a common atheist fallacy

[Geordon]

8 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I am comparing the concept of "enough evidence" with the concept of "enough cinnamon." Neither is objective.

 

Evaluate definition 1b:  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

can you see why i think you just like word games?

 

Sure. And I do like word games. A lot. But this goes to the core of your original post. 

Dan and I have seen the same evidence and believe different things. The evidence is clearly not why we believe what we do. It is certainly part of it, but not even the main part. 

 

When these people ask you why you don't believe, they are asking why you see the evidence differently than them. They are asking why you dont think there is enough cinnamon. Simply repeating that you don't think there is enough cinnamon doesn't really answer the question, you know?

 

You don't find the evidence compelling. Why that is true is massively complicated. They may as well ask why you don't have a completely different personality. In attempting to answer, all you can really do is confuse the issue and frustrate yourself and the asker.

Edited May 25, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

34 minutes ago, Geordon said:

 

Evaluate definition 1b: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

This dog does not perform tricks on command.

[Dan56]

21 hours ago, cuchulain said:

prove without the bible that any of that happened or accept the lack of evidence as my counter.

 

We have a witnessed record of it happening and that's enough for me. I'm not trying to prove anything, just simply pointing out why I think its true, but everyone looks at the evidence or the lack thereof and judges for themselves. With regards to the bible, the written record of what occurred is the evidence. Throw out all the written records of Custer's last stand, Julius Caesar's death,  the constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, and prove without those records and documents that any of that happened?

 

We accept that its all true because it was written down and witnessed. While the bible was not intended as a historical record, name me one city named in it that has been proven not to have ever existed? Archaeological discoveries have proven it to be geographically accurate, every town that Christ and Paul visited were real. Given that it can't be proven historically inaccurate, geographically and archaeologically wrong, that King David or Pontius Pilate were fake characters,  or that its prophetically false, wouldn't it seem illogical to presume the stories are fictional.      

[mererdog]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

Given that it can't be proven historically inaccurate, geographically and archaeologically wrong, that King David or Pontius Pilate were fake characters,  or that its prophetically false, wouldn't it seem illogical to presume the stories are fictional.      

Absent conclusive proof, it would be illogical to presume to know one way or the other. We usually lack conclusive proof, and we usually crave certainty, so we routinely illogically presume things. If we did not do this, we would die very young.

[Dan56]

On 5/23/2018 at 8:26 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I do not share your beliefs about the Bible as a trustworthy document.  Since I have no desire to be mean or uncivil, I suggest we leave it at that.

 

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What?  Seriously, what?  You think I'm displaying temper?  Because I don't believe?  I tried being nice. 

 

No, I don't think you were upset... But I took from your above comment in red that you might be on the verge of loosing it, or were at least getting frustrated? Whereby my response; "Understood... Its important to keep your  temper in tact".. I assumed since you were resisting getting 'mean or uncivil', that you preferred bringing the conversation to an end in order to avoid getting angry.

 

[cuchulain]

53 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

We have a witnessed record of it happening and that's enough for me. I'm not trying to prove anything, just simply pointing out why I think its true, but everyone looks at the evidence or the lack thereof and judges for themselves. With regards to the bible, the written record of what occurred is the evidence. Throw out all the written records of Custer's last stand, Julius Caesar's death,  the constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, and prove without those records and documents that any of that happened?

 

We accept that its all true because it was written down and witnessed. While the bible was not intended as a historical record, name me one city named in it that has been proven not to have ever existed? Archaeological discoveries have proven it to be geographically accurate, every town that Christ and Paul visited were real. Given that it can't be proven historically inaccurate, geographically and archaeologically wrong, that King David or Pontius Pilate were fake characters,  or that its prophetically false, wouldn't it seem illogical to presume the stories are fictional.      

thats my point, though...or at least partially.  you have insufficient evidence that the bible IS a first hand account aside from fulfilled prophecy which could be fake.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, mererdog said:

You are. Perhaps not intentionally, but you are. When you tell people there is no reason to believe as they do- when you insist that their beliefs are silly- these are attacks. Over and over again, you are calling all Christians stupid, or worse.

 

I prefer gentle nuance.  Sometimes, gentle nuance doesn't work.  When I'm confronted with unthinking dogmatism, gentle reasoned responses don't cut it.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, mererdog said:

Not even any bad ones?

All evidence is subjective. A fact is objective. A fact becomes evidence when someone infers something about the fact saying "This thing I can see suggests something I can't see." 

The Bible is a source of information. It is as real as a reciept, and just as objective. If someone produces a receipt, they have evidence. That evidence isn't conclusive but it also isn't nothing. And while you may not find it persuasive, persuasion is a deeply personal process.

 

Alright.  You have me on this one.  There are some really awful reasons to believe that God exists.  Like the argument that a lot of people do -- so I should join them in their belief.

 

Allow me to rephrase.  There are no valid reasons to believe that God exists.  None at all.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, mererdog said:

On the subject of lack of evidence....

Two people share a cake.

One says "There is not enough cinnamon."

The other says "There is enough cinnamon." 

Can either prove he is right? Objectively speaking, we know there is cinnamon. But what, objectively speaking, is enough cinnamon? Or is our common mode of expression simply hiding the truth that the real issue is how we experience the cinnamon as an individual, rather than the amount (or quality) of cinnamon.

 

 

This is all analogous to the question of God's existence.  We have an appeal to personal taste.  Alright.  Let us examine personal taste in this context.

 

Whether I prefer more cinnamon or less cinnamon, we can all agree that cinnamon is present.

 

This brings us to personal taste in God.  I love God -- or -- I hate God -- are personal taste.  We have yet to determine -- like the cinnamon -- that God is actually present in the mix.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

We have a witnessed record of it happening and that's enough for me. I'm not trying to prove anything, just simply pointing out why I think its true, but everyone looks at the evidence or the lack thereof and judges for themselves. With regards to the bible, the written record of what occurred is the evidence. Throw out all the written records of Custer's last stand, Julius Caesar's death,  the constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, and prove without those records and documents that any of that happened?

 

We accept that its all true because it was written down and witnessed. While the bible was not intended as a historical record, name me one city named in it that has been proven not to have ever existed? Archaeological discoveries have proven it to be geographically accurate, every town that Christ and Paul visited were real. Given that it can't be proven historically inaccurate, geographically and archaeologically wrong, that King David or Pontius Pilate were fake characters,  or that its prophetically false, wouldn't it seem illogical to presume the stories are fictional.      

 

 

In the Planet of the Apes movies, we see a variety of real places and things.  The New York City subway tunnels.  Grand Central station.  The Statue of Liberty.  Despite this, I can say with absolute certainty, that none of it actually happened in real life.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Sure. And I do like word games. A lot. But this goes to the core of your original post. 

Dan and I have seen the same evidence and believe different things. The evidence is clearly not why we believe what we do. It is certainly part of it, but not even the main part. 

 

When these people ask you why you don't believe, they are asking why you see the evidence differently than them. They are asking why you dont think there is enough cinnamon. Simply repeating that you don't think there is enough cinnamon doesn't really answer the question, you know?

 

You don't find the evidence compelling. Why that is true is massively complicated. They may as well ask why you don't have a completely different personality. In attempting to answer, all you can really do is confuse the issue and frustrate yourself and the asker.

 

This has not been my experience.  My taste in pastry is a trivial thing.  Nobody cares.  When I'm challenged about my Atheism, there is real passion behind it.  People take it as a personal attack on themselves.  

 

 

 

 

[Key]

21 hours ago, mererdog said:

No. I am comparing the concept of "enough evidence" with the concept of "enough cinnamon." Neither is objective.

But quite different in the context of "there IS cinnamon" in relation to the concept of "there is NO cinnamon". It isn't objective if proof can be found in the recipe...or not.

Sorry, got into the conversation a bit late here. Just seemed a bit perplexed by the use of this analogy in relation to the subject to whether or not something exists. Analogy would imply something does indeed exists, but to what degree, no?

Edited May 26, 2018 by Key
Adding thought.

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Just seemed a bit perplexed by the use of this analogy in relation to the subject to whether or not something exists.

The specific "something" in question was evidence. Cuchulain made the claim that there is not enough evidence. My point was that there is no objective standard for how much evidence is enough. We have some codified standards in specific industries, but that just means that someone wrote down their subjective standards and someone else decided to follow those subjective standards. Its all still opinion-based.

 

We tend to think that if we are convinced that shows there is enough evidence, and that if we are not convinced that shows there is not enough.

But are we convinced by the amount of evidence, or by the quality of evidence? Would the same evidence convince us on a different day when we were in a different mood? How much does the way evidence is presented to us determine whether we are convinced? Is there any amount of evidence that would convince us our core beliefs are wrong? And is there any way to objectively verify any of this?

 

"There isnt enough cinnamon in this."

"I followed the recipe."

"So that's a bad recipe."

Edited May 26, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

There is something here which needs repeating.  I need a reason to believe.  I don't need a reason to not believe.

 

[mererdog]

12 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is something here which needs repeating.  I need a reason to believe.  I don't need a reason to not believe.

You may not need a reason, but there are reasons. This is a causal universe. Everything is an effect of something, right?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

17 minutes ago, mererdog said:

You may not need a reason, but there are reasons. This is a causal universe. Everything is an effect of something, right?

 

As you wish.  I need a valid reason to believe in God.  Not believing is my default position.  I said not believing.  Not disbelieving.  There is a difference.  

 

Remember, please.  I am an Agnostic Atheist.  I am open to adjusting my views -- if I find a valid reason.  Any foolish reason will not serve.

 

I am also, at this point in my life, an Apatheist.  I can't even find a reason why it matters, if God exists or not.  Life is short.  I'm  tired of silly arguments that go nowhere at all.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

The specific "something" in question was evidence. Cuchulain made the claim that there is not enough evidence. My point was that there is no objective standard for how much evidence is enough. We have some codified standards in specific industries, but that just means that someone wrote down their subjective standards and someone else decided to follow those subjective standards. Its all still opinion-based.

 

We tend to think that if we are convinced that shows there is enough evidence, and that if we are not convinced that shows there is not enough.

But are we convinced by the amount of evidence, or by the quality of evidence? Would the same evidence convince us on a different day when we were in a different mood? How much does the way evidence is presented to us determine whether we are convinced? Is there any amount of evidence that would convince us our core beliefs are wrong? And is there any way to objectively verify any of this?

 

"There isnt enough cinnamon in this."

"I followed the recipe."

"So that's a bad recipe."

i never once in this topic made the claim that there is 'not enough evidence'.  WORD GAMES...or is it straw man, when you misstate someone's argument and THEN defeat the new version?

 

i have claimed throughout that the evidence is insufficient, not that it's not present.  it doesn't meet my level of acceptability...which acknowledges that the bible IS evidence, but i view it as poor evidence.

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

You may not need a reason, but there are reasons. This is a causal universe. Everything is an effect of something, right?

wrong, according to the argument at hand and given by christians.  God needs no first cause.  that, of course, is special pleading when considering that if god qualifies for not needing a first cause, the universe itself could also need no first cause.  and let's not forget the argument from ignorance you gave is also invalid because not knowing the first cause isn't evidence that god did it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 9:20 AM, Geordon said:

 

 

You are conflating fact (provable i.e. "This cake has cinnamon.") with an opinion (subjective, i.e. "This cake has too much/too little cinnamon.")

 

To bring it back to the disagreement at hand, (the existence of Deity) there are a four basic camps:  Deity exists (every member of any religion.  Theist), Deity does not/cannot exist (anti-theist), there is no repeatable evidence that Deity exists (Atheist) and "I don't know/care whether deity exists or not" (agnostic).

 

For this discussion, we are looking at the first and third elements:  Theists and Atheists.  One says that Deity exists.  One says that there is no evidence that Deity exists.

 

 

 

I'm going to split a few hairs with you.

 

There is Deism.  The religion of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.  A god set things into motion.  No revelation.  No Scripture.  No church.  No answering prayer.  A strictly impersonal deity.  No information about this god is available.

 

There is Monotheism, of which Christianity is one example, and Dan is our most outspoken champion.  

 

Deism is not Monotheism.  We have to be clear on that point.  Arguments for a creator god do not exclude Deism.

 

An Atheist does not believe.

 

An Agnostic does not know.

 

An Apatheist does not care.

 

Any combination is possible.  I am an Apatheist -- Agnostic -- Atheist.  I don't care.  I don't know and I don't believe.

 

You may be thinking of the Apathetic Agnostic Church.  Their motto is -- "We don't know and we don't care."  I received their ordination in 2002.

 

 

 

Pantheists redefine God.  God is no longer a supernatural entity.  God is now everything and everything is God.  Nature is Sacred.  Also the natural order and the Universe.  All terms for the same thing.

 

Anti-Theists are Atheists with issues.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl