What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[tavarish]

I understood it very well, actually. What your claim meant and what you meant were two very different things, Tav. That was the point I was trying to bring to your attention. You can't state the truth claim that "there is no objective evidence for God" without shouldering an enormous burden of proof, which cannot be supported validly at any rate. (There's lots of ways to do it invalidly, like the route you took.) As I said, the only thing you can point to is the fact that you've never seen any such evidence; but being unaware of that evidence doesn't make it non-existent—unless you're a solipsist, which you're not. Your truth claim pointed to reality ("there is no"), when it should have pointed to your self ("I've never seen any").

Do you want such evidence? Apparently. Have you been provided any? It seems not. Does that mean such evidence doesn't exist? Non-sequitur.

I actually addressed this in the same post to which you replied. No, I don't know absolutely. In fact, I use the words "in my experience", and bolded them to illustrate urgency.

In my experience, there hasn't been any evidence presented to me that would demonstrate the existence of a God or gods. This is not a belief, it's an observation. There very well may be a piece of evidence that would show certain credibility, it just hasn't been provided to me yet.

Since it's not your job to do such a thing, I suggest we move on to more relevant topics.

Certainly. But where has anyone posited God as a scientific claim? Yeah, "Nowhere." So your eloquent sermon on the matter was a very odd red herring.

Not quite. You referenced Carl Sagan in your aristophrenium post, and went on to generalize as to what "they" (atheists) posit when they require extraordinary evidence. You did not establish that what Sagan, and other scientists referred to is the extreme complexity that such a being would encompass and that the claim places him necessarily as not only the creator of all that we know, but a frequent force of intervention, with his own nature and intentions. This is by all means, an extraordinary claim that deals with multifaceted scientific elements. I've also addressed the specific scientific assertions made by theistic claims in this post and others where we've conversed. If you want me to reiterate those arguments, let me know.

You quoted Sagan, and simply went on to how some people can't construct their arguments correctly - then made the assertion that the argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you don't mind, I'll entertain your questions in the matter.

This is my understanding of the topic. This applies to me and not necessarily anyone else.


(1) What is an ‘extraordinary claim’, and what is ‘extraordinary evidence’?

Extraordinary is simply something out of the ordinary. In this case, an extraordinary claim would be anything that can warrant immediate disbelief due to its: 1. Unlikelihood and 2. Counter-intuition. These claims also may have the effect of necessarily affecting the knowledge base, behavior and worldview of those who subscribe to its assertions.

I'll give you a few examples or ordinary claims:

I have a red apple in front of me.
Cars are primarily a form of transportation.
Shoes are meant to be worn on the feet.

Notice how in Western society, this is common knowledge, and although the claims require evidence, such evidence is readily available and even if it isn't, the claim has a negligible effect on anyone hearing it.

Here are some extraordinary claims.

Humans evolved from apes
Fairies want mankind to commit mass infanticide on the 13th of April.
The U.S. Government planned the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Note how the criteria for these claims isn't necessarily common knowledge, and requires and necessarily demands evidence to support it, as it can be the crux of a worldview, knowledge base, and certain behaviors.

Extraordinary evidence is something that would create a logical, unbiased and coherent understanding of the claim as it pertains to reality for the most accurate explanation of the subject.

(2) Specifically, what is the univocal criterion for establishing either?

Logic and societal norms establish these claims as ordinary or not. I'm speaking solely for claims made in Western society in which skepticism is encouraged and the scientific method is used to separate fact from fantasy.

3) What does their ability to believe that some X is true have to do with whether or not X is actually true?

Nothing. The only thing that it can do is explain the notion better, and dismiss or accept the claim to the best of our (mankind's) knowledge. This, just as science- which relies on methodological naturalism, does not operate in absolutes.

No red herring here.


“Sagan’s dictum makes it sound like any claim which violates widely subscribed beliefs or received wisdom automatically is at an evidentiary disadvantage. This is simply prejudicial,”

I agree. As humans, our brains work in a way to accept certain norms, and have a way to weed out that which does not conform to our ideology and sense of normalcy. I wouldn't contend that this is prejudicial in a pejorative sense, but a descriptive sense, to illustrate an involuntary or subconscious preference towards a set of values, information, or experiences.

Then you misunderstood my article, despite its very clear statements. It was inspired by the fact that no atheists I've ever talked to, or read from, can "define univocal criteria for either what an extraordinary claim is or what extraordinary evidence looks like." A rather different issue, yes? Since such a project, although compatible with, is not by any stretch the sum of their standard of evidence, I had no interest in their standard of evidence. It was about the fact that no atheist has ever defined univocal criteria for what an "extraordinary claim" is or what "extraordinary evidence" looks like. I was pretty clear.

First, you're making the same mistake I made in not phrasing yourself correctly. You start off decribing those that you've talked to, then include an all-encompasing "no atheist has ever...".

Second, I just gave you my take on it, I await your reply.

First, my point has nothing to do with American political landscapes or demographics. Another red herring that distracts from my point, which was that "neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with [an atheist's] ability to believe it." It seems that ought to be a fairly self-evident point, and incontestable to anyone but solipsists.

I'm not contesting that point, nor did I ever wish to.

Second, the majority of the people in the U.S. believe in God, and that country operates by the will of the people. If you dislike the convictions that the majority votes by, then change their convictions. But try persuading them with valid reasoning, if you want to be effective, since brute pontification from your personal beliefs is doomed to be insufficient; showing them that their views conflict with yours simply cannot persuade. (Reverse the roles and you'll see what I mean.)

I agree.

I also am quite relieved that the Western world is abandoning bronze age myths and becoming more secular. -quick digression.

Their "show me evidence" tactic is not frustrating. Their brutal irrationality is. I wish I could be surprised that you missed the point. Again.

Missed the point? Did you not explain to me that you did not care to convert those on this forum? Is that not the exact sentiment that I alluded to?

I do agree with you on irrationality though.

I appreciate the compliment. However, "Christianity as a whole" actually is as tolerant as I portray myself.

I disagree.

I think you're confusing the noise of the part with the character of the whole; e.g., right-wing fundy conservatives in the U.S. are but a fraction of the billions of Christians.

...but hold a pretty large influence as opposed to those in the unitarian denomination. We had a presidential candidate who ran on this platform, and didn't do horribly, not to mention the overwhelming percentage of biblical literalists that want to "teach the controversy" about evolution and creation.

In fact, many of those right-wing fundy conservatives are likewise as tolerant as me (e.g., Greg Koukl); the highly vocal ones who won't reason calmly are simply given more attention, not only by the media by also by atheists.

Do you really want to speak for fundie neo-cons? The Ted Haggards, Wendy Wrights and Jerry Falwells of the world have mass appeal and influence in this country, but are some of the most intolerant, willfully ignorant, and dangerously inconsistent people that hold political and social power. The reasons they are given attention is because they always make a story more interesting and sensational, but they seriously can damage the social environments for those around them.

Simply put, their actions are fucking dangerous to others.

The scariest part is that they're not a fringe group like the Phelps Clan, they're mass marketed and broadcast to the general public, who thankfully is more reluctant now to swallow their various forms of self-righteous hogwash. /rant.

Their pulpit depends on you contributing to the attention they receive. So don't.

I contend that laughing at them does more good than simply dismissing their claims. It's a light-hearted approach to a serious problem in this country.

First, the scientific method is the criteria only for empirical claims.

Close, but not quite. It is made to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, or correct previous knowledge.

Yes, it utilizes empirical data, which is observable and testable.

Second, 'objective' does not mean 'empirical'.

Never did I say it was. The scientific method can, however, investigate extraordinary claims by means of analyzing evidence of the argument. Are you trying to make the point that a God claim resides only in the supernatural?

Don't be surprised when others reject such an obvious ad hoc redefinition. Third (and back to the point I was making), it was "a general statement made" by whom?

I made the statement.

If not me, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his beliefs down my throat, as though my world view must play by the rules of his? That question, oddly enough, went unanswered.

