Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 18, 2017, 10:46:49 AM
-
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence
-
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence
The article claims that atheists believe there is no god.
That is wrong for a start!
-
It was at that very point that I thought: uh oh ...
-
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence
Don't really need to get beyond the following:
'But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational'
This is based on an assumption that atheism is 'a belief' - it isn't, it is exactly the opposite, it is 'a lack of a belief'.
We all lack belief is a huge number of things - indeed most theists lack belief in most gods - there is no onus to provide evidence to support a lack of a belief - if there were we'd be mired in providing evidence for thousands/millions of things we don't believe in. Indeed there is, in theory, an infinite number of things that could be purported and therefore an infinite number of things that we don't believe in.
-
The article claims that atheists believe there is no god.
That is wrong for a start!
well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.
-
Don't really need to get beyond the following:
'But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational'
This is based on an assumption that atheism is 'a belief' - it isn't, it is exactly the opposite, it is 'a lack of a belief'.
Do you think you could be found though to be completely lacking in belief.......of anything?
-
Don't really need to get beyond the following:
'But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational'
This is based on an assumption that atheism is 'a belief' - it isn't, it is exactly the opposite, it is 'a lack of a belief'.
What did you make of his section on exactly the objections you are making?
-
well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.
Sounds like question-begging to me.
-
How on earth does something like that get published in a (presumably) reputable magazine?
Is there no peer review or editorial oversight to weed out articles so full of mistakes?
Odd.
-
well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.
Not sure what you mean, but atheism does not mean that atheists believe that there is no god.
Do you know that?
-
Sounds like question-begging to me.
OK. If be rational states that new atheism doesn't say that God doesn't exist then it is accepting that God may exist. So we are left with the word atheism to be interpreted in the light of God possibly existing. In other words an atheist is without a God who might exist.
I'm afraid it is perfectly reasonable to ask why God maybe outside an atheist or an atheist outside or without God.
-
OK. If be rational states that new atheism doesn't say that God doesn't exist then it is accepting that God may exist. So we are left with the word atheism to be interpreted in the light of God possibly existing. In other words an atheist is without a God who might exist.
I'm afraid it is perfectly reasonable to ask why God maybe outside an atheist or an atheist outside or without God.
God may exist that is true.
I do not believe it does, so I am an atheist.
I could be wrong though, it's just that the evidence is not enough to convince me.
-
Not sure what you mean, but atheism does not mean that atheists believe that there is no god.
Do you know that?
Absolutely.
Do you understand that because of it atheist are not therefore immune to further questioning?
-
Absolutely.
Do you understand that because of it atheist are not therefore immune to further questioning?
About what?
I do not believe if Big Foot, or the Loch Ness monster or .....
What further questions are there?
-
How on earth does something like that get published
Something like what?
-
What did you make of his section on exactly the objections you are making?
Complete non-sense.
First there is a discussion of 'standard' and 'non standard' definitions of atheist - without any kind of clarity. However to me (and I suspect most self defining atheists here) the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
He goes further to indicate his lack of understanding, with a confusion with agnosticism - again many (if not most) atheists here are perfectly happy to be described as agnostic atheists - the agnostic part being that we do know 'know' that god or gods exist or don't exist - the atheist part being that we do not 'believe' they do. Perfectly compatible.
Then he makes the nonsense claim (purporting to use the 'non standard' definition of atheism) that there are the following attitudes toward proposition P:
Believing P
Believing non-P
Suspending judgment about P
Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)
There is no evidential requirement for Not believing P - the onus of evidential requirement rest on those 'believing P'.
Imagine P is that invisible pink unicorns exist on the moon, do you really think there is any onus on someone 'not believing P' to provide any evidence to that effect - of course not, not least because you cannot prove the non-existence of something.
-
well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.
As I don't exclude the idea of an objective god but see no evidence to substantiate the existence of one, I don't have any belief in any god. This article therefore doesn't seem to apply to me at all, as others have already said.
Your questions here make very little sense to me. As I don't have any belief in a god, what exactly is the point in asking me where the god that I don't believe in, is, or asking if I am keeping a god that I don't believe in outside? Only if I see solid evidence that this god exists, yet still remain unbelieving, would these questions make any sort of sense, surely.
-
Prof,
Complete non-sense.
First there is a discussion of 'standard' and 'non standard' definitions of atheist - without any kind of clarity. However to me (and I suspect most self defining atheists here) the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
He goes further to indicate his lack of understanding, with a confusion with agnosticism - again many (if not most) atheists here are perfectly happy to be described as agnostic atheists - the agnostic part being that we do know 'know' that god or gods exist or don't exist - the atheist part being that we do not 'believe' they do. Perfectly compatible.
Then he makes the nonsense claim (purporting to use the 'non standard' definition of atheism) that there are the following attitudes toward proposition P:
Believing P
Believing non-P
Suspending judgment about P
Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)
There is no evidential requirement for Not believing P - the onus of evidential requirement rest on those 'believing P'.
Imagine P is that invisible pink unicorns exist on the moon, do you really think there is any onus on someone 'not believing P' to provide any evidence to that effect - of course not, not least because you cannot prove the non-existence of something.
Quite. Simpler yet, just use "leprechauns" for "God", "a-leprechaunist" for "atheist" etc throughout the article and the author's mistakes are obvious.
-
As I don't exclude the idea of an objective god but see no evidence to substantiate the existence of one, I don't have any belief in any god. This article therefore doesn't seem to apply to me at all, as others have already said.
Indeed.
And there is further misconception in the rather long section entitled:
'Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence' - which massively missed the point. I (and I suspect others) are perfectly aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hence we are happy to describe ourselves as both atheist (we don't believe that god or gods exist) and agnostic (that we don't know whether god or gods exist). The lack of evidence for the existence of god doesn't mean that god doesn't exist - however it supports a rational view that we do not believe in the existence of god. Of course were credible evidence to be forthcoming atheists would change their position as atheism isn't a belief nor a position of faith.
-
Complete non-sense.
First there is a discussion of 'standard' and 'non standard' definitions of atheist - without any kind of clarity. However to me (and I suspect most self defining atheists here) the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
He goes further to indicate his lack of understanding, with a confusion with agnosticism - again many (if not most) atheists here are perfectly happy to be described as agnostic atheists - the agnostic part being that we do know 'know' that god or gods exist or don't exist - the atheist part being that we do not 'believe' they do. Perfectly compatible.
Then he makes the nonsense claim (purporting to use the 'non standard' definition of atheism) that there are the following attitudes toward proposition P:
Believing P
Believing non-P
Suspending judgment about P
Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)
There is no evidential requirement for Not believing P - the onus of evidential requirement rest on those 'believing P'.
Imagine P is that invisible pink unicorns exist on the moon, do you really think there is any onus on someone 'not believing P' to provide any evidence to that effect - of course not, not least because you cannot prove the non-existence of something.
Unfortunately you start with hyperbole.
I'm not sure I agree with this statement of yours though.,
''Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)''
since I've come across those who have stated their believing non-P convictions .....sound Ippy out and see what he thinks of the position you put him in.
After all believing non-P is undoubtably an atheist position which makes your statement merely ''claiming the Brand name''.
I will not wax on about objections to believing non-P.
Not believing P brings it's own issues though since agnosticism about God throws up a God who could be and therefore questions like why a ''could be'' God is without (outside of) the atheist and, if that ''could be'' God exists, why the atheist is outside of(without) that God.
As a non believer of P that I'm afraid is the spectre at your feast.
-
Prof,
Quite. Simpler yet, just use "leprechauns" for "God", "a-leprechaunist" for "atheist" etc throughout the article and the author's mistakes are obvious.
NURSE!!!!! HE'S AT THE LEPRECHAUNS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
As I don't exclude the idea of an objective god but see no evidence to substantiate the existence of one, I don't have any belief in any god. This article therefore doesn't seem to apply to me at all, as others have already said.
Your questions here make very little sense to me. As I don't have any belief in a god, what exactly is the point in asking me where the god that I don't believe in, is, or asking if I am keeping a god that I don't believe in outside? Only if I see solid evidence that this god exists, yet still remain unbelieving, would these questions make any sort of sense, surely.
So what you are saying is that you have no belief in God but believe that he could exist?
-
So what you are saying is that you have no belief in God but believe that he could exist?
I would say I do not believe in a god, like I do not believe in lots of things.
I do NOT though, claim that I believe those things do NOT exist. I have no idea if they exist, I only know that at this moment I do not believe they do.
Why is atheism so difficult to understand.
You do not I assume believe in Leprechauns?
Do you believe they do NOT exist as well?
-
Not believing P brings it's own issues though since agnosticism about God throws up a God who could be and therefore questions like why a ''could be'' God is without (outside of) the atheist and, if that ''could be'' God exists, why the atheist is outside of(without) that God.
As a non believer of P that I'm afraid is the spectre at your feast.
You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.
Do I 'know' that god or gods don't exist - nope, and I've never claimed I do - indeed it would be intellectually dishonest so to do as it would require full and complete knowledge of everything that exists, may have existed or might exist in the future everywhere in the universe. Do you know what, I'm not that arrogant. Hence I am agnostic.
Do I believe that god or gods exist - nope, I don't believe they exist - reason being that I have never seen any evidence for their existence sufficient to support a belief in their existence.
I therefore choose to live my life on the basis that god or gods don't exist until or unless someone were to provide evidence sufficient for my to change that view.
-
You are consuming atheism with agnosticism.
I will eat anything.
-
I will eat anything.
:) - edited now.
-
I would say I do not believe in a god, like I do not believe in lots of things.
I do NOT though, claim that I believe those things do NOT exist. I have no idea if they exist, I only know that at this moment I do not believe they do.
Why is atheism so difficult to understand.
You do not I assume believe in Leprechauns?
Do you believe they do NOT exist as well?
I understand atheism as being without god- ism. That is what it means isn't it.
I also understand that a claim that ONLY non belief in God is proper atheism is merely a bit of linguistic imperialism from those who hold that position. The beginnings of sectarianism if you like.
In terms of Leprechauns, in debating Leprechauns chiefly with your lord Hillside leprechauns were described variously as jolly little irish men physically found at the end of rainbows to something equal to God.
If those who wish to drag up Leprechauns eventually decide on what a Leprechaun is then clearly as a theist I could believe in a leprechaun which was exactly the same as God.
Any ridicule thence would properly be aimed at definition diddling.
Arguments of the leprechaun kind go like this.
A. Do you believe in Leprechauns?
T. Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows for which there should be material evidence but isn't so far so the idea is a bit ridiculous.
A. No, leprechauns are the same as God.
T. Well I believe in God
A. Har Har Har Har Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows Har Har Har Har.
-
You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.
Do I 'know' that god or gods don't exist - nope, and I've never claimed I do - indeed it would be intellectually dishonest so to do as it would require full and complete knowledge of everything that exists, may have existed or might exist in the future everywhere in the universe. Do you know what, I'm not that arrogant. Hence I am agnostic.
Do I believe that god or gods exist - nope, I don't believe they exist - reason being that I have never seen any evidence for their existence sufficient to support a belief in their existence.
I therefore choose to live my life on the basis that god or gods don't exist until or unless someone were to provide evidence sufficient for my to change that view.
So do you think you occupy the equivalent of a ''True for me'' position?
Atheism is true for you but not necessarily for others?
-
So do you think you occupy the equivalent of a ''True for me'' position?
Atheism is true for you but not necessarily for others?
I wouldn't bring truth into it.
For it to be in any well relevant it would need to be 'true' not just 'true for me'.
In effect the 'true for me' is no different than a belief or a lack of belief and it is hardly news that some people believe in god and others don't. I don't think that many who do believe in god see it as an entirely subjective 'feel' - I think they believe that god actually exists, not just in the minds of believers.
-
I wouldn't bring truth into it.
For it to be in any well relevant it would need to be 'true' not just 'true for me'.
In effect the 'true for me' is no different than a belief or a lack of belief and it is hardly news that some people believe in god and others don't. I don't think that many who do believe in god see it as an entirely subjective 'feel' - I think they believe that god actually exists, not just in the minds of believers.
In other words they have made steps in a commitment or a hazard that God actually is.
Would you say that is true the other way of someone in your position?
-
In other words they have made steps in a commitment or a hazard that God actually is.
Would you say that is true the other way of someone in your position?
No the two position are not equal. For me I have not made a commitment that god is not, any more than I would do for an infinite number of things.
The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.
-
So do you think you occupy the equivalent of a ''True for me'' position?
Atheism is true for you but not necessarily for others?
Not really as once again you are blurring atheism with agnosticism.
God/gods either exist or they don't - we don't know which therefore we should take the notion of truth (i.e. proven) out of it. The 'true for me' bot doesn't seem to fit well in this context as the debate between theists and atheists is based on the notion of god as a subjective entity that only exists in the minds of believers, but as an objective entity that exists regardless of whether people believe in it (or people even exist).
-
No the two position are not equal. For me I have not made a commitment that god is not, any more than I would do for an infinite number of things.
The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.
I understand your first statement.
This statement though is highly suspect though
''The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.''
Given that science discovers things by demonstration. Rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, the demonstrating bringing something into existence.
The default position is that something may or may not exist.
You seem to want God to maybe exist and have the luxury of saying he cannot exist because he hasn't been demonstrated. There are all sorts of problems with that.
-
Not really as once again you are blurring atheism with agnosticism.
God/gods either exist or they don't -
we don't know which therefore we should take the notion of truth (i.e. proven) out of it. The 'true for me' bot doesn't seem to fit well in this context as the debate between theists and atheists is based on the notion of god as a subjective entity that only exists in the minds of believers, but as an objective entity that exists regardless of whether people believe in it (or people even exist).
I'm asking questions Prof. I agree with much of what you say.
We are going to have continued problems while we have sentiments floating about like I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated.
There is one questionable assumption for me in your post. Namely that we cannot know whether Gods exist or not..........I agree with our problems of demonstrating either positions but claiming we don't know seems a step of belief.
-
So what you are saying is that you have no belief in God but believe that he could exist?
Nope. I have no belief in any god but accept the possibility that one(or more) could exist. Accepting a possibility is not the same as believing at all.
-
Nope. I have no belief in any god but accept the possibility that one(or more) could exist. Accepting a possibility is not the same as believing at all.
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?
-
We are going to have continued problems while we have sentiments floating about like I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated.
I've no idea where that sentiment comes from, certainly not from me. I wouldn't never say:
'I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated'
What I might say is:
'I don't know if there is a God but as there is no credible evidence to support the existence of God I chose not to believe in the existence of god/gods'
That is entirely different - god either exists or doesn't exist - whether or not people believe in the existence of god/gods it entirely irrelevant to whether god/gods actually exist (unless to define god as something that is subjective only existing in the minds of believers).
There is one questionable assumption for me in your post. Namely that we cannot know whether Gods exist or not..........I agree with our problems of demonstrating either positions but claiming we don't know seems a step of belief.
I never said we cannot know, I said we do not know - if god is so omnipotent then god can surely prove his/her/its existence, and were that to have happened we would know - but it hasn't.
-
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist.
Surely for the sake of accuracy that should read:
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God does exist
shouldn't it?
-
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?
Whilst it is possible to believe there is an outside chance a god could just possibly exist, it would be really hard to accept it is the Biblical god, as it seems like the stuff of fairy tales.
-
Nope. I have no belief in any god but accept the possibility that one(or more) could exist. Accepting a possibility is not the same as believing at all.
