Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote: Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.
Religitards have clung to Kenneth Kitchen's mantra since he said it.
I don't remember where I copied this from - page has probably long since disappeared from the web - I found it years ago and saved it as a document because it comes in handy from time to time.
Quote:Kenneth Kitchen is often heard to utter the tautological
dictum `absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'
in response to some of the archaeological anomalies
raised by New Chronologists. It has become a holy writ
- his catch-all get-out clause to avoid confronting an-g
which does not agree with his own chronological model.
So let us analyse what this sacred mantra actually means.
According to Kitchen, just because there is no ar-
chaeological evidence of something it should not be
assumed that that something did not happen. Let me
give you an example. Just because there is not a shred of
evidence that Martians built the Great Pyramid does not
mean that Martians were not responsible for building
the earth's most famous monument. By Kitchen's phil-
osophy, enshrined in his oft chanted mantra, he would
have to defend the Martian hypothesis and, in doing so,
stand shoulder to shoulder with Eric von Daniken!
The phrase `absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence' is just another way of saying `anything goes' in
our interpretation of the available archaeological evi-
dence. This is plainly an untenable position for an aca-
demic of Kitchen's standing to take and he needs to
seriously reconsider his position.
Indeed, any thinking scholar would readily admit that
an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not
proofof absence - but it certainly amounts to evidence.
Moreover, what is an historian to do if he is not per-
mitted to construct histories or chronologies based on
the available evidence? Is it not perfectly reasonable to
develop an historical model based on what we currently
know about the past? Should we forever hold out on
publishing our theories because some new fact might
just turn up tomorrow, in a hundred years time or at
some infinite date in the future? This is the logical con-
sequence of Kitchen's ill considered mantra.
(March 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would agree, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I would disagree, however, that denying is not a claim in itself, and removes one from the burden of proof. The skeptical position is a neutral one, in which you are not confirming or denying (are not making any claims). There is a difference between doubt and denial.
Surely denying a claim is different than making a claim. To deny the existence of a bear in my backyard is certainly different than claiming that there is absolutely no bear in my backyard.
However, I am willing to make the claim that there is no bear in my backyard.
I am also willing to make the claim, based on a complete lack of evidence, that there is no god. At least not a christian god.
This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported. That going down this path, and falling back to a position of skepticism requires a retreat.
(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
Atheism, by definition, is an absence of belief in a supernatural, intelligent creator. It is, in its essence, a lack of belief. Many agnostic atheists, such as myself, choose to take that further into other, more complex ideas and concepts, but atheism in and of itself is a lack of belief. In fact, as a bit of anecdotal evidence for you if it means anything, most atheists I know in my personal life don't really make any claims about god. They pretty much say that they don't hold a belief in anything like that and call it a day. Plenty of atheists on this site are the same way.
The incessant need need for theists to create atheism into some sort of religion or belief system of its own is, at this point, pretty sad. I mean look at the simple structure of the word... a- meaning without... theism- meaning belief in a personal god and supernatural creator. Let it go. Find another way to argue your position, it's just pathetic at this point.
(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported. That going down this path, and falling back to a position of skepticism requires a retreat.
What are you even saying here? I admit that I claim there to be no god and that part of that claim is an absence of evidence. I also admit that atheism, in and of itself, is simply a lack of belief in a personal god and supernatural creator (however you want to word it is up to you). Where is there a retreat in those two admissions? If I admit that I'm a tennis player and also a racket ball player does that change what it means to be a tennis player? No.
If you want to argue your position, go ahead. But once again, don't do so by trying to change the definition of a word in the English language. That is not going to be a very long or productive conversation, I promise you.
“Love is the only bow on Life’s dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines upon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the mother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher.
It is the air and light of every heart – builder of every home, kindler of every fire on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the world with melody – for music is the voice of love.
Love is the magician, the enchanter, that changes worthless things to Joy, and makes royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are gods.” - Robert. G. Ingersoll
(March 8, 2017 at 11:04 pm)AceBoogie Wrote: I am also willing to make the claim, based on a complete lack of evidence, that there is no god. At least not a christian god.
This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported.
Quite right.
It just happens that it is supported, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the absence is present where the evidence should be.
If someone claims that there is an elephant in my living room, and I go look, and find nothing, then I have evidence that there is no elephant in my living room.
If someone tells me that a deity exists that flooded the world, parted the Red Sea, brought down the walls of Jericho at a certain period in history, and so on, and we go and check and find nothing, then we have evidence that said deity does not exist.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Quote:I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported.
Bullshit. There is no evidence for your silly god or any of the others invented by the human imagination. That is not a claim it is a simple statement of fact. If you find evidence feel free to present it.
But do not be surprised when it is promptly shot full of holes.
March 9, 2017 at 7:15 pm (This post was last modified: March 9, 2017 at 7:20 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(March 9, 2017 at 7:03 am)AceBoogie Wrote:
(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
Atheism, by definition, is an absence of belief in a supernatural, intelligent creator. It is, in its essence, a lack of belief. Many agnostic atheists, such as myself, choose to take that further into other, more complex ideas and concepts, but atheism in and of itself is a lack of belief. In fact, as a bit of anecdotal evidence for you if it means anything, most atheists I know in my personal life don't really make any claims about god. They pretty much say that they don't hold a belief in anything like that and call it a day. Plenty of atheists on this site are the same way.
The incessant need need for theists to create atheism into some sort of religion or belief system of its own is, at this point, pretty sad. I mean look at the simple structure of the word... a- meaning without... theism- meaning belief in a personal god and supernatural creator. Let it go. Find another way to argue your position, it's just pathetic at this point.
(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported. That going down this path, and falling back to a position of skepticism requires a retreat.
What are you even saying here? I admit that I claim there to be no god and that part of that claim is an absence of evidence. I also admit that atheism, in and of itself, is simply a lack of belief in a personal god and supernatural creator (however you want to word it is up to you). Where is there a retreat in those two admissions? If I admit that I'm a tennis player and also a racket ball player does that change what it means to be a tennis player? No.
If you want to argue your position, go ahead. But once again, don't do so by trying to change the definition of a word in the English language. That is not going to be a very long or productive conversation, I promise you.
It seems that you are bringing into this conversation a lot of things, that I didn't say. Interesting, since you seem to be accusing me of doing just that. Just to clarify, I'm only discussing within the context of this discussion, and what has been stated here. I'm not making any statements about all atheists, and I (as a course of principle) try not to argue any assumptions about your or others positions, that you don't put forth yourself. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
So it is only directed, towards those making claims in this thread. If I'm mistaken on your position and you are not making claims, including evidence of absence, then I apologize, and you only need to correct where I misunderstood.
Note: I do think that denying, is an active rather than neutral action. Normally I would say this takes you out of skepticism and puts a burden of proof on your claim. If you are intending to convey the more neutral idea of mere doubt, then this wouldn't apply.
In "On Pseudoskepticism" by Marcello Truzzi he lists the following characteristics of pseudo skepticsm and skepticism which may be helpful.
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
Denying, when only doubt has been established
Double standards in the application of criticism
The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
He characterized true skepticism as:
Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
(March 9, 2017 at 1:59 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:
(March 9, 2017 at 6:41 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported.
Quite right.
It just happens that it is supported, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the absence is present where the evidence should be.
If someone claims that there is an elephant in my living room, and I go look, and find nothing, then I have evidence that there is no elephant in my living room.
If someone tells me that a deity exists that flooded the world, parted the Red Sea, brought down the walls of Jericho at a certain period in history, and so on, and we go and check and find nothing, then we have evidence that said deity does not exist.
Yes... those would be claims that you would need to support. However I don't think that it follows, and is a bit overreaching to come to the conclusion that said diety doesn't exist if you are successful in supporting those claims.
March 9, 2017 at 8:31 pm (This post was last modified: March 9, 2017 at 8:44 pm by AceBoogie.)
So, just like every other Christian I've encountered RoadRunner is going to continue to insist that denying a claim is the same as making a claim, therefore shifting the burden of proof from the theist to the atheist. Jesus fucking christ it's like talking to a brick wall with these people.
It's up to you to explain why your beliefs make sense and hold up in natural world against other preexisting explanations of different phenomena. It is not up to me to explain to every tom, dick and harry why belief in magical sky gods doesn't make sense. That's not how the world of science works.
If a biologist comes up with some new idea on how cells operate in the human body, it is up to that scientist to prove to everyone else in his or her field exactly WHY this idea makes sense, if said scientist wants to be taken seriously by anyone. You can't just publish a paper saying, "Cells X, Y and Z do actions A and B because I said so, prove me wrong or accept this as the ultimate truth"... This biologist would be laughed out of any serious scientific community/circle.
Your complete lack of understanding of how we as humans attempt to explain the world around us unfortunately does not surprise me.
In what other area of life do we operate in that way? By saying, "prove me wrong, or I'm right"? Where else do we do that? Maybe if we search the annals of our elementary and preschools we will find this type of rhetoric. But in the real, adult, grown up world, we have to provide reasoning for our explanations of how things work. And what is the proposal of god if not an attempt to explain how things work?
We, as atheists, deny your claims, whether this action is neutral or active, because theists, as a whole, have failed to provide a sufficient explanation for their beliefs. Until we are presented with a proper explanation, we will continue to deny your claims. Quit muddying the waters with nonsense... neutral action this and active action that... just explain your beliefs or go away. Because the version of events I've been given up to this point sounds like a complete fucking fairy tale.
“Love is the only bow on Life’s dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines upon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the mother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher.
It is the air and light of every heart – builder of every home, kindler of every fire on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the world with melody – for music is the voice of love.
Love is the magician, the enchanter, that changes worthless things to Joy, and makes royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are gods.” - Robert. G. Ingersoll
(March 9, 2017 at 1:59 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: If someone tells me that a deity exists that flooded the world, parted the Red Sea, brought down the walls of Jericho at a certain period in history, and so on, and we go and check and find nothing, then we have evidence that said deity does not exist.
Yes... those would be claims that you would need to support. However I don't think that it follows, and is a bit overreaching to come to the conclusion that said diety doesn't exist if you are successful in supporting those claims.
If someone claims that a deity exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we can establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, then we have established that the claimed deity does not exist.
We have done so.
Said deity does not exist.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am (This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 12:46 am by RoadRunner79.)
AceBoogie dateline='\'148910587' Wrote:
So, just like every other Christian I've encountered RoadRunner is going to continue to insist that denying a claim is the same as making a claim, therefore shifting the burden of proof from the theist to the atheist. Jesus fucking christ it's like talking to a brick wall with these people.
It's up to you to explain why your beliefs make sense and hold up in natural world against other preexisting explanations of different phenomena. It is not up to me to explain to every tom, dick and harry why belief in magical sky gods doesn't make sense. That's not how the world of science works.
If a biologist comes up with some new idea on how cells operate in the human body, it is up to that scientist to prove to everyone else in his or her field exactly WHY this idea makes sense, if said scientist wants to be taken seriously by anyone. You can't just publish a paper saying, "Cells X, Y and Z do actions A and B because I said so, prove me wrong or accept this as the ultimate truth"... This biologist would be laughed out of any serious scientific community/circle.
Your complete lack of understanding of how we as humans attempt to explain the world around us unfortunately does not surprise me.
In what other area of life do we operate in that way? By saying, "prove me wrong, or I'm right"? Where else do we do that? Maybe if we search the annals of our elementary and preschools we will find this type of rhetoric. But in the real, adult, grown up world, we have to provide reasoning for our explanations of how things work. And what is the proposal of god if not an attempt to explain how things work?
We, as atheists, deny your claims, whether this action is neutral or active, because theists, as a whole, have failed to provide a sufficient explanation for their beliefs. Until we are presented with a proper explanation, we will continue to deny your claims. Quit muddying the waters with nonsense... neutral action this and active action that... just explain your beliefs or go away. Because the version of events I've been given up to this point sounds like a complete fucking fairy tale.
What you suppose about me, my intentions or my character has nothing to do with the arguments which you mostly ignored. Arguments and reasons are just as valid, whether they come from a PHD, a bum on the street, an atheist or a Christian. You seem to be going out in all directions, to avoid what is being discussed about the OP. I'm not falling for that bait!
The burden of proof simply states that one making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim. Both sides in a discussion can have their own burden of proof for opposing claims. However for the one who is not making a claim, doubt is the default position, until sufficient reason to confirm or deny is provided. This is because the default position is ignorance, and the skeptic isn't required to justify their doubt. They are not accepting as true, or denying as false, without reason to do so.
And as I stated before, if by "deny", you really mean "doubt", and are not making a claim, then I agree with you, but perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.
As to the claim that I am shifting the burden of proof; we can easily test this. You just need to provide the claim of mine (in the context of this discussion), which I am not answering, but saying that you must show it is false. You on the other hand, seem to want to deny and make claims, and expect me to accept them, until I prove you wrong. So who is "shifting the burden of proof"
(March 9, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:
(March 9, 2017 at 7:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes... those would be claims that you would need to support. However I don't think that it follows, and is a bit overreaching to come to the conclusion that said diety doesn't exist if you are successful in supporting those claims.
If someone claims that a deity exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we can establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, then we have established that the claimed deity does not exist.
We have done so.
Said deity does not exist.
That doesn't follow.
If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon. If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods. It doesn't follow that I do not exist. It's incorrect thinking, and an incorrect conclusion.
Also repeating you claim is not supporting.
And just a forewarning, but I am open to the interpretation of a localized universal flood. But I am happy to look at your reasoning.
