When an initial premise has no supporting evidence,

[MineralMan]

all arguments based on it also lack evidence.

Almost all religious arguments and apologia begin with a premise that has no evidence to support it.

It's logical failure from the get-go. No amount of apologetic frenzy can prove the initial premise to be true. In fact, there is no evidence to support the premise that a deity exists or deities exist. None has ever been presented.

If the initial premise is not true, the rest of the argument fails as well.

There the entire discussion is, in a nutshell.

[guillaumeb]

1. So, when a person believes that there is no deity, based solely

on his/her own beliefs, the argument fails?

Agreed, if by failure you mean being unprovable.

[trotsky]

2. Misframing.

I don't "believe that there is no deity," I do not accept your claim that a deity exists.

You keep trying to push that phony definition of atheism because it's a straw man position and much easier for you to deal with. In your mind, at least.

[guillaumeb]

3. Avoidance.

Does an atheist believe that there is/are no deity/ies?

As much as you wish to avoid it, the end result is the same whether you say:

I do not accept you claim that a deity exists, or,
no deities exist.

[trotsky]

5. Hell yeah I'm going to "avoid" it because it's a straw man argument. It's not my position.

I'm not going to defend the straw man that you prefer fighting.

Put up a real argument, gil. Even though I know you can't, because this is the putrid weak shit that you constantly fling in hopes that someday it will stick.

Pathetic.

[guillaumeb]

6. Yes, your position.

I understand your position, and your agenda.

[trotsky]

7. No, it's not.

And no, you don't.

Saying "I don't believe you" is not, and never will be, the same as saying "I assert this instead."

You really, really, WISH it was the same, but no, it's not.

[guillaumeb]

8. Okay. I understand now. eom

[trotsky]

9. Great. Glad to hear you won't be putting forth that phony position anymore. n/t

[rurallib]

27. good job!

It probably won't last, but at least for now the nonsense is ending.

[Voltaire2]

23. Fuck this. Fine I believe the stunning lack of

any evidence that your gods exist to be highly convincing. In all likelihood your gods do not exist.

You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.

[guillaumeb]

24. Thank you.

[trotsky]

30. He was replying to you.

LOL

[guillaumeb]

31. Read the thread.

See your name in the replied to section.

Laughing indeed.

[Voltaire2]

33. Yet another example of confirmation bias.

[trotsky]

35. Read the thread, INDEED.

Yes, he clicked "Reply" on my post.

But he was CLEARLY replying to you. Why would he refer to "your gods" replying to me, when he knows I'm an atheist?

Laughing even more now... at you.

[guillaumeb]

37. Your reply is a classic.

The poster responded to me. If that was an error, admit it. Or you can fabricate a scenario to avoid the admission that I was correct.

Your choice.

[trotsky]

40. Read. The. Post.

Here it is, to make it extra super easy for you:

Fuck this. Fine I believe the stunning lack of any evidence that your gods exist to be highly convincing. In all likelihood your gods do not exist.

You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.

At no point in this thread, anywhere in this forum, or anywhere on DU have I *ever* advocated for the existence of gods. Voltaire2 knows this. His reply was meant for you. He cleared up the confusion in post #33, re-asserting that the claim of confirmation bias was directed at YOU.

If this is the hill you've chosen to die on, so be it. This is probably one of your most humiliating defeats, and that's saying something.

[Voltaire2]

41. I was commenting on your post Gil.

[guillaumeb]

42. Here is your entire response:

Response to trotsky (Reply #5)
Sat Sep 15, 2018, 10:47 AM
Voltaire2 (3,979 posts)
23. Fuck this. Fine I believe the stunning lack of

any evidence that your gods exist to be highly convincing. In all likelihood your gods do not exist.

You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.

[Voltaire2]

44. Very good. That is my comment on your post.

[guillaumeb]

45. trotsky thought otherwise. As indicated here:

trotsky (47,241 posts)
30. He was replying to you.

LOL

[Voltaire2]

46. Very good. Yet more confirmation bias.

[trotsky]

47. He was replying to you, gil.

I was right.

You were wrong.

And you've humiliated yourself once again.

[guillaumeb]

50. I can only assume that you did not read my response.

And I am making that assumption for your benefit.