My position too - not sure why this is so challenging to Vlad.
Turn it on its head theists don't know that god exists, but believe he does (were they to actually know the whole concept of belief/faith would be blown out of the water). If theists have a level of humility and broadmindedness they should also accept the possibility that god/gods might not exist, just as atheists typically accept that god/gods could exist, but there is insufficient evidence for them to believe that to be the case.
-
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?
You seem confused.
I can accept the possibility of anything. But I do not believe it until it can be demonstrated.
By default, we should accept nothing until it can be demonstrated.
That's just the way logic and reason is.
-
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist.
I have answered this question so Vlad could you please answer the reverse question.
Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?
-
I've no idea where that sentiment comes from, certainly not from me. I wouldn't never say:
'I don't know if there is a God but God doesn't exist until demonstrated'
What I might say is:
'I don't know if there is a God but as there is no credible evidence to support the existence of God I chose not to believe in the existence of god/gods'
That is entirely different - god either exists or doesn't exist - whether or not people believe in the existence of god/gods it entirely irrelevant to whether god/gods actually exist (unless to define god as something that is subjective only existing in the minds of believers).
I never said we cannot know, I said we do not know - if god is so omnipotent then god can surely prove
his/her/its existence, and were that to have happened we would know - but it hasn't.
Forgive me I thought you might also be following Be rationals post
I thought we were actually getting somewhere but you seem to have returned to drawing on the mighty rod of strong assertion in terms of the issue of knowing whether God exists and God not proving his existence.
You have the burden of demonstrating that these have never happened or can never happen rather than extrapolating your own personal lack of experience.
Secondly I'd like to take issue with what I see as a misunderstanding by you of omnipotence which surely means the potential to act or not act. An omnipotent God could choose to reveal himself and indeed the conditions under which he could be perceived.
-
You have the burden of demonstrating that these have never happened or can never happen rather than extrapolating your own personal lack of experience.
No I don't - if you believe this has happened then you need to provide that evidence. The onus isn't on me to provide evidence that something hasn't happened - that is a ludicrous assumption.
-
Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?
Not really No.
-
Not really No.
Why?
Note that most of the atheists here are willing to accept that they could be wrong in their beliefs - why not you?
-
No I don't - if you believe this has happened then you need to provide that evidence. The onus isn't on me to provide evidence that something hasn't happened - that is a ludicrous assumption.
If you are asserting it hasn't happened then you have a burden.
-
Not really No.
Seems like you demand a level of open-mindedness from atheists that you're unwilling to apply to your theism.
-
Secondly I'd like to take issue with what I see as a misunderstanding by you of omnipotence which surely means the potential to act or not act. An omnipotent God could choose to reveal himself and indeed the conditions under which he could be perceived.
Which is why I said:
'if god is so omnipotent then god can surely prove his/her/its existence, and were that to have happened we would know - but it hasn't'
Note can, not would have.
-
If you are asserting it hasn't happened then you have a burden.
I'm not claiming anything has happened - no burden on me Vlad.
-
Why?
Note that most of the atheists here are willing to accept that they could be wrong in their beliefs - why not you?
Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.
There is no experience in atheism but a non experience.
I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs.
You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians. I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right and I recall frequent appeals to the idea that converts to religion cannot have been true atheists.
Until you guys come up with something better than the performance that was and is new atheism I'm afraid what walks and quacks in front of me is indeed, a duck.
-
I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs [...] You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians.
But not you. Why not?
I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right
1. Doesn't everybody hold beliefs that they think are probably right? "I believe X but I'm wrong to do so" is not often heard. (Note I don't mean "I believe X but I may be wrong about X", which is a different thing altogether).
2. You criticise atheists for thinking their stance is probably right yet by your own admission you do not even allow for the possibility of being wrong. Who stacks up better in the open-mindedness stakes here?
-
Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.
So you are not willing to accept the possibility that your personal experience was not actually god but something else. Remember all sorts of people have the strongest of personal experiences that they ascribe to something, that doesn't mean they might not be mistaken in their assumption.
It seems a tad arrogant not to accept that you might be mistaken in ascribing your personal experience necessarily to god actually existing.
-
But not you. Why not?
I cannot any longer occupy the agnostic position in good conscience. I cannot occupy in good conscience, occupy the Atheist position.......therefore, where does that leave me, Shaker me lad?
-
I cannot any longer occupy the agnostic position in good conscience. I cannot occupy in good conscience, occupy the Atheist position.......therefore, where does that leave me, Shaker me lad?
Prof. Diddy has just nailed it:
So you are not willing to accept the possibility that your personal experience was not actually god but something else [...] It seems a tad arrogant not to accept that you might be mistaken in ascribing your personal experience necessarily to god actually existing.
-
I cannot any longer occupy the agnostic position in good conscience.
Which means that you know god exists - evidence please. Or are you confusing strong belief with knowledge - they aren't the same, you do understand that.
-
Prof. Diddy has just nailed it:
Considering Bluehillside is on the list of people you think have nailed it that isn't much of a recommendation.
-
Considering Bluehillside is on the list of people you think have nailed it that isn't much of a recommendation.
Actually it very much is a recommendation - bluey and the Prof are two of the best and clearest writers to grace R & E (Ranting & Earache).
-
So you are not willing to accept the possibility that your personal experience was not actually god but something else. Remember all sorts of people have the strongest of personal experiences that they ascribe to something, that doesn't mean they might not be mistaken in their assumption.
It seems a tad arrogant not to accept that you might be mistaken in ascribing your personal experience necessarily to god actually existing.
You keep appealing to the experience of others but we are talking here about NOT experiencing......just like we are talking about not believing.
How does the religious experience of others help an atheist or an agnostic?
-
You keep appealing to the experience of others but we are talking here about NOT experiencing......
You were very much talking about experiencing, weren't you? "I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc."
-
Which means that you know god exists - evidence please. Or are you confusing strong belief with knowledge - they aren't the same, you do understand that.
That depends on what you mean by knowledge. Do you mean knowledge is that which can be demonstrated?
-
Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.
So you say: is there the possibility that you are mistaken?
There is no experience in atheism but a non experience.
Rather clunky, even for you Vlad. I have a non-experience of lots of things, such as sky diving, but in saying this I can at least describe and demonstrate what sky-diving involves and that I do have the option to experience this (which I'll decline). However, you are suggesting here that I have had a non-experience of something that isn't definable on the same basis as sky-diving: a non-experience of nothing, if you will, which is ridiculous.
I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs.
No doubt: but so what?
You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians. I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right and I recall frequent appeals to the idea that converts to religion cannot have been true atheists.
Acknowledging the possibility that one is wrong is reasonable rather than 'virtuous', and I'd imagine all of us work on the basis we're probably right regarding established situations: thus I don't think I'm possibly wrong every time I put diesel in the car rather than on my cornflakes of a morning.
The latter part of the quote immediately above is superb: here you give us a straw man that claims others commit a NTS - full marks on the fallacy front there.
Until you guys come up with something better than the performance that was and is new atheism I'm afraid what walks and quacks in front of me is indeed, a duck.
Well cook it man: it will make a change from your usual goose.
-
You were very much talking about experiencing, weren't you? "I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc."
Yes, and?
-
And Gordon has just covered it (far better than I could have).
-
So you say: is there the possibility that you are mistaken?
Rather clunky, even for you Vlad. I have a non-experience of lots of things, such as sky diving, but in saying this I can at least describe and demonstrate what sky-diving involves and that I do have the option to experience this (which I'll decline). However, you are suggesting here that I have had a non-experience of something that isn't definable on the same basis as sky-diving: a non-experience of nothing, if you will, which is ridiculous.
No doubt: but so what?
Acknowledging the possibility that one is wrong is reasonable rather than 'virtuous', and I'd imagine all of us work on the basis we're probably right regarding established situations: thus I don't think I'm possibly wrong every time I put diesel in the car rather than on my cornflakes of a morning.
The latter part of the quote immediately above is superb: here you give us a straw man that claims others commit a NTS - full marks on the fallacy front there.
Well cook it man: it will make a change from your usual goose.
The question though is how far you are prepared to take the possibility of being wrong as reasonable.
If you state that 1+1=2 and definitely not 3 are you being unreasonable.
What you are doing Gordon is just imputing spot on accuracy for your own proper application of diesel and imputing unfailing incompetence in those who have religious experience.
Now that's what I call a fallacy.
-
I have a non-experience of lots of things, such as sky diving, but in saying this I can at least describe and demonstrate what sky-diving involves and that I do have the option to experience this (which I'll decline).
.
How do you know that experiencing God is different? Can you describe and demonstrate sky diving in toto or is there a difference between that and the experience?
-
The question though is how far you are prepared to take the possibility of being wrong as reasonable.
The possibility of being wrong is never unreasonable - it may be redundant in well established situations, such as that hot things tend to burn you if you touch them, but it is never unreasonable.
If you state that 1+1=2 and definitely not 3 are you being unreasonable.
Well this is axiomatic, but I'd say not unreasonable: in this case though I might be guilty of wasting my time.
What you are doing Gordon is just imputing spot on accuracy for your own proper application of diesel and imputing unfailing incompetence in those who have religious experience.
Nope: be careful all that straw you're using doesn't catch fire. I just asked you, as the possessor of a claimed religious experience, whether you think you might be wrong: which you've forgotten to advise on.
-
How does the religious experience of others help an atheist or an agnostic?
It doesn't - but your religious experience presumably brings you to believe in the monotheist Christian god - so how do you square that with others who have religious experiences just a strong as yours (no doubt) that lead them to believe in the existence of entirely different gods and are therefore incompatible with your believe in a single Christian god.
Also unless someone who has had a religious experience is so lacking in humility that the cannot accept that they may be mistaken in their interpretation of that experience, then that person is still an agnostic, a believing agnostic, but an agnostic none the less.
-
The question though is how far you are prepared to take the possibility of being wrong as reasonable.
It is the cornerstone of our whole way of progressing knowledge. Once we assume that we cannot be wrong then we cease to increase in knowledge.
The most phenomenal approach to enhancing knowledge, science, is based entirely on the possibility of being wrong.
-
Vlad the Mandacious,
I understand atheism as being without god- ism. That is what it means isn't it.
I also understand that a claim that ONLY non belief in God is proper atheism is merely a bit of linguistic imperialism from those who hold that position. The beginnings of sectarianism if you like.
In terms of Leprechauns, in debating Leprechauns chiefly with your lord Hillside leprechauns were described variously as jolly little irish men physically found at the end of rainbows to something equal to God.
If those who wish to drag up Leprechauns eventually decide on what a Leprechaun is then clearly as a theist I could believe in a leprechaun which was exactly the same as God.
Any ridicule thence would properly be aimed at definition diddling.
Arguments of the leprechaun kind go like this.
A. Do you believe in Leprechauns?
T. Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows for which there should be material evidence but isn't so far so the idea is a bit ridiculous.
A. No, leprechauns are the same as God.
T. Well I believe in God
A. Har Har Har Har Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows Har Har Har Har.
As I've corrected you many times on this, should I take it that your latest misrepresentation is wilful lying?
Wearily, the point of the leprechauns analogy is merely to illustrate that, when an argument for god applies equally for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
That's it. No more, no less.
The characteristics, habits, thoughts, rules, instructions, dancing habits or anything else attached to those gods or to leprechauns are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT for this purpose.
See, I even put "UTTERLY IRRELEVANT" in Sassy-style capital letters so you can't just pretend again that it hasn't been explained to you.
-
It is the cornerstone of our whole way of progressing knowledge. Once we assume that we cannot be wrong then we cease to increase in knowledge.
The most phenomenal approach to enhancing knowledge, science, is based entirely on the possibility of being wrong.
Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong? I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?
-
Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong? I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?
Are you saying that you are infallible?
-
How do you know that experiencing God is different? Can you describe and demonstrate sky diving in toto or is there a difference between that and the experience?
I'd imagine that the experience of sky-diving isn't separate from it's description or definition: plane, parachute and wild blue yonder come to mind, where the experience of doing it would be an addition to the definition/description.
So how about you provide a description of god that is equivalent to sky-diving (e.g. planes, parachutes etc) and then we can explore how to experience this god.
-
It doesn't - but your religious experience presumably brings you to believe in the monotheist Christian god - so how do you square that with others who have religious experiences just a strong as yours (no doubt) that lead them to believe in the existence of entirely different gods and are therefore incompatible with your believe in a single Christian god.
That would obviously make someone wrong rather than jumping to the antitheist conclusion of all wrong, all experience invalid.
-
That would obviously make someone wrong rather than jumping to the antitheist conclusion of all wrong, all experience invalid.
Are you infallible on any other matters, or just god?
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms…
But “best” only for you. A rationalist would find a different best.
…and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.
No, they’re just reason and evidence-based is all.
There is no experience in atheism but a non experience.
I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs.
There’s no anything “in” atheism – its just the finding that there’s no reason to accept claims and assertions made for gods. Re Christians, some would and some (like AB who’s “absolutely certain”) wouldn’t.
You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians. I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right and I recall frequent appeals to the idea that converts to religion cannot have been true atheists.
The “probably” gives the game away. Find me an argument for “God” that isn’t hopeless and I’ll sign up tomorrow.
Until you guys come up with something better than the performance that was and is new atheism I'm afraid what walks and quacks in front of me is indeed, a duck.
What “performance” do you think there to be? There’s nothing much new about “new atheism” – the logic that supports atheism has been around for centuries and – so far at least – hasn’t been falsified. That’s why the religious rely on something they call “faith” for support instead.
-
I'd imagine that the experience of sky-diving isn't separate from it's description or definition: plane, parachute and wild blue yonder come to mind, where the experience of doing it would be an addition to the definition/description.
So how about you provide a description of god that is equivalent to sky-diving (e.g. planes, parachutes etc) and then we can explore how to experience this god.
Then you seem to be saying that the existence of a thing is the equivalent of it's description. I am not sure about that.
In terms of the second part of your post I believe a bubble from your subconscious has helped us out here.
In other words talk of experience of God has elicited talk of parachute jumps.
In the light of that I feel that your confessed refusal to go up in the plane in the first place might just be a metaphor for where you are in relation to an experience of God.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
But “best” only for you. A rationalist would find a different best.
Then you must introduce me to this rationalist then. Is he or she another of your pop scientists?
-
What “performance” do you think there to be? There’s nothing much new about “new atheism” – the logic that supports atheism has been around for centuries and – so far at least – hasn’t been falsified. That’s why the religious rely on something they call “faith” for support instead.
Performance which is new atheism?
Lack of rigour springs to mind.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Of course knowledge is uncertain – how could it be otherwise?
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong?
Of course he isn’t. Why would you even attempt such a straw man version of what he did say?
I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?
Presumably because you’ve just made up your own version of what was actually said.
Why do you do that?
-
Are you infallible on any other matters, or just god?
Are you infallible on 1+1=3.
In terms of fallibility God is a domain just like science is a domain. Now, would you dismiss science no, can you still be fallible in matters of science? yes.
-
So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?
To rephrase your first sentence:
I can accept the possibility that gods could exist, but have no belief in any god actually existing. (I have eliminated your second 'could' here, as your sentence doesn't make sense to me if it remains.)
To answer your question. Any god might exist, so, no, I don't believe that he could not exist.
-
Then you seem to be saying that the existence of a thing is the equivalent of it's description. I am not sure about that.
Neither am I - but then I didn't say this.
