Evidentialism "Proves" Atheists Wrong.

[Phrenolo]

The article is basically another illustration of the fallacy that atheism should be defined as a positive assertion of knowledge, and as such requires evidence.
Hey, psychologists, about those schizophrenics hearing voices that they claim are real… You’re going to be kept busy having to produce evidence that your patients are not actually experiencing an alternate reality.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So now I have a question: Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn?

We may not have evidence for or against either of those, but it is still stupid to believe in the latter ... OK, strictly speaking it is not stupid, but rather impossible.


And wrt that guy from the OP, the only thing that I have to say is that, while I am a strong atheist, I also hold that evidence (how sweeeeeet that sounds ... Evidence, mhhmmmmm ...) has nothing to do with whether God exist or not. You can only look look for evidence if you have a meaningful proposition, which then is either backed up or contradicted by evidence. Obviously, God is not such a meaningful proposistion. And neither is the IPU ...

 

[DC]

total bunk.

Atheists very often use science to debunk the stuff the theists believe, like fine tuning nonsense and how the universe formed etc.
And how else could one provide evidence for the nonexistence of gods, than debunking the things the theists attribute to those nonexistent gods And after pretty everything in the bibles got debunked by science, the burden of proof is indeed again on the theists.

What is his evidence for his non believe in Zeus? Lord Xenu? Thor?

 

[Marduk]

So now I have a question: Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn? One of them probably doesn't exist. I'm going to have to ask my ghost professor. Or is he just a soul, not a ghost? Well, probably one of these two descriptions is real.

Old school eh, they got together and had a baby, all Hail the flying pink invisible spaghetti unicorn monster

 

[Robin]

Imagine if science worked this way:

Scientist A: I have discovered an entirely new sort of particle that will revolutionise they way we think about physics
Scientist B: Great! Let me see your work.
...
Scientist B: You don't seem to have provided any sort of experimental evidence or even testable hypothesis. You reasoning is also somewhat askew, you have based this argument on a couple of pure assumptions, this step is entirely missing and that argument there isn't even valid. And the particle does not seem to explain anything that can't already be explained by existing physics.
Scientist A: But you can't actually prove that the particle doesn't exist
Scientist B: You don't have a sufficiently clear definition of the particle that would allow me to test the hypothesis in any way.
Scientist A: So you are holding me to an evidentiary standard that you, yourself, are not adhering to.
Scientist B: I accept those hypotheses that have evidence to back them, so I am being perfectly consistent in not accepting your hypothesis.
Scientist A: So you think that this particle might exist?
Scientist B: Frankly, I have no reason to think it might exist.
Scientist A: But I am entitled to believe that I am being perfectly rational in believing this particle exists.
Scientist B: Errrm. No.​

 

[PixyMisa]

There are a few 'strong atheists' out there that'd fit the author's definition, but they are few and far between...

I might have been described by that term up until about ten years ago; I've since moved on to strong ignosticism.

 

[Richard Masters]

I might have been described by that term up until about ten years ago; I've since moved on to strong ignosticism.

I'm quite interested in ignosticism, but it sometimes seems like an appeal to ignorance. After all, I generally know what people mean when they talk about the Catholic God, or Zeus.

 

[Rincewind]

It's getting difficult to keep up - I never realised that there were "new" Atheists!

 

[DC]

at least they are not Born again Atheists

 

[fishbob]

It's getting difficult to keep up - I never realised that there were "new" Atheists!

Every day.

 

[Aepervius]

He never gets to the part where he argues god-beliefs are reasonable. He's basically turned the whole evidence thing back to the atheists. We don't have any evidence, but neither do you, and since you're the ones who say that evidence is important, it's your responsibility to provide it.

So yeah, he didn't convince me that gods exist. But I'll tell you he has completely rocked my world when it comes to the existence of leprechauns. I just realized I can't prove they don't exist, so now I've got to completely rework my schedule to leprechaun-proof my entire garden. Now that they know I'm not so sure they don't exist, I'm sure they'll be out to get me!

It is also quite difficult to provide evidence of a non existence... Just saying.

 

[Aepervius]

I might have been described by that term up until about ten years ago; I've since moved on to strong ignosticism.

IMO it suffers of the same problem as for agnosticism. While it is all nice to proclaim that one does not know how to answer the question without a proper definition, or one cannot know, well in the very end you live your live as an atheist does.

