Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[Polymath257]

It's wrong because you are expressing your opinion on the evidence in such a way that your comment amounts to ridicule of an opponent's position and not an argument. Ridicule of other views is typical of an arrogant attitude.

No ridicule involved. I just don't see a difference in the quality of the evidence. Why is it ridicule to talk about blue fairies or invisible pink unicorns? because most people don't believe in them? Well, why don't they? because the evidence for them is very poor. And I claim that the evidence for deities is at exactly that same level.

 

[metis]

If you had objective evidence, you'ld just share it.

Ah, again we see "smug arrogance" in full display.

I said some have "experiences", not "objective evidence", plus I made it clear why I was not going to have a discussion with a certain person, and it was because of the issue of attitude.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, again we see "smug arrogance" in full display.

How is it arrogant?

I said some have "experiences", not "objective evidence",

I don't care about personal experience and other anecdotes.
I care about objective evidence.

No amount of "personal testimony" is ever going to be sufficient for me to accept claims as extra-ordinary as the claims we see in theism.

No amount of "witness testimony" is ever going to be sufficient to justify the belief in claims of "miracles".

Such extra-ordinary claims require objective evidence to justify acceptance. Mere hearsay or say-so is not enough.

If it were, I'ld also believe in alien abductees, the lochness monster, bigfoot, sasquatch and every religion out there. All of them have countless upon countless of "testimonies" and "witnesses" and "anecdotes".

You yourself don't even believe the vast majority of them.

If such anecdotes and hearsay isn't enough to justify belief in alien abduction and bigfoot, why in the world would it be sufficient to believe the wild claims of theistic religions?

plus I made it clear why I was not going to have a discussion with a certain person because of attitude.

You can do what you want off course.

To me though, it rather comes accross as a cop-out and a rather weak excuse in order to avoid dealing with the fact, or acknowledging the fact, that you simply do not have any objective evidence for the god you believe in.

When talking to an extremely arrogant and even rather rude YEC for example, the arrogance and rudeness most certainly doesn't stop me from posting the objective evidence that supports an old earth or the evolution of species.

 

[joe1776]

It is? Then you should have no problem pointing out objective evidence in support of gods.

You clipped my sentence to produce a strawman. Now you're trolling and naively adding evidence to your reputation for arrogance.

It's not an opinion. It is a fact that no objective evidence for blue fairies has ever been presented to me. It's also a fact that no objective evidence for god(s) has ever been presented to me.

Your opinions aren't facts but that's not the point here. The problem you seem unwilling to face is that you aren't making an argument for your position when you compare gods and fairies.

The example of blue fairies is chosen only because it is extremely likely that you'll agree that such fairies do not have any supportive objective evidence.

So, you think your debate opponent wouldn't understand your position if you simply stated that you don't see any supporting objective evidence?

In my experience, when theists get upset at such analogies, it is because they take it as being a comparision between the god they believe in and fairies (or santa, or bigfoot, or unicorns, or alike).

Sure they do and IMO they have a valid complaint. I think comments like yours make atheists look like ********.

 

[joe1776]

No ridicule involved. I just don't see a difference in the quality of the evidence. Why is it ridicule to talk about blue fairies or invisible pink unicorns? because most people don't believe in them? Well, why don't they? because the evidence for them is very poor. And I claim that the evidence for deities is at exactly that same level.

Is the fact that you don't see the difference an argument that you believe should persuade an unbiased reader or your debate opponent to agree with you?

You've made an irrelevant point that serves only to ridicule your opponent's position.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. I've thought about making a thread titled something like "Comparing theism to pink unicorns makes you sound like an idiot" for quite some time. I haven't created that thread for a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that I suspect the point would be lost on the audience that most needs to understand it. It's likely that some non-theists are incapable of understanding why this is an invalid comparison, and no amount of analogies will resolve that.

On that note, I'd like to introduce you to typical polytheistic gods: they are the ground you walk on and the air you are breathing. Of course, we know there's no evidence for the air we breathe or the ground we walk on. That's silly talk.

That is all.

 

[PureX]

So you post this to me wondering if you're hallucinating and I don't exist?

No, I post this knowing that I don't know what existence entails apart from my limited experience and capacity to understand it. The question of "hallucination" is bogus, as it springs from the presumption that perceived reality has to be either 'fake', or 'real', when in truth, it's both.

 

[PureX]

The problem is that the intuitive, empathic mind is far less reliable than the logical mind in discerning truth. The scientific method: testing ideas to see if they actually work in practice, is the best way we have ever found for discovering facts.

Why use a less reliable method when a more reliable one is available?