In terms of the second part of your post I believe a bubble from your subconscious has helped us out here.
In other words talk of experience of God has elicited talk of parachute jumps.
Do you think so: or are you evading again: my money's on the latter.
In the light of that I feel that your confessed refusal to go up in the plane in the first place might just be a metaphor for where you are in relation to an experience of God.
I'm afraid the answer is more prosaic: I don't like flying in a plane at he best of times, so voluntarily jumping out of one when several thousand feet aloft isn't something I'd be keen on doing.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Then you must introduce me to this rationalist then.
How do you do? Nice to meet you.
Performance which is new atheism?
Lack of rigour springs to mind.
Then try to apply some. Start with reading what's actually said, then stop misrepresenting it, then try at least to engage with the arguments that undo your various assertions.
-
Vlad the irrationalist,
In terms of fallibility God is a domain just like science is a domain.
Er, no.
"God" is white noise.
"Science" is a systematised method and body of knowledge that provides explanatory models of the way the universe appears to be.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
How do you do? Nice to meet you.
Hillside, You are wearing a fez, a buttonless shirt, baggy trousers and little shoes pointed up at the end.
Could you please tell the organ grinder I've arrived for his interpretation of my experience.
-
Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong? I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?
Knowledge develops, deepens and strengthens over time - or alternatively it weakens and crumbles under challenge.
And the process by which we do this is through rigorous challenge - we try to prove it to be incorrect, and if it fails that test we update our knowledge with a better understanding. If it survives that rigorous testing the knowledge is strengthened. But we have to keep testing and challenging that knowledge. Only that which remains robust through years of objective and rigorous testing is considered the strongest knowledge.
However we can never get to a point where we simply accept that some knowledge is unchallengeable.
-
Neither am I - but then I didn't say this.
Do you think so: or are you evading again: my money's on the latter.
I'm afraid the answer is more prosaic: I don't like flying in a plane at he best of times, so voluntarily jumping out of one when several thousand feet aloft isn't something I'd be keen on doing.
I'm not sure you realise the implications of what you said.
As prosaic as your answer may be, as much of a punt as my surmise that your subconscious translates God experience into thoughts of skydiving is....... imho your a priori dismissal of God remains.
-
Knowledge develops, deepens and strengthens over time - or alternatively it weakens and crumbles under challenge.
And the process by which we do this is through rigorous challenge - we try to prove it to be incorrect, and if it fails that test we update our knowledge with a better understanding. If it survives that rigorous testing the knowledge is strengthened. But we have to keep testing and challenging that knowledge. Only that which remains robust through years of objective and rigorous testing is considered the strongest knowledge.
However we can never get to a point where we simply accept that some knowledge is unchallengeable.
So what is your position on 1+1 = 2?
-
I'm not sure you realise the implications of what you said.
Oh I think I do.
As prosaic as your answer may be, as much of a punt as my surmise that your subconscious translates God experience into thoughts of skydiving is....... imho your a priori dismissal of God remains.
Dismissal of what exactly? (hint: your definition of god, attributes and properties etc etc is needed here).
-
Vlad the Irrational,
So what is your position on 1+1 = 2?
That it's probabilistically true.
What's yours, and why have just ignored being corrected on your earlier mistakes re the leprechaun analogy, knowledge and certainty, "philosophical naturalism" etc?
-
Vlad the Irrational,
That it's probabilistically true.
What's yours, and why have just ignored being corrected on your earlier mistakes re the leprechaun analogy, knowledge and certainty, "philosophical naturalism" etc?
I wasn't asking you and I doubt I will again........white noise and all that.
-
So what is your position on 1+1 = 2?
In what respect.
Given that numbers and there relation are self defining and self defined by people I'm not sure I understand the relevance.
And the relationship only holds true under certain (themselves defined) situations.
-
In what respect.
Given that numbers and there relation are self defining and self defined by people I'm not sure I understand the relevance.
And the relationship only holds true under certain (themselves defined) situations.
So you are OK with the self defining?
-
Vlad the Irrational,
I wasn't asking you and I doubt I will again........white noise and all that.
Abject capitulation noted. Still if telling lies on a message board makes you feel all warm about yourself, keep on keeping on then.
-
Are you infallible on 1+1=3.
In terms of fallibility God is a domain just like science is a domain. Now, would you dismiss science no, can you still be fallible in matters of science? yes.
Yes but that is axiomatic and we make the rules.
God is not.
I am fallible is all sorts of things, and I claim infallibility in nothing.
Are you infallible about god?
-
Vlad the Irrational,
Abject capitulation noted. Still if telling lies on a message board makes you feel all warm about yourself, keep on keeping on then.
capitulation on what?
-
Are you infallible about god?
What, that he exists? I have related my position. The Christian faith best describes my experience.
-
So you are OK with the self defining?
Mathematics is a 'created' language (or series of languages) which is a helpful tool in understanding phenomena. So depending on the language used,
1+1=2
or
1+1=10 (for example)
So in this context self definition is absolutely fine - how else would you have a language defined - they don't miraculously appear out of the ether - they are defined, evolved and adapted by people.
-
What, that he exists? I have related my position. The Christian faith best describes my experience.
So is that you saying yes you are infallible on the existence of god?
-
So is that you saying yes you are infallible on the existence of god?
I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong.
-
I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong.
Super - are we playing a wee game of 'spot the fallacy'?
-
Super - are we playing a wee game of 'spot the fallacy'?
What? He can prove i'm wrong!!!?????!!!
-
What? He can prove i'm wrong!!!?????!!!
Nope - you've just committed a common or garden fallacy: albeit a popular one that is seemingly beloved of some (but not all) theists.
-
Nope - you've just committed a common or garden fallacy: albeit a popular one that is seemingly beloved of some (but not all) theists.
How can a statement of fact be a fallacy Gordon? Aren't you seeing stuff that isn't there and reading stuff in?
Go on then I'm all ears.
-
Has anyone here ever met &-or talked with God ??? ;)
-
How can a statement of fact be a fallacy Gordon? Aren't you seeing stuff that isn't there and reading stuff in?
Go on then I'm all ears.
Then, big ears, re-read your #100.
-
I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong.
There you go with the NPF again.
Are you really going to claim infallibilty?
That seems to end all discussions, if you cannot be wrong.
You must know everything to know that you cannot under any circumstances be wrong about something you cannot even demonstrate to be true.
-
There you go with the NPF again.
And the NPF fallacy is?
And in what way did I ''go'' with it.
Can you prove my non infallibility?
-
And the NPF fallacy is?
And in what way did I ''go'' with it.
Can you prove my non infallibility?
You're doing it again.
-
And the NPF fallacy is?
And in what way did I ''go'' with it.
Can you prove my non infallibility?
Are you serious.
The negative proof fallacy where you said I could it prove you wrong.
This is logic 101, I do not have to show you to be wrong, You have to provide evidence to show you are right.
You must know this by now?
-
And the NPF fallacy is?
And in what way did I ''go'' with it.
Can you prove my non infallibility?
AGAIN !
YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE INFALLIBLE .
You made the claim that you cannot be wrong about there being a god.
-
Are you serious.
The negative proof fallacy where you said I could it prove you wrong.
This is logic 101, I do not have to show you to be wrong, You have to provide evidence to show you are right.
You must know this by now?
No if you say I am not infallible that is a positive assertion since you are saying I am fallible on the issue of God.
Demonstrate my fallibility and stop feeding us with guff about logic 101.
The trouble with most antitheists here is that they have no handle on what constitutes a positive assertion.
-
No if you say I am not infallible that is a positive assertion since you are saying I am fallible on the issue of God.
Demonstrate my fallibility and stop feeding us with guff about logic 101.
The trouble with most antitheists here is that they have no handle on what constitutes a positive assertion.
I have it said you are not infallible, I do not believe you are nor do I think anyone would be so stupid to claim that they are.
Did you type too quickly, and you did it mean to say that you could not be wrong and that you are not infallible.
If you claim infallibilty then it makes you look silly and shows you to have a massive ego.
-
You're doing it again.
Doing what?
Either you accept my interpretation of my experience is correct or you don't. You must have reasons that you don't. Are you happy that you have or are you being unreasonable?
I'm afraid you still have a poor understanding of what constitutes a positive assertion with a burden of proof. Be rational was exposed earlier on a confusion arising from his amazing assertion that something only effectively comes into being when demonstrated.
If you are not offering evidence to the contrary then you are effectively not challenging my position.
-
Doing what?
Either you accept my interpretation of my experience is correct or you don't. You must have reasons that you don't. Are you happy that you have or are you being unreasonable?
I'm afraid you still have a poor understanding of what constitutes a positive assertion with a burden of proof. Be rational was exposed earlier on a confusion arising from his amazing assertion that something only effectively comes into being when demonstrated.
If you are not offering evidence to the contrary then you are effectively not challenging my position.
You don't do logic do you.
You do not understand logic, basic logic, and yet you claim you cannot possibly under any circumstances be wrong.
I have never known anyone claim infallibilty, it's bonkers to do so.
You must know everything to know you cannot be wrong.
Do you claim to know everything, surely not.
You do not understand the NPF for a start.
-
I have it said you are not infallible, I do not believe you are nor do I think anyone would be so stupid to claim that they are.
Did you type too quickly, and you did it mean to say that you could not be wrong and that you are not infallible.
If you claim infallibilty then it makes you look silly and shows you to have a massive ego.
If there is stupidity here it is insisting on not ever knowing whether there is a God or not. What guarantees can you give that that is the case?
-
If there is stupidity here it is insisting on not ever knowing whether there is a God or not. What guarantees can you give that that is the case?
AGAIN you seem confused.
I do not know if there is a god or not, I only know I do not believe in a god at the moment.
Do you want to retract your claim of infallibility as I think that is the sensible thing to do.
-
AGAIN you seem confused.
I do not know if there is a god or not, I only know I do not believe in a god at the moment.
Do you want to retract your claim of infallibility as I think that is the sensible thing to do.
I'm not convinced.
-
You don't do logic do you.
You do not understand logic, basic logic, and yet you claim you cannot possibly under any circumstances be wrong.
I have never known anyone claim infallibilty, it's bonkers to do so.
You must know everything to know you cannot be wrong.
Do you claim to know everything, surely not.
You do not understand the NPF for a start.
I think you are confusing thinking that something is right with infallibility, the state of never being wrong here.
The elephant in the room are the claim that we can never know whether there is a God and that no one knows whether there is a God. How is that established?
Whether you have to prove something is a different thing from whether you can prove something. I have said I cannot prove my correctness but that may be because I do not have the skills. Your assertion that we can assume the non existence of something until it can be demonstrated is odd since it seems to conjur stuff out of nothing and ignores discovery. This alters the default position and therefore the burden of proof.
I couldn't find any entries for the no proof fallacy on the interweb even on an acronym site. I did find an acronym though which describes the antitheist effort today...................No Pants Friday.
Do you mean the fallacy which states you cant prove it isn't therefore it must be? That is different from a statement that goes you can't prove it is and you can't prove it isn't........which I believe is a definition of unfalsifiability rather than a fallacy.
-
I couldn't find any entries for the no proof fallacy on the interweb even on an acronym site. I did find an acronym though which describes the antitheist effort today...................No Pants Friday.
These things are much easier when you use the correct terms. It's 'negative proof fallacy' (also known as the argument from [properly appeal to] ignorance).
Try again.
-
These things are much easier when you use the correct terms. It's 'negative proof fallacy' (also known as the argument from [properly appeal to] ignorance).
Try again.
Thanks. It's what I thought .
See wikipedia and this thread for an example where someone says until there is proof of God he doesn't exist.
Other than that I find no claim of proof because of a sense of evidence.
-
Thanks. It's what I thought .
See wikipedia and this thread for an example where someone says until there is proof of God he doesn't exist.
Someone has said that on this thread?
Who?
Which post(s)?
-
Someone has said that on this thread?
Who?
Which post(s)?
This was declared in reply 30 as of 10.42 Saturday 19th
''The default position is that nothing exists, until you can demonstrate that it does.''
-
What, that he exists? I have related my position. The Christian faith best describes my experience.
And if that is so, how have you benefitted?
-
And if that is so, how have you benefitted?
I'd be a bigger bastard than I am now.
-
I'd be a bigger bastard than I am now.
Oh flipping heck is that possible? ;D ;D ;D
-
Ah, the Waugh gambit.
It's almost endearing that he actually thought that that was some sort of recommendation, as apparently do you.
Only almost, mind.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
Either you accept my interpretation of my experience is correct or you don't. You must have reasons that you don't.
It's simple enough: the reasons for thinking you're more probably wrong than right are first that the arguments you attempt to validate your interpretation are very bad ones, which means all that's left is epistemically worthless "faith"; and second that there are various commonplace (though doubtless less thrilling) possible explanations that you have no interest in investigating.
Personally I go with gravity making the apple fall rather than invisible pixies with very thin strings doing it, but each to his own I guess.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
I'd be a bigger bastard than I am now.
Though absent your commitment to lying for Jesus possibly a more honest one too?
-
I think you are confusing thinking that something is right with infallibility, the state of never being wrong here.
The elephant in the room are the claim that we can never know whether there is a God and that no one knows whether there is a God. How is that established?
Whether you have to prove something is a different thing from whether you can prove something. I have said I cannot prove my correctness but that may be because I do not have the skills. Your assertion that we can assume the non existence of something until it can be demonstrated is odd since it seems to conjur stuff out of nothing and ignores discovery. This alters the default position and therefore the burden of proof.
I couldn't find any entries for the no proof fallacy on the interweb even on an acronym site. I did find an acronym though which describes the antitheist effort today...................No Pants Friday.
Do you mean the fallacy which states you cant prove it isn't therefore it must be? That is different from a statement that goes you can't prove it is and you can't prove it isn't........which I believe is a definition of unfalsifiability rather than a fallacy.
Lot of waffle.
You commit the NPF a lot!
Could you be wrong about the existence of god?
Yes or no it is a simple question.
-
Lot of waffle.
You commit the NPF a lot!
Could you be wrong about the existence of god?
Yes or no it is a simple question.
You have your answer already in #44:
Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?
Not really No.
-
Shakes,
Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?
Not really No.
And there we have it - the man who tells us without realising it that his mind is closed.
This'll be lost on him entirely, but it seems to me that a closed mind was a necessary condition for the actions of the Barcelona terrorists too. There was no uncertainty there either - they knew - really, really knew - that the deaths of innocents was a price worth paying, so thus armed with certainty there wouldn't even have been the possibility of persuading them otherwise.
Me, I’d have basic philosophy taught from primary school onwards and I’d put the primacy of doubt front and centre to boot. Then I'd sign Vlad up for the course.
Some hope eh? Ah well.
-
Why is atheism so difficult to understand.
Because he doesn't WANT to understand as it would bring his whole antitheist edifice crashing down around his anti-atheist ears!
-
Because he doesn't WANT to understand as it would bring his whole antitheist edifice crashing down around his anti-atheist ears!
If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it. One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.
If that is all atheists can say about themselves why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?
That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.
-
If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it. One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.
If that is all atheists can say about themselves why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?
That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.
Why the hoo-har?
Even that is simple - because of the theists who insist that "not believing in P" is not an option and demand that they give up "not believing in P" whilst being unable to offer the slightest iota of proof that "believing in P" has any basis in fact, to accept that it is purely a matter of faith, that there is no proof of any sort that God, of any God, or Goddess, that can be shown to exist.
