RE: Are cats atheists?
July 21, 2012 at 10:37 am
(This post was last modified: July 21, 2012 at 10:46 am by Simon Moon.)
(July 21, 2012 at 9:27 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Not necessarily. Everytime there is an absence of evidence it is not always the case that we should disbelieve something.
If there is an absence of evidence for a claim, what should be the justification to believe it? The best response is to disbelieve the claim, until evidence is provided.
If a claim is made, and there is an absence of evidence for it, how do you make the decision to believe it or disbelieve it?
Quote:Because there is not evidence for X, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should disbelieve X. Only if there is another premise in the argument like, "there is no evidence for X, and if X were true, we would expect more evidence than there is for X." However, this is not just an absence of evidence then. There is a claim here.
These 2 responses demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of disbelief.
When someone claims that X exists, despite the fact that they are unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, doesn't mean that believing that X does not exist is the only other position. I have the ability of not believing your claim, without believing the inverse.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
