That’s not correct.
The null hypothesis when dealing with a new drug is that it doesn’t work better than a placebo, not that it might work or not work. Likewise, the null hypothesis when dealing with ‘beings’ which are ‘beyond’ Universe is that they do not exist, not that they might exist and might not.
The null hypothesis is “no difference”, “no impact”, “no existence”, not maybe.
Yes, if it says they definitely don’t. But if the idea is that the null hypothesis has not been rejected and there is no proof for any claims made then no, that doesn’t violate any ‘rules’.
Nope, it isn’t. It’s an (obviously failed) attempt at making people like you understand that we don’t believe anymore in god than in pixies. Really. We don’t have any reason to. Really. We think that the mythology about Thor is exactly similar to the mythology about YHWH. Really.
Can you tell me exactly why I should give more credence to the existence of Thor than to the existence of YHWH? If you can’t, why would you assume that mentionning him is " a shallow attempt to impute…etc…" rather than simply what it appears to be : that I perceive both in the same way, as mythical beings. The only difference is that nobody believes anymore in the existence of the former while plenty of people still believe in the existence of the latter. Apart from that, both gods, and both set of believers are in essence similar. They used to take Thor very seriously, you know… The fact that they aren’t alive anymore and you still are doesn’t give your belief a superior status that would make a comparison a mockery.
IMO, many believers just don’t really get that non-believers can actually perceive a current mainsteam belief in god in the same way as some other random, non mainstream, rare, former, etc… belief, and as a result assume that if they compare both beliefs they can’t really mean it and must do so in order to piss off believers.
As for comparisons with feta planets, cougars ready to jump and unicorns, these of course aren’t mockery, either, but just rethorical devices used to point at a fault in a reasonning (you can’t prove there isn’t any god/ unicorn, so you can’t say god/unicorns don’t exist).
Thats a statistical use of the concept of “null.” I thought we were talking about the epistemological default position. The default position is: no claims made, no belief.
That simply not either logical or in keeping with empiricism. If things are outside of inquiry, then they are outside of truth values.
Right for the first two, wrong on the third. No existence is itself a truth claim, not impartiality.
How do they differ? The default position of something claimed is not that it might exist, but that it does not until proven.
It is perfectly logical. The point I was making is that there isn’t even any evidence that anything is ‘beyond’ Universe, let alone that there are specific ‘things’ in this ‘beyondoverse’. You can’t get out of the burden of proof by claiming that the thing you’re talking about isn’t real. (By real I am refering to Universe and its parts.)
All three are right.
“No impact” and “no difference” are as much as claims to a true value as “no existence.”
Or if you prefer:
H[sub]0[/sub]= the physical world and its workings are due to physical processes and not a ‘divine’ entity.
The term “Evangelical Atheists” was used specifically because of the religious-like fervor that some Atheists have which causes them to often come off as possessing a huge persecution chip on their shoulder and blast the person who has the audacity to say “God bless you” when they sneeze with loud and violent rebuttals about how that was impossible.
Besides, it’s a lot nicer than saying “Asshole Atheists,” don’t you think?
(Also, let it be known that I think that Miller has made the best points in this thread in my opinion.)
Re: Proof Of God
I agree that one does not need - and in fact, it’s impossible - to prove the nonexistance of something. However, as anyone who knows a shred about the scientific method can tell you, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So if we’re going to use that tried and true maxim for scientific pursuits, I’m afraid that we’re gonna have to do the same in our hunt for God - gotta be logical and consistant, right, Atheists?
Re: The continued comparison of belief in a creator to belief in (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of).
This is a common tactic of the Evangical Atheist. They use the fact that one cannot empirically “prove” that God exists and then equate God as (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of).
They do this to simply feel more superior to those who believe in God. After all, how can someone not feel superior to someone who will have faith that God is present when there is as much evidence of this as there is in (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of)?
They also forget that religion, unlike the invisible green-horned spotted gnome of Tuscaloosa, is something that goes back as far as we have recorded history. Religion has shaped humanity since its inception, continues to do so to this day and always will. If one even tried to look at the history of humanity and remove religion from the equation, it would lose so much context you couldn’t figure anything out. Religion has shaped the minds of people for as long as we’ve had people.
Maybe there’s as much empirical evidence for God as there is (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of). But does that make one equal to the other? Only if you live in a test tube and completely ignore human culture for as long as we’;ve walked the earth. Which also doesn’t seem very logical to me…
Nope. ~BX != B~X They are logically different constructs. The default position is not “it might exist,” you’re right, but neither is it “it does not exist.” If I claim that a box contains a spoon, it is not the default position that the box is empty until proven. My specific CLAIM requires proof, but the truth value of what’s in the box is “undetermined/undeterminable.” If claim the box does not contain a spoon, they you put yourself in exactly the same put up or shut up position as I did with my claim.
