Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[Desert Snake]

Please try to forget about proof in this context, neither side has or needs proof. Why not? Is there any? Again, I'm sorry but I don't follow. Surely that there is no evidence is a fact, and therefore the position that gods do not exist is drawn from that fact. Why isn't it that simple?

I keep asking you what other evidence there could possibly be? If hard atheism demands more justification than simply pointing to the absence of evidence - what possible form could such evidence take? How could one evidence the absence of the immaterial?

Well, there you have the different deity ideas. That alone is problematic to a hard standard of evidence. But, that aside, one can take a hard atheism stance, however, it is almost never played out ''fairly'', or consistently, in argumentation. I've never encountered that. Look, you have to understand, when someone demands 'evidence', for anything, it becomes intellectually dishonest for them to present evidence that doesn't have the same standard for belief. It's like putting yourself in a position of credibility that is almost impossible to maintain.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, there you have the different deity ideas. That alone is problematic to a hard standard of evidence.

Well there is still no evidence of any kind of deity concept - so what is the issue? What difference does it make?

But, that aside, one can take a hard atheism stance, however, it is almost never played out ''fairly'', or consistently, in argumentation.

What do you mean?

I've never encountered that. Look, you have to understand, when someone demands 'evidence', for anything, it becomes intellectually dishonest for them to present evidence that doesn't have the same standard for belief. It's like putting yourself in a position of credibility that is almost impossible maintain.

Sure, but what is the connection to the topic here? The hard atheist has very, very solid evidence. The theist has none. So how could the hard atheist be accused of intellectual dishonesty when he/she is the only one with any reasonable evidence?

Thanks for your patience, I really want to understand your positon here.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well there is still no evidence of any kind of deity concept - so what is the issue? What difference does it make? What do you mean? Sure, but what is the connection to the topic here? The hard atheist has very, very solid evidence. The theist has none. So how could the hard atheist be accused of intellectual dishonesty when he/she is the only one with any reasonable evidence?

Thanks for your patience, I really want to understand your positon here.

Sure.
Look, what happens is, /and this is unavoidable/, the atheist has a demand of evidence. That's great, right? Not really. The counter to that is the high subjectivity of what people consider evidence, enough to come to an affirmative belief. The theist can say, they had an experience; that's pretty common, actually. Now, we all have experiences. Just because one person may not believe another person, does not make it logical, for the person who doesn't believe, to demand evidence from the person who had the experience. Many experiences cannot be proven. Many 'beliefs', are believed without hard evidence. So, the atheist, then has one standard for themselves, and another standard, for someone else. It's hypocritical.
This is,of course, in argumentation; in actual belief, we all have our own standards, for evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure.
Look, what happens is, /and this is unavoidable/, the atheist has a demand of evidence.

Well no, the atheist is not demanding anything.

. That's great, right? Not really. The counter to that is the high subjectivity of what people consider evidence, enough to come to an affirmative belief. The theist can say, they had an experience; that's pretty common, actually. Now, we all have experiences. Just because one person may not believe another person, does not make it logical, for the person who doesn't believe, to demand evidence from the person who had the experience.

Why not?

Many experiences cannot be proven. Many 'beliefs', are believed without hard evidence. So, the atheist, then has one standard for themselves, and another standard, for someone else. It's hypocritical.
This is,of course, in argumentation; in actual belief, we all have our own standards, for evidence.

But the atheist does meet the standard of evidence by pointing to the absence of evidence for the positive claim. So how is that hypocritical? This is why I keep asking you what other evidence there could possibly be for the existence of an immaterial being?

 

[Desert Snake]

Well no, the atheist is not demanding anything. Why not?
But the atheist does meet the standard of evidence by pointing to the absence of evidence for the positive claim. So how is that hypocritical? This is why I keep asking you what other evidence there could possibly be for the existence of an immaterial being?

No one is making decisions on what to believe, entirely from those standards. It's impossible, and totally impractical. That is why it's a hypocritical demand. As far as evidence goes, that's going to depend on the persons personal beliefs, what/who they think deity is, etc.

 

[Bunyip]

No one is making decisions on what to believe, entirely from those standards. It's impossible, and totally impractical. That is why it's a hypocritical demand.

I'm sorry, I don't see how it is at all hypocritical or impossible. Again I apologise, I am not following you. Many if not most atheists seem to make just the decision you claim is impossible. What more reason could there be? I keep asking you over and over, but you just ignore me

. As far as evidence goes, that's going to depend on the persons personal beliefs, what/who they think deity is, etc.

I do appreciate your patience, but I keep asking you a direct question that you insist on ignoring, I am truly sorry - but there can be no point in continuing, given that you ignore my responses.

I'll ask again (for the last time): Other than the absence of evidence for deities, what other form of evidence for the non-existence of the immaterial could there possibly be?
If the lack of evidence is not sufficient to inform the belief in the absence of gods - what other kind/form of evidence for the absence of the immaterial could there possibly be? What must hard atheists present in order to cease to be seen as hypocritical by you?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm sorry, I don't see how it is at all hypocritical or impossible. Again I apologise, I am not following you. Many if not most atheists seem to make just the decision you claim is impossible. What more reason could there be? I keep asking you over and over, but you just ignore me
I do appreciate your patience, but I keep asking you a direct question that you insist on ignoring, I am truly sorry - but there can be no point in continuing, given that you ignore my responses.

I'll ask again (for the last time): Other than the absence of evidence for deities, what other form of evidence for the non-existence of the immaterial could there possibly be?
If the lack of evidence is not sufficient to inform the belief in the absence of gods - what other kind/form of evidence for the absence of the immaterial could there possibly be? What must hard atheists present in order to cease to be seen as hypocritical by you?

It's just a communication problem.
The atheist doesn't have to present any evidence, that isn't the issue. When they say they have a very hard line for discerning facts from non-facts, in order to come to their beliefs, that is where it starts to become hypocritical. No one, is using those standards, to form their beliefs.
We believe many, many things without using those standards for evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

It's just a communication problem.
The atheist doesn't have to present any evidence, that isn't the issue. When they say they have a very hard line for discerning facts from non-facts, in order to come to their beliefs, that is where it starts to become hypocritical. No one, is using those standards, to form their beliefs.
We believe many, many things without using those standards for evidence.

You just ignored my question again and repeated yourself.
How is that hypocritical? I keep asking, you just repeat that it is hypocritical - well why? Many people apply the simple standard of withholding belief because there is no evidence - it is a common standard and applied universally. Most if not all people do not hold beliefs because they see no evidence for them - you dismiss this as impossible , b ut give no reason for doing so.

 

[Desert Snake]

You just ignored my question again and repeated yourself.
How is that hypocritical? I keep asking, you just repeat that it is hypocritical - well why? Many people apply the simple standard of withholding belief because there is no evidence - it is a common standard and applied universally. Most if not all people do not hold beliefs because they see no evidence for them - you dismiss this as impossible , b ut give no reason for doing so.

What? I didn't say withholding belief is hypocritical. I said that using that standard as an argumentation method, is hypocritical. Totally different things.

 

[Bunyip]

What? I didn't say withholding belief is hypocritical. I said that using that standard as an argumentation method, is hypocritical. Totally different things.

Well why is it hypocritical? I keep asking.

What is hypocritical about it? Every person uses the same logic to withhold belief in a multitude of notions.

And why do you refuse to answer my question?

 

[Desert Snake]

Well why is it hypocritical? I keep asking.

What is hypocritical about it? Every person uses the same logic to withhold belief in a multitude of notions.

And why do you refuse to answer my question?

Dude, forget the question, it isn't translating, I don't know what your asking.

It's hypocritical because it demands evidence from someone else, that no one can provide, for many beliefs. It's intellectually dishonest, or usually just confused. It's a bad argument.
There is a difference in what we believe, and what is a good, or actual, or logical argument.

''I don't like cheese pizza''.
''I don't like cheese pizza, therefore, it is bad. Present evidence to convince me that cheese pizza is good.''
Notice how the general opinion, belief, whatever, is actually the same. But when presented as an argument, to debate whether cheese pizza is good, it doesn't work.

This is a crude example of the concept, but, hope it helps.

 

[Bunyip]

Dude, forget the question, it isn't translating, I don't know what your asking.

It's hypocritical because it demands evidence from someone else, that no one can provide, for many beliefs. It's intellectually dishonest, or usually just confused. It's a bad argument.
There is a difference in hat we believe, and what is a good or actual, or logical argument.

You keep repeating that assertion, but no matter what I say in response you ignore. You give no logical reason whatsoever why you think it is intellectually dishonest or hypocritical.
Why on earth would it be intellectually dishonest or hypocritical for atheists to demand evidence? I would think that is perfectly rational to ask for such evidence, especially for such extra ordinary claims. Why not?

''I don't like cheese pizza''.
''I don't like cheese pizza, therefore, it is bad. Present evidence to convince me that cheese pizza is good.''
Notice how the general opinion, belief, whatever, is actually the same. But when presented as an argument, to debate whether cheese pizza is good, it doesn't work.

This is a crude example of the concept, but, hope it helps.

No, that didn't help. The context is whether an immaterial entity exists or not, not what we prefer. What would help would be an answer to my question - if hard atheists are not being intellectually honest by simply relying on the absence of evidence as you claim, what other form of evidence for the non-existence the immaterial are you expecting? Or could possibly exist?

 

[Desert Snake]

You keep repeating that assertion, but no matter what I say in response you ignore. You give no logical reason whatsoever why you think it is intellectually dishonest or hypocritical.
Why on earth would it be intellectually dishonest or hypocritical for atheists to demand evidence? I would think that is perfectly rational to ask for such evidence, especially for such extra ordinary claims. Why not?No, that didn't help. The context is whether an immaterial entity exists or not, not what we prefer. What would help would be an answer to my question - if hard atheists are not being intellectually honest by simply relying on the absence of evidence as you claim, what other form of evidence for the non-existence the immaterial are you expecting? Or could possibly exist?

Are you literally asking, what ''evidence'' could an atheist provide? Or would I expect? I wouldn't expect any 'evidence' from an atheist, that deity doesn't exist. Anyways, seems were playing verbal Ping-Pong, and speaking different languages, I'm taking a break from this discourse.

 

[Bunyip]

Are you literally asking, what ''evidence'' could an atheist provide? Or would I expect?

Yes.

I wouldn't expect any 'evidence' from an atheist, that deity doesn't exist.

Then how could it possibly be intellectually dishonest or hypocritical to ask theists for evidence?

Anyways, seems were playing verbal Ping-Pong, and speaking different languages, I'm taking a break from this discourse.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes. Then how could it possibly be intellectually dishonest or hypocritical to ask theists for evidence?

I think you just answered your own question. We're not dealing with a provable thing, it's belief; hence, there can't be an expectation of proof that goes beyond the atheists own standards for determining facts. That's always hypocritical. But, anyways, we've discussed this, so perhaps we're just not going to understand each other, it happens.

 

[Bunyip]

I think you just answered your own question. We're not dealing with a provable thing, it's belief; hence, there can't be an expectation of proof that goes beyond the atheists own standards for determining facts. That's always hypocritical. But, anyways, we've discussed this, so perhaps we're just not going to understand each other, it happens.

No, atheism is the opposite of a belief. It is not a comparable claim to theism, it is the rejection of that claim. A disbelief need not be proven, in fact 'proving' a disbelief really makes no sense. Asking a theist for evidence is not at all 'an expectation of proof that goes beyond the atheists own standard - it is the atheists standard of truth that is being applied (ie, show me the evidence and THEN i'll believe you!)
What does need to be proven is the claim that these deities exist.

How it is you imagine that atheists are asking for a level of proof that goes beyond their own standard for determining facts - when it is precisely the same standard they apply to themselves is beyond me.

 

[McBell]

No. But let me explain.

You make an assertion say that assertion is that you drive a pinto.

I ask you to show evidence

You show me a picture with you standing beside a pinto.

If I do not believe your argument(including if I am "reserving judgment" on whether you drive a pinto), I am still making a judgement regarding the evidence (that it insufficient to prove you drive a pinto and need to inquire further).

However, there are other alternatives. It is possible that I couldn't understand the evidence you provided ( perhaps I am blind and cannot see the picture, or perhaps there was an error in transmission of the evidence) in this case I need to inquire further to understand the evidence before I can make a judgement.

Or, I could simply not listen to or view any evidence that you might provide regarding the car you drive. In this instance, I am implying that your evidence has no relevance to the car you drive and I need to support that assertion.

All of this presupposes that I have engaged in discussion about the car you drive and that it is of some importance to me.

If the car you drive doesn't matter to me, then it is unlikely that I am going to engage in any inquiry in the first place, let alone weigh any evidence you provide concerning the matter. In this case, you never would have had any burden in the first place, because their was no one for whom to prove your point in the first place.

You seem to be confusing the map for the terrain....

 

[Curious George]

You seem to be confusing the map for the terrain....

How so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure.
Look, what happens is, /and this is unavoidable/, the atheist has a demand of evidence. That's great, right? Not really. The counter to that is the high subjectivity of what people consider evidence, enough to come to an affirmative belief. The theist can say, they had an experience; that's pretty common, actually. Now, we all have experiences. Just because one person may not believe another person, does not make it logical, for the person who doesn't believe, to demand evidence from the person who had the experience.

If you're trying to convince me of something, it's logical for me to ask you why I should believe it.

Many experiences cannot be proven. Many 'beliefs', are believed without hard evidence. So, the atheist, then has one standard for themselves, and another standard, for someone else. It's hypocritical.
This is,of course, in argumentation; in actual belief, we all have our own standards, for evidence.

You're using the tu quoque fallacy here: the fact that you can find atheists who believe things without evidence is irrelevant to whether your beliefs are justified.

OTOH, if a person's standard is so low that conflicting belief systems all meet it (even if the person doesn't acknowledge this), then it's objectively too low.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dude, forget the question, it isn't translating, I don't know what your asking.

It's hypocritical because it demands evidence from someone else, that no one can provide, for many beliefs. It's intellectually dishonest, or usually just confused. It's a bad argument.
There is a difference in what we believe, and what is a good, or actual, or logical argument.

''I don't like cheese pizza''.
''I don't like cheese pizza, therefore, it is bad. Present evidence to convince me that cheese pizza is good.''
Notice how the general opinion, belief, whatever, is actually the same. But when presented as an argument, to debate whether cheese pizza is good, it doesn't work.

This is a crude example of the concept, but, hope it helps.

I think you're confused. Whether an argument is hypocritical has no bearing on whether it's true.

"Drunk driving significantly increases your risk of collision" is true even if a drunk driver says it.