Back.

Welcome back, atheistsarevermin. I look forward to your responses to the demolitions of your wibble that have been posted in your absence.

hackenslash wrote:Welcome back, atheistsarevermin. I look forward to your responses to the demolitions of your wibble that have been posted in your absence.

The only thing about the Blue Butterfly that needs debunking is his perverse taste for black pudding!

ispoketoanangel wrote:Back.

You said there were some others statements you were going to debunk, now might be a good time.

John

ispoketoanangel wrote:Back.

Welcome back ispoketoanangel

Right, it's time to continue with this little exercise, even though my chances of catching up with all the thread content are receding as each new set of 5 pages is added ...

Lion IRC wrote:....it's true because I said so.

How often has the supernaturalist position effectively reduced to this, I ask myself?

Lion IRC wrote:...it's a rational position because I said it's the default true position.

Ah, the smell of supernaturalist projection is in the air again ...

You have heard of Occam's Razor, haven't you? As in "entities shall not be multiplied beyond necessity"? That's the whole point, in case you hadn't worked this out. Namely, that the entities you and other supernaturalists keep insisting are real, not only enjoy zero genuine evidential support, but are wholly unnecessary with respect to vast classes of real world observational phenomena, as documented in over a million scientific papers. All we have from supernaturalists, are assertions that their magic entities exist. Not only do we have no evidence for any of these magic entities, we also have a substantial body of evidence that such entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. I keep telling you this, but it manifestly goes in one ear and out the other, because you continue repeating the same canards even after my repeated instances of education bestowed upon you in this regard.

Lion IRC wrote:rofl: (Just wait til I find that post I read the other day where someone said it must be true because Calilasseia said it.)

If someone genuinely asserted this, then they're every bit of guilty of the appeal to authority fallacy as any supernaturalist. What matters, at bottom, is whether reality supports my statements. Which is one of the reasons I take my cue from reality to start with - I'm more likely to alight upon valid postulates by doing so, than I am by adopting the position that made up shit dictates to reality.

Lion IRC wrote:God is the default true position.

Oh, please, "my magic man is real because my mythology says so" is a "default position"?

Lion IRC wrote:Atheism is the hypothesis demanding evidence for its extraordinary claim that ...Billions or more people, who heard the "voice of God", angels, demons, or who saw a miracle or who had personal experience of discarnate reality, enjoyed a miraculous, life saving "placebo effect" - ALL WRONG. EVERY SINGLE ONE

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

As I stated in my previous post, we have evidence for people being mistaken and deluded, sometimes in large numbers. We also have evidence that human beings are capable of lying, and, particularly pertinently to your assertion above, that they are capable of lying for a doctrine. Do I have to point you at a large list of apposite instances thereof arising from creationism, in order to reinforce this point?

On the other hand, YOUR extraordinary claim, and that of every other enthusiast for your mythology, consists of the assertion that a collection of semi-literate, superstitious, pre-scientific humans, writing turgid little tracts about setting fire to small furry animals around 550 BCE or thereabouts, somehow magically alighted upon the keys to the cosmos, and in doing so, succeeded where 300 years of hard labour by the world's most brilliant scientists, including in the last 100 years or so diligent labours by Nobel Laureates, has purportedly "failed". Along with the corollary assertion that the contents of your mythology somehow constitute a spectacular brand of "privileged" knowledge, despite the fact that said mythology erects assertions that are known to be plain, flat, wrong, and which are demonstrably so, by recourse to a vast body of real world evidence. Your claim is the extraordinary one, not mine.

Now back to the main course ...

ispoketoanangel wrote:

AlohaChris wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:There are other issues, of course. What exactly is "substantive evidence", as opposed to simply "evidence"? What is "intense critical scrutiny", as opposed to simply "scrutiny"? Why is Calilasseia imposing this specific standard, and not another level of standard?

"Substantive evidence" would be evidence that establishes fact, verified by multiple reliable sources. Cali didn't impose this standard, Aristotle did.

Okay so let's say you visit another planet, and you are pretty sure that you saw an entity X walking about 100 meters away at the end of the day, but you're not totally sure. You wait for the next day to further investigate. At this point, does it make sense to you to regard that entity X as not existing until you can find the substantive evidence you are looking for, or does it make more sense to regard it a possible, or probable entity that needs further investigation before you can make up your mind?

