Atheism--split from "Randi's money"

[I less than three logic]

No, so far, any falsifiable claims to the existence of God seems to show it false. If you drop all the unfalsifable claims completely, your still left with the belief that there are no Gods. I don’t see how that is irrational in the least. That was your original claim, that the belief that there are no gods is irrational, was it not?

[saizai]

No, so far, any falsifiable claims to the existence of God seems to show it false.

* "Seem" :D

* Fallacy: disproving some evidence does not disprove the claim.

If you drop all the unfalsifable claims completely, your still left with the belief that there are no Gods. I don’t see how that is irrational in the least.

* "You're" :D (See what happens when someone starts with the grammar nazi bit?)

ETA: Whoops, wrong thread (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?find=lastposter&t=63481). My mistake.

* Why should I drop the unfalsifiable claims? It's your job to disprove them if you think they are false, not mine to do it for you.

* How does that leave me with the belief that there are no Gods? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. What are your premises and the steps of logic that lead you to this conclusion?

That was your original claim, that the belief that there are no gods is irrational, was it not?

Correct.


P.S. You didn't answer my simple yes/no questions, nor provide any evidence for the nonexistence of gods.

To repost for ease of reading:
1. Do you believe that the judeo-christian god does not exist?
2. Do you believe that no gods exist?
3. Do you believe that nothing "supernatural" exists (eg fairies, ghosts, chi, auras, psychic powers, etc - none of them)?

If you answered yes to any of the above, please prove it or admit that it is an irrational belief. (Either is fine by me.)

If you answered no to all of the above, then I have no argument with you.

[Mercutio]

That was kinda the point. The JC god, by most modern interpretations, IS unfalsifiable.

Yet strong atheists claim that He does not exist.
I suspect that there are numerous instances where an atheists says he does not believe that God (capitalized for the xian god) exists, and the listener hears that the atheist believes that God does not exist. Because of the negative definition of atheism, there is no unifying creed that we have to sign on to. "Not believing" is more than enough; that is atheism. If one does not hold a belief in X, the question of whether one holds the belief that X does not exist is quite irrelevant. I do not see why one must be required to hold an additional belief to be called a "strong atheist". A lack of belief is enough, and there really is no stronger stance that can be made.

Of course, the ones in my own experience who are quickest to say "this particular god does not exist" are the people who believe in a different god. So, are they "hard atheists"? They are theists, of course, and positive believers in their own god.

It seems to me that some versions of the "strong atheist" argument are more trouble than they are worth. Those who identify themselves as atheists may (quite reasonably, by the definitions of "hard atheism") fit the definition of "hard atheist" less than devout believers (in one god, but not in any others).

We are what we are. If someone decides to attach a particular label, and parts of it don't seem to fit, then it behooves us to examine not just the people, but also the label.

That is an impossible claim to prove or provide evidence for. Ergo it is necessarily irrational, based purely on argument from incredulity (a fallacy :D). Either that, or the definition of "hard atheist" you are using is inherently flawed. Frankly, I suspect the latter.

[Mercutio]

To repost for ease of reading:
1. Do you believe that the judeo-christian god does not exist?
2. Do you believe that no gods exist?
3. Do you believe that nothing "supernatural" exists (eg fairies, ghosts, chi, auras, psychic powers, etc - none of them)?

If you answered yes to any of the above, please prove it or admit that it is an irrational belief. (Either is fine by me.)

If you answered no to all of the above, then I have no argument with you.
1) I do not believe that this particular god exists.

I know that does not answer your question, but my statement is clearer. My answer to yours must be "no", but that could lead one to misjudge my beliefs. My statement is clear; your question is biased.

2) I do not believe that any gods exist. Again, this is not a yes/no answer to your question, but your question is bad. My statement is a much clearer way of stating my position.

3) Thus far, I have seen (despite years of search) no credible evidence for any of these things; I do not believe any of them exist.

I cannot conceive that anyone holds "less belief" in these things than I do; therefore, I find it curious that you would call this position "weak atheism" or even some form of agnosticism.

If you want "strong atheist" responses, try asking christians whether they think Zeus exists, or muslims whether they think Odin exists. I think their responses would qualify as "strong atheist".

[I less than three logic]

* "Seem" :D

* Fallacy: disproving some evidence does not disprove the claim.
If you can show me where I used the word "prove" in that sentence I might agree with you. Now, stop your fallacious argument from fallacy.

* Why should I drop the unfalsifiable claims? It's your job to disprove them if you think they are false, not mine to do it for you.
No, is not my job to prove them wrong. Unfalsifable claims are simply worthless. The only rational thing you can do is to reject them.

* How does that leave me with the belief that there are no Gods? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. What are your premises and the steps of logic that lead you to this conclusion?
All evidence available at this time is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that no gods exist. Claims about the existence of God that are falsifiable appear false at this time, all available evidence disagree with the claim or the claim itself is logically impossible. This leaves me with the hypothesis that no gods exist, and the unfalsifable hypotheses that a god or gods exist. Now, both are consistence with the all evidence, yet I have no obligation to accept unfalsifable claims. It seems rational to deploy the o’razor here and accept the first hypothesis at this time.

[saizai]

I suspect that there are numerous instances where an atheists says he does not believe that God (capitalized for the xian god) exists, and the listener hears that the atheist believes that God does not exist. Because of the negative definition of atheism, there is no unifying creed that we have to sign on to. "Not believing" is more than enough; that is atheism. If one does not hold a belief in X, the question of whether one holds the belief that X does not exist is quite irrelevant. I do not see why one must be required to hold an additional belief to be called a "strong atheist". A lack of belief is enough, and there really is no stronger stance that can be made.

Did you read the previous thread at all? Your point has been discussed more than once already within it.

I am not arguing against weak atheism/agnosticism, which you describe. I am arguing against strong atheism, as I defined earlier.

Of course, the ones in my own experience who are quickest to say "this particular god does not exist" are the people who believe in a different god. So, are they "hard atheists"? They are theists, of course, and positive believers in their own god.

They are hard atheists wrt all gods except theirs, about which they are theists.

Unless they're polytheistic of course. The JC god is theologically compatible with the existence of some other gods, after all. That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand though.

We are what we are. If someone decides to attach a particular label, and parts of it don't seem to fit, then it behooves us to examine not just the people, but also the label.

Who was examining people? I at least have made no ad hominems at all.

Nor am I examining a 'label'. I am examining the position it labels.

Either that, or the definition of "hard atheist" you are using is inherently flawed. Frankly, I suspect the latter.

"The definition" is flawed? It accurately describes a simple position: "I believe there are no gods".

Of course, that position isn't logical, which is my whole point...

[saizai]

1) I do not believe that this particular god exists.

I know that does not answer your question, but my statement is clearer. My answer to yours must be "no", but that could lead one to misjudge my beliefs. My statement is clear; your question is biased.

How is it biased? It's a fairly simple, limited question about belief (aka claims, unless you want to believe in something you don't claim to be true, which I suppose is your right).

Do you believe that this particular god does NOT exist, which is what I asked?

2) I do not believe that any gods exist. Again, this is not a yes/no answer to your question, but your question is bad. My statement is a much clearer way of stating my position.

That's fine, and I won't try to dissuade you or argue with that. Do you believe that NO gods exist? If not, we have no disagreement.

3) Thus far, I have seen (despite years of search) no credible evidence for any of these things; I do not believe any of them exist.

I cannot conceive that anyone holds "less belief" in these things than I do; therefore, I find it curious that you would call this position "weak atheism" or even some form of agnosticism.

If you want "strong atheist" responses, try asking christians whether they think Zeus exists, or muslims whether they think Odin exists. I think their responses would qualify as "strong atheist".

As would the responses of people here who claim that the JC god doesn't exist. You don't seem to be among that population.

[saizai]

If you can show me where I used the word "prove" in that sentence I might agree with you. Now, stop your fallacious argument from fallacy.

You used it as part of your argument, presumably to support your position. It did not do so (by fallacy).

If you were simply saying it "just 'cause you felt like it", then I suppose it wasn't a fallacy.

No, is not my job to prove them wrong. Unfalsifable claims are simply worthless. The only rational thing you can do is to reject them.

I claim that I am sentient. You cannot falsify that claim. Is that claim worthless?
I claim that I am in pain. You cannot falsify that claim, assuming I am able to speak in the first place (therefore conscious etc). Is that claim worthless?

Do you reject both claims?

Do you say that I am neither sentient nor in pain, because they are not falsifiable?

Your logic is flawed.

P.S. It's not your job... unless you make a claim that makes it your job. You made the claim that there is no god. You have to prove it. You haven't; you've just pointed out (correctly) that the inverse claim (that there is a god) hasn't been proven. That's fine, but that doesn't make your case.

All evidence available at this time is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that no gods exist.

True.

Also true: All evidence available at this time is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that gods exist. *

* For some values of "gods" including the irrefutable JC god I defined earlier.

Claims about the existence of God that are falsifiable appear false at this time, all available evidence disagree with the claim or the claim itself is logically impossible.

Not relevant to nonfalsifiable claims.

This leaves me with the hypothesis that no gods exist, and the unfalsifable hypotheses that a god or gods exist. Now, both are consistence with the all evidence, yet I have no obligation to accept unfalsifable claims. It seems rational to deploy the o’razor here and accept the first hypothesis at this time.

No, it leaves one with NO hypothesis about god(s). Big difference!


P.S. Still haven't answered my questions or shown any proof for the nonexistence of god...

[Bri]

Ok then, so it isn’t disbelief. I still don’t see the distinction in his previous statement.

As saizai defines them, strong atheism is a belief that no gods exist, which is the same thing as a disbelief in the existence of gods. Weak atheism is no belief or disbelief in the existence of god at all.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

You used it as part of your argument, presumably to support your position. It did not do so (by fallacy).
Quote me, I don't remember using the word prove nor talking about proving anything. I may add, that provable only exists in the realm of math, nothing in science is proven.

I claim that I am sentient. You cannot falsify that claim. Is that claim worthless?
For proving anything, yes.

I claim that I am in pain. You cannot falsify that claim, assuming I am able to speak in the first place (therefore conscious etc). Is that claim worthless?
Yes, as above.

Do you reject both claims?
As proof of anything, yes.

Do you say that I am neither sentient nor in pain, because they are not falsifiable?
I have no obligation to believe your claims that you are sentient or in pain are true. As Carl Sagan wrote, "Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless."

Your logic is flawed.
It is entirely consistant with the scientific method.


Also true: All evidence available at this time is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that gods exist.
Only if you allow unfalsifiable claims.

No, it leaves one with NO hypothesis about god(s). Big difference!
How so? Surely the hypothesis that no gods exist is falsifiable. Remember this?
I think an omnipotent God would be in an eminently capable position to prove his/its existence, ergo it is potentially knowable. QED.
That would show that hypothesis false rather quickly, wouldn't it?

P.S. Still haven't answered my questions or shown any proof for the nonexistence of god...
P.S. I have no intention of answering your loaded questions.

[I less than three logic]

As saizai defines them, strong atheism is a belief that no gods exist, which is the same thing as a disbelief in the existence of gods. Weak atheism is no belief or disbelief in the existence of god at all.

-Bri
These are the same thing, again. I'm not seeing the distinction that allows one to say no belief is rational and disbelief is irrational. Those two terms mean the exact same thing.

[saizai]

As saizai defines them, strong atheism is a belief that no gods exist, which is the same thing as a disbelief in the existence of gods. Weak atheism is no belief or disbelief in the existence of god at all.

Minor quibble: I think "weak agnosticism" is a better term than "weak atheism". But they seem to be basically identical.

[saizai]

I have no obligation to believe your claims that you are sentient or in pain are true. As Carl Sagan wrote, "Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless."

Excellent quote, and supports my side. :D

Strong atheists need to support their claim that no god exists.

I don't make any claim, so there's nothing for me to prove.


It is entirely consistant with the scientific method.

I think you're waffling.

To paraphrase what you said earlier: I can't prove X, therefore not X.

Or perhaps what you really meant was, "I can't prove X, therefore I have no opinion on X"?

What exactly IS your position, hm?

Only if you allow unfalsifiable claims.

There's no logical reason to reject them as false. (By definition.)

Therefore they are potentially true.

P.S. I have no intention of answering your loaded questions.

Interesting. I think you're arguing just for the sake of argument.

Please clearly identify what position you are arguing for (weak atheist/agnostic, strong atheist, strong agnostic, strong theist). I think I've very clearly identified my own (weak agnostic).

[Kimpatsu]

That was kinda the point. The JC god, by most modern interpretations, IS unfalsifiable.

Yet strong atheists claim that He does not exist.

That is an impossible claim to prove or provide evidence for. Ergo it is necessarily irrational, based purely on argument from incredulity (a fallacy :D).
That is incorrect. The Xian JC is most certainly falsifiable. See "The God who Wasn't There" by Brian Flemming.

[Kimpatsu]

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, no matter what that claim is.
That is completely incorrect, and shows me that you do not understand the basic tenets of logic. :rolleyes:

[I less than three logic]

I think you're waffling.

To paraphrase what you said earlier: I can't prove X, therefore not X.

Or perhaps what you really meant was, "I can't prove X, therefore I have no opinion on X"?

What exactly IS your position, hm?
I don't believe, and I don’t hold an agnostic opinion. There is not enough evidence to show god(s) do exist neither is there any evidence to support the agonistic opinion. You agreed to that earlier, remember?

Note, that is not "no opinion", nor is it a claim that X is false. You’re looking for absolutes; I won’t provide any for you. As Mercutio said before, Tentative and provisional are as good as one gets in science. We hold the very laws of physics as provisionally true. We develop medicine, build skyscrapers, and put people on the moon using information that is provisionally true.

[snip]

I believe there is no god, because I see no evidence of one. I believe it as strongly as any other belief I can think of right now...and, like any of those beliefs, it is provisional. That's as strongly as I can allow myself to believe anything.




There's no logical reason to reject them as false. (By definition.)

Therefore they are potentially true.
True and false have nothing to do with rational or irrational. That is what your original claim was about.



Interesting. I think you're arguing just for the sake of argument.
Perhaps. ;)

Please clearly identify what position you are arguing for (weak atheist/agnostic, strong atheist, strong agnostic, strong theist). I think I've very clearly identified my own (weak agnostic).
Atheism. I don't see how one can go any further than not believing in anything.

[saizai]

That is incorrect. The Xian JC is most certainly falsifiable. See "The God who Wasn't There" by Brian Flemming.

Irrelevant anyway. If you're a strong atheist, you have to prove the nonexistence of ALL gods.

Also note I'm using JC == judeo-christian, not "jesus christ".

[saizai]

I don't believe, and I don’t hold an agnostic opinion. There is not enough evidence to show god(s) do exist neither is there any evidence to support the agonistic opinion. You agreed to that earlier, remember?

About *strong* agnosticism, yes.

Note, that is not "no opinion", nor is it a claim that X is false. You’re looking for absolutes; I won’t provide any for you.

Okay, then you claim neither that gods exist nor that gods do not exist. Is that correct?

If so, then you are what I call a weak agnostic/atheist, and I have no argument with you.

True and false have nothing to do with rational or irrational. That is what your original claim was about.

Really? So you can have a rational belief that you do not believe to be true? :boggled:

Atheism. I don't see how one can go any further than not believing in anything.

Please define "atheism" as you use it and compare to the definitions I gave of "strong atheist", "weak atheist/agnostic", "strong agnostic", and "strong theist".

P.S. Kimpatsu, you too.

[Bri]

These are the same thing, again. I'm not seeing the distinction that allows one to say no belief is rational and disbelief is irrational. Those two terms mean the exact same thing.

"No belief" is not the same as "disbelief." According to Webster:

disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

One who has no belief one way or the other as to whether or not God exists doesn't reject either possibility as untrue.

-Bri

[Piggy]

Irrelevant anyway. If you're a strong atheist, you have to prove the nonexistence of ALL gods.
No you don't. You only have to demonstrate that God-theory is incoherent, and that claims of existence for beings properly described as gods (e.g., Eric Clapton doesn't qualify) are not meaningful -- that is, the existence of such things is not discernably different from their non-existence. (We're in the process of this on another thread right now, btw, and someone has bravely ponied up with a definition for the proposed God, but so far no one has been able to answer the question of where this thing might exist in a way that is at all distinguishable from "nowhere".)

I mean, really. It's just childish to set up a candy-dish definition of a thing which admits all sorts of mutually exclusive entities, which can quite literally be dreamed up and added ad infinitum, then assert that one of them (without saying which) might be real, so everyone is obligated to concede that this hopelessly vague non-concept could correspond to something that actually exists.

With apologies to Capote, that's not thinking, that's just talking.

[I less than three logic]

Okay, then you claim neither that gods exist nor that gods do not exist. Is that correct?

If so, then you are what I call a weak agnostic/atheist, and I have no argument with you.
I suppose so; we've reached this before. Although, I still object to the use of agnostic, it applies unsupported traits to the concept.


Really? So you can have a rational belief that you do not believe to be true? :boggled:
No, I mean you can hold a rational belief that turns out to be, in fact, false. One can also hold irrational beliefs that can turn out to be true.


Please define "atheism" as you use it and compare to the definitions I gave of "strong atheist", "weak atheist/agnostic", "strong agnostic", and "strong theist".
Atheism is simply not believing in the existence of God. “I do not believe God exists”, means exactly the same as “I believe God does not exist”. You’re attempting to equate the latter to “The claim that God exists is false.” You’re attaching absoluteness to it, one which I do not.

[Bri]

Minor quibble: I think "weak agnosticism" is a better term than "weak atheism". But they seem to be basically identical.

Agreed, according to the definitions you posted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1925794#post1925794).

However, the definition you posed for "soft agnostic" is actually closer to "weak atheist" (one who doesn't hold a belief one way or the other as to the existence of gods). According to most, the term "atheist" means "a lack of belief that gods exist" which would apply to both your definitions of "hard atheist" and "soft agnostic" (a hard atheist also lacks a belief that gods exist and instead believes that no gods exist).

Agnosticism (due to its etymology) is generally assumed to concern knowledge of the existence of gods, whereas atheism concerns belief in the existence of gods. One can agree with the weak agnostic position that we don't know for certain whether gods exist, yet still hold a belief that gods don't exist (which would be a "weak agnostic strong atheist"). So the term "weak atheist" seems to more accurately describe a lack of belief that gods exist (although most weak atheists claim this lack of belief because they are also weak agnostics).

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

"No belief" is not the same as "disbelief." According to Webster:



One who has no belief one way or the other as to whether or not God exists doesn't reject either possibility as untrue.

-Bri
Yet, you seemed to use the two terms interchangeably in your previous post.

[The Atheist]

If you will not support your claims then there is not much we can discuss is there?
I love it when I can say everything I wish simply by quoting others! :)

[saizai]

No, I mean you can hold a rational belief that turns out to be, in fact, false. One can also hold irrational beliefs that can turn out to be true.

Oh, no argument there.

But rational beliefs are ones you BELIEVE * to be true.

* ... for reasons of logic based on the known evidence

This cannot be said of either strong atheism or strong theism, as neither has any evidence * existent to support them.

* ... exception: it is possible that some people have personal evidence for it that is inaccessible to others. Of course, as brought up in a discussion with a friend of mine today, some people might resort to insanity and/or radical solipsism as a counterargument to ANY possible proof (even miracles). (Note: solipsists who believe they are insane don't really have much in the way of a rational course of action do they? ;))


Atheism is simply not believing in the existence of God. “I do not believe God exists”, means exactly the same as “I believe God does not exist”. You’re attempting to equate the latter to “The claim that God exists is false.” You’re attaching absoluteness to it, one which I do not.

No; see bri's capable reply.

I do not believe God exists. I do not believe God does not exist. I hold neither belief; I am utterly unconvinced either way because I have seen no good evidence either way. Indeed, I could only see evidence FOR God, not against (except of course against *particular* gods - that I concede).

[Kimpatsu]

Irrelevant anyway. If you're a strong atheist, you have to prove the nonexistence of ALL gods.

