Pseudoskepticism and logic

And still you are unable to apply your own criteria to immaterial toilet goblins. Or any other imaginable yet irrefutable concept. You are a "pseudoskeptic" to every single irrefutable concept imaginable by your own stupid, pointless, self-defeating definition.Unless of course you invoke the evidence of human invention. In which case you have to special plead those entities that you subjectively think are worthy of your agnosticism, or even belief, rather than your atheistic derision as "obviously made-up" entities.Dude you are in denial.

And so the denial continues. I am addressing this post to you but it is aimed more at any casual readers of this thread as frankly I think you are a lost cause.Do you think that there is rational justification to seek naturalistic answers over supernatural ones for any given unexplained phenomenon?How many previously unexplained phenomenon have been successfully explained by invoking the supernatural? How many natural phenomenon have been erroneously attributed to supernatural causes throughout history? If human history has taught us anything is it not that invoking the supernatural as an answer is a pointless dead-end that acts as a blockade to human progress and understanding?Why do you think that invoking the supernatural to explain "unusual" human experiences is any different? Why do you think that invoking an undefined unknowable supernatural "something" to explain the apparent willingness of humanity to attribute the unknown to the unknowable is any more valid as an explanation than every single other disproven supernatural explanation humanity has invoked throughout history? Purely because your supernatural "something" is as irrefutable as one can devise a concept to be? In effect the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. The god of the gap that is god itself.You talk about closed mindedness and pseudoskepticism. You talk about "interesting" possibilities. But the answer "somethingsupernaturaldidit" is no different, no better and no more interesting than the answer "Goddidit". Once you invoke the "unknowable" you hit a blockade to enlightenment and open the door to every flawed human misinterpretation of nature imaginable. If you really want to reveal the truths of reality, if you really want to seek out the interesting answers, then all of the evidence suggests that invoking the supernatural and unknowable is the very last thing we should do."Somethingsupernaturaldidit" is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is in fact the very opposite. As evidenced by human history and the steady march of scientific understanding at the expense of superstitious mysticism. How much more evidence do you need?

Not for no. But there is objective evidence that strongly suggests the mutually exclusive alternative of human invention. The ""People make stuff up" (your words) argument that you seem so determined to simplisticaly misrepresent. The objectively evidenced fact that you are so wilfully determined to deny as being the legitimate baseline position. Oh dear. We seem to have reached that inevitable point in proceedings where the proponents of mysticism are on the brink of invoking the "brain in a jar" scenario. Where rather than discuss the objective evidence available we are instead forced to contemplate the solipsistic notion that all reality is wholly subjective. Why must we pursue this pointless conjecture? Purely because the proponents of mysticism are in denial regarding the consequences and conclusions of the objective evidence at hand.LindaLou if you are claiming that any concept of the supernatural you hold exists solely in your mind then I, nor Oni, nor I suspect anyone else will particularly disagree with you. If however you are claiming that some aspect of an unknowable supernatural reality exists externally to your own mind and has been revealed to you by means of meditation (or whatever) then you need to pull your head out of that silly little solipsistic rabbit hole you have managed to dig for yourself and present us with the evidence that you have used to deduce this conclusion. Along with your reasoning for supposing that the method of acquiring knowledge you have chosen leads to conclusions about external reality that are any more reliable than simply wishful thinking on your part. As for your "kernel of truth theory", your advocacy of a supernatural "something" based on lots of people believing in a supernatural "something"....... Well I have a number of criticisms. Firstly how arrogant! Lots of people don't believe in "something" actually. Lots of people believe in Christ. Lots of people believe in Allah. Lots of people believe in Vishnu. Lots of people did once believe in Apollo etc. etc. etc. You have the gall to call the atheists arrogant for judging these beliefs as very probably wrong but at the same time you see fit to tell every believer that they are in fact wrong about the specific object of their belief because they are in fact unwittingly supporting your advocacy of "something". How nice of you to tell others what they really believe in.Secondly arguing that belief in "something" is itself evidence upon which to base belief in "something" is an obviously circular argument.Thirdly if we do accept that belief itself justifies belief then my son and his squadron of little nurseryites will give you (at great length and in a cocophany of excitement) reams of evidence in favour of the actual existence of Santa Claus. Go figure. I thought the question being posed was whether or not atheism was evidentially and rationally justified? I thought you were citing your "kernel of truth" argument in favour of the supernatural actually existing? In which case the question of whether or not seeking a naturalistic answer for the reasons people believe in gods is rationally and evidentially superior to invoking actual supernatural entities as an explanation seems really rather relevant.But you and RAZD share the same penchant for declaring any questions you cannot (or more accurately do not want to) answer as off-topic and I expected little else from either of you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am almost hurt that you ever doubted me RAZD is playing debating games because deep down he knows that his position and his justifications for his beliefs are flawed and will not hold up to open scrutiny. He is trying to win a debate so that he can justify an argument. Quite possibly to himself as much as anyone else. But that said credit where credit is due. He is pretty fucking good at it. Not many could have strung this level of ambiguous bullshit out for as long as he has done. Even taking into account the rampant declarations of "off-topic" and other less impressive forms of evasion. Which is why he won't describe it and should he ever be forced to do so he will backtrack rapidly. Exactly as he did conversing with you in this very thread. Onifre is onfire! I am sure I am not the first one to make that pun but I enjoyed it anyway. Dude you should post pissed more often!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I won't speak for Rrhain but I would suggest that the model is the model that doesn't require supernatural gods to intervene at any point. The model that explains the observable phenomenon in terms of the objective evidence. It is an objectively evidenced fact that people believe in the "divine". But whether this is most rationally and evidentially explained by invoking the supernatural or by seeking the objectively evidenced naturalistic alternative is surely at the heart of the matter here.Given the history of science Vs mysticism is it ever now rationally and evidentially justifiable to invoke the supernatural over the naturalistic answer to such questions where a naturalistic answer exists? That is a genuine, as opposed to a rhetorical, question. No claim operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence LindaLou. That is, and has been for a very long time now, my defining point. Imagine the following single isolated subjective experiences:If I say I have just seen a bird is that likely?
If I say I have just seen a cat is that likely?
If I say I have just seen a T-Rex is that likely?
If I say I have experienced Thor creating thunder and lightning is that likely?
If I say I have experienced Jesus Christ is that likely?
If I say I have experienced an immaterial supernatural unknowable "something" is that likely?In each case we bring to bear a mass of objective evidence in order to evaluate the claim. Birds and cats are common and highly objectively evidenced phenomenon. T-Rex's are extinct (a conclusion borne from objective evidence). We know that thunder and lightning have little to do with Thor's hammer. We know for a fact that people have a long history of erroneously attributing unexplained natural phenomenon (such as storms) and experiences to supernatural entities. In your "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" lala land each claim operates as an island. Thus a subjectively experienced T-rex is no more or less likely than a subjectively experienced god or a bird in objective terms. But once we stop treating each claim as an evidential island, once we factor in the objective evidence that indisputably surrounds each claim, the situation is very different.As much as you despise it, deride it, mock it and outright deny it, the fact is that humans can and do create false concepts to explain the phenomenon and experiences that they do not understand and cannot explain. This is utterly undeniable. Thus the baseline position needs to take this into account. Yet you and RAZD remain in denial of this overwhelming objectively evidenced fact. You talk of "absence of evidence" and "50-50 agnosticism" when there is just no such thing. Your position amounts to creationist style denial of fact. Period. I have a concept in my head LL. It could be anything. It could be buttered toast. It could be the French political system. It could be a vision of the universe with the Sun orbitting the Earth. It could be my imaginary friend. It could be the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It could be anything humanly imaginable. I know what this concept is but I am not going to tell you. Are you agnostic about the actual existence of this concept? Or atheistic? Or "theistic"?Saying you are agnostic about the existence of telephones (for example) would be a pretty dumbass thing to say would it not? Any claim of "I don't know" on your part relates to the meaningless of my question. It cannot be taken as a sign of agnosticism towards the actual concept in question until that concept is revelaed (I was actually thinking of the concept that is "the English language").So when you and RAZD say you have a concept of "the divine" that you wish us to pronounce our agnosticism, atheism or whatever towards but won't tell us what it is how is this actually any different to my example? And if you genuinely do not know what concept of "the divine" you are asking us about how the hell can either of you believe in "it" either?I put it to you and RAZD that you are playing word games. Word games to falsely get the answer "I don't know" in response to the meaninglessness of a question whilst then claiming this pronounced "agnosticism" as relating to the concept that you won't, or can't, define.