I didn't answer it because it's quite absurd how you phrased it. The wealth of knowledge we have amassed because of these guiding methods has changed the face of the world, and steadily and explosively progressed mankind since the inception of rational thought. It's no individual's beliefs, but the collective efforts of those who strive to eliminate fantastic claims from what actually occurs in reality.

You're quite free to believe what you wish, but it is the quality of life that you enjoy today that was provided to you by those who utilized and respected reasoned logic. You don't have to choose to play by those rules, you already do, as you've demonstrated thus far.

You wouldn't get far in this society if you didn't.

I'm simply calling people out who claim they absolutely know God necessarily and objectively exists and cannot demonstrate it. If it doesn't apply to you, then let's move on.

It is deeply tragic that you would make such a statement, because it means you're not already aware of how false it is.

Yes, deeply tragic. Elaborate please? Phrasing problem perhaps?

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to pull an equivocating switch (your sentence begins on an epistemic point, "I know X is true," but ends on an ontological point, "X is true"), so I shall re-write your sentence and you can tell me if it's what you meant: "It is intellectually dishonest to say you know something is absolutely true if you can't back it up with adequate evidence." And if that's what you meant, why is it intellectually dishonest?

It's dishonest because if you have no good reason for assertion of a claim, you can't make a credible, coherent and convincing argument in which you know it to be true. Belief isn't knowledge.

If I make the claim that I know I can fly under my own power, but don't actually do anything to demonstrate such a claim with supporting evidence, it's intellectually dishonest of me to say to someone else "I know I can fly".

Simply put, you're fooling yourself.

I'm aware of the Piraha (you're not the first to invoke them). I am not aware of "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" the claim that they "have no knowledge of a God concept." That's what I asked for. Handing me a noun does not meet the standard of evidence you profess.

Empirical observations conform to the standards of the scientific method. So do peer reviewed papers on the subject of spirituality and the God concept in the Piraha culture in Current Anthropology by Daniel Everett.

In addition, here's an article about the whole process of what Everett accomplished, and how people checked the facts after him.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/..._colapinto

An atheistic position is biased by definition, its every reasoning and criteria starting from a biased "no gods" presupposition. You feel that's the best and default position. Fine. That simply means you have this particular bias. And my position starts from the opposite bias.

What? Would you also say a lack of belief in dragons constitutes a bias? Would you consider your worldview part of some sort of non-dragon agenda?

You're building a false dichotomy. One side makes a positive claim that God exists, but the other side makes NO positive claim. The only way to evaluate a claim sans bias is to approach it from outside the realm of emotional attachment in either direction.

If I want to evaluate if imps exist, I can't start off already believing that imps exist/do not exist. The only way I can do this unbiased is if I don't have a belief in it and gain understanding through evidence. The same goes for God. I can't assume he exists before I evaluate the claim that he does and remain unbiased.

Through your understanding, there can NEVER be an unbiased view on the subject.

You claimed, "Atheism is the default position for mankind, as we are not born with inherent knowledge of God." I asked for your claim to meet your own standards of evidence. You provided two papers, one from Harder that summarizes Erickson's views, and one from an anonymous source that summarizes Piaget's and Kohlberg's views, neither of which meets your standard of evidence (insofar as they presented no objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method to back up your claim). Knowing that it's invalid to reason FROM your conclusion TO your conclusion (question-begging), where is the objective scientific evidence that we're not born with inherent knowledge of God?

Why do they not meet the standards of evidence? A summarization of well-publicized, respected and peer reviewed theories of infant development don't meet the criteria for observed empirical data?

I don't have links, but I do have access to the journals and can refer them to you:

Markstrom, C.A. and Marshall, S.K. (2007). 'The psychosocial inventory of ego strengths: Examination of theory and psychometric properties.' Journal of Adolescence. vol.30

Conway, M.A. and Holmes, A. (2004). 'Psychosocial stages and the accessability of autobiographical memories across the life cycle.' Journal of Personality. vol. 72.

Another link with references:

http://psychology.about.com/od/theorieso...social.htm


Again, this topic is heavily researched objectively using testable, observable methods.

How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

I use logic to verify the scientific method.