Also note I'm using JC == judeo-christian, not "jesus christ".
No, I don't have to prove a thing. The burden of proof is on those who claim that gods exist. The default rational position is that without any evidence, they don't exist. Until you understand that fundamental point of logic, your arguments will always be fatally flawed.

[Kimpatsu]

Oh, no argument there.

But rational beliefs are ones you BELIEVE * to be true.

* ... for reasons of logic based on the known evidence

This cannot be said of either strong atheism or strong theism, as neither has any evidence * existent to support them.
Once again, you show yourself devoid of reason.
Strong atheism is merely a demand to be shown strong evidence for an inherently preposterous notion: the supernatural. All I'm demanding is that you show me the money. After all, if you're agnostic about the existence of gods, then you must also be agnostic about the existence of batman, gnomes, werewolves, and faeries at the bottom of the garden. If you're not agnostic, as possed to strongly atheistic about them all, then you are holding a double standard, which is intellectually dishonest. Are you intellectually dishonest?

[saizai]

However, the definition you posed for "soft agnostic" is actually closer to "weak atheist" (one who doesn't hold a belief one way or the other as to the existence of gods). According to most, the term "atheist" means "a lack of belief that gods exist" which would apply to both your definitions of "hard atheist" and "soft agnostic" (a hard atheist also lacks a belief that gods exist and instead believes that no gods exist).

Agnosticism (due to its etymology) is generally assumed to concern knowledge of the existence of gods, whereas atheism concerns belief in the existence of gods. So the term "weak atheist" seems to more accurately describe a lack of belief that gods exist (although most weak atheists claim this lack of belief because they are also weak agnostics).

I think this is a difference between an epistemologic claim (strong agnosticism) and an ontological one (weak atheism/agnosticism).

I think any omnipotent God is knowable if simply because it could, say, rearrange the universe to write a nice clear message in English using the stars. A bit grandiose, but it'd do.

I just don't think such knowledge exists yet.

I see agnostic as being paired with gnostic. But I'll admit that they both have viable etymologies.

One can agree with the weak agnostic position that we don't know for certain whether gods exist, yet still hold a belief that gods don't exist (which would be a "weak agnostic strong atheist").

I'm afraid this still seems disingenuous to me - unless this is some sort of half-weak-agnostic which claims that we don't know for certain whether gods exist, but we do know for certain that gods don't exist? :confused:

Otherwise, it seems to be saying "I believe X, but don't think we know X [for any reason based on evidence and logic, which I accept as Good Things]."

[saizai]

No, I don't have to prove a thing. ... The default rational position is that without any evidence, they don't exist. Until you understand that fundamental point of logic, your arguments will always be fatally flawed.

Would you please show the logical form of the argument that justifies your claim that the default is that gods don't exist?

It seems to me that, generally speaking, the only reasonable default for a logical argument (of anything whatsoever) is not knowing anything at all about the subject except that which everybody present agrees upon - and proceeding from there to draw conclusions that justify claims. (Otherwise you're making an argument based on axioms that have been neither proven nor accepted without proof, which makes it a foundational fallacy. Objection! )

You're passing your claim off as axiomatic, which is rather poor form (and a fallacy).

Once again, you show yourself devoid of reason.

Fallacy: ad hominem. Be civil please.

Strong atheism is merely a demand to be shown strong evidence for an inherently preposterous notion: the supernatural.

Fallacy: poisoning the well ("inherently preposterous") and circular logic ("it's inherently preposterous, [wave wave wave], ergo it is false").

All I'm demanding is that you show me the money. After all, if you're agnostic about the existence of gods, then you must also be agnostic about the existence of batman, gnomes, werewolves, and faeries at the bottom of the garden.

I already agreed that I am indeed agnostic for all of those except Batman (and only because Batman has a defined publically-known aspect that we'd know about if he existed).

If you're not agnostic, as possed to strongly atheistic about them all, then you are holding a double standard, which is intellectually dishonest. Are you intellectually dishonest?

Nope. You? :D

Are you strongly atheistic about them all? (Simple yes/no question; please answer.)

If so, can you show that there prove that there are NO fairies in my garden? (And you know the reputation of fairies... they don't like to be around humans or recording equipment; they're camera shy.)

(And don't try to counter by asking me for evidence. Remember, I don't claim to know one way or the other whether there are fairies in my garden. You say there aren't any. To quote you: "Show me the money.")

[Kimpatsu]

Would you please show the logical form of the argument that justifies your claim that the default is that gods don't exist?
*Sigh* I have to explai nthis to you AGAIN?!
If there is no evidence for something, then the default conclusion is that it does not exist. This is why I do not believe in faeries, Batman, werewolves, gods, ghosts, vampires, or leprechauns.
It seems to me that, generally speaking, the only reasonable default for a logical argument (of anything whatsoever) is not knowing anything at all about the subject except that which everybody present agrees upon - and proceeding from there to draw conclusions that justify claims.
Not so! Even if everybody agrees that there are faeries in Dingley Dell, they are all wrong unless and until evidence is forthcoming. Or do you agree with Arthur Conan Doyle...?
You're passing your claim off as axiomatic, which is rather poor form (and a fallacy).
Wrong again; it IS axiomatic that until evidence is forthcoming, the default is that it does not exist. Otherwise, I expect you to proclaim your belief in the existence of mile-long purple ostriches on Mars. It is certainly not a fallacy.
Fallacy: ad hominem. Be civil please.
Once again, you show that you don't actually know what the logical fallacies are.
Fallacy: poisoning the well ("inherently preposterous") and circular logic ("it's inherently preposterous, [wave wave wave], ergo it is false").
And again. You really should learn and, more importantly, understand, the logical fallacies.
I already agreed that I am indeed agnostic for all of those except Batman (and only because Batman has a defined publically-known aspect that we'd know about if he existed).
So you are agnostic about werewolves, faeries, unicorns, and leprechauns? Then why are not Batman? Why the double standard? (Besides, I don't believe you. I'm sure you are convinced that faeires, leprechauns, and wrewolves don't exist. You're just being perverse to rescue your argument, which you recognise to be in deep trouble.)
Are you strongly atheistic about them all? (Simple yes/no question; please answer.)
Yes, I am strongly atheistic about all supernatural phenomena.

If so, can you show that there prove that there are NO fairies in my garden? (And you know the reputation of fairies... they don't like to be around humans or recording equipment; they're camera shy.)
There you go again, proving you don't understand the rules f logic. It is NOT incumbent on me to DISPROVE anything; it is incumbent on YOU to PROVE the existence of faeries.
Of course, you don't really believe in faeries any more than I do. What you really want to do is accord a special status to god(s) that you don't then apply to any other supernatural phenomena, such as faeries, leprechauns, and werewolves. And, as I have told you repeatedly, such double standards are intellectually dishonest.
Now go away and actually learn the rules of logic before posting here again, please.

[saizai]

*Sigh* I have to explai nthis to you AGAIN?!
If there is no evidence for something, then the default conclusion is that it does not exist. This is why I do not believe in faeries, Batman, werewolves, gods, ghosts, vampires, or leprechauns.

Not so! Even if everybody agrees that there are faeries in Dingley Dell, they are all wrong unless and until evidence is forthcoming. Or do you agree with Arthur Conan Doyle...?

You don't agree, therefore I could not use that as an axiom in an argument in which you participate.

I do not agree that nonexistence is the default, therefore you cannot use it as an axiom in this argument.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance: The argument from ignorance ... is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in which it is claimed ... that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.


Wrong again; it IS axiomatic that until evidence is forthcoming, the default is that it does not exist. Otherwise, I expect you to proclaim your belief in the existence of mile-long purple ostriches on Mars. It is certainly not a fallacy.

I'm agnostic about ostriches on Mars.

You can't CLAIM something is axiomatic. Axioms have to be agreed upon.

Once again, you show that you don't actually know what the logical fallacies are.

Quote: "Once again, you show yourself devoid of reason. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem: Attacking the person rather than the argument. You made a statement about my intellectual capacity; that is an ad hominem attack.

And again. You really should learn and, more importantly, understand, the logical fallacies.

Quote: "... an inherently preposterous notion: the supernatural."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well fits quite well actually.

See, I happen to actually know the fallacies. :)

So you are agnostic about werewolves, faeries, unicorns, and leprechauns? Then why are not Batman? Why the double standard?

Like I said, 'cause there is a publically known part: Batman is described as being rich, in the papers, very much a "public figure". That contradicts the evidence.

Unless you're talking about some sort of secret recluse batman who nobody knows about. Sure, that I'm agnostic about.

(Not to mention: there's nothing supernatural about Batman - at least the portrayals I've seen.)

(Besides, I don't believe you. I'm sure you are convinced that faeires, leprechauns, and wrewolves don't exist. You're just being perverse to rescue your argument, which you recognise to be in deep trouble.)

I'm being resolutely rational; you're resorting to multiple fallacies. Can you support your argument or not?

Are you psychic, that you know what I believe better than I do?

Yes, I am strongly atheistic about all supernatural phenomena.

There you go again, proving you don't understand the rules f logic. It is NOT incumbent on me to DISPROVE anything; it is incumbent on YOU to PROVE the existence of faeries.

Why? I made no claim about fairies; I have nothing to prove. You claim they don't exist; prove it. You don't get to just say "I don't have to prove anything, it's aximoatic!" any more than theists do.

Of course, you don't really believe in faeries any more than I do.

Again: How do you know what I believe? Are you psychic? MDC applicant perhaps? :D

What you really want to do is accord a special status to god(s) that you don't then apply to any other supernatural phenomena, such as faeries, leprechauns, and werewolves.

Not at all. In fact, I readily agreed that I am exactly as agnostic about all of those as about god(s).

Now go away and actually learn the rules of logic before posting here again, please.

Again: be civil. I have repeatedly refuted you purely using logic. You have, in return, attacked me (fallaciously) but not supported your claim.

P.S. You claim that my logic is poor, yet you have not cited what fallacies I am committing (whereas I have done so for you). Please consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies if you do not remember what the fallacies are, and do so next time rather than vacuously claiming illogic on my part.

[Kimpatsu]

I do not agree that nonexistence is the default, therefore you cannot use it as an axiom in this argument.
Then you are wrong, and until you understand this, there is no point in trying to teach you otherwise.
I find it rather interesting that you, a grown man, believe in the existence of witches, werewolves, faeries, and leprechauns, though.
:rolleyes:

[saizai]

Then you are wrong, and until you understand this, there is no point in trying to teach you otherwise.

What fallacy am I committing, that you claim I am wrong? Or do you claim this simply on your own authority? (Which would be a fallacy: Argumentum ad verecundiam, plus you haven't demonstrated yourself as an authority on formal logic.)

I claim you are committing a classic example of the fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have not countered that claim.

I find it rather interesting that you, a grown man, believe in the existence of witches, werewolves, faeries, and leprechauns, though.
:rolleyes:

I didn't say I believed in them. I said that I'm agnostic about them.

D00d, you really rack up the fallacies don't you? And yet to counter a single one I popped you for... or are you going for proof by assertion (another fallacy)?

Nor have you found any logical fallacies in my argument... which, at this point, means I win for lack of contest.

[Kimpatsu]

I didn't say I believed in them. I said that I'm agnostic about them.
A grown man who's agnostic about werewolves, faeries and leprechauns?
Right... :rolleyes:
If you really are agnostic about them, you need medical help. More likely, you're just being perverse because you've backed yourself into a logical corner.

[andyandy]

Find me a single person who actually BELIEVES in the the tenets of Shinto (i.e., that Mt. Fuji, and various trees, rocks, and rivers, have ghosts living in them.) This is why Japan is markedly different from the West, where people actually beleive that the god of the Bible is literally true. There are more practicing Xians than there are animists in Japan. People love Shinto for the ceremonies; a Shinto priest performs a purification ceremony whenever new ground is broken on a building project, and I myself have participated in matsuri, having purifying salt tossed over me, and then carrying an o-mikoshi through the streets. When the emperor ascends the throne, he literally becomes a god... Except that not a single person beleives any of this stuff. It's an excuse to get sloshed, is all.
I live in Kawasaki, on the narrow strip of land between Tokyo and Yokohama, and I'm a translator.

Again you're being rather dismissive of shintoism - and slightly disingeneos as characterising it as a belief in a ghost in a rock....

So to say "not a single person believes any of this stuff" is too simplistic. Over a 1/3 of all japanese households have shinto shrines, shinto festivals are a regular calendar event, kami play a role in ceremonies for weddings, and in concepts of "luck" for individuals....indeed shintoism is strongly engrained in japanese culture, ritual, thought and tradition.

So it takes us into the territory of how to define belief? Where does belief start and superstition end? There are a great many superstitions in Shintoism with regards to the kami, and yet superstitions are based on an idea or a belief that the underlying premise is true - without this belief there would be no superstition.

It deals with the spiritual "one-ness" with nature - which is far more involved that a ghost in a rock. kami can represent natural processes or objects. Indeed, at its most fundamental animism has been regarded as the idea that "the earth is sacred and we all belong there." Therefore the demarcation between natural and supernatural which is easily drawn in western thought is not an obvious one in japan.

So, whilst I didn't know anyone who "believed in a ghost in a rock," i knew more than a few who believed in a greater than natural affinity with nature - a spiritual "one-ness," and a great number of people for whom shinto beliefs (or superstitions if you will) played an important role in how they lived their lives.....

Ultimately, regardless of if you regard shintoism as a "religion" or not, it illustrates very well the culturally-loaded nature of language - and thus the ultimate subjective nature of terms like "god." To discuss god in japan would be to do so in terms of kami, and therefore the subjective interpretation of the term would be significantly different from that of a westerner. This is merely a stark example of the subjective nature of language - which can be extended all the way from national, to regional, and to an individual level.

[saizai]

A grown man who's agnostic about werewolves, faeries and leprechauns?
Right... :rolleyes:

Right.

If you really are agnostic about them, you need medical help.

Excellent, another claim. Please prove it. :D

P.S. Fallacies: argument from incredulity & argumentum ad hominem. Two more, congratulations! Going for a record?

More likely, you're just being perverse because you've backed yourself into a logical corner.

To the contrary, I have proved my argument and shown yours to be riddled with fallacies... and you have not rebutted or rectified them except to get tagged for yet more.

(Translation for the less literate: Pwn3d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn3d)!)

[Kimpatsu]

Again you're being rather dismissive of shintoism - and slightly disingeneos as characterising it as a belief in a ghost in a rock....

So to say "not a single person believes any of this stuff" is too simplistic. Over a 1/3 of all japanese households have shinto shrines, shinto festivals are a regular calendar event, kami play a role in ceremonies for weddings, and in concepts of "luck" for individuals....indeed shintoism is strongly engrained in japanese culture, ritual, thought and tradition.

So it takes us into the territory of how to define belief? Where does belief start and superstition end? There are a great many superstitions in Shintoism with regards to the kami, and yet superstitions are based on an idea or a belief that the underlying premise is true - without this belief there would be no superstition.

It deals with the spiritual "one-ness" with nature - which is far more involved that a ghost in a rock. kami can represent natural processes or objects. Indeed, at its most fundamental animism has been regarded as the idea that "the earth is sacred and we all belong there." Therefore the demarcation between natural and supernatural which is easily drawn in western thought is not an obvious one in japan.

So, whilst I didn't know anyone who "believed in a ghost in a rock," i knew more than a few who believed in a greater than natural affinity with nature - a spiritual "one-ness," and a great number of people for whom shinto beliefs (or superstitions if you will) played an important role in how they lived their lives.....

Ultimately, regardless of if you regard shintoism as a "religion" or not, it illustrates very well the culturally-loaded nature of language - and thus the ultimate subjective nature of terms like "god." To discuss god in japan would be to do so in terms of kami, and therefore the subjective interpretation of the term would be significantly different from that of a westerner. This is merely a stark example of the subjective nature of language - which can be extended all the way from national, to regional, and to an individual level.
Now you're describing RITUAL, not a belief in the tenets themselves. And, yes, Shintoism is very much belief in the animus of rocks and trees; it's a primitive animistic religion. Didn't you know that?
Shintoism is not about spiritual oneness with nature; you're thinking of some forms of Buddhism. Shinotism is about placating the genius locii to ensure a good harvest or whatever; in that sense, it's closer to Xianity's pleas for god to help.

[andyandy]

Now you're describing RITUAL, not a belief in the tenets themselves. And, yes, Shintoism is very much belief in the animus of rocks and trees; it's a primitive animistic religion. Didn't you know that?

animistic religion is ultimately more involved than a "ghost in a rock" - indeed that charcterisation is rather unhelpful in understanding the general premise - which is as i've already outlined, a general spiritual "one-ness" with nature, where the demarcation between natural and supernatural is not clearly defined.
Again, you're being disingenous with a dismissal of shintoism as mere ritual - there are plenty of superstitions which permeate japanese society based on shinto belief - that people buy Omamori good luck charms from shrines is not entirely explained through "ritual." i think you must know all this, so i'm surprised you keep trying to misrepresent things to make your argument.

Shintoism is not about spiritual oneness with nature; you're thinking of some forms of Buddhism. Shinotism is about placating the genius locii to ensure a good harvest or whatever; in that sense, it's closer to Xianity's pleas for god to help.

Shintoism can ultimately be described in terms of spiritual oneness with nature

Animism (from animus, or anima, mind or soul), originally means the doctrine of spiritual beings.
It is often extended to include the belief that personalized, supernatural beings (or souls) endowed with reason, intelligence and volition inhabit ordinary objects as well as animate beings, and govern their existence (pantheism or animatism). More simply, the belief is that "everything is alive", "everything is conscious" or "everything has a soul". "It's the belief that "the earth is sacred and we belong here" {Daniel Quinn}.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

[saizai]

andyandy - You're surprised at this point that Kimpatsu is arguing from fallacies?

[Kimpatsu]

animistic religion is ultimately more involved than a "ghost in a rock" - indeed that charcterisation is rather unhelpful in understanding the general premise - which is as i've already outlined, a general spiritual "one-ness" with nature, where the demarcation between natural and supernatural is not clearly defined.
Again, you're being disingenous with a dismissal of shintoism as mere ritual - there are plenty of superstitions which permeate japanese society based on shinto belief - that people buy Omamori good luck charms from shrines is not entirely explained through "ritual." i think you must know all this, so i'm surprised you keep trying to misrepresent things to make your argument.



Shintoism can ultimately be described in terms of spiritual oneness with nature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
I have no idea who wrote the Wikipedia piece, but I would always view with deep suspicion any source that allows the truth about politicians to be rewritten willy-nilly by supporters of said politicians, rather than disinterested objective third parties.
That said, I can tell you who DIDN'T write it: Lola Martinez, my tutopr in Japanese anthropology and the world's greatest expert on Shintoism, or me. Her (*ahem*) star pupil. Or one of them, anyway. To go all Benveniste on you: where did you study Japanese anthropology?
As I said, animisim is merely about imputing spirits to inanimate objects. I think you're mistakenly conflating Shintoism with southern Buddhism. To reply in greater detail to your earlier post above (sorry to rush off as I did, but a typhoon has just decided to rip the hell out of Tokyo and I had to get the storm shutters up, a problem I'm sure you understand, having lived in Kumamoto, which is Typhoon central), the British Aikido Association has a kamidana in its trainign hall, and every class, all the students ritually clap in union in its direction and bow three times. Do you think they believe in the kami? Of course not. They don't have any religious beliefs at all; they're merely following ritual. I'm an atheist, and I got married in church, because again it's the ritual that's important. Many Japanese families have a kamidana, but they also have stuffed Rupert Bear dolls. As do many British children. Does this mean the family worships Rupert Bear? Or that collecting such items is merely ornamental? And let's not forget cultural pressure; my wife, who's as big an atheist as I am, has said on occasion we should buy a kamidana--because all the neighbours have one. IOW, it's peer pressure, not religious belief, that pushes Japanese families to buy the damn things. Just like my mother having an ornamental crucifix on my grandmother's grave, which she tends regularly. No religion; just ornamentation. See the difference?
If you're going to argue anything in terms of Japanese religion, despite being the native religion of Japan, in terms of numbers who attend ceremonies of importance such as birthing ceremonies and funerals (the majority of weddings here are now conducted in wedding halls, which use Xian chapels), then Buddhism trumps Shintoism by miles.

