Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the very small percentage of Atheists that are of the genre that "simply lacks belief"...without employing "any form of reasoning"...this might be true.
But, for most of them...they do reason that it is logical to base a conclusion/determination to "not believe" on the invalid premise of "no evidence". This does not comport with Pedigree Logic. "No evidence" is not a valid premise to base anything on...except that "there is no evidence".
Being Agnostic can logically follow a basis of "no evidence"...but that's it... not Atheism or mainstream Religious Theology.
This is true if the only logical statement you are working with is "A implies B". If this is the case, then "!A does not imply !B" is also true.
However if we dig a little deeper, the situation is more complex. If "A = evidence observable by humanity" then, of course, if we have evidence, we can conclude there B is true, a god, the one pointed to by the evidence, exists. If !A is true, it does not imply !B for all B, but it does imply !B for all values of B that are defined to produce evidence observable by humanity. That is some values of B, we'll call then B1, imply evidence, so "B1 implies A". We can also agree that "!B implies !A" That is, if there is no god we will find no evidence of one.
This means that if !A is true then only values of B that can still be true are the values of B, call them B2, that produce the same observable evidence as !B. So now we have "!A implies !B or B2" where B2 is defined as the set of gods indistinguishable through observation from no god. So we can logically reach the conclusion that if there is no evidence for a God, then their either is no God, or has no impact on anything we can observe, so it becomes a big "don't care", an irrelevant possibility.
So whether you agree or not, you cna get there logically, you just have to think deeper than oneliners...
This is true if the only logical statement you are working with is "A implies B". If this is the case, then "!A does not imply !B" is also true.
However if we dig a little deeper, the situation is more complex. If "A = evidence observable by humanity" then, of course, if we have evidence, we can conclude there B is true, a god, the one pointed to by the evidence, exists. If !A is true, it does not imply !B for all B, but it does imply !B for all values of B that are defined to produce evidence observable by humanity. That is some values of B, we'll call then B1, imply evidence, so "B1 implies A". We can also agree that "!B implies !A" That is, if there is no god we will find no evidence of one.
This means that if !A is true then only values of B that can still be true are the values of B, call them B2, that produce the same observable evidence as !B. So now we have "!A implies !B or B2" where B2 is defined as the set of gods indistinguishable through observation from no god. So we can logically reach the conclusion that if there is no evidence for a God, then their either is no God, or has no impact on anything we can observe, so it becomes a big "don't care", an irrelevant possibility.
So whether you agree or not, you cna get there logically, you just have to think deeper than oneliners...
-NoCapo
When you arbitrarily exclude evidence observable by humanity on the basis that it is not evidence of God . . . "it just is" or "it is natural" . . . you are stacking the deck toward no evidence of God. This makes your analysis bogus and inapplicable.
When you arbitrarily exclude evidence observable by humanity on the basis that it is not evidence of God . . . "it just is" or "it is natural" . . . you are stacking the deck toward no evidence of God. This makes your analysis bogus and inapplicable.
My logical analysis addresses this. If your god concept implies only exactly what the concept of "no god implies", then they are indistinguishable in every way, except semantics. Thus the B2 category.
Your concept of god does not fit this at all, however, because your god relies on consciousness fields and other constructs that would theoretically be testable. Your changes reality, maybe only through influencing people and their behavior, but it should be measurable none the less.
This is the crux of the issue . . . whether or not atheism is mere disbelief . . . or is it a positive assertion that "There is no God" based on a lack of evidence.
It can be referring to either type of atheist, which is why a person should specify what sort of atheist they are referring to, especially when saying one is necessarily illogical. Not assuming you're not already aware, but the following terms may prove helpful to anyone who isn't:
Positive/strong atheism - "There is no god"
Negative/weak atheism - "I don't believe there is a god"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If the latter . . . Gldn is correct. It IS illogical. If the former . . . it has nothing to do with logic or rationality . . . just preference.
May not even be preference. We are atheistic by nature. Some people just plain don't believe. Further still, some express the want to believe, but generally cannot do so. This whole world is a mixed bag of nuts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
For the very small percentage of Atheists that are of the genre that "simply lacks belief"...without employing "any form of reasoning"...this might be true.
How do you go about figuring it's a very small percentage of atheists, who simply lack belief? Did you take a poll? Please don't tell me you're going by people on this board, as no one on an internet message board is necessarily representative of, well, anyone. And in general, keep in mind the loudest and most obnoxious members of any group are always going to be heard above the rest. As an atheist, my guess would be that strong atheists no more represent the majority of atheists than groups like the WBC represent the majority of Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
But, for most of them...they do reason that it is logical to base a conclusion/determination to "not believe" on the invalid premise of "no evidence".
On the premise that the evidence doesn't exist, hasn't been seen by anyone, or hasn't been seen by them? I would say these premises (I wouldn't even call the last one a "premise" in the first place but anyway) get more logical as you go along...
"There is no evidence" - Half and half. It's a bit illogical to claim anything you do not know. But then, one can reason that if there were evidence of a god.... someone would've found it by now! And they would've also informed the rest of the world. It does at least make some sense.
And BTW, we should all note/remember that an assertion that there is no evidence of a god is not the same as an assertion that there is no god. Even if there were certifiably no evidence of a god, there could still be one! There's probably at least one Christian out there who will admit, "Nope! Absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever. I believe entirely because I choose to. It's why they call it faith", that sort of thing... Okay now, where was I...
"No one has seen any evidence" - Not too often found in these debates, but it is a separate premise so it gets a mention. Like the first, but with the bold claim that no evidence exists taken away. It allows for the possibility that evidence of a god does indeed exist, but sticks with the logic that someone would've put this evidence forth by now if anyone knew about it. I'd say this is somewhat more logical, because it's taking one less assumption out.
And finally, "I have not seen any evidence" - This is not a reason to believe there isn't a god, but it's reason not to believe, absolutely (Doesn't mean you have to not believe, mind you). If I had seen evidence of a god, I would know it. And of course I'm not talking about the "Hey you've seen the sky, who do you think made that?" kind of "evidence", but something that makes a suggestion on its own without borrowing from the theory it's trying to prove. It's not illogical to choose not to believe in something you haven't seen, heard, felt, etc. It makes perfect sense!
The only thing less interesting than watching/monitoring someone attempting to protect their paradigm(s ) is.................no-thing, but you have to admire (chuckle chuckle) the years of tenacity.
It can be referring to either type of atheist, which is why a person should specify what sort of atheist they are referring to, especially when saying one is necessarily illogical. Not assuming you're not already aware, but the following terms may prove helpful to anyone who isn't:
Positive/strong atheism - "There is no god"
Negative/weak atheism - "I don't believe there is a god"
May not even be preference. We are atheistic by nature. Some people just plain don't believe. Further still, some express the want to believe, but generally cannot do so. This whole world is a mixed bag of nuts!
How do you go about figuring it's a very small percentage of atheists, who simply lack belief? Did you take a poll? Please don't tell me you're going by people on this board, as no one on an internet message board is necessarily representative of, well, anyone. And in general, keep in mind the loudest and most obnoxious members of any group are always going to be heard above the rest. As an atheist, my guess would be that strong atheists no more represent the majority of atheists than groups like the WBC represent the majority of Christians.
On the premise that the evidence doesn't exist, hasn't been seen by anyone, or hasn't been seen by them? I would say these premises (I wouldn't even call the last one a "premise" in the first place but anyway) get more logical as you go along...
"There is no evidence" - Half and half. It's a bit illogical to claim anything you do not know. But then, one can reason that if there were evidence of a god.... someone would've found it by now! And they would've also informed the rest of the world. It does at least make some sense.
And BTW, we should all note/remember that an assertion that there is no evidence of a god is not the same as an assertion that there is no god. Even if there were certifiably no evidence of a god, there could still be one! There's probably at least one Christian out there who will admit, "Nope! Absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever. I believe entirely because I choose to. It's why they call it faith", that sort of thing... Okay now, where was I...
"No one has seen any evidence" - Not too often found in these debates, but it is a separate premise so it gets a mention. Like the first, but with the bold claim that no evidence exists taken away. It allows for the possibility that evidence of a god does indeed exist, but sticks with the logic that someone would've put this evidence forth by now if anyone knew about it. I'd say this is somewhat more logical, because it's taking one less assumption out.
And finally, "I have not seen any evidence" - This is not a reason to believe there isn't a god, but it's reason not to believe, absolutely (Doesn't mean you have to not believe, mind you). If I had seen evidence of a god, I would know it. And of course I'm not talking about the "Hey you've seen the sky, who do you think made that?" kind of "evidence", but something that makes a suggestion on its own without borrowing from the theory it's trying to prove. It's not illogical to choose not to believe in something you haven't seen, heard, felt, etc. It makes perfect sense!