I am not as clever as you and cannot deal in -isms and fallacies but I do understand when something is shown to be impossible to prove by the inability of any one of several billion really clever people to prove it.
-
Vlad O’Irrational,
If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it.
By George, he’s finally got it!
One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.
Not really. “The vast bulk of traffic” is merely responding to the irrationalisms of those who would insist their personal faith beliefs be afforded special privileges over and above those proper to any other guessing, especially in the public square.
If that is all atheists can say about themselves…
It isn’t, except insofar as their/our atheism is the relevant common factor. When atheism isn’t the locus of the conversation, there’s no such collective groups as “atheists”.
…why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?
Because as citizens of the world some of us see and object to the fucked up harm that beliefs in ancient superstitions can cause, especially when those beliefs are underpinned by the closed minded certainty of which you for example seem so proud.
That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
“Of course” it’s no such thing. There is such a thing as anti-theism, but your routine use of the term when you actually refer only to atheism is just another example of your dishonesty.
…so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.
So now all you have to do is to show your working out that led to that remarkable but un-argued assertion.
-
Why the hoo-har?
Even that is simple - because of the theists who insist that "not believing in P" is not an option and demand that they give up "not believing in P" whilst being unable to offer the slightest iota of proof that "believing in P" has any basis in fact, to accept that it is purely a matter of faith, that there is no proof of any sort that God, of any God, or Goddess, that can be shown to exist.
I am not as clever as you and cannot deal in -isms and fallacies but I do understand when something is shown to be impossible to prove by the inability of any one of several billion really clever people to prove it.
I'm afraid as many non believers are seeking to convert as believers around here IMHO.
If there is a mystery here it is that you believe in the gods, believe in P but do not believe they exist in any sense. How do you square that? Just using the word faith doesn't cover it. Since the antitheists around here have faith they are justified and there is at the end of the day no God and there is a naturalistic universe and I have faith that there is a God of a supernaturalistic nature. having faith insomething you don't think is justiable ever in the natural or supernatural domains is a strange formulation of faith indeed.
In other words your are trying to have your cake and eat it and attempting to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
-
Vlad O’Irrational,
By George, he’s finally got it!
Then the huge mystery is why you said anything further when you had established those credentials for yourself.
-
Owls,
Why the hoo-har?
Even that is simple - because of the theists who insist that "not believing in P" is not an option and demand that they give up "not believing in P" whilst being unable to offer the slightest iota of proof that "believing in P" has any basis in fact, to accept that it is purely a matter of faith, that there is no proof of any sort that God, of any God, or Goddess, that can be shown to exist.
I am not as clever as you…
I must correct you there – you most certainly are. And then some.
..and cannot deal in –isms…
That’s OK, nor can he. For the most part he gets them wrong, and often resorts to re-defining them for his own purposes too.
… and fallacies…
Ah, now you have a point. Vladdo relies heavily on fallacies for his “arguments”, and worse yet persists in them even when they’re explained. His absolute favourite is the straw man – there’s almost no relationship between what people actually say and what he claims them to say – but he has several other trusty options when that one won’t serve.
…but I do understand when something is shown to be impossible to prove by the inability of any one of several billion really clever people to prove it.
Well, to be fair the fact that no theist we know of has been able to make an argument for a “true for you too” god that isn’t flawed doesn’t mean that someone somewhere hasn’t managed it, though it would seem surprising that any such argument hasn’t yet at least seen the light of day.
Still, you never know eh?
-
Vlad O'Irrational,
Then the huge mystery is why you said anything further when you had established those credentials for yourself.
Except any "mystery" would have disappeared for you had you bothered to read it.
-
If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it. One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.
If that is all atheists can say about themselves why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?
That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.
You are correct about the definition of atheism.
You ask about the rest of the traffic here. Well part of that is about the reasons why we are atheist - i.e. a lack of evidence sufficient to 'believe in P'.
Secondly there is a lot of discussion about religion and its place in society - with many of us believing that society should be neutral regarding religion such that how people are treated within society is not influenced positively or negatively by whether or not they believe in a deity or regard themselves as religious. Currently we don't have that with believers and, in particular, those who adhere to mainstream religion having special privileges (which turned on its head means that those who aren't religious suffer levels of discrimination). In other words a view that society should be secular.
None of that is 'anti-theist' - and of course secularism (in its NSS sense) is incompatible with anti-theism, as an anti-theist society wouldn't be neutral.
-
I'm afraid as many non believers are seeking to convert as believers around here IMHO.
If there is a mystery here it is that you believe in the gods, believe in P but do not believe they exist in any sense. How do you square that? Just using the word faith doesn't cover it. Since the antitheists around here have faith they are justified and there is at the end of the day no God and there is a naturalistic universe and I have faith that there is a God of a supernaturalistic nature. having faith insomething you don't think is justiable ever in the natural or supernatural domains is a strange formulation of faith indeed.
In other words your are trying to have your cake and eat it and attempting to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
As I said I am not as clever as you which, when appllied to such comments as those you make above, makes me really bloody stupid.
I am willing and able to state categorically that there is not one jot or tittle of proof that the Gods and Goddesses that I worship exist.
I have FAITH that they do!
I do NOT demand that non-believers give up their non-belief and believe (have faith) as I do.
I do NOT threaten people with a eternity of damnation awaits all those who refuse to give up their non-belief in MY deities.
I do NOT claim that my deities, male and female, created all that exists is seven, sorry, six-days.
I do NOT claim that my deities created "All things bright and beautiful" and carefully turn a blind eye to the creation, at the same time, of things like childhood cancer.
I do NOT condemn men who love other men and women who love other women because a two-thousand year old book says I must.
I do not worship deities who COMMAND that their followers "shall not kill" and at the same time COMMAND that they "not suffer a witch to live".
The above might well be some of the reasons why I am Pagan and not Christian.
I might not be clever but I am not a hypocrite.
-
I am willing and able to state categorically that there is not one jot or tittle of proof that the Gods and Goddesses that I worship exist.
I have FAITH that they do!
I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board since all have faith in something because there is no proof for any of their positions no matter how hard they plead. ''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.
Jesus having existed does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Humanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...In other words You don't seem to bother them.
As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave, just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.
-
I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board
Nope - unlike some (but not all) theists, Owl isn't insisting on either claiming the existence of the divine or that his beliefs are also true for others: therefore his stance is indeed different to that of others.
...since all have faith in something because there is no proof for any of their positions no matter how hard they plead.
Who 'pleads' on this basis?
''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.
Who has expressed this particular opinion?
Jesus having existed
Probably, but not certainly.
...does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Huf the cosmmanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...In other words You don't seem to bother them.
Owl's stance, while personal, is reasonable - why should that be a problem?
As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave, just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.
Don't think so, and I see you still enjoy a bit of hyperbole.
-
I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board since all have faith in something because there is no proof for any of their positions no matter how hard they plead. ''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.
Jesus having existed does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Humanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...In other words You don't seem to bother them.
As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave, just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.
I don't have any faith in anything.
-
Nope - unlike some (but not all) theists, Owl isn't insisting on either claiming the existence of the divine or that his beliefs are also true for others: therefore his stance is indeed different to that of others.
Who 'pleads' on this basis?
Who has expressed this particular opinion?
Probably, but not certainly.
Owl's stance, while personal, is reasonable - why should that be a problem?
Don't think so, and I see you still enjoy a bit of hyperbole.
Thanks Big G - trying to discuss anything with such a died-in-the-wool 'my God exists until you can prove otherwise' brainwashed theist is tiring at the best of times and I spent some time relaxing reading Mark Chadbourn's "Age of misrule" - soemthing I've been meaning to do for about five years - and missed Vlad's comment..
-
Vlad the Fallacious,
I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board…
Yes he is, for the reasons he explained. Try reading them.
…since all have faith in something…
Ah the fallacy of ambiguous terms. What “faith” do you think some of have? Presumably you’re trying again your old trick of conflating the prosaic sense (reasonable confidence based on experience and logic – eg "I have faith that my car will start") with the religious sense (guess – eg "God").
…because there is no proof for any of their positions…
Yes there is when logic provides those proofs.
…no matter how hard they plead. ''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.
It’s also one of your favourite fallacies – the straw man. Who would you say attempts the “but I know it can’t be God” bit?
Why do you even bother lying like this?
Jesus having existed…
More ambiguity: Jesus the man, or Jesus the man/god?
…does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Humanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...
Words. Yup, them’s definitely words. Any chance of trying to organise some of them into a coherent sentence though?
In other words You don't seem to bother them.
Presumably because he doesn’t expect special privileges for his beliefs as you do – like insisting they’re true for anyone else.
As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave,
Ah, the fallacy of judgmental language again. “Rabid” eh?
…just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.
Not if he doesn’t overreach as you do into unsupportable claims he won’t.
-
Owls,
As I said I am not as clever as you...
For the reasons I explained, please don't be fooled. Of course you are.
-
The article claims that atheists believe there is no god.
That is wrong for a start!
'Twould be helpful if you expained why. Am I right in thinking that you mean that it would be more accurate to say that they don't believe that thereis a God? If so, you are nit-picking.
-
'Twould be helpful if you expained why. Am I right in thinking that you mean that it would be more accurate to say that they don't believe that thereis a God? If so, you are nit-picking.
I completely and utterly disagree.
Saying I do not believe X is true, is NOT the same as saying I believe X is false.
I do not believe my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass.
Does that mean I believe it has a even number of blades?
No, I do not believe either claim, because I do not know the number of blades of grass, and have no reason to think either is true, even though I know one MUST be.
It is not nit picking, it is accurate.
I suggest you never get into coding!
-
SteveH,
'Twould be helpful if you expained why. Am I right in thinking that you mean that it would be more accurate to say that they don't believe that thereis a God? If so, you are nit-picking.
That's wrong – there's a world of philosophical difference between "I believe that X does not exist" and "I have no reason to think that X does exist". The former eliminates even the possibility of X; the latter doesn't.
That incidentally is the peg on which Vlad hangs one of his favourite straw men - that atheism says "there is no god" when it does no such thing. It matters because the straw man version opens up the false trail of, "Go on then - prove that there is no god" etc when no such claim has been made.
-
SteveH,
That's wrong – there's a world of philosophical difference between "I believe that X does not exist" and "I have no reason to think that X does exist". The former eliminates even the possibility of X; the latter doesn't.
That incidentally is the peg on which Vlad hangs one of his favourite straw men - that atheism says "there is no god" when it does no such thing. It matters because the straw man version opens up the false trail of, "Go on then - prove that there is no god" etc when no such claim has been made.
That's right - theists such as Vlad try to turn atheism into a belief rather than what it is, the lack of a belief. It is a classic, and rather tiresome, tactic to try to use an argument that both are equivalent beliefs and therefore if there is an onus on the theist to provide evidence to justify their belief then there is onus on the atheist similarly to justify their 'belief' that god doesn't exist.
It is muddle-headed thinking and rather dishonest. We all have thousands of things we don't believe in - if we were required to justify or lack of belief with evidence, then we'd be here until the cows come home. Nope the onus rests on the person making a positive claim that something exists, i.e. the believer. There is no onus on the non believer.
-
That's right - theists such as Vlad try to turn atheism into a belief rather than what it is, the lack of a belief. It is a classic, and rather tiresome, tactic to try to use an argument that both are equivalent beliefs and therefore if there is an onus on the theist to provide evidence to justify their belief then there is onus on the atheist similarly to justify their 'belief' that god doesn't exist.
It is muddle-headed thinking and rather dishonest. We all have thousands of things we don't believe in - if we were required to justify or lack of belief with evidence, then we'd be here until the cows come home. Nope the onus rests on the person making a positive claim that something exists, i.e. the believer. There is no onus on the non believer.
Not having the time or inclination to justify seems a pretty piss poor justification to me.
No onus on the non believer or no reasons for being a non believer?
-
Not having the time or inclination to justify seems a pretty piss poor justification to me.
No onus on the non believer or no reasons for being a non believer?
Is that supposed even to make sense in basic English terms, rather than in argument?
If you believe something exists, you own that claim, and the onus is on you to provide the evidence to prove that thing exists.
If I do not believe your claim that something exists there is no onus on me to provide justification that the thing does not exist - for the obvious reason that the only way in which you can settle that argument is to prove that it does exist (qv Popper), and that is your responsibility.
-
Is that supposed even to make sense in basic English terms, rather than in argument?
If you believe something exists, you own that claim, and the onus is on you to provide the evidence to prove that thing exists.
If I do not believe your claim that something exists there is no onus on me to provide justification that the thing does not exist - for the obvious reason that the only way in which you can settle that argument is to prove that it does exist (qv Popper), and that is your responsibility.
I am not trying to duck out of my onus but I believe you have an onus because you think reality to be without It and that your life's work has been the avoidance of that onus.
You are stealing the default position without explaining why.
Of course we all know why you are asserting that I am the only one making a claim about existence.
You are a naturalist.
-
I am not trying to duck out of my onus but I believe you have an onus because you think reality to be without It and that your life's work has been the avoidance of that onus.
You are stealing the default position without explaining why.
Of course we all know why you are asserting that I am the only one making a claim about existence.
You are a naturalist.
I'm not stealing any default position - but I cannot prove the non existence of something, so if I don't believe something exists, not only do I have no onus to prove it, but it is logically impossible. The only proof that can help us is to prove it does exist - i.e. your onus.
-
I'm not stealing any default position - but I cannot prove the non existence of something, so if I don't believe something exists, not only do I have no onus to prove it, but it is logically impossible. The only proof that can help us is to prove it does exist - i.e. your onus.
But why should I prove God exists to you when you are the one claiming Gods existence needs to be proved?
-
But why should I prove God exists to you when you are the one claiming Gods existence needs to be proved?
Fine - if you don't want to provide any justification for your belief, that is entirely your choice.
I have never said you are required to prove that god exists, merely that if you make the claim the onus is on you to provide that proof, not on me to prove that god doesn't exist (which would be impossible anyhow).
-
Fine - if you don't want to provide any justification for your belief, that is entirely your choice.
You don't seem to have answered my question. Why are you the one requiring evidence of God? What evidence do you think is missing? Are you saying God hasn't got employer references or the equivalent?
-
Vlad the Confused,
But why should I prove God exists to you when you are the one claiming Gods existence needs to be proved?
You really, really don't get this burden of proof thing do you.
Not
a
freakin'
clue.
If you want to make a claim for a "true for me too" god then the burden is proof rests with you. When on the rare occasions you bother to try and your validating arguments turns out to be false (as they always have) all that's necessary for non-belief is for me is to identify where and why they're false. Which I always do.
That's not to say of course that someone somewhere hasn't thought of an argument for god(s) that isn't hopeless but that has never occurred to you (or that you want to keep secret perhaps), which is why atheism doesn't entail "but I know is isn't god" at all – you know, the huge lie you keep telling and then ignore whenever you're called out on it.
Wouldn't it be easier to try at least to post without lying?
Just once maybe?
-
Why are you the one requiring evidence of God?
Did you actually bother to read my post where I said:
'I have never said you are required to prove that god exists'
What evidence do you think is missing?
Given that there is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods ... well I think you can work out what evidence is missing ... all of it.
-
Vlad the Hypocritist,
You don't seem to have answered my question.
Fuck me!
Words literally fail me.
Look... yuogw ytdwuy u7 ywgi88 wuihwot.
See?
-
Vlad - Moderator: content removed.
Why are you the one requiring evidence of God?
