Oh dear, I see maynard was banned. Even so, I think it is apposite to address his canards.
maynard wrote:Calilasseia wrote:And you quoted my entire post simply so that you could append a three-line non-reply to the end?
Sorry. So what is your personal alternative explanation?
I don't have a "personal alternative explanation". I accept that there
exists an alternative explanation, one that does not require supernatural entities of any sort, and which
enjoys massive evidential support from observational reality, but is isn't
my explanation, it's an explanation resulting from millions of man hours of diligent observation, experiment and analysis arising from the labour of the world's most educated scientists. I don't possess the hubris required to tell these people that they're wrong, just because old books of myths erect blind assertions that are incompatible with the evidence-based view that these people have produced.
maynard wrote:The thread's about atheism, not theism.
Actually, this thread began with a series of blind assertions that atheism was purportedly "irrational", based upon the usual tiresome supernaturalist canards that the regulars have come to know and despise. This thread has been devoted to the shredding of those canards. And likewise, now that you are erecting canards of your own, the thread is now devoted to the shredding of
your canards. I suggest you pay attention to the
actual contents of the thread, as opposed to what you happen to wish them to be.
maynard wrote:I've asked why an atheist holds the view that there's no god.
And once again, you miss the point completely. An atheist merely regards himself as not obliged to accept uncritically unsupported blind supernaturalist assertions. Not accepting uncritically your blind assertions about whatever invisible magic man you think exists, does not equal uncritical acceptance of the converse assertions. I suggest that you learn this lesson quickly.
Once again, what part of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions" requires anyone adopting this stance to hold any view at all? It merely requires that whoever adopts this stance does not accept uncritically your blind assertions. When are you going to learn this?
maynard wrote:I haven't asked why a theist hasn't convinced an atheist.
And again, congratulations upon missing the entire point. Allow me to lead you through the baby steps.
[1] Supernaturalists erect the assertion that an invisible magic man exists. Depending upon the particular species of invisible magic man, they then erect additional assertions about the attributes that this entity purportedly possesses, but these additional assertions are all critically coupled to the existence assertion, so the existence assertion is the key assertion here. It is this central existence assertion that is important here.
[2] Supernaturalists then erect another assertion, namely that the existence assertion erected in [1] above constitutes established fact about the world.
[3] Atheists simply regard the assertion in [1] above as unsupported, and therefore that they are not obliged to regard it as constituting anything other than a blind assertion. As a corollary, they regard the assertion in [2] as fatuous, precisely because the assertion in [1] is unsupported. That is atheism in a nutshell. Note that nowhere in all of this, have atheists erected any postulates of their own as a part of this process. They may choose to erect postulates, but that erection of postulates is a
separate issue.
Once again, what part of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions" do you not understand?
Furthermore, why is it so difficult for you to understand that questioning the validity of your assertions does not equal erection of contrary assertions? In what logically consistent universe does "I do not consider that you have supported your assertions" equal "I erect contrary assertions"?
maynard wrote:@MrFungus
If you said that I owe you $10,000, I'd try to find out for myself whether or not I do.
In other words, you would seek
evidence either confirming or refuting his assertion. And, if the hypothetical situation he erects above were to become real, and he started issuing demands for $10,000 to be paid to his bank account, you would require him to support his assertion that you owed him $10,000. Support such as your signature upon a contract making you liable for said sum, as a result of some transaction. In the absence of such evidence, you would regard his assertion as unsupported, and therefore you would regard yourself as not obliged to act upon that assertion, and therefore not obliged to pay him $10,000.
Now, why do you think that an entirely contrary position applies with respect to your assertions about an invisible magic man?
maynard wrote:If I asked you without finding out for myself, you would insist that I do, so I wouldn't just rely on what you tell me. Otherwise, I'd never know for myself.
So near and yet so far.
Now, apply the above to your assertion that an invisible magic man of some sort exists, and understand why we are not obliged to accept this simply because you erect this assertion.
maynard wrote:@Occams Laser
You're talking specifically about the biblical god, but we're discussing the general idea of a creator.
