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

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.

railer201

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.

railer201

Deleted User 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

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.

railer201

uptherebels wrote: »

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

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.

uptherebels

railer201 wrote: »

Quote source Wiki - highlights mine

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

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.

railer201

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

railer201 wrote: »

You seem very over sensitive

Not in the slightest no. Lets not shift this to being about me though. Stick to my points rather than comments about me. The point being that there was nothing "wrong" with me pointing out that it is a strange move to come into a topic where I was discussing something with another user.... only to essentially point out it might be pointless to have that discussion with the user.

As humans we either have reason to believe the things we believe.... or we don't. We are either able to share those reasons with someone else.... or we are not.

The original point that sparked the creation of this thread, was to ask the other user if he had any such reasons he could offer. He was going into threads about hospitals and more espousing points based on the existence of a god, and the existence of an "Objective Morality".

In the end however since there is absolutely nothing on offer to show either of those things actually exist..... I question whether any points / policy the user is making on the basis of their existence can therefore be taken seriously at all. The user might as well get a pen and paper.... entirely invent a list of statistics..... and start espousing policy based on those statistics. How is it any different?

railer201 wrote: »

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.

I do not see it as a waste of time to clarify my meaning and intent, and remove the words of other people from my mouth where they have inserted them. The only people "wasting time" in that scenario are the people putting words into the mouths of others.

I avoid the word "proof" in conversations of this nature because it tends to shut down the discourse too quickly. It is putting too much onus on the other party. "Proof" as used in common day to day vernacular tends to be read as meaning "Show me 100% it is true without any doubt whatsoever". And that is unfair for reasons even you yourself have pointed out.

So I dilute the request down to "substantiation". Or more often I ask for ANY "arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend credence to your claims". And I find that gives more leeway to the other party to START the conversation. They can START to lay out the reasoning behind their position(s) without expecting that unless they reach some lofty threshold that the entire endeavour is a waste of time.

It is my way of showing that I am not expecting conclusive proof, or that they must lay out some perfect irrefutable argument, just to have the conversation. Rather they can adumbrate their reasoning in a more relaxed and open fashion.

The fact that DESPITE this the theists consistently still have nothing to show is not my failing therefore, it is theirs. It seems that when it comes to showing any credibility for the existence of a god or an objective morality..... they do not have anything. Nadda. Nichts. Bugger all. Diddley Squat. Nuffin. Not a dicky bird. Sweet Fanny Adams. Zip. Zilch. Nowt. Bupkis.

Pick your synonym or feel free to add one of your own

railer201 wrote: »

So good luck with your efforts to prove there is no gods, I'm outta here.

Things that have been explained more than once to you now are A) I am not trying to show there is no gods The burden of proof and evidence lies with the theist and why C) Proving a negative and D) The meaning of atheism not being anything to do with the belief there is no gods.

Yet in this one sentence you basically move to entirely ignore that as if it all was never said or explained to you. You are basically explicitly pointing out here therefore that you have ignored / disregarded with no basis everything that has been said to you. You are replying to posts here therefore without seemingly reading or understanding the content of any of them.

AGAIN.... no one is interested in "proving there are no gods". The issue is that without any reason to think there in fact IS a god or gods..... we should be stringently rejecting proposals / policies / laws / procedures explicitly and often entirely based on the premise that there in fact is.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not see it as a waste of time to clarify my meaning and intent, and remove the words of other people from my mouth where they have inserted them. The only people "wasting time" in that scenario are the people putting words into the mouths of others.

I avoid the word "proof" in conversations of this nature because it tends to shut down the discourse too quickly. .

MOD

nozzferrahhtoo, if you had an issue with my use of the word 'proof' you could have PM'd me and asked I change the title and mod note in #1. This you failed to do - even after I specifically invited you to do so.
I changed both without input from you.

Given this all began when you posted a completely off topic question in another thread and rather than delete it I moved it to facilitate the discussion you desired, I think it's a bit rich to be complaining about people putting words in your mouth.

You appear to think that because you want to discuss a particular topic you can parachute your questions into any thread a theist is participating in regardless of the topic of that thread.

No. While some latitude is granted, there are topics too important for the mod team to allow it to be hijacked. I would ask you to keep this in mind going forward.

Usual caveats about replying in thread.