'Splain this one Atheists...

[Brian Peacock]

The whole post is an exercise in equivocation and evasion.

Well, thanks for admitting that about your post anyway...

I'm sorry to say that this just reads as childishness. As I said before, you seem "...overly committed and enthusiastic about trying to pull the emotional strings of others."

When an objective claim for the existence of [thing] is dismisses on reasonable and rational grounds (such as the absence of evidence, which you accept and admit), then the claim has simply failed to support itself; [thing] cannot be said to exist - that is implicit in the dismissal, and there's no special distinction or conditions to apply to a claimed-for God[thing] over any other [thing].

This argument relies on the unsupported proposition that "absence of evidence" happens to be the true state of affairs, and that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence. And no, I do not accept that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, nor does any rational person. Again, "dismissal" is an entirely different kettle of fish from refutation or rebuttal. You may dismiss what you like, but that does not mean that your dismissal is a rational decision. It may be the product of your own biases and beliefs, much like radical Islamists "dismiss" the value of free speech and titties. This is not about "dismissal", which is merely a statement of opinion, it's about specific claims that God does not exist made as a refutation of or rebuttal to the theistic claim.

Your goading aside (which is tiresome and patently obvious by now), this is exactly where we began. I even admitted it in my previous post when I allowed that nobody can really say if some intentioning and creative entity is responsible for the existence of the Universe (even while I'm pretty sure that the mythical national deity of the ancient Israelites does not exist).

So, absence of evidence for the existence of [thing] does not mean that [thing] does not exist, but it is reasonable and rational to assume it does not unless actual supporting evidence is brought to light. Otherwise there is, quite literally, no reason to believe [thing] exists. BUT, what distinguishes such a claim (that is, an unsupported, unevidenced objective claim for truth) from an imagining, or a fiction, or a lie(?) Nothing. Are we to say that all unsupported claims are somehow hanging in the balance of the possibility of future evidence and must therefore be put aside for now, or only that some unsupported claims are hanging in that kind of balance while others are clearly nonsense- and if so how to we tell them apart? I mean, what is so special about an objective God-claim that we can't dismiss in the same way we would dismiss a claim that Obama has a two-foot dong?

You must account otherwise, by some reasonable and rational means, if you wish to support your assertion that there necessarily exists an additional logical, rational, ethical, and/or moral burden of proof which lies with the dismissal. That support has not been forthcoming, and your assertion remains simply that, an assertion.

I have made no claim or assertion with respect to the existence or non existence of God other than "I don't know."

As I said, equivocation and evasion. It is a matter of record that you want to hold atheists and atheism to 'the same standards' which they hold theist and theism to, and your have clearly asserted that there is a burden of proof upon atheists by which they must justify their disbelief of theists and theism if-and-when they want to talk about it - which you also think they shouldn't do unless they couch their remarks in terms you personally approve of. If they don't meet your conditions then, well, you say you're free give them whatever rough-riding and shoddy-treatment your think they deserve, and they only have themselves to blame for it too. One only has to look at the remarks in the last two days of this discussion to see those assertions of yours dancing up and down the page in black and white.

I am analyzing the typical Atheist attempt to support an assertion that God does not exist based on the Atheist's analysis of the evidence, or lack thereof, he or she decides to use to support the ultimate conclusion.

There we have the fallacious burden-shift high-lighted and bolded for the interests and amusement of those lurkers you say you're really talking to. There's no special "Atheist's evidence", there's only "evidence for or in support of the claim". If that evidence doesn't stack up the claim fails to support itself. Those who think the claims and assertions of theism etc are unsupported, unjustified, and therefore unbelievable are called atheists. That's it. Now if you have any evidence that would throw doubt on any atheist's 'ultimate conclusion' (as you call it) about the claims and assertions of theism and its chums please present it here for discussion.

[rachelbean]

I love you, Brian Peacock

[pErvinalia]

I hope Pappa doesn't find out about this...

[mistermack]

I love you, Brian Peacock

Damn you, Brian Peacock, and your seductive logic.

Hey Rachel, I got chocolate !!

[Seth]

The whole post is an exercise in equivocation and evasion.

Well, thanks for admitting that about your post anyway...

I'm sorry to say that this just reads as childishness. As I said before, you seem "...overly committed and enthusiastic about trying to pull the emotional strings of others."

Childishness in response to childishness is perfectly appropriate, particularly when your statement is based on a complete strawman argument, as I've explained time and time again. Just because you refuse to accept the fact that "dismissal" and "refutation" are two different things doesn't mean they aren't.

When an objective claim for the existence of [thing] is dismisses on reasonable and rational grounds (such as the absence of evidence, which you accept and admit), then the claim has simply failed to support itself; [thing] cannot be said to exist - that is implicit in the dismissal, and there's no special distinction or conditions to apply to a claimed-for God[thing] over any other [thing].

