Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Theist substantiate belief based claims? Spin-off from off topic.

2

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    railer201 wrote: »
    Some definitions give atheism as believing there is no God, but that wasn't the point of the post. The point was, whether you believe or not believe, belief is all there is available and it is obviously not proof.

    So this leads to again IMO, to a problem which I feel the OP knows any theist can't resolve, by providing scientific or empirical proof. What you cannot proceed to do is draw a conclusion that following on from that 'God or gods do not exist'. As stated absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Somehow one gets the impression it's just all about winning the argument, and having a sideswipe at theists on the way along, referring to 'imaginery friends' etc.,

    You have a false equivalence going on there. Most theists believe one god exists, where there a many thousands of gods out there being actually worshipped. Atheist don't believe in the existence of any gods, which is just one god less than most theists.

    Put another way, I can make up any random unprovable fantasy and state that I believe it to be true. There are an infinite number of such fantasies and most reasonable people won't believe any of them to be true. We can't disprove them, but with no supporting evidence the default assumption is that random fantasies are just that and not worthy of belief. The belief that such a fantasy is in fact true is not reasonably comparable to the belief that such a fantasy is in false.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    smacl wrote: »
    You have a false equivalence going on there. Most theists believe one god exists, where there a many thousands of gods out there being actually worshipped. Atheist don't believe in the existence of any gods, which is just one god less than most theists.

    Put another way, I can make up any random unprovable fantasy and state that I believe it to be true. There are an infinite number of such fantasies and most reasonable people won't believe any of them to be true. We can't disprove them, but with no supporting evidence the default assumption is that random fantasies are just that and not worthy of belief. The belief that such a fantasy is in fact true is not reasonably comparable to the belief that such a fantasy is in false.

    Except all the god/gods/creator 'fantasies', personal or impersonal, fall collectively on the other side of the argument and it's no longer a false equivalence. But let's not go round in circles here - even if as you say the argument is unbalanced, the following holds true. Absence of proof of god/gods does not mean proof of absence of god/gods.

    Atheists and theists, should really admit that proving there is any creator god or not, in any empirical sense is nonsense - so why ask the question ?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    railer201 wrote: »
    Atheists and theists, should really admit that proving there is any creator god or not, in any empirical sense is nonsense - so why ask the question ?

    Agreed. Theists should similarly admit that in the absence of empirical evidence the mathematical probability of their God existing is exactly the same as the existence of Unicorns, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti monster. Theists believe in god because they choose or want to, or more often, that they've been raised to believe. There is no objective reason or logic that supports the belief beyond that.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    smacl wrote: »
    Theists believe in god because they choose or want to, or more often, that they've been raised to believe. There is no objective reason or logic that supports the belief beyond that.

    And more to the point quite often insist that the strictures they claim are imposed by the deity they chose to believe in have to be observed by everyone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    railer201 wrote: »
    Oh no ? Forgive me for suggesting that is exactly what you're asking above

    You are forgiven. But you are also wrong. I never asked him to "prove" anything. And if you read my posts on this thread, especially if you SPECIFICALLY search fro the word "prove", you will find I already explained that to the theist in question too.

    But do not let that stop you riding into a thread you CLEARLY have not read, and give your pronouncements on how people in the thread should act.

    Also, the title of the thread was not set by me and is similarly in error.
    railer201 wrote: »
    to quote from your OP.

    GREAT! Now when you are finished quoting it..... try READING what you quoted.
    railer201 wrote: »
    belief is all there is

    If you say so. But I am not so closed minded as you subscribe to your assertion here. I am open minded that when someone makes a claim they MIGHT have some level of substantiation for that claim.

    I do not assume there is no evidence there at all, as you do, and that "belief is all there is". I am happy to ask people if they have anything to support the claims they make, and remain open minded to the possibility they perhaps do.
    railer201 wrote: »
    What you cannot proceed to do is draw a conclusion that following on from that 'God or gods do not exist'.

    First, I must restate what I already pointed out to you in your first rant against me. NO ONE on this thread appears to be doing that. So for the second time you are taking issue with something no one has in fact done. Not that there is any rule against that here.... but it does seem a genuinely weird thing to be doing.

