Secular Humanism

[ChristineM]

Curiouser and curiouser (if not ridiculous).

Walk a mile in my shoes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you ever heard the expression "the absence of evidence is not evidence of abense" ???

I associate the quote with Carl Sagan, which I've always thought to be a bit curious. My first exposure to Sagan was reading Intelligent Life in the Universe, and I seem to recall the book being more than a little dismissive of UFOs.

Why? The reason offered was the absence of evidence.

 

[PureX]

I associate the quote with Carl Sagan, which I've always thought to be a bit curious. My first exposure to Sagan was reading Intelligent Life in the Universe, and I seem to recall the book being more than a little dismissive of UFOs.

Why? The reason offered was the absence of evidence.

The absence of evidence can only be considered evidence if the evidence expected is clearly defined, recognizable, and acsertainable. This is not even remotely true regarding the existence of anything we might consider "God", so that an absence of evidence in this instance isn't even remotely meaningful. In fact, to even expect or demand such incomprehensible evidence is completely absurd.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think they care. As they don't see it effecting their experience of life. Whereas they do see the religiosity they grew up in effecting their lives. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because I would like to believe that intellectual honesty is perceived as the ethical value that it is - most of all by people who tend to claim to have privileged access to "truth", even to the point of all-out, obnoxious arrogance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The absence of evidence can only be considered evidence if the evidence expected is clearly defined ...

I see no penguins in my bathtub.

 

[LuisDantas]

Curiouser and curiouser (if not ridiculous).

Are you not aware?

Many a militant atheist arose from deciding to read the Bible in order to argue for its supposed truth.

That book, along with the Qur'an, are the single most significant forces involved in raising the number of explicit atheists.

 

[Rival]

Are you not aware?

Many a militant atheist arose from deciding to read the Bible in order to argue for its supposed truth.

That book, along with the Qur'an, are the single most significant forces involved in raising the number of explicit atheists.

What has atheism to do with these books, though?

They've rejected one or two versions of God.

That's hardly a decent philosophical atheism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you not aware?

Many a militant atheist arose from deciding to read the Bible in order to argue for its supposed truth.

That book, along with the Qur'an, are the single most significant forces involved in raising the number of explicit atheists.

It's a bit like being against rabbits after reading Lewis Carroll.

 

[osgart]

It sounds like this is your way of saying you are in fact making that positive statement, but have no evidence.

Which is the interesting point of the thread. Atheists relentlessly rag on Theists for believing something they cannot prove, and then turn out to do the identical thing.

Nobody knows anything about the question. Answers are assumed, or favored. Certain kinds of deities can be ruled out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What has atheism to do with these books, though?

They've rejected one or two versions of God.

That's hardly a decent philosophical atheism.

Heh... it's way more than the typical monotheist puts into justifying their belief that no more than one god exists.

Anyone who believes in zero gods is an atheist. You don't need to think that theism is worth investigating in depth in order to be an atheist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Heh... it's way more than the typical monotheist puts into justifying their belief that no more than one god exists.

Anyone who believes in zero gods is an atheist. You don't need to think that theism is worth investigating in depth in order to be an atheist.

You don't need to consider anything worthy of investigation, in order to reject it. This common human trait was defined by English biologist, anthropolgist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, as "contempt prior to investigation - a principle gauranteed to keep man in everlasting ignorance".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't need to consider anything worthy of investigation, in order to reject it.

You do need to be at least aware of something to reject it, though... and no human being is even aware of most of the gods humanity has ever believed in.

This very human trait was defined by English biologist, anthropolgist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, as "contempt prior to investigation - a principle gauranteed to keep man in everlasting ignorance".

There are only so many hours in the day. Legitimately, we need to prioritize. To spend an hour, say, reading arguments for God, you'd need to decide that it's a better use of your time than all the other things you could do instead.

It makes sense that when deciding which topics we'll really delve into, we'd base that decision on a quick surface level scan of which effort would be most likely to yield fruit.

 

[Nimos]

There is no burden of proof when we cannot recognize such proof even if it were present.

If that is the case, then it is not a position worth taking seriously, as it is based on nothing.

Disbelief is a claimed position. "I don't know" is not claiming a position. Belief and disbelief face the same problem, though, when it comes to either of them demanding proof of the other's validity. As the demand is equally absurd either way.