[Kimpatsu]

andyandy - You're surprised at this point that Kimpatsu is arguing from fallacies?
This from a man who seriously thinks there may be faeries at the bottom of the garden?! :rolleyes:

[andyandy]

I have no idea who wrote the Wikipedia piece, but I would always view with deep suspicion any source that allows the truth about politicians to be rewritten willy-nilly by supporters of said politicians, rather than disinterested objective third parties.
That said, I can tell you who DIDN'T write it: Lola Martinez, my tutopr in Japanese anthropology and the world's greatest expert on Shintoism, or me. Her (*ahem*) star pupil. Or one of them, anyway. To go all Benveniste on you: where did you study Japanese anthropology?
As I said, animisim is merely about imputing spirits to inanimate objects. I think you're mistakenly conflating Shintoism with southern Buddhism. To reply in greater detail to your earlier post above (sorry to rush off as I did, but a typhoon has just decided to rip the hell out of Tokyo and I had to get the storm shutters up, a problem I'm sure you understand, having lived in Kumamoto, which is Typhoon central), the British Aikido Association has a kamidana in its trainign hall, and every class, all the students ritually clap in union in its direction and bow three times. Do you think they believe in the kami? Of course not. They don't have any religious beliefs at all; they're merely following ritual. I'm an atheist, and I got married in church, because again it's the ritual that's important. Many Japanese families have a kamidana, but they also have stuffed Rupert Bear dolls. As do many British children. Does this mean the family worships Rupert Bear? Or that collecting such items is merely ornamental? And let's not forget cultural pressure; my wife, who's as big an atheist as I am, has said on occasion we should buy a kamidana--because all the neighbours have one. IOW, it's peer pressure, not religious belief, that pushes Japanese families to buy the damn things. Just like my mother having an ornamental crucifix on my grandmother's grave, which she tends regularly. No religion; just ornamentation. See the difference?
If you're going to argue anything in terms of Japanese religion, despite being the native religion of Japan, in terms of numbers who attend ceremonies of importance such as birthing ceremonies and funerals (the majority of weddings here are now conducted in wedding halls, which use Xian chapels), then Buddhism trumps Shintoism by miles.

Sure, I'd agree that shintoism in current japan involves a good deal of tradition - and indeed symbolism - where the symbols may have been repeated so many times that sometimes their original meaning has been lost - all true. However, i think you'd do well to deny all superstitious elements from actions derived from Shinto beliefs and practices. The example i gave before with the "good luck" charms i think is a good one - more than a few students at my school would bring in such things at exam time to place them on - specifically for good luck....indeed, i'd argue that people in the west who have a "lucky" amulet or charm subscribe to some sort of super-natural process even if it's somewhat subconsciously - it's just that in Japan, Shintoism provides the framework for that superstition.
The reason that Shintoism is interesting to the agnostic/atheist debate is that it shows with some clarity that understanding of words are ultimately on a subjective level - to discuss god in Japanese would be to do so in terms or in general understanding of "kami" - a framework that really does not mesh well with an understanding of "God" from a western perspective.

As a note - with regards to the Christian churches for marriage - one of my English friends got a part time job as a "vicar" working in one of these wedding chapels - as the chapel wanted a gaijin just to add to the whole "western" feel of the ceremony - it paid quite well if i remember rightly :)

i'd be interested in your views of Shintoism in greater detail if it's something you're interested in.....

typhu dakkara ki o tsukete! (lol it's been a while.....)

[Kimpatsu]

To answer your points in reverse, currently, a good atheist friend of mine is working part-time in a wedding chapel. He even tells the bride and groom that he's an atheist, and they just don't care. It's the ritual they want; not the substance. (As an aside: what substance is there? Eating Christ in the form of a cracker?!)
Many people carry good luck charms; Westerners do so in the form of rabbit foot keyrings. But here's the rub: many self-professed Xians also read their horoscope in the newspaper every morning, and in polls claim to take it seriously. Yet, the majority also forget what it says after 10 minutes. So, how is the "Shinto" group you describe any different? And, crucially, how is that "Shinto" control group any different from the "Buddhist" control group who also carry lucky charms, such as high school girls who attach such charms to their bags? (Last time I asked, the girls had the charms because they were "cute", not because they expected to propitiate the gods, regardless of whether they were "Buddhist" or "Shinto".)

[I less than three logic]

I'm afraid this still seems disingenuous to me - unless this is some sort of half-weak-agnostic which claims that we don't know for certain whether gods exist, but we do know for certain that gods don't exist? :confused:
There you go again, adding absoluteness to the term belief. Many of us don’t consider ourselves infallible, thus do not consider our current beliefs as absolute. All my beliefs are tentative, even the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. If it doesn’t, I’d have to accept my belief was wrong, and form a new one.

[saizai]

This from a man who seriously thinks there may be faeries at the bottom of the garden?! :rolleyes:

Fallacy: ad hominem, argument from incredulity.

[saizai]

There you go again, adding absoluteness to the term belief. Many of us don’t consider ourselves infallible, thus do not consider our current beliefs as absolute. All my beliefs are tentative, even the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. If it doesn’t, I’d have to accept my belief was wrong, and form a new one.

Oh, not at all. I didn't say you have to be certain. But I did say you have to have some *reason* to believe what you believe, if it's to be rational.

Not all logic results in *certain* conclusions. But conclusions without any evidence....

[saizai]

andyandy / kimpatsu: If you're going to discuss it at length, please split the shinto/buddhism topic to another thread. Thanks.

[Kimpatsu]

Fallacy: ad hominem, argument from incredulity.
How can it be a fallacy when it's true? You said that you seriously entertain the possibility there are faeries at the bottom of the garden.

[saizai]

How can it be a fallacy when it's true? You said that you seriously entertain the possibility there are faeries at the bottom of the garden.

Indeed, I am completely agnostic about it. However, you did not refute the hypothesis logically. You committed two fallacies instead:
1. argument from incredulity: "I can't believe it, ergo it is not true"
2. ad hominem "You believe it, ergo you are stupid, ergo it is not true"

... neither of which is valid. :D

Evidently you're the one who needs to read up on what fallacies are, as your reply clearly indicates a lack of understanding of them even when I explicitly pointed it out and provided helpful links. There's another link in my sig, below, btw. :D

[Kimpatsu]

Indeed, I am completely agnostic about it.
So you are indeed a grown man who beleives in the possibility of faeries at the bottom of the garden? An idea I rejected as nonsensical when I was six years old... :rolleyes:

[saizai]

So you are indeed a grown man who beleives in the possibility of faeries at the bottom of the garden? An idea I rejected as nonsensical when I was six years old... :rolleyes:

You did so fallaciously, for the reasons I stated above and that you still have not countered.

Perhaps you still haven't grown out of a six-year-old's "logic"? It seems you're unable to come up with anything rational when debating someone who uses the real thing...

P.S. Fallacy: argument from repetition.

[Piggy]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And one of the dangers of learning lists of fallacies is the tendency to over-apply them.

I ran into the same thing on the leprechaun thread.

E.g., not every slippery slope argument is a slippery slope fallacy. There are some actual situations in which beginning a process leads inevitably to negative consequences (e.g. Iraq -- now we're in, we can neither leave nor stay without causing further destruction).

And not every ad hominem argument is an ad hominem fallacy, either.

[saizai]

Piggy - Would you like to point out in which exact places I called kimpatsu on a fallacy when I was not correct in doing so?

Also, please provide an example of a "valid" ad hominem.

[Kimpatsu]

You did so fallaciously, for the reasons I stated above and that you still have not countered.

Perhaps you still haven't grown out of a six-year-old's "logic"? It seems you're unable to come up with anything rational when debating someone who uses the real thing...

P.S. Fallacy: argument from repetition.
Well, when you start using the real thing, let me know...
The problem is that you treat logical fallacies as punchlines, rather than as ways of illuminating flaws in the other person's argument. And your argument is fatally flawed. This is because you mistakenly assume that two possibilities--the existence or non-existence of faeries--are equiprobable. They are not. The possibility of faeries existing is zero, given our knowledge of the universe. Ergo, I am an atheist in their regard. As I am atheistic regarding unicorns, leprechauns, vampires, werewolves, gods, and other supernatural phenomena.
As I said at the start, however, I don't believe you truly are agnostic about faeries. I think you're as atheistic as we all are, because that is the correct stance of a rational adult. To admit so, however, would be to undermine simultaneously your claim that atheism is a belief, and your monstrously bloated ego cannot bring yourself to do that. Hence this merry-go-round of you parrotting logical fallacies without understanding what those fallacies actually mean.

[saizai]

The problem is that you treat logical fallacies as punchlines, rather than as ways of illuminating flaws in the other person's argument.

Funny, I thought simply pointing out all of your fallacious logic was sufficient.

And your argument is fatally flawed.

Prove it. What fallacies did I commit?

This is because you mistakenly assume that two possibilities--the existence or non-existence of faeries--are equiprobable. They are not. The possibility of faeries existing is zero, given our knowledge of the universe.

Prove it.

Ergo, I am an atheist in their regard. As I am atheistic regarding unicorns, leprechauns, vampires, werewolves, gods, and other supernatural phenomena.

Prove it for them too.

As I said at the start, however, I don't believe you truly are agnostic about faeries. I think you're as atheistic as we all are, because that is the correct stance of a rational adult. To admit so, however, would be to undermine simultaneously your claim that atheism is a belief, and your monstrously bloated ego cannot bring yourself to do that.

Debating whether or not I believe something is rather fruitless, don't you think? I claim that I am agnostic; what is the point of saying "no you're not" without proving me wrong?

Hence this merry-go-round of you parrotting logical fallacies without understanding what those fallacies actually mean.

You claim, again, that I am using the fallacies in a way that is inconsistent with what they "actually mean". Please show an example of this: quote what I quoted, the fallacy I claimed, the real definition of that fallacy, and why it does not apply to the original quote.

[Kimpatsu]

Funny, I thought simply pointing out all of your fallacious logic was sufficient.
There you go again, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly, rather than examining the facts. A grown man who seriously entertains the possibility fo faeries at the bottom of the garden. :rolleyes:
All your whining about "prove it, prove it" like a broken record is merely a smokescreen for the fact that you have backed yourself into a logical corner, and you know it. If atheism is irrational, then so is a-faerism. Both atheism and a-faerisim are based on knowledge of the real world. To claim that a-faeirism is rational but atheism does not would be special pleading, so you maintain the pretence that you really are agnostic about the possibility of faeries. If you really beleive that, then like the 15YO who believes that Batman really exists, you need medical help.

[Piggy]

Piggy - Would you like to point out in which exact places I called kimpatsu on a fallacy when I was not correct in doing so?
Kimpatsu beat me to it.

Also, please provide an example of a "valid" ad hominem.
Try this one (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1580454&postcount=17), from the Sagan's Dragon thread.

[saizai]

There you go again, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly, rather than examining the facts. A grown man who seriously entertains the possibility fo faeries at the bottom of the garden. :rolleyes:

Now you're definitely arguing from repetition. A fallacy...

Also, what "facts" are you referring to? I've asked for them but you haven't offered any that support your claims.

If atheism is irrational, then so is a-faerism.

Correct. As I've said before, at least twice...

Both atheism and a-faerisim are based on knowledge of the real world.

Not correct. What "knowledge of the real world" (i.e., evidence) justifies atheism or afaeriism? I've asked for it but you've not produced any...

To claim that a-faeirism is rational but atheism does not would be special pleading, so you maintain the pretence that you really are agnostic about the possibility of faeries. If you really beleive that, then like the 15YO who believes that Batman really exists, you need medical help.

Fallacy: 1. incredulity "if you believe X you are crazy"
2. ad hominem "... and therefore it is wrong".

[saizai]

Try this one (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1580454&postcount=17), from the Sagan's Dragon thread.

You're almost right but not quite in that.

Your argument is against his credibility and motive, which affects the credibility of his statements of claimed fact (i.e. the 'evidence'). It is not against the situation itself (which is at least theoretically *possible*) or the logic he presents.

Thus, it is not an example of a proper ad hominem, which attacks the person in ways that are irrelevant to the thing being discussed, or which claims that an attack on the person is an attack on the logic that they are presenting (rather than the credibility of their evidence).

As I have offered no evidence, only logic, in this discussion, it is impossible to form a valid argument of this sort against me.

Also, you haven't shown any examples where I cited kimpatsu for a fallacy (including ad hominem) where I was wrong.

[Piggy]

it is not an example of a proper ad hominem
I know. That was my point. A poster on that thread was repeatedly whipping out the "ad hominem" charge whenever any attempt was made to examine any aspect of the person making the claim.

The argument that Down East Ernie was lying this time because he lied in the past is a type of ad hominem argument. Basically, it's saying the source is untrustworthy so the claim is false.

The ad hominem fallacy is as you describe it. What I'm saying is that not all ad hominen arguments (arguments "to the man" rather than the narrow details of the claim) are ad hominem fallacies.

Also, you haven't shown any examples where I cited kimpatsu for a fallacy (including ad hominem) where I was wrong.
I told you, kimpatsu beat me to it, and if you don't believe him, you won't believe me either.

If you're willing to be agnostic toward fairies in the garden, either you don't care much for the examination and consideration of evidence, or your standards are so low that anything goes.

This impacts our discussion in significant ways. That's all.

And no, I'm not going to engage you on that point. If you want to read my position on the matter, please refer to the leprechaun thread ("What Color Is Your Skepticism") and the "Killing Sagan's Dragon" thread. Your statements here place you in the leprechaunista camp, which means you and I have fundamentally different standards of evidence, and we're never going to agree on this.

[saizai]

I know. That was my point. A poster on that thread was repeatedly whipping out the "ad hominem" charge whenever any attempt was made to examine any aspect of the person making the claim.

The argument that Down East Ernie was lying this time because he lied in the past is a type of ad hominem argument. Basically, it's saying the source is untrustworthy so the claim is false.

"It" I was referring to was *your* DEE example. That's a (valid) attack on the credibility of evidence presented. It's not valid as an attack on the logic. However, you presented it as the former, which makes it not an example of an ad hominem fallacy, which does the latter.

Also, you didn't show any case where kimpatsu made a quote-unquote "valid" ad hominem claim.

If you're willing to be agnostic toward fairies in the garden, either you don't care much for the examination and consideration of evidence, or your standards are so low that anything goes.

To the contrary, I care quite a bit for evidence and logic, and have shown how kimpatsu's position is riddled with fallacies whereas he has not shown any fallacies in my logic - just claimed them to be (in his opinion) absurd, which is merely another fallacy on his part.

Remember, I'm not claiming faeries (or God(s)) exist. I'm claiming that you can't prove they don't exist, therefore (to avoid fallacy of argument from ignorance) we cannot say anything at all about faeries' existence or nonexistence.

[Kimpatsu]

Correct. As I've said before, at least twice...
Now I know you're in serious need of medical attention. Really, a grown man who believes in faeries. Do you also believe in Santa Claus? I suppose you must do.
:rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

I'm agnostic about ostriches on Mars. Again, you seem to be abusing the English language.

If I were to say: "There are as many gods in the universe as there are ostriches on Mars", any normal person would take that to be a statement of atheism.

[Dr Adequate]

Remember, I'm not claiming faeries (or God(s)) exist. I'm claiming that you can't prove they don't exist, therefore (to avoid fallacy of argument from ignorance) we cannot say anything at all about faeries' existence or nonexistence. As there can be no absolute proof of any empirical proposition, it would seem to follow that we cannot say anything at all about anything.

But we can.

[Piggy]

There's no point talking to you, saizai, because you don't bother to read or to think.

I said that not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies.

You said, show me an example of a "valid" ad hominem.

I did.

You objected because my example wasn't an ad hominem fallacy.

As for being agnostic about ostriches on Mars, such a position would require complete ignorance of the very basics of biology and astronomy.

Bye-bye, saizai.

[I less than three logic]

Funny, I thought simply pointing out all of your fallacious logic was sufficient.
Argument from fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)
Showing that arguments given for a position are fallacies does not disprove the position.

[Bri]

Yet, you seemed to use the two terms interchangeably in your previous post.

I don't see where I did, but it's certainly possible that I used one or more terms incorrectly. Still, few consider the two beliefs to be the same.

-Bri

[Bri]

I'm afraid this still seems disingenuous to me - unless this is some sort of half-weak-agnostic which claims that we don't know for certain whether gods exist, but we do know for certain that gods don't exist? :confused:

I wouldn't say it's disingenuous, even if you don't agree that it is rational. People often hold opinions about things for which there is no clear evidence either way rather than entirely withholding opinion, and can readily admit that they are only opinions (rather than fact) because of the lack of clear evidence. In fact, that's pretty much what an "opinion" is.

Otherwise, it seems to be saying "I believe X, but don't think we know X [for any reason based on evidence and logic, which I accept as Good Things]."

I think it's more along the lines of "I think the evidence points towards X (and therefore hold the opinion that X is true), but I acknowledge that the quantity and quality of evidence isn't enough to compel everyone to believe as I do." Just as an "agnostic theist" might cite all sorts of evidence for God, but admit that the evidence is far from entirely convincing, an "agnostic strong atheist" might cite that the lack of evidence where evidence might be expected is evidence against the existence of gods, yet is far from entirely convincing. I don't find either of these views to be particularly irrational.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

I don't see where I did, but it's certainly possible that I used one or more terms incorrectly. Still, few consider the two beliefs to be the same.

-Bri
As saizai defines them, strong atheism is a belief that no gods exist, which is the same thing as a disbelief in the existence of gods. Weak atheism is no belief or disbelief in the existence of god at all.

-Bri
In the second sentence, what are claim exactly are you rejecting as untrue?

[Bri]

I think this is a difference between an epistemologic claim (strong agnosticism) and an ontological one (weak atheism/agnosticism).

I think any omnipotent God is knowable if simply because it could, say, rearrange the universe to write a nice clear message in English using the stars. A bit grandiose, but it'd do.

I just don't think such knowledge exists yet.

I agree that the strong agnostic position is largely untenable.

My point was that agnosticism is generally assumed to have to do with knowledge of the existence of gods (weak = such existence is unknown, strong = such existence is unknowable) where atheism is generally assumed to have to do with belief in the existence of gods (weak = lack of belief, strong = belief that no gods exist).

Therefore, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Granted, most weak atheists are weak atheists because they are also weak agnostics, but strong atheists can also be weak agnostics.

So your definition of "weak agnosticism" (a lack of belief in the existence of gods) really seems closer to "weak atheism."

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

I agree that the strong agnostic position is largely untenable.

My point was that agnosticism is generally assumed to have to do with knowledge of the existence of gods (weak = such existence is unknown, strong = such existence is unknowable) where atheism is generally assumed to have to do with belief in the existence of gods (weak = lack of belief, strong = belief that no gods exist).

Therefore, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Granted, most weak atheists are weak atheists because they are also weak agnostics, but strong atheists can also be weak agnostics.

So your definition of "weak agnosticism" (a lack of belief in the existence of gods) really seems closer to "weak atheism."

-Bri
Well said. Knew I'd agree with you sooner or later. :D

[Bri]

As saizai defines them, strong atheism is a belief that no gods exist, which is the same thing as a disbelief in the existence of gods. Weak atheism is no belief or disbelief in the existence of god at all.

-Bri

In the second sentence, what are claim exactly are you rejecting as untrue?

Oh, the sentence is ambiguous and unclear (I apologize). What I meant was that weak atheism is neither the belief in the existence of gods nor the disbelief in the existence of gods.

I meant it in the sense that "not red or green" means "not red and not green" (i.e. I meant "no belief or disbelief" as "no belief and no disbelief.")

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Oh, the sentence is ambiguous and unclear (I apologize). What I meant was that weak atheism is neither the belief in the existence of gods nor the disbelief in the existence of gods.

I meant it in the sense that "not red or green" means "not red and not green" (i.e. I meant "no belief or disbelief" as "no belief and no disbelief.")