No matter how cleverly or self deceivingly you phrase it you are essentially citing belief in a common "something" as evidence upon which to justify belief in a common "something". This is blatantly circular reasoning. Just one of the numerous points raised by myself and others that remain unconfronted by yourself or RAZD. Message 442And you continue to ignore the whole issue of whether or not invoking a supernatural answer to any observable phenomenon is now rationally and evidentially justified given the history of scientific progress and the retreat of superstitious mysticism: Message 436. And don't get me started on the ongoing denial of facts that you and RAZD are engaged in regarding the objectively evidenced possibility of human invention Vs the possibility of gods actually existing.......Yeah yeah I know - "Off topic" or "We have already answered all your questions if you could only see the answers...." etc. etc. etc. I know the drill. I am depressingly familiar with it by now. Deny, evade, ignore and then as a last resort attack your opponent as a black and white simple minded zealout. I expect nothing more.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The possibile explanations as to why humans might claim to have experienced the supernatural are all but infinite. From telepathic dolphins inducing religious experiences to the random effects of cosmic rays on the brain. From the existence of some sort of "unknowable" (which poses it's own problems see Message 395) supernatural entity actually existing to a natural by-product of the evolved human brain. Any possibility imaginable needs to be taken into account when assessing likelihood if unevidenced claims are to be given equal weight. The infinite set of possibilities involving gods of one sort or another are a mere subset of the infinite set that is ALL the possible answers to this question.Why in your reasoning do you only ever suppose that the subset of "god answers" is the only one from which we can pick our answer? Why do you insist on choosing one of the infinite multitude of objectively unevidenced answers (of which god answers are a subset)? Rather than one of those for which objective evidence is available?It is simple denial of facts and evidence on your part. It is essentially an example of Message 436You seem pretty atheistic about all specific descriptions of god. In hindsight you seem to reject the desitic description of god that you gave previously (shown below - and it is pretty lame you must admit). Thus I don't know what concept of god it is that you are actually claiming that atheists need to justify their atheism towards?If this discussion isn't about any specific current or historical god, if it isn't about the definition of a deity you have provided then what is it about? What exactly are you claiming that I am unjustifiably atheistic towards? "Unknowable"? "Outside our universe"? "Doing other things"? Everytime I read this it cracks me up more.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The question here with regard to the evidential and rational justification for atheism is whether or not invoking the supernatural as an explanation is ever now evidentially justifiable.Yes people have religious experiences. Yes people believe in gods. These are observed facts that require an explanation. But are these facts best explained by invoking the unknowable and supernatural? Or not?You wouldn't invoke god to fill the gap in our knowledge that relates to abiogenesis (presumably). Why do you insist on invoking the supernatural to fill the gap that relates to the question of humans believing in the unknowable? Do not all the evidential and rational arguments for not invoking the supernatural that apply to abiogenesis not apply equally to both scenarios? Why is "goddidit" not an acceptable answer for abiogenesis but "somethingsupernaturaldidit" acceptable to you in relation to the second question? Message 436So once agin we are back to your flawed notion that any claim operates in a vacuuum of all objective evidence. In your La La land each claim is an evidential island. If I claim I have just seen T-Rex we have only subjective worldview on which to base our conclusion. The objectively evidenced facts about T-Rex's and the effect these facts have on the likelihood of me actually having witnessed a T-Rex apparently don't come into it. Equally the fact that humans have been known to erroneously attribute the unexplained to the supernatural is of no consequence at all when assessing peoples claims of having experienced the supernatural. Not in your evidential La La land anyway. There is no such thing as a vacuuum of all objective evidence. Dude you are in utter denial.

The actual existence of gods is but one explanation from a infinite myriad of equally unevidenced explanations as to why people believe in gods.Why should we deem the actual existence of gods as any more likely the source of this observed phenomenon than telepathic dolphins inducing religious experinces in humans, random cosmic ray effects on the human brain or any other equally unevidenced claim? Why is your god hypothesis worthy of special treatment?I suspect that you think it is "obvious". I suspect that ultimately you are citing belief in gods itself as a valid evidential basis upon which to distinguish actual gods as an answer over any other equally unevidenced explanation. I suspect that ultimately you are citing belief in gods as evidence upon which to justify belief in gods. And that is of course circular.

