Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[joe1776]

And my point is that they have no more reason to believe in a God than they do in to believe in blue fairies. The actual evidence is equivalent. It's just that one is a popular belief.

You use the term "actual evidence" because you deny a ton of anecdotal evidence that MIGHT be evidence of a creator.

While you and I might agree that any single claim based on anecdotal evidence can be dismissed, the combined total of the claims impresses me just as the many UFO sightings impresses me that some might be true.

In any case, I think your "blue fairies analogy" is false.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And you presume, of course, you are presumption based, that Im trying to 'impress' or that your opinion means anything, regarding that, etc.

No, I'm not presuming that. You're free not to care. As free as I am to continue to hold my opinions of you, regardless whether you care or not.

You aren't refuting the fact that you presented 'your own idea' of how theists believe, and it isn't representative of anything besides your own [generally false, idea concerning that.

Of course it is "my own idea." And for me it is built upon the backs of a thousand and more interactions with theists in which they run their mouths in completely different directions than what they need to adequately answer a question. Thousands of experiences where spiritual gobbledygook is put forth and supposed by the theists to be valid, logical information.Thousands of times theists bypass their chance to present actual evidence for their claims, and instead just try to tear down anything that they believe might be standing in their way - like evolution, secularly-based morality, etc.

Just trust that there are others like me, who have seen the same sorts of behaviors, and have come away with the same bad taste in their mouths. Theists' days of just saying whatever they want to and getting a room full of head-nods and "amens" is quickly coming to a close. The days of being chased down and demanded the reasons for your words are upon you. The days of close examination and wholesale scrutiny are at hand. I can warn you now that your beliefs will not withstand the age, nor should they. And you're within your rights not to care about this either.

Now let's get started, shall we?

 

[joe1776]

Maybe more to the point would be why it could possibly
matter to you or all the other theist sorts to come up
with a precise definition.

In an earlier post, you wrote:

Atheists do not "deny the possibility".
That is made up bs from you.

That statement implies that you have a different definition of "atheism" than I do. That's why I asked you for a precise definition. But, if you have one, you seem unwilling or unable to divulge it. So you called my comment BS but you can't explain why it's wrong.

ETA- "false analogy" is so tiresome.

Most analogies used in Internet debate are false.They are commonly misused to make an opponent's position sound foolish.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That doesn't matter, this is what you aren't understanding. And you are presuming some 'purpose' to my posts that may or may not even be there.

You don't understand 'context'? Or that I'm not necessarily trying to prove theism to you?

What a joke...

Just subjective nonsense.

And here we go... of course it doesn't matter... to you. But I'm free to continue to let it matter to me. Just as you are free to think I am a "joke" all you want. The irony in you saying that when you just got done saying my opinion doesn't matter... you go and throw your opinions about me around and at me like you feel they should actually matter. Yours is also "subjective nonsense." But, I at least acknowledge that it means something to you. Not that I truly care about that. I don't. Not at all. But I understand it. You, on the other hand, don't even seem to grasp even that. You still seem stuck in the "my opinion is the one that matters, and no one else's does" mode of thinking. Which is naive.

Anything you afford yourself as an intrinsic right or value, you must necessarily afford everyone else. Therefore, if your opinions matter to you, then you must assume that my opinions matter to me. That is wisdom... your stance is arrogance.

 

[Dash Balderson]

It's not necessarily and either/or dichotomy. Sometimes we may witness or experience something that we don't fully comprehend, or only partially comprehend, or maybe even miscomprehend.

But then why is any of this knowledge that is "not fully comprehended", or "only partially comprehended" or "miscomprehended" ever relayed as important, known information? Doesn't the process of sharing incomplete, or miscomprehended information seem a bit illogical from the get-go?

We often don't, and in science we also face this a lot, let me tell ya, as not everything is black & white.

But science doesn't serve so that parties can speak to having 100% certainty. This isn't what it is about. It's about being able to model an aspect of reality, to the point that our models and descriptions (using the best information we currently have) allow for consistent prediction and for us to get the most utility out of that aspect of reality that we can. Science never claims it is going to provide the picture in "black & white." Perhaps this is a point of some misunderstanding on your part?

