(July 8, 2012 at 10:01 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 7:40 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: I have no belief.

So you don't believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence?

But you just said that "a lack of evidence" is a valid reason to "disbelieve". Why would you say something you don't believe?

---

(July 8, 2012 at 7:52 am)Napoleon Wrote: There is lack of evidence for bigfoot, thor, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, unicorns etc but I guarantee you don't feel the need to believe in them do you.

No, but I'm not the one who claims only to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

Quote:Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.

*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.

Let's just get this straight, so there isn't confusion:

You guys are saying, "For any proposition p, if p lacks evidence then you shouldn't believe p." Call this proposition E (for Evidentialism).

Now, the "lack of belief" is with regard to p--you seem very keen on pointing out that lacking belief in p doesn't mean that you have some other belief.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your belief in E.

That may well be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What you've just said there is "Oh well you think a proposition requires evidence so that constitutes a belief and you can't prove it isn't because you need evidence to justify that system which would be circular! :-D"
You've taken that and stretched it into a paragraph and tried to make it sound like a more plausible idea and the people who have given it kudos should feel very silly.

Ok, lets test that theory of yours:
I'm going to make a proposition without any evidence and see if it turns out to be true. Ok, I propose that an invisible man is in my room right now and will give me money in 3, 2, 1... nope. Nothing. But then I suppose that money would constitute evidence wouldn't it? Hm, well I suppose in that case we should just say all propositions are true now that they don't require any evidence. Well this is going to make bank robberies alot easier. Just walk into the bank and claim you're Donald Trump, no evidence needed.
*Or*... now this is an idea... how about we go by the same system to prove somethings real through evidence thats worked for centuries, which in itself is evidence the system works, and ignore the completely fallace and moronic theory you just came up with! :-)

Is everyone ok with that? I just want to make sure no-one will be upset they can't legally turn the Encyclopaedic Britannica into their own personal scrapbook of bullshit and scrawl "Jesus is in my cock" over its cover.

(July 8, 2012 at 11:56 am)whateverist Wrote: I'm only now having a look at this thread. (The title was off-putting.)

So what do we have here. An agnostic who thinks atheists overstate their case? So what else is new? Yes many do but not everyone here does. Admittedly you frequently hear the demand for evidence followed by a lot of self congratulatory hooting about how anything that doesn't carry the good-science-keeping seal of approval is just a remnant of the dark ages.

So you, jelliedsoup, are questioning how strongly wed to evidence we could be if we carry around assumptions regarding the march of progress and infallibility of science? You must think a lot of us atheists are just on the rebound from a failed love affair with god. Perhaps we are still in love with the comfort of certainty and the feeling of being in the know, and those really are the hallmark of a true-believer's mindset.

Sorry about the title.

Yes correct. Why would anyone actively non-believe something, unless you believe that you're privvy to some sort of truth, and/or previosuly had some emotional attachment to that which you now deny. And yes the infallibility of science, this is an article of faith. Tick tick tick, it's as if you know me.

Quote:So how about you? In your righteous agnosticism do you lean one way or the other regarding the place of the supernatural? I admit to being a flat-earther when it comes to natural explanations. Anything that doesn't have a place in the natural world doesn't have any place at all as far as I can see. That's a bias I'll cop to and it inclines me to carry on as though there aren't any gods.

Now I have no issue with anyone who does believe in gods, so long as they aren't intent on getting me to adopt what they believe for circular reasons. I actually enjoy discussing cosmology with agnostic theists most of all. Rare breed though. Hard to come by and I do wish this site would give them a better welcome when they do stop by. Chad Wooters was here for a while and I couldn't always get my head into all his ideas but I did enjoy trying.

Most days I don't know, some days I lean either way. My bias is not believing humanity must possesses the qualities to assess the problem, or obtain the 'evidence'. I think that is where we'll always differ. I think in an age where religion is seen as superstitious we require some philosophical 'certainity', science fills in this void for some.

(July 9, 2012 at 3:15 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: It's like a dick, only smaller. Ba dom poom pish.

Firstly, I make horses blush and secondly I was talking about mushroomslapping the one who loses the debate.
Shame on you for thinking I was offering up my penis like some kind of strange raffle. I feel violated.

(July 8, 2012 at 2:28 pm)Napoleon Wrote: [quote='CliveStaples' pid='307549' dateline='1341760317']
But we aren't debating what the factual state of affairs is. We're talking about how and why we have certain beliefs--in particular, if the standard for belief in p is that there is evidence for p, why should I believe in evidentialism? Where is the evidence for it?


Evidence is not a belief system

Get that into your head.

You are suggesting that to use evidence you need evidence to back up the fact you need evidence.
This is plain stupidity. You don't take evidence based on a leap of faith, you take it because it is what is used to discern the world around you.

You can get into a philosobabble debate about it all you want, but unless you come up with some other way of a verifiable, testable, reasonable and logical system of interpreting the world around you, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and are frankly talking in complete bollocks and hypotheticals.

Do you actually think that it's being proposed that "Evidence is a belief system" or are you just being disingenuous so you don't have to answer the question?

