Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[Kuzcotopia]

I don't get it. Surely the material universe is evidence for materialism. Empirical evidence of materialism would just be anything material wouldn't it? All you would need is a stone.

Right. Philosophically, I am still a materialist. I think the evidence of what we have learned about the mind, just in the last 20 years, suggests it. So many brain processes are explainable now, and there's even a spot in the brain that can be stimulated to produce a religious experience.

But I did think he had a point that It's more appropriate to consider the explanation of the phenomena of consciousness as an unsettled opinion as fact. The phenomena of conscious experience is beyond empirical understanding (at least for now), perhaps by the nature of what the phenomenon is and is not. Both he and a few others have mentioned this particular issue as it relates to consciousness on other threads, and I guess I'm coming around to that view.

 

[Bunyip]

Right. Philosophically, I am still a materialist. I think the evidence of what we have learned about the mind, just in the last 20 years, suggests it. So many brain processes are explainable now, and there's even a spot in the brain that can be stimulated to produce a religious experience.

But I did think he had a point that It's more appropriate to consider the explanation of the phenomena of consciousness as an unsettled opinion as fact. The phenomena of conscious experience is beyond empirical understanding (at least for now), perhaps by the nature of what the phenomenon is and is not. Both he and a few others have mentioned this particular issue as it relates to consciousness on other threads, and I guess I'm coming around to that view.

May I ask how that relates to atheism? Surely that limitation of knowledge applies equally to theism and is thus irrelevant in this context.

 

[Curious George]

But of course they did. Atheism is the natural starting point. In a vacuum of god claims we would all be atheist. Well that is why I am an atheist. Well if that is the case, how would one evidence such a claim if it is a claim? What evidence? If there is evidence to consider - I think most atheists would be happy to see it.

In a vacuum? Really? Despite the fact that religion and superstition exist in all cultures, the fact that as a child you were particularly disposed to magical thinking,despite the ubiquitous proselytizing, you managed to develop your worldview I'm a vacuum? Forgive me if I do not believe your testimony.

Evidence? We have plenty of empirical evidence that has disproved constructions of the world based upon holy texts. This evidence is contradictory to the notion that genesis stories in the holy texts can not be literal. We have empirical studies which depict the unreliability of personal recollection. We have evidence that the holy texts were written after generations of oral tradition. Thus, the written accounts occurred were the documentation of stories which the authors which the authors did not have personal knowledge. We have awareness of the fact that people can and do lie. We have evidence of how mental illness influences perception, we have evidence of how confirmation bias influences perception, we have evidence of how our need for acceptance can distort our behavior, we have evidence how the power to control motivates others to lie or distort the truth, we have evidence on how we can hallucinate and induce false memories- all of these evidences go to detracting from the credibility of personal testimony on textual accuracy.

And just because in a vacuum you would not have a belief in god does not mean your lack of belief in a god was established in a vacuum.

 

[Bunyip]

In a vacuum? Really? Despite the fact that religion and superstition exist in all cultures, the fact that as a child you were particularly disposed to magical thinking,despite the ubiquitous proselytizing, you managed to develop your worldview I'm a vacuum?

Yes. That is correct. Magical thinking is not God.

Forgive me if I do not believe your testimony.

Better to ask ke to clarify if I am being unclear please.

Evidence? We have plenty of empirical evidence that has disproved constructions of the world based upon holy texts. This evidence is contradictory to the notion that genesis stories in the holy texts can not be literal. We have empirical studies which depict the unreliability of personal recollection. We have evidence that the holy texts were written after generations of oral tradition. Thus, the written accounts occurred were the documentation of stories which the authors which the authors did not have personal knowledge. We have awareness of the fact that people can and do lie. We have evidence of how mental illness influences perception, we have evidence of how confirmation bias influences perception, we have evidence of how our need for acceptance can distort our behavior, we have evidence how the power to control motivates others to lie or distort the truth, we have evidence on how we can hallucinate and induce false memories- all of these evidences go to detracting from the credibility of personal testimony on textual accuracy.

And just because in a vacuum you would not have a belief in god does not mean your lack of belief in a god was established in a vacuum.

Doesn't' it? What is the difference? Sure, in a vacuum of god claims we would all be atheist. I don't see the dissonance.

 

[Curious George]

Yes. That is correct. Magical thinking is not God. Better to ask ke to clarify if I am being unclear please. Doesn't' it? What is the difference? Sure, in a vacuum of god claims we would all be atheist. I don't see the dissonance.

If you developed your views in ignorance then you views have no value. They cannot add to the discussion. You cannot refute theistic claims because you are ignorant of their views. If you have not weighed their evidences, then you have no basis on which to judge their evidences.

 

[Bunyip]

If you developed your views in ignorance then you views have no value. They cannot add to the discussion. You cannot refute theistic claims because you are ignorant of their views. If you have not weighed their evidences, then you have no basis on which to judge their evidences.

Sure. But that has nothing to do with atheism and what atheism means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely but your assertion that the burden of proof is not met requires an explanation. You would still have to articulate why the burden of proof is not met.

You don't HAVE to do anything. Nobody's entitled to a detailed explanation of why you don't accept their argument. You may feel social pressure to provide one (and high-pressure salespeople take advantage of these social pressures), but there's nothing inherently illogical in not explaining to your opponent what you think is wrong with their argument.

However, if you feel the need to say something in response to the argument, you can just say "I'm not convinced."

If you want to be more specific, you can say "I'm not convinced that (some part of the argument) is true/reasonable/reliable/etc."

There's still no real burden of proof. I suppose "I'm not convinced" is still technically a positive claim, but it's true as long as you're sincere, and in most contexts, sincerity is assumed.

 

[Curious George]

Sure. But that has nothing to do with atheism and what atheism means.

Lol, doesn't it? Are we going to rehash the many "what is atheism" threads?

I do not relish the opportunity.

Forget the definition of atheism for a second...And think about why you are an atheist. Most adult atheists are not atheists do to a lack of awareness of others religion but in spite of awareness of others religion. In forming a worldview we both accept and reject certain concepts. Unless you truly have no exposure to other religions you have rejected these religions if you are an atheist.

 

[Curious George]

You don't HAVE to do anything. Nobody's entitled to a detailed explanation of why you don't accept their argument. You may feel social pressure to provide one (and high-pressure salespeople take advantage of these social pressures), but there's nothing inherently illogical in not explaining to your opponent what you think is wrong with their argument.

However, if you feel the need to say something in response to the argument, you can just say "I'm not convinced."

If you want to be more specific, you can say "I'm not convinced that (some part of the argument) is true/reasonable/reliable/etc."

There's still no real burden of proof. I suppose "I'm not convinced" is still technically a positive claim, but it's true as long as you're sincere, and in most contexts, sincerity is assumed.

Based on this logic no burden of proof exists for anyone.

You are skipping over the fact that any conversation that would have a burden of proof is necessarily in the pursuit of truth. This is from where the obligation to respond comes.

But if we forgo that, then no one has any burden of proof. We are all just bumping around sharing feelings.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, doesn't it?

Well no, it doesn't. Sure, you need to know the claims and arguments in order to meaningfully discuss them - but not to be an atheist.

Are we going to rehash the many "what is atheism" threads?

I do not relish the opportunity.

Forget the definition of atheism for a second...And think about why you are an atheist. Most adult atheists are not atheists do to a lack of awareness of others religion but in spite of awareness of others religion. In forming a worldview we both accept and reject certain concepts. Unless you truly have no exposure to other religions you have rejected these religions if you are an atheist.

How did you figure that? Sorry, but I don't see how that follows. How could I be anything other than atheist towards gods I don't even know about?

 

[Bunyip]

Based on this logic no burden of proof exists for anyone.

You are skipping over the fact that any conversation that would have a burden of proof is necessarily in the pursuit of truth. This is from where the obligation to respond comes.

But if we forgo that, then no one has any burden of proof. We are all just bumping around sharing feelings.

Sure, to discuss ideas we need to share an understanding of them - but that is nothing to do with what atheism means, that is just how conversation works.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

May I ask how that relates to atheism? Surely that limitation of knowledge applies equally to theism and is thus irrelevant in this context.

It doesn't really. I didn't bring it up to begin with. There was some suggestions that the idea did relate specifically to god claims, but I think I handled it okay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, most atheists are agnostic. No idea, why would anyone need to?

If we're counting anyone who recognizes that human knowledge has limits as "agnostic", then virtually everyone is an agnostic.

You do realize that testimony is evidence, right. I would argue that there is plenty of testimony about God.

Yes, but it's important to remember that a piece of evidence is just a fact that, when placed in the right context and combined with other facts, would be an element of justification for a claim.

If we consider the claim "Elvis is alive and well and living as an elite safe-cracker", any case where a safe was cracked and the perpetrator was unknown could be considered evidence.

... so yes, god-claims have evidence, but ALL claims, including false ones, have evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

If we're counting anyone who recognizes that human knowledge has limits as "agnostic", then virtually everyone is an agnostic.

Yes, I think that is the case.

Yes, but it's important to remember that a piece of evidence is just a fact that, when placed in the right context and combined with other facts, would be an element of justification for a claim.

If we consider the claim "Elvis is alive and well and living as an elite safe-cracker", any case where a safe was cracked and the perpetrator was unknown could be considered evidence.

... so yes, god-claims have evidence, but ALL claims, including false ones, have evidence.

 

[Curious George]

Well no, it doesn't. Sure, you need to know the claims and arguments in order to meaningfully discuss them - but not to be an atheist. How did you figure that? Sorry, but I don't see how that follows. How could I be anything other than atheist towards gods I don't even know about?

But what about the gods you do know about. Moreover, the concept of God and many of the potential abstractions are capable of construction after you become familiar with the concept. And you are an atheist towards gods that you do not know about based on your worldview which I am assuming requires evidence. And that you can evaluate other evidences allows you to abstract what type of evidence are sufficient.

Why do you require evidence at all? That you do not know of a belief does not prevent you from discounting such beliefs.

For instance, I can say that I lack belief in even those religions which I do not know because I have no evidence to believe in such religions. I know that no knew religion will simply convince me because of introduction to the concept. I know that to establish belief I will need evidence of a specific caliber. And the my lack of awareness of any evidences is the basis on which I reject these unknown religions.

 

[Bunyip]

But what about the gods you do know about. Moreover, the concept of God and many of the potential abstractions are capable of construction after you become familiar with the concept. And you are an atheist towards gods that you do not know about based on your worldview which I am assuming requires evidence. And that you can evaluate other evidences allows you to abstract what type of evidence are sufficient.

Why do you require evidence at all? That you do not know of a belief does not prevent you from discounting such beliefs.

I'm having trouble following you. That I do not know of a belief infers that I do not hold it. That is - am atheist towards it.

For instance, I can say that I lack belief in even those religions which I do not know because I have no evidence to believe in such religions. I know that no knew religion will simply convince me because of introduction to the concept. I know that to establish belief I will need evidence of a specific caliber. And the my lack of awareness of any evidences is the basis on which I reject these unknown religions.

 

[Curious George]

If we're counting anyone who recognizes that human knowledge has limits as "agnostic", then virtually everyone is an agnostic.

Yes, but it's important to remember that a piece of evidence is just a fact that, when placed in the right context and combined with other facts, would be an element of justification for a claim.

If we consider the claim "Elvis is alive and well and living as an elite safe-cracker", any case where a safe was cracked and the perpetrator was unknown could be considered evidence.

... so yes, god-claims have evidence, but ALL claims, including false ones, have evidence.

Absolutely, and if the only voice in the pursuit of truth is the voice of those offering such evidence, and no evidence is offered to discredit such a claim-then we can only hope that enough people had sense enough to reject such claims on their own.

That false claims can be evidenced is precisely why we carry a burden when pursuing truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Based on this logic no burden of proof exists for anyone.

No, there are burdens of proof all over the place. It's just that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

The claim "X exists" could be restated as "it must be the case that God exists." Unless every element in the argument supporting that claim is rock solid, we can only get to "it MIGHT be the case that God exists, but it might not"... which is where we were before the argument was even attempted.

If we're considering some element of the argument and I say "I don't know whether this is true", this implies that I don't know whether the claim being argued is true.

Basically, the person making that original argument can never get into a position where he's automatically right because of something his debate opponent said or did, or failed to say or do. Even if I respond to my opponent's argument inappropriately or in a way that somehow violates social expectations, his argument is still his to support on its own merits.

You are skipping over the fact that any conversation that would have a burden of proof is necessarily in the pursuit of truth. This is from where the obligation to respond comes.

If I'm interested in pursuing truth, it may often be the case that there are better ways of achieving that goal than engaging with every yahoo who decides to argue with me. Maybe I'd be better off abandoning the argument and finding a book to read.

But if we forgo that, then no one has any burden of proof. We are all just bumping around sharing feelings.

No, there's one burden of proof: the original claim.

The person responding to that argument might make other claims in response. Yes, these do have their own burden, and we ought not to accept them as true until their burden has been met. However, even a claim whose burden is unmet is a challenge to the argument.

I don't see why this is an issue. It's common - and IMO good practice - to question an argument by asking "have you considered X, Y, and Z? If any of them are true, then your argument fails." This doesn't mean I now have to go out and see whether X, Y, and Z are true or false.. and often I can't check them. But the mere fact that doubt has been raised means that part of the burden for the claim being argued is to either show that X, Y, and Z are actually true, or that the claim can be true even if they're false.

 

[Curious George]

I'm having trouble following you. That I do not know of a belief infers that I do not hold it. That is - am atheist towards it.

But you can simply be ignorant or you can actively reject or actively claim a lack of belief based upon your worldview. For instance, I can say I do not believe in any Greek god established in Greek mythology. I do not need to know and consider every Greek god in order to reject them all. I can reject them all based on my worldview.

 

[Bunyip]

But you can simply be ignorant or you can actively reject or actively claim a lack of belief based upon your worldview. For instance, I can say I do not believe in any Greek god established in Greek mythology. I do not need to know and consider every Greek god in order to reject them all. I can reject them all based on my worldview.

Sure, but there is no distinction implicit in atheism between active rejection and ignorance - they are subsets of atheism. I see no real meaningful difference - just a slightly different way to word the same thing.