To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[DarkSun]

But we can both think of an example instantly. So I guess that wasn't really an answer, was it?

Don't go all cowardly on me now, tell me what would constitute as evidence for disbelief?

Edit:

I've told you. There is no such evidence. And scientifically, you can't prove or disprove God's existence, since science doesn't address God. So it looks like there's no emprical evidence for it, either, just as there's no empirical evidence for it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Imagine these scenarios:
1 -
2 -
3 -

I have read that now for several times.
I do not really understand what you want to tell people.

 

[DarkSun]

I have read that now for several times.
I do not really understand what you want to tell people.

:sad4::sad4::sad4::sad4::sad4::sad4::sad4::sad4::sad4:

I give in.

 

[McBell]

I have read that now for several times.
I do not really understand what you want to tell people.

It is a sad attempt at convincing people that any statement made is by default true until proven false.

This belief is extremely common amongst simple minded theists...
...and most any thread with both koran and Science in the title.

 

[DarkSun]

It is a sad attempt at convincing people that any statement made is by default true until proven false.

This belief is extremely common amongst simple minded theists...
...and most any thread with both koran and Science in the title.

You know what's really sad? That's not what I've been saying at all. And I've actually explained myself umpteen different times in this thread.

Please tell me you have read it and I haven't completely wasted my time here.

 

[DarkSun]

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

You know what's really sad? That's not what I've been saying at all. And I've actually explained myself umpteen different times in this thread.

Please tell me you have read it and I haven't completely wasted my time here.

We need an anti-frubal. <_<

I am sorry, i have NOT gone through all the thread. I concentrated on the initial post.
Could you give me a link to one post where you explained it?

 

[DarkSun]

I am sorry, i have NOT gone through all the thread. I concentrated on the initial post.
Could you give me a link to one post where you explained it?

Will do... sorry about that.

Just a second.

 

[DarkSun]

I'll explain myself again...

1. People will believe whatever makes sense to them as an idividual.

2. People don't need empirical evidence to believe something.

3. However, if two people have contrary beliefs, each with equal amounts of empirical evidence, then neither belief is more justified than the other.

4. The people with opposing views may think each other are idiots depending on how greatly such views oppose each other.

5. However, that does not negate the fact each individual has equal empirical evidence for each view.

6. To eliminate bias from the situation when determining which viewpoint is most right, you would have to pick the viewpoint supported by scientific evidence.

7. If you do not use this method, then you are letting your own subjective morality come into play, which proves nothing except that you disagree with the other person.

8. This gets you no where.

9. So again. To eliminate all forms of bias, when deciding which view is most justified (not which view makes sense to you), you have to pick the viewpoint which is supported by the available data.

10. If there is no evidence for or against the views of each of the people in disagreement - then according to the evidence - they are both equally justified.

11. Using this reasoning, based on the emprical evidence alone, I am still allowed to disagree that murder with the excuse that "Satan made me do it" is okay. But just because that is my view, that doesn't mean the empirical evidence supports it. Can I make myself any more clear?

12. Conventional law is (arguably) a reflection of mainstream morality. Since such frameworks are against murder, it is justified that the man be commited to an asylum. Not because his view was more or less justified (based on the evidence - or lack thereof), but because a significant proportion of society would disagree that he was right in doing that (also based on zero empircal evidence).

13. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then it's no longer my problem

That post pretty much sums up what I've been saying. I would respond to MBall's reply, located on the next page, but I can't really be bothered at the moment.

Mestemia was actually wrong in saying "he's suggesting that belief in anything is right until proven wrong" because that's not entirely accurate.

Right and wrong don't come into it. I'm saying there's no empirical evidence for or against, so because of this, people who disbelieve in God are equally justified to those who believe, who are also basing their views on equal empirical evidence. By equally justified I'm not saying both people are right. I'm saying both people have equal evidence... that is to say, none.