If he were to reply to me, why would he address it to you?

[trotsky]

52. I've explained this already.

It has happened to pretty much anyone who's been on DU for at least a little while, I imagine. Why, it's probably even happened to YOU. He clicked on the wrong post to Reply to. His reply was for YOU, not for ME, as he admitted in post #41. Read it.

Now do I need to explain this again? Do you really want to humiliate yourself further? I am not so stupid as to expect any kind of apology or contrition for your error and subsequent harassment of me, but we can draw this out as long as you like. You know how much I love to see you make a fool of yourself, so please, decide what you want to do.

[guillaumeb]

53. He never admitted to an error.

But nice attempt at defending a fellow member.

And, a nice demonstration of your own character.

[trotsky]

54. The post again:

Voltaire2 (3,981 posts)
41. I was commenting on your post Gil.

How long do you want to keep the humiliation going, gil? I'll go as long as you want to.

[guillaumeb]

55. Do you understand the difference between

"commenting on" and "replying to"?


Voltaire was commenting to you about my post, not replying to me.

[trotsky]

56. Alright, we'll keep your humiliation going.

There is no doubt he posted his reply to me. I have never disputed that. He clicked "Reply" on the wrong post.

But his REPLY is TO YOU. Read the reply, gil. He's addressing YOU because he talks about the god(s) that YOU believe in. I know this might be difficult to recall, but I don't believe in any gods.

Here's his reply again:

Fuck this. Fine I believe the stunning lack of any evidence that your gods exist to be highly convincing. In all likelihood your gods do not exist.

You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.

Exactly what sense does it make to assume his reply was to me? Keep in mind, I don't believe in any gods, and Voltaire2 knows that.

Please continue.

[MineralMan]

11. No. An atheist believes nothing with regard to deities.

Lacking evidence, atheists do not believe that deities exist. All you need do is produce some real evidence that they do exist. But, lacking that, the belief does not exist, either.

[guillaumeb]

13. Your first and second sentences contradict each other.

In the first, "No. An atheist believes nothing with regard to deities.", you claim that belief is not involved.

In the second, "Lacking evidence, atheists do not believe that deities exist.", you frame a belief in the non-existence of deities as being somehow different from a belief.

[MineralMan]

14. No, sir, they do not contradict each other.

Goodbye.

[Lordquinton]

28. It's pure weasel words

And bad faith arguments.

[uriel1972]

49. I love the smell of Intellectual Dishonesty in the morning...

It's the smell of complex theology.

[Major Nikon]

34. Absence of belief is the polar opposite of belief

This probably wouldn't be so funny were you capable of being more wrong.

[guillaumeb]

36. Of course.

I accept that you convinced yourself.

[Major Nikon]

43. I accept you offer nothing more than canned responses

[edhopper]

19. No

I don't "believe" there is no deity. It is not based on belief.
I see no evidence for it. I don't accept one exists based on facts.
I see no evidence for bigfoot or UFOs or ghost or ESP or Touch Therapy or many other things for which there is no proof.

These are not matters of belief or faith.

What i see is a Universe that is explained more accurately without any of the deities of any religion.

[MineralMan]

20. It serves a purpose, I guess. Claiming that atheism is a belief

is a common thing among religionists. No amount of explanation seems to help them understand. That's why I think it is a deliberate claim on their parts.

All a guy can do is shrug and move on.

[marylandblue]

21. The word "believe" should be banished from the English language

It's too ambiguous so it acts as a cover for fuzzy thinking. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it, so people will continue to take advantage of its ambiguity.

[edhopper]

22. I believe

you are right.

[Lordquinton]

29. I just posted a whole thing about this

Should be substituted with "accepted without evidence" because that's what it means. Also strips out the religious overtones.

[Major Nikon]

32. No

[MineralMan]

10. Why would anyone state that as a premise?

I would say, instead, "No evidence exists showing that any deity or deities exist."

A negative statement requires no proof and cannot be proven. If you have evidence of the existence of a deity, you can simply present it, and my statement will be false.