What do you want? A refutation of every individual irrefutable god concept? A logical proof that gods could not possibly exist? What will satisfy you RAZ? You are blatantly unable to meet your own criteria with regard to demonstrating that you are not a pseudoskeptic towards immaterial toilet goblins. So on what basis do you claim that your silly and self defeating criteria are even remotely valid? And so you miss the entire point. Yet again. No evidence has been presented to disprove that religious experiences are the result of telepathic dolphins or cosmic rays affecting the human brain either. Yet you don't seem to consider yourself a pseudskeptic with regard to these possibilities. Why? Is it "world view"? Is it "confirmation bias"? Is it "cognitive dissonance"? Or is it a conclusion borne from the objective evidence available? The exact same objective evidence that suggests that god answers are also human inventions. You are in denial of the objective evidence that favours human invention over the actual existence of gods. You are in denial of the ever diminishing role of the god of the gaps. You are in denial over the full range of possibilities that could be presented as unevidenced explanations for religious experiences. You are in denial of the circularity of citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief. You are in denial every single time you cite "absence of evidence" because no claim operates in a total vacuum of all objective evidence.You are in denial.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If anyone here had said at any point that gods cannot exist then you would have an argument clinching point here. As it is nobody has made that claim so your point is completely irrelevant.Various people, including myself, have said that the actual existence of gods is but one explanation from a near infinite multitude of possible answers as to why people believe in gods. Various people, including myself, have pointed out to you that the possibility of human invention is a very evidenced possibility whilst the actual existence of gods is a wholly unevidenced possibility. Nope. Nobody has made that illogical argument. I don't doubt the genuineness of the experiences. I simply question the cause of the experience as being god. Why do you elevate god as a more likely cause than telepathic dolphins, cosmic rays or any other wholly unevidenced explanation?Because you are unwittingly assuming that belief in gods is itself evidence upon which to elevate the actual existence of gods as a superior answer. Belief itself as evidence upon which to justify belief. And so the circularity continues. Round and round and round you go. Nope. Even in the complete and utter absence of all other evidence we know as an objectively evidenced fact that the human brain is capable of, and indeed prone to, inventing and creating false concepts. As much as you deride this fact you ignore it at your peril. If you fail to take this fact and the associated context into account you end up declaring that every single irrefutable entity imaginable is worthy of agnosticism. Looking rather ridiculous in the process.Immaterial toilet goblins, the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Vishnu, Allah, The Christian God, Mookoo, Wagwah, the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum that holds the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, your deity, Catholic Scientist's concept of god, the tooth fairy, the garage dragon and every single other imaginable irrefutable concept anyone can pull out of their arse. By your foolish "absence of evidence" logic we should rationally be equally agnostic to all of the above and every single other unevidenced yet inherently irrefutable such claim. Go figure. The god answer to the question of why people believe in gods is but one amongst a near infinite myriad of possibilities. Some potentially evidenced (e.g. commonality of human psychology). Some not evidenced at all (e.g. maliciously telepathic dolphins or the actual existence of gods). You are blinded by the circularity of your thinking into supposing that the god answer is superior to any other answer whether evidenced or not. In short you are more deeply embroiled in circularity and denial than ever.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

By the definitions RAZD is insisting upon we are all "pseudoskeptics" with regard to immaterial toilet goblins. Rationally, according to him anyway, we should be agnostic until we have evidence of their non-existence.That is kinda the point........ And who decides what is and is not nonsense? I personally and genuinely subjectively think that an immaterial pink unicorn who kicks off the universe and then watches it dispassionately is far more believable than a big beardy bloke who lives in the sky relentlessly intervening in the affairs of a small band of nomadic desert people before sending his son down to sort things out.But rationally I would suggest both are worthy of a 6 our our scale of belief.

