Pseudoskepticism and logic

As far as I am concerned this is not about dismissing claims out of hand as you assert. Rather it is about considering the possible explanations for the unusual and their relative evidential basis. It isn’t really negative evidence as such (although I have used the term myself previously). Rather it is positive evidence for a mutually exclusive alternative to the "unusal" explanation being proposed.And like any form of standard positive evidence — I have no issue with the fact that the burden of proof (or perhaps likelihood is more realistic with regard to the sort of phenomenon I am guessing you have in mind) is on the claimant of such evidence.But if one possible explanation for an "unusual" pheomenon is deeply objectively evidenced and another is not objectively evidenced at all it seems to be a simple denial of evidence to suggest that the objectively evidenced possibility should not be deemed as a superor and more probably true conclusion. To me this seems undeniable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Curiously I think that weighing up the evidence in favour of contrary conclusions is open minded skepticism in action. Indeed. Which is why it is you that is denying objective evidence when you only ever consider the unusual explanation or possibility at the expense of the objectively evidenced but less "interesting" mutually exclusive alternatives. Firstly - I have already told you that I am not dismissing anything.
Secondly - What are we talking about here? What exactly applies in all possible cases of what? Be specific.If you are going to continue your past tactics of ambiguity and vagueness then this disussion will be ill tempered and pointless and may as well end now. Be specific or don't bother replying.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Every single time that you assert that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" you are denying the mass of objective evidence that many atheists, myself included, would cite in favour of the possibility that gods may just be human inventions. Curiously I doubt you will cease making this false assertion (no doubt accompanied with a variety of colourful but pointless Venn diagrams) despite this having been pointed out to you. It is too integral to your rationalisation of your world view. I hope so. Yeah laters.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is very debatable with regard to assessing the relative likelihood of two competing mutually exclusive explanations. This distinction between negative and postive evidence is silly. There is only positive evidence for competing mutually exclusive explanations. Evidence of what? What are we discussing exactly here? Nobody seems to know. You have trumped even your own past levels of ambiguity by insising on evidence in a thread where nobody knows what the actual topic is or what it is you are asking for evidence of.If you want to take the atheism example I gave in my previous post and make this thread specifically about the evidence in favour of the possibiliy that gods are human inventions then that is fine by me. If not then just say so and I might go and start my own thread explicitly on that topic.

Not really. If you are asking me to to justify my claim that the the objective evidence available suggests that gods are most likely the product of human invention then I am more than willing to accept that challenge. And to discuss the evidence in favour of that conclusion. As I have already clearly stated.If that is not your request then I am not sure what this thread is about. Nor do I understand what your ill informed misrepresentations of my position and me personally have to do with whatever undefined strawman it is that you are actually railing against. I note that you continue to hide behind ambiguity and vagueness as to what we are actually discussing here. This is rapidly becoming your hallmark in any threads relating to anything other than the established positions of evolution and geology in which you admittedly excel.

And I would part with you on the basis that material entities (such as aliens) can be materially detected whilst immaterial entities (such as gods) are necessarily detected by some sort of immaterial "sixth sense".You seem to wish to ignore or obfuscate this fact. But many here, including myself, think that the difference between possible sightings and all but definite internal visions is a fairly important distinction when considering the potential validity of evidence.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What is the topic? Be specific. The only fantasy here is your relentless mantra that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". I and many others have shown this to be false. Will you acknowledge this fact? As long as you realise that no position I have ever espoused relies on proving a negative (which is logically impossible anyway) then you and I have no argument in this thread.

Can you demonstrate how atheism rather than agnosticism with regard to the immaterial pink unicorn can be justified by the criteria you are insisting upon?If you cannot then why do you think your criteria are valid?

Well exactly. But is RAZD an atheist or an agnostic with regard to the IPU? By the criteria of his flawed argument he would be an agnostic. I very much doubt this is the case. I doubt he is applying his own flawed arguments and assertions to himself. The point I am making is that RAZD cannot claim open minded skepticism requires that we be agnostic about everything for which there is no evidence if he himself is not agnostic about the IPU.Hence my request for him to apply his own criteria and arguments to something I am fairly he sure he is atheistic about. Atheistic, I might add, for reasons that I suspect are wholly justified and all but identical to the reasons I would give for my atheism towards any other given god concept.

That would be a ridiculous argument which is strangely why I have never made that argument. And you are definitely misunderstanding mine. CS why are you an atheist with regard to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn? Seriously. Think about that for a second rather than just kicking off at me.Is it because some gods are made up so therefore the IPU must be made up? No, I doubt that would be your answer. Nor is it mine.Is it because "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? No, I doubt that would be your answer either. Nor is it mine.Now before you leap down my throat in a mass of bad tempered indignation telling me that the IPU is "obviously" a made-up entity (as you have done previously and which I might add is a very justifiable conclusion and one that I wholeheartedly share with you) think about why this is so "obvious".What facts lie behind the "obviousness" of this conclusion? What evidence do you have that so thoroughly convinces you not just of the possibility that the IPU might be a human invention but that it almost certainly is? Is the objective evidence that suggests that the IPU is a human invention vastly superior to the (complete lack of) objective evidence that the IPU actually exists?I know why I am an atheist with regard to the IPU. But I want to find out why you are too?

