Yes, but it remained an unevidenced hypothesis until that - those method(s) properly evidence them, when you can do this for any deity, please do let us know.
Why would you make the unevidenced assumption “scientists” are not?
I can conceive a mermaid, and a unicorn, should I skip to belief and ignore the methodology that removes subjective bias and validates what I can imagine? In which case what can’t one believe using such a nonsensical false equivalence, between what one can imagine ti be real, and what one objectively evidence to be real?
Pseudoscience
“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.”
The Legends of Hercules, now are these scientific facts? I mean we can imagine them after all…
Yet you have failed to demonstrate a deity is possible?
Except it is not inconceivable, you have conceived it, and are claiming it is possible and exists, but of course have failed to offer anything beyond the claims…
We agree! And I think I will post something fairly soon… probably next weekend. The demand has just been too high.
I didn’t say they weren’t. So you are reading into it.
But here you are reading into it accurately. I do think that too often scientists these days are insufficiently trained in the humanities. I think this because I’ve been taught by, worked with and myself taught plenty to have a fairly confident opinion on the matter. But I can’t assume that for any in particular.
And I also know some for whom that doesn’t apply. A close friend of mine who worked in one of the LIGO groups before leaving to become a priest was translating Ancient Greek poetry while writing his dissertation on black holes!
And then read with a calm mind what I actually wrote:
(I bolded the text for emphasis)
It is very hard for me not to see him as quoting out of context to create the illusion that I’ve contradicted myself. I’ve been very patient, but I draw the line at blatant intellectual dishonesty.
shit, the popcorn is good this year! Well folks we have a challenger to Shelley’s undisputed title of Unicorn wrangler and Mermaid baiter.
Lets see how we go when the promised hard evidence is laid out…I am agog. Here Tin I saved you a seat, Skriten, perch just there buddy, Cyber and Whitefire are tag teaming as referees. Cog, oh CoooG! come here boy, (hides diaper until cog can be grabbed) now sit here mate and don’t squidge around. You’ll squash that nice banana. Canuck, yep…you too! Sshhhhh now folks the curtain is rising!
Well I am happy to take another look. Here is the original claim I responded to:
Here then is my initial response:
So that a question to be fair, as that was how I was reading that assertion. but asked for clarification from you. You’re response was a denial here:
I don’t think anyone could call that dishonest, and I partially quoted for brevity, and anyone can use the links to expand any quote to see the full post, or the link to go to it, and the preceding posts.
However I don’t think it is very honest to focus on this one point, and ignore all the rest in my post, since my intellectual honesty is being questioned. However if you want a contradiction you’ve made try this one:
What have we here then:
That sure looks like a claim to me, and of course as I pointed out several times your profile contains a claim, as it states plainly you are a theist.
Honestly, Sheldon, I don’t believe he realizes when he has made an assertion. I’ve also called him out for doing such as well. He writes what he thinks he means, assumes it is clear, and then reads it the way he writes it without the ability to critically look at what he has written. He runs off on such tangents as to appear scatterbrained. Whatever happened to the complexity thing? I guess we thwarted that line of thought. He just rambles on a nitpicky shit without ever really saying anything at all. Just like all the other theists, his arguments and assertions are as oily as whale shit.
Well his profile alone is sufficient of a claim to justify any atheist to ask him if he can evidence a deity, this is an atheist debate forum of course, so there is little point pretending that it is a coincidence he brought his beliefs here.
He has implied that atheists and theists approach and view “evidence” (for a deity) in very different ways, and while I can’t speak for others, I have to say that is also an impression I get when thests and pologists describe what they think is compelling evidence for a deity. However this is largely irrelevant until he actually defines the deity he believes exist (I suspect it is some version of the Christian deity), and offers what he thinks are the reasons he believes it exists.
Well I still don’t see why it was even relevant, and of course I’m not sure Dawkins and Piers Morgan were agreeing a deity must be complex, but rather Pr Dawkins was drawing a rational inference from how many people define a deity they try to insert as a first cause. Either way simple or complex, god did it has no explanatory powers whatsoever in any of the theistic arguments or apologetics I have seen.
A basic error I sense he is making is that he views atheism as a claim, belief or assertion someone makes, but of course atheism is not, it is solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, that some atheists go farther and make claims doesn’t change this. We are all born atheists, and some people remain atheists and others do not. I remain an atheist because I do not find any of the arguments or “evidence” I have encountered to be sufficient to support their beliefs.
So when someone comes here to an atheist debate forum, and claim to believe a deity exists (it’s in his profile) I think it is reasonable to ask them to justify that belief, the long preamble just seems pointless to me.
Setting aside the semantic point about the order of meanings for the term “atheism,” perhaps worth discussing, but a side issue, I happily concede again what I take to be the core concern of @Sheldon here. But it is not an error I am making.
If anyone merely doesn’t believe or claim a god exists, without ever saying a “god doesn’t exist”, then such a ‘position’ does not have any burden of proof. (This does not mean someone is automatically justified in holding it!)
And so, such an atheist should not hear from a theist a question like “How do you know god doesn’t exist?” because it is just plain stupid to ask such a question to someone who never claimed God doesn’t exist in the first place (or even that they weren’t willing to consider the possibility of God’s existence.) I concede all this happily: it seems plainly true. And it’s unclear to me why anyone would find this difficult. I do not.
———
As an aside, I want to add that I don’t think the position “ god doesn’t exist” especially if taken probabilistically, carries any or much burden of proof either. I guess it requires that one has looked at available evidence and accurately determined it to fail to establish that god exists. That alone might be enough to say with some confidence that God doesn’t exist. Of course, an unknowable god could still be real, and theoretically one might acknowledge that possibility while still reasonably affirming that god most likely doesn’t exist.
Note that this is not much different than what is required to continue to merely not believe in god. You actually have to consider the evidence with an open mind. For a clarifying comparison, consider people who continue to say that they merely don’t believe in evolution or even more obnoxiously that the earth is round, all the while not intelligently considering the evidence. It might be true that they merely don’t believe, but this mere non-belief is not thereby automatically justified.
That said, in any given debate/discussion, it is the job of the theist to prove that god exist, and the atheist’s to listen, consider and critique intelligently. If the atheist has truly done so, he can be justified, for the moment and relative to that debate, in continuing to disbelieve in god.
Well I don’t think it is set aside, it is an oft used and vital first error that means assumptions made about atheists are often straw men. There is a reason we compile dictionaries based on common usage, it’s for clarity and accuracy, and again if one were to define atheism as a belief or claim then I would not be an atheist, despite not holding any belief in any deity.
That is exactly why the distinction is of such epistemological importance, it is not a coincidence or semantic dishonesty that I stop short of making such a claim. I can hardly claim my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support any idea, claim belief assertion, then make an absolute claim that appears to be unfalsifiable. If the concept of deity is an unfalsifiable one of course I remain agnostic, but withhold belief from all unfalsifiable claims, as I can see no other rational or open minded response. To believe them all would inevitably lead to contradictory beliefs and thus be irrational, to believe some and not others must involve subjective bias and thus be closed minded, to believe none then is the only rational open minded position.
Well they don’t hold anything yet, since not holding a belief is everyone’s default position, since all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, then they carry an epistemological burden of proof, so if one does not accept this has been met, then one is justified in continuing to withhold belief, but not necessarily in making a contrary claim.
I agree with the first part, and yet we experience this all the time, but that last part (emboldened) needs clarification. Since the claim something is possible, would be subject to the same criteria I set for all claims, that it is supported by sufficient objective evidence, until I am satisfied that epistemological burden has been achieved, I don’t believe something is possible, NB this does not mean I claim it is not possible of course.
I would agree that where an atheist makes a claim no deity exists, it does not carry an equal burden of proof, as theism seems to me the larger claim.
However is this a false equivalence? Since as you state there is overwhelming objective evidence for evolution, and that the world is spherical, if anyone could demonstrate anything approaching that for a deity I doubt I would withhold belief. Though of course even prima facie we also know natural phenomena like evolution or a spherical planet are possible, I am not aware of any objective evidence that deities are possible.
I concur. Though if one cares that what one believes is true, or cares that one holds no untrue beliefs, then one would by necessity set a bar for credulity that best achieves this. the higher the bar for credulity the more likely it will achieve this, but one has to balance scepticism of lest it become unreasonable or irrational scepticism, as is the case with those who deny objective facts like the shape of the earth or well established scientific theories like evolution.
Parenthetically even irrational scepticism has some use as a philosophical tool, and no idea should ever be beyond critical scrutiny, as long as we follow the objective evidence in the end of course.
Oh, here by “it” I just meant what you are calling the ‘default position.’ Not a view per se since it’s a lack of view but I think we both used the same term to describe it: a position.
Fair enough, and it’s not pedantry on my part I assure you, as we have had exhausting debates where visiting theists and apologists use semantics to relentlessly misrepresent atheism. So I find it prudent to clearly state what I do and do not believe from the onset.
I don’t think there’s any other example of the stem - “thw” in the English language. “Thwack!” Comes to mind as a sort of comic book invention. “Thwarted”??? . I think I need to smoke some hemp and think about this some more.
Now there is a semantic tactic/ “I don’t believe in a god,” is a belief that is held.* What a bunch of horseshit. (Justified in holding what? My non-belief in a god? NOTHING is being held.) There is no reason to believe the god claim. This is a completely justifiable position. “The null hypothesis can not be rejected.” Pretending it is a belief that is held is a bullshit tactic. And, nothing but wordplay and an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I am holding nothing when you have done nothing to demonstrate the existence of your god thing.
At least you are moving somewhere/
It most certainly does. You can not establish a probability of a god’s existence (or nonexistence) unless you define a god as probable. Probability is based on facts. You’re talking out of your ass again. Before you can establish probability. You need data. You have none. What empirical facts can you use to establish probability? There is no “probability” that God doesn’t exist without first defining what in the hell you are talking about. You can’t get there, there is no data. The null hypothesis has not been rejected.
You just don’t get it, do you? You are putting the cart before the horse, over and over and over again. You’re getting nowhere. Define your god. If you define it in some way that we can actually establish a probability, then we can talk about probability.
No. Not if the Atheist takes the position God does not exist. He is held to the exact same standard in logic as the Christian. What god are you talking about? What evidence do you have? This is the standard for logical discourse. A person making a positive claim has the burden of proof.
You are “IN FACT” creating a 'Burden of Proof Fallacy." A burden of proof fallacy is when a person tries to eschew their need to provide proof. It does not matter how you argue your position. The person making the positive claim “God does not exist.” has a burden of proof. If you make the claim you must demonstrate your claim to be true.
I’m hearing the opening bars to the sound track and they go like: “Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush the mulberry bush, Here we go round…”
And here comes @Sheldon reaching out to grab @TheMetrologist by one of the many assertions he’s left undefended and flapping in the breeze, but what’s this: TheMetro has, yes he has left the track once again promising to gather irrefutable evidence from his imagination proving that god exists, really it does and it is even a nice god forced to do nasty things. We only have to stretch our imagination into the bliss of incredulity for this to be true. Leaving Sheldon’s plea for evidence unanswered yet again and leaving the audience reaching for another handful of Popcorn. And now a word from our sponsors slippery as an eel debate cream. For those times when your beliefs seem about to be overwhelmed by reason just apply a liberal coating of slippery as an eel debate cream to any endangered assertions and run like the devil for the exit in a shower of popcorn from the disappointed audience…
Hey, thanks for saving me a seat, Old Man… (munch-munch-munch… slurrrrrrp… smacking lips)… Yum! Extra butter and salt. Just the way I like it. … (burrrrp)… Oh, excuse me. That soda had a little kick to it. Here, everybody, have some bon-bons… (passing box down the row)… Hey, does anybody think Metrologist knows the distance between Earth and Heaven? Just curious.
. I think I need to smoke some hemp and think about this some more.
… (burrrrp)… Oh, excuse me. That soda had a little kick to it. Here, everybody, have some bon-bons… (passing box down the row)… Hey, does anybody think Metrologist knows the distance between Earth and Heaven? Just curious.