Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

[Thermos aquaticus]

In your post #89, which began our exchange, you quoted me as follows:

"Are you saying that unless claims of precognition and telepathy have been demonstrated to be true, that precognition and telepathy are therefore impossible? If you are, that's nonsense."

You then quoted Hitchens:



So, what claim did I make and how did the burden of proof fall on me?

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that precognition and telepathy are real. If those claims are not supported by demonstrable evidence, then people are justified in dismissing those claims. We don't need to demonstrate or even claim that such things are impossible. The lack of evidence is enough justification for dismissing it until such evidence is produced.

 

[joe1776]

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that precognition and telepathy are real. If those claims are not supported by demonstrable evidence, then people are justified in dismissing those claims. We don't need to demonstrate or even claim that such things are impossible. The lack of evidence is enough justification for dismissing it until such evidence is produced.

But, you used the Hitchens quote in debate with me in this very thread and I made no such claim. How do you explain that?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But, you used the Hitchens quote in debate with me in this very thread and I made no such claim. How do you explain that?

This is what I was responding to:

Are you saying that unless claims of precognition and telepathy have been demonstrated to be true, that precognition and telepathy are therefore impossible?

What you were describing is a false dichotomy. There is a third option where you dismiss the claims of precognition and telepathy until such claims are supported by evidence.

 

[joe1776]

This is what I was responding to:

Are you saying that unless claims of precognition and telepathy have been demonstrated to be true, that precognition and telepathy are therefore impossible?

What you were describing is a false dichotomy. There is a third option where you dismiss the claims of precognition and telepathy until such claims are supported by evidence.

There was no false dichotomy because what you quoted by me was a question which asked Subduction Zone to clarify what he meant. But, even if there had been a false dichotomy in my statement, the point is irrelevant because I didn't make a claim of any sort. And, if I didn't make a claim, I had no burden of proof.

So, your claim that the burden of proof was always a factor in application of the Hitchens quotation is contradicted by your one and only use of it in this thread.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There was no false dichotomy because what you quoted by me was a question which asked Subduction Zone to clarify what he meant. But, even if there had been a false dichotomy in my statement, the point is irrelevant because I didn't make a claim of any sort. And, if I didn't make a claim, I had no burden of proof.

So, your claim that the burden of proof was always a factor in application of the Hitchens quotation is contradicted by your one and only use of it in this thread.

As a general statement, the burden of proof does lie with those who say that precognition and telepathy are real, wouldn't you agree?

 

[joe1776]

As a general statement, the burden of proof does lie with those who say that precognition and telepathy are real, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely.

My claim is that I know precognition and telepathy are real because of one experience with each that provided me with extraordinary evidence that I can't show you.

Even though I know from my own experience that some of the anecdotal reports on these "paranormal" events are true, I have no way of knowing which are authentic and which aren't.

My knowledge that precognition and telepathy are real, though, has given me insights on the nature of skepticism. I see genuine skeptics and pseudo-skeptics. Genuine skeptics doubt but they are unbiased. Pseudo-skeptics only doubt evidence which does not support what they choose to believe (confirmation bias). Pseudo-skeptics, for example, don't doubt that the Randi million-dollar challenge was legit.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Absolutely.

That is all I was getting at.

My claim is that I know precognition and telepathy are real because of one experience with each that provided me with extraordinary evidence that I can't show you.

On a bit of a tangent unrelated to burden of proof . . .

This is where skepticism enters into the picture. All humans, including myself, are easily fooled. We all have human biases that cause us to reach false conclusions. This is why we came up with the scientific method, to try and reduce the effects of human bias. The experience you describe is one that can be heavily influenced by human bias and lead to false conclusion. I'm not saying that you have reached a false conclusion, only that your conclusion is very vulnerable to human bias.

In many of these discussions, the burden of proof is framed within the epistemology of skepticism, and more specifically scientific skepticism. How do we determine if the burden of proof is met? What is evidence? What are facts? These are all questions that have to be dealt with before we can even begin to discuss the overall burden of proof, and you seem to have a good understanding on all of these pitfalls and hurdles.

The best we can do is put forward what we know and experience and see if it stands up to scrutiny, and to also admit to our own fallibilities and biases.

My knowledge that precognition and telepathy are real, though, has given me insights on the nature of skepticism. I see genuine skeptics and pseudo-skeptics. Genuine skeptics doubt but they are unbiased. Pseudo-skeptics only doubt evidence which does not support what they choose to believe (confirmation bias). Pseudo-skeptics, for example, don't doubt that the Randi million-dollar challenge was legit.

That has been my experience as well. The best description I have seen of skepticism is that it is a method, not a pre-determined conclusion. A "good" skeptic asks how the evidence was gathered and looks for problems of bias.

 

[viole]

One thing I've noticed, is that of all non religious we'll say, or rather anti-theists, what not, explicit atheists seem to understand atheism, the least. This has even affected the very way that atheism is defined.

Ie,
'Know there is no god or gods'
No, you're getting what you think you know, mixed up with know

'No evidence for god or gods'
No, you're getting what your perspective is, mixed up with a fact statement

The only non god adherents who understand non god adherence, seem to be agnostics, and then it gets muddled with 'atheism', a claim to know that god or gods, doesn't exist, or isn't real.

Right. i also admire people who modestly claim agnosticism about things whose not existence cannot be proven, instead of arrogantly claim that they do not exist. Invisible garden fairies for instance. I mean, who can confidently claim that invisible fairies do not exist?

So, when one claims that invisible fairies are responsible for the mess in the carrots in their gardens, intellectual honesty dictates that we should refrain from our first instinct to burst out laughing and, instead, we should acknowledge that, and admit that it is a serious possibility, pending additional evidence.

The same with leprechauns, big foot, angels carrying planets in their orbits, solar system orbiting tea pots, and whatever else human imagination can make up.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Right. i also admire people who modestly claim agnosticism about things whose not existence cannot be proven, instead of arrogantly claim that they do not exist. Invisible garden fairies for instance. I mean, who can confidently claim that invisible fairies do not exist?

Well, a philosopher could.