I would be interested to know if RAZD agrees with this because if he does him and I really have no dispute whatsoever. I am not an atheist to that sort of god either. How could I be? This would be like telling someone that their choice of favourite colour was objectively wrong. Absurd.That immaterial god concepts exist only in the internal mind of the experiencee and have no existence or direct bearing or interraction with any reality external to that mind would be my position too. But I really don't think that is what RAZD has been saying all this time.Perhaps we should ask him directly whether he believes that his gods exist externally to his mind or not? Although this question might be better coming from you than from me for obvious reasons.

Is this "nondescript" god immaterial, conscious and intelligent? Just how nondescript are we talking here? Then we seem to have found yet more common ground.Which specific descriptions does it not apply to? Or would you be willing to go as far as I do and say all specific descriptions are covered by this argument?

OK. We are obviously getting nowhere with the IPU and it's Wiki "evidence". I will try and make my serious point again. Please bear with me before you start getting indignant. Has the Ethereal Yelow Squirrel been shown to be made-up? How about the Incorporeal Giant Toad? Are you an atheist or an agnostic with regard to these entities?Again before you kick off at me I am being serious. What is the evidence that these entities are made-up? We both agree that they are made-up. But what evidence do we have on which to base this near certain conclusion? I would say that the evidence for this is immense but I want to see if you do too.Seriously. Think about it beyond "they are obviously" made up. Why exactly is it so obvious to you that this is almost certainly the case? What facts are involved here?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you an atheist or an agnostic with regard to the actual existence of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn? The Ethereal Yellow Squirrel? Wagwah the god of PC bluescreens? Rahvin's Mookoo? Why? All of these concepts are empirically unknowable and irrefutable. So why are you not agnostic towards these entities as per the "open minded skeptic" aproach of RAZD's opening post?No I mean really why?Ask yourself "why" beyond the instinctive "it's obviously made-up" knee-jerk reaction. What facts lay behind the "obviousness" of this conclusion? Is it because you have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that someone could have made it up? Is it because you know as an objectively evidenced fact that practically every human being on the planet is entirely capable of inventing ten such improbable concepts before breakfast? Is it because you think there was a motive for someone to invent the IPU (to prove a point to theists in this particular case)? Is it because you know for a fact that given sufficient motive or need (conscious or unconscious) humans can and do invent such concepts with barely more effort or thought than it takes to breathe? Is this supported by the further fact that humans have invented (and genuinely believed in) a vast array of now redundant and (with the benefit of modern scientific understanding) "silly" supernatural concepts? Is the possibility that the IPU is a human invention objectively evidenced? I would say this possibility is staggeringly and overwhelmingly evidenced. Evidenced to the point of near certainty in fact. Indisputably vastly more evidenced than the entirely objectively unevidenced possibility that the IPU might actually exist. With regard to the IPU I think we can all agree that "very probably human invention" atheism is the wholly justified response.Now other than the conscious intent of the creation which (arguably I suppose - but I am far from convinced) might justify a greater degree of confidence in the claim that the IPU is a human invention what exactly is different about the evidence on which we all justify atheism in the IPU and the evidence which I am citing as a reason for "it's very probably a human invention" atheism with regard to any other given god concept claimed by humanity?My reasons for atheism towards the IPU and yours are identical. But you are blatantly in denial about the application of this exact same evidence to some immaterial gods while I apply the same thinking consistently to all. This is special pleading on your part. Either way neither of us base our atheism towards the IPU on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Similarly nor do I base my atheism with regard to any other given immaterial god purely on the basis of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".There is evidence. It is just so "obvious" and well grounded and unthinkingly indisputable that we don't even think of it as evidence. But the possibility that any given god concept is the product of human invention is evidenced beyond belief.Think about it.

My "probably a product of human invention" atheism is not based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Rather it is based on the objective evidence available. The same evidence in favour of the human ability and proneness to invention which strangely you also implicitly rely upon whenever you dismiss the Immaterial Pink Unicorn (or any other such unknowable and irrefutable concept) as "obviously made-up". With regard to any given god concept there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. Either it is a product of the human mind. Or it is a real entity. That the god concept in question could be a product of the human mind is evidenced beyond any doubt whatsoever. The possibility that said immaterial entity could be real is a completely objectively unevidenced claim. Really? Then explain what are your reasons. Be very specific. Don't just say "it is obviously made up". What facts underly this "obviousness". If the proven ability of humans to invent such concepts is not a requirement for your answer with regard to the IPU then what is? If it is a requirement (indeed THE main requirement) then what exactly are you disagreeing with? Really? Explanation of the unknown? Higher purpose? Companionship? Comfort? What very human needs, desires, wants and fears are met by spiritual beliefs CS? Are these not a motivation to unconsciously create answers? Possibly irrefutable answers......? How? What is different? Be specific.