Why do you think that evidence must be available? If there is some sort of creator, it is inconceivable that it would not insert itself inself into one its creations?

(July 9, 2012 at 3:40 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Why would anyone actively non-believe something, unless you believe that you're privvy to some sort of truth, and/or previosuly had some emotional attachment to that which you now deny. And yes the infallibility of science, this is an article of faith. Tick tick tick, it's as if you know me.

How does one "actively nonbelieve" something? The atheists here actually are privy to a truth of sorts- that there isn't a lick of evidence to support the claim that a God exists.
Who here has said that science is infallible? I'll tell them they are just as wrong as you are. I doubt anyone has said that and I even suspect you made that up, but whatever.

(July 9, 2012 at 3:40 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Most days I don't know, some days I lean either way. My bias is not believing humanity must possesses the qualities to assess the problem, or obtain the 'evidence'. I think that is where we'll always differ. I think in an age where religion is seen as superstitious we require some philosophical 'certainity', science fills in this void for some.

What do you mean whe you say, "most days I don't know, some days I lean either way"? Some days you know, some days you don't?
This is the problem I have with people who label themselves "agnostic": they are either dedicated fence-sitters, or they are ignorant.
You either believe, or you don't. You either know, or you don't. But these categories are separate. It doesn't mean anything for one to exclaim their lack of knowledge that God exist, because a theist could say that just as honestly as an atheist.
It's simple. Science is the best grasp we have on reality, the best tool mankind has to evaluate the universe. To muddle this with philosophical certainty or "truth" is to salt the well of skeptical thinking.

Selliedjoup Wrote:You seem only focused on my self-righteousoness rather than what I'm saying. You may claim to not know, but to take the intellectual high ground without a proven set of facts to prove your persepective, your conclusion can only be based on your worldview/set of beliefs, nothing more.

This is why I'm focused on your self-righteousness, because you seem to assume that others are taking a position you consider irrational simply out of the need to look down upon them. I have never, ever claimed to have the intellectual high ground, but then again, you are definitely not concerened with what people acutally believe. You are intent on believing they hold whatever postion you want them to.

Quote: If you consider that you're without 'belief' most non-atheists will call bullshit.

They can call whatever they like. It doesn't make them right.

Quote:How do you claim to not know and then quote "Those afraid of the universe as it really is..."? I hope you can see where you're contradicting yourself.

Now you are seriouisly grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to show that I hold a position I have never claimed to hold. The essence of the quote is not about knowing. It is about trying to understand how the cosmos works, regardless of whether it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Besides, it's a quote by Carl Sagan, a self-professed agnostic.

Now, you could do a lot for yourself and this conversation if you actually asked people what their position is instead of desperately trying to prove they hold whatever position you want them to.

How hard can it fucking be?

I don't believe in unicorns because of a lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster because of a lack of evidence.

I don't believe in a whole range of things because of a lack of fucking evidence.

God/s are just another thing I don't believe in because of the lack of evidence.

And until evidence is produced I have no rational reason to do otherwise.

BTW if evidence is ever produced I still won't believe.

I'll KNOW, belief won't be necessary.

Belief after all is said and done .... is something you demand an uneducated child to do.

(July 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Yes, but what justifies that belief? Why should you hold to evidentialism?

I'll say this slowly "I. do. not. believe. there. is. a. god. because. there. is. no. evidence"

I do not have a belief in god. It is non belief, disbelief, unbelief. It is NOT belief.

Therefore I cannot answer your question "what justifies that belief"

Why should I hold to evidentialism? Because it is the best way of understanding reality and finding out truth.

Evidence is something you can test, compare, back up a theory with, it can also be used to rule things out that were previously thought true.

Quote: you don't believe. But you have a belief--you hold to evidentialism. What justifies this belief in evidentialism? What's wrong with denying evidentialism?

And what is wrong with laughing like fuck at those that deny evidentialism?

I don't believe I'm ever going to win the lottery, but I could. Now if you tell me I am going to definitely win the lottery, me not believing it doesn't mean it won't happen, it just makes it unlikely because things like that generally don't happen. I tend not to believe in unlikely things, however, it doesn't stop me wondering. I can still hold the position of not believing, while pondering on whether something may or may not be possible. For instance, I can build a range of scenarios in my mind that will explain how I came to win the lottery - Everything from pure coincidence to increased odds from playing more, just in case. It's a fantastical story, but it could actually happen.

In my hypothetical (wishful thinking) scenario, if I were to win the lottery exactly how you foretold, do you know what I would say? "Would you believe it?" Funny turn of phrase that, isn't it? It's especially reserved for events/things that have very little chance of coming to pass or existing. This is the only rational position one can hold when it comes to Gods. If I were to win the lottery I could easily present the evidence of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with the part where you told me that I would win it, either - some would assign it to superstition, while others would accept it as a remarkable coincidence etc. I guest what I'm trying to say is, you can't pigeon hole non/belief into neat little packages. Like, for instance, I don't believe that my kids will tidy their rooms when I tell them to. When they surprise me and actually listen to a damn word I say, I don't start proclaiming miracles - sarcasm aside, of course.

I actually don't know who I'm typing this to, I just wanted to waffle a bit.