This argument relies on the unsupported proposition that "absence of evidence" happens to be the true state of affairs, and that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence. And no, I do not accept that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, nor does any rational person. Again, "dismissal" is an entirely different kettle of fish from refutation or rebuttal. You may dismiss what you like, but that does not mean that your dismissal is a rational decision. It may be the product of your own biases and beliefs, much like radical Islamists "dismiss" the value of free speech and titties. This is not about "dismissal", which is merely a statement of opinion, it's about specific claims that God does not exist made as a refutation of or rebuttal to the theistic claim.

Your goading aside (which is tiresome and patently obvious by now), this is exactly where we began.

Well, you're trying to get my goad, so I'm doing the same. Tit for tat and all that.

I even admitted it in my previous post when I allowed that nobody can really say if some intentioning and creative entity is responsible for the existence of the Universe (even while I'm pretty sure that the mythical national deity of the ancient Israelites does not exist).

So, absence of evidence for the existence of [thing] does not mean that [thing] does not exist, but it is reasonable and rational to assume it does not unless actual supporting evidence is brought to light.

Yes, it is. And the response that indicates this disbelief in the god-claim is either "I don't know" or "I don't believe it," not "God does not exist" prefaced by circular fallacies.

Otherwise there is, quite literally, no reason to believe [thing] exists. BUT, what distinguishes such a claim (that is, an unsupported, unevidenced objective claim for truth) from an imagining, or a fiction, or a lie(?) Nothing. Are we to say that all unsupported claims are somehow hanging in the balance of the possibility of future evidence and must therefore be put aside for now, or only that some unsupported claims are hanging in that kind of balance while others are clearly nonsense- and if so how to we tell them apart? I mean, what is so special about an objective God-claim that we can't dismiss in the same way we would dismiss a claim that Obama has a two-foot dong?

Nothing is special about god-claims. They are in fact entirely irrelevant to the illogic and unreason I'm addressing, which, once again and most tiresomely is that it is irrational to make a claim that God does not exist based on zero evidence that God does not exist using an argument formulated on the premise that the nature of God, as reported by theists, somehow proves that God does not exist.

Unless you are simply incapable of comprehending the distinction between "dismissing" a claim and "rebutting" a claim, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse and you're trying to pettifog your way out of the rational consequences of your belief system.

Perhaps a discussion of the distinction between "dismissing a claim" and "refuting or rebutting a claim" would help, although I don't see how I can be any more clear than I'm being now.

You must account otherwise, by some reasonable and rational means, if you wish to support your assertion that there necessarily exists an additional logical, rational, ethical, and/or moral burden of proof which lies with the dismissal. That support has not been forthcoming, and your assertion remains simply that, an assertion.

I have made no claim or assertion with respect to the existence or non existence of God other than "I don't know."

As I said, equivocation and evasion.

No, it's not, it's an important fact of the discussion which you are refusing to accept.

It is a matter of record that you want to hold atheists and atheism to 'the same standards' which they hold theist and theism to, and your have clearly asserted that there is a burden of proof upon atheists by which they must justify their disbelief of theists and theism if-and-when they want to talk about it - which you also think they shouldn't do unless they couch their remarks in terms you personally approve of.

Not true. You either misunderstand or choose not to accept my actual position. It's not about belief or disbelief, it's about rational argumentation and the fact that when most Atheists argue against theistic claims they do so in an entirely irrational manner while at the same time demanding rational proofs from their debatorial opponents that meet the Atheist standard of scientific objectivity. This is both hypocrisy and irrationality. The essence of the classic Atheist rebuttal of theistic claims consists of the basic form "God does not exist because..."

That is the logical failure I'm discussing, not "I don't believe your assertions about God."

If they don't meet your conditions then, well, you say you're free give them whatever rough-riding and shoddy-treatment your think they deserve, and they only have themselves to blame for it too.

The conditions are not mine, they are those of the Atheists themselves as applied to theistic claims. I'm merely demanding the same intellectual rigor be applied to their arguments as they demand be applied to theistic arguments as a matter of fundamental fairness, sound reasoning and logic, and simple courtesy. If Atheists demand of theists that they use sound reasoning and logic supported by objective scientific evidence when making their god-claims, then it is perfectly reasonable that I demand that Atheists use sound reasoning and logic supported by objective scientific evidence when making their god-counter-claims. Note that a counter-claim is different from a dismissal. This is key to the whole argument.

One only has to look at the remarks in the last two days of this discussion to see those assertions of yours dancing up and down the page in black and white.

And why should I not ride roughshod over Atheist religious propaganda just as Atheists run roughshod over theist religious propaganda? Turnabout is fair play after all. If you don't want to be accused of irrationality and bad manners, then don't be irrational and bad mannered...and by "you" I mean Atheists in general, not you specifically.

I am analyzing the typical Atheist attempt to support an assertion that God does not exist based on the Atheist's analysis of the evidence, or lack thereof, he or she decides to use to support the ultimate conclusion.