Well put, but this can also be broken down to specific Gods. For example, one might conclude that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, but is agnostic about Thor and Odin.
Well put, but this can also be broken down to specific Gods. For example, one might conclude that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, but is agnostic about Thor and Odin.
Good point. Or it could go in any combination! Oh, the number of labels we could come up with here, if we only cared enough
This is the crux of the issue . . . whether or not atheism is mere disbelief . . . or is it a positive assertion that "There is no God" based on a lack of evidence. If the latter . . . Gldn is correct. It IS illogical. If the former . . . it has nothing to do with logic or rationality . . . just preference.
I don't get it.
If you do not base your beliefs on a lack of evidence, then how do you distinguish fantasy from reality? I know I asked this question once already and no one bothered to answer it.
Would it be illogical, then, to assume my house is on fire even though I'm sitting in it and do not see or smell any smoke or fire? Would the lack of evidence for a fire give me just cause not to call the fire department and go about my life as if there was no fire?
Or must I be agnostic about the fire and claim, gee, uh, I dunno. IS my house on fire? I can't rule out the existence of a fire simply by the fact that there's no evidence of one. Therefore, the very best I could do is say that I don't know if my house is on fire.
And we could say that about anything imaginable. If there is no evidence that a meteor is about to hit you in the head, would you still duck? If there is no evidence that you're underwater, would you still hold your breath? If there's no evidence that you're asleep, would you still assume that reality is a dream? If there's no evidence that the water from your sink is poisoned, would you still refrain from drinking it?
If having no evidence for something isn't a logical reason to base your actions upon, then what is? How do you decide what to react to? How do you make any decisions, for that matter, because you might be about ready to walk into a flesh-devouring nanobot cloud ... there's no evidence of one, after all, so we have to accept that being killed by one of those clouds is a possibility. Thus, to be safe rather than sorry, we should evoke Pascal's Wager and busy ourselves finding a way to defeat a flesh-devouring nanobot cloud ... just in case.
How do you go about figuring it's a very small percentage of atheists, who simply lack belief? Did you take a poll? Please don't tell me you're going by people on this board, as no one on an internet message board is necessarily representative of, well, anyone. And in general, keep in mind the loudest and most obnoxious members of any group are always going to be heard above the rest. As an atheist, my guess would be that strong atheists no more represent the majority of atheists than groups like the WBC represent the majority of Christians.
Easy. To be Atheist because you "simply lack belief" due to having never employed "any form of reasoning" would mean you have never even considered the concept as to whether a God exists...because if you ever had...you would have necessarily employed "some form of reasoning" to contemplate/consider the matter and chose Atheism. I'm sure very few don't believe a God exists because they have never considered the issue.
I may be wrong about that...but I doubt it. I'm sure if you think of it in those terms, you will also conclude that it is "a very small percentage".
Quote:
On the premise that the evidence doesn't exist, hasn't been seen by anyone, or hasn't been seen by them? I would say these premises (I wouldn't even call the last one a "premise" in the first place but anyway) get more logical as you go along...
"There is no evidence" - Half and half. It's a bit illogical to claim anything you do not know. But then, one can reason that if there were evidence of a god.... someone would've found it by now! And they would've also informed the rest of the world. It does at least make some sense.
Why would we have found the evidence? The Universe is awful big...you'd have to travel 670 MILLION miles per hour for 100 BILLION years to get across the known Universe...and it may be infinite. Seems to me it would make more sense to reason that there are probably a couple spots nobody has looked yet.
Quote:
And BTW, we should all note/remember that an assertion that there is no evidence of a god is not the same as an assertion that there is no god. Even if there were certifiably no evidence of a god, there could still be one! There's probably at least one Christian out there who will admit, "Nope! Absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever. I believe entirely because I choose to. It's why they call it faith", that sort of thing... Okay now, where was I...
The Atheists need to get hip to the part I bolded. That is why "no evidence" is not a logical premise to draw any kind of existence conclusions off of.
Quote:
"No one has seen any evidence" - Not too often found in these debates, but it is a separate premise so it gets a mention. Like the first, but with the bold claim that no evidence exists taken away. It allows for the possibility that evidence of a god does indeed exist, but sticks with the logic that someone would've put this evidence forth by now if anyone knew about it. I'd say this is somewhat more logical, because it's taking one less assumption out.
Then Agnosticism is the proper stance...not Atheism.
Quote:
And finally, "I have not seen any evidence" - This is not a reason to believe there isn't a god, but it's reason not to believe, absolutely (Doesn't mean you have to not believe, mind you). If I had seen evidence of a god, I would know it. And of course I'm not talking about the "Hey you've seen the sky, who do you think made that?" kind of "evidence", but something that makes a suggestion on its own without borrowing from the theory it's trying to prove. It's not illogical to choose not to believe in something you haven't seen, heard, felt, etc. It makes perfect sense!
Again...the only logical position to take here is to be Agnostic.
It IS illogical (from a Pure Logic standpoint) "to chose not to believe" (THAT is a conclusion/determination in itself..."to not believe") based upon not having seen, heard, or felt something yourself, (no firsthand evidence) and does not follow a logical protocol.
A "pedigree" Logical Protocol is...Objectively valid premises, following an argument of flawless form, that then assures a true deductive guarantee.
"No Evidence" is NOT a valid premise for an Atheist viewpoint.
When Atheists determine that you can adopt a position, based upon a premises of "No Evidence"...it IS a Logical Fallacy.
"No Evidence" can never be apodictic...so it fails as a premises that can give a true deductive guarantee. The best you can logically get out of it as respects the existence of God is "I don't know" (Agnosticism).
If you do not base your beliefs on a lack of evidence, then how do you distinguish fantasy from reality? I know I asked this question once already and no one bothered to answer it.
Would it be illogical, then, to assume my house is on fire even though I'm sitting in it and do not see or smell any smoke or fire? Would the lack of evidence for a fire give me just cause not to call the fire department and go about my life as if there was no fire?
Or must I be agnostic about the fire and claim, gee, uh, I dunno. IS my house on fire? I can't rule out the existence of a fire simply by the fact that there's no evidence of one. Therefore, the very best I could do is say that I don't know if my house is on fire.
And we could say that about anything imaginable. If there is no evidence that a meteor is about to hit you in the head, would you still duck? If there is no evidence that you're underwater, would you still hold your breath? If there's no evidence that you're asleep, would you still assume that reality is a dream? If there's no evidence that the water from your sink is poisoned, would you still refrain from drinking it?
If having no evidence for something isn't a logical reason to base your actions upon, then what is? How do you decide what to react to? How do you make any decisions, for that matter, because you might be about ready to walk into a flesh-devouring nanobot cloud ... there's no evidence of one, after all, so we have to accept that being killed by one of those clouds is a possibility. Thus, to be safe rather than sorry, we should evoke Pascal's Wager and busy ourselves finding a way to defeat a flesh-devouring nanobot cloud ... just in case.
Welcome to MY world Shirina. The world of the excellent application of Logical Fallacy.
See...you just do what I do...employ Logical Fallacy. And I don't blame you...it's GREAT stuff!
Pure Logic only guarantees a true conclusion from a valid premise. But it doesn't rule out a true conclusion from an invalid premise when you stray from the Pedigree Logic confines. Your conclusion could still be true. Of course...some invalid premises are better at pointing toward true conclusions than others...some obviously better.
Logical Fallacies only lack the surety of a true conclusion...you could STILL be right, just not for sure.
Bottom Line: Any determination (in any way you want to describe the assessment) that is made based upon a premise of a lack of evidence...is a Logical Fallacy.
Again, that doesn't mean the determination is false/wrong...just that it was made in a way that didn't follow the protocols of Pure Logic. A true conclusion is guaranteed to follow only a formally flawless argument, based upon a perfectly true premise. Any flaw in the form of the argument or the premises...invalidates the deductive guarantee. The conclusion can then either be true or false.
You cannot logically base a conclusion (ANY conclusion what-so-ever) on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence.
Not even the conclusion that you will adopt a position of disbelief. That is STILL a conclusion.
I never have any qualms with the use of this Logical Fallacy to decide what position to take on all kinds of matters. I think it's great. It does everything that it needs to get the job done as far as I'm concerned...EXCEPT follow a absolute Pure Logic standard.
Not that I ever sweat that supercilious stuff. But then, you already knew that.
Anyway...Welcome to the World of Logical Fallacy!
You've/We've been in it all along...it's just that most of you weren't hip to it. Now you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