-Bri
Ok, that makes it a bit clearer. However, I still disagree. One can either believe or not believe a claim; these are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You can not do both, and you must do one or the other as they exhaust all options. (This is not a false dilemma.) No belief is still the same as not believing the claim the same way any color but red is still not red. Not believing a claim is, at least tentatively, rejecting the claim as untrue, as you can not say you believe the claim is true. This does not mean you claim it is false, however. You are simply rejecting that the claim is true, at this time.

[Bri]

Well said. Knew I'd agree with you sooner or later. :D

Oh, I think we probably agree on more than we disagree on!

Where we most likely disagree concerns the rationality of an agnostic strong atheist position or an agnostic theist position. You seem to think that one is necessarily irrational while the other isn't, and I don't think that we can come up with a viable definition of "irrational" that would allow one to be necessarily irrational while the other is rational.

I am in agreement with saizai insofar as if one of them is necessarily irrational, then they likely both are. I am in disagreement with saizai in that I don't think either is necessarily irrational, mainly because I use a different definition for "irrational." saizai's definition implies that it is necessarily irrational to hold a belief for which there is little or no evidence. If "irrational" simply means "logically consistent" then I tend to think that where there is little or no evidence for or against a belief, it can be rational to hold either view (provided one doesn't overstate the evidence -- i.e. state the belief as fact rather than opinion).

-Bri

[Bri]

Ok, that makes it a bit clearer. However, I still disagree. One can either believe or not believe a claim; these are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You can not do both, and you must do one or the other as they exhaust all options. (This is not a false dilemma.)

Mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive (i.e. it is indeed a false dichotomy). In reference to a claim, one can believe the claim to be true, one can believe the claim to be false, and one can have no belief as to the truth of the claim (a complete lack of belief either way).

No belief is still the same as not believing the claim the same way any color but red is still not red. Not believing a claim is, at least tentatively, rejecting the claim as untrue, as you can not say you believe the claim is true. This does not mean you claim it is false, however. You are simply rejecting that the claim is true, at this time.

The statements in bold are contradictory. Tentatively or not, rejecting a claim as untrue DOES mean that you claim it is false. It is possible to admit that you simply don't know, and to therefore neither believe the claim to be true or believe the claim to be false.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive (i.e. it is indeed a false dichotomy). In reference to a claim, one can believe the claim to be true, one can believe the claim to be false, and one can have no belief as to the truth of the claim (a complete lack of belief either way).



The statements in bold are contradictory. Tentatively or not, rejecting a claim as untrue DOES mean that you claim it is false. It is possible to admit that you simply don't know, and to therefore neither believe the claim to be true or believe the claim to be false.

-Bri
If you can not say “I believe it is true” then you do not believe it is true. If you have no belief, you can not say “I believe it is true”. Any color (except red in this case), even no color at all, is still considered not red. Any belief (other than it is true), even no belief at all, is still considered not believing it is true. It is not a false dichotomy.

If you do not believe it is true, you have rejected that the claim is true. In the English language, this means exactly the same as; you have rejected it as untrue.

[Bri]

If you can not say “I believe it is true” then you do not believe it is true.

Nor do you necessarily believe it is false.

If you have no belief, you can not say “I believe it is true”.

Nor can you say "I believe it is false."

Any color (except red in this case), even no color at all, is still considered not red. Any belief (other than it is true), even no belief at all, is still considered not believing it is true. It is not a false dichotomy.

There are three possible viewpoints concerning the statement "that apple is red":


Belief that the statement is true.
Belief that the statement is false.
Lack of belief as to whether the statement is true nor false.


If you do not believe it is true, you have rejected that the claim is true. In the English language, this means exactly the same as; you have rejected it as untrue.

If you do not believe it is true, you may or may not also believe it is false. You are correct that the English language is often used in an ambiguous way, and when someone says "I don't believe in God" they often mean that they believe that God doesn't exist rather than that they have no belief one way or the other as to whether God exists.

However, there is clearly a difference between (1) belief that a claim is true, (2) belief that a claim is false, and (3) having no belief concerning the truth or falsehood of a claim. The difference between "weak/soft" and "strong/harm" atheism is that towards the claim "at least one god exists" a strong atheist holds (2) while a weak atheist holds (3).

Neither a strong and weak atheists hold (1) towards the claim "at least one god exists" while a theist holds (1). Towards the claim "no gods exist" a strong atheist holds (1), a theist holds (2), and a weak atheist still holds (3).

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Nor do you necessarily believe it is false.



Nor can you say "I believe it is false."
Yes, like I said, not believing (mental rejection) that the claim is true, is not the same as claiming it is false.

There are three possible viewpoints concerning the statement "that apple is red":


Belief that the statement is true.
Belief that the statement is false.
Lack of belief as to whether the statement is true nor false.

This is pointless double speak. They both (in red) fall under the category of not believing the claim “the apple is red” is true.

If you do not believe it is true, you may or may not also believe it is false.
Yes, I’ve said that. You’ve still, at this time, rejected that the claim is true, however. You may also reject the claim is false, but it still means the same as disbelief. (I'm not worried about the atheism bit here; this is a bit of a side track on the use of "disbelief" as the irrational part. Believing it is false, is not the same as disbelief.)

[I less than three logic]

I think we’re disagreeing on the meaning of reject here. I’m using reject as “to refuse to accept” or more simply, “not accept”. No belief is “not accepting” it is true and “not accepting” it is false. You can’t “accept” both true and false, but you can “not accept” either true or false.

[Bri]

Yes, like I said, not believing (mental rejection) that the claim is true, is not the same as claiming it is false.

The Webster's definition of "disbelief" I was using was:


disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Note that is says "mental rejection of something as untrue" which is not the same as mental rejection that the claim is true. The Webster definition implies that you hold the opposite belief -- that the claim is false. However, your definition of "disbelief" is also valid. American Heritage defines "disbelief" as "refusal or reluctance to believe" which would certainly fit a weak atheist position towards the claim of God's existence.


This is pointless double speak. They both (in red) fall under the category of not believing the claim “the apple is red” is true.

Yes, they both fall under not believing that "the apple is red" is true. However, there is a key distinction between the two, which is the same distinction between strong and weak atheism. So, no, it's not "pointless double speak" to make the distinction clear. Nor are the two necessarily on equal footing as far as rationality goes any more than the first and third statements are necessarily on equal footing.


Yes, I’ve said that. You’ve still, at this time, rejected that the claim is true, however. You may also reject the claim is false, but it still means the same as disbelief. (I'm not worried about the atheism bit here; this is a bit of a side track on the use of "disbelief" as the irrational part. Believing it is false, is not the same as disbelief.)

You are simply using a different definition of "disbelief" than I am. I am using "disbelief" to mean "belief that it is false." A disbelief in the existence of God would mean that you believe that God does not exist (or that the existence of God is false).

Nonetheless, my point was that strong atheism and weak atheism are different (in a very similar way that theism and weak atheism are different).

-Bri

[Bri]

I think we’re disagreeing on the meaning of reject here. I’m using reject as “to refuse to accept” or more simply, “not accept”. No belief is “not accepting” it is true and “not accepting” it is false. You can’t “accept” both true and false, but you can “not accept” either true or false.

Agreed. More to the point, we're disagreeing as to the meaning of "disbelief." But hopefully you can now see the distinction between weak and strong atheism that saizai and others are referring to.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

You know, I rather like arguing with you, Bri. You’re both persistent and irritating. :D

“Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.” – Mark Twain

[Bri]

You know, I rather like arguing with you, Bri. You’re both persistent and irritating. :D

Thanks, and I feel the same. Then again, maybe I'm a masochist.

-Bri

[saizai]

I wouldn't say it's disingenuous, even if you don't agree that it is rational. People often hold opinions about things for which there is no clear evidence either way rather than entirely withholding opinion, and can readily admit that they are only opinions (rather than fact) because of the lack of clear evidence. In fact, that's pretty much what an "opinion" is.

IME, 'opinion' is based on partial evidence, or evidence only available to the holder of the opinion.

E.g., in my opinion, dark chocolate tastes better than milk chocolate.
Or: in my opinion, capilene is better than cotton for hiking.

I think it's more along the lines of "I think the evidence points towards X (and therefore hold the opinion that X is true), but I acknowledge that the quantity and quality of evidence isn't enough to compel everyone to believe as I do."

That I'll agree with.

Just as an "agnostic theist" might cite all sorts of evidence for God, but admit that the evidence is far from entirely convincing, an "agnostic strong atheist" might cite that the lack of evidence where evidence might be expected is evidence against the existence of gods, yet is far from entirely convincing. I don't find either of these views to be particularly irrational.

*Where evidence might be expected*. But there isn't anywhere, for a god who doesn't interact with its creation much, ne? So there's no evidence (including relevant lack of evidence).

[saizai]

Argument from fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)

Not really. Kimpatsu claims ~A. Argument from fallacy would conclude A (there is a god).

I didn't do that.

[saizai]

I am in agreement with saizai insofar as if one of them is necessarily irrational, then they likely both are. I am in disagreement with saizai in that I don't think either is necessarily irrational, mainly because I use a different definition for "irrational." saizai's definition implies that it is necessarily irrational to hold a belief for which there is little or no evidence. If "irrational" simply means "logically consistent" then I tend to think that where there is little or no evidence for or against a belief, it can be rational to hold either view (provided one doesn't overstate the evidence -- i.e. state the belief as fact rather than opinion).

I would say it's rational to say that X is *possible*, if X is both internally consistent and not contradicted by available evidence. But not to say that X is *true*, without also evidence for it.

[I less than three logic]

Not really. Kimpatsu claims ~A. Argument from fallacy would conclude A (there is a god).

I didn't do that.
Oh, no. I didn’t mean it that way. I was just pointing out that simply pointing out fallacies isn’t always sufficient like you said.

[saizai]

Statement: "The apple on my dining room table is red."

Belief: I have seen the apple, and it is red.
Disbelief: I have seen the apple, and it is not red OR I am looking at the dining room table, and there is no apple on it.
Neither: I haven't seen the apple, so how should I know?

The latter two are clearly different mental states.

[saizai]

Oh, no. I didn’t mean that. I was just pointing out that simply pointing out fallacies isn’t always sufficient like you said.

It's sufficient to demonstrate that the opponent's argument is invalid as presented.

It is not sufficient to demonstrate that the opponent's claim is false - only that it is unproven.

Since I was only claiming that it is irrational (i.e. unproven) to claim it, it's sufficient for my purposes. :)

[I less than three logic]

Statement: "The apple on my dining room table is red."

Belief: I have seen the apple, and it is red.
Disbelief: I have seen the apple, and it is not red OR I am looking at the dining room table, and there is no apple on it.
Neither: I haven't seen the apple, so how should I know?

The latter two are clearly different mental states.
Yes, we’ve already established we’re using different definitions of “disbelief”.

[drkitten]

It's sufficient to demonstrate that the opponent's argument is invalid as presented.

Er, no it isn't.

Because an "invalid" argument may nevertheless be evidentiary.

If I find your fingerprints on the murder weapon, it's technically an invalid argument to say that you're the murderer:

Major Premise : The murderer left fingerprints on the gun
Minor Premise : Saizai's fingerprints were found on the gun by the police laboratory
Conclusion : Saizai is the murderer.

Go ahead, tell the jury that that's an "invalid' argument. Don't bother giving them any other explanation, because that's sufficient.

And I'm sure the fact that you are correct in your assessment of the argument's validity will give you great satisfaction and comfort in the years to come inside cell block D.

[saizai]

Go ahead, tell the jury that that's an "invalid' argument. Don't bother giving them any other explanation, because that's sufficient.

It's a valid argument actually to prove that I handled the weapon - especially if no other prints were found on it. It doesn't prove that I killed the guy, but it's valid as evidence.

However, there is no evidence (except lack of evidence) yet presented in this argument, so it's moot.

[I less than three logic]

It's a valid argument actually to prove that I handled the weapon - especially if no other prints were found on it. It doesn't prove that I killed the guy, but it's valid as evidence.
Well, unless you allow unfalsifiable explanations for why your prints were on the weapon without you ever handling it. I mean, they could have been planted by magical leprechauns. They have motive since they're still upset with you for attempting to taking their gold you know. You can't prove the leprechauns didn't do it, can you?

[drkitten]

It's a valid argument actually to prove that I handled the weapon.

Not even that. It's relatively easy to transfer (i.e. forge) fingerprints if you know what you're doing.

If you think someone is incorrect, don't prove them fallacious. Prove them wrong.

[Bri]

IME, 'opinion' is based on partial evidence, or evidence only available to the holder of the opinion.

E.g., in my opinion, dark chocolate tastes better than milk chocolate.
Or: in my opinion, capilene is better than cotton for hiking.

Quite so, but obviously neither of these statements is based on enough evidence to claim it for a fact, nor is either belief irrational. Likewise, it is quite likely that an agnostic theist or an agnostic strong atheist might have some evidence of their opinion, but not enough to claim their belief to be fact. So, do you consider all of these positions (including the two that you listed) to be irrational?

*Where evidence might be expected*. But there isn't anywhere, for a god who doesn't interact with its creation much, ne? So there's no evidence (including relevant lack of evidence).

It seems that there may actually be some evidence (albeit far from strong evidence) that no gods exist, but you actually seem to be making a positive claim that there is no evidence possible to support an opinion that gods don't exist. Would that be a claim that bears a burden or proof?

The fact that faeries have never been proven despite the fact that there should be evidence can rationally lead one to believe that although faeries might exist, they probably don't. Yet you claimed that this is also an irrational opinion.

If you believe that no evidence against the existence of gods is possible at all, are you saying that an agnostic theist position is more rational than an agnostic strong atheist position given that evidence is possible for the existence of God but not for the nonexistence of God?

I would say it's rational to say that X is *possible*, if X is both internally consistent and not contradicted by available evidence. But not to say that X is *true*, without also evidence for it.

Obviously, an agnostic strong atheist likely wouldn't say that X is *true* (only that it is his or her opinion that X is true). At best, an agnostic strong atheist's position (like an agnostic theist's position) would be that it is possible that X is false, but that, in his or her opinion, it is likely true.

-Bri

[saizai]

Well, unless you allow unfalsifiable explanations for why your prints were on the weapon without you ever handling it. I mean, they could have been planted by magical leprechauns. They have motive since they're still upset with you for attempting to taking their gold you know. You can't prove the leprechauns didn't do it, can you?

*laugh* Indeed.

Of course, the standards of evidence are different for a criminal court and for an argument. Since leprechauns have not been proven to exist, whereas I have, one would give "sai did it" theory more credibility than "leprechauns framed him".

But again it's *evidence*, not *logic*. And there hasn't been any evidence introduced.

Your argument would be more relevant to something like this:
Believer: The existence of the platypus shows ID.
Skeptic: Well, it could have been evolution actually. See this evidence?
Believer: That evidence was planted by god just to confuse you.
Skeptic: Possible, but has low credibility...

[saizai]

Quite so, but obviously neither of these statements is based on enough evidence to claim it for a fact, nor is either belief irrational. Likewise, it is quite likely that an agnostic theist or an agnostic strong atheist might have some evidence of their opinion, but not enough to claim their belief to be fact. So, do you consider all of these positions (including the two that you listed) to be irrational?

I claim the first one as fact for me. :) Of course I can't prove it to other people, since it's based on evidence that's only available to me.

I have some (rational) evidence for #2.

So those are rational opinions.

I haven't seen any rational evidence for strong atheism yet presented.

It seems that there may actually be some evidence (albeit far from strong evidence) that no gods exist, but you actually seem to be making a positive claim that there is no evidence possible to support an opinion that gods don't exist. Would that be a claim that bears a burden or proof?

No, because it is a logical argument based on the assumption that certain gods would be able to prove their existence. This proof is lacking. Therefore, ultimately strong atheism must devolve to argument from disbelief, which is fallacious.

The fact that faeries have never been proven despite the fact that there should be evidence can rationally lead one to believe that although faeries might exist, they probably don't. Yet you claimed that this is also an irrational opinion.

What evidence should there be?

If you believe that no evidence against the existence of gods is possible at all, are you saying that an agnostic theist position is more rational than an agnostic strong atheist position given that evidence is possible for the existence of God but not for the nonexistence of God?

Tricky!

I don't think the mere possibility of evidence counts AS evidence, therefore neither is "more rational". But I'll admit that this one is a gray area.

Obviously, an agnostic strong atheist likely wouldn't say that X is *true* (only that it is his or her opinion that X is true). At best, an agnostic strong atheist's position (like an agnostic theist's position) would be that it is possible that X is false, but that, in his or her opinion, it is likely true.

That's not what kimpatsu claimed.

But "likely" on what grounds? That would require partial evidence of some sort. I don't think one can even judge the "likelihood" of god from the available evidence.

One can judge the likelihood of gods having particular traits, of course - eg claiming that omnibenevolence is unlikely given the Holocaust, etc., but that's a different question.

[I less than three logic]

Since leprechauns have not been proven to exist, whereas I have, [snip]
You have? What if the judge holds a solipsistic worldview? Are you able to prove one's solipsism is wrong?

[Bri]

I would say it's rational to say that X is *possible*, if X is both internally consistent and not contradicted by available evidence. But not to say that X is *true*, without also evidence for it.

I see no reason that one cannot rationally have an opinion that X is likely true even when there isn't adequate evidence to prove that X is true. We've already established that there is a great deal of (weak) evidence that God exists, so is it then rational to be an agnostic theist?

-Bri

[Bri]

I claim the first one as fact for me. :) Of course I can't prove it to other people, since it's based on evidence that's only available to me.

I have some (rational) evidence for #2.

So those are rational opinions.


So, if someone claimed that "for them" God exists (meaning that they have evidence that is only available to them), would that be rational?


I haven't seen any rational evidence for strong atheism yet presented.

There is evidence presented for theism though (possibly not evidence that you would accept, of course). Is it therefore rational?

What evidence should there be?

For faeries, nearly all definitions that don't proclaim them to be imaginary also don't preclude them from being seen and felt by people. Therefore, if there were faeries, one would think that someone would have actual evidence of them (perhaps even dead bodies or evidence of faerie houses). In addition, we know a lot about faeries in folklore, so we can reasonably conclude that they are a human invention (i.e. imaginary) just as we can reasonably conclude that Babe the Blue Ox is probably imaginary. American Heritage seems to agree:

faerie: A tiny, mischievous, imaginary being; a fairy.

Other dictionaries use similar terminology. That would seem like pretty good evidence that faeries (at least by that definition) likely don't exist in reality.


Tricky!

I don't think the mere possibility of evidence counts AS evidence, therefore neither is "more rational". But I'll admit that this one is a gray area.

There is evidence that God exists, but perhaps not what you might consider strong evidence. So, given that you say that there is no evidence against God and given that there is at least some evidence for God, wouldn't it be more rational to believe in God?

But "likely" on what grounds? That would require partial evidence of some sort. I don't think one can even judge the "likelihood" of god from the available evidence.

Opinions aren't based on absolute judgments, of course. Perhaps based on the grounds of the sheer number of gods claimed, many of which are mutually exclusive, many of which are claimed to interact with the world, yet with no compelling evidence of any of them, couldn't one rationally come to the conclusion that the very notion of gods is likely a human invention? If one believes (as you do) that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, then couldn't you reasonably conclude that gods are a human invention? If so, it would be a coincidence if one actually existed, wouldn't it? So, couldn't one rationally conclude that such a coincidence is unlikely?

-Bri

[saizai]

You have? What if the judge holds a solipsistic worldview? Are you able to prove one's solipsism is wrong?

A solipsistic judge is a bit of an oxymoron, no?

[saizai]

I see no reason that one cannot rationally have an opinion that X is likely true even when there isn't adequate evidence to prove that X is true. We've already established that there is a great deal of (weak) evidence that God exists, so is it then rational to be an agnostic theist?

I would say yes. As you say, there does exist weak evidence (much but not all of it discounted, but that's what you mean by 'weak' anyhow), and no contrary evidence.

[saizai]

So, if someone claimed that "for them" God exists (meaning that they have evidence that is only available to them), would that be rational?

Yes, except that it is vulnerable to counterargument by insanity, illusion, or mistake. This can be partially countered (depending on the type of evidence claimed) but not entirely, thus one could only show a belief but not certainty.

There is evidence presented for theism though (possibly not evidence that you would accept, of course). Is it therefore rational?

See above.

For faeries, nearly all definitions that don't proclaim them to be imaginary also don't preclude them from being seen and felt by people. Therefore, if there were faeries, one would think that someone would have actual evidence of them (perhaps even dead bodies or evidence of faerie houses).

Not necessarily. Also, the definitions I've seen usually include some clause saying that they very strictly avoid people who don't believe in them (eg grownups) and have various odd clauses about when they're visible at all.

It is thus possible that the lack of evidence is only because they are good at avoiding humans.

Also, there ARE (anecdotal) stories of them having been seen and felt by people. :-P

In addition, we know a lot about faeries in folklore, so we can reasonably conclude that they are a human invention (i.e. imaginary) just as we can reasonably conclude that Babe the Blue Ox is probably imaginary. American Heritage seems to agree:

Folklore does not demonstrate that it is imaginary. Much of folklore is based on some kernel of truth; much is not; ergo it doesn't count either way.

Other dictionaries use similar terminology. That would seem like pretty good evidence that faeries (at least by that definition) likely don't exist in reality.

Circular. You can't define something as imaginary and then point to that as proof.

There is evidence that God exists, but perhaps not what you might consider strong evidence. So, given that you say that there is no evidence against God and given that there is at least some evidence for God, wouldn't it be more rational to believe in God?

Both are possible. It becomes a question of how much credibility one grants to the partial evidence. Depending on that, it's either exactly equal (if all evidence is discounted) or biased towards theism (if any evidence is granted any credibility).

Opinions aren't based on absolute judgments, of course. Perhaps based on the grounds of the sheer number of gods claimed, many of which are mutually exclusive, many of which are claimed to interact with the world, yet with no compelling evidence of any of them, couldn't one rationally come to the conclusion that the very notion of gods is likely a human invention?

No. One could also suppose that gods are very common, and that humans have various ways of interpreting or mythologizing them, over and above their actual traits, and that these extra myths then come into contradiction.

If one believes (as you do) that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, then couldn't you reasonably conclude that gods are a human invention? If so, it would be a coincidence if one actually existed, wouldn't it? So, couldn't one rationally conclude that such a coincidence is unlikely?

I'm afraid I don't understand this argument. Elaborate?

[I less than three logic]

A solipsistic judge is a bit of an oxymoron, no?
Irrelevant. If you can not prove one’s solipsism wrong, how can you claim you’ve proven yourself to exist?

I’ve said this before, proven only exists in mathematics. Nothing anywhere else is ever proven.

[saizai]

Premise:
Strong atheist: There are no gods.
Rewording: for all entities in the set of gods, said entity does not exist
Further: ... cannot be proven to exist

Axiom: Any omnipotent, or nearly omnipotent, being is a god. (Sufficient but not necessary condition.)

Proof:
Suppose A is a god. A is omnipotent and omniscient but generally uninterested in Earth and thus has never made contact with its inhabitants or directly meddled with their lives.

No known evidence exists to disprove A, thus A is not proven false. (Would be argument from ignorance.)

A, being omnipotent, could wake up every human on the planet simultaneously and cause them to hear and see the following message: "My name is A. I am a god. Worship me." for one week straight every year, and additionally have it permanently and painlessly tattooed on their skin and retina.

This would be an act that only a god is capable of doing, thus it would prove the existence of a god. *

This contradicts the major premise (no god can be proven), thus by reductio ad absurdium the major premise is false.

Ergo, strong atheism is false.


* Not necessarily of A; it could have been done by another god, B, who is lying.
- corollary: It is impossible to prove that the *Judeo-Christian* god exists, because any evidence presented could in fact be for a *faker* god. But this isn't an argument available to strong atheists.
* Possible counterarguments:
- insanity: I don't believe my senses are accurate and prefer to believe myself insane
- solipsistic insanity: Additionally, I don't believe that everyone else, who reports and displays the same phenomenon, exist.
These are both rational but a bit extreme and tend to remove one from the debate entirely.

[saizai]

Irrelevant. If you can not prove one’s solipsism wrong, how can you claim you’ve proven yourself to exist?

I’ve said this before, proven only exists in mathematics. Nothing anywhere else is ever proven.

Very relevant. A court exists with certain axioms. One of them is that people exist, otherwise there would be no people for the court to judge.

Context.

[saizai]

Yes, except that it is vulnerable to counterargument by insanity, illusion, or mistake. This can be partially countered (depending on the type of evidence claimed) but not entirely, thus one could only show a belief but not certainty.

Also, it would only constitute a rational argument for THEM to believe it, not necessarily for YOU to believe it - because any evidence only available to them is necessarily converted to merely testimony to YOU. Much weaker evidence.

[Bri]

Yes, except that it is vulnerable to counterargument by insanity, illusion, or mistake. This can be partially countered (depending on the type of evidence claimed) but not entirely, thus one could only show a belief but not certainty.

OK, so then an opinion may be rational as long as one admits to internal reasons for holding the opinion. So, if someone claimed that "for them" God doesn't exist, is such a belief necessarily irrational?

Not necessarily. Also, the definitions I've seen usually include some clause saying that they very strictly avoid people who don't believe in them (eg grownups) and have various odd clauses about when they're visible at all.

Still, most of the literature mentions all sorts of details about how they live and no good explanation for why, for example, nobody has ever come across a faerie (dead or alive) or a faerie house. Is it really irrational to assume the most likely explanation to be that they don't exist?

It is thus possible that the lack of evidence is only because they are good at avoiding humans.

Possible, but given the vast literature ascribing specific details to how faeries live and what they look like, isn't this at best an improbable explanation (where are the authors of the literature getting their information from)? In other words, it seems that it would be quite rational to believe that faeries likely don't exist.

Also, there ARE (anecdotal) stories of them having been seen and felt by people. :-P

Correct, but oddly no proof even though they are claimed to be physical beings. People claim to have seen faerie houses, but can't show anyone else a faerie house (not even a photograph of one). Again, isn't the most likely explanation that there are no faerie houses?

Folklore does not demonstrate that it is imaginary. Much of folklore is based on some kernel of truth; much is not; ergo it doesn't count either way.

My point here is that some folklore, like Babe the Ox, can be traced to a particular author who was obviously writing fiction. Therefore, it seems that one could rationally believe that it is unlikely that Babe the Blue Ox ever really existed (particularly given the nature of the stories and what we know of the author), even though it is possible that Babe actually did (or still does) exist.

Circular. You can't define something as imaginary and then point to that as proof.

My point here is that the very definition of the word includes "imaginary" as a trait. Since we can only assume that a creature found to exist would count as a "faerie" if it fit a common definition, given the definition of faerie that I posted (there may, of course be others that don't contain this trait) such a creature wouldn't actually be a faerie. One might rationalize that the imaginary "faeries" that are defined by American Heritage might have been "inspired" by "real" faerie-like creatures, but then it still doesn't seem irrational to believe that faeries likely don't exist.

Both are possible. It becomes a question of how much credibility one grants to the partial evidence. Depending on that, it's either exactly equal (if all evidence is discounted) or biased towards theism (if any evidence is granted any credibility).

If any evidence is granted credibility, then so must evidence against the existence of gods, regardless of how weak. There is evidence that human beings are prone to inventing fanciful creations. That combined with a lack of evidence for gods would be weak evidence against gods.

No. One could also suppose that gods are very common, and that humans have various ways of interpreting or mythologizing them, over and above their actual traits, and that these extra myths then come into contradiction.

If gods are common, then wouldn't there be evidence of them? If gods are common but largely undetectable, then few people would have seen them. Therefore, the gods believed by most people would be these mythologized gods, not the actual ones. The few people who have come into contact with real gods would likely have evidence that is only available to them, and might therefore be discounted much the same way that you might discount someone who claimed to have evidence that there are no gods but that they couldn't share the evidence with you.

I'm afraid I don't understand this argument. Elaborate?

It wasn't articulated very well (it was off the top of my head) so let's see if I can better develop the argument. In previous posts, you argued that there is no evidence for or against God as you defined it (which seemed fairly in line with the Christian notion of God) and therefore the only rational position to take would be an agnostic one towards that God (although in recent posts you agreed that there may be "weak" evidence for God). Someone who argues that there is no evidence for God (who doesn't consider "weak" evidence to be evidence at all) might then rationally believe that the concept of God was likely invented by people (by definition, a concept that isn't invented would be based on evidence). That is true even if God exists -- if the concept is not based on evidence, then it would be mere coincidence if an invented concept actually exists. So, while possible, the chances of God existing as you described would likely be quite low, since such existence would be entirely coincidental. So why would it be necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that such a God likely doesn't exist based on the above argument?

-Bri

[saizai]

OK, so then an opinion may be rational as long as one admits to internal reasons for holding the opinion. So, if someone claimed that "for them" God doesn't exist, is such a belief necessarily irrational?

Yes, because as demonstrated above, they have no evidence (and can't) for that belief. Whereas a theist may have (partial) evidence for their belief.

Still, most of the literature mentions all sorts of details about how they live and no good explanation for why, for example, nobody has ever come across a faerie (dead or alive) or a faerie house. Is it really irrational to assume the most likely explanation to be that they don't exist?

Factual dispute: People claim to have done both. It cannot be proven that they are lying, though one need not grant their testimony great credibility.

The literature may be partially (or entirely) false without disproving the actuality of the thing it describes. E.g. existence of treatises talking about a flat earth doesn't imply that the earth does not exist.

Possible, but given the vast literature ascribing specific details to how faeries live and what they look like, isn't this at best an improbable explanation (where are the authors of the literature getting their information from)? In other words, it seems that it would be quite rational to believe that faeries likely don't exist.

On what evidence? See above. Faeries could prove their own existence, but could also hide it, and would (if they existed) probably have motive to do the latter. Thus the lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, and (as with most proofs of nonexistence) they cannot be proven not to exist.

Correct, but oddly no proof even though they are claimed to be physical beings. People claim to have seen faerie houses, but can't show anyone else a faerie house (not even a photograph of one). Again, isn't the most likely explanation that there are no faerie houses?

Perhaps they moved. Or the faerie house is selectively invisible. The latter is consistent with many descriptions.

My point here is that some folklore, like Babe the Ox, can be traced to a particular author who was obviously writing fiction. Therefore, it seems that one could rationally believe that it is unlikely that Babe the Blue Ox ever really existed (particularly given the nature of the stories and what we know of the author), even though it is possible that Babe actually did (or still does) exist.

"Obviously" writing fiction, for things that have existed by oral tradition for generations, is rather difficult to prove - since you can't interview the originator and thus don't know if they were making it up or merely describing some actual experience.

My point here is that the very definition of the word includes "imaginary" as a trait. Since we can only assume that a creature found to exist would count as a "faerie" if it fit a common definition, given the definition of faerie that I posted (there may, of course be others that don't contain this trait) such a creature wouldn't actually be a faerie. One might rationalize that the imaginary "faeries" that are defined by American Heritage might have been "inspired" by "real" faerie-like creatures, but then it still doesn't seem irrational to believe that faeries likely don't exist.

The definition is obviously wrong if faeries exist. Or at best you could say that there are "imaginary-faeries" and "real-faeries", whose only difference in definition is that real faeries aren't defined to be imaginary.

This is a pretty bad argument from definition, I think you'll admit.

If any evidence is granted credibility, then so must evidence against the existence of gods, regardless of how weak. There is evidence that human beings are prone to inventing fanciful creations. That combined with a lack of evidence for gods would be weak evidence against gods.

What evidence is there against the existence of gods?

Sure people invent things. That doesn't prove that gods don't exist, it only shows that people like to invent things akin to gods or to elaborate stories that are in origin true. Viz. the game 'telephone'. Thus it's irrelevant.

If gods are common, then wouldn't there be evidence of them? If gods are common but largely undetectable, then few people would have seen them. Therefore, the gods believed by most people would be these mythologized gods, not the actual ones.

But the mythologized ones are possibly at core derived from actual ones...

By analogy take modern buddhism (which is filled with various rites, beliefs, rituals, etc etc etc) vs. Buddha himself (who had a particular, quasi-godlike, experience). The core may have been true, but the evolution of it has turned into something much bigger and not necessarily true even if one accepts the core.

The few people who have come into contact with real gods would likely have evidence that is only available to them, and might therefore be discounted much the same way that you might discount someone who claimed to have evidence that there are no gods but that they couldn't share the evidence with you.

Sure, you can discount it, but it's still (weak) testimonial evidence.

It wasn't articulated very well (it was off the top of my head) so let's see if I can better develop the argument. In previous posts, you argued that there is no evidence for or against God as you defined it (which seemed fairly in line with the Christian notion of God) and therefore the only rational position to take would be an agnostic one towards that God (although in recent posts you agreed that there may be "weak" evidence for God). Someone who argues that there is no evidence for God (who doesn't consider "weak" evidence to be evidence at all) might then rationally believe that the concept of God was likely invented by people (by definition, a concept that isn't invented would be based on evidence). That is true even if God exists -- if the concept is not based on evidence, then it would be mere coincidence if an invented concept actually exists. So, while possible, the chances of God existing as you described would likely be quite low, since such existence would be entirely coincidental. So why would it be necessarily irrational to be of the opinion that such a God likely doesn't exist based on the above argument?

The bolded part I tentatively disagree with. Could you specifically elaborate that argument, and how much it depends on a God having particular characteristics? Why do you conclude that it is "likely" rather than merely reaching no conclusion at all? How does coincidence relate to likelihood? That seems to be saying:
1. A
2. therefore unlikely (B)
... without demonstrating A->B, B->A, or A<->B.


P.S. You're much more fun (and rational) to debate with. :) My compliments.

[I less than three logic]

Very relevant. A court exists with certain axioms. One of them is that people exist, otherwise there would be no people for the court to judge.

Context.
Lets remove the argument from court, on logic alone, is it still irrational to believe the fingerprints were not planted by leprechauns? There is absolutely no evidence against it.
Of course, the standards of evidence are different for a criminal court and for an argument.

But again it's *evidence*, not *logic*. And there hasn't been any evidence introduced.
Can just anyone off the street rationally conclude that the fingerprints were not planted by leprechauns?

P.S. I disagree that a judge can’t be solipsistic. Look at it from his point of view, who could be better at determining what really happened than himself, as the creator of this external reality he perceives? I wouldn’t want it, but it is still consistent to that judge.

[Bri]

Factual dispute: People claim to have done both. It cannot be proven that they are lying, though one need not grant their testimony great credibility.

So, let's not grant their testimony great credibility (since it seems that they would be able to take a picture or show another person the faerie house). Why isn't the most likely explanation that there are no faeries? Remember, I'm talking about an agnostic concerning faeries (admitting that faeries might exist) but who also happens to have an opinion (that there are no faeries). Such a belief would be based on the most likely explanation, wouldn't it? Is it irrational to think the most likely explanation is that faeries don't exist?


"Obviously" writing fiction, for things that have existed by oral tradition for generations, is rather difficult to prove - since you can't interview the originator and thus don't know if they were making it up or merely describing some actual experience.

We know that descriptions of the faeries that most of us think of (small, delicate beings with wings) didn't appear until the 1800's so for those we can likely eliminate a lengthy oral tradition. No, we can't disprove them either, but it seems more likely that they were invented sometime during the 1800's.

The definition is obviously wrong if faeries exist. Or at best you could say that there are "imaginary-faeries" and "real-faeries", whose only difference in definition is that real faeries aren't defined to be imaginary.

This is a pretty bad argument from definition, I think you'll admit.

Well, it's not so much an argument against the existence of anything faerie-like as a point that the existence of something must be determined based on known definitions. If something faerie-like were found but lacked other traits of faeries, it is questionable whether it is really a faerie or something else. But admittedly, it's weak as any sort of argument against faeries.

What evidence is there against the existence of gods?

Sure people invent things. That doesn't prove that gods don't exist, it only shows that people like to invent things akin to gods or to elaborate stories that are in origin true. Viz. the game 'telephone'. Thus it's irrelevant.

I never said that it proved anything. An agnostic strong atheist would admit that there is no definitive proof, but would look for the most likely explanation of belief in gods. Although it is undoubtedly rational to not have any opinion at all (if one can in fact control one's opinions), it would also seem to be rational to view the entirety of evidence (and lack thereof) and to conclude that the most likely explanation is that there are no gods.

But the mythologized ones are possibly at core derived from actual ones...

They could be, but then there would have to be evidence of the actual ones upon which to mythologize. The most likely explanation might be that there are no actual gods.

The bolded part I tentatively disagree with. Could you specifically elaborate that argument, and how much it depends on a God having particular characteristics? Why do you conclude that it is "likely" rather than merely reaching no conclusion at all? How does coincidence relate to likelihood? That seems to be saying:
1. A
2. therefore unlikely (B)
... without demonstrating A->B, B->A, or A<->B.

OK, if there is no evidence that God exists as you claimed, then you based your definition of God on a human invention rather than evidence. If there was evidence, then you would be basing your definition on evidence (and couldn't claim that there is no evidence of God). So, it is possible that the God you described exists, but if so then it would be entirely coincidence that God happens to fit the definition that was invented by people. Again, what is the most likely? Sure, one could conclude nothing at all (if one can actually control one's conclusions), but in this case it would seem that one could also rationally conclude the most likely explanation. I imagine that even many theists would agree that the most likely explanation is that there is no God (which is why many agree that belief in God is based on faith).

P.S. You're much more fun (and rational) to debate with. :) My compliments.

Well, thanks!

-Bri

[saizai]

Lets remove the argument from court, on logic alone, is it still irrational to believe the fingerprints were not planted by leprechauns? There is absolutely no evidence against it.

True. However, there is positive evidence FOR the usual means of fingerprint-planting.

Positive evidence counts more than mere possibility. :-)

Thus it is rational to conclude that it is more probable that the fingerprints got there the normal way than by leprechauns, but not to conclude that it is impossible that leprechauns did it. This is where "reasonable doubt" comes in.

I would say it is rational to conclude that, e.g., things probably fall by reason of gravitational attraction rather than pushing by invisible angels for the same reason.

But to conclude that no invisible angels *exist* is a very different matter.

P.S. I disagree that a judge can’t be solipsistic. Look at it from his point of view, who could be better at determining what really happened than himself, as the creator of this external reality he perceives? I wouldn’t want it, but it is still consistent to that judge.

It's a rather bizarre job for a solipsist, no? Think about what goes into it: weighing evidence (external), testimony (external), guilt (external), intentions (external and sentient), etc... Maintaining any sort of strong solipsism would be rather hard without being functionally non-solipsistic.

[Kimpatsu]

True. However, there is positive evidence FOR the usual means of fingerprint-planting.

Positive evidence counts more than mere possibility. :-)

Thus it is rational to conclude that it is more probable that the fingerprints got there the normal way than by leprechauns, but not to conclude that it is impossible that leprechauns did it. This is where "reasonable doubt" comes in..
This is where you assign probability values, and get a value so low that you become atheistic about leprechauns. Unless you're sick in the head...

[saizai]

So, let's not grant their testimony great credibility (since it seems that they would be able to take a picture or show another person the faerie house). Why isn't the most likely explanation that there are no faeries? Remember, I'm talking about an agnostic concerning faeries (admitting that faeries might exist) but who also happens to have an opinion (that there are no faeries). Such a belief would be based on the most likely explanation, wouldn't it? Is it irrational to think the most likely explanation is that faeries don't exist?

Well, explain how you arrive at likelihood. There is no evidence being considered, therefore no weighing of alternative theories concerning that evidence and its origin. Were there, then I would agree that you could determine likelihood or best fit.

But there isn't. So I see no basis from which to say anything, including "likelihood", of their mere existence.

We know that descriptions of the faeries that most of us think of (small, delicate beings with wings) didn't appear until the 1800's so for those we can likely eliminate a lengthy oral tradition. No, we can't disprove them either, but it seems more likely that they were invented sometime during the 1800's.

That *that version* was either invented, elaborated, or first encountered and written about, during the 1800s. But related things existed before in oral tradition, thus you can't conclude that it was pure invention.

