Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi Catholic Scientist, nice safety helmet ... That's The definition of atheismOR we could ask that Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. be reopened (especially now that contracycle is no longer posting). Note how this compares to my posts recently ... and I started that one in 04*17*2005 (my second year here).The arguments are sooo familiar eh? I think this shows that there is no conclusive evidence that atheism or theism is correct in their portrayal of reality, and thus all we have are opinions. Opinions fortified by confirmation bias and defended by conflict avoidance (an effect of cognitive dissonance).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 Straggler, been a while? That is one possibility, yes, as I pointed out a while ago this is a common deist position ("outside the universe"). Some definitions mention this:Deism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

deism n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2009

---

Now I think that "abandoned" is a little harse, compared to "left to it's own resources" but you should get the idea. But we can make some arguments for why this may be so. First we would have to consider what can create a universe and start the ticking clock, complete with a complete set of directions for what we see as "natural laws" (not knowing their source).Certainly I would agree that it is highly unlikely -- if god/s are possibly knowable but on their "time" (what is "time" to the creator of it?) -- that the human brain could encompass enough of that being to have anything more than an extremely scanty, rough, and highly incomplete impression, and that two such experiences would be highly likely to be different: not just because of the size of the perception problem, but the people worldviews affecting their experience. We could compare this to the commonality of experience of people seeing a doctor, and note that there would be necessary variations, but that everyone would think they saw a doctor (even if this is not true).Lots of maybes and whatifs, agreed, but that's what opinion accomplishes, rather than evidence based conclusions. Oh, I don't have any problem with the admission of tentativity, what I have problems with are the claims of evidence for the atheist position: they don't address the central issue -- is there any evidence to show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Which is just another version of the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The above concept of the creator god/s is that is accomplished by putting the natural laws in place, and thus all you are evaluating is how the system works, not why it works. And yet I know of no such evidence, and none of it was posted on the previous thread. We do know that people make up explanations for experiences and beliefs, and we can see that this is also an application of that process: conclusion first, explanation second.We also know that this alone is not evidence -- if true -- to show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, OR that the problem is that it is the explanation of something difficult to comprehend that is made up while the source of the experience is real. And we know that the possibility that god/s do not, or cannot, exist is not objectively evidenced. No, it makes it indeterminate how likely or unlikely it is to be true. Let me quote you: Thus logically you are necessarily left with the agnostic position.Practically you can incorporate your beliefs and opinions from your world view of how the universe operates to decide that one is more likely than the other, but this is just opinion and belief, not a conclusion supported by empirical objective evidence. Then test your argument to make sure that it is not a straw man or incorporating your personal preconceptions in a way that begs the question.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) • • •

Absence of evidence? Your cognitive blindspot regarding evidenced and unevidenced possibilities manifesting itself again. In how many previous gaps where the supernatural has been invoked as an explanation has the supernatural answer been borne out? How many times has the supernatural answer been overturned (i.e. been shown to be a product of human invention)? Can you see a trend here at all? And yet you consider the supernatural answer to current gaps no more or less viable, no more or less likely, than the naturalistic one. A one way 100% record of failure Vs success and you see no evidence to suggest any inclination either way. Incredible. You are assuming there must be a "why". On what basis do you make that assumption? You know of no objective evidence that suggests that humans are able to imagine and invent concepts regardless of truth? Are you sure? Back to your "do not", "cannot" strawman again huh? The statements "cannot exist" or "do not exist" do not even come into it so please stop bringing them up in various guises.We have the possibility of human invention. We know for an absolute fact that humans can invent gods. We have the possibility that gods actually exist. But this possibility is based on no objective evidence whatsoever. Thus we have:Possibility derived from fact Vs Possibility derived from........? What? Belief? In which case we are back to the circularity of belief as evidential justification upon which to claim the validity of belief.Are you really going to tell me that the possibility of human invention is no more evidenced than the possibility that gods actually exist? That there is no evidential basis to make any sort of judgement of relative likelihood between these two mutually exclusive alternatives? Only if you are suffering from an inability to differentiate evidenced possibilities from unevidenced ones.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why?Why is prevalence of belief in gods not objective evidence in favour of a human psychological need to invoke the unknowable to explain the unknown? Or evidence in favour of telepthic dogs inducing religious belief in humans? Or fluctuations in the matrix used to control rebellious minds? Or indeed any other conceivable explanation.Why is the actual existence of gods given preferential treatment (i.e. special pleaded) as an answer to the question "Why do people believe in gods"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD,My problem (one of many ) is this: How can anyone even postulate this, if "create" and "ticking clock" are human, subjective concepts that have no bearing on the universe itself?What evidence are people using to suppose that the universe might need a creator? How about first, what is time?How can anyone even postulate this, if "time" is a human, subjective concepts that have no bearing on the universe itself? If all you are evaluating is how the system works, then for what reason does anyone see fit to introduce a creator to that system? - Arguments for complexity?I've asked the question a few times: What question does god(s) answer that cannot be answered naturally?Why is anyone postulating a concept of a creator to a system that has never shown evidence of needing creation?- Oni