There we have the fallacious burden-shift high-lighted and bolded for the interests and amusement of those lurkers you say you're really talking to. There's no special "Atheist's evidence", there's only "evidence for or in support of the claim". If that evidence doesn't stack up the claim fails to support itself. Those who think the claims and assertions of theism etc are unsupported, unjustified, and therefore unbelievable are called atheists. That's it. Now if you have any evidence that would throw doubt on any atheist's 'ultimate conclusion' (as you call it) about the claims and assertions of theism and its chums please present it here for discussion.

And it's perfectly rational to say "Objective evidence supporting your god-claim does not, in my opinion, support your claim and therefore I don't believe it's true."

What's irrational is to say "Objective evidence supporting your god-claim does not, in my opinion, support your claim and therefore God does not exist."

Do you see the distinction at all? You should, because that is the basis of my entire argument.

In the first case you are stating an opinion based on the level and quality of your personal knowledge and understanding of the god-claim and your disbelief may be entirely rational. In the second case you are making an assertion about the (non)existence of God based on your lack of personal knowledge and understanding. You are concluding that God does not exist because you have evaluated the god-claims of theists and do not find them to be credible. This is an irrational conclusion because the credibility or truth of a god-claim by a theist is not determinative of the existence or nonexistence of God because it is an opinion, not necessarily a statement of objective fact. Then again, it may be an opinion that does represent a correct and true understanding of the existence of God.

The whole point is, that as an Atheist, the best you can rationally say about a theistic god-claim is "I don't know" or "I don't believe." You cannot rationally say "I don't believe your god-claim because it is unsupported by objective rational evidence and therefore God does not exist" because this is not logically or rationally true.

[Brian Peacock]

The whole point is, that as an Atheist, the best you can rationally say about a theistic god-claim is "I don't know" or "I don't believe." You cannot rationally say "I don't believe your god-claim because it is unsupported by objective rational evidence and therefore God does not exist" because this is not logically or rationally true.

The whole point is, that as an nominal group member, the best you can rationally say about a claim that Obama has a two-foot dong is "I don't know" or "I don't believe." You cannot rationally say "I don't believe your Obama dong-claim because it is unsupported by objective rational evidence and therefore Obama does not have a two-foot dong" because this is not logically or rationally true.

Why is the latter quote ridiculous and the former acceptable?

What is logically and rationally true about the objective existence of God?

Do you think it is logically and rationally untrue to say that Zeus, Shiva, Ao Takawe, that-guy-with-the-head-of-a-dog-whatever-he's-called do not exist, or that Obama does not have a three-foot dong?

One dismisses a claim and refutes an argument.

If you have an argument for the existence of God feel free to present it here and we'll see if it can be refuted, and on what grounds. If you insist that a claim must be refuted before it can be dismissed then you are equivocating.

If you have have a claim for the existence of God we will do the reasonable and rational thing and ask you to provide some rational and relevant evidential support for it.

If that evidence is not forthcoming, or if the evidence presented does not support its case, the claim will be dismissed.

If you insist that we have no grounds on which to dismiss any such claim then must we say that any claim that Obama has a five-foot dong cannot be dismissed, or even must stand as a reasonable and rational possibility, until or unless rational and relevant evidence to the contrary is rolled out?

[Seth]

The whole point is, that as an Atheist, the best you can rationally say about a theistic god-claim is "I don't know" or "I don't believe." You cannot rationally say "I don't believe your god-claim because it is unsupported by objective rational evidence and therefore God does not exist" because this is not logically or rationally true.

The whole point is, that as an nominal group member, the best you can rationally say about a claim that Obama has a two-foot dong is "I don't know" or "I don't believe." You cannot rationally say "I don't believe your Obama dong-claim because it is unsupported by objective rational evidence and therefore Obama does not have a two-foot dong" because this is not logically or rationally true.

Why is the latter quote ridiculous and the former acceptable?

Both are logical fallacies, if you're referring to the quote I made in which you substituted Obama and his dong for God. It is logically and rationally true that all I can say about Obama's dong is "I don't know" or "I don't believe" because I have no objective evidence at all about the size of his dong. To say "therefore Obama does not have a two foot dong" based upon the lack of evidence about his dong size is a failure of reasoning and logic.

What is logically and rationally true about the objective existence of God?

I don't know.

Do you think it is logically and rationally untrue to say that Zeus, Shiva, Ao Takawe, that-guy-with-the-head-of-a-dog-whatever-he's-called do not exist, or that Obama does not have a three-foot dong?

In the absence of any evidence showing that none of the above exist or that Obama even has a dong, it's a failure of reason and logic to claim that the former do not exist or that the latter does not have a three-foot dong. (Evidently he must be excited about something, because it was two feet before. This might explain why Michelle is such a bitch.)

One dismisses a claim and refutes an argument.

"God does not exist" is a claim. "God does not exist because" is an argument. In both cases, absent some evidence supporting either the claim or the argument, both are rational and logical failures because they state a conclusion based on the absence of evidence, not upon an analysis of the evidence. Science