The existence of which still remains an unsupported assertion. What part of this do you not understand?
maynard wrote:As for the $10,000, what I need to do is find out for myself if I owe you it. I don't need to show you, you already think I owe you it (or not. Either way, you'll say I do). I need to know for myself if I do.
And once again, why do you expect us to accept an entirely contrary position to the above, with respect to your assertion that an invisible magic man exists?
maynard wrote:I'm asking you to explain and describe what it is about the nature of the universe that precludes a god or creator.
And once again, I'm telling you that I don't need to do this, because I am not the one erecting a categorical assertion about the world. Once again, what part of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertion" do you not understand?
maynard wrote:As the one lacking belief, what would I say about your monitor (the universe) that precludes the possibility that there's a dragon (god) on top of (responsible for) it?
And once again congratulations on missing the point,
despite having accepted it above with respect to MrFungus' assertion about your financial liability. Namely, that
whoever erects assertions is required to support those assertions, if those erecting said assertions wish for others to accept those assertions as valid and factual. In the above case, Shrunk is asserting that there is a purple dragon on top of his monitor, therefore, as the one erecting the assertion, he is required to provide support for that assertion. You are not obliged to accept that assertion. If Shrunk happens to produce live video footage of said dragon, filmed by a dozen different news crews from around the world such as CNN, BBC, NHK, ABC etc., then we're no longer dealing with an unsupported assertion, we're dealing with an evidentially supported postulate, and at this point, acceptance of that postulate is perfectly legitimate. You are not required to speculate about the finer details of Shrunk's monitor in order to dismiss his assertion in the absence of supporting evidence for that assertion. And, here is the important part,
the same principle applies to your assertion about an invisible magic man. There is nothing special about this assertion, other than the scale of the claim being made, that separates it from any other assertion. Just because your assertion happens to be about an invisible magic man does not confer a privileged status upon this assertion.
maynard wrote:I lack belief in the dragon.
In other words, you do not accept uncritically the relevant assertion. So, why is it so difficult for you to accept that we adopt the same stance with respect to your assertion about an invisible magic man?
maynard wrote:Presumably, there's something about that monitor which precludes the possibility that there's a dragon on top of it. What could it be?
And once again, speculation of this sort is
irrelevant. The finer details of the structure of Shrunk's monitor are
irrelevant with respect to his assertion. All that matters with respect to his assertion, is whether or not a purple dragon is indeed sitting on top of it or not. If there is no purple dragon sitting on top of his monitor, his assertion is false. If, by some bizarre twist of fate, there IS a purple dragon sitting on top of his monitor, then that assertion is true, but until he disseminates
evidence of this entity into the public domain, the validity of that assertion is beyond your remit to assess. You are not obliged to accept his assertion until that evidence is disseminated into the public domain, subject to relevant scrutiny, and found to be genuine evidence of the presence of a purple dragon sitting on top of his monitor, courtesy of said scrutiny.
Is the message finally getting home to you?
maynard wrote:In order to do that, what could I say about the monitor that precludes the dragon?
Once again, this is
irrelevant. The finer details of Shrunk's monitor are
irrelevant with respect to this assertion. All that matters is whether or not a purple dragon is actually sitting on top of his monitor.
maynard wrote:As the one lacking belief in god (the dragon), I can't think of anything that I could say about the universe which precludes the possibility that a god, or anything like a god, could be responsible for it. What I'm asking is, can you?
And once again, this is
irrelevant. Let's run through the baby steps once more, shall we?
[1] YOU are asserting that an invisible magic man exists.
[2] YOU are asserting that the existence of this invisible magic man is an established fact about the world.
[3] Therefore YOU are required to support the assertion in [1] above, and by doing so, support additionally the assertion in [2] above.
[4] Moreover, in order to do so, YOU must find some means by which the existence of this entity can be made reliably, repeatably and publicly verifiable. Without this, you are unable to achieve the objective stated in [3] above.
maynard wrote:It may or may not exist, if you can't preclude a god.
But the whole point is, that until YOU provide reliable, repeatable and publicly accessible verification of the existence of this entity, no one is obliged to treat the assertion of the existence of this entity as constituting established fact. How many times do you need this basic principle repeating to you, before you accept this principle as a basic principle of reasoned discourse?
maynard wrote:Yes because if you don't believe it exists, there must be something about the universe that excludes the possibility that a god or anything like a god is responsible.