Because - blindingly obviously - your'e the one claiming a "true for him too" god remember?
Something?
Anything?
What evidence do you think is missing?
Something. Anything.Just a smidgin of a drop of an iota of evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns would be good.
After all these years are you FINALLY going to provide some?
Are you saying God hasn't got employer references or the equivalent?
No - he's saying that you've never once ever at any time even just once managed to provide one atom of a hint of a fraction of this supposed "evidence".
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp exactly?
-
No - he's saying that you've never once ever at any time even just once managed to provide one atom of a hint of a fraction of this supposed "evidence".
No - give Vlad his dues. He claims his personal experience (which is of course completely unavailable to anyone else and completely subjective) is evidence. Hmm, not so much.
So his evidence is effectively - god exists because I say he/she/it does.
-
Vlad Moderator: Content Removed
Because - blindingly obviously - your'e the one claiming a "true for him too" god remember?
Something?
Anything?
Something. Anything.Just a smidgin of a drop of an iota of evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns would be good.
After all these years are you FINALLY going to provide some?
No - he's saying that you've never once ever at any time even just once managed to provide one atom of a hint of a fraction of this supposed "evidence".
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp exactly?
So you are asking for evidence because you claim the omnipresent God is absent?
And therefore you are making a claim.
-
You don't seem to have answered my question. Why are you the one requiring evidence of God? What evidence do you think is missing? Are you saying God hasn't got employer references or the equivalent?
Every single atom of it!
There has been not a single atom of proof posted on either this, or its progenitor, the Beeb, Forum.
The interminable 'prove it exists'/'prove it doesn't exist' argybargy(sic) could be resolved, at a stroke, by the theists stating, categorically and unequivocally (sic(again)),
I CAN'T - IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH
Unfortunately the theists are as castrati - they do not have the balls to make this admission/statement!
-
No - give Vlad his dues. He claims his personal experience (which is of course completely unavailable to anyone else and completely subjective) is evidence. Hmm, not so much.
So his evidence is effectively - god exists because I say he/she/it does.
Yes. But your new inference here is that Hillside or anyone else cannot have an experience of God.
Hillside claims that any evidence will do for him but cannot specify. I am at a loss to see how his belief that there is no evidence for an omnipresent God is good for everybody.
-
Prof,
No - give Vlad his dues. He claims his personal experience (which is of course completely unavailable to anyone else and completely subjective) is evidence. Hmm, not so much.
So his evidence is effectively - god exists because I say he/she/it does.
Yes, but that's evidence only for him (and piss poor evidence even for that limited purpose by the way).
His problem though is that he expects others not only to think that he's right about that subjectively, but that his personal god is objectively true for them too. Which is why he needs evidence if he wants the claim to be taken seriously.
-
Every single atom of it!
There has been not a single atom of proof posted on either this, or its progenitor, the Beeb, Forum.
The interminable 'prove it exists'/'prove it doesn't exist' argybargy(sic) cold be resolved, at a stroke, by the theists stating, categorically and unequivocally (sic(again)),
I CAN'T - IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH
Unfortunately the theists are as castrati - they do not have the balls to make this admission/statement!
But God is omnipresent. What evidence is missing?what is it you are not getting about God.
As it is you Owlswing you are saying you have faith but make faith sound like something you are just making up.
-
Prof,
Yes, but that's evidence only for him (and piss poor evidence even for that limited purpose by the way).
His problem though is that he expects others not only to think that he's right about that subjectively, but that his personal god is objectively true for them too. Which is why he needs evidence if he wants the claim to be taken seriously.
Can we please have a show of hands from those who think that Vlad has a snowballs' chance in Hell of ever being taken seriously?
-
Prof,
Yes, but that's evidence only for him (and piss poor evidence even for that limited purpose by the way).
His problem though is that he expects others not only to think that he's right about that subjectively, but that his personal god is objectively true for them too.
So are you claiming that he can't be true for you then?
-
So are you claiming that he can't be true for you then?
NO NO NO - he is STATING that, in the absence of any evidence, at the moment, it can't be true for him!
JESUSCHRISTALLBLOODYMIGHTY - I'm an idiot and I can understand this why the **** can't a bloody cleverclogs like you?
-
Vlad the Burdenofproofshifterist.
So you are asking for evidence…
What the fuck is your major malfunction? Seriously, what?
I’m not “asking for evidence” at all. What I am doing though is telling you that, if you want your claim of a "true for you too " gos to be taken seriously, then you’d better provide some evidence of your own.
…because you claim the omnipresent God is absent?
Will you ever stop lying?
Ever?
I make no such claim of course. What I do say though is that neither you nor anyone else I know of has managed to demonstrate that this “God” is present.
Will you ever understand or be honest about the difference do you think?
And therefore you are making a claim.
And he crashes and burns again by way of a finish.
Leaving aside your gross misrepresentation, what "claim" do you think I've made?
-
Vlad the Stillshiftingtheburdenofprooferist,
Yes. But your new inference here is that Hillside or anyone else cannot have an experience of God.
He neither said nor implied any such thing.
Stop lying.
Hillside claims that any evidence will do for him but cannot specify.
First it’s your claim so it's your job to “specify”, not mine.
Second though, you’d be well advised to specify something that doesn’t work equally for leprechauns if you don’t want to keep being ignored or worse.
I am at a loss to see how his belief that there is no evidence for an omnipresent God is good for everybody.
It’s “good for everybody” for the same reason that 2+2=4 is good for everybody: logic.
Find some logic for “God” that isn’t broken though and – finally – there’d be something to talk about.
-
Vlad the Burdenofproofshifterist.
What the fuck is your major malfunction? Seriously, what?
I’m not “asking for evidence” at all. What I am doing though is telling you that, if you want your claim of a "true for you too " gos to be taken seriously, then you’d better provide some evidence of your own.
Will you ever stop lying?
Ever?
I make no such claim of course. What I do say though is that neither you nor anyone else I know of has managed to demonstrate that this “God” is present.
Will you ever understand or be honest about the difference do you think?
And he crashes and burns again by way of a finish.
Leaving aside your gross misrepresentation, what "claim" do you think I've made?
There is as I see it only one position that might have a claim to no burden and that is agnosticism.
Of course anyone claiming there is no evidence for God are making a claim not least since they are discounting what other people consider as information held.
-
Vlad the Confusionist,
There is as I see it only one position that might have a claim to no burden and that is agnosticism.
That's because you either don't know or choose wilfully to misrepresent what "atheism" means.
Of course anyone claiming there is no evidence for God are making a claim not least since they are discounting what other people consider as information held.
Of course you're lying again. Did I say "there is no evidence" or did I say that there's none that I'm aware of?
I've told you already - if you insist on lying, at least try to be a bit less obvious about it.
And "what other people consider to be an information field" as you put it tells you nothing about whether anyone else should agree.
I've told you countless times how to dig your way out of the hole - just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns.
Why don't you at least try to do that?
-
There is as I see it only one position that might have a claim to no burden and that is agnosticism.
Nope - agnosticism is about knowledge, not about claims.
So we shift from agnosticism when (or if) a claim is proven to be true or not true - and in the case of the existence of a god then the only way in which the claim can be proved is if it is proven that god exists as you cannot conclusively prove the non existence of god.
The burden of proof, and its onus, is about those making claims of the existence of something, not about knowledge which is about the proof itself.
So lets imagine you believe in leprechauns (you are a leprechaunist) yet you don't know for certain that the exist (i.e. you are agnostic in relation to the existence of leprechauns) then the burden of proof still rests with you. If you are no longer agnostic, which will only happen if we actually know whether leprechauns exist) then the proof will have been settled, so there is no longer a burden of proof as the proof already exists.
-
Nope - agnosticism is about knowledge, not about claims.
So we shift from agnosticism when (or if) a claim is proven to be true or not true - and in the case of the existence of a god then the only way in which the claim can be proved is if it is proven that god exists as you cannot conclusively prove the non existence of god.
The burden of proof, and its onus, is about those making claims of the existence of something, not about knowledge which is about the proof itself.
So lets imagine you believe in leprechauns (you are a leprechaunist) yet you don't know for certain that the exist (i.e. you are agnostic in relation to the existence of leprechauns) then the burden of proof still rests with you. If you are no longer agnostic, which will only happen if we actually know whether leprechauns exist) then the proof will have been settled, so there is no longer a burden of proof as the proof already exists.
To return to the OP Professor Anthony takes issue with the idea that there are even positions which are immune from the the demands of evidentialism.
Evidentialism is the project which the person who requires evidence sets out on.
You say you cannot prove there isn't a God, I would say 'Tough'. Dr Anthony dismantles the idea that you can never prove or demonstrate a negative by his example of the bowl of milk. We can demonstrate for example that a bowl is empty of milk.
In debating the omnipresent God the position of both the agnostic and the atheist is that ''the bowl is empty'' hence the request for evidence.
The theist will say that ''the bowl is full''. Now let us investigate why the atheist and agnostic are perceiving absence of evidence. It must be a position on the nature of evidence. I think we all know where we are going here.
In terms of Leprechauns, I wonder if they are omnipresent. If I believe in them evidentialism demands evidence but it also demands evidence for why I might claim ''bowl empty''
-
Seems simple to me. Claims require evidence. To have no personal belief in God or gods is not a claim so doesn't require evidence.
-
Vlad the Falseanalogist,
You say you cannot prove there isn't a God, I would say 'Tough'. Dr Anthony dismantles the idea that you can never prove or demonstrate a negative by his example of the bowl of milk. We can demonstrate for example that a bowl is empty of milk.
In debating the omnipresent God the position of both the agnostic and the atheist is that ''the bowl is empty'' hence the request for evidence.
The theist will say that ''the bowl is full''. Now let us investigate why the atheist and agnostic are perceiving absence of evidence. It must be a position on the nature of evidence. I think we all know where we are going here.
Yes "we" do - down the path of the false analogy. How would you propose that anyone investigate this claim of a supernatural bowl of milk?
You'd have been better off claiming that the orbiting teapot was full of tea.
In terms of Leprechauns, I wonder if they are omnipresent.
You can wonder about that all you like - it has nothing to do with their non-investigability though.
If I believe in them evidentialism demands evidence but it also demands evidence for why I might claim ''bowl empty''
Stop lying. No-one says "bowl empty". What they actually say is more like, "what bowl"?
-
You say you cannot prove there isn't a God, I would say 'Tough'. Dr Anthony dismantles the idea that you can never prove or demonstrate a negative by his example of the bowl of milk. We can demonstrate for example that a bowl is empty of milk.
Nope - faulty thinking. Firstly the claim of god is of a supernatural entity - so to provide a more appropriate analogy the bowl may be full of supernatural invisible milk that fails to manifest itself when tests are used to assess its present. Can I prove that it isn't
But the claim for god isn't one of a single defined bowl which may or may not be full of milk - it is a nebulous Popper-esque claim - that all bowls are empty of milk, in other words that bowls containing milk do not exist. Again to link to the claim of god - if there are n bowls in the universe (or even outside it) it matters not whether n-1 bowls are empty of milk, the claim isn't proven until it is demonstrated that all bowls are empty of milk. And that final bowl full of milk might be god.
So can you prove that bowls containing milk do not exist.
-
Vlad the Confusionist,
That's because you either don't know or choose wilfully to misrepresent what "atheism" means.
Of course you're lying again. Did I say "there is no evidence" or did I say that there's none that I'm aware of?
I've told you already - if you insist on lying, at least try to be a bit less obvious about it.
And "what other people consider to be an information field" as you put it tells you nothing about whether anyone else should agree.
I've told you countless times how to dig your way out of the hole - just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns.
Why don't you at least try to do that?
The approach you are advocating is one that I have come to refer to as bluehillsiding, i.e. asking someone to swim from A to B but not allowing them to use a swimming stroke.
Your response to what is proffered is what I am from now on calling bluehillshite, namely posting something that claims to be a rebuttal / falsification but can be discarded because it is based on a false premise.
If you really cannot see the flaw in just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns then I'm going to struggle to find a word in the dictionary for what is wrong with you!
-
The approach you are advocating is one that I have come to refer to as bluehillsiding, i.e. asking someone to swim from A to B but not allowing them to use a swimming stroke.
Your response to what is proffered is what I am from now on calling bluehillshite, namely posting something that claims to be a rebuttal / falsification but can be discarded because it is based on a false premise.
If you really cannot see the flaw in just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns then I'm going to struggle to find a word in the dictionary for what is wrong with you!
And what false premise would that be?
-
And what false premise would that be?
He's just another Christian trying to take the heat off Vlad who, in a couple more days digging, is going to pop up somehwere in the Southern hemisphere!
Probably somewhere where the sharks will ensure his return swim to the UK will be in a World Record time!
-
Rubber Spatula of Irrationalism,
The approach you are advocating is one that I have come to refer to as bluehillsiding, i.e. asking someone to swim from A to B but not allowing them to use a swimming stroke.
Actually I’m asking what method he would use to get from A to B. So far at least though, answer comes there none.
Worse, while anyone is of course perfectly allowed to use whatever “stroke” he likes, he cannot then deny the same stroke to someone else. Thus if, say, he finally attempts an argument for “God” that works equally for leprechauns, he cannot then say that the same argument is denied to the lerprechaunist.
Hence the question: what evidence does he propose that does not work just as well for leprechauns?
As Vlad is entirely unwilling or unable to answer that, perhaps you could help him out with a suggestion of your own though?
Your response to what is proffered is what I am from now on calling bluehillshite, namely posting something that claims to be a rebuttal / falsification but can be discarded because it is based on a false premise.
That could be true. To find out though, you’d have to tell us what you think that false premise to be, and why you think I rely on it.
So far though, all we have is your vague assertion on the matter.
If you really cannot see the flaw in just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns then I'm going to struggle to find a word in the dictionary for what is wrong with you!
Save yourself the time and just try to answer the question: what evidence do you think there is for your “God” that doesn’t work just as well for leprechauns?
As you seem confident of your position, it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to answer that I’d have thought.
OK, I’ve got a jumbo bottle of Tizer in and a family pack of Twiglets and I’m all snuggly on the sofa…
…go for it!
-
Another question to wait for an answer with bated breath!! I'm always optimistic... :)
-
Another question to wait for an answer with bated breath!! I'm always optimistic... :)
Optimistic? You need to be - like in the year 2750 optimistic!
-
Another question to wait for an answer with bated breath!! I'm always optimistic... :)
At least here, like most other enlightened countries there's fewer and fewer of them every time you see another poll.
No doubt they'll be alongside the odd few Zeus believers we still have, just on the harmless side of having to be locked away for their own good.
ippy
-
At least here, like most other enlightened countries there's fewer and fewer of them every time you see another poll.
No doubt they'll be alongside the odd few Zeus believers we still have, just on the harmless side of having to be locked away for their own good.
ippy
I'm glad that you see such a bright future before me.
-
Seems simple to me. Claims require evidence. To have no personal belief in God or gods is not a claim so doesn't require evidence.
Claims do require evidence.
The question here is who is making a claim, how it is being made and the context.
For example Who has the burden of proof here: The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.
Curved earthers or flat earthers?
And can you spot the hidden claim here................It is up to you to prove the Buddha existed?
-
The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.
Have you proved yet that that bowls containing milk do not exist.
-
Have you proved yet that that bowls containing milk do not exist.
Eh?
-
Eh?
See reply 181.
-
See reply 181.