    Second, the issue with that kind of thinking that you present above is theists rarely seem to apply it universally. Rather than only apply it to the things THEY personally believe in. But if you were to be intellectually honest you would realize there is any multitude of ideas that have no evidence for.... or against.... them. So we either need to subscribe to them ALL, or NONE. Otherwise you are just cherry picking things to lend credence to arbitrarily.

    Third, the point I was making to the OP repeatedly is not that there is no gods. Rather than UNTIL such time as we have actual reason to think there is.... we should proceed AS IF there is none.
    railer201 wrote: »
    Absence of proof of god/gods does not mean proof of absence of god/gods.

    I repeat point 2 above.... to apply that nonsense in an intellectually honest way would be to apply it to everything. After all the absence of evidence for our political elite actually being lizard aliens in human disguises does not mean they ARENT does it? :)

    No it is nonsense to try and work intellectually honestly under the rubric of that dictat. Rather we should operate under the light of what we actually do have reasons to think true.... and relegate the rest to the "interesting, but unsubstantiated" notions pile until such time as they get off their asses and start lending credence to their claims.
    railer201 wrote: »
    so why ask the question ?

    To be honest I would rather not ask them any questions generally. There are more interesting truths in our world to pursue. But alas theists do not keep personal beliefs.... well.... personal. We have them coming into topics about hospitals and abortion and science and more....... seeking policies and reforms and laws based EXPLICITLY on the god assumption. So at that point the question stops being "why ask the question" to "how the hell can we NOT ask the question".

    In any other sphere of discourse if someone said "We should do X because Y" and "Y" seemed to be absolute tosh.... we would question Y. So the real question is why give theists a free pass in this regard just because they hide behind cop out terms like "belief" and "faith" and "respect"?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    You are forgiven. But you are also wrong. I never asked him to "prove" anything. And if you read my posts on this thread, especially if you SPECIFICALLY search fro the word "prove", you will find I already explained that to the theist in question too.

    But do not let that stop you riding into a thread you CLEARLY have not read, and give your pronouncements on how people in the thread should act.

    Also, the title of the thread was not set by me and is similarly in error.

    GREAT! Now when you are finished quoting it..... try READING what you quoted.

    substantiate or proof - split hairs if you will.

    How do you know CLEARLY I haven't read the thread ? First off, the thread title headlines post #1 and secondly the Mod note at the bottom of the post clearly states what the thread is about, or was the same mistake made twice ?
    If you say so. But I am not so closed minded as you subscribe to your assertion here. I am open minded that when someone makes a claim they MIGHT have some level of substantiation for that claim.

    I do not assume there is no evidence there at all, as you do, and that "belief is all there is". I am happy to ask people if they have anything to support the claims they make, and remain open minded to the possibility they perhaps do.

    Homo Sapiens been around for 200,000 years, still floundering around debating whether gods exist or not and which religion is the right one . I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on any substantiation/proof beyond belief.
    First, I must restate what I already pointed out to you in your first rant against me. NO ONE on this thread appears to be doing that. So for the second time you are taking issue with something no one has in fact done. Not that there is any rule against that here.... but it does seem a genuinely weird thing to be doing.

    Second, the issue with that kind of thinking that you present above is theists rarely seem to apply it universally. Rather than only apply it to the things THEY personally believe in. But if you were to be intellectually honest you would realize there is any multitude of ideas that have no evidence for.... or against.... them. So we either need to subscribe to them ALL, or NONE. Otherwise you are just cherry picking things to lend credence to arbitrarily.

    Third, the point I was making to the OP repeatedly is not that there is no gods. Rather than UNTIL such time as we have actual reason to think there is.... we should proceed AS IF there is none.

    I could also have picked you up on describing my first post as diatribe and now the following posts as rants. You're either up for debating the existence of gods or not or is it you just want to preach your particular point of view, and anything else is a rant ?