And once again, you continue to miss the point.
YOU are the one asserting that an invisible magic man is required to bring this universe into being, therefore YOU are the one required to support this assertion. We are not obliged to do anything other than sit around waiting for you to deliver the goods, or not, as the case may be. Which is what rational thinkers have been doing with respect to invisible magic man assertions of one sort or another, erected by various supernaturalists, for 5,000 years. The nature of the universe is
irrelevant with respect to our lack of obligation to accept your assertions.
maynard wrote:If you don't believe in god, that doesn't preclude the possibility of its existence, that's right. What I'm asking is, what does preclude it, in the mind of the one lacking belief?
This is a separate question. What matters here is that it is
supernaturalists who erect the relevant existence assertion, and claim that said assertion constitutes an established fact about the world, therefore it is
the same supernaturalists who are required to support that existence assertion. We are not obliged to do anything other than sit around waiting for them to deliver the goods.
maynard wrote:@Tytalus
I know. There's nothing about the universe, to a believer or a lacker of belief, that indicates any specific alternative to a god creator.
Oh, you
know this, do you? Care to present the
substantive knowledge that allows you to erect this assertion?
maynard wrote:As a believer, I want to believe that there's a god
In other words, you want the universe to conform to your wishful thinking, regardless of whether it actually does. Which is why I'm asking for the above substantive knowledge that you claim to possess, because I do not regard that such substantive knowledge actually exists.
maynard wrote:and seeing as there's nothing that would deny the possibility
This is merely another assertion on your part. Another assertion you are required to support. Once again, we see that familiar aspect of the supernaturalist aetiology, namely the appearance of an ever growing number of unsupported blind assertions, presented as if they constituted established fact, but bereft of the critically robust evidential support required to convert them into established fact.
maynard wrote:the only thing that determines whether or not I believe is my desire to believe.
For once, your candour is
so refreshing.
maynard wrote:Likewise, a lacker of belief is in the same situation.
Wrong. False symmetry.
maynard wrote:They want to lack belief in god
Complete poppycock. What you will find, if you bother to learn what atheism actually IS, as you have been repeatedly schooled upon here, instead of sticking to the strawman caricature version that supernaturalists are so fond of, is that
atheists consider belief itself to be an invalid means of obtaining substantive knowledge about the real world. Because, at bottom, all that
belief consists of is
uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions.
maynard wrote:and seeing as they see nothing to indicate either way, the only thing that determines whether or not they believe is their reluctance or non desire to do so.
Poppycock. What determines the absence of belief on the part of atheists is [1] the rejection of the validity of the entire process of belief, for the reason cited above, and [2] the complete failure of supernaturalists to support their assertions about their invisible magic men.
When are you going to learn this lesson?
maynard wrote:If you have evidence for god, it's because you've acknowledged whatever it is as possibly being evidence, then considered and evaluated it for yourself, then accepted it as evidence for yourself.
I would contend that this is merely the result of supernaturalists having low evidential standards. It's not as if they've failed to provide evidence of possessing low evidential standards in the past.
maynard wrote:It all comes down to what you want to acknowledge, consider and evaluate, and accept.
Wrong. Go and look outside your window. Do you see what lies outside? It's called
the real world. And
the real world hands you whatever it is going to hand you, regardless of whatever wishful thinking you may be indulging in at the time. You can wish all you want for the day to be sunny, but if
the real world has just parked honking big anvil shaped cumulo-nimbus clouds over your house, extending in all directions for a 50 mile radius, and those clouds are depositing hailstones the size of tennis balls all over your neighbourhood, your wishful thinking about the day being sunny can go and take a hike.
maynard wrote:And that's based on your faith.
Bollocks. Once more, what part of
the real world do you not understand? Or, how
the real world will serve up whatever it's going to serve up, regardless of what fantasies you want to entertain?
This isn't a matter of "faith", it's a matter of
reality.
maynard wrote:Absolute proof is an ideal, evidence is what we rely on.
And where do we obtain that evidence from? That's right,
the real world. That entity outside your window that isn't going to go away or rearrange itself to suit your presuppositions just because you want it to.
maynard wrote:And seeing as what is accepted is down to the individual, it is the individual's bias that determines what they themselves accept.