 

[Audie]

In an earlier post, you wrote:

Atheists do not "deny the possibility".
That is made up bs from you.

That statement implies that you have a different definition of "atheism" than I do. That's why I asked you for a precise definition. But, if you have one, you seem unwilling or unable to divulge it. So you called my comment BS but you can't explain why it's wrong.

Most analogies used in Internet debate are false.They are commonly misused to make an opponent's position sound foolish.

Whatevs, guy. I offered a good faith response, and you
have no thought of reciprocating.

 

[Willamena]

It is legit to pick which meaning applies to ones self.

It is, indeed.

 

[Polymath257]

Plausibility is not synonymous with probability. It’s more akin to “believeability”. The first definition I googled said that it was the “quality of seeming reasonable or probable.” My emphasis.

Number of believers certainly has bearing on whether something seems reasonable.

Again, I strongly disagree. The number of people believing in an unreasonable thing doesn't make it more reasonable.

The fact that people believed incorrect things doesn’t negate this. Confirmation by multiple people remains a common tried-and-true method.

Only when they have some means to know or suspect one way or the other. Otherwise, it is simply non-evidence.

People do have more reason to believe in God specifically because more people believe in God— making the belief more plausible. This is my primary point.

Again, I simply disagree. It is not made more plausible simply by the number of believers.

As a secondary, I’d like to address the “same evidence” canard. That’s just not true if you consider the millions of personal testimony. Yes, they vary— but I’m sure you’d still get millions within a single religious concept that largely correspond. And while they vary in the details, they come to the same conclusion: god. Again, not perfect evidence. But it’s not the same as no evidence. And it’s certainly more than blue fairies got.

if they have no means to actually detect a God, then their beliefs are not any sort of justification. A billion people speculating doesn't make the conclusion more plausible.

 

[Polymath257]

You use the term "actual evidence" because you deny a ton of anecdotal evidence that MIGHT be evidence of a creator.

While you and I might agree that any single claim based on anecdotal evidence can be dismissed, the combined total of the claims impresses me just as the many UFO sightings impresses me that some might be true.

Well, I do see the two as similar, but I reject UFO sightings as evidence for visitation by other intelligences also.

In any case, I think your "blue fairies analogy" is false.

Again, this seems to be quite in line with the rest: UFOs, Deities, Leprechauns, Fairies, etc.

I really don't see the anecdotal evidence as worthy of much more than politeness.

 

[viole]

No, I think god is more plausible.
Do you think that having less people believing in something makes it more plausible? I’m confused as to how you misinterpreted my post.

Why are you confused? You seem to believe that if the majority believes X, that has the same evidence of Y, the latter being believed by a minority, then X is more plausible.

Obviously, this is a non sequitur. I can, with the same logic, say that it is exactly the contrary. So, you introduced an unsubstantiated correlation, and I did the same.

For instance, there was probably a time in history where the vast majority believed that the earth was flat, while a few mathematician or philosopher knew it was not. So, that, and many others, are conter examples that show that your correlation is wrong.

So, back to square one. And my claim still holds. Ceteris paribus, god and fairies have the same ontological status. And there is no logical reason to respect, or give more plausibility, to one belief more than to the other.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Falvlun]

Again, I strongly disagree. The number of people believing in an unreasonable thing doesn't make it more reasonable.

You keep on adding strange qualifiers. Unreasonable? According to who?

You also ignored the word I italicized especially: seeming. Sure, maybe it doesn’t make something more reasonable but it sure makes it seem more reasonable.

Only when they have some means to know or suspect one way or the other. Otherwise, it is simply non-evidence.

Again with qualifiers that aren’t present when examining a general trend of the natural tendency for people to find things more plausible when it’s been confirmed by a large number of people.

As for non-evidence, I don’t think that’s an actual thing.

Again, I simply disagree. It is not made more plausible simply by the number of believers.

Maybe you are an extreme outlier, free from innate human tendencies.