The statement was also made that it is natural to reject a fantastical claim unless evidence is presented for it. My response was that the definition of a "fantastical claim" would differ depending on the person... so to a theist, disbelief in God would be less realistic than belief. In turn, the same logic applies, and then atheist should be required to prove God's inexistence, which cannot be done because you can't prove a negative. And again, we're back to the original point.

 

[Magic Man]

Disprove pantheism.

Why?

Again, I can't technically "disprove" the Christian god either, but that doesn't mean someone's equally justified in believing in him.

Also, this brings up a preoccupation of yours that I've tried to get you away from. Atheists don't necessarily disbelieve in all concepts of God. Generally, when questioned they'll only really disbelieve in the Abrahamic god and other like him. Most of us have no problem with pantheism (that's why Dawkins called it "sexed-up atheism") or many other religions/versions of god. I know you want to believe that all atheists reject all concepts of god, but it simply isn't true.

Based on what evidence?

The evidence that no one has ever seen the tooth fairy, we know for a fact that parents are the ones who take teeth and leave money, and the concept of a tooth fairy just doesn't make sense in the context of our world. Sorry, that's not enough for you, but it's more than enough for anyone being reasonable and rational.

Perhaps if you explained why I'm wrong without using an example which fits with what I've been saying?

I have, several times. I've even used more than one example. That's my point in saying you need to stop and listen, instead of just continuing on with your point regardless of what any of us say.

I don't see how, and from where I'm standing, the examples that you've provided don't discredit the concept. The problem is either yours or mine. :S

We've already established that the problem is yours. My examples show clearly the flaw in your thinking. The fact that you don't see it only shows how far you've dug yourself in.

This is the gist of the conversation so far:

P1 - All beliefs are justified unless they are not supported by the empirical evidence.

Stop right here. This I agree with, and this is the problem. Belief in the tooth fairy is not justified by this logic. There is no empirical evidence supporting a tooth fairy, therefore one is unjustified in believing it her.

P1 - Belief and disbelief in God are both equally justified since each is based on zero evidence.
P2 - Do you believe in Santa Clause?
P1 - No?
P2 - You're obviously doing that because belief in Santa is ludicrous, therefore, belief in Santa is not equally justified to disbelief.
P1 - Even though I think the belief is ludicrous, that's my opinion, and it is no less justified empirically (with scientific evidence) than belief in Santa.
P2 - But now you're being intellectually dishonest. If you don't believe in Santa Clause, you must think disbelief in Santa is more justified.
P1 - No, I think belief in Santa is silly, but I don't see how the evidence points one way or the other.
P2 - You just don't understand what I'm saying!
P1 - Yes I do... you don't understand me.

... So where do we go from here?

Well, the best place to go would be for you to understand the argument. That's not at all how this has gone. It's more like this:

You: Belief in disbelief in God are equally justified because they both have zero evidence supporting them.
Us: When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Believers cannot support their claim with evidence. Therefore, it is more justified not to believe until they can present this evidence.
You: But belief and disbelief in God are equally justified because they both have zero evidence supporting them. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.
Us:

 

[Magic Man]

Science aims to be unbiased. :sarcastic

That's very true. That's why it works so well. Not sure what the point was supposed to be here, though.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe we just haven't found the pixies yet. Just like we hadn't found black swans until the 1900s.

Maybe not, but until we do, it's more reasonable to assume they don't exist. If they're ever found, then we can starting believing they exist.

Lack of evidence for something does not count as evidence against it.

Yes, it does. That was my whole point in explaining the scientific method to you. That's exactly the point of the scientific method. A hypothesis is presented and tested. If the result of the tests is a lack of evidence, then the hypothesis is discarded, at least until something changes. So, in science, a lack of evidence sure does count as evidence against something.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

That post pretty much sums up what I've been saying.

First of all thank you for the time to look up your summary.
I am not sure if I got all right since the numberred points are in my view not always connected or conclusively added.
Anyway.
Let me try to answer based on what i think i understand.