Once again, bollocks. What part of
reliable, repeatable and publicly verifiable fact from the real world do you not understand again? None of which any supernaturalist has ever provided to support their assertions about invisible magic men?
maynard wrote:We've established that there's no indication of a universe that can't have a god
We've established nothing of the sort. All that has been established here is that you possess a prejudice to this effect.
maynard wrote:so all that's left is faith, one way or the other.
Again, bollocks. Try paying attention to
the real world sometime, instead of thinking that all you have to do is erect some convoluted semantic fabrication, and the world will rearrange itself to fit.
maynard wrote:It is bias and faith.
Complete bollocks.
Faith consists of accepting uncritically unsupported blind assertions as if they constituted established facts about the world. NOT accepting uncritically said unsupported blind assertions in this manner is the very
antithesis of faith.
maynard wrote:You're a skeptic, you're predisposed, inclined, to doubt the existence of god.
Bollocks. We're merely predisposed not to accept uncritically unsupported blind assertions. If you want the purported existence of your magic man to be accepted as a real world fact, then the onus is on YOU to go out there, and provide reliable, repeatable and publicly verifiable evidence supporting the existence of this entity.
maynard wrote:Does that sound like objectivity, or does it say more about you than it does about the existence of a god?
Well since you've erected a complete strawman caricature of scepticism above, your question is null and void.
maynard wrote:It certainly doesn't indicate a universe that has no god, we've established that.
And once again, since YOU are the one asserting that your magic man exists, and YOU are the one asserting that the universe needs your magic man, YOU are the one required to support these two assertions. "We" have established
nothing of the sort with respect to your above assertion. All that "we" have established is that you are incapable of imagining a universe that doesn't need a magic man, because you possess a presupposition that a magic man exists.
maynard wrote:All that's left is your skepticism.
Correction. All that's left is your unsupported blind assertions. None of which we are obliged to do anything other than point and laugh at, for as long as you continue the charade of pretending that said assertions constitute established fact, without once providing proper evidential support for said assertions.
maynard wrote:I'm faithful, you're skeptical.
This means that you accept uncritically unsupported blind assertions, we don't. No "symmetry" involved. So your attempt to erect one is bogus.
maynard wrote:My faith and your skepticism are both sides of the same coin of assumption.
Bollocks. The
whole point of scepticism is
to subject assumptions to critical scrutiny, and determine if there exists any valid reason to consider those assumptions to be valid. To a sceptic,
assumptions exist to be tested to destruction. Once again, your specious attempt to erect a "symmetry" between scepticism and faith is precisely that - specious.
maynard wrote:I go out of my way to assume that there's a god. However, rather than merely witholding belief (which I can do also) , you're going out of your way to assume there isn't a god.
Bollocks. If a supernaturalist actually
succeeded in presenting valid evidence for an invisible magic man, then that evidence would be accepted. Not least because any such evidence that was forthcoming would be of such a momentous nature, that some very serious minded gentlemen in Sweden would be waiting to present a gold medal to whoever presented that evidence, and established its validity in the public arena. This would be headline news all around the world. The entire planet's news media would be churning out television programmes and column inches of print on the subject for
months afterwards. This should be telling you something important here.
maynard wrote:I have faith in a universe that has a god, you have faith in a universe that has no god.
Once again, your fake attempt to erect a bogus "symmetry" is precisely that - fake.
You accept uncritically that an invisible magic man exists, we don't. No "symmetry" involved.
maynard wrote:Regarding god concepts, it's not a case of you merely lacking and witholding belief in something. I can do that too, and I do.
Bollocks. When are you going to drop this tired supernaturalist canard? Especially as people have spent the best part of 10 pages of this thread schooling you on this?
maynard wrote:It's a case of you taking it a step further (as I do, but in the opposite direction, with my faith) and assuming that there's no god.
Once again, bollocks. The
whole point of scepticism, in case you hadn't received the memo, is to
assume nothing. The
whole point of scepticism consists of
taking assumptions as and when they arise, and testing them to destruction. The ones that survive said tests become
evidentially supported postulates. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
maynard wrote:In other words, the fact that there's nothing about the universe which precludes a god causes you to withold belief in one, because you don't (or can't?) know whether or not there is one.