You can’t get out of the burden of proof by claiming that your own claims are negative in character. Negative claims can be expressed as positive ones and vice versa. It irrelevant. They are all truth claims, and as such all have burdens of proof attached. Only the skeptical “don’t believe” position escapes burden of proof because it isn’t a truth claim (or at least, it’s truth claims are only about your own state of mind).
The first two at least imply that there is no tangible/testable evidence for or against: they are statements about our epistemic position, not the truth of a claim. No existence is a truth claim about the matter at hand, and thus demands its own burden of proof.
Aside from that statement being self-referential nonsense, that’s just not how empiricism works. It doesn’t declare unknowns false. It declares them provisionally irrelevant.
Again, if you have, for instance, a new drug and you’re conducting clinical trials then: H[sub]0[/sub]= the drug will have the same effect as a placebo.
If you’re dealing with a “God hypothesis” then: H[sub]0[/sub]=Universe is the result of purely physical forces and natural law.
The null hypothesis has to be refuted. But perhaps you’re confusing a scientific/rational mode of thought with a faith based system? We ‘believe’, all the time, that things don’t exist. I’d wager that right now you don’t believe that there’s a floating dwarf made of butterscotch who is making obscene gestures at the back of your head. Right?
In a nutshell, the counter to the valid point about evidence and absence is: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Mmmmm hmmmm. Because only an “Evangelical Atheist” would ever think that it’s funny that people disbelieve in a world full of unprovable untestable claims, and instead choose one as the Truth.
Do you have anything but contentless snark to add as to just why God is one jot more rational than the Green Man?
You might want to get the batteries on your crystal ball checked Kreskin, your mind reading powers are slipping.
Everybody has some beliefs which are irrational or wrong. Why you’d think that pointing that fact out would make anybody feel superior, as a person, is strange. Do you feel better than someone else if you’re right or rational on an issue and they’re wrong or irrational?
Again, this is very very strange. Do you go around labeling people ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’? If so, I think you’re projecting. If not, you’re just pulling a halfassed mindreading stunt.
And, again, what is the substantive difference between a belief in the Green Man and a belief in God?
Fallacy of appeal to antiquity.
Red herring.
Non sequitor.
I’d also point out that many mutally exclusive religions have existed through recorded history.
And ask again, why is the Green Man, Thor, Ahura Mazda, or any other old belief not valid, but God is?
And since the agrarian revolution, so has disease.
Jus’ sayin’
Yes.
What the heck are you carrying on about? Thor was a very important deity for quite some time, and Zeus, and Horus, etc… and even if they weren’t, what does that mean in terms of proof? “People have followed this God for a while, so, um, it’s cooler than all those other Gods.”
And by the way, Zoroastrianism has been around longer than Christianity. Does that mean that Jesus becomes ‘silly’ when compared to Ahriman just as Thor does when compared to Jesus?
And this of course breaks down once we actually open the box. At that point you can declare that there is an invisible intangible magic spoon, but unless you can prove that there are such things there’s no reason to accept your statement as anything other than false.
The same goes for Universe. When we ‘open the box’ we see a great many things. Gravity, photons, quantum states, etc… But we don’t see any God pulling any strings. Positing a God is, at that point, like claiming there’s a magic spoon that we can’t see or touch that’s really in the box.
Not at all. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. If I claim that my car runs on the tortured souls of the damned, you’re well within your rights to say that my claim is “false until proven true.”
Besides, a normal spoon in a normal box is hardly an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. God, however, is.
Except for the fact that there is no burden of proof on those who deny a claim. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim. Exclusively.
A statement is assumed not to be true if it is not proven true. The burden of proof rests on those making the statement. Or must we reserve judgement on whether or not my car runs on the tortured souls of the damned until we can conduct experiments?
Not at all.
“There is no effect of the drug that differes from a placebo.”
“There is no impact of the drug that is different from a placebo.”
“The does not exist any property of the drug which differentiates it from the beneficial action of a placebo.”
Self referential nonsense?
Please tell me that’s a whoosh.
It’s a fairly basic point of ontology that all of space and all of time are contained in Universe, and thus there is no ‘outside’ at all. It is not, at all, ‘nonsense’ to have a self governing system especially when that system constitutes the sum-total of Reality.
And, yes, that is indeed how empiricism works. Extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or they are assumed to be ‘not true’, or if you’d like to split hairs ‘mere semantic noise’. But something that’s semantic noise isn’t even a coherent statement, let alone something that can be tested for a truth value.
In that context God becomes like the phrase:
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
One can’t prove or disprove that because it is meaningless.