Briefly
Your reply was non sequitur. There was also a possible special plead ''You are talking about the supernatural''.
I was merely demonstrating you can demonstrate that there is no milk in a bowl.
You have probably though successfully diverted people from the important post I made a few posts back.
Evidentialism demands evidence of any position and cannot be turned of and on at will.
While we are about it
Why should;
I have a belief in God require evidence and I have no belief in God not.
-
Claims do require evidence.
The question here is who is making a claim, how it is being made and the context.
Ageeed.
For example Who has the burden of proof here: The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.
Curved earthers or flat earthers?
Whoever makes the claim.
[quore quote]And can you spot the hidden claim here[/quote]
No. Can you explain please.
It is up to you to prove the Buddha existed?
Sorry? Is that a question? Not clear.
If I claimed Buddha existed I would need evidence. Your point?
[/quote]
-
Ageeed.
Whoever makes the claim.
[quore quote]And can you spot the hidden claim here
No. Can you explain please.
Sorry? Is that a question? Not clear.
If I claimed Buddha existed I would need evidence. Your point?
The point is ''why are you asking for evidence that the Budhha existed''.......I.e. you doubt that he did. In other words your context is buddhaless. A Buddhaless context ALSO needs evidence.
You are proceeding from the baddhaless state.
What you should be doing is asking for evidence of the Buddha and evidence for the Buddhaless context.
You never get that from ''The agnostic atheist''.
-
The point is ''why are you asking for evidence that the Budhha existed''.......I.e. you doubt that he did. In other words your context is buddhaless. A Buddhaless context ALSO needs evidence.
You are proceeding from the baddhaless state.
What you should be doing is asking for evidence of the Buddha and evidence for the Buddhaless context.
You never get that from ''The agnostic atheist''.
Having no belief in something or someone is not a claim so requires no evidence. If someone claims Buddha didn't exist they would require evidence. If they say they doubt Buddha existed then they should provide evidence or reasons why. Beyond that I think you are overcomplicating things.
-
I'm glad that you see such a bright future before me.
Sorry about that Owl while I've a lot of respect for people like your good self the airy fairy pov will have to be consigned to the large dustbin of time in the end, along side figures like Zeus which I'm sure would have been an equally revered idea in it's time, now redundant.
Rationality and logic within the relms of religious belief is a quality that's a bit thin on the ground putting it mildly.
ippy
-
Vlad the Divertionist,
Claims do require evidence.
Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess.
The question here is who is making a claim,…
You are: “God”.
…how it is being made and the context.
So far at least, the only “how” you’ve suggested is “that’s my interpretation of my experience”.
For example Who has the burden of proof here: The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.
You do – to demonstrate that there’s a bowl in the first place, and to propose a method to investigate the claim.
Curved earthers or flat earthers?
Irrelevant. No-one disputes that there is an earth to investigate in the first place.
And can you spot the hidden claim here................It is up to you to prove the Buddha existed?
There is no “hidden claim”, and your false analogy of the bowl and milk was detonated back in Reply 180 by the way, even though you just ignored it.. The investigable and the non-investigable are not analogous.
-
Vlad the Divertionist,
Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess.
You are: “God”.
So far at least, the only “how” you’ve suggested is “that’s my interpretation of my experience”.
You do – to demonstrate that there’s a bowl in the first place, and to propose a method to investigate the claim.
Irrelevant. No-one disputes that there is an earth to investigate in the first place.
There is no “hidden claim”, and your false analogy of the bowl and milk was detonated back in Reply 180 by the way, even though you just ignored it.. The investigable and the non-investigable are not analogous.
Complete misunderstanding of what was being argued.
The bowl which professor Anthony argues is an empty bowl of which it is quite easy to demonstrate a negative in this case ''negative milk'' or ''no milk '' if you like.
Secondly proof of the bowl. Bowls exist.
Thirdly, You misunderstand the analogy of the bowl you think your demand for me to prove there is a bowl is about proving God. IT IS NOT.
The bowl is analogous to the totality of the cosmos.
The fullness or emptiness is analogous to the status of God in theist and atheist contention. That is after all what atheist means. God is the milk rather than the bowl.
IMHO you and others are shuffling around these points.
This thread is IMHO revolving around two themes:
Were antitheist/atheist claims on this board that theists were actually and conclusively arguing NPF valid? and have the atheist/antitheists been translating mere statements of belief in God into claims for God while denying that non belief in God constituted a claim.
IMHO the verdict is knocking on the door of guilty on both counts.
-
Having no belief in something or someone is not a claim so requires no evidence. If someone claims Buddha didn't exist they would require evidence. If they say they doubt Buddha existed then they should provide evidence or reasons why. Beyond that I think you are overcomplicating things.
Your first sentence is mere assertion. Please justify.
-
Your first sentence is mere assertion. Please justify.
No need. It is a statement of fact. What claim do you think is being made if you have no belief in something?
-
Complete misunderstanding of what was being argued.
The bowl which professor Anthony argues is an empty bowl of which it is quite easy to demonstrate a negative in this case ''negative milk'' or ''no milk '' if you like.
Secondly proof of the bowl. Bowls exist.
Thirdly, You misunderstand the analogy of the bowl you think your demand for me to prove there is a bowl is about proving God. IT IS NOT.
The bowl is analogous to the totality of the cosmos.
The fullness or emptiness is analogous to the status of God in theist and atheist contention. That is after all what atheist means. God is the milk rather than the bowl.
IMHO you and others are shuffling around these points.
This thread is IMHO revolving around two themes:
Were antitheist/atheist claims on this board that theists were actually and conclusively arguing NPF valid? and have the atheist/antitheists been translating mere statements of belief in God into claims for God while denying that non belief in God constituted a claim.
IMHO the verdict is knocking on the door of guilty on both counts.
Saying there is an empty bowl is not a negative claim it is a positive claim that an empty bowl exists.
-
Saying there is an empty bowl is not a negative claim it is a positive claim that an empty bowl exists.
But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.
-
But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.
Oh dear no milk, did you have to have gin instead for your brekkie? ;D
-
But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.
Not at all. Saying a bowl has no milk in it is positive claim. A positive claim is saying something exists andin this case the claim us that an empty bowl exists hence its positive.
-
Have you thought about what claim is being made by someone who says they have no belief in something?
-
Have you thought about what claim is being made by someone who says they have no belief in something?
apparent absence,
-
apparent absence,
Explain.
-
But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.
The statement "the bowl is empty" is a positive claim. I'm making a definite claim that the bowl is in a particular state. As such, it demands evidence to substantiate it.
The position of most atheists is more like "I have no reason to believe there is anything in the bowl, therefore, for the moment, I will assume there is nothing in it".
I would go a little further. I observe that the Milkians have been trying to find evidence for milk in the bowl for 2,000 years and have so far only produced a few anonymous stories to support their claim. To me this shifts the balance of probability to the bowl being empty or at least not having milk in it.
Milkianity has an interesting history, by the way. Milkians believe the bowl was filled with fresh milk 2,000 years ago which then went sour after being left out for three days. However, it was rendered fresh again in a miraculous event known as the Pasteurisation. In the early days, some Milkians held unorthodox beliefs: some believed the milk was turned to cheese; others - yoghurt. However these dairytics were all put to the sword by the true Milkians. The bloodshed was as nothing, however, compared to what happened in the 15th century after the schism between the full fatolics and the semi-skimmedants.
-
Anybody want to talk about Pasteur's wager?
There's a bowl on a high shelf that you need for some delicious soup. If it's full and you think it is empty you might end up covered in milk when you try to reach it down. If it is empty and you believe it to be full, the worst case is that it took you a little longer to reach it down, so it's obviously better to assume it is full.
Unfortunately, the extra time you take to reach the empty bowl down causes the soup in the pan to burn.
-
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
-
Explain.
well since it is about context let's establish it with an agnostic atheist who is claiming it.
They are asking for evidence from a context of apparent absence. Therefore apparent absence is the unspoken claim.
To give an other example of unspoken claim. The person who states she has belief in God. The unspoken claim is that there is a God.
We know that because Atheists read it like a claim. The mystery is is why they do not draw the unspoken claim ''No God'' from the person who states the have no belief in God.
-
Vlad the Evasionist,
Complete misunderstanding of what was being argued.
The bowl which professor Anthony argues is an empty bowl of which it is quite easy to demonstrate a negative in this case ''negative milk'' or ''no milk '' if you like.
Yes I know – and on a stand alone basis that would be fine. There are various methods that could be used to validate either claims “the bowl contains milk”/”the bowl is
empty”. That is, each claim is investigable.
That though have bugger all to do with the prior problem you just avoided again – namely that the analogy is a false one because the claim “God” is not investigable at all (or at least not unless you’re finally going to propose a method to do that).
Secondly proof of the bowl. Bowls exist.
And proof of “God”?
Now do you see the problem?
Thirdly…
Your firstly and secondly have just collapsed, but let’s see if it’s third time lucky eh?
You misunderstand the analogy of the bowl you think your demand for me to prove there is a bowl is about proving God. IT IS NOT.
Oh dear. Try again. The point is that “bowl” is an investigable claim; “God” isn’t. Thus the analogy failed before it even got its trousers off.
Apart from that though…
The bowl is analogous to the totality of the cosmos.
The fullness or emptiness is analogous to the status of God in theist and atheist contention. That is after all what atheist means. God is the milk rather than the bowl.
Yes I know what you’re attempting here, but it still fails. Atheism says merely, “you have cogent argument to demonstrate “God”. By contrast, “there is no milk” wouldn’t be “a-milkism”, it would be “no milkism” – a qualitatively different concept (albeit one aligned to your misunderstanding of what atheism actually entails).
IMHO you and others are shuffling around these points.
IMHO you utterly fail to grasp why the analogy is a false one. Until you can find a legitimate one, there’s nothing to “shuffle around”.
-
Jeremy,
The statement "the bowl is empty" is a positive claim. I'm making a definite claim that the bowl is in a particular state. As such, it demands evidence to substantiate it.
The position of most atheists is more like "I have no reason to believe there is anything in the bowl, therefore, for the moment, I will assume there is nothing in it".
Quite. He's been corrected on what "atheism" entails so many times now only to repeat his misrepresentation of it that it's hard not conclude that he's deliberately lying.
-
The statement "the bowl is empty" is a positive claim. I'm making a definite claim that the bowl is in a particular state. As such, it demands evidence to substantiate it.
The position of most atheists is more like "I have no reason to believe there is anything in the bowl, therefore, for the moment, I will assume there is nothing in it".
''I have no reason'' in evidentialism it needs evidence, It is also a claim.
I have no reason = There are no reasons. Both of these seem to be positive assertions needing justification.
Of course it hinges on what you mean by evidence and what you consider a reason.
It seems Jezzer you have provided several more claims and that's before the provision by you of a circular argument for having no evidence or reason.
I'm not saying I am not making a claim. What I am saying is ''I should Co Co'' when you lot come up dressed ludicrouosly as philosophical ragamuffins thinly announcing ''Please sir I make no claims''
-
With reference to this bowl(of milk)
There is a bowl.
Has it got something in it?
I say, I have no means of telling.
You say, it is full of milk.
I say, give me evidence that this is so, as all I see is the bowl.
You say, give me evidence that the bowl is empty.
I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it but I don't actually know if it is empty or not, so until I find some evidence that there is milk or chocolate or hydrochloric acid in it, then I have to presume that it is empty rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it is empty until I find evidence that it has something in it.
-
well since it is about context let's establish it with an agnostic atheist who is claiming it.
They are asking for evidence from a context of apparent absence. Therefore apparent absence is the unspoken claim.
To give an other example of unspoken claim. The person who states she has belief in God. The unspoken claim is that there is a God.
We know that because Atheists read it like a claim. The mystery is is why they do not draw the unspoken claim ''No God'' from the person who states the have no belief in God.
Whatever you're on about with milk, doesn't alter the apparent fact you believe there is a he she or it thing you refer to as god, so it's for you to substantiate your claim.
From my point of view I've yet to see any kind of evidence around that would make me want to look for this kind of god figure idea you seem so keen to promote, so really if as it seems you have, in common with most other religios, some kind of need to convince non-believers this god idea of yours really exists, it's a goer, your works all in front of you and lots of it.
There's no good reason from my point of view to even look for a god, I see no reason to think there's such a thing as a god to not believe in, how can anyone know, so why would I want to promote anything god in the first place, it all comes back to Bert's teapot Vlad, in a nutshell.
Looking at you recent posts on this thread it looks to me you do understand the other posters but don't want to admit it, or you're not going to.
ippy
-
With reference to this bowl(of milk)
There is a bowl.
Has it got something in it?
I say, I have no means of telling.
You say, it is full of milk.
I say, give me evidence that this is so, as all I see is the bowl.
You say, give me evidence that the bowl is empty.
I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it but I don't actually know if it is empty or not, so until I find some evidence that there is milk or chocolate or hydrochloric acid in it, then I have to presume that it is empty rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it is empty until I find evidence that it has something in it.
Actually Enki there is air in the bowl.
So you are assuming ''liquid'' evidence that's why you talk in terms of emptiness.
In the God debate of course material evidence is what is assumed. That is why you assume correctness when you talk about absence..
-
It's all Vlad bollocks this milk in the bowl, like I said Burt's teapot says it all, don't let him wind the handle any more.
ippy
-
Actually Enki there is air in the bowl.
So you are assuming ''liquid'' evidence that's why you talk in terms of emptiness.
In the God debate of course material evidence is what is assumed. That is why you assume correctness when you talk about absence..
In the God debate I don't 'assume' evidence, I 'assume' the need for evidence. Glad you agree that absence would be the correct(I would call it 'the most reasonable') position to take when no evidence is forthcoming.
-
In the God debate I don't 'assume' evidence, I 'assume' the need for evidence. Glad you agree that absence would be the correct(I would call it 'the most reasonable') position to take when no evidence is forthcoming.
Ah, It all depends what you mean by evidence.
-
Vlad the Missingthepointerist,
''I have no reason'' in evidentialism it needs evidence, It is also a claim.
Actually it’s a statement of fact for the same reason that you might say, “I have no reason to believe in leprechauns” is a statement of fact.
I have no reason = There are no reasons.
BEEEP!!! Major fail: “I have no reason” and “there are no reasons” are not synonyms. Why even pretend otherwise?
Both of these seem to be positive assertions needing justification.
What “justification” do you have for the “evidentialism” of your “positive claim” that you have no reason to believe in leprechauns?
Can you see now where you keep coming off the rails?
Of course it hinges on what you mean by evidence and what you consider a reason.
Actually it “hinges on” what other people “mean by evidence” if you want to persuade them of your claims. “Something that doesn’t work just as well for leprechauns” though might be a good place for you to start.
It seems Jezzer you have provided several more claims and that's before the provision by you of a circular argument for having no evidence or reason.
So all you have to do now is to identify this supposed circular argument.
Good luck with it though.
I'm not saying I am not making a claim. What I am saying is ''I should Co Co'' when you lot come up dressed ludicrouosly as philosophical ragamuffins thinly announcing ''Please sir I make no claims''
What “claims” do you think atheism makes exactly?
-
With reference to this bowl(of milk)
There is a bowl full of air.
Has it got something in it apart from air?
I say, I have no means of telling.
You say, it is full of milk rather than full of air.
I say, give me evidence that this is so, as all I see is the bowl full of air.
You say, give me evidence that the bowl is empty of milk.