There's a simple answer to this. Namely, if you think an actual entity was walking around in the vicinity, devise means of collecting the physical evidence that such an entity would leave behind. And upon collecting said evidence, formulate the appropriate hypotheses, then test those hypotheses with more empirical investigation. The very process that scientists have been applying successfully for 300 or more years.

That's the whole point. Instead of merely assuming that something is there, go and look for it properly.

ispoketoanangel wrote:But why would you regard it as non existing, rather than possibly existing, when you think you just saw it? Are you just sticking to Cali because he happens to be an atheist?

And once again, I refer everyone to my comments about accumulated prior knowledge. Namely, that if we have such a body of prior accumulated knowledge, and that body leads to a hypothesis that instances of a given class of entity not only exist, but may be detected by appropriate empirical investigation, then it is apposite to perform said investigation, and determine if those instances of that class actually exist. If a sufficiently diligent search leads to zero instances being detected, then it's back to the drawing board, so to speak. On the other hand, if that diligent search yields one or more instances of that class, it's time to submit your paper to Nature.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

AlohaChris wrote:
"Possibly existing?" All manner of bullshit could "possibly" exist, like invisible rollerskating unicorn orgies and the sillyasaurus, if you're willing to entertain every anecdotal flight of fancy. I'm not.

But surely if you visit a planet, what you see with your own eyes is more credible than random anecdotes from other people?

Actually, what would be far more reliable would be actual physical evidence. Which is why scientists go looking for this.

ispoketoanangel wrote:But of course that was just an example. My point is that there is a middle ground between no evidence at all and substantive evidence, and middle ground between "regarding it as existing" and "regarding it as not existing".

And as I have already covered in a past post, one of the reasons I modified my original, was to take account of the case "does not yet exist as far as we know". But once again, when one has to hand a prior body of knowledge, which tells us that a search for instances of a given class of entity may be fruitful, we are in a somewhat different position, than we are when no such prior body of knowledge exists. Taking this into account, the former version of my aphorism remains sound, and again, points to the vast canyon between entities whose existence is consistent with a proper body of prior accumulated knowledge, and entitites whose existence is merely asserted.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Sometimes you could have evidence that might not qualify as "substantive", but that would be enough to make a probabilistic judgement. In fact, that is exactly what we do in our every day life. Why would we make an exception to adhere to Cali vacuous slogan, I'm perplexed.

And again, such probabilistic judgements are the product of ... a prior body of accumulated knowledge.

ispoketoanangel wrote:If you saw an entity X from a certain distance with your own eyes, I just doubt very much your position would stay to an extreme (it, to regard it as not existing). That is not what a rational person would think. A rational person would think: "dang, I probably saw entity X there, let's investigate more to either confirm or infirm what I saw".

Actually, the investigation would be launched in order to ensure that what one was seeing was real, as opposed to imagined. I cite as reasons for doing so, the existence of optical illusions.

ispoketoanangel wrote:The bottom line is: I don't see any use to Cali slogan. All it says is that we stay at an extreme until we have so some "substantive evidence". It isn't rational and doesn't correspond at all with how we think.

If one factors in prior accumulated knowledge, then it does, as previously explained.

ispoketoanangel wrote:We make probabilistic judgement based on the quality of evidence, and the better the evidence, the higher the probability goes. We don't suddently jump from one extreme to another when we have that "substantive evidence".

So you don't think that the well-documented existence of an instance of a class, plus the existence of mechanisms facilitating the emergence of more instances of the class under appropriate conditions, equals substantive evidence?

Temporarily addressing this ...

z8000783 wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:But why would you regard it as non existing, rather than possibly existing, when you think you just saw it? Are you just sticking to Cali because he happens to be an atheist?

This seems to be the key part of your argument I think.

Now Calilasseia has already mentioned that this position holds "until the evidence is available" implying that the door has not been shut and bolted so that raises a question.

What problems do you feel will be created as a result of regarding the entity as non-existent until that time rather than being agnostic towards it?

I can see the point you but if it is irrational then what effect will it have?

Is there a real distinction with actual consequences here or is this simply about semantic and philosophical word play?

John

Actually, I would contend that it's about something far more sinister, namely lowering discoursive standards to the point where made up shit stands upon an equal footing with evidentially supported scientific theories. A lowering of standards I, for one, oppose vigorously.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Chairman bill: I pretty much agree with your last post.

z8000783: Cali claim is philosophical in nature and concerns epistemology. It's normal the discussion is philosophical.