    I repeat point 2 above.... to apply that nonsense in an intellectually honest way would be to apply it to everything. After all the absence of evidence for our political elite actually being lizard aliens in human disguises does not mean they ARENT does it?

    Except that approximately 90% of the world's population believe in a god or gods of some sort, so slightly more numerous than your lizard aliens !!!
    No it is nonsense to try and work intellectually honestly under the rubric of that dictat. Rather we should operate under the light of what we actually do have reasons to think true.... and relegate the rest to the "interesting, but unsubstantiated" notions pile until such time as they get off their asses and start lending credence to their claims.

    There again I suspect you know, for theists, you are asking the unanswerable !
    To be honest I would rather not ask them any questions generally. There are more interesting truths in our world to pursue. But alas theists do not keep personal beliefs.... well.... personal. We have them coming into topics about hospitals and abortion and science and more....... seeking policies and reforms and laws based EXPLICITLY on the god assumption. So at that point the question stops being "why ask the question" to "how the hell can we NOT ask the question".

    In any other sphere of discourse if someone said "We should do X because Y" and "Y" seemed to be absolute tosh.... we would question Y. So the real question is why give theists a free pass in this regard just because they hide behind cop out terms like "belief" and "faith" and "respect"?

    Pretty well much every country's majority religion spills over into the political sphere with law's consequently affecting minorities. Sure question it and change it, very little in the way of that these days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    railer201 wrote: »
    substantiate or proof - split hairs if you will.

    Not sure you understand what the term "split hairs" means because this is a pretty poor use of it. They are ENTIRELY different things. Hardly splitting hairs.

    Asking anyone to "prove" anything is a lofty goal. There is nothing wrong with it, but its still a big ask. Plus it tends to shut down conversation fairly fast due to the string of cop outs that come from people like.... well yourself as demonstrated over your last couple of posts. As well as the person to whom this thread was originally directed.

    So instead I dilute the request quite heavily, and quite intentionally. I ask people if there is any good arguments at all to even BEGIN to lend credence to the things they are claiming. Not only do I find this much fairer, but it also fosters better communication and less shut down / running away from the other side over the years.
    railer201 wrote: »
    How do you know CLEARLY I haven't read the thread ? First off, the thread title headlines post #1 and secondly the Mod note at the bottom of the post clearly states what the thread is about, or was the same mistake made twice ?

    Well as I already said, the main evidence you did not bother to read the thread before you replied to it.... is that you are taking exception to things no one on the thread has done.... missed things in your diatribe that were already dealt with IN the thread as if they were not there.... and made comments that were already dealt with by things said DIRECTLY to you.

    For example right here in the piece of text I am reply to you are discussing ONCE AGAIN the title of the thread. After me already pointing out that I did not set the title or the mod text in the OP and that yes, the mod was in error by using the word "prove" when setting the title. They introduced a word that I did not use.

    So yes, you ignoring things already said is quite strong evidence you are not bothering to read anything you are allegedly replying to.
    railer201 wrote: »
    Homo Sapiens been around for 200,000 years, still floundering around debating whether gods exist or not and which religion is the right one . I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on any substantiation/proof beyond belief.

    Then all the more reason to highlight the fact that despite the length of time people have been seeking ANY substantiation at all for the claim.... the fact we have not found any at all should be informative. At the very least it should be informative that forming any policy, law, moral systems, education curriculum or anything else based on the assumption that there is a god or gods is a pretty poor move.

    It would be just as useful and sensible (that is, not useful or sensible at all) to start setting up a special task force to start checking CEOs, politicians, scientists, army generals and more to see if they are actually Lizard Alien People in Human disguises.

    As I keep pointing out, I have absolutely no issue with Personal Faith. Nor do I wish to go around disabusing people of their memetic infections in general. It is theists not atheists who go around trying to convert people generally.