 

[HansMustermann]

He never gets to the part where he argues god-beliefs are reasonable. He's basically turned the whole evidence thing back to the atheists. We don't have any evidence, but neither do you, and since you're the ones who say that evidence is important, it's your responsibility to provide it.

Dunno, at a quick reading of the quoted part, it seems to me like it doesn't even do that. Sure, it could be continued that way, but somehow it doesn't actually get that far. It's just a description of why skeptics reject stuff that doesn't have any evidence.

And I mean... Uh, sure, that's exactly how and why we do it. Spot on. They know we want evidence and that they don't have it. Does that mean they're going to start providing it?

Really, I'm still left wondering as to what should convince me to start believing in God there. Is there something wrong with wanting evidence of a positive claim? Can the argument be used against atheism too? Or what, really?

Really, that someone could read that as some argument for their God is... weird. It's one of those things that serve to convince me that for some people speech is just a way to mindlessly align themselves with a group, and logic or even basic comprehension don't even start to enter the equation. All that matters is having some filler to the effect of "blah, blah, blah, and I totally believe in the same stuff as the rest of you guys." Cue everyone else nodding and agreeing too, even if the words don't even add up to a conclusion or really make any sense for what they're used.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Dunno, at a quick reading of the quoted part, it seems to me like it doesn't even do that. Sure, it could be continued that way, but somehow it doesn't actually get that far. It's just a description of why skeptics reject stuff that doesn't have any evidence.

Well, that and the emphatic opinion that atheists are very very wrong about something.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, yes, I can imagine that a theist would believe that, but the quoted text doesn't actually even say that.

Seriously, it's just telling me, basically, "ha, I know you don't believe in God only because we don't have evidence". Uh, yes. I'm glad he/she knows that, because it saves me the bother of explaining it. But it fails to even say that there's anything wrong with that.

In fact, if I weren't told that it got sent to someone as proof of God, I'd take it more as an argument for what's wrong with believing in an invisible sky-daddy.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Well, no, it doesn't say it, but it intones it; it embodies it. I mean, the whole piece is a rather obvious polemic directed at atheists, even though it contains no information whatsoever that could sway anything in any particular direction.

 

[Apathia]

Have you not met Skeptic Ginger?

No, but I'm acquainted with [Snip].
(Name of actual strong, ideological Atheist who posts here removed. He' likely to appear here shortly, and I don't want to rile him.)

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think the article is fine, but I say that only having skimmed it. The author does not seem to be stating a case for the existence of any god. Rather, he's beginning with a very simple idea upon which most any atheist in the debate would agree:

If X lacks evidence, then belief in X is unjustified.

Atheists often make this claim, substituting X with "God's existence," and that's perfectly fair. The author is pointing out that if you hold a belief that "God does not exist," then a failure to apply the same standard to that belief would be unfair, and he goes on to criticize a few of the common methods by which some would attempt to weasel out of this inconsistency.

However, those who claim that there are no gods are actually quite rare, which is why point #1 is a meaningless exercise in equivocation and strawmanning: If you're going to call yourself an atheist, then I will ascribe arbitrary characteristics to you. Take that!

 

[DC]

I think the article is fine, but I say that only having skimmed it. The author does not seem to be stating a case for the existence of any god. Rather, he's beginning with a very simple idea upon which most any atheist in the debate would agree:

If X lacks evidence, then belief in X is unjustified.

Atheists often make this claim, substituting X with "God's existence," and that's perfectly fair. The author is pointing out that if you hold a belief that "God does not exist," then a failure to apply the same standard to that belief would be unfair, and he goes on to criticize a few of the common methods by which some would attempt to weasel out of this inconsistency.

However, those who claim that there are no gods are actually quite rare, which is why point #1 is a meaningless exercise in equivocation and strawmanning: If you're going to call yourself an atheist, then I will ascribe arbitrary characteristics to you. Take that!

So saying there is no Big foot would require evidence?
and what is with Dragons, what evidence do we have they don't exist?

it is total nonsense, it is religious whining ala " you cant disprove god"
and he knows it, thats why he attempts to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Loss Leader]

"Words, words, words, words and ... God exists! I did it! I proved God exists! It wasn't at all a bunch of linguistic equivocation to make it look like I somehow proved something I didn't! I'll meet everybody in heaven at the ice cream bar on the lesbian cloud!"