Hi Modulus, sorry for the delay, but my energy level is low. The point of the analogy is not that Tiktaalik may or may not have had a pelvis, the point was that the arguments used were of the same logical form as those presented against the existence of god/s. In logic, the form of the argument can be valid or invalid, and the validity of an argument is dependent on the structure, not the argument/s per se. Thus this procedure tests the validity of the arguments presented, independent of the actual argument. Pseudoskepticism and logicLet's expand this to include all the "evidence" and all the arguments proposed on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, then draw a little "box" around them, formulate similar arguments regarding the existence of the Tiktaalik pelvis, and then compare them to see if they have any merit in this context: vs The astute observer will note that NONE of these items are convincing in the context of the Tiktaalik pelvis, and in fact are extremely negatively correlated with what we postulate from the evidence when we expand the box to include the ancestors and descendants for Tiktaalik.This potential for extreme negative correlation means that these arguments are structurally invalid and not capable of predicting reality. The logical fallacy of implied consequences? If I don't cave to your argument then I'm lying?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ,

---

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 Perdition, Then (A) it is NOT exactly what atheists say, and {B} that is where you go wrong. It is also just as much of a leap to say "I don't believe" and thus you are necessarily in between, if you pursue the logic. If they can't say that phrase, then they are pseudoskeptics, no matter what their opinion is.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : is is

---

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 Iano, Nice wedding shot ... how's the fuel problem these days? I put another 500 miles on my Giant Innova. All I have are some personal opinions, based on my worldview, and not anything that I am ready to share at this point. Sorry. Let's throw that BMW into orbit and then have some intelligent iron based life evolve on it, intelligent enough to develop science and technology at a nano-scale. What's to prevent them from deducting that all the various parts and pieces could form by natural processes, with various comets and asteroids being compiled over time until the existing structure was made, and that the postulation of a designer is not necessary?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) • • •

Don't worry 'bout that. I'm in no hurry! I know what the point of the analogy was. And my counter-point, was to explain how your translation of the argument was faulty.Take your 'point 13' which is an attempt to characterise my argument. In the religious form:

quote:

---

the probability of religious experiences being true is highly unlikely.

---

Which translated into something more accurate (after all, I've never disputed the existence of religious experiences!) becomes

quote:

---

the probability of religious experiences being as a result of a divine entity is highly unlikely.

---

This is how you have translated this argument to Tiktaalik:

quote:

---

the probability of a Tiktaalik pelvis being true is highly unlikely.

---

Which is nothing like it (possibly as a result of the grammar in your original characterisation which implied that I was originally denying religious experiences). As my counter-argument went, a much better translation would be something like

quote:

---

the probability of the Tiktaalik pelvis being missing is as as a result of a exceptionally skilled malevolent paleontologist called Dave is highly unlikely.

---

You have just provided further evidence that you are having some kind of critical comprehension problem. I am not implying you are lying if you don't "cave". I explicitly cited your record of honesty as evidence against this hypothesis and nothing in my comment said you had to accept my argument, just employ it correctly.Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the reason you have failed in attempting to utilize my argument in a novel circumstance in an accurate fashion is because you have failed to understand the argument.Edited by Modulous, : "your are" corrected to "you are"

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

It has not changed, because there has been no evidence that has been presented in the intervening time sufficient to alter my knowledge, opinions and beliefs on this issue.