    But the fact is we are not LET do that, as these unsubstantiated notions make their way into our halls of power, education and science. And as long as this is the case.... it is incumbent upon us to demand at least some minor level of substantiation for the claims.... or ask the people espousing them to jog on. And I do not limit that just to theists and god claims. I say that about anything someone walks in as a basis for their policy and political arguments.
    railer201 wrote: »
    You're either up for debating the existence of gods or not

    Clearly the failure to do so is not on MY side of this conversation, or any other conversation on this thread/forum/website. The "rant" I refer to generally are the ones used to try and hand wave around the fact that the person doing the rant is using as many words as possible to directly NOT have that discussion.
    railer201 wrote: »
    Except that approximately 90% of the world's population believe in a god or gods of some sort, so slightly more numerous than your lizard aliens

    Irrelevant. Look up the phrase Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who think a claim is true is irrelevant to whether or not that claim is true. If you have one unsubstantiated claim that 1 billion people believe, and another unsubstantiated claim that 100 people believe.... all you have is two equally unsubstantiated claims. Nothing more. Anything else is pretence on your part.

    So at best your response here is a dodge of my point. Which is that if we are going to accord respect / credence to the approach of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" then the only way to do that with intellectual honesty.... is to do so with uniformity. Otherwise your approach is just being applied subjectively and arbitrarily to suit your own narratives. Which is a poor approach and is really just a return to square one in the conversation.

    You either think that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or you do not. If you do then you have to realise that AT BEST this approach puts the idea of a god or gods on the same level of credibility as Lizard Aliens in our political elite.
    railer201 wrote: »
    There again I suspect you know, for theists, you are asking the unanswerable

    And as I already said, I do not make any such assumption about the claims of another person. I am ALWAYS open to the idea that people making claims might have substantiation for their claims. And just because 1000 people before them did not.... that does not mean the next person does not.

    What you are doing here is essentially asking me to be close minded. To simply assume that a person making a particular claim can neve evidence that claim. I will not close my mind in any such way. YOU are welcome to. But I will not be coming along for the ride.

    But it is comical and amusing to me all the same. Being functionally asked to be close minded by the same cohort who often demand that I be more open minded..... really strays into the area of comedy.
    railer201 wrote: »
    Pretty well much every country's majority religion spills over into the political sphere with law's consequently affecting minorities. Sure question it and change it, very little in the way of that these days.

    Sure it is a war I have fought for over 20 years now and I will gladly keep fighting it.

    I have done a lot of work with / for Atheist Ireland, two atheists associations here in Germany, Atheist Alliance International, and the FFRF in the US. I do not just sit around making the occasional key board warrior post on an internet forum. In fact that is barely 1% of my investment of time.

    I am actually out there often on the ground doing actual work with the public, with politicians, with associations and groups, and more.

    I was highly active, to the point of near burn out, in the recent referendums. Referendums where unsubstantiated religious thought heavily permeated the discourse too. And we won. And we won convincingly.

    What have YOU been up to in the meantime? :) Throwing your hands up any declaring it all pointless like you have been here on this thread?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    railer201 wrote: »
    First off, the thread title headlines post #1 and secondly the Mod note at the bottom of the post clearly states what the thread is about, or was the same mistake made twice .

    As the mod in question it is quite possible that the short summary I used to create a thread title while also moving posts may not reflect the intentions of the now OP. Should the OP wish the title changed to better represent their position I'm more than happy to comply.

    Seems to me basing your argument with the OP around words clearly written by a third party isn't the best option here.

    Argue all you wish, but don't drag my thread title or mod note into it. My only interest at the time was to prevent another topic being dragged down a rabbit hole we have previously visited many times in this forum.
    My mod note essentially says this thread, not the one about the NMH, is the latest bicker about beliefs thread.
    As for this particular topic it doesn't interest me personally in the slightest. I honestly don't care what people believe as long as they don't expect me to live according to their beliefs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As the mod in question it is quite possible that the short summary I used to create a thread title while also moving posts may not reflect the intentions of the now OP. Should the OP wish the title changed to better represent their position I'm more than happy to comply.

    Seems to me basing your argument with the OP around words clearly written by a third party isn't the best option here.

    Argue all you wish, but don't drag my thread title or mod note into it. My only interest at the time was to prevent another topic being dragged down a rabbit hole we have previously visited many times in this forum.
    My mod note essentially says this thread, not the one about the NMH, is the latest bicker about beliefs thread.
    As for this particular topic it doesn't interest me personally in the slightest. I honestly don't care what people believe as long as they don't expect me to live according to their beliefs.

    Fair enough, I'll leave it now until it is decided by the OP or yourself what exactly are the parameters for the discussion. As regards the last sentence, neither do I.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    railer201 wrote: »
    Fair enough, I'll leave it now until it is decided by the OP or yourself what exactly are the parameters for the discussion.

    As far as I know, it already has been. The original user I was talking to went into two seperate threads. In one he was speaking about "oaths" in the context of there being a god. In another he was speaking about an "Objective morality" and the idea that cells have a "right to life".

    All I did was ask him whether I would be wasting my time (and his) by asking whether he could substantiate any of these notions in any way.... or would he be the same as every other theist who has come in here happily espousing ideas based on foundations that are entirely indefensible.

    I thought I was being polite to be honest. Rather than hit him with a string of demands and challenges I openly said "Look would I be wasting my time here or not?".

    The parameters you SEEM (seem) to want is to come into the resulting thread and shut down discourse by effectively declaring it all pointless. Fine if that's the way you are but it does seem an odd behaviour to me to enter a discussion.... on a discussion forum.... only to point out there is no point in having the discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MOD

    I have changed the tread title and edited mod note in #1 to, I hope, better reflect the intent of the (accidental) OP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    As far as I know, it already has been. The original user I was talking to went into two seperate threads. In one he was speaking about "oaths" in the context of there being a god. In another he was speaking about an "Objective morality" and the idea that cells have a "right to life".

    All I did was ask him whether I would be wasting my time (and his) by asking whether he could substantiate any of these notions in any way.... or would he be the same as every other theist who has come in here happily espousing ideas based on foundations that are entirely indefensible.

    I thought I was being polite to be honest. Rather than hit him with a string of demands and challenges I openly said "Look would I be wasting my time here or not?".

    The parameters you SEEM (seem) to want is to come into the resulting thread and shut down discourse by effectively declaring it all pointless. Fine if that's the way you are but it does seem an odd behaviour to me to enter a discussion.... on a discussion forum.... only to point out there is no point in having the discussion.

    Wrong, I will just go with the parameters as set. But nothing has substantially changed my position on this matter, or 'rant and diatribe' as you've so kindly put it.

    I'm still of the opinion the question posed is one which at least was left behind by most people in their youth, as it was unanswerable. It ran something like this - There is a god because some omnipotent being must have created the universe....blah blah blah.....then......prove to me that God exists.....blah blah......... etc etc with numerous other contradictable arguments thrown in.

    Perhaps, the only difference in the atheist approach now is that it appears the theists have to do all the running, providing the 'substantiation'. Seemingly the atheists are not on for 'substantiating' that God doesn't exist.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    railer201 wrote: »
    I'm still of the opinion the question posed is one which at least was left behind by most people in their youth, as it was unanswerable. It ran something like this - There is a god because some omnipotent being must have created the universe....blah blah blah.....then......prove to me that God exists.....blah blah......... etc etc with numerous other contradictable arguments thrown in.

    Most people believe the mythology introduced to them by their parents at a young age, because parents are the primary source of truth for young children. In India, they believe in the Hindu pantheon, in the Middle East they believe in Allah, in Ireland they believe in God. All largely because that's what they're told to believe. Rational though and introspection doesn't play much of a role. Any questions get asked at a much later stage as children grow into adults and discover their own understanding of what is and is not reasonable and rational.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    smacl wrote: »
    Most people believe the mythology introduced to them by their parents at a young age, because parents are the primary source of truth for young children. In India, they believe in the Hindu pantheon, in the Middle East they believe in Allah, in Ireland they believe in God. All largely because that's what they're told to believe. Rational though and introspection doesn't play much of a role. Any questions get asked at a much later stage as children grow into adults and discover their own understanding of what is and is not reasonable and rational.

    Do we assume that the myths then don't carry a core belief in a god of some sort, either personal or impersonal and that the multitude of religions that came about, are as a result of each group's questioning and arriving at a consensus of what they, with their best endeavours, deemed to be the truth ?

    Rather than take the viewpoint, that only one religion is the right one, I believe all are correct in a basic sense of acknowledging a God/gods etc., but that is where it stops. There is also no proof I can refer to back up this belief, and AFIACS there will be none in the future either,


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    railer201 wrote: »
    Wrong, I will just go with the parameters as set. But nothing has substantially changed my position on this matter, or 'rant and diatribe' as you've so kindly put it.

    I'm still of the opinion the question posed is one which at least was left behind by most people in their youth, as it was unanswerable. It ran something like this - There is a god because some omnipotent being must have created the universe....blah blah blah.....then......prove to me that God exists.....blah blah......... etc etc with numerous other contradictable arguments thrown in.

    Perhaps, the only difference in the atheist approach now is that it appears the theists have to do all the running, providing the 'substantiation'. Seemingly the atheists are not on for 'substantiating' that God doesn't exist.

    I'm curious as to how you expect someone to prove a negative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    I'm curious as to how you expect someone to prove a negative.

    I'd like to hear something a little more advanced than concluding there is no god if it can't be 'substantiated' by believers'


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    railer201 wrote: »
    I'd like to hear something a little more advanced than concluding there is no god if it can't be 'substantiated' by believers'

    This is logic 101.

    You are making a positive claim regarding the nature of the universe. You are asserting the existence of a deity. I note that you don't specify which one, just make a claim that some sort of deity exists.

    Having made that claim it follows that you have to provide the evidence to back that up. That allows everyone else to test your claim to see if it stands up. If you're refusing to provide the evidence or, as you have done here, concede that there is no evidence; then the only logical conclusion is that your claim has no merit.


    Worth noting that this thread appears to be addressed at theism rather than deism. You appear to be making a deistic argument rather than a theistic one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    Kayroo wrote: »
    This is logic 101.

    You are making a positive claim regarding the nature of the universe. You are asserting the existence of a deity. I note that you don't specify which one, just make a claim that some sort of deity exists.

    Having made that claim it follows that you have to provide the evidence to back that up. That allows everyone else to test your claim to see if it stands up. If you're refusing to provide the evidence or, as you have done here, concede that there is no evidence; then the only logical conclusion is that your claim has no merit.


    Worth noting that this thread appears to be addressed at theism rather than deism. You appear to be making a deistic argument rather than a theistic one.

    My post is what it is, and with all due respect I don't have anything further to add.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    railer201 wrote: »
    I'd like to hear something a little more advanced than concluding there is no god if it can't be 'substantiated' by believers'

    But what would you like to hear? You want something .more.advanced but don't know what that is. Then you still come back around to how does one prove a negative


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    But what would you like to hear? You want something .more.advanced but don't know what that is. Then you still come back around to how does one prove a negative

    There's a closed box in front of you and you've been told there's nothing in it,
    - how would you prove that ? If you open the lid, look in and see there is nothing, is that not proving a negative ? You have to be careful with these well worn cliches.

    So if you're going to claim there is no gods/etc. back it up. That's more or less what I'm asking.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    railer201 wrote: »
    Do we assume that the myths then don't carry a core belief in a god of some sort, either personal or impersonal and that the multitude of religions that came about, are as a result of each group's questioning and arriving at a consensus of what they, with their best endeavours, deemed to be the truth ?

    Rather than take the viewpoint, that only one religion is the right one, I believe all are correct in a basic sense of acknowledging a God/gods etc., but that is where it stops. There is also no proof I can refer to back up this belief, and AFIACS there will be none in the future either,

    I think it makes sense to look at the origins and evolution of mythology and the social constructs surrounding them rather than jumping to any conclusions here.

    Early mythologies were oral traditions where historical events got embellished with each retelling. Early gods were mechanisms to explain natural phenomena in the absence of knowledge, e.g. Ra was the sun in the sky, which is the precursor to the god of the gaps argument when human understanding was mostly gaps. Later religions borrow heavily from earlier ones. Christian saints form a replacement pantheon for the many gods of polytheistic religions, and old festivals are given new names in the pretence that they're original, so we have Christmas rather than Saturnalia.

    In parallel to all of this, organised religion has become powerful, so there is a strong vested interest to keep religious belief alive. Opium of the masses and all that jazz.

    So while we cannot disprove the existence of any given god, the circumstantial evidence is such that there is no good reason to believe in one, other than as matter of personal preference. There are no solely rational arguments to believe in a god but plenty not to.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    railer201 wrote: »
    There's a closed box in front of you and you've been told there's nothing in it,
    - how would you prove that ? If you open the lid, look in and see there is nothing, is that not proving a negative ? You have to be careful with these well worn cliches.

    So if you're going to claim there is no gods/etc. back it up. That's more or less what I'm asking.

    That’s, frankly, nonsense.

    The burden of proof rests with the person asserting a position is so. Atheists don’t necessarily assert that there is no god. They simply test the evidence for the assertion that there is a god and arrive at the inevitable logical conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of a god and so one must operate from the position that no god exists, since it’s proponents cannot prove its existence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    Kayroo wrote: »
    That’s, frankly, nonsense.

    The burden of proof rests with the person asserting a position is so. Atheists don’t necessarily assert that there is no god. They simply test the evidence for the assertion that there is a god and arrive at the inevitable logical conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of a god and so one must operate from the position that no god exists, since it’s proponents cannot prove its existence.

    Would you say that's how Stephen Hawking came to his conclusion there is no God ? By asking theists to justify their claims ? I would think not


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    railer201 wrote: »
    There's a closed box in front of you and you've been told there's nothing in it,
    - how would you prove that ? If you open the lid, look in and see there is nothing, is that not proving a negative ? You have to be careful with these well worn cliches.

    So if you're going to claim there is no gods/etc. back it up. That's more or less what I'm asking.

    Where is the negative? The claim is that it is empty. That's a very weak attempt at an analogy. I would go as far as calling it grasping at straws.
    What you are doing with religion is claiming that an imaginary box is full based on zero reasoning evidence or logic and refusing to believe otherwise until others show you that it is empty.
    Its unfortunate that you consider be requested to back up your claims as a well worn cliche.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    Where is the negative? The claim is that it is empty. That's a very weak attempt at an analogy. I would go as far as calling it grasping at straws.
    What you are doing with religion is claiming that an imaginary box is full based on zero reasoning evidence or logic and refusing to believe otherwise until others show you that it is empty.
    Its unfortunate that you consider be requested to back up your claims as a well worn cliche.
    Proving a negative
    A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[9] Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Euclid's theorem, which proves that that there is no largest prime number, and Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

    A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[9][10]

    Philosopher Steven Hales argues that typically one can logically be as confident with the negation of an affirmation. Hales says that if one's standards of certainty leads them to say "there is never 'proof' of non-existence", then they must also say that "there is never 'proof' of existence either". Hales argues that there are many cases where we may be able to prove something does not exist with as much certainty as proving something does exist.[11][

    Quote source Wiki - highlights mine


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Word games without substance. That's all you're doing Railer. Playing word games.

    Bertrand Russell, as usual, put it best:

    "Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

    Russell's point, as you must know, is that imagining the existence of an intentionally unprovable idea and then suggesting that the inability to prove or disprove it one way or the other is sufficient reason to give credence to that very idea is, itself, complete nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    railer201 wrote: »
    Quote source Wiki - highlights mine

    Did you actually read what you have used as a source?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    railer201 wrote: »
    Wrong, I will just go with the parameters as set.

    I am afraid shouting "wrong" does not magically make something "wrong". All I said was how it SEEMS you are coming across to me. How can I be "wrong" about what something SEEMS like to me?

    But your initial post was about how it is an "impossibility" to have the conversation my posts were about having. So when I say that it SEEMS you are coming into a conversation about X with posts that do nothing but shut down conversation about X... then I have good grounding for explaining why it seems that way to me.

    But as I said a few times to you now, I do not share that close mindedness with you. I am open to the idea that despite the fact 1000 theists before failed to offer any substantiation.... the next one might. I do not preclude the possibility of substantiation in the future in any topic.... based on past experience. And THAT is being truly open minded.

    You seem to be doing the opposite. You are looking back at conversations in your "youth" as you put it.... and seemingly extrapolating your expectation about adult and future conversations based on that. And that to me is close minded. It is shutting down conversation with new people in your future, before it even begins. And rather than hit you with my value judgement of that..... all I can really say to you is PERSONALLY I never want to live that way / act that way / be that way. It is just not me. If it is you: then so be it.
    railer201 wrote: »
    Perhaps, the only difference in the atheist approach now is that it appears the theists have to do all the running, providing the 'substantiation'. Seemingly the atheists are not on for 'substantiating' that God doesn't exist.

    That is not "new" or a "difference" at all. The concept of "proving a negative" has long been there. So has the concept that the person MAKING a proposition is the one with the onus of evidence. In fact Bertrand Russell (​1872–1970) created the "Russells Teapot" argument for just this very reason. So that is hardly new.

    You see atheists are NOT generally going around claiming a god or gods do not exist. They do not need to. The person making the positive claim a god DOES exist has the entire burden of substantiation at their feet. Just like in a court of law we have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and while the prosecution has to prove the accused DID commit the murder..... the defense do not have to prove the accused DIDNT. They just have to show that there is no evidence the accused DID do it and their job is done.

    The concept of burden of proof is not a new one in philosophy or debate. So painting it like this is some recent "difference" is simply a false narrative from you. It has always been thus. And it has always been thus too that people often try to ignore there the burden of proof actually lies because they have no substantiation for their own positions..... so they like to pretend other people are required to prove their assertions false.

    They don't. Nor should they. It is enough to point out that the idea a non-human intentional and intelligent agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe is a proposition that is currently being made without a shred of even an iota or argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 967 ✭✭✭railer201


    I am afraid shouting "wrong" does not magically make something "wrong". All I said was how it SEEMS you are coming across to me. How can I be "wrong" about what something SEEMS like to me? ......................etc
    .

    You seem very over sensitive - a bolded word doesn't mean shouting, rather a visual emphasis that I would prefer not to have posters second-guessing what's in my mind.

    There was a huge kerfuffle made by you over the word proof v substantiation and all I did was agree to go along with the parameters set by the mod. A huge waste of both your and my posting time this sort of caper is by you.

    Your accusatory style of posting doesn't appeal to me at all, referring to my posts as diatribe, ranting etc., - no right thinking poster is going to put up with nonsense. So good luck with your efforts to prove there is no gods, I'm outta here.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    railer201 wrote: »
    You seem very over sensitive - a bolded word doesn't mean shouting, rather a visual emphasis that I would prefer not to have posters second-guessing what's in my mind.

    There was a huge kerfuffle made by you over the word proof v substantiation and all I did was agree to go along with the parameters set by the mod. A huge waste of both your and my posting time this sort of caper is by you.

    Your accusatory style of posting doesn't appeal to me at all, referring to my posts as diatribe, ranting etc., - no right thinking poster is going to put up with nonsense. So good luck with your efforts to prove there is no gods, I'm outta here.

    MOD

    railer201 just a friendly warning that you are straying perilously close to playing the man not the ball here.
    If you have an issue with the contents of a post - please report it. Do not take it upon yourself to critique a posting style rather than a post's content.

    It was also explained to you that I, as the mod in question, did not set any parameters. I moved off-topic posts from another thread to this new one. The 'parameters' were always set by the OP. I have since changed the title and mod note to better reflect the OP's parameters. I suggest you channel Elsa now and let that bugbear go.

    Nor do Mods in this forum tend to set parameters - acting on the basis that all posters are adults we are here to ensure the Charter is upheld, to try and keep threads on topic, and generally peer sternly over our glasses should things become unruly. With an occasional flourish of a card or brandishing of a ban hammer for the reluctant to get the message about messing.

    Do not respond in thread to this. If you have any questions please take it to PM.


Advertisement