Because the only 'facts' science can discover involve physical function. These are useful facts to have, but we humans are asking much bigger and broader questions than that. Intuition allows us to speculate in areas of interest far beyond physical functionality, and do so at 'lightening speed'. Which is why it is also a very useful tool, to us.

 

[Polymath257]

Is the fact that you don't see the difference an argument that you believe should persuade an unbiased reader or your debate opponent to agree with you?

You've made an irrelevant point that serves only to ridicule your opponent's position.

At this point, I am not asking anyone to agree with me. I am trying to see why someone else believes as they do.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm. I've thought about making a thread titled something like "Comparing theism to pink unicorns makes you sound like an idiot" for quite some time. I haven't created that thread for a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that I suspect the point would be lost on the audience that most needs to understand it. It's likely that some non-theists are incapable of understanding why this is an invalid comparison, and no amount of analogies will resolve that.

On that note, I'd like to introduce you to typical polytheistic gods: they are the ground you walk on and the air you are breathing. Of course, we know there's no evidence for the air we breathe or the ground we walk on. That's silly talk.

That is all.

And this is one reason I am much closer to paganism, other polytheisms, or pantheism than I am to any version of monotheism.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you had objective evidence, you'ld just share it.

He'd much rather belittle and speak condescending instead.

 

[joe1776]

At this point, I am not asking anyone to agree with me. I am trying to see why someone else believes as they do.

Are you no longer defending your gods and fairies comparison or are you implying that offering your opinion of the evidence as a gods and fairies comparison will somehow enlighten you on why your opponents believe as they do?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Meanwhile, the very valid point regarding the lack of objective evidence for both, stands.
And it will continue to stand until you can actually come up with objective evidence for your god.

Indeed. It has stood since Epicurus' day. I do hope you were not holding your breath, or actually expecting an answer? Neither are good for the spleen (or so I've been told...)

 

[sealchan]

Hmm. I've thought about making a thread titled something like "Comparing theism to pink unicorns makes you sound like an idiot" for quite some time. I haven't created that thread for a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that I suspect the point would be lost on the audience that most needs to understand it. It's likely that some non-theists are incapable of understanding why this is an invalid comparison, and no amount of analogies will resolve that.

On that note, I'd like to introduce you to typical polytheistic gods: they are the ground you walk on and the air you are breathing. Of course, we know there's no evidence for the air we breathe or the ground we walk on. That's silly talk.

That is all.

What about Santa Claus? That is something that most people know doesnt exist, but still has the quality of most of those people pretending he does.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you no longer defending your gods and fairies comparison or are you implying that offering your opinion of the evidence as a gods and fairies comparison will somehow enlighten you on why your opponents believe as they do?

I am asking for any evidence for a deity that wouldn't work just as well for fairies or IPU.

 

[We Never Know]

I am of the opinion that it is meaningless to talk about ultimate origins for exactly this reason. The universe (potentially the multiverse) simply exists. The physical laws are are the properties of the things in the universe: their patterns of behavior.

Thanks. That's better than what I had to say, which was a blank

 

[sealchan]

What would it take for subjective experience to become valid objective data? Is there, in fact, anything that does happen which is not partially objective? If I sincerely thought I had a pet unicorn as a child at what point would I have to produce evidence that my eye-witness sincerity couldnt cover?

I've heard a lot of people talk as if objective evidence is all anyone needs. I think it is time to start a thread which cracks open that simplistic understanding and begins to break it down so we can move forward...

 

[We Never Know]

What about Santa Claus? That is something that most people know doesnt exist, but still has the quality of most of those people pretending he does.

These most people yok speak of pretend Santa exists solely for the children. Santa is used many times as a tool on children who don't know any better to get better behavior.

Imagine that, using a non-existing fictional character to influence behavior. Clearly reminds me of something else that's world wide.

 

[joe1776]

I am asking for any evidence for a deity that wouldn't work just as well for fairies or IPU.

You stated an opinion. You didn't ask a question. Nevertheless...

Why do you believe that's a fair question? Is it your opinion that nothing can exist or we highly intelligent beings would have objective evidence of it; therefore, all claims of existence lacking objective evidence can be compared to a belief in fairies?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your opinions aren't facts but that's not the point here. The problem you seem unwilling to face is that you aren't making an argument for your position when you compare gods and fairies.

What's wrong with the comparison?

Fairies are also religious figures, at one time believed in as devoutly and sincerely as people believe in gods today.

The only difference from where I sit: belief in fairies has fallen out of favour, so it's rare to run into a fairy-believer demanding respect for their beliefs.