---

And yet, you continue to bring it up knowing full well that it is going to derail any actual discussion. You'll bring your same argument up, we'll respond with the same rebuttal, and then we'll hijack the entire discussion watching you avoid responding to it.Are you saying that every argument of yours comes down to the claim that subjectivity is equal to objectivity?

quote:

---

Fascinatingly, the last thread on this topic, Pseudoskepticism and logic, was singular in the attempts of several atheists in general, and Rrhain in particular

---

Excuse me? I don't recall ever mentioning my personal opinion regarding the existence of god. Is there a particular reason that you simply assumed that I was?I've been extremely careful to keep my personal opinion about god out of it precisely because of your reaction: You assume that I hold a certain position and then respond to what you wish I would have said rather than what I actually did. "Of course you'd say that, you're an X."

quote:

---

Ah, now we have evidence: after 562 posts on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread with Rrhain claiming that he didn't need to supply evidence for his negative position, suddenly now he needs to have evidence for his claim.

---

Showing you clearly didn't read anything I wrote. Instead, you responded to your preconceived notion of my theological position which I have never presented here.

quote:

---

Oops, no evidence.

---

Huh? What part of "the model works" isn't evidence?And on top of that, you're still missing the point: Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The null hypothesis is always considered to be true until evidence is presented that shows it to be false. Therefore, the atheistic position is the default position because the burden of proof is on the one wishing to claim that there is a god.Of course, if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

Instead we have an ad hominem attack on me, rather than dealing with the issue.

---

This coming from the man who just a few sentences ago was smearing me. Wah, wah, wah.Hint: Pointing out that you don't understand your own argument isn't ad hominem. If I am making an argument that hinges upon my repeated insistence that 2 + 2 = 5, it is not ad hominem to point out that I have made an error and don't understand the foundations of my own argument.

quote:

---

Interestingly, I am happy knowing that my opinion is just my opinion and I'm not the one claiming that it is anything more than that.

---

Read: I can't defend my own argument and I am shocked (shocked!) that anybody would insist that I justify it when I keep bringing it up.

quote:

---

Saying that my opinion is not compatible with reality is not demonstrating it.

---

Except that it has been. The model works. Why do you demand chocoalte sprinkles? Where is your evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Demonstrating it would mean putting up evidence that shows that god/s in fact do not, or cannot, exist.

---

But the null hypothesis, which is always considered to be true until proven otherwise, is that they don't. It is up to the people who claim that they do to show that they do, not the people who have a working model without them to show that they don't.After all, that's the entire point: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Objective, empirical evidence, not logical fallacies and arguments based on assumptions of knowing more than is known.

---

But your argument is that subjective evidence is valid. Now you're demanding objective evidence?The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Indeed, indeed, however, my opinion is based on the total lack of evidence that shows there are no god/s presented by anyone on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Now I don't claim that this opinion is fact, just that this is the impression I have after 562 posts on that thread without any being presented.

---

But you were presented with evidence. You just ignored it.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

You can change this opinion by actually presenting evidence that god/s don't, or cannot, exist.

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?That said, it isn't my burden to do so. The null hypothesis, which is always considered true until shown otherwise, is that god doesn't exist. It is the burden of those who claim god does exist to show why.

quote:

---

Curiously, your theatrics are getting in the way of your comprehension

---

What was that you were saying about ad hominem? Oh, I get it! It's OK if you do it.

quote:

---

all I was saying, was that in conditions where you don't know, the default position is that you don't know: glad you agree with this now.

---

Huh? What makes you think we don't know? The null hypothesis, which is always considered true until shown otherwise, is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the person claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Wow, another assertion of evidence: let's see what it contains:

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Oops, another blank.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Incredibly, I still find it difficult to be in denial of evidence that is not presented.

---

Except that it was presented. You have simply ignored it.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Maybe these pixies are pink, immaterial and have a single horn on their heads?

---

Maybe. Where is your evidence for their existence? The default position is they don't and we have a working model that doesn't include them. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Indeed indeed, so where is your evidence?

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

More ad hominems

---

This coming from the man who just a few sentences ago was smearing me and will do so again three sentences later. Wah, wah, wah.

quote:

---

Like not presenting evidence to support your position

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

whether it is positive or negative?

---

But the default position is that the claim isn't shown. It is always the burden of the one making the claim to provide the evidence.Especially when we have a model that works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Like the arguments made trying to avoid presenting evidence?

---

What part of the model working isn't evidence?

quote:

---

Like the assertions of having evidence, but somehow not seeming to mention any of it?