I wouldn't put all people together as you did.
1)Surely many people normally believe what makes sense to them as an individual. However there are of course many exceptions. I do accept quantum theory for example although it pretty much makes anything but "sense" to me I only use it because it predicts an overall result accurately.
2) As for your second point also here one might agree for many people. I long ago have choosen not to do that any longer. Since then many things i have believed have been replaced with a simple "i dont know". "I dont know" is something many people seem to have problems with when it comes to certain topics and issues
3)Your third point is correct. But i think (from my understanding) that it is exactly here where you make the mistake. You seem to assert that there is (always?) equal evidence when it comes to certain topics like God etc. Here i would disagree. I come to that later.
4) Your 4th point is often observed but in my view not always warranted.
5) Doesnt follow from the pointe before. Actually you stated already in 2 that belief doesnt require evidence. Hence your reasoning in 5 would only fit those that DO have an equal amount of evidence. Here as stated before i already disagree. There is almost never an equal amount of evidence.
6-9)Lets skip those, i think we can simply agree to them for now.
10) IF (which i would doubt in most cases) there is an equal amount of evidence then of course each belief might be equally unsure (not justified). I think a belief is justified if there is enough evidence FOR it and NO evidence against it.
If there is NO evidence for either case then in my view NONE of the views is justified. There is a practical reason for this. If we were to take your approach then nearly all thinkable and imaginable ideas were justified. This gets us nowhere.
11) I would differ between "moral" issues and empirical/natural facts. murder is ok or not ok is not a natural evaluation of scientific facts. Its a simple moral ruling based on our socio/genetic programming.
12) Again here we talk about morality and not about science.

If so far you could follow and i didnt totally miss your points I would post to why i think your idea about equal evidence is in my view wrong tomorrow.

 

[Magic Man]

Personally, I don't believe in pixies. But that doesn't mean I think my view is more empirically justified than the view of someone who does believe in pixies.

Yes, we know. And we know that that makes you feel better about yourself, and it makes you feel superior to all of us pushy atheists. Unfortunately, it's not the truth. Your disbelief in pixies is more justified than belief.

 

[Commoner]

Edit:

I've told you. There is no such evidence. And scientifically, you can't prove or disprove God's existence, since science doesn't address God. So it looks like there's no emprical evidence for it, either, just as there's no empirical evidence for it.

Wha?! You can't prove or disprove god's existence? What a cop out!

You know, there's absolutely no justification for that claim. If god exists beyond the deistic concept, and it actually affects our world in any way, then science can address it. I don't even know why you mixed god in the equation, but anyway...

There is about the same amount of evidence that god doesn't exist as there is that humans can't fly (unaided). We've never seen one (yes, that's evidence) and it would violate the laws of nature - just like god. If you believe that, you might as well believe in any supernatural story, since they all relly on the same basic principle.

To say that belief and disbelief are equally justified when there is no empirical evidence either way is absurd, since as you've pointed out, there is no such thing as evidence for disbelief. Disbelief in god is not "knowing that god doesn't exist", it's simply "not making an assumption that god exists" and rejecting those assumptions made by others. How is that not a more reasonable position (regarding any topic)?

 

[Alceste]

Darksun, I wish you'd had a bash at my posts, since you're still continuing with the same misrepresentation / misconception of a non-supernatural perspective. They might have been too wordy, so I'll try again more succinctly:

We (atheists) tend to base our world view on POSITIVE evidence. That is, evidence that something is occurring, or does exist. We tend not to bother with "zero-evidence" propositions. Such propositions are not worth considering seriously unless / until there is enough positive evidence available to be able to draw a rational conclusion.

Now considering that people have been attempting to "prove" the existence of the Abrahamic god * for two thousand years and still have been unable to produce any positive evidence - and in understanding of the fact that empirical investigation of phenomena taken by believers to qualify as "evidence" finds it in every case more adequately explained by natural causes - it is reasonable to conclude the proposition is nonsense.