I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it other than air but I don't actually know if it is empty or not, so until I find some evidence that there is milk or chocolate or hydrochloric acid in it, then I have to presume that it has only air in it rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it other than air without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it only has air in it until I find evidence that it has something else in it
-
With reference to this bowl(of milk)
There is a bowl full of air.
Has it got something in it apart from air?
I say, I have no means of telling.
You say, it is full of milk rather than full of air.
I say, give me evidence that this is so, as all I see is the bowl full of air.
You say, give me evidence that the bowl is empty of milk.
I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it other than air but I don't actually know if it is empty or not, so until I find some evidence that there is milk or chocolate or hydrochloric acid in it, then I have to presume that it has only air in it rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it other than air without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it only has air in it until I find evidence that it has something else in it
:) ;)
-
''I have no reason'' in evidentialism it needs evidence, It is also a claim.
I have no reason = There are no reasons. Both of these seem to be positive assertions needing justification.
The justification is that there are no reasons. As soon as you bring credible evidence to the table, there are reasons. So bring some credible evidence to the table.
-
The justification is that there are no reasons.
That is a claim demanding evidence or put another way, a positive assertion with, therefore, a burden of proof.
-
Vlad the Distractionist,
That is a claim demanding evidence or put another way, a positive assertion with, therefore, a burden of proof.
Rather than keep dicking around with secondary distractions, wouldn't it be easier (and more honest) just to produce some of this claimed reasoning or evidence?
I've even made it easy for you - all you'd have to do is to produce something that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns.
To put it bluntly: put up or shut up.
-
But there is no milk.
Yes there is - it just isn't in the bowl.
Your example has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether something actually exists.
Your bowl/milk example is merely about the relationship between two things we all accept to exist. All you are doing is demonstrating that relationship - there is no positive or negative proposition - so there is no issue of 'proving a negative'.
So the situation is really as follows - basic assumption is that both milk and bowls exist. There are two propositions:
1. The bowl contains milk - in other words the milk is in the bowl.
2. The bowl does not contains milk - in other words the milk is somewhere else.
There is no claim of existence or non existence, merely one of proximity one to the other.
As I have said before and you have refused to answer:
The equivalent to being asked to prove that god doesn't exist, is to be asked to prove that bowls containing milk don't exist. This is classic Popper.
So again can you prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?
-
Yes there is - it just isn't in the bowl.
Your example has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether something actually exists.
Your bowl/milk example is merely about the relationship between two things we all accept to exist. All you are doing is demonstrating that relationship - there is no positive or negative proposition - so there is no issue of 'proving a negative'.
So the situation is really as follows - basic assumption is that both milk and bowls exist. There are two propositions:
1. The bowl contains milk - in other words the milk is in the bowl.
2. The bowl does not contains milk - in other words the milk is somewhere else.
There is no claim of existence or non existence, merely one of proximity one to the other.
As I have said before and you have refused to answer:
The equivalent to being asked to prove that god doesn't exist, is to be asked to prove that bowls containing milk don't exist. This is classic Popper.
So again can you prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?
The point I was making was that, of course, any bowl is never empty all though that is the apparent position, because there is air in it.
I was making analogy to the God debate where any request for evidence proceeds from the apparent absence of anything. The only evidence lacking in an 'empty bowl' is evidence of a liquid content and indeed that is because there is an absence of liquid. It is analogous to atheist argument where the lack of physical/material evidence is construed as lack of evidence.
We are not arguing who is right or wrong ontologically we are arguing about which positions constitute a claim, spoken or unspoken.
I don't believe that I have ever argued that bowls containing milk do not exist so am puzzled by your question.
-
Vlad the Dissemblist,
The point I was making was that, of course, any bowl is never empty all though that is the apparent position, because there is air in it.
Except when there isn't. Like in a vacuum.
So that's your "never" defenestrated then.
And why is that a "point" in any case, let alone the one you thought you were making with the false analogy of an investigable bowl with a non-investigable "God"?
I was making analogy to the God debate where any request for evidence proceeds from the apparent absence of anything.
Why are you torturing yourself like this? All it "proceeds from" is the absence of evidence that suggests that there is "anything".
The only evidence lacking in an 'empty bowl' is evidence of a liquid content and indeed that is because there is an absence of liquid. It is analogous to atheist argument where the lack of physical/material evidence is construed as lack of evidence.
That's just stupid - it's not analogous at all. All that's "construed" is the lack of any evidence whatsoever, physical or otherwise. That's why people keep asking you for some - which is when you go all quiet on the subject remember?
We are not arguing who is right or wrong ontologically we are arguing about which positions constitute a claim, spoken or unspoken.
Who's "we", and the only "claim" of the atheist is that he's yet to find coherent reasoning or investigable evidence for gods.
It's simple enough. Really, it is.
I don't believe that I have ever argued that bowls containing milk do not exist so am puzzled by your question.
Then think about it.
-
That is a claim demanding evidence or put another way, a positive assertion with, therefore, a burden of proof.
There are no reasons. Show me a reason. You can't. If that is not evidence enough, what more do you want.
-
jeremy,
There are no reasons. Show me a reason. You can't. If that is not evidence enough, what more do you want.
Your'e just feeding the troll here. He'll use your "there are no reasons" as a diversionary tactic to demand to know how you know that with certainty (as it's a positive statement about the non-existence of something) so as never to have to provide any of those reasons or evidence of his own. You'd be on safer ground with something like "I've never been given a cogent reason, and nor to my knowledge has anyone else" or similar.
He thinks he has to do this I think because he knows full well that, when asked actually to produce some reasoning or evidence of his own, he has nothing to suggest so distraction and diversion as all he has in the toolbox.
Bit sad really, but there it is anyway.
-
well since it is about context let's establish it with an agnostic atheist who is claiming it.
They are asking for evidence from a context of apparent absence. Therefore apparent absence is the unspoken claim.
To give an other example of unspoken claim. The person who states she has belief in God. The unspoken claim is that there is a God.
We know that because Atheists read it like a claim. The mystery is is why they do not draw the unspoken claim ''No God'' from the person who states the have no belief in God.
Blimey, you are desperate to make lack of belief aclaim aren't you'
Ihave no belief in God but could be wrong. I don't assume absence,but even if I did that is not a claim just a consequence of lack of belief. When I was growing up I assumed presence because everyone else seemed to pray and believe. I never actually believed but prayed etc just in case. When I realised everyone else didn't believe I stopped pretending to. I make no claim asfaradI can see.
-
I don't believe that I have ever argued that bowls containing milk do not exist so am puzzled by your question.
I didn't mean to imply that you did so I apologise if that is how you inferred my comment.
So I will rephrase.
If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?
-
There are no reasons. Show me a reason. You can't. If that is not evidence enough, what more do you want.
I did put this out earlier but can you take us through how a belief in God is a claim that God exists but how non belief in no ways constitutes a claim?
-
I did put this out earlier but can you take us through how a belief in God is a claim that God exists but how non belief in no ways constitutes a claim?
If you don't have a belief in God then are you claiming God doesn't exist? No, so no claim.
If you believe God exists are you claiming God exists? If so it is a claim.
If you believe God doesn't exist then equally that is a claim.
So comes down to what you mean by non belief, and your understanding of what someone means when they say they sre an atheist.
-
If you don't have a belief in God then are you claiming God doesn't exist? No, so no claim.
If you believe God exists are you claiming God exists? If so it is a claim.
If you believe God doesn't exist then equally that is a claim.
So comes down to what you mean by non belief, and your understanding of what someone means when they say they sre an atheist.
Whilst I don't think the Biblical god is a credible entity, I can't say for sure it doesn't exist.
-
Vlad the Disingenuous,
I did put this out earlier but can you take us through how a belief in God is a claim that God exists but how non belief in no ways constitutes a claim?
It's not a claim for exactly the reason that has been explained to you literally dozens of times already; the same reason in fact that makes your a-leprechaunism not a claim.
Focus now: a-theism/a-leprechaunism/a-Poseidonism etc require only the finding that the arguments attempted for them fail. And that's a function of logic, not of claims.
-
If you don't have a belief in God then are you claiming God doesn't exist? No, so no claim.
If you believe God exists are you claiming God exists? If so it is a claim.
If you believe God doesn't exist then equally that is a claim.
So comes down to what you mean by non belief, and your understanding of what someone means when they say they sre an atheist.
I see so your belief is your position on God. In the case of the believer their position is that God exists.....and that constitutes a claim.
But some how non belief in God carries no position?
First of all then is non belief a rational position secondly is it not a position i.e. non belief? Of course it is a position non belief in God. Therefore if it is a position then by the same logic that makes belief a position and a claim. Then it is a claim.
But there is also another claim, that there is no evidence. That cannot be a default position because it is an inductive fallacy.
-
Vlad the Confusionist,
But some how non belief in God carries no position?
"Position" and "claim" are not the same thing, and effectively yes because there's no equivalence. The equivalent but opposite to "God exists" is, "God does not exist".
A-theism does not though entail "God does not exist" (despite your relentless lying about that). That would be something like "metaphysical naturalism" – which, as I've explained to you often, I find to be as unsupportable as the theism of "God exists".
-
Vlad the Confusionist,
A-theism does not though entail "God does not exist" (despite your relentless lying about that).
let me just correct you there. It does not entail 'God does not exist' for your brand of atheism. But atheism does encompass God does not exist.
You, though, might argue that nobody believes that.....in the face of testimony around here that people choose to believe that to be the case.....or that there is nobody those who would declare it........But there again you are the forums senior Black swan fallacy boy.....wasn't ''their IS not one iota of evidence''* one of yours? IMHO Ha Ha Ha.
*Positive assertion,
-
Vlad the Falsecorrectionist,
let me just correct you there. It does not entail 'God does not exist' for your brand of atheism. But atheism does encompass God does not exist.
Wrong again. A-theism just denotes "without gods", not "there are no gods". That you might find some people who self-identify as atheists and who also say, "gods do not exist" doesn't change that. If what you're actually trying to describe though is metaphysical naturalism, then just say so.
You, though, might argue that nobody believes that.....in the face of testimony around here that people choose to believe that to be the case.....or that there is nobody those who would declare it........But there again you are the forums senior Black swan fallacy boy.....wasn't ''their IS not one iota of evidence''* one of yours? IMHO Ha Ha Ha.
*Positive assertion,
More lying? Why bother when you're so easily caught out?
I've always said that, if you look hard enough, you'll find someone somewhere who says, "there definitely are no gods". That person might even call himself an atheist. And if you ever can find such a person, you'll be quite at liberty to take up the issue with him or her. So that's your black swan charge collapsed then.
Your big fat wobbly lie though is to paint all atheism and all atheists in the same colours as the outliers, despite being corrected on it dozens if not hundreds of times.
Congrats though - you do seem to have invented the distraction from the distraction. To avoid providing cogent reasons or evidence for a "true for you too" god you distract everyone into a false claim about atheism. When that's undone, you distract from that distraction with another one of, "yes, but if I look really, really hard I can find someone who does think that so...um...that's atheism described then".
Whatever next - a distraction from a distraction from a distraction perhaps?
-
Vlad the Falsecorrectionist,
Wrong again. A-theism just denotes "without gods", not "there are no gods". That you might find some people who self-identify as atheists and who also say, "gods do not exist" doesn't change that. If what you're actually trying to describe though is metaphysical naturalism, then just say so.
More lying? Why bother when you're so easily caught out?
I've always said that, if you look hard enough, you'll find someone somewhere who says, "there definitely are no gods". That person might even call himself an atheist. And if you ever can find such a person, you'll be quite at liberty to take up the issue with him or her. So that's your black swan charge collapsed then.
Your big fat wobbly lie though is to paint all atheism and all atheists in the same colours as the outliers, despite being corrected on it dozens if not hundreds of times.
Congrats though - you do seem to have invented the distraction from the distraction. To avoid providing cogent reasons or evidence for a "true for you too" god you distract everyone into a false claim about atheism. When that's undone, you distract from that distraction with another one of, "yes, but if I look really, really hard I can find someone who does think that so...um...that's atheism described then".
Whatever next - a distraction from a distraction from a distraction perhaps?
Well at least we've made progress in getting you out of your narrow personal definition of atheism, and, since you say atheism is ''without God'' that also definitionally includes those who are without God through choice......The ''Just don't want to know-ers''......But I believe they are another group who don't/(can't} exist?.
But these are also positions and as Professor Anthony says if you are going to invoke evidentialism against theism then you cannot sate the appetite evidentialism has for all or any position.
-
I see so your belief is your position on God.
Its not a belief.
In the case of the believer their position is that God exists.....and that constitutes a claim.
Correct.
But some how non belief in God carries no position?
It is a position not a claim.
First of all then is non belief a rational position
Have I ever claimed it is?
Secondly is it not a position i.e. non belief? Of course it is a position non belief in God. Therefore if it is a position then by the same logic that makes belief a position and a claim. Then it is a claim.
No it isn't no matter how much you want it to be.
But there is also another claim, that there is no evidence. That cannot be a default position because it is an inductive fallacy.
There are observations which some people consider evidence of God's existence. This evidence can be challenged as allevidence should be. I have seen nothing presented which I would consider to be convincing.
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
Well at least we've made progress in getting you out of your narrow personal definition of atheism…
Just out of interest, do you lie like this in your personal life or only when you troll on message boards?
There is no “narrow personal definition of atheism”. The word means what it means, and has been explained to you countless times. That you might if you look hard enough find someone who self-identifies as an atheist who thinks it means something else doesn’t change that – you could do that for anything.
..and, since you say atheism is ''without God'' that also definitionally includes those who are without God through choice......The ''Just don't want to know-ers''......But I believe they are another group who don't/(can't} exist?.
Wrong again. “There are no gods” is a claim of fact, and anyone who says it is described by the term that means “the belief that there are no gods” – ie, metaphysical naturalism. Trying to describe all of atheism in the same way is dishonest.
But these are also positions and as Professor Anthony says if you are going to invoke evidentialism against theism then you cannot sate the appetite evidentialism has for all or any position.
Then, if he did say it, “Professor Anthony” was wrong for the reasons that have been explained to you but that you just ignore or lie about. The “evidentialism” (as you put it) problem for theism is that there isn’t any. That’s why you run away every time I ask you for some.
A-theism on the other hand requires no evidence as it’s not a claim of fact. It merely says, “there’s no reason to accept your assertion until you can provide some evidence for it”.
-
There is no convincing evidence for the existence of god anymore than there is for any other creature, which in all probability is mythical.
-
Its not a belief.
Correct.
It is a position not a claim.
Do you have a reason or justification for that position or dare I say it, evidence for it?
-
Do you have a reason or justification for that position or dare I say it, evidence for it?
Vlad - as you seem to be actively posting on this thread this morning I wonder if you would respond to reply235 please.
To repeat:
If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?
-
There is no convincing evidence for the existence of god anymore than there is for any other creature, which in all probability is mythical.
But alas, alack and sadly that brings us to a declaration that a statement such as ''There is no convincing evidence for the existence of God'' is, well, a positive assertion and in evidentialism a position which demands evidence, and might also be knocking on the door of being an inductive fallacy.
Going back to the OP Dr Anthony does have a section on the new atheist use of mythological creatures. It might pay to read it and take that geezer Hillside with you when you do.
-
Do you have a reason or justification for that position or dare I say it, evidence for it?
No. And its not a claim so requires no evidence.
-
Vlad - as you seem to be actively posting on this thread this morning I wonder if you would respond to reply235 please.