Actually, the point I am ramming home here, with what I admit is at times all the subtlety of an M1A2 Abrams tank battalion turning up on the doorstep, is ensuring a proper distinction between reality and fantasy. A distinction that would appear to be in need of the tank battalion at times, given some of the nonsense I see emanating from supernaturalists.

ispoketoanangel wrote:A more concrete example: suppose my wife visited Italy last year and mentions to me she met a nice guy there named Roberto who helped her find a museum. She doesn't know where he lives and probably wouldn't be able to recognize him now. I do not have "substantive" evidence for his existence, the only info I have is what she told me. In my shoes, would you regard Roberto as not existing? How would that be rational? Perhaps my wife lied to me, perhaps she's confused with another trip and actually met a guy named Robert in Paris. But, still, any rational person would regard Roberto's existence as likely.

Whoop de doo. Why would we consider Roberto's existence as likely? Oh, that's right, because we have a large amount of evidence available that other human beings exist. Which means that yet another instance of the class isn't a flight of fancy. The details about the particular instance may be wrong, and if we are wise, we might be wary of attaching too much validity to those details, particularly if we have evidence of forgetfulness on the part of the reporter in question, but the idea that said human being may well exist doesn't require us to jump to massively absurd conclusions in order to arrive at that idea. Of course, if Roberto duly telephones and says "Hello, I met your wife in Italy and showed her round the UIffizi Gallery, and now I've just arrived in England, would you and your wife like to show me around the National Gallery?", then we're playing an altogether different evidential ball game.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Rational relates to the ratio of likelihood that something is true. We know that there are people called Roberto in Italy. It is reasonable to think that your wife might have met someone called Roberto when she visited Italy. Her claim is a rational one, doesn't run counter to any known law, is not beyond believability. Also, accepting her account doesn't impact on what we know or claim about the known universe. She might be mistaken, but it's hardly important one way or the other. And if you want a quiet life, you'll agree with her anyway, even if she claims Roberto had two heads.

But what substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is available to me to support the existence of Roberto? Does what my wife tell me count as substantive evidence?

That depends upon, among other factors, the reliability of your wife. But at bottom, when we have a class with over six billion instances living on the planet, postulating that a particular instance of that class currently exists in Italy doesn't require vast amounts of fantasising, not least because there are currently something like 56 million instances of that class in Italy at this moment (according to the 2001 census taken in that country).

On the other hand, postulating that an entity exists, when the evidence strongly suggests that the class in question is an entirely empty class, does require rather more fantasising, doesn't it?

My fish need feeding again. Back later.

z8000783 wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:Back.

You said there were some others statements you were going to debunk, now might be a good time.

John

I agree.

The whole... "think like me, I'm right so there, default position" has been debunked.

Even a whole week without ispoketoanangel didnt give the Calilasseia supporters any advantage in pressing the alternative claim that everyone OUGHT to presume a default position automatically.

Life exists in this universe.
There is no logical reason to automatically discount the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe/multiverse/omniverse.

I've seen some dangerous predators in the zoo which I've never seen in the wild.
Now, suppose I am off on a trip into outer-space the Serengeti.
Would it be logical/rational for me to automatically ASSUME there are no dangerous creatures there?

Calilasseia wrote:
...You have heard of Occam's Razor, haven't you? As in "entities shall not be multiplied beyond necessity"?..

First time I have ever heard someone invoke Occam to try and justify homogenous group think.

Life exists in a multitude of forms throughout several places in this universe. (5 continents that we already know of.)

You dont get to use Occam to steer people away from conceptualizing the probability of life - entities - other than those we know exist. How about we all assume the default position that an entity called dark energy does NOT exist?

Since YOU mentioned Occam…

I have to say, it’s really ironic that you mention him here while physicists are using the multiverse idea itself as an attempt to conjure up extraneous realms of existence/reality in order to avoid what is implied by the fine tuning argument. Surely Occam would ask…”why complicate things unnecessarily?” You’ve got a big bang. You’ve got a (one) universe. So what if it wont be there forever? So what if it will be there forever?

There’s nothing subtle about the atheists’ peregrinations - up, down, left, right – hoping to avoid a head on collision with the ramifications of “higher life forms” being Out There in some…black hole…extra-terrestrial, space/time dimension.