But disbelief in something is not demanding anything, it is merely a position that something isn't found to be convincing enough to believe in.

Belief means that you take an active position that ought to be backed up by evidence, that would justify such belief.

"I don't know" is simply that enough knowledge or evidence is insufficient to hold either position.

What we see is irrelevant, as we clearly do not see all that is, or could be. So not seeing something logically indicates nothing.

No, it doesn't.

That is like saying that because you can't see beyond the wall of your house, nothing or anything could happen beyond it. That is not how logic works. You can draw on the experience and verified knowledge of what might go on passed it, like your garden is there, butterflies fly around etc. That doesn't mean that nothing couldn't in fact be going on or that butterflies ain't driving around in cars or whatever, but there is no good reason for you to assume that because there is no evidence for it.

Ultimately if someone claims that more is going on than what we see, there is nothing wrong with that, but until evidence for it is presented, then it is not worth much.

The evidence is everywhere, and nowhere, depending on the perspective of assessment. And so it is of no significance either way. Claiming it doesn't exist is exactly as valid as claiming that everything is proof.

No, it is not.
This needs to be verifiable to be counted as knowledge, otherwise, you might get fooled by misunderstandings, lies, misinterpretations, etc. If you claim something is proved then you should also be able to document it so it could be verified. Whereas I can claim that unicorns don't exist, it ought to not have any meaning for anyone, except as a statement. Whereas if I said that I have proof of unicorns, it would be a completely different story.

That's just biased nonsense. Intuition is extremely accurate which is why we all engage in it constantly. And you can't prove otherwise by any other means.

It isn't.
Humans make mistakes all the time, poor judgment calls, and bad at remembering things all of which can influence our intuition. Just take something like UFO, lots of people are convinced that these are alien spaceships. If we should hold intuition at the same level as verified demonstrable knowledge, we should be investing a lot of money and time in defense systems and how to deal with these aliens that abduct people. That would be the sensible thing to do.

At achieving what?

Verifiable knowledge

 

[PureX]

Because I would like to believe that intellectual honesty is perceived as the ethical value that it is - most of all by people who tend to claim to have privileged access to "truth", even to the point of all-out, obnoxious arrogance.

The "truth" is whatever works for us via our experience of being. Humans thought the world was flat for a very long time because that's what worked via their experience of living on it. That idea of the world only changed when it no longer aligned with our experience of living on it. You could have told people before then that the world was a sphere, but they wouldn't have accepted it as true because that wasn't how they were experiencing it and your "scientific claims" to the contrary wouldn't have meant anything to them.

Someday, when we understand the world much better as a complex phenomenological event taking place, of which we are part, we will look back on our calling it a "sphere" is being childish and naive. Focusing on it's geometric shape and ignoring all those far more important aspects. But this is how we are. Our knowledge has to fit our experience or it's useless to us.

There are a lot of people that still cognate their experience of living through the paradigm of some form of a Higher Power because that's what they feel/believe works for them. And they aren't going to give it up for some paradigm that you think is superior just because you think it's superior. They have to be shown that it is superior ... FOR THEM. And so far, you atheists are not doing a good job of that. Mostly because you fail constantly to understand and appreciate how theism is already working for them in their lives. And that happens because it's not a part of yours.

 

[PureX]

I see no penguins in my bathtub.

Yes.

That would be negative evidence, because you could see a penguin if it were there, you could know it is a penguin when you see it, and you are there, now, looking for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nobody knows anything about the question. Answers are assumed, or favored. Certain kinds of deities can be ruled out.

Which illustrates the one and only point that I myself want to make in this thread -- that while Atheists routinely rag on Theists for believing in something they cannot prove, they themselves have assumptions they cannot prove.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There's nothing stopping a naturalist from believing in, say, a god. If they dumud, they'd just declare that god part of "nature."

Nope. Such a person would not be a naturalist. Nice try.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah - it's wrong.

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow. Just... wow.

I'd appreciate an answer to my question:

How do you think they determine whether a species is extinct?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If anyone can present evidence for something other than the natural world, that would be considered a relevant alternative. The burden of proof is not on the humanists/naturalists to prove that ONLY the natural world exists, that is to make a fallacy, to shift the burden of proof.

Actually, if anyone makes the positive claim that ONLY the natural world exists, then yes, they do indeed have a burden of proof.