Are Atheist Skeptics?

[1137]

It is the way in which you ask.



How do I explain this to you.

No-one uses that term. Why? Because people use the term naturalist because most people aren't trying to claim that magick and gods are natural. So of course it would not be well used or discussed despite a lot of people having it.



Again. Narrow. It. Down. To. A. Particular. Position.

Do that instead of trying to get me to make a broad generalization of my whole viewpoint of the world so I can fit neatly into your mind where you like to categorize everyone.



No. By default you do not believe something is real.

Show me your evidence that there is no tea-cup orbiting the sun.




We have to agree on the starting position before we explain anything first. How hard is that to understand?



That is not how evidence works. Just because people could have dressed up as bigfoot doesn't mean that bigfoot is not real.

Your evidence is against another piece of evidence. How do I explain this to someone so ignorant of logic.....

Look in logic we start at point 1: Non-belief.

So you start at point 1 (Not believing in Bigfoot)
A women is at point 2 (Believing in Bigfoot)
The women has the positive claim and you have the negative one so SHE starts with the burden of proof.
The women provides pictures as a support for her claim.
You reason that these can be easily replicated without bigfoot and thus dismiss it.
Therefore you provided evidence that against her EVIDENCE and not her claim.

Now you both are left with no evidence but your position is the one that wins out. Why? Because you have the default position, non-belief.

Now lets follow your same standards here. You claim that Set and magick are real. I say that they could be made up by humans. Does that make my argument correct like yours did?




Do you just choose to ignore me? The negative position is the default one, since no compelling evidence exist for the existence of bigfoot I have nothing that needs debunking.



My views did not change at all right there. I was just explaining them to you. Are you really that thick headed?



The default position is disbelief. This is literally the basis for all of logic.

Do you have a Skype?

If you are actually wanting to have a good debate I think I would be able to explain better over Skype if your just wanting to troll me then please do not respond to this.

No at this point I think I'm good, thanks! Just another physicalist without a pot to **** in.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

No at this point I think I'm good, thanks! Just another physicalist without a pot to **** in.

And you dismiss somebody on that ground alone and throw in an insult.

I doubt you care about learning what is true and therefore there is little chance that I can change your mind, only you can really do that.

 

[1137]

And you dismiss somebody on that ground alone and throw in an insult.

I doubt you care about learning what is true and therefore there is little chance that I can change your mind, only you can really do that.

Desiring to know truth is why I've asked you a hundred times for any reason to believe your position. Lack of truth is why you're afraid to share any

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Desiring to know truth is why I've asked you a hundred times for any reason to believe your position. Lack of truth is why you're afraid to share any

Must I provide a reason to believe in not believing in Santa?

 

[1137]

Must I provide a reason to believe in not believing in Santa?

Technically yes, if we were having such a discussion.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Technically yes, if we were having such a discussion.

What are your standards of evidence for not believing in something?

If I remember correctly you stated that you did not believe in Bigfoot due to people being able to replicate the photos of him. If this is the case does that not mean I could to say that you should not believe in any gods because people could have made them up?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To recognize it and ask for support? Lol, you would be critical of that!

To twist it into an ad hominem.

Or simply that we don't have a reason to think one way or the other. Still waiting for literally any evidence at all in support of your position though, any tiny shred.

Agnosticism requires an evaluation of the cases for the existence and non-existence of gods. A person can't be an agnostic until they've made that evaluation, so it can't be a default position.

 

[1137]

What are your standards of evidence for not believing in something?

If I remember correctly you stated that you did not believe in Bigfoot due to people being able to replicate the photos of him. If this is the case does that not mean I could to say that you should not believe in any gods because people could have made them up?

It's not that people could make them up, it's that we have evidence they did, like showing the video isn't of a huge ape, or catching your parents leaving Santa's gifts. We can explain it away and have an explanation in its place. But so far you've provided no such thing for atheism.

To twist it into an ad hominem.


Agnosticism requires an evaluation of the cases for the existence and non-existence of gods. A person can't be an agnostic until they've made that evaluation, so it can't be a default position.

At least you didn't deny the "ad hominem" . Atheism itself requires an evaluation in that sense too. If an evaluation leads to a position, which I actually agree with, it probably can't be default.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At least you didn't deny the "ad hominem" .

The fact that it's an ad hominem makes it irrational. The fact that you're applying the label incorrectly adds another layer of irrationality to it, but it's one I don't care to go into.

Atheism itself requires an evaluation in that sense too.

Nope.

If an evaluation leads to a position, which I actually agree with, it probably can't be default.

I didn't say that evaluation leads to a position.

And many god-claims can't be evaluated when they're considered because they're too vague or incoherent to evaluate as either true or false.

 

[1137]

The fact that it's an ad hominem makes it irrational. The fact that you're applying the label incorrectly adds another layer of irrationality to it, but it's one I don't care to go into.


Nope.


I didn't say that evaluation leads to a position.

And many god-claims can't be evaluated when they're considered because they're too vague or incoherent to evaluate as either true or false.

There's really no getting through to people of your religion, is there.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It's not that people could make them up, it's that we have evidence they did, like showing the video isn't of a huge ape, or catching your parents leaving Santa's gifts. We can explain it away and have an explanation in its place. But so far you've provided no such thing for atheism.

You did not prove that people did dress up as Bigfoot. You proved that they could and determined that was more likely than Bigfoot existing.

 

[1137]

You did not prove that people did dress up as Bigfoot. You proved that they could and determined that was more likely than Bigfoot existing.

Actually people have literally remade the video in order to debunk it. I'm confused, are you defending Bigfoot existing, or simply prideful that you believe he's fiction based on no reasoning or evidence?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Actually people have literally remade the video in order to debunk it. I'm confused, are you defending Bigfoot existing, or simply prideful that you believe he's fiction based on no reasoning or evidence?

I do not beleive that Bigfoot exists becuase there is no evidence for his existence.

Becuase people could have dressed up and made up one of the many fake videos of Bigfoot does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist. It just debunks one of the arguments for him existing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's really no getting through to people of your religion, is there.

As long as you refuse to listen to the people you're misrepresenting and continue to tell them what they think, all the while ignoring them while they correct you and tell you what they actually think, no, you won't get through to me.

We can't have a reasonable conversation until you give up this straw man version of atheism you've created for yourself, but you seem way too attached to it to let it go.

 

[1137]

I do not beleive that Bigfoot exists becuase there is no evidence for his existence.

Becuase people could have dressed up and made up one of the many fake videos of Bigfoot does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist. It just debunks one of the arguments for him existing.

I literally stated it was one piece of evidence supporting my belief there's no Bigfoot. Not that I somehow proved it. I was illustrating evidence for a negative. No worries though, by this point I'm well aware you haven't a shred of support for atheism or physicalism.

As long as you refuse to listen to the people you're misrepresenting and continue to tell them what they think, all the while ignoring them while they correct you and tell you what they actually think, no, you won't get through to me.

We can't have a reasonable conversation until you give up this straw man version of atheism you've created for yourself, but you seem way too attached to it to let it go.

And you need to understand that just because you don't like a logical conclusion doesn't make it fallacious!

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I literally stated it was one piece of evidence supporting my belief there's no Bigfoot. Not that I somehow proved it. I was illustrating evidence for a negative. No worries though, by this point I'm well aware you haven't a shred of support for atheism or physicalism.

It's not that at all. It's that I see no need in taking the burden of proof when it's not mine to bear.

So you admit that you have not disproved Bigfoot but you do not beleive in him. I rest my case.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Says the person who disbelieves in most of the world's religions.

I believe in bits and pieces of each religion, but I believe non the less.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

For the purpose of this conversation we'll define skeptic as: "a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans,statements, or the character of others."

So are atheist skeptics? (Not necessarily in relation to God(s) but in general.)

Some are, some aren't .

Some like ice cream, some don't.

Some are liberals, some conservatives, some are communists, others anarchists.

Some like the rain, others prefer the sun.

Atheists are literally anyone and everyone that haven't been convinced a very specific set of myths are true. That's it, no other qualifier.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I believe in bits and pieces of each religion, but I believe non the less.

Seeing as you do not know of every religion that is not a true claim.

 

[Milton Platt]

For the purpose of this conversation we'll define skeptic as: "a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans,statements, or the character of others."

So are atheist skeptics? (Not necessarily in relation to God(s) but in general.)

Generally, but not always.