Would those Higher Beings have a default supposition about our non-existence? Maybe. Maybe not. But then, they might already KNOW we exist.

Lion IRC wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Why cant my position be the default? A bit like planting a flag pole on the moon.

Is the reasonable default position on the claim that something exists to believe it without evidence or to not believe it until you have seen evidence?

It depends whether you are talking about a matter of life and death, creation, the universe...
...or stamp collecting.

No, it doesn't.

A person claims something as fact. They give no supporting evidence for their assertion.

Is the reasonable position to accept the claim or is the reasonable position to not accept it until there is evidence supporting it?

OlivierK wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

Is the reasonable default position on the claim that something exists to believe it without evidence or to not believe it until you have seen evidence?

It depends whether you are talking about a matter of life and death, creation, the universe...
...or stamp collecting.

Lion, are you suggesting that for matters of great importance, we should lean towards "believe without evidence" ?

What I am saying is that there are some insignificant matters where indifference/agnosticism is a valid preferential option.

And there are some OTHER matters for which assuming a default position in one direction has greater consequences than taking up an opposite default position in relation to that same matter.

Statistically, (logic/reason,) there is very little likelihood of my house burning to the ground in a bush fire. And yet every year, gambler that I am, I make a huge wager with the rational, logical actuarial scientists at my insurance company...

..."I bet you $1000 my house burns down this year".

OlivierK wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to demand more evidence when something's important, the same way we have stricter standards for evidence in murder trials than we do for trivial everyday matters?

Extraordinary claims do demand extraordinary evidence. (Just like the claims made by Jesus' disciples which most CERTAINLY would have been met by contemporary demands for extraordinary evidence and which could have been debunked much more easily back then - but were not.)
The EXTRAORDINARY claim, in this case, seems to be that we OUGHT to presume we are the only occurence of life in the entire universe. To a flea, a cockroach is a higher life form. To a cockroach, the city of New York is its entire universe. Where is Calilasseias logic and reason for the geocentric assertion about what - OUGHT TO BE - the default position.

The thread is nominally about ET's but its subliminal/oblique relation to The God Conclusion isnt overlooked by most ppl here.

God - yes?
God - no?
God- dont know?
God - dont care?
gods - yes?
god A - yes.
god B - no

These are questions on which we can take various positions, but for an atheist to make the subjective (atheist) claim that one position, (the atheist position) ahead of any other is...ought to be... THE default "rational" presumption, seems audacious at best. And at worst, it amounts to a precocious rudeness towards ones fellow free thinkers.

Whether one adopts an atheistic or
theistic default position is academic since
the terms of reference are not the same. For
the atheist will only employ logic and reason while
the theist will invoke metaphysics. The atheist will of
course reject this because it cannot be evaluated. The theist
will claim that that is a limitation of logic and reason and not any
proof therefore that metaphysics is non existent. And immediatedly the
eternal circular argument of whether or not there is a God commences. At the
end of the day we are all agnostics. The most evangelical fundamentalist to the most
strident rationalist all share this view irrespective of whether they actually accept it or not

Thats an interesting opinion surreptitious57
Thanks for sharing.

Do not really think it is that interesting
as I see it as common sense but thanks any
way. For once you accept that logic cannot answer
everything and that an open mind is therefore needed
in those grey areas then you cannot really go wrong. Atheistic
fundamentalism is every bit as off putting as theistic fundamentalism
No one has a monopoly on wisdom. As long as one uses logic where it can be
successfully employed and accept the rest as essentially unprovable but still capable of
rational interpretation. That to me should be the standard by which we all proceed in debate

Lion IRC wrote:What I am saying is that there are some insignificant matters where indifference/agnosticism is a valid preferential option. And there are some OTHER matters for which assuming a default position in one direction has greater consequences than taking up an opposite default position in relation to that same matter. Statistically, (logic/reason,) there is very little likelihood of my house burning to the ground in a bush fire. And yet every year, gambler that I am, I make a huge wager with the rational, logical actuarial scientists at my insurance company...

..."I bet you $1000 my house burns down this year".

Why do you think this is so? Is it because the consequences have been duly noted to be rather dangerous from many other previously noted occasions? Whether or not the haphazard insurance had proliferated as a preventative measure (house safety equipment) or due to the observation and likelihood of damages to homes, the consequences are very real in effect to every incident. It is up to you to take that advantage with what money you have contingent upon that your vigilance or supervision is absent. In brevity, I could not help but think you were trying to revive the likes of Pascal’s gambit.