Well, it's not so much an argument against the existence of anything faerie-like as a point that the existence of something must be determined based on known definitions. If something faerie-like were found but lacked other traits of faeries, it is questionable whether it is really a faerie or something else. But admittedly, it's weak as any sort of argument against faeries.

Lacked traits such as... being imaginary? :p

I think for the purposes of this you have to have a relatively broad definition of 'faerie', and must necessarily not include 'imaginary' else it is a clearly circular argument.

I never said that it proved anything. An agnostic strong atheist would admit that there is no definitive proof, but would look for the most likely explanation of belief in gods. Although it is undoubtedly rational to not have any opinion at all (if one can in fact control one's opinions), it would also seem to be rational to view the entirety of evidence (and lack thereof) and to conclude that the most likely explanation is that there are no gods.

Again: "most likely" based on what?

The only rational context I can think of is, you have multiple theories for some body of evidence. You judge which one(s) fit the evidence best (primary), which make the strongest / most useful predictions (secondary), which ones are simplest (tertiary).

That doesn't seem to be happening here. Could you rephrase your argument into that framing, or suggest an alternate general framing for rationally judging "likelihood"?

They could be, but then there would have to be evidence of the actual ones upon which to mythologize. The most likely explanation might be that there are no actual gods.

The evidence could easily have been present at its conception but not available any more.

E.g. suppose Jesus was real and did various miracles. People around him at the time could know that. But a couple generations later, you wouldn't be able to because it'd be purely testimonial - and rapidly mythologized to boot, which confuses things further.

OK, if there is no evidence that God exists as you claimed, then you based your definition of God on a human invention rather than evidence.

I think this point necessarily turns into a "possible worlds" argument. Do you want to go there?

Note, I'm trying not to claim any particular /traits/ of God, just the minimal set that make a god a god. Your argument would be more suited to attacking a theistic position that claimed to know more and thus have a more specific definition.

If there was evidence, then you would be basing your definition on evidence (and couldn't claim that there is no evidence of God). So, it is possible that the God you described exists, but if so then it would be entirely coincidence that God happens to fit the definition that was invented by people. Again, what is the most likely? Sure, one could conclude nothing at all (if one can actually control one's conclusions), but in this case it would seem that one could also rationally conclude the most likely explanation. I imagine that even many theists would agree that the most likely explanation is that there is no God (which is why many agree that belief in God is based on faith).

How can you determine what kind of god is "most likely"? I can't think of any way, other than excluding the obviously wrong ones...

Also, you imply that because we can't easily know what god is like, and therefore particular definitions would be coincidental, therefore god does not exist or is somehow 'more likely' not to exist. That's argument from fallacy & ignorance.

[saizai]

This is where you assign probability values, and get a value so low that you become atheistic about leprechauns. Unless you're sick in the head...

Ah, but no. You become NEARLY atheistic about leprechauns having planted the fingerprints. (It's still possible, just unlikely I'll agree.)

Not about their existence, which has nothing to do with your example whatsoever and thus about which no conclusion can be gotten.

Fallacy of the form (I forget its name at the moment, my apologies):
A - fingerprints found
~(A->B) - it's not the case that the fingerprints constitute evidence for leprechauns
ergo ~B - ergo there are no leprechauns

P.S. Would you mind stopping with the ad hominems? I have not once insulted you personally.

[Kimpatsu]

Ah, but no. You become NEARLY atheistic about leprechauns having planted the fingerprints. (It's still possible, just unlikely I'll agree.)

Not about their existence, which has nothing to do with your example whatsoever and thus about which no conclusion can be gotten.

Fallacy of the form (I forget its name at the moment, my apologies):
A - fingerprints found
~(A->B) - it's not the case that the fingerprints constitute evidence for leprechauns
ergo ~B - ergo there are no leprechauns

P.S. Would you mind stopping with the ad hominems? I have not once insulted you personally.
I didn't say YOU were the one who was sick, although if you want to take it that way...
Again, and as always, "Present One", you have failed to assign PROBABILITY VALUES to the possibility of leprechauns being the active agent. You willfully ignore that fact. Instead, you mistakenly argue as if all POSSIBLE explanations are EQUIPROBABLE. They are not. If I come home to find a broken vase, which is the more likely culprit: my cat, or leprechauns? And if you say you don't know, even conceding the possibility of leprechauns shows a complete lack of understanding of modern physics and the real world. This is not a coin toss. Equiprobability is a red herring... but one you seem perversely determined to embrace. Would you like to tell us all why...?

[saizai]

I didn't say YOU were the one who was sick, although if you want to take it that way...

You said that anyone who argued X was sick. That's an ad hominem, and implied insult, and rude.

Again, and as always, "Present One", you have failed to assign PROBABILITY VALUES to the possibility of leprechauns being the active agent. You willfully ignore that fact. Instead, you mistakenly argue as if all POSSIBLE explanations are EQUIPROBABLE. They are not. If I come home to find a broken vase, which is the more likely culprit: my cat, or leprechauns? And if you say you don't know, even conceding the possibility of leprechauns shows a complete lack of understanding of modern physics and the real world. This is not a coin toss. Equiprobability is a red herring... but one you seem perversely determined to embrace. Would you like to tell us all why...?

And you have ignored that, for the purposes of my pointing out your fallacy, I assigned it a nil probability ("~(A->B)").

[Kimpatsu]

You said that anyone who argued X was sick. That's an ad hominem, and implied insult, and rude.
No, that's a fact (no different from mistakenly thinking Martians are beaming messages into your brain), yes, and I don't care how you take it, because your very lack of reason is an insult to those of us who think rationally.
Or, if you prefer: diddums.
And you have ignored that, for the purposes of my pointing out your fallacy, I assigned it a nil probability ("~(A->B)").
And you were wrong (because it wasn't a fallacy). As ever, you disregard the fact that not all occurrences are equiprobable. But then, to admit the facts would undermine your original position, and as we both know, your ego couldn't stomach that... :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

I kinda dozed off over the last score or so of posts...

So hard atheism is illogical, because we can define a god to be so utterly meaningless a concept that it cannot be disproven?

[I less than three logic]

I kinda dozed off over the last score or so of posts...

So hard atheism is illogical, because we can define a god to be so utterly meaningless a concept that it cannot be disproven?
Yep. Even further, the ability to show one utterly meaningless concept doesn't exist doesn't show that all utterly meaningless concepts, within the infinite set of ‘em, don't exist. I think that’s where we've gotten. :)

[I less than three logic]

It's a rather bizarre job for a solipsist, no? Think about what goes into it: weighing evidence (external), testimony (external), guilt (external), intentions (external and sentient), etc... Maintaining any sort of strong solipsism would be rather hard without being functionally non-solipsistic.
What's the point if you don't play along? :)

A solipsist might not believe it is real, but that is no reason not to go along with the experience (s)he is producing. All those “external” things are obviously created by and presented to himself to make these judgments within the experience.

[saizai]

So hard atheism is illogical, because we can define a god to be so utterly meaningless a concept that it cannot be disproven?

Is "an omnipotent, omniscient being" a meaningless concept?

Interesting definition of "meaningless"...

[Mercutio]

Is "an omnipotent, omniscient being" a meaningless concept?

Interesting definition of "meaningless"...

Ah, so it that, then, the single accepted definition of a god? "Omnipotence" is a pretty cool trick--ought to be all sorts of positive evidence demonstrating that characteristic.

Or is this the special kind of omnipotence that is indistinguishable from impotence?

[saizai]

Ah, so it that, then, the single accepted definition of a god? "Omnipotence" is a pretty cool trick--ought to be all sorts of positive evidence demonstrating that characteristic.

Or is this the special kind of omnipotence that is indistinguishable from impotence?

Hardly single. But it's the one I used in my proof a page or two back that strong atheism is irrational, and is pretty close to a "all possible worlds" minimal definition. Atheism has to defend against it.

Omnipotence can go unused. ;)

You say there should be "all sorts of positive evidence". Justify that statement please.

[I less than three logic]

Omnipotence is a word coined to describe a nonsensical concept. Infinitely powerful, can do “anything”. The term is so vague it’s meaningless.

[Bri]

Well, explain how you arrive at likelihood. There is no evidence being considered, therefore no weighing of alternative theories concerning that evidence and its origin. Were there, then I would agree that you could determine likelihood or best fit.

But there isn't. So I see no basis from which to say anything, including "likelihood", of their mere existence.

Occam's Razor is one means of determining whether something is more likely or not (the simplest explanation is the most likely). Certainly it doesn't determine an exact likelihood, but that's not necessary in order to come to a rational opinion about which is most likely (you need only have a rational reason for doing so).

That *that version* was either invented, elaborated, or first encountered and written about, during the 1800s. But related things existed before in oral tradition, thus you can't conclude that it was pure invention.

I'm not talking about "related things." I'm talking about faeries -- little people with wings. Even if faeries are based on something that someone saw a long time ago, one can rationally conclude that they were different than the little people with wings (which were only written about in the 1800's), which would make them something else. One can rationally conclude that if the little people with wings ever existed (and it seems that they probably didn't given that they didn't appear until the 1800's) they likely no longer exist. Just as one can conclude that animals that haven't been seen for a certain amount of time are likely extinct. Is it irrational to hold the opinion that a certain species is extinct because there can be no evidence that it no longer exists?

Again: "most likely" based on what?

The only rational context I can think of is, you have multiple theories for some body of evidence. You judge which one(s) fit the evidence best (primary), which make the strongest / most useful predictions (secondary), which ones are simplest (tertiary).

That doesn't seem to be happening here. Could you rephrase your argument into that framing, or suggest an alternate general framing for rationally judging "likelihood"?

There are several theories for the existence of gods. The simplest is that they don't exist. It also probably fits the evidence (or lack thereof) best, and makes the strongest and most useful predictions (such as prayer doesn't work when tested, etc.) By the criteria you listed, it seems rational to conclude that gods don't exist.

The evidence could easily have been present at its conception but not available any more.

E.g. suppose Jesus was real and did various miracles. People around him at the time could know that. But a couple generations later, you wouldn't be able to because it'd be purely testimonial - and rapidly mythologized to boot, which confuses things further.

Possible, of course. But a more likely theory is that Jesus didn't do any miracles.

I think this point necessarily turns into a "possible worlds" argument. Do you want to go there?

Note, I'm trying not to claim any particular /traits/ of God, just the minimal set that make a god a god. Your argument would be more suited to attacking a theistic position that claimed to know more and thus have a more specific definition.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "possible worlds" argument. Your definition did claim certain traits of God, particularly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If you believe (as you've said) that there is no evidence of such a God, then the description you have provided must be man-made. If it's not man-made, then they would be based on evidence, which you said doesn't exist (which, incidentally, sounds like a positive claim that bears the burden of proof). Now, if God exists and fits that definition, it would be purely coincidental given your claim that there is no evidence. It seems rational to conclude that such a coincidence is extremely unlikely.

-Bri

[Mercutio]

Hardly single. But it's the one I used in my proof a page or two back that strong atheism is irrational, and is pretty close to a "all possible worlds" minimal definition. Atheism has to defend against it.
has to? no. Your particular definition of hard atheism, in order to fit your criteria for rationality, does have to.

Omnipotence can go unused. ;)

You say there should be "all sorts of positive evidence". Justify that statement please.Why would one go to "omnipotence", rather than simply to "has some power"? The latter is a much smaller bar to leap; of course, if it could not be crossed, then "omnipotence" is out of the question. Your definition does not specify "has some power", it goes all the way to "omnipotence" (which, conveniently enough, can go unused). "Has some power" (with sufficient range of "some") includes "omnipotence" as a subset, yet your definition clearly bypasses anything less than omnipotence. Why? One might guess that you actually have reason for choosing omnipotence over "some power"; that reason would be (or, should be) positive evidence. It is irrational to assume omnipotence that goes unused, rather than to assume something less than omnipotence, in the absence of some reason to assume omnipotence. What is the positive evidence for omnipotence that allows you to choose that rather than a more easily met standard?

(ack--gotta run to class...)

[saizai]

Omnipotence is a word coined to describe a nonsensical concept. Infinitely powerful, can do “anything”. The term is so vague it’s meaningless.

You do have a strange definition of "meaningless". Certainly not the one used in linguistics or logic... Would you mind sharing it with us, and explaining your rationale?

[saizai]

Occam's Razor is one means of determining whether something is more likely or not (the simplest explanation is the most likely). Certainly it doesn't determine an exact likelihood, but that's not necessary in order to come to a rational opinion about which is most likely (you need only have a rational reason for doing so).

Common misconception.

Sir Ockham only says, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

This is a means of choosing between different theories - not of choosing the most likely, but the best for pragmatic purposes of science and the like.

I'm not talking about "related things." I'm talking about faeries -- little people with wings. Even if faeries are based on something that someone saw a long time ago, one can rationally conclude that they were different than the little people with wings (which were only written about in the 1800's), which would make them something else. One can rationally conclude that if the little people with wings ever existed (and it seems that they probably didn't given that they didn't appear until the 1800's) they likely no longer exist. Just as one can conclude that animals that haven't been seen for a certain amount of time are likely extinct. Is it irrational to hold the opinion that a certain species is extinct because there can be no evidence that it no longer exists?

Justify "likely no longer exist"? Maybe they went into hiding.

And yes, it is irrational to hold that opinion as a truth. Viz. examples of "extinct" species being found again.

Plus it only has any logical basis at all for partial evidence IF you assert that were they to exist, we would have evidence. That's not always the case, e.g. for deep sea life forms. And it's definitely not the case with faeries - or gods.

There are several theories for the existence of gods. The simplest is that they don't exist. It also probably fits the evidence (or lack thereof) best, and makes the strongest and most useful predictions (such as prayer doesn't work when tested, etc.) By the criteria you listed, it seems rational to conclude that gods don't exist.

No, it is rational to conclude that gods don't answer prayers in the manner tested. This only limits the scope, it doesn't eliminate it.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "possible worlds" argument. Your definition did claim certain traits of God, particularly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If you believe (as you've said) that there is no evidence of such a God, then the description you have provided must be man-made. If it's not man-made, then they would be based on evidence, which you said doesn't exist (which, incidentally, sounds like a positive claim that bears the burden of proof). Now, if God exists and fits that definition, it would be purely coincidental given your claim that there is no evidence. It seems rational to conclude that such a coincidence is extremely unlikely.

Could you put that in formal logic terms? I don't think it's valid logic.

Also it necessitates deciding, as a matter of axiomatic definition, what counts as a god. Is omnipotence sufficient? I think so. Omniscience? Probably. Omnibenevolence? Not really.

So an entity that is omnipotent is a god. Is it possible for such an entity to exist? Strong atheists claim no, but have no proof.

[saizai]

has to? no. Your particular definition of hard atheism, in order to fit your criteria for rationality, does have to.

Every definition of atheism must necessarily be defined with respect to the set of all gods.

[snipped definist-fallacy argument]

Here's a counterchallenge:
1. Are you strong agnostic, strong atheist, strong theist, or weak agnostic/atheist, by my terms?

2. Define what counts as a "god"; i.e. how does one tell if some entity is a god or not?

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Here's a counterchallenge:
1. Are you strong agnostic, strong atheist, strong theist, or weak agnostic/atheist, by my terms?



Wait, I have to take pause with these categories. Let us be very clear in our use of language, here. The question of a belief in god is bi-polar. One either holds a belief in god or one does not, viz-a-viz, theism or atheism. Agnosticism, as a term, is concerned with KNOWLEDGE of the existence of god. One who claims to be an agnostic is making the claim that they have no knowledge of god's existence. Thus one may be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Theism/atheism comes from an evaluation of the evidence and a decision to embrace or reject the hypothesis.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Common misconception.

Sir Ockham only says, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

This is a means of choosing between different theories - not of choosing the most likely, but the best for pragmatic purposes of science and the like.



Once again, I would opine in favor or precision here. The exact translation of of the lex parsimoniae is: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

What this actually means is that in explaining any phenomenon one should avoid assumptions that make no difference to the explanatory hypothesis. Thus, when one is confronted with two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon then one should choose the explanation that expresses the least complicated formulation. Occam's Razor, thus, provides little assistance when evaluating the difference between a likely and an unlikely explanation.

William of Occam was not a knight - no Sir - but a priest. His logical argument is a codification for helping us to be reductionist in our thinking. I suppose, were it to be applied to the theist/atheist argument one could propose: "if the universe could come into being in the same state it is presently in, equally likely with or without god, then the god hypothesis should be rejected." But that would be a misuse of the precise form of the argument.

[Bri]

Common misconception.

Sir Ockham only says, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

This is a means of choosing between different theories - not of choosing the most likely, but the best for pragmatic purposes of science and the like.

According to Wikipedia:

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

The question is whether it is necessarily irrational to embrace the less complicated theory.


Justify "likely no longer exist"? Maybe they went into hiding.

Maybe, but the question is whether it is likely that they have always been in hiding, only to be seen and written about since the 1800's, all without leaving any evidence whatsoever. It seems doubtful to me, certainly less so that the simpler theory that they never existed.

And yes, it is irrational to hold that opinion as a truth. Viz. examples of "extinct" species being found again.

Who's talking about holding opinion as truth? I'm talking about an agnostic who admits that their opinion is only an opinion, but still believes that one theory is more likely than the other. Given the nature of extinction, it is certainly rational to assume that species believed to be extinct are, in fact, extinct (rather than hiding).

Plus it only has any logical basis at all for partial evidence IF you assert that were they to exist, we would have evidence. That's not always the case, e.g. for deep sea life forms. And it's definitely not the case with faeries - or gods.

Why wouldn't we have evidence of faeries? How could so many people write about faeries if there was no evidence of them? How could people describe little faerie houses without those houses actually existing somewhere? No, it seems quite rational to believe that faeries don't exist.

No, it is rational to conclude that gods don't answer prayers in the manner tested. This only limits the scope, it doesn't eliminate it.

I think you missed my point here. You suggested that when you have competing theories for some body of evidence it is rational to "judge which one(s) fit the evidence best (primary), which make the strongest / most useful predictions (secondary), which ones are simplest (tertiary)." It seems that the "no god" theory beats the "god" theory on all points, especially the one about the strongest / most useful predictions. The "no gods" theory would predict, for example, that prayer would never work. So far, the "no gods" theory has been a perfect predictor concerning prayer. Can you name something that the "god" theory predicts better than the "no god" theory? If not, it seems rational to believe the "no god" theory to be more likely.

Could you put that in formal logic terms? I don't think it's valid logic.

I'm not sure that I can, but I'll try. Note that the argument assumes that there is no evidence of God (as an agnostic presumably believes):


PREMISE: There is absolutely no evidence of God.
PREMISE: One can define "God" (for example: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent).
Because there is no evidence of God, the definition could not have been arrived at by observation or other evidence.
If an entity exists that fits the definition, it is purely coincidental.
It is less likely that an entity exists that fits the definition of "God" by coincidence than that such an entity simply doesn't exist.


Also it necessitates deciding, as a matter of axiomatic definition, what counts as a god. Is omnipotence sufficient? I think so. Omniscience? Probably. Omnibenevolence? Not really.

Choose whatever definition you like. If there is no evidence of it (as you have held) then if something exists which meets the criteria set forth by the definition, it would be an unlikely coincidence.

So an entity that is omnipotent is a god. Is it possible for such an entity to exist? Strong atheists claim no, but have no proof.

Again, I'm not talking about strong atheists who claim that such an entity is impossible. I'm only talking about strong atheists who claim that such an entity is unlikely (an agnostic strong atheist).

-Bri

[Mercutio]

Every definition of atheism must necessarily be defined with respect to the set of all gods.
Odd, because I find your categories to fit better (more naturally) with subsets. More on that below...

Here's a counterchallenge:
1. Are you strong agnostic, strong atheist, strong theist, or weak agnostic/atheist, by my terms?
I could probably fit myself into one of these categories, with the help of a crowbar and some axle grease...but I do not find your definitions to be useful. When the only people I know (personally, that is) who have a strong atheist stance are christians (holding the strong atheist stance toward the subset "all gods but mine"), it is an odd label. When someone who holds no belief whatsoever in any of the myriad gods he has been told of is labeled "weak atheist", it is an odd label. A "strong theist" does not, of course, have to hold this belief for all gods, so that is an odd fit as well.

Certainly, it is not a requirement that a label be accepted by the group it labels in order to be useful, but in this case I think the categories serve more to muddle than to clarify. "Atheist" is negatively defined, as "none of those other specifically defined belief systems". It appears that your labeling system attempts to treat it as positively defined, reconfigure all of religious belief to fit a monolithic positively-defined category, roughly "a-atheist" in nature, and to find that meaningful.

2. Define what counts as a "god"; i.e. how does one tell if some entity is a god or not?This is why atheism is (in my opinion) best defined negatively, as the set left over after everybody else has answered this question with respect to the god(s) they believe in. It is not the case that I have a category of well-defined entities that I draw a circle around and say "I reject these!". I am an atheist because this question is not relevant to me. It would be silly to try to answer it without being a member of some group that actually has a definition. Thus, group X defines a god, and their belief, in one manner, and are thus called Xians. Group Y defines a god, and their belief, in another, and are Yites. It's their business. Not mine.

Do I actively believe that their god does not exist? That is also a silly question, and not one that either "yes" or "no" accurately answers. The very question does not arise. Even an agnostic position on it assumes that the question, at least, came up, and was deemed unknown or unknowable. It did not.

[I less than three logic]

You do have a strange definition of "meaningless". Certainly not the one used in linguistics or logic... Would you mind sharing it with us, and explaining your rationale?
What, exactly, does it mean to assert something can do anything? Anything possible? Physically possible, logical possible? Anything impossible, physically and or logically?

What does "anything" mean here? Well, the definition of anything is "a thing of any kind". Well, that sure narrows it down doesn't it. Since the claim involves doing anything, the definition of thing here must be a deed or act, one can not really do the other definitions of thing. Well, the definition of deed is "something that is done". Act: "the doing of a thing" or "something done voluntarily". Well this all seems a bit circular, we're back to this "thing" thing.

In fact, "do anything" is so ambiguous it has no real meaning. What does it mean if someone says do not do anything. Is standing a thing? Sitting, lying down? Is breathing considered "anything", how about not breathing, is that still "anything" Moving, not moving, both of those still count as "anything"? This is why it can't be proven wrong, to claim something "can do anything" is essentially a non-claim it refers to nothing at all.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Statement: "The apple on my dining room table is red."

Belief: I have seen the apple, and it is red.
Disbelief: I have seen the apple, and it is not red OR I am looking at the dining room table, and there is no apple on it.
Neither: I haven't seen the apple, so how should I know?

The latter two are clearly different mental states.

Once again, and I feel this is important, let us be clear in how we use language here. It is the one tool for communication and debate we have and I would like to strongly urge its correct employment. Allow me to restate the above for your consideration:

Knowledge: I have seen the apple and it is red.
Lack of knowledge: I have not seen the apple and I do not know if it exists or if it does what color it is.
Belief: I have been told there is an apple on the table and that it is red. I have not seen it, but I have no reason to doubt its presence and color so I choose to assume that it is present and that it is red.
Disbelief: I have been told there is an apple on the table and that it is red. I have not seen it, but I have reason to doubt its presence and/or color so I choose to assume that it is not present and therefore cannot be any color.
Caveat: I might choose, based on the evidence at hand, to believe the presence of the apple, but to reject its color in favor of another.

"Neither" is the problematic statement for evaluation. If you have been told there is an apple but you have no direct knowledge of its existence, than you can choose to be ambivalent about that existence. But once a statement of fact has entered the human brain it is our natural instinct to register even a modicum of opinion on the subject, lacking knowledge.

One may posit for days, "I wonder if there is an apple there?" Having no knowledge one would start going through the logical steps to reach an opinion: No one's been to the store to buy apples, it's the wrong season for apples, my wife hates apples, we never put groceries in the dining room, etc. etc. in the attempt to create an "informed" opinion. Yet, lacking direct, observable knowledge, our state of malus domesticism or amalus domesticism must remain unalleviated.

I think you confuse the precepts "knowledge" and "belief." One who has direct, observable evidence of an event does not "believe" in that event, they "know" of that event. I may also reach my state of knowing through the process of logical inference/deduction.

For instance, I "know" the sun will rise tomorrow with a high probability of likelihood because I have an understanding of cosmology and gravitation coupled with nearly four decades of direct observation. On the other hand, I believe in the Tooth Fairy because when I place my dentures under my pillow a hundred dollar bill appears in their place the next morning. I have never seen the Tooth Fairy, but my wife, whose authority I accept unimpeachably, has seen the Tooth Fairy and has informed me that said fairy is the cause of the appearance of the C-Note.

[saizai]

Why wouldn't we have evidence of faeries? How could so many people write about faeries if there was no evidence of them? How could people describe little faerie houses without those houses actually existing somewhere? No, it seems quite rational to believe that faeries don't exist.

1. The writings are weak evidence.
2. A faerie-strong-atheist must say that faeries *never* existed, not that they've died out.
3. Suppose the houses do exist; that doesn't mean we'd necessarily have evidence of it, or wouldn't mistake it for something else (eg a mole's burrow or a bird's nest).

I think you missed my point here. You suggested that when you have competing theories for some body of evidence it is rational to "judge which one(s) fit the evidence best (primary), which make the strongest / most useful predictions (secondary), which ones are simplest (tertiary)." It seems that the "no god" theory beats the "god" theory on all points, especially the one about the strongest / most useful predictions. The "no gods" theory would predict, for example, that prayer would never work. So far, the "no gods" theory has been a perfect predictor concerning prayer. Can you name something that the "god" theory predicts better than the "no god" theory? If not, it seems rational to believe the "no god" theory to be more likely.

The part I take issue with is "more likely"; I don't think you have any basis on which to say that. You have to be able to determine probability(no god) and probability(god); as we agree the evidence is identical for both, thus you have no delta, and thus no delta on the probability either.

I would agree if you confined it to saying "it is rational to act on the supposition that god is unproven until proven otherwise".

Occam is only a means of choosing which theories to *use*, not which are "likely". VERY different!

I'm not sure that I can, but I'll try. Note that the argument assumes that there is no evidence of God (as an agnostic presumably believes):

PREMISE: There is absolutely no evidence of God.
PREMISE: One can define "God" (for example: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent).
Because there is no evidence of God, the definition could not have been arrived at by observation or other evidence.
If an entity exists that fits the definition, it is purely coincidental.
It is less likely that an entity exists that fits the definition of "God" by coincidence than that such an entity simply doesn't exist.1-2 looks like a subtle fallacy of definition to me
5 is unsupported; you have not shown the "likelihood" of either theory; coincidence is by definition entirely irrelevant to likelihood


Again, I'm not talking about strong atheists who claim that such an entity is impossible. I'm only talking about strong atheists who claim that such an entity is unlikely (an agnostic strong atheist).

See diff above: "unlikely" vs. "rational actions".

[Jerry_ex_machina]

For those interested, Quentin Smith over at Infidels.org has done an excellent job of constructing a logical proof in support of atheism. See it here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html

For those who admire the art of logic, it is quite lovely. But I doubt it will change many minds. It merely illustrates that such a thing is hypothetically possible.

[Bri]

1. The writings are weak evidence.

Then why be agnostic about faeries? Why not just state that you believe they exist, if the evidence favors the existence of faeries?

2. A faerie-strong-atheist must say that faeries *never* existed, not that they've died out.

I don't think so. A faerie-agnostic-strong-atheist towards the existence of faeries might say that although faeries might exist (and might have once existed), it is his/her opinion that faeries don't currently exist. In other words, one may be entirely agnostic towards whether faeries once existed, while being agnostic-strong-atheist towards the current existence of faeries.

3. Suppose the houses do exist; that doesn't mean we'd necessarily have evidence of it, or wouldn't mistake it for something else (eg a mole's burrow or a bird's nest).

Unfortunately, if they looked like bird's nests, their descriptions would not be "little faerie houses" but "bird's nests." When stumbling upon one, the writers who described them would have had no reason to recognize them as little faerie houses rather than bird's nests. It is far likelier that little faerie houses don't exist.

The part I take issue with is "more likely"; I don't think you have any basis on which to say that. You have to be able to determine probability(no god) and probability(god); as we agree the evidence is identical for both, thus you have no delta, and thus no delta on the probability either.

Here is where I disagree. You don't have to be able to calculate the exact probability of two theories in order to determine which is more likely. For example, there is a higher likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe than in our galaxy, although I can't say exactly what the probabilities of either are.

I would agree if you confined it to saying "it is rational to act on the supposition that god is unproven until proven otherwise".

What does it mean to act on the supposition that god is unproven? That seems to be another way of saying to act as though there are no gods. If it is rational to act as though there are no gods, it seems rational to be of the opinion that there are no gods as well. On the other hand, if you believe that the existence and nonexistence of God are equally likely, why would you act as though there is no God rather than as though there is a God?

Occam is only a means of choosing which theories to *use*, not which are "likely". VERY different!

You insisted that both are equally likely. If so, then Occam's razor would be a rational means to choose the "no gods" theory.


1-2 looks like a subtle fallacy of definition to me

Those were taken from your statements, so you'll have to clarify the fallacy.

5 is unsupported; you have not shown the "likelihood" of either theory; coincidence is by definition entirely irrelevant to likelihood

Suppose I have in my pocket a piece of paper with the picture of a mythical creature on it. Without your seeing the picture, I ask you to guess what is depicted on the picture by describing the creature you think it is. You must provide details of the creature you're thinking of, until you are convinced that if my creature meets all of the criteria of the description, anyone would certainly agree that it is the creature you are thinking it is. So, let's say you guess it is a unicorn, so you describe a unicorn in detail. Now, you're only guessing, but when I show you the picture you may in fact be right (it might be a picture of a unicorn). But if so then it certainly would be a coincidence, wouldn't it? Would you be irrational to consider it more likely that I don't have a picture of a unicorn in my pocket? Do you know the exact likelihood of my having a picture of a unicorn in my pocket as opposed to some other mythical creature?

-Bri

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Occam is only a means of choosing which theories to *use*, not which are "likely". VERY different!

Actually this is incorrect. Please, if you demand precision in others you should come to expect in from yourself. Occam's Razor is ONLY applicable to equally valid formulations.

Philosophizing with a hammer can be tough...

[Bri]

Actually this is incorrect. Please, if you demand precision in others you should come to expect in from yourself. Occam's Razor is ONLY applicable to equally valid formulations.

Philosophizing with a hammer can be tough...

saizai insists that the two formulations are equally valid (i.e. that there is no evidence for either). If that is case, it would seem that Occam's razor would be applicable.

-Bri

[Bri]

For those interested, Quentin Smith over at Infidels.org has done an excellent job of constructing a logical proof in support of atheism. See it here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html

For those who admire the art of logic, it is quite lovely. But I doubt it will change many minds. It merely illustrates that such a thing is hypothetically possible.

I may have misunderstood it, but from the beginning it seems to rely on a specific definition of "cause" that requires temporal priority and spatio-temporal contiguity. But God is often considered to be unlimited by time and/or space (atemporal and/or omnipresent) which would seem to undermine the argument.

-Bri

[Jerry_ex_machina]

saizai insists that the two formulations are equally valid (i.e. that there is no evidence for either). If that is case, it would seem that Occam's razor would be applicable.

-Bri

I see. That is actually incorrect. Atheism/theism is binary. One either holds a belief in god or lacks a belief in god. Simply put, one, theoretically, could prove the existence of god but one cannot prove that there is no god. Rules of evidence, proof, and the process of logical argument simply do not work that way.

I remember these arguments from my undergraduate years and I'm rather sorry to see that the formal rules of logical argument are no better taught (or understood) today than they were back then.

Atheism is a state of lack of belief in a diety. It doesn't matter what kind of diety - Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the omnipotent whatever described above, etc. It doesn't matter...adding additional variables only serves to make the argument overly complicated and, thus, needlessly confusing. Suffice it to say...the atheist has observed the evidence positing the existence of god and rejected it. The theist has done the opposite. There are no degrees of seperateness.

Now, one could say..."I don't know if there's a god." Simply put that's an agnostic...that person lacks knowledge of the existence of a god. I rarely hear people say, "I don't know if I believe in god," although that state certainly must exist. Both classes of person would still be atheists...because they don't believe in god. Theism/atheism is binary...on or off.

Now, for reasons of social stigma, politics, or whatever this simple, logical statement raises a lot of hackles. There are those who have created the classes of "strong atheist," "weak atheist," "stong theist," and "weak theist." Whatever. Such nomenclature provides no substance. A person who does not know if there is a god and who does not affirm a belief in a god - or who does not act as if a god exists, for that matter - simply put, is an atheist. By proper definition, all persons are agnostics...no one on the planet has true knowledge of god. If they did, such knowledge would be repeatable and subject to analysis...and the JREF million dollar prize. So, that takes us back to the beginning. One either believes in god or one doesn't. Ultimately, it is a choice. Once looks at the evidence and affirms a belief. Some will "guess" right and some will "guess" wrong.

But the tools of logic, such as Occam's Razor, really go no further here. We can construct a logical proof of atheism (I linked to one above) but does it change minds? No.

I would only argue that people who take up this debate be respectful, have clear understanding of the rules of logic and their applicability, understand the limitations of logic in such an argument, and, mostly, understand what the words that are being used actually mean.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

I may have misunderstood it, but from the beginning it seems to rely on a specific definition of "cause" that requires temporal priority and spatio-temporal contiguity. But God is often considered to be unlimited by time and/or space (atemporal and/or omnipresent) which would seem to undermine the argument.

-Bri

Of course. As such, you observe both the elegance and the absurdity of such a construction. Your friend above is asking for something he really knows can never be produced. Logic is merely moving suppositions around. It is up to us to define those suppositions. The definition of "god" can be so narrowly defined or so openly defined that its meaning becomes useless. We fall into attempts to set limitations or expand limitations on an entity we have no knowledge of in an effort to constrain those assertions to the logical formula. It's fun, but little more than mental masturbation. It's playing chess in a game where no one sees the pieces move.

Conversely, we could so openly define god that by definition god would have to exist. We could say, "god is all things in the universe, all matter, all life, acting in a perfect, natural harmony." Well, there you go. And god appears our of a firey puff of semantics!!

[Bri]

I see. That is actually incorrect. Atheism/theism is binary. One either holds a belief in god or lacks a belief in god. Simply put, one, theoretically, could prove the existence of god but one cannot prove that there is no god. Rules of evidence, proof, and the process of logical argument simply do not work that way.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (or you are). The question is between so-called strong atheism (the belief that there are no gods) and theism (the belief that there is at least one god). Both are positive beliefs. saizai holds that both are irrational, and that the only rational position would be a weak atheist position (complete lack of a belief as to whether or not gods exist). Unless I am mistaken, his position is that there is no evidence towards either positive belief which would make it rational to choose one or the other.

My point was that if that was the case, it would seem that Occam's razor might at least make it rational to be of the opinion that gods don't exist even if one must also admit that we don't know for certain whether gods exist (i.e. agnostic strong atheist). It would also seem that since there can be (and perhaps is) weak evidence of the existence of gods, that it is also possible to rationally hold an agnostic theist position (to be of the opinion that at least one god exists, but to admit that we don't know for certain whether a god exists).

Now, for reasons of social stigma, politics, or whatever this simple, logical statement raises a lot of hackles. There are those who have created the classes of "strong atheist," "weak atheist," "stong theist," and "weak theist." Whatever.

It seems reasonable to distinguish between a strong and a weak atheist (one holds a belief that there are no gods, the other holds no belief concerning the existence or nonexistence of gods).

I agree that most people are likely agnostic in addition to holding an opinion one way or the other concerning the existence of gods, even if they don't admit it. However, there are some theists who claim to know for certain that at least one god exists. I also know atheists who claim that they have logical proof against the existence of gods. Both of these views would not seem to qualify as agnostic positions, although I'm not sure how rational they are.

But the tools of logic, such as Occam's Razor, really go no further here. We can construct a logical proof of atheism (I linked to one above) but does it change minds? No.

I have seen no water-tight logical proof of atheism, nor even heard of one mentioned on respectable philosophy sites, so it's no wonder that such arguments don't change minds. As you said, logic has its limitations in such an argument. I personally don't think that there is a "correct" answer to the question, and I don't think that we can deem any viewpoint as necessarily irrational in this regard without overstating our knowledge of the nature and existence of God.

-Bri

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (or you are). The question is between so-called strong atheism (the belief that there are no gods) and theism (the belief that there is at least one god). Both are positive beliefs. saizai holds that both are irrational, and that the only rational position would be a weak atheist position (complete lack of a belief as to whether or not gods exist). Unless I am mistaken, his position is that there is no evidence towards either positive belief which would make it rational to choose one or the other.


Actually, this is semantically and linguistically incorrect - not to mention a logical fallacy within itself.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ATHEISM as follows: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." It defines THEISM as follows: "Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism."

It's quite simple and this discussion has been profoundly confused by a mis-use of the good old english language. Atheism is not and cannot be a positive belief that there is no god no more than I can multiply ten times zero and come out with a positive value. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and theism is a positive belief in a god or gods. It's just that simple.

To affirm that atheism is a belief that there is no god is just linguistic nonsense. If you diagram that sentence you will see that it does, in fact, say the same thing as stating that one lacks a belief in god. This confusion is, in itself, a violation of Occam's Razor - we are making the components of the argument complicated only for the reason of attempting to confuse the matter. I don't know why people insist upon doing this, but I would assume it is to avoid labeling oneself an atheist or a theist at all.

I want to make this perfectly clear - linguistic imprecision is unacceptable in philosophical debate. It costs one credibility as it allows the "goal posts" to be ever moving. So let us stick to the generally accepted uses of these terms and avoid the nonsense.

Now, as to whether or not a belief in gods or a lack of belief in gods is "rational," well that is a question. We should define the word rational, again, as the OED does it, which is simply: "Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason." We are then to assume that if one is rational one is employing the faculty of reason to arrive at a given conclusion. The state of irrationality is, thus, the opposite - that is failing to utilize the faculty of reason.

Now, I would argue that theism and atheism are both rational AND irrational depending upon how one arrives at their respective conclusions. If someone says to me: "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior because the Bible is the inspired word of god and I believe it" then I would affirm that to be an irrational belief. Conversely, if someone were to say to me: "I don't believe in god because the world is full of suffering and evil and thus there can be no god" then I would affirm that to be a lack of belief based upon an irrational supposition.

The opposite is also true - the writings of Augustin of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and Descartes are all RATIONAL arguments which affirm theism. The works of Russell and Dawkins are rational arguments which reject theism. Rationality is both a state and a tool and thus neither theism nor atheism may be painted with that broad brush until we examine the root causes of why the belief is held or rejected.

Again, let us speak rationally here and understand with precision the terms we are attempting to explore.

[Bri]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and theism is a positive belief in a god or gods. It's just that simple.

Yes, atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and theism is a positive belief in a god or gods. Nobody is disputing that, and it is clearly what a-theism means. However, there are two possible positions that are covered by that definition: (1) having a belief that there are no gods, and (2) having no belief one way or the other as to whether or not gods exist.

saizai's comments have been directed specifically at (1) -- the strong atheist.

To affirm that atheism is a belief that there is no god is just linguistic nonsense.

Nobody said this. This position was referred to as strong atheism, not atheism.

If you diagram that sentence you will see that it does, in fact, say the same thing as stating that one lacks a belief in god.

No, lacking a belief for or against something is not the same as having a belief against something.

This confusion is, in itself, a violation of Occam's Razor - we are making the components of the argument complicated only for the reason of attempting to confuse the matter. I don't know why people insist upon doing this, but I would assume it is to avoid labeling oneself an atheist or a theist at all.

It is because some people believe that no gods exist (strong atheism), and others don't have a belief one way or the other as to the existence of gods (weak atheism).

I want to make this perfectly clear - linguistic imprecision is unacceptable in philosophical debate. It costs one credibility as it allows the "goal posts" to be ever moving. So let us stick to the generally accepted uses of these terms and avoid the nonsense.

I agree. Hence the need to distinguish between two very different positions. Nearly every source concerning atheism distinguishes between the two. So, during this discussion, we have been mainly talking about three viewpoints. Call them whatever you want, but here's what I call them:


agnostic theism - belief that we do not know for certain whether gods exists, but having an opinion that at least one god exists.
agnostic weak atheism - belief that we do not know for certain whether gods exists, and therefore having no opinion as to the existence or nonexistence of gods.
agnostic strong atheism - belief that we do not know for certain whether gods exists, but having an opinion that no gods exist.



Now, as to whether or not a belief in gods or a lack of belief in gods is "rational," well that is a question.

That is the question that we have been discussing on this thread. saizai holds that the former is irrational while the latter is the only rational position to take concerning the existence of gods.

We should define the word rational, again, as the OED does it, which is simply: "Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason." We are then to assume that if one is rational one is employing the faculty of reason to arrive at a given conclusion. The state of irrationality is, thus, the opposite - that is failing to utilize the faculty of reason.

Here saizai uses a different definition of the word, so we have been sticking mainly to his definition. In his opinion, an irrational belief is one held without evidence. I personally don't find it irrational to merely hold a belief -- particularly an opinion -- on something for which there is no clear evidence pointing one way or the other.

It would also seem that there may be some logical problems with saizai's definition, particularly concerning an agnostic theist or an agnostic strong atheist who don't hold an absolute belief, but simply hold an opinion (more along the lines of "although we don't know for certain, it is more likely that..."). There do seem to be rational reasons for choosing to hold one or the other opinion without knowing for certain. Finally, it may actually be irrational by saizai's definition to hold the agnostic weak atheist position.

-Bri

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Here saizai uses a different definition of the word, so we have been sticking mainly to his definition. In his opinion, an irrational belief is one held without evidence. I personally don't find it irrational to merely hold a belief -- particularly an opinion -- on something for which there is no clear evidence pointing one way or the other.

It would also seem that there may be some logical problems with saizai's definition, particularly concerning an agnostic theist or an agnostic strong atheist who don't hold an absolute belief, but simply hold an opinion (more along the lines of "although we don't know for certain, it is more likely that..."). There do seem to be rational reasons for choosing to hold one or the other opinion without knowing for certain. Finally, it may actually be irrational by saizai's definition to hold the agnostic weak atheist position.



Ok, here we go. I don't see a need to take offense to each item you have presented in your post, viz. strong atheist, weak atheist, etc. However, the above thesis statement illustrates why I feel these terms of "strong atheist," "weak theist," whatever are needlessly confusing and, at their heart, intellectually dishonest.

Even according to your definitions above, a strong atheist and a weak atheist is still an atheist. I would argue that the degrees which separate them are not measurable upon an interval scale...rather they would be subject to a matter of personal interpretation.

But here is where we commit the fallacy of the slippery slope. If we acknowledge (which I will not, because it remains nonsense) that atheism is a BELIEF that there are no gods (define "gods" as you wish) then the next step we must invariably take in that decline along the slope is the admission, then, therefore, that we can find evidence to prove that there is no god. This is without doubt a complete and utter violation of the rules of logical argument, which Saizai's sig line so boldly declares he understands.

You CANNOT prove a null value - you can only reject a stated hypothesis. Period. No matter how you want to parse (mutilate) the language it is fallacious to posit that one can hold positive evidence of disbelief. One has evaluated the evidence supporting the hypothesis and rejected it. The burden of proof is upon the party claiming the hypothesis - the theist. Therefore, by Saizai's own definition, his essential assertion is irrational. Under the laws of logic, I cannot "prove" there is no god, I can only reject the theistic hypothesis.

This is confused by an utter misunderstanding of what agnosticism really means. Agnosticism is a lack of observable knowledge. I'm agnostic about the fact I'm having peas and carrots for lunch today. I heard a rumor it was on the menu and I love peas and carrots but I have not observed their presence in the cafeteria. I BELIEVE I'm having peas and carrots and if someone asks me what I'm having I'll say "peas and carrots," but that is an irrational belief. I have no evidence beyond an unsubstantiated rumor. Therefore I am an "agnostic stong peas and carrotsist." I don't know if they're there, but I strongly believe it because, frankly, I don't care for corn and that belief is helping me get through the day.

See how silly that whole business is? If you reject the thesis that there is a god (as you define it) then you are an atheist. Your reasons for this rejection may be rational or not and the opposite is also true.

To create a "logical" argument based on a fallacious assumption and a misunderstanding of the language which asserts that there is only one "rational" approach to our perception of diety is utter bollocks.

I am and will remain an atheist because I am an agnostic. If god were to appear tomorrow and and give me some peas and carrots - I could no longer be an atheist because I would then have direct knowledge of god's existence. However, there is no way for me to be a theist and then have someone "prove" to me that there is no god. The rules of proof allow for no such statement to exist. I could lay out a rational case against the presence of the diety and reject the hypothesis, but that's all.

My atheism is based upon the fact that no one has yet made a verifiable claim of direct knowledge of diety and that historical and scientific evidence have failed to affirm the thesis that there is a god. I'm intellectually honest with myself. Faith, for me, is not a tool for rational understanding, so I continue to reject the hypothesis that there is a god.

[I less than three logic]

You know what is irrational, ruining perfectly good peas by adding carrots to them. ;)

Also, I’d like to say welcome to the forum, Jerry_ex_machina. I enjoy your posts; you seem to be saying what I’d like to say far more elegantly than I can do myself.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

You know what is irrational, ruining perfectly good peas by adding carrots to them. ;)


Blasphemy. ;)

[Bri]

Even according to your definitions above, a strong atheist and a weak atheist is still an atheist.

I don't think anyone disputes this. But there are still three different viewpoints to be considered.

I would argue that the degrees which separate them are not measurable upon an interval scale...rather they would be subject to a matter of personal interpretation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If someone actually believes that no gods exist, then that certainly seems to be a belief that is along the same lines as the theist belief that a god exists (i.e. a belief without evidence). And indeed I have heard people make this claim, some even suggesting it to be fact rather than opinion -- that it can be proven that there are no gods using logical arguments.

But here is where we commit the fallacy of the slippery slope. If we acknowledge (which I will not, because it remains nonsense) that atheism is a BELIEF that there are no gods (define "gods" as you wish) then the next step we must invariably take in that decline along the slope is the admission, then, therefore, that we can find evidence to prove that there is no god. This is without doubt a complete and utter violation of the rules of logical argument, which Saizai's sig line so boldly declares he understands.

You CANNOT prove a null value - you can only reject a stated hypothesis. Period. No matter how you want to parse (mutilate) the language it is fallacious to posit that one can hold positive evidence of disbelief. One has evaluated the evidence supporting the hypothesis and rejected it. The burden of proof is upon the party claiming the hypothesis - the theist. Therefore, by Saizai's own definition, his essential assertion is irrational. Under the laws of logic, I cannot "prove" there is no god, I can only reject the theistic hypothesis.

I think that saizai would agree with you. However, where you may differ (and I'm not sure from your comments) is whether saizai's definition of "irrational" is meaningful (i.e. does it make sense to say that a belief without evidence is "irrational") and if so, whether an agnostic strong atheist or agnostic theist position would necessarily fit the definition.

My atheism is based upon the fact that no one has yet made a verifiable claim of direct knowledge of diety and that historical and scientific evidence have failed to affirm the thesis that there is a god. I'm intellectually honest with myself. Faith, for me, is not a tool for rational understanding, so I continue to reject the hypothesis that there is a god.

By the same token, you also seem to reject the hypothesis that there is no god (which is also based on faith). I think that you and saizai are in agreement on that.

Where you may disagree (and where I disagree) with saizai is whether saizai's definition of "irrational" is meaningful, and if so whether an agnostic strong atheist or an agnostic theist is necessarily an irrational position by that definition.

-Bri

[Jerry_ex_machina]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If someone actually believes that no gods exist, then that certainly seems to be a belief that is along the same lines as the theist belief that a god exists (i.e. a belief without evidence). And indeed I have heard people make this claim, some even suggesting it to be fact rather than opinion -- that it can be proven that there are no gods using logical arguments.

By the same token, you also seem to reject the hypothesis that there is no god (which is also based on faith). I think that you and saizai are in agreement on that.

Where you may disagree (and where I disagree) with saizai is whether saizai's definition of "irrational" is meaningful, and if so whether an agnostic strong atheist or an agnostic theist is necessarily an irrational position by that definition.

-Bri

Please see the quotes above. I will try to make this statement in the simplest terms possible. There is no - and there CAN BE NO - affirmation of the hypothesis that there is no god. The very existence of such a statement is itself a logical fallacy and no matter how many times people use it, that provides no weight to the argument.

I reject the hypothesis that there is a god. That's it. There's no need to add anything more to that statement. Whether "weak" or "strong" or whatever, a person who rejects the hypothesis that there is a god is an atheist. A person who accepts the hypothesis that there is a god is a theist.

I cannot accept or reject the hypothesis that there is no god because such a hypothesis cannot - by its very nature as an illogical construct - exist. To affirm that something does not exist is the SAME THING as rejecting that thing's existence.

If someone says, "I believe that no god exists," then they are rejecting the existence of god. Simply put, they are rejecting the hypothesis. Their motivation for that rejection might be either rational or irrational, but the nature of that rejection is subject to their individual examination of the evidence in favor of the existence of god.

I cannot accumulate evidence against the existence of something. If I were a big foot hunter I would have to go out an accumulate evidence in favor of the existence of bigfoot. If I were a bigfoot debunker I cannot go out and accumulate evidence for the existance of no bigfoots!! That's ridiculous! I can only evaluate the evidence in favor of big foot's existence and accept or reject it.

As much as I hate to say it, your above statements and Saizai's to boot, represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules of logic, proof, and the scientific method. The idea that one can prove a null hypothesis is a fundamental fallacy.

Let me address this, faith has nothing to do with any of my arguments. I have simply evaluated the evidence in favor of the existence of god and having found the case to lack merit, have rendered the hypothesis to be rejected. That has nothing to with faith any more that were I to evaluate the evidence in favor of the sun rising in the morning and accepting the hypothesis. Making a decision based upon the preponderance or lack of evidence is not faith based. Faith is affirming a belief in spite of or without regard to evidence - "the boat is sinking, but god will save me!" And, indeed, assumptions based upon faith are by their definition irrational.

Now, to use the term agnostic in the example above is meaningless. As I have said, we are all agnostics...no one living has unassailable knowledge of the existence of god. They might claim it but lacking proof the knowledge remains assailable. Therefore, tacking that term onto this discussion at all represents linguistic imprecision and only confuses the matter.

So the question remains, it seems, are "strong" atheists and theists irrational. Let us look at Russell contra Aquinas. Both men were "strong" (again a meaningless term, but, oy vey) in their respective "beliefs" and both arrived at their separate conclusions through the process of logical, rational examination. Thus, their arguments can be said to be rational. Whether or not they are correct is yet another matter and - lacking knowledge - unverifiable. Aquinas has created a hypothesis and Russell has rejected it. Both have used the same tools to get the job done and neither knows the answer.

So, to say that all "strong" theists/atheists are irrational is bollocks. It depends on the process by which they arrived at their position, not the position itself.

[Bri]

I cannot accept or reject the hypothesis that there is no god because such a hypothesis cannot - by its very nature as an illogical construct - exist. To affirm that something does not exist is the SAME THING as rejecting that thing's existence.

Here I am having trouble understanding you. You say that a hypothesis that there is no god is illogical (which I agree with). You also say that you reject the hypothesis that there is a god, implying that such a rejection is logical (which I also agree with). However, you then say that a hypothesis that there is no god (which is illogical) is the SAME THING as rejecting that thing's existence (which is logical). If they are the same thing, then how can one be illogical and the other logical? Clearly, they are not the same thing.

Simply put, they are rejecting the hypothesis. Their motivation for that rejection might be either rational or irrational, but the nature of that rejection is subject to their individual examination of the evidence in favor of the existence of god.

I agree.

As much as I hate to say it, your above statements and Saizai's to boot, represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules of logic, proof, and the scientific method. The idea that one can prove a null hypothesis is a fundamental fallacy.

I'll let saizai speak for himself, but I never suggested that one could prove a null hypothesis. In fact, I am in complete agreement with you as far as I can tell, except that you seem to deny that people actually claim that they can provide evidence (generally in the form of logical arguments) that there are no gods.

Let me address this, faith has nothing to do with any of my arguments.

I never said it did. What I said was that someone who claims that there are no gods is not basing that belief on evidence.

Now, to use the term agnostic in the example above is meaningless. As I have said, we are all agnostics...no one living has unassailable knowledge of the existence of god. They might claim it but lacking proof the knowledge remains assailable. Therefore, tacking that term onto this discussion at all represents linguistic imprecision and only confuses the matter.

That I can also agree with, except that there are those who do claim that they know for a fact that there are no gods (and point to logical arguments as "proof"). There are also some theists who claim to know for a fact that God exists. Now I don't think that either of them really know whether or not God exists, but they certainly believe that they do.

So, to say that all "strong" theists/atheists are irrational is bollocks. It depends on the process by which they arrived at their position, not the position itself.

I agree. I imagine that saizai will disagree.

-Bri

[saizai]

For those interested, Quentin Smith over at Infidels.org has done an excellent job of constructing a logical proof in support of atheism. See it here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html

For those who admire the art of logic, it is quite lovely. But I doubt it will change many minds. It merely illustrates that such a thing is hypothetically possible.

It's also bunk.

"(6) If the universe is willed to exist by God and the universe does not exist, then it is the case that [by (3), (4) and (5)] (a) God wills the universe to exist and the universe exists and (b) God wills the universe to exist and the universe does not exist."

"... and the universe does not exist" is not a reasonable axiom, and is nowhere proven (nor could it be), thus anything that follows from it is likewise useless.

[saizai]

Then why be agnostic about faeries? Why not just state that you believe they exist, if the evidence favors the existence of faeries?

Because the evidence is, as we agree, sufficiently weak to not convince me; I have not seen any that is useful.

I don't think so. A faerie-agnostic-strong-atheist towards the existence of faeries might say that although faeries might exist (and might have once existed), it is his/her opinion that faeries don't currently exist. In other words, one may be entirely agnostic towards whether faeries once existed, while being agnostic-strong-atheist towards the current existence of faeries.

I think, as already discussed, that this split of 'opinion' is still irrational.


Here is where I disagree. You don't have to be able to calculate the exact probability of two theories in order to determine which is more likely. For example, there is a higher likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe than in our galaxy, although I can't say exactly what the probabilities of either are.

That's still mathematical; if you assume equally distributed likelihood, there's a whole lot more 'elsewhere'.

But you're fudging and evading the point. You have yet to show anything that shows "no god" is "probable" and "god" is "improbable" - just that there isn't evidence for either, on which point alone I concur.


What does it mean to act on the supposition that god is unproven? That seems to be another way of saying to act as though there are no gods. If it is rational to act as though there are no gods, it seems rational to be of the opinion that there are no gods as well.

Not at all, and again you're fudging.

Behavior and belief are very different things. Belief implies behavior not the other way 'round.

On the other hand, if you believe that the existence and nonexistence of God are equally likely, why would you act as though there is no God rather than as though there is a God?

Because acting as though there is a God has real-world costs (plus which do you choose to act in accordance with - the locally favored? some other one? some subset? all of them?), whereas acting as though there is no God does not.

Were that reversed, than the opposite decision would be the rational act.

You insisted that both are equally likely. If so, then Occam's razor would be a rational means to choose the "no gods" theory.

To choose for pragmatic purposes as being a useful theory. Not to choose as being more likely! Very very different.

"Useful" immediately implies rational actor utility theory, per above.

Those were taken from your statements, so you'll have to clarify the fallacy.

You take the existence of a definition for God to somehow be descriptive through evidence of "the actual" God, rather than merely the name for the concept.

You didn't answer my challenge btw: define what counts as a god please.

Suppose I have in my pocket a piece of paper with the picture of a mythical creature on it. Without your seeing the picture, I ask you to guess what is depicted on the picture by describing the creature you think it is. You must provide details of the creature you're thinking of, until you are convinced that if my creature meets all of the criteria of the description, anyone would certainly agree that it is the creature you are thinking it is. So, let's say you guess it is a unicorn, so you describe a unicorn in detail. Now, you're only guessing, but when I show you the picture you may in fact be right (it might be a picture of a unicorn). But if so then it certainly would be a coincidence, wouldn't it? Would you be irrational to consider it more likely that I don't have a picture of a unicorn in my pocket? Do you know the exact likelihood of my having a picture of a unicorn in my pocket as opposed to some other mythical creature?

Here you are only arguing about choices between (analogically) gods. Sure, on that point it's coincidence.

But you aren't making a cogent case on gods vs no-gods.


BTW, Bri, would you mind clarifying what exaclty YOU believe in this context?


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding [...]

All right.

My point was that if that was the case, it would seem that Occam's razor might at least make it rational to be of the opinion that gods don't exist even if one must also admit that we don't know for certain whether gods exist (i.e. agnostic strong atheist). It would also seem that since there can be (and perhaps is) weak evidence of the existence of gods, that it is also possible to rationally hold an agnostic theist position (to be of the opinion that at least one god exists, but to admit that we don't know for certain whether a god exists).

It is rational to act as if gods don't exist because we cannot evaluate the utility of either acting as if they exist or acting as if they don't w.r.t a utility function in theological payoff (or rather, no-gods acting has maximum nil payoff theologically and gods payoff has high payoff theologically assuming you choose the right one and said god exists) whereas we can evaluate the utility in mundane terms, e.g. costs of church attendance, psychological benefits or detriments, time spent, etc etc.

One could even make a pascal's wager sort of deal, but in that case you have to assume minimal real-world cost (e.g. saying "I accept ___ as my lord and savior" - pretty minimal I think we'd all agree) as being sufficient to get you the reward - and it's purely chance whether it pays off ('cause you don't know which god to pray to, and they're not all compatible).

But again all of those are utility functions of rational actions; they don't argue for or against belief either way, which I hold to be irrational.


Bri - please explain exactly what you mean by "rational belief", "rational opinion", and "rational action / behavior", and how they differ.

If you can, please also distinguish what you would call holding one that is logically consistent but has no evidence, that is consistent and has evidence, or that is inconsistent (and presumably therefore no evidence). You'll probably want three different words for that, one of which will be "rational". If they differ for belief / opinion / behavior, please clarify.

Also please explain, with relation to the terms above, what 'faith' means for all three (if different).

Other posters: Please see Bri's (hopefully detailed) response and clarify how your definitions for the same words differ, so we all know how we're using the language.


Jerry: It seems you are coming to this debate without having read the previous posts. Please do so, and use the same language we have already established (eg strong vs weak) because at this point you are the one confusing the semantics by talking about mere "atheism" without specifying which kind you mean.

Also, you seem to implicitly believe that there are no people of the "strong atheist" belief, i.e. positively asserting a belief that no gods exist (rather than a lack of knowledge).

You're wrong on this. E.g., Kimpatsu has asserted just that belief.


You CANNOT prove a null value - you can only reject a stated hypothesis. Period. No matter how you want to parse (mutilate) the language it is fallacious to posit that one can hold positive evidence of disbelief.

You just agreed with my rejection of strong atheism. :D

Please see Kimpatsu's posts above.


Also, please clarify what you mean by "reject a hypothesis". Is this "reject as unproven" or "reject as false"? Quite different.

Would you mind stating what you think my position to be, so that we know you at least understand what it is you're arguing against? From what you've written it doesn't seem at all clear that that is the case, because from my POV you're agreeing with me for the most part (aside from your confounding of terms, per above).

I'll let saizai speak for himself, but I never suggested that one could prove a null hypothesis.

Nor have I; in fact that's the crux of my argument that strong atheism is irrational.


BTW: I would say that it is possible for persons to have unassailable personal knowledge of God's existence, except by counterargument from insanity, illusion, or delusion. Most such claims are not in fact of the sort I would accept because they're too easily coincidence or the like, but some few are such that the only relevant question is the person's sanity and veracity in what they claim to have experienced.

Of course that doesn't prove it to the rest of us, 'cause we have no way of knowing whether they're lying or not. :)