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

Cutting through the theatrics

---

What was that you were saying about ad hominem commentary? Oh, I get it! It's OK if you do it.

quote:

---

all Rrhain has done is repeat a phrase several times

---

Because you keep refusing to respond to it. The questions I am asking you are not rhetorical. When you answer them, I'll stop asking them. Until then, I'll keep on keeping on.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

followed by statements of incredulity

---

Read: He actually called me out on my arguments and since I cannot defend them, I'll pretend that he's the one with the problem."Incredulity." That's just precious.

quote:

---

and appeals to anonymous authority

---

Huh? Where did I appeal to any authority? Be specific.

quote:

---

and an absolute failure to actually confront the issue of evidence to support a negative position.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

Another 3,000 or 3,000,000 posts by people trying to impose their opinions on me is not likely to change things either.

---

Then why do you keep bringing up an argument that you know is going to derail the thread? Nobody else ever brings it up, RAZD.

quote:

---

Posts by people asserting they have evidence and that I am avoiding, or denying it, while presenting none, are notable in their inability to change my opinion/s, beliefs, and knowledge of how the universe works.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.This is why we say you're avoiding the evidence presented to you: You keep not answering my question. It's very simple. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer:The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

What will change it is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that god/s in fact do not exist or that they cannot exist.

---

What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

---

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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Then what the hell am I supposed to call somebody that believes that god doesn't exist!?

---

Non-existent.Atheism isn't belief of lack but rather lack of belief.

quote:

---

That is what atheism has always been, afterall.

---

Incorrect. The original concept of "atheism" was anybody who questioned the moral authority of those who used gods to assert their position of privilege.It isn't until recently that it has been safe for people to actually come forward and state that there is no god and discuss the philosophical implications of such a statement.Which is why the current conceptualization of atheists is that it is the lack of belief.Theists do not get to tell atheists what they really think. Atheists get to be the ones who do that and when you listen to them, you'll find that they describe their position as a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.

---

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.

Hey Oni Well any of the remaining significant gaps in human knowledge I suppose. The "beginning" of the universe, the beginning of life, the question of why people all around the world independently come to believe in gods in one guise or another...........etc.RAZD has declared himself a deist of the gaps with regard to abiogenesis (Message 493). In this thread he appears to be extending this desitic gap filler thinking to the creation of the universe. Also in this thread Catholic Scientist is claiming that the answer to the question of why people believe in gods requires that we consider the actual existence of gods as the preferred answer (for reasons as yet unstated). Apparently there is a complete absence of evidence. Each claim operates in a vacuum of all other evidence and thus there is no evidential differentiation that can be applied to assuming any one unproven answer over any other. Thus there is no more evidence to suggest a non-supernatural answer to any given gap than there is a supernatural one. In the case of "creation" there is no more evidence to think a creator isn't needed than there is to think that a creator is needed. Thus complete agnosticism regarding a creator is the rational conclusion. Anything else either way is just your subjective "opinion". Apparently.No doubt if I have got any of that wrong RAZD will be happy to point out my "misrepresentations" without actually detailing what his position actually is. No doubt if I have got that right and the flaws in this thinking can be shown any discussion will be unilaterally deemed "off-topic".Anyway I think Bluegenes got it right in Message 551Edited by Straggler, : Add Bluegenes quote and linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But there are only two, mutually exclusive options, either you believe in X or you don't believe in X. If you think there is not enough knowledge to make a decision, then you are, by default, on the not believing side. If you can't say "I believe X," then you would have to be able to say "I don't believe X." There are no other options.{AbE} Note, saying "I don't believe X" is NOT the same as saying "I believe not-X."Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Perdition, this is the basic problem: it's a false dichotomy. False. The third option is that you don't know. What I can say is that there is not enough positive evidence for me to believe "X" and there is not enough negative evidence for me to not believe "X" and therefore I don't know.The interesting thing (to me) is that there seem to be people who cannot live with indecision, and this seems to force them into making decisions on inadequate information. Fundies do this.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 everyone, sorry if I'm butting in. Hi RAZD.This is how I'm seeing this: Perdition and the others are saying that either you believe X or you don't; you are saying there is a third option: that you don't know. However, this is not a false dichotomy for this one reason: belief is not a gradient value. Belief is consciously choosing to believe in something; nonbelief is the base value, the one that everyone starts out as. Atheism is how everyone starts out; it's only as we get older that we start hearing about Sky-god Joe and his son Bob. Furthermore, because belief is a consciousness decision, there is no in-between. Reserving judgement is specifically not taking a stand on an issue and can be a respectable position; however in a have-or-have-not issue, there is no middle ground. Believing is not a slow process; either you do or you don't. An apt analogy may be life: you're either dead or alive; no "half life" is possible (unless you're a zombie )Sorry if I'm rambling.T&UEdited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams