- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuziannePeople have wondered as to whether the Earth was flat... The evidence is in and we don't
This would seem to be closer to a 'default' position.
Wondering is what has led man to discoveries and inventions to improve his lot.
But I do understand those who would close their minds to wonder or to any belief at all, especially on an internet discussion board where people are often asked to "put up or shut up".
need to wonder about that any more.
I wonder about all kinds of things, and I experience wonder looking at, and discovering things
about, the natural world.
I also believe all kinds of things, and have not closed my mind to anything except believing things without
sufficient evidence, or things that are logically impossible. As I have said many many times before.
How is it that we have been conversing for so many years and yet you seem to know less about me than
when we first met?
And as I keep saying. my belief in the lack of gods IS the minority position [sadly] among atheists and
most would be like avalanchethecat and simply lack a belief in the existence of gods.
And even then, my mind is not closed on the topic. If presented with sufficient evidence I would change
my mind and accept that a god or gods exist.
Also, wondering is part of what led us to make discoveries [wondering about things forbidden by religions or
things that religion claimed to have already answered, btw]... But it's wondering within the framework of
science and logic that has made us progress and improved our lot.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneA lack of evidence for a claim is [typically weak] evidence against that claim.
Would you similarly say that "Lack of evidence FOR something is not the same as evidence AGAINST that same something"?
The arguments seem similar to me.
However that's an entirely different topic than what peoples possible belief states about
a claim are.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, I'm not "slagging off" anything. Your posts always require a more thorough answer than most of the detritus in this forum. And therefore, a reply always takes more than just me "pulling something out of my ass". Have you not heard "Patience is a virtue"? You also have to remember that it is just after 4:00am here now, and I'm already past my bedtime, if you haven't noticed from my snarkiness with the "usual suspects".
Right, so you slagg-off my posts despite clearly not having read the thread... Nice.
As for RC, I'm not even convinced he talks the talk, let alone walks the walk.
Originally posted by SuzianneI am not attacking your intelligence. I am pointing out that dismissing or avoiding debate by citing your own beliefs as "mainstream" is "argumentum ad populum" and you do not seem to realize and/or don't want to acknowledge it. You resort to it quite frequently. I don't think it has anything to do with your intelligence.
I think you err if you try to attack my intelligence. You also err in thinking that I care what you think at all. Again, stop stalking me.
Originally posted by Suziannerobbie carrobie, from time to time, likes to insinuate that I am a pedophile. You, from time to time like to accuse me of "stalking" (as does robbie, come to think of it). Both you and robbie should simply alert the moderators if you genuinely think that fellow posters are pedophiles or stalkers, and stop using such things as forum banter.
Again, stop stalking me.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs is often the case, you give me a headache.
People have wondered as to whether the Earth was flat... The evidence is in and we don't
need to wonder about that any more.
I wonder about all kinds of things, and I experience wonder looking at, and discovering things
about, the natural world.
I also believe all kinds of things, and have not closed my mind to anything except believing things ...[text shortened]... ring within the framework of
science and logic that has made us progress and improved our lot.
More tomorrow.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's a completely different subject.
And yet you still maintain that my statement, "A lack of evidence FOR something is not evidence AGAINST that same something", is a lie.
You cannot have it both ways.
Also I don't say that that is a lie, I say it's wrong. You clearly believe it to be true, your just wrong about it.
A lack of evidence for a claim makes that claim less likely to be true.
However the difference the lack of evidence makes can be really tiny if the likelihood of us having seen evidence
for the claim is very low. It can also be really large if we really should have seen evidence.
For example the lack of evidence of a nuclear explosion having occurred in my area is really strong evidence
that one hasn't happened.
On a different tack, the lack of evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial civilisations is evidence that they do not
exist. [huge debate rages about how strong this evidence is, which is a fun and interesting topic all of it's own.]
The best a lack of evidence can do is approach in the limit an infinitesimal reduction to the probability that a claim
is true, and it's usually stronger than that.
However, none of this has anything to do with peoples possible positions with respect to belief in a claim.
Not least because people can and do believe things [or lack belief or belief in the lack] without any rational reason
or evidence at all.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneHeh. Well get some sleep then. My posts will still be here tomorrow 😉
No, I'm not "slagging off" anything. Your posts always require a more thorough answer than most of the detritus in this forum. And therefore, a reply always takes more than just me "pulling something out of my ass". Have you not heard "Patience is a virtue"? You also have to remember that it is just after 4:00am here now, and I'm already past my bedtime, if you haven't noticed from my snarkiness with the "usual suspects".
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneThis has been explained so many times here, and the issue is so elementary, and yet certain theists still don't get it. I'll try one more time. Logic 101, ok:
Would you similarly say that "Lack of evidence FOR something is not the same as evidence AGAINST that same something"?
The arguments seem similar to me.
"Surely you either believe that he [God] exists or you believe that he doesn't exist. So which is it?"
Here is an exact analogy: Either the present king of France is bald or he is not bald. It must be one or the other, and you must believe one or the other. So which is it?
That represents a false dichotomy. It assumes that there are only two possibilities and that we are compelled to choose only one of them. It is a false dichotomy for two reasons: first, the two given possibilities do not exhaust the options, and second, there is no compulsion to make any choice there at all.
The correct answer to the "king of France" dichotomy is quite obviously "neither." Because there is no present king of France, so 'he who does not exist' is neither bald nor not-bald. And I certainly do not have to take a stance on it either way.
Now, to the matter at hand, namely atheism. "Atheism" is lack of belief in God. Note that word "lack"; it makes all the difference. The correct answer to the question: "Surely you either believe that God exists or you believe that he doesn't exist. So which is it?" is: neither. For the same reason as in the "king of France" question--not because God does not exist [!] but because the belief does not exist. A lack of belief is a belief which does not exist, and therefore, neither is it a belief that "X" nor is it a belief that "not-X." Get it ?!?!
If that still isn't plain enough, then I can only suggest that those who still don't get it take a course in elementary logic at the local college and then continue this thread later on, as to why some people lack this belief.