Really, what does it hurt you to admit that if billions of people believe something that makes it more believable? This really should be uncontroversial.

if they have no means to actually detect a God, then their beliefs are not any sort of justification. A billion people speculating doesn't make the conclusion more plausible.

This is pure speculation. You don’t know they have no means to detect god. And you don’t know that they are just speculating.

Regardless, it is evident that these billions of “speculating” people have made the idea of god’s existence something that is conceivably credible, seeing as we don’t merely scoff and dismiss it without consideration.

 

[Falvlun]

Why are you confused? You seem to believe that if the majority believes X, that has the same evidence of Y, the latter being believed by a minority, then X is more plausible.

Obviously, this is a non sequitur. I can, with the same logic, say that it is exactly the contrary. So, you introduced an unsubstantiated correlation, and I did the same.

For instance, there was probably a time in history where the vast majority believed that the earth was flat, while a few mathematician or philosopher knew it was not. So, that, and many others, are conter examples that show that your correlation is wrong.

So, back to square one. And my claim still holds. Ceteris paribus, god and fairies have the same ontological status. And there is no logical reason to respect one belief more than the other.

Ciao

- viole

*sigh*. Plausibility does not mean something is true. Already covered this ground with @Polymath257.

Also, my correlation isn’t unsubstantiated. It pretty much plays out whenever we are initially assessing whether something is believable. The reverse— where the less people that believe something the more plausible it is— is unheard of.

 

[Polymath257]

Really, what does it hurt you to admit that the fact that billions of people believe something makes it more believable? This really should be uncontroversial.

I just don't find that to be the case. The number of people who believe something just doesn't affect whether it is plausible to me.

Believable and plausible aren't the same thing. That billions of people believe something means it is *believable*, but then *one* person believing it does also: someone is able to believe it. That doesn't give *any* evidence of its truth or even of its utility.

Again, the fact that everyone believed the universe to be small a few thousand years ago didn't make it more plausible. It's just what people believed.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you are an extreme outlier, free from innate human tendencies.

Or maybe, as I suspect, you are putting greater requirements on anything to do with god than you would in any other thing in ordinary life.
.

Well, I don't consider deities to be part of 'ordinary life'. I would expect the quality of evidence for deities to be *at least* as good as the quality of evidence for elves. To have quality that is anything less, if anything, makes the concept of a deity *less* plausible to me.

 

[viole]

*sigh*. Plausibility does not mean something is true. Already covered this ground with @Polymath257.

Also, my correlation isn’t unsubstantiated. It pretty much plays out whenever we are initially assessing whether something is believable. The reverse— where the less people that believe something the more plausible it is— is unheard of.

Well, believable and plausible are not the same thing. How do you come to this identification?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

*sigh*. Plausibility does not mean something is true. Already covered this ground with @Polymath257.
.

And, even more, your version of 'plausibility' doesn't even make something more likely to be true, which is what is required to be evidence.

 

[Audie]

And, even more, your version of 'plausibility' doesn't even make something more likely to be true, which is what is required to be evidence.

I kinda think our hero's idea about what is plausible and
the value of how many people happen to think something
would come in for some high speed reversal ifn he were
an innocent on trial with a hanging judge and hillbilly
jury.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, I don't consider deities to be part of 'ordinary life'. I would expect the quality of evidence for deities to be *at least* as good as the quality of evidence for elves. To have quality that is anything less, if anything, makes the concept of a deity *less* plausible to me.

I actually deleted that from the post, sorry I didn’t catch the edit in time.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is not even worthy of comment, but let me just say that it's truly a shame that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of acting like an adult.

Irony.

 

[Falvlun]

And, even more, your version of 'plausibility' doesn't even make something more likely to be true, which is what is required to be evidence.

The very original post that started this train of thought used “plausibility”, not evidence, claiming that both fairies and gods were equally plausible.

I make a distinction between the two.

I think “the number of believers makes something more plausible” is a slam dunk, irrefutable argument.

I do think that “number of believers equates to some small evidence” as well, but that’s a separate argument that I am probably on shakier ground.