Heck, what would you say is the H[sub]0[/sub] for this discussion if not “the physical world and its workings are due to physical processes and not a ‘divine’ entity.” ?
John Stamos, let me ask you this: Mankind has believed in many supernatural beings over the millenia. How do you – you personally – choose between them given the lack of empirical evidence? Why don’t you believe in Ganesh?
This gets to the core of why I’m an atheist. Too many competing gods. No empirical evidence for any of them.
Heh. So from your standpoint, people telling you that you’re wrong is proof that you’re totally right? No wonder you sound so confident in this crap. You haven’t thought or learned much about it, you’re incapable of listening, and every time someone disagrees with you, they’re “scrambling” because you’re so obviously right. It’s like you’ve developed a recipe for Instant Smug. If the whole thing wasn’t so moronic, it’d be brilliant.
“There are no gods” is not false because I’m unable to prove it. I don’t have any doubt it’s the case, but I’ve known it’s unprovable for almost as long as I’ve been an atheist.
Dave, you just don’t fucking get it. Everybody knows the obviousness of what you’re saying, and it appears brilliant only to the ignorant.
'Cuz it’s wrong, you douche. It’s also smug, trite, and done with intent to annoy. Why shouldn’t that piss me off?
In some cases, what you describe could meet definition #4, but you’ll notice that that definition is also the most vague and has nothing to do with beliefs about gods.
The claim of most Theists come down to “I know God is there because of my faith.” So that doesn’t seem like such an extraordinary claim to me.
I kinda went over it already. You know, the whole thing about how it has shaped all of human history and culture ince our inception. Possibly you didn’t get the memo…
I don’t think so. The only reason an Evangelical Atheist would compare a belief in God to a belief in (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of) is to show how positively RIDICULOUS Theists are. In doing this, it makes the Evangelocal Atheist feel much better about themselves because that means that they are not RIDICULOUS.
Not the Evangelican Atheist! No siree Bob!
To the Evangelical Atheist ALL of the religions are as ridiculous as (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of), remember?
See, you seem to think that just because I am aware of the impact that religion has had on human history that I am therefore saying it is correct to be religious. All that means is you jump to conclusions as quickly as you jump to ridicule anyone who is religious.
One doesn’t have to feel that there is a God to be aware of the impact that people believing in God has caused on human history from inception to the present and future. To ignore this is folly and to say that (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of) is the same as that ignores that impact. Just because there is the same amount of evidence for both doesn’t mean that their impacts on society are the same. To act as if they are is disingenuous at best and insulting for no other reason than to feel better about yourself at worst.
If you think about what god is, that still seems pretty extraordinary. I mean, in many cases you’re talking about a singular thing that created all of existence and according to various people, either controls all of it, set it in motion, is within all beings, etc. Look at the word “extra ordinary” and I think that’s pretty much it.
It’s an old idea a lot of people believe. I get it. That doesn’t make it more true or credible on its face. How could it? Is Egyptian mythology more credible than Christian because it’s older? Is Muslim theology more plausible than Hindu because there are more Muslims than Hindus? Of course not. Seems to me that people believed the Sun went around the Earth for longer than they’ve believed they Earth went around the Sun. What impact does this have on astronomy?
Yes, “some form of theism” has been around a long time. Can you explain why this makes it more rational?
First of all, you seem to be confusing “message board anger” with the real thing. In the context of this thread, I am “angry” at you for continualy refusing to answer my one simple question: What claim is it that I have made that you feel requires proof? In the real world, I am not angry at all.
However, your post may have finally revealed what you are digging at (wouldn’t it have been easier to have just said what you meant in the first place? I would think so, but then again I discuss things openly, not trying to win phantom points off those who disagree with me for…some reason. You obstinate refusal to say what you are actually talking about is baffeling to me) You want me to prove that I believe in God, is that it? Well, here’s the skinny, Finny, baby. I can’t prove that God exists at all, and I have not tried to. However, I am stating for the record that I believe in God. Is that good enough for you? It would be acceptable in any court of law, what is it you are looking for? I BELIEVE in God. “God” is an unprovable article of faith, one that works for me. What is your beef with that? I can’t think of one-unless you are looking for something you can point to to try and evangelize me with your superior knowledge that something for which there is no proof is actually a fact. Hmmm, help me out here, what group of people is it that does that the most in America, it’s on the tip of my tounge…
No, still an extraordinary claim, but now you’ve totally left the realm of even an attempt at proof.
“Because I think it’s true” is not proof.
…
No. You’re evading the question.
Because various and contradictory religions have been part of various human cultures since a while ago does nothing at all to state why one unsuported belief would be better than another.
If your claim is that it’s a valid belief because it’s been around for a long time, I’ll point out, again, that that’s the fallacy of appeal to antiquity. Maybe you didn’t get the memo?
