with saying "I don't know?" Does it actually change anything at all?I should have said this earlier, but as of this point I think I've said enough not to be obliged to answer more "Do you believe in (whatever seems silly to me)" questions. They are getting very repetitious.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.