Once again, poppycock. First, we regard
belief itself as invalid, because as I stated above,
belief consists of nothing more than
uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. We reject this from the beginning. Second, your above assertion about the nature of the universe is merely another unsupported assertion on your part, and we're still waiting to see this assertion supported.
maynard wrote:But your assumption that there is no god
Which is a blatant apologetic fabrication on your part. What part of "scepticism means testing assumptions to destruction" do you not understand again?
maynard wrote:in other words your skepticism and doubt and lack of belief
Correction, your strawman caricature version thereof. Which we reject precisely because it is visibly and blatantly a strawman caricature.
maynard wrote:is not only an acknowledgement that you don't (or can't?) know, it's a faith of sorts just like my faith is.
Complete crap. What part of "NOT accepting uncritically unsupported blind assertions" equals "faith" in any logically consistent universe?
maynard wrote:If it isn't faith, then the only other thing to do is say that you conclusively know that there's no god.
Once again, not accepting your unsupported assertions does not mean erecting the contrary assertions. When are you going to learn this?
maynard wrote:But you can't say that, and you wisely haven't said it.
Guess what? We're not in the habit of erecting blind assertions we can't support. A pity supernaturalists don't adopt the same
modus operandi.
maynard wrote:You don't know if there's a god but you think there isn't.
Actually, to be
rigorous about this, we regard the relevant existence assertion as unsupported. Therefore, whilst this assertion remains unsupported, it is perfectly legitimate to proceed as if this entity does not exist. Because if it ever ceased to become legitimate to do so, this would be because we had
evidence to this effect. Said evidence, once it materialised, would be of such a momentous nature that it would be headline news around the world. Since I don't recall seeing a Nobel Prize being awarded for this, it's safe to conclude that such evidence hasn't materialised.
maynard wrote:That is faith in a universe that has no god.
Bollocks. Once again, NOT accepting uncritically your unsupported blind assertions is
the very antithesis of faith. When are you going to learn this elementary lesson?
maynard wrote:If I wasa betting man, I'd bet that there's a god, I'd bet everything I have, even my life.
Oh look, it's Pascal's Wager. Yawn.
maynard wrote:If you were a betting man, I'm sure you'd place a big bet on yourself that there's no god.
And once again, we see the fake erection of a non-existent "symmetry", between your uncritical acceptance of unsupported blind assertions, and our rejection of the entire process of uncritical acceptance of unsupported blind assertions
regardless of the nature of the assertions in question. Which IS fake, because that "symmetry" IS non-existent.
maynard wrote:Now it's really starting to sound like faith.
Bollocks. your strawman caricature of scepticism is precisely that - a strawman caricature. Go and read how scepticism
actually operates above.
maynard wrote:If an agnostic is someone who thinks that there's no way of knowing if there's a god or not, then you must, as an atheist, think that there is.
It's entirely possible that some means of subjecting this assertion to critical test
does exist. But, once again,
it's the responsibility of the supernaturalist erecting the relevant existence assertion to provide this. Is this message getting home to you?
maynard wrote:How do you decide what constitues that?
That is the responsibility of you and other supernaturalists like you who erect the relevant existence assertion.
maynard wrote:Again, we're back to faith.
Bollocks. First, we're not the ones erecting blind assertions about the existence of an invisible magic man, then claiming that this assertion constitutes an established fact about the world - it's you and your fellow supernaturalists who are doing this. Second, since you and your fellow supernaturalists are the ones doing this, you are the ones required to support this assertion. If the task is too hard for you, then tough, you shouldn't erect blind assertions you can't support. Third, how many times do you need to be told, that YOU are the one operating on the basis of "faith", not us, because YOU are the one who accepts uncritically an unsupported blind assertion?
maynard wrote:There is nothing else to use to decide that.
And here we have yet another blind assertion on your part. How do you know that your existence assertion isn't testable? Have you ever tried to determine this question in a rigorous manner?
I think that covers the relevant bases.
by 
Just an example of how his behavior implicitly answers some of the questions he evaded.