Well, now you’re calling me a liar. Good show! You evidently have something against all atheists who dare to talk about their views with you, but hey, your bigotry is your bussiness. But it is odd that you want to ascribe motives to your “Evangelical Atheists” as disliking you and trying to make you feel small when that’s what you are doing, even going to the extreme of playing psychic detective. Weak.
Now, again: you, are, wrong.
Stop trying to read minds.
Several posters have already pointed out that God may be compared to other baseless beliefs to show the capricious nature of those beliefs, not those who hold them. Any further ignorance on your part will be solely willful.
Again your crystal ball needs batteries. Either that or you need to, ya know, start listening to what people in this thread are saying.
Is this a foolishly inflamatory strawman, or just ignorant?
Yes, and if you’d like to answer my question instead of dodging it with an appeal to antiquity fallacy, why is one of the beliefs any less ridiculous than any other? Again: Why is the Green Man absurd and a fairy tail but God is not?
Fuck that noise liar. Don’t you dare try to put words in my mouth and claim I’m trying to ridicule anybody because they are religious. People are not their beliefs.
And, you’ve been arguing that God is not as silly a notion as the Green Man. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’re religious, and I’ve not assumed that you are. As a matter of fact I’ve tried to get you to discuss the actual issue but all you’ve returned are fallacies and contentless snark.
Nobody, at all, has been arguing that religion has not had an impact on humanity. What you’ve been asked, and dodged, is why any one religion now would be any more valid than any ‘fair tail’ from the past.
Does this silly shit even make sense to you? Will you, finally, answer why a belief in the Green Man is superstitious sillyness but a belief in God is not?
Oh, and by the way? This schtick of repating an oh-so-clever phrase within parens over and over and over again had gotten old before you started. Find a new gimick.
Beat that strawman! Beat it! Kick its ass!
And when you’re done over there, maybe you want to address actual arguments that actual people in this actual thread have been making?
Nobody has argued that various beliefs haven’t had an impact on human history, what we’re questioning is why you’d believe one over the other.
And to argue against an argument that nobody has made so that you can have something to argue against is poor form and lame to boot.
I don’t think atheists would argue that believe has an impact on the world. Where they might disagree with you is on whether it is positive.
On the other hand, I am not sure if belief in the Judeo/Christian “god” has had more effect on history than the Greek or Roman “gods”. It is at least arguable. Does that mean that you are open to the possibility of the Greek and/or Roman gods existing?
I consider myself a Deist because that is what makes the most sense to me (I can get into why I feel this way but that’s irrelevant as you will probably see with the rest of my reply).
That said, I am not the kind of person to tell people what should make the most sense to them in matters of unprovable philosophies, so I don’t even try. That pretrty much makes me a Unitarian Universalist. UUs believe in the inherent worth of people regardless of beliefs and that all paths are as valid as the next. Think of (happiness/salvation/heaven/whatever) as a destination with many roads that will get you there. And none of the roads are any worse or better than the other.
I read the Koran and the Bible and the Torah. All of them seem to think they know Truth. And you’re right, there is no way to discern which is Truth because there are no experiments that you can run to figure it out. So, I choose to simply find something that works for me. I let people find out what works for them. Pretty simple.
I can’t “prove” that I’m right and neither can anyone else so I’ll be happy knowing that I don’t know for sure but using my intellect and my emotions and my imagination I came up with a “plan” that works for me.
What prompted this thread is that I find those who say “you’re wrong so you’re going to hell” to be as misguided as those who say “you’re wrong because there is no evidence.” Thought frankly, I find the latter more irritating because they should in theory know better. They don’t like being told how “wrong” they are, but have no problems sharing with everyone how wrong THEY are, even demonizing kids in 4th grade Sunday School and their parents in doing so.
If that works for you, great. Really. However if you’re an Evangelical Atheist (not saying you in particular are), it’s not enough for it to work for you and to instill those values in your children.
Not even close.
You have to go out of your way to show how stupid anyone who has any belief must be since of course any God is the same as (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of).
You have to demonize all religious pursuits as folly at best and pure evil at worst, and discourage anyone from ever seeking spiritual enlightenment because it’s a waste of time.
Really, I’m glad you’re an Atheist. That’s what works for you. I wouldn’t change it for the world and I wouldn’t call you stupid for it. So why do you feel the need to point out the flaws in everyone elses philosophies when at the end of the day they have as much evidence for their belief as you have for your disbelief?
Not really. The key word is “faith.” They take it on faith. Nothing extraordinary about faith, is there? You either have it or you do not; if you do, that’s your evidence. If you don’t, that’s your evidence. I don’t belittle people for having it and I don’t belittle people for not.