* (believers in other gods - like Brahman - tend to be more comfortable with the idea of "myth" and "symbolism", so don't seem compelled to "prove" their gods exist the way Christians and Muslims do)

Hm - still kind of long, but I hope you have a go at understanding this anyway.

 

[Cobblestones]

Two excellent posts in a row and I'll bet that DS comes back with some accusation that you are both arrogant rather than addressing the reason of what you have both stated.

 

[Autodidact]

A failure to conceptualise? Maybe. Because I don't see how what you're saying even disproves what I've said. So it's either my problem or everyone elses... I'm going to go with what makes sense to me. :areyoucra

Which means being inconsistent.

Anyway, why don't I'm in danger when mowing the lawn?

I don't believe in fairies.

I don't have to worry about being attacked.

A minority do believe in fairies.

They do.

Neither side has more empirical evidence (unless you dig up your garden). I'm not saying that I do believe in fairies, I'm just saying that based on the evidence, people who believe and disbelieve aren't more or less supported than each other.

Understand?

Which view is more reasonable: believing in millions of theoretical, possible, invisible undetectable presences, or proceeding as if they don't exist? Is your lawn mowed?
Or, to put it in your terms, when the evidence is equal as to the existence or non-existence of an entity, what is the reasonable way to proceed, behave and believe? As if the entity exists, or doesn't?

 

[dorsk188]

DarkSun, You keep claiming that there's no evidence on either side. Well, you're wrong. Here's one piece of evidence to not believe any religious claims:

Humans are notorious exaggerators, and frequently ascribe patterns to unrelated phenomena.​

There. That's 1 piece of evidence against all theistic claims. It's now more logical to not believe than to believe, unless theists come up with one scrap of evidence for their claims. (Good luck with that.)

 

[dorsk188]

And yes, belief in the tooth fairy is also based on equal empirical evidence to disbelief. You and I may find that belief silly, but the believer would find disbelief silly too - so who is more right based on the evidence? No one.

You're being intellectually lazy.

Lets take the example of the tooth fairy. We know the claims made by believers in the tooth fairy. They say she comes and replaces lost teeth with money. So, let's see if she does that. When teeth are left alone, the tooth fairy never comes, and cases where teeth are exchanged always involve a humans (usually the parents of the child). If there is a tooth fairy, she doesn't seem to exchange teeth for money (which was her primary descriptive characteristic).

So what else can we learn about the tooth fairy? We can look back in our own history and see that no one referenced the tooth fairy before the 18th century. So if she exists, she may not have always existed. We also know that different cultures tell similar stories about a "tooth mouse" with similar characteristics as the tooth fairy, and that other cultures have completely different traditions.

But we also know that human beings love to create stories about things that don't exist, particularly to delight their children. This is observed behavior of probably every human culture.

We are then faced with a few possibilities. (Try as I might, this may not be an exhaustive list.)

A) The tooth fairy, as a supernatural tooth-exchanging being exists, even though there are no recorded incidents of her exchanging teeth, and she was not apparently known to older or non-European cultures.

B) The tooth fairy is a human story, invented some time in the 18th century. She never actually existed and the stories told about her are the product of fantasy.

C) The stories of the tooth fairy had a basis in history. Perhaps a real-life woman or mouse began stealing teeth in the 18th century. The story was embellished in retellings, since then. No evidence of the historical figure remains.

D) (I'm sure there are other possibilities, so feel free to suggest some.)

What you seem to be misunderstanding, DS, is that most atoothfairyists are not claiming that A is impossible, we're claiming that A is the least likely scenario. B reflects the experiments we do (leaving a tooth) and our understanding of human nature, so we accept it as the most likely explanation of the tooth fairy stories. C and other ideas are interesting, but there's no evidence to suggest they are true (and it's probable that there would be some sort of historical evidence).

There, we've spent the time to look at the situation closely, and rendered a result. That's all atheists do: choose the more likely.