To repeat:
If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?
Dear Prof
Yes your post was the first I read and was distracted. I will get back to it in due course.
-
No.
Then you hold a position you have no evidence or reason for.
-
Then you hold a position you have no evidence or reason for.
And?
It is not a claim so requires no evidence. Why don't you get that?
-
Dear Prof
Yes your post was the first I read and was distracted. I will get back to it in due course.
Thanks - I look forward to your response.
-
Vlad the Goingnuclearist,
But alas, alack and sadly that brings us to a declaration that a statement such as ''There is no convincing evidence for the existence of God'' is, well, a positive assertion and in evidentialism a position which demands evidence, and might also be knocking on the door of being an inductive fallacy.
What you’re attempting here is, “OK, I have no evidence for my claim “God” so what I’ll do it to try to find another claim that’s also unsupported by evidence in order to go nuclear – “ie, none of us have evidence so we’re even-stevens then””. Worse, when you do find someone who makes the claim of fact “there is no evidence” (without the qualifier, “that I or, so far as I’m aware, anyone else is aware of”) you use that to paint all of atheism and all atheists in general.
It’s all a pretty dishonest distraction tactic – why not just stop at, “OK, I have no evidence for “God””? – though in your case not uncharacteristically so.
Why though bother with it?
Going back to the OP Dr Anthony does have a section on the new atheist use of mythological creatures. It might pay to read it and take that geezer Hillside with you when you do.
Why don’t you tell us what he says on the matter? If you’ve quoted him accurately so far his credentials have been compromised already, but being wrong once doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be wrong the next time.
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
Then you hold a position you have no evidence or reason for.
The reason for the position is that no cogent logic has been presented to think otherwise.
It's simple enough I'd have thought.
-
I've explained that I have never believed in God and have never experienced anything or seen anything to change that. What more reason do I need?
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
The reason for the position is that no cogent logic has been presented to think otherwise.
It's simple enough I'd have thought.
yes but unfortunately for you it is a positive assertion and needs evidence or demonstrating by you to elevate it above a belief.
Please now do your duty and give us the cogent logic for your positive assertion
I believe I have pissed on your bonfire.
-
I've explained that I have never believed in God and have never experienced anything or seen anything to change that. What more reason do I need?
Several elements of this are subject to Socratic interrogation.
-
Vlad the Falseclaimist,
yes but unfortunately for you it is a positive assertion and needs evidence or demonstrating by you to elevate it above a belief.
Please now do your duty and give us the cogent logic for your positive assertion
Wrong again. He (and I) just say that we've never seen cogent reasoning or evidence for gods (and nor so far as we're aware has anyone else), therefore no belief in gods. What evidence do you think there could be for that statement of something not happening? What evidence do you have for never encountering cogent reasoning or logic for leprechauns?
Of course you could always short cut the problem by finally attempting at least some cogent reasoning or evidence for your claim "God" but we both know you'll never do that don't we, hence the endless distraction attempts.
I believe I have pissed on your bonfire.
No, you've just ruined yet another pair of trousers is all.
-
Vlad the Falseclaimist,
Wrong again. He (and I) just say that we've never seen cogent reasoning or evidence for gods (and nor so far as we're aware has anyone else), therefore no belief in gods. What evidence do you think there could be for that statement of something not happening? What evidence do you have for never encountering cogent reasoning or logic for leprechauns?
Of course you could always short cut the problem by finally attempting at least some cogent reasoning or evidence for your claim "God" but we both know you'll never do that don't we, hence the endless distraction attempts.
No, you've just ruined yet another pair of trousers is all.
You believe I have or are you making anotherpositive assertion. Ho Ho Ho
-
You believe I have or are you making anotherpositive assertion. Ho Ho Ho
The bloke's a wind up merchant don't keep feeding him, you're just bolstering his limited ego, every time anyone responds to him,
he knows full well and understands almost every post presented to his limited ego, give him a miss on this one.
ippy
-
ipster,
The bloke's a wind up merchant don't keep feeding him, you're just bolstering his limited ego, every time anyone responds to him,
he knows full well and understands almost every post presented to his limited ego, give him a miss on this one.
You know what old son? I think you're right about that (though his ego doesn't seem particularly limited to me...).
Good advice.
-
Several elements of this are subject to Socratic interrogation.
I'm sure that's the case but if that wouldn't bring you any closer to accepting that not having a belief in God isn't a claim so doesn't require evidence then would seem a waste of time.
-
I'm sure that's the case but if that wouldn't bring you any closer to accepting that not having a belief in God isn't a claim so doesn't require evidence then would seem a waste of time.
Then if you agree that your position is susceptible to socratic analysis then you might agree that it is such analysis that draws a claim of God from a simple statement like ''I have a belief in God''.
Socratic interrogation also brought out that someone in the light of his perceived a commitment to ''no god'', Dawkins comes down to probably God does not exist, and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God........... all positions and claims demanding proof/evidence.
You say that you have no belief in God that could cover a number of positions belief in no god, no belief in God, choosing not to even think about God, etc. NOT just no belief in God which is claimed and as Professor Anthony rightly calls it a 'fix' to try and avoid it's own evidentialism.
Which brings us to a claim and position I am sure socratic analysis if not logic will unearth from you.
Dr Anthony rightly established the evidentialist thrust of the New Atheism.
Let's hear it from 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'.
So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'
-
So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'
Is your claim that No Odin is the ordinary and Odin is the extraordinary?
At this point..........
-
So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'
That isn't my claim though: for me the term 'god' is incoherent and, therefore, I don't claim that 'no god' is the default any more than I claim 'no THB!!#' is the default: both expressions are just meaningless white noise unworthy of serious consideration until such times as they are expressed in terms that are meaningful.
-
and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God...........
Stop lying Trollboy.
-
Is your claim that No Odin is the ordinary and Odin is the extraordinary?
At this point..........
The argument is about what claims are ,being made. A claim is a claim is a claim. It's not the making of claims that is in question it is the New atheist claim that they are not claiming and therefore have no BOP which is what this argument is about.
Do keep up.
-
That isn't my claim though: for me the term 'god' is incoherent and, therefore, I don't claim that 'no god' is the default any more than I claim 'no THB!!#' is the default: both expressions are just meaningless white noise unworthy of serious
Good for you sir , move along thank you.
-
The argument is about what claims are ,being made. A claim is a claim is a claim. It's not the making of claims that is in question it is the New atheist claim that they are not claiming and therefore have no BOP which is what this argument is about.
Can you answer the question though?
-
The argument is about what claims are ,being made. A claim is a claim is a claim. It's not the making of claims that is in question it is the New atheist claim that they are not claiming and therefore have no BOP which is what this argument is about.
Do keep up.
Well now - since as far as I can see no atheists are making any claims specifically about 'gods' then you seem to have painted yourself into a corner once again.
-
Seb,
Can you answer the question though?
Trolling 101: Never, ever answer a question. You can ask all you like, but he'll never do it.
Try asking him for example why he thinks finding the logic used to validate "God" and leprechauns alike to be false is a "claim", or try asking him what evidence he thinks he has for "God" that doesn't work equally for leprechauns and he'll ignore the questions and respond only with more lies and distractions.
-
Well now - since as far as I can see no atheists are making any claims specifically about 'gods' then you seem to have painted yourself into a corner once again.
No apparently there is a bus going around with the claim made by atheists that there is no God .....and had to insert the word probably in by all accounts although the final version is a claim.
You seem to have painted yourself onto the side of a bus .
-
No
Good. Nothing to see here then. Time to move along.
-
Can you answer the question though?
What and fall for the old trick of inserting another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue?
I should co-co.
Open another thread and well deal with it there.
-
Good. Nothing to see here then. Time to move along.
Red Herring?
-
No apparently there is a bus going around with the claim made by atheists that there is no God .....and had to insert the word probably in by all accounts although the final version is a claim.
You seem to have painted yourself onto the side of a bus .
More lies from Trollboy. The "probably" wasn't "inserted", and the "claim" that guesses are more likely to be wrong than right is evidently true.
-
Seb,
Trolling 101: Never, ever answer a question. You can ask all you like, but he'll never do it.
Try asking him for example why he thinks finding the logic used to validate "God" and leprechauns alike to be false is a "claim", or try asking him what evidence he thinks he has for "God" that doesn't work equally for leprechauns and he'll ignore the questions and respond only with more lies and distractions.
It's a red herring gambit on Seb's part Hillside. I will take anything up on new threads.
-
Then if you agree that your position is susceptible to socratic analysis then you might agree that it is such analysis that draws a claim of God from a simple statement like ''I have a belief in God''.
I've no idea whether my position is susceptible to Socratic analysis or not. My response meant that I'm sure people would attempt to apply it if so inclined, but some people like to over analyse and play word games. If someone says they have a belief in God but accept it is just a belief then that's not a claim. If people say God exists then that is aclaim.
Socratic interrogation also brought out that someone in the light of his perceived a commitment to ''no god'', Dawkins comes down to probably God does not exist, and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God........... all positions and claims demanding proof/evidence.
Speak to them about that then.
You say that you have no belief in God that could cover a number of positions belief in no god, no belief in God, choosing not to even think about God, etc. NOT just no belief in God which is claimed and as Professor Anthony rightly calls it a 'fix' to try and avoid it's own evidentialism.
I have no belief in any gods. I am aware of claims made about various gods but have no belief in any of those. This is not a 'fix', no matter how desperate you are for it to be, and no evidene is required as no claim is being made.
Which brings us to a claim and position
Noit doesn't.
I am sure socratic analysis if not logic will unearth from you.
Go for it. Demonstrate what claim I am making
Dr Anthony rightly established the evidentialist thrust of the New Atheism.
Welldone him. Fairly obvious that ifpeople make claims they need evidence for them.
Let's hear it from 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'.
So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'
Fine. Do that if someonesays that. I haven't.
-
What and fall for the old trick of inserting another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue?
In which the one trick pony whose trick is precisely to "insert another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue" accuses someone else of the same thing in order to avoid answering a question.
-
In which the one trick pony whose trick is precisely to "insert another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue" accuses someone else of the same thing in order to avoid answering a question.
I have said I will answer his question on a new thread.
You seem to have just used the ''insert an accusation of using the same thing to cover the insertion of another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue'' gambit.
-
Trollboy,
I have said I will answer his question on a new thread.
So having derailed this thread with lies and distractions you now claim to be prepared (after all these years) actually to answer a question, but only provided there's a new thread for it (oh the opportunities for further derails eh?). And in the meantime we're all supposed to forget the flat out lying ("...and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." etc) you've been caught out in as if it never happened.
Do you not think that perhaps it's time to stop polluting this board and to ply your trolling trade somewhere else for a change?
-
Trollboy,
So having derailed this thread with lies and distractions you now claim to be prepared (after all these years) actually to answer a question, but only provided there's a new thread for it (oh the opportunities for further derails eh?). And in the meantime we're all supposed to forget the flat out lying ("...and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." etc) you've been caught out in as if it never happened.
Do you not think that perhaps it's time to stop polluting this board and to ply your trolling trade somewhere else for a change?
I disagree that I am derailing this thread which should actually by now consist of supporting statements for Dr Anthony Senior lecturer in philosophy and/or statements specificall y refuting his points rather than yet another ''play Vlad and not the ball'' type thread.
Of course it is necessary for a responsible adult to try and untangle the blurtings of several antitheists demanding this that and the other.
Got a problem or something to say other than you agree or disagree and why with Dr Anthony's article ''where's the evidence''? Then open another thread.
-
Trollboy,
I disagree that I am derailing this thread which should actually by now consist of supporting statements for Dr Anthony Senior lecturer in philosophy and/or statements specificall y refuting his points rather than yet another ''play Vlad and not the ball'' type thread.
Of course it is necessary for a responsible adult to try and untangle the blurtings of several antitheists demanding this that and the other.
Got a problem or something to say other than you agree or disagree and why with Dr Anthony's article ''where's the evidence''? Then open another thread.
None of which addresses your pathological lying. Why not start with that? You could for example say something like, "OK, I lied when I said "..and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." so I apologise for that and withdraw the statement"?
-
Trollboy,
None of which addresses your pathological lying. Why not start with that? You could for example say something like, "OK, I lied when I said "..and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." so I apologise for that and withdraw the statement"?
Another no sequitur post Hillside. If you are concerned about lying open a new thread on it.
-
Trollboy,
Another no sequitur post Hillside. If you are concerned about lying open a new thread on it.
Another demonstration that you have no idea at all what non sequitur means, and there's not point in starting another thread about your lying only to give you the opportunity to lie there too. Your lying infects every thread you pollute with it. I just gave you an example of it. Deal with that, withdraw the lie and commit at least to trying to stop lying in future and perhaps there'll be something to talk about. Until then though, there's no point.
-
Vlad - as you seem to be actively posting on this thread this morning I wonder if you would respond to reply235 please.
To repeat:
If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?
Bowls of milk are objects in the universe. Whatever God is, God is not merely an object in the universe.
-
Bowls of milk are objects in the universe. Whatever God is, God is not merely an object in the universe.
Which surely means that the original analogy as used in the article and by Vlad in the thread pointless?
-
NS,
Which surely means that the original analogy as used in the article and by Vlad in the thread pointless?
Yes. He (and presumably Flew) either confused or deliberately conflated claims that are investigable (bowl/milk) with claims that are not (gods). When asked to propose a method to investigate the latter that would in principle at least make the analogy work, he just ignores the question.
-
ipster,
You know what old son? I think you're right about that (though his ego doesn't seem particularly limited to me...).
Good advice.
Limited, in as much as there's very little needed to bolster his ego, a reply to any of his inadequate/ill conceived posts is usually enough.
I enjoy a wind up as much as anyone either giving or receiving but there's a point at which wind ups can take away the point of having a sensible discussion, look to this thread for several examples.
ippy
-
yes but unfortunately for you it is a positive assertion and needs evidence or demonstrating by you to elevate it above a belief.
Please now do your duty and give us the cogent logic for your positive assertion
I believe I have pissed on your bonfire.
Why should Bluehillside do for you that which you steadfastly refuse to do for him?
-
Owls,
Why should Bluehillside do for you that which you steadfastly refuse to do for him?
It’s also a demand based on yet another lie. There is no “positive assertion”. What there actually is though is logic – specifically examples of logical fallacies.
If ever he had the decency to reply to something that was actually said, his options would be either:
1. "My arguments for a “true for you too God” do not correspond to logical fallacies and here’s why"; or
2. "However logically false my arguments to validate it, my “faith” is such that I think I can use them with impunity anyway".
Sadly his pathological dishonesty prevents us from knowing which he thinks to be the case, but either way if he seriously thinks he deserves cogent logic to validate logic, he’s even more away with the fairies than his efforts ordinarily suggest anyway.
-
Owls,
It’s also a demand based on yet another lie. There is no “positive assertion”. What there actually is though is logic – specifically examples of logical fallacies.
If ever he had the decency to reply to something that was actually said, his options would be either:
1. "My arguments for a “true for you too God” do not correspond to logical fallacies and here’s why"; or
2. "However logically false my arguments to validate it, my “faith” is such that I think I can use them with impunity anyway".
Sadly his pathological dishonesty prevents us from knowing which he thinks to be the case, but either way if he seriously thinks he deserves cogent logic to validate logic, he’s even more away with the fairies than his efforts ordinarily suggest anyway.
Quite.
Ippy