1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by metis, Mar 21, 2019.

  1. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    4,433
    Ratings:
    +1,702
    Religion:
    None
    You use the term "actual evidence" because you deny a ton of anecdotal evidence that MIGHT be evidence of a creator.

    While you and I might agree that any single claim based on anecdotal evidence can be dismissed, the combined total of the claims impresses me just as the many UFO sightings impresses me that some might be true.

    In any case, I think your "blue fairies analogy" is false.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,111
    Ratings:
    +4,061
    Religion:
    ?
    No, I'm not presuming that. You're free not to care. As free as I am to continue to hold my opinions of you, regardless whether you care or not.

    Of course it is "my own idea." And for me it is built upon the backs of a thousand and more interactions with theists in which they run their mouths in completely different directions than what they need to adequately answer a question. Thousands of experiences where spiritual gobbledygook is put forth and supposed by the theists to be valid, logical information.Thousands of times theists bypass their chance to present actual evidence for their claims, and instead just try to tear down anything that they believe might be standing in their way - like evolution, secularly-based morality, etc.

    Just trust that there are others like me, who have seen the same sorts of behaviors, and have come away with the same bad taste in their mouths. Theists' days of just saying whatever they want to and getting a room full of head-nods and "amens" is quickly coming to a close. The days of being chased down and demanded the reasons for your words are upon you. The days of close examination and wholesale scrutiny are at hand. I can warn you now that your beliefs will not withstand the age, nor should they. And you're within your rights not to care about this either.

    Now let's get started, shall we?
     
  3. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    4,433
    Ratings:
    +1,702
    Religion:
    None
    In an earlier post, you wrote:

    Atheists do not "deny the possibility".
    That is made up bs from you.

    That statement implies that you have a different definition of "atheism" than I do. That's why I asked you for a precise definition. But, if you have one, you seem unwilling or unable to divulge it. So you called my comment BS but you can't explain why it's wrong.

    Most analogies used in Internet debate are false.They are commonly misused to make an opponent's position sound foolish.
     
  4. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,111
    Ratings:
    +4,061
    Religion:
    ?
    And here we go... of course it doesn't matter... to you. But I'm free to continue to let it matter to me. Just as you are free to think I am a "joke" all you want. The irony in you saying that when you just got done saying my opinion doesn't matter... you go and throw your opinions about me around and at me like you feel they should actually matter. Yours is also "subjective nonsense." But, I at least acknowledge that it means something to you. Not that I truly care about that. I don't. Not at all. But I understand it. You, on the other hand, don't even seem to grasp even that. You still seem stuck in the "my opinion is the one that matters, and no one else's does" mode of thinking. Which is naive.

    Anything you afford yourself as an intrinsic right or value, you must necessarily afford everyone else. Therefore, if your opinions matter to you, then you must assume that my opinions matter to me. That is wisdom... your stance is arrogance.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Dash Balderson

    Joined:
    May 6, 2018
    Messages:
    27
    Ratings:
    +19
    Religion:
    Wayward Conformism
    But then why is any of this knowledge that is "not fully comprehended", or "only partially comprehended" or "miscomprehended" ever relayed as important, known information? Doesn't the process of sharing incomplete, or miscomprehended information seem a bit illogical from the get-go?

    But science doesn't serve so that parties can speak to having 100% certainty. This isn't what it is about. It's about being able to model an aspect of reality, to the point that our models and descriptions (using the best information we currently have) allow for consistent prediction and for us to get the most utility out of that aspect of reality that we can. Science never claims it is going to provide the picture in "black & white." Perhaps this is a point of some misunderstanding on your part?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,765
    Religion:
    None
    Whatevs, guy. I offered a good faith response, and you
    have no thought of reciprocating.
     
  7. Willamena

    Willamena Just me
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    39,612
    Ratings:
    +6,591
    Religion:
    Mystics
    It is, indeed.
     
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,598
    Ratings:
    +22,933
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Again, I strongly disagree. The number of people believing in an unreasonable thing doesn't make it more reasonable.

    Only when they have some means to know or suspect one way or the other. Otherwise, it is simply non-evidence.

    Again, I simply disagree. It is not made more plausible simply by the number of believers.

    if they have no means to actually detect a God, then their beliefs are not any sort of justification. A billion people speculating doesn't make the conclusion more plausible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,598
    Ratings:
    +22,933
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Well, I do see the two as similar, but I reject UFO sightings as evidence for visitation by other intelligences also.

    Again, this seems to be quite in line with the rest: UFOs, Deities, Leprechauns, Fairies, etc.

    I really don't see the anecdotal evidence as worthy of much more than politeness.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,296
    Ratings:
    +5,133
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Why are you confused? You seem to believe that if the majority believes X, that has the same evidence of Y, the latter being believed by a minority, then X is more plausible.

    Obviously, this is a non sequitur. I can, with the same logic, say that it is exactly the contrary. So, you introduced an unsubstantiated correlation, and I did the same.

    For instance, there was probably a time in history where the vast majority believed that the earth was flat, while a few mathematician or philosopher knew it was not. So, that, and many others, are conter examples that show that your correlation is wrong.

    So, back to square one. And my claim still holds. Ceteris paribus, god and fairies have the same ontological status. And there is no logical reason to respect, or give more plausibility, to one belief more than to the other.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    #310 viole, Mar 24, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,524
    Ratings:
    +2,315
    You keep on adding strange qualifiers. Unreasonable? According to who?

    You also ignored the word I italicized especially: seeming. Sure, maybe it doesn’t make something more reasonable but it sure makes it seem more reasonable.

    Again with qualifiers that aren’t present when examining a general trend of the natural tendency for people to find things more plausible when it’s been confirmed by a large number of people.

    As for non-evidence, I don’t think that’s an actual thing.
    Maybe you are an extreme outlier, free from innate human tendencies.

    Really, what does it hurt you to admit that if billions of people believe something that makes it more believable? This really should be uncontroversial.
    This is pure speculation. You don’t know they have no means to detect god. And you don’t know that they are just speculating.

    Regardless, it is evident that these billions of “speculating” people have made the idea of god’s existence something that is conceivably credible, seeing as we don’t merely scoff and dismiss it without consideration.
     
    #311 Falvlun, Mar 24, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019
  12. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,524
    Ratings:
    +2,315
    *sigh*. Plausibility does not mean something is true. Already covered this ground with @Polymath257.

    Also, my correlation isn’t unsubstantiated. It pretty much plays out whenever we are initially assessing whether something is believable. The reverse— where the less people that believe something the more plausible it is— is unheard of.
     
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,598
    Ratings:
    +22,933
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I just don't find that to be the case. The number of people who believe something just doesn't affect whether it is plausible to me.

    Believable and plausible aren't the same thing. That billions of people believe something means it is *believable*, but then *one* person believing it does also: someone is able to believe it. That doesn't give *any* evidence of its truth or even of its utility.

    Again, the fact that everyone believed the universe to be small a few thousand years ago didn't make it more plausible. It's just what people believed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,598
    Ratings:
    +22,933
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Well, I don't consider deities to be part of 'ordinary life'. I would expect the quality of evidence for deities to be *at least* as good as the quality of evidence for elves. To have quality that is anything less, if anything, makes the concept of a deity *less* plausible to me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,296
    Ratings:
    +5,133
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Well, believable and plausible are not the same thing. How do you come to this identification?

    Ciao

    - viole
     
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,598
    Ratings:
    +22,933
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And, even more, your version of 'plausibility' doesn't even make something more likely to be true, which is what is required to be evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,765
    Religion:
    None
    I kinda think our hero's idea about what is plausible and
    the value of how many people happen to think something
    would come in for some high speed reversal ifn he were
    an innocent on trial with a hanging judge and hillbilly
    jury.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,524
    Ratings:
    +2,315
    I actually deleted that from the post, sorry I didn’t catch the edit in time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    7,139
    Ratings:
    +4,493
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    Irony.
     
  20. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    12,524
    Ratings:
    +2,315
    The very original post that started this train of thought used “plausibility”, not evidence, claiming that both fairies and gods were equally plausible.

    I make a distinction between the two.

    I think “the number of believers makes something more plausible” is a slam dunk, irrefutable argument.

    I do think that “number of believers equates to some small evidence” as well, but that’s a separate argument that I am probably on shakier ground.
     
Loading...