The fact remains that RAZD is blatantly unable to apply the criteria he is insisting upon to demonstrate that skepticism is justified with regard to anything immaterial and undetectable at all. Including those things that we all agree are "nonsense" (e.g. immaterial toilet goblins). As such he doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling anybody a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to anything more contentious.His criteria and the very premise of his entire thread are just flawed nonsense. It amounts to declaring that we should be utterly agnostic to absolutely anything which cannot be outright disproven. Which is why he is now tying himself in knots over what he is and is not agnostic towards and on the brink of embracing Young Earth Creationist notions of omphalism for heavens sake!! (see his conversation with Bluegenes) Are the two not the same? It is all about which possibilities are evidenced and which are not.Based on the objective evidence alone the possibility of human invention is exceptionally well evidenced. Whereas the possibility of gods actually existing is not evidenced at all. On top of this you have the ever diminishing ever retreating god of the gap argument: Message 436And finally you have the probability argument that Mod initiated and advocated most eloquently. An argument which RAZD is unable to confront without getting into the circular position of citing belief itself as evidence upon which to justify belief. By consensus the Earth was flat and at the centre of the universe in the face of evidence to the contrary. By a fairly large consensus evolution remains a conspiratorial myth. I would suggest that going with the available objective evidence rather than the unthinking consensus is the demonstrably more reliable, and thus rational, approach. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you really think that the existence of the Coelacanth is analagous to the existence of immaterial gods? Do you honestly not see the evidential difference?The fact that we have not scoured every conceivable habitat when combined with our knowledge of life on Earth and it's adaptability to environment suggests that we would be fools to think that we had witnessed every possible form of life in existence on this planet. In short the possibility of "unexpected" species existing is highly objectively evidenced. The surprises will relate to the detailed specifics of what we actually find.In contrast the existence of god (either in terms of the specifics or the ambiguously undefined conceptual generality that you seem to prefer) remains utterly, completely, totally and wholly unevidenced. As does the existence of any godly "habitat". Even as a possibility.Your attempt to equate the generic concept of god with the specifics of the coalcanth is a disengenuous debating tactic. A more justifiable analogy would be to compare the evidence in favour of the possibility of god (i.e. the generic concept) existing with the evidence in favour of as yet undiscovered species (i.e. the generic concept) existing. A comparison which shows the stark contrast in evidence rather than the equivalence you were seeking to demonstrate.If all the examples you are going to cite involve equating an "absence of evidence" restricted to a highly specific instance of a wider and highly evidenced concept with an "absence of evidence" for an entire concept class (i.e. "god") then maybe you should consider the possibility that your examples are unjustified and your arguments flawed.There is no such thing as a vacuuum of all objective evidence RAZ. When are you going accept this fact? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ah yes the old "Off Topic" and refuse to engage tactic when things are not going your way in a debate. Very familiar. Very familiar indeed. Was it Bluegenes excellent uncovering of your acceptance of Young Earth Creationist omphalism that was the final straw in this thread? Message 520All of which remain as true and unchallenged as they did several posts ago.But let’s consider your stated position in this thread in a little more detail: It has sunk in. The entire (misinterpretation of the original source) premise of your thread is that anything that cannot actually be outright refuted is worthy of agnosticism. And you look patently and abjectly ridiculous as a result of this.By your own admission as our resident self proclaimed Rebel American Zen Deist you have as little agnostic positive belief in deism as you do agnostic non-belief in Immaterial Toilet goblins. Or Santa. Or the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion. Or the ethereal Yellow Squirrel. Or YEC notions of omphalism. Etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum (or at least to the limit of human imagination). You are the very definition of a fence sitting bedwetter.If only I could be as rational as you RAZ. But (flawed as I am) I just find the notion of incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum holding the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether of the turtle-verse a step too far. I just cannot get past the "irrational" and "pseudoskeptic" conclusion that this is just bullshit that I pulled out of my arse. The product of my mind. Using my highly objectively evidenced human ability and proclivity to invent false concepts given the right context and need. Whether consciously or otherwise. The same sort of ability that has almost certainly resulted in numerous other such false god concepts. Indeed quite possibly the very concept of god(s) itself. The same evidence, indeed the very fact, that your position necessarily denies.Anyway......given the above, if you are as much a Rebel as you are a Deist then I guess that wearing odd socks and not tucking your shirt in on Fridays is about as radical and rebellious as things get.Your position in this thread is truly untenable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.