It is the same as if I said, "There is no such real animal as a unicorn." Unless you can produce evidence of a unicorn, the negative statement is true. However, if you state that Unicorns exist and live in deep dark forests, the burden of demonstrating the truth of your statement is on you. Negative statements have no such burden of proof.

Here's the thing: I would not base a logical argument on a negative premise. If I say there are no deities, nothing about deities follows from that, because no deities exist. There is no substance on which to base a logical argument. If you wish to have an argument about deities, you must first produce evidence of them. Otherwise there is no substance to your argument, either, since you begin with a different premise.

[marylandblue]

16. There is a difference between a scientific mind and a non-scientific mind

In science whatever statement of "belief" you make is always based on evidence or lack of it. It's usually implicit because there is usually a lot of evidence to look at. If someone with a scientific mindset says, "I believe in the theory of general relativity," he is make an implicit reference to the 100 years worth of evidence behind it. Likewise, "I do not believe in any deities," refers to the lack of evidence. In both cases, the evidence comes first.

In a non-scientific mind, belief comes first. "I believe in God" is a statement without reference to evidence. Supporting evidence, is either not required or comes afterward. Such people have a hard time understanding the scientific mindset that requires evidence first, they just assume everyone believes first. Their "belief in belief" is itself without evidence, and so they can't be convinced there is another way to handle beliefs and evidence.

This is not to say that all scientists use their scientific minds in religion. Many just leave it at the laboratory and are no more scientific in their religious life than non-scientists.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes, but reality is reality and truth is truth.

I know that's inconvenient, but oh, well...

[marylandblue]

18. Yes, believing without evidence is a bad guide to reality

I tried to believe that Trump is the greatest president ever, but the darned evidence kept getting in the way.

[Voltaire2]

25. Truth ends up, outside of closed sets and meta

languages about those sets, being remarkably difficult to define. In practical terms it means, for most of us, something like: beliefs about the real world that other people we respect have confirmed.

[uriel1972]

48. Reality is Reality sure...

But "Truth" is a perception I find...
As long as there are two or more people I don't think there will be one "Truth"

[qazplm135]

51. Reality is

A perception more than folks want to believe. Your eyes and brains don't take perfect pictures of reality there's a lot of stitching and filling in going on. We don't even agree on what color something is.

[Voltaire2]

57. Perception is not reality.

I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree - although there is a philosophical position that claims it is.

There is a shared physical universe we are all imperfectly perceiving, right?

[qazplm135]

58. The best answer is

maybe. Our reality is built on our perception. That's it, full stop.

We can't see past our perception so for each individual, perception is literally reality in the sense of incoming stimuli being "processed" by our brains. Our reality comes from what, our senses...and our senses are heavily processed by our brains. We see patterns that aren't there, we hear sounds that aren't there, everything we sense is technically a tiny bit in the past by the time we sense it, we literally don't see our nose in front of our face because our brain edits it out of our sight.

Now, I personally think there's at least some version of objective reality...the ground is always beneath, fire is always hot, I will always fall towards the ground...basic stuff. But quantum physics throws a lot of basic stuff into the trash bin...effect preceding cause, things interacting with themselves, things being in two places at once, reality depending on observation (double slit experiment)...maybe Einstein is wrong, maybe the moon isn't there until it's observed.

I mean it probably is.

And I can't be sure that my brain isn't in a vat, and some experiment is just feeding me sensory information, and I'm either interacting with other vat brains or I'm the only vat brain interacting with computer generated people...or that I'm really a complicated program that thinks it's a human. I mean, I feel pretty sure neither of those things are true, but I also probably can't rule them out either.

So all that is to say, yes reality is probably reality...but there's a fuzziness there folks shouldn't forget either.

[exboyfil]

4. Hitchen's razor

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is freely asserted is freely dismissed&quot ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[MineralMan]

12. Thank you for that quote and link.

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2018, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

When someone says, "First, assume God," one can answer, "I do not accept your assumption. Present your God for examination. What? you cannot? This discussion is over."

[Permanut]

15. Great post..

And not just relating to discussions about religion.

[PJMcK]

26. I've always felt that Bill Maher says it best

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Some think their positions don't REQUIRE supporting evidence.

It's like a Get Out Jail Free card for terrible ideas.

[MineralMan]

39. Well, that is most certainly true.