Lion IRC wrote:These are questions on which we can take various positions, but for an atheist to make the subjective (atheist) claim that one position, (the atheist position) ahead of any other is...ought to be... THE default "rational" presumption, seems audacious at best. And at worst, it amounts to a precocious rudeness towards ones fellow free thinkers.

Apart from others understanding, an atheist would be recognized as someone without the belief in gods. Those questions, oddly structured I might add, are significantly directed towards ones knowledge and interest on the matter. As such, these are not default positions as they require some sort of conceptualized idea of what a god is to the point of which they can state their position on its reified existence. It is absolutely not a subjective claim nor is it a matter of what ought to be, in regards to the default position; as the general understanding of negative atheism, and in extension implicit atheism, it is our condition within infancy until of course religious indoctrination or theological interests are pursued. There is nothing audacious or rudeness to it, but this is my take on what I have recently read thus far.

..."I bet you $1000 my house burns down this year".

That's actually not what you are betting at all when you purchase insurance. If it was actually the way you claim then when your house burns down they pay you a thousand dollars.

Ah well, no surprise there.

Viraldi wrote:
...In brevity, I could not help but think you were trying to revive the likes of Pascal’s gambit...

Pascals gambit/wager is not an argument for accepting Gods existence.

It is an argument for CONSIDERING God's existence.

It's like a "foot in the door". It's like..."wait...hear me out...dont slam the door shut..."

Lion IRC wrote:Pascals gambit/wager is not an argument for accepting Gods existence. It is an argument for CONSIDERING God's existence.

I don't think I ever implied Pascal's gambit as an argument for the acceptance of God's existence. The latter, in fact, prompted me to question what you had said, and brought me to the case of you taking the chance of your house being caught in a fire in consideration of previously noted occasions and real consequences in the world. At the moment you emphasised others, I thought you would shortly follow (mis)placing validity on considering the posthumous benefits of acknowledging god rather than take the chances of not doing so with imminent consequences believed to be real.

Lion IRC wrote:

Viraldi wrote:
...In brevity, I could not help but think you were trying to revive the likes of Pascal’s gambit...

Pascals gambit/wager is not an argument for accepting Gods existence.

It is an argument for CONSIDERING God's existence.

It's like a "foot in the door". It's like..."wait...hear me out...dont slam the door shut..."

Errr, how is 'you might as well believe just to be on the safe side' not an argument for accepting the alleged existence of god?

It is a plea to consider the existence of god, but it is an argument for accepting. It's also illogical horseshit.

On the collection of evidence for whether or not wildlife exists in the Serengeti. Or whether or not dangerous wildlife exists there, perhaps you should consult the websites. I'm sure there's ample evidence there for the existence or otherwise of dangerous wildlife. Also you can go there to see for yourself, and take photographs. Most of us will accept your photographs for evidence of the wildlife you see there. And the photographs have identification stamps built into the digitizing process, so we'll be able to look at your hosting site to check whether they are indeed real photos and not mere copies of other people's work.

This is a lot more than can be said for your evidence of the existence of your god.

Lion IRC wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:Back.

You said there were some others statements you were going to debunk, now might be a good time.

John

I agree.

The whole... "think like me, I'm right so there, default position" has been debunked.

Even a whole week without ispoketoanangel didnt give the Calilasseia supporters any advantage in pressing the alternative claim that everyone OUGHT to presume a default position automatically.

Actually Lion, I already made a point which you, as per usual, ignored so you could continue spouting the same guff. Is it intentional, or are you totally unaware of how you filter out these substantive criticisms of your claims?

To reiterate even more simply:

Are newborn children Christian because their parents are? Or does it take some kind of knowledge that would be formed over the ensuing years before they could really be called Christian?

Does a newborn child have epistemological notions about divine beings?


If not, if you can't provide an argument, or better yet observational experiments taken from the real world that categorically shows that newborns do possess a default god, then by any standard of logic, you are wrong.

The default position is not to have a god, culture then provides narratives that place experiences into a motif of understanding - religion is such a case.

Ignoring people's counter-arguments does not mean that your argument still stands.

Sometimes Lion, I think you would do well to step back and evaluate what people are saying, and whether modifying your knee-jerk reaction to take into account aspects you clearly hadn't considered, might actually lend some credibility to future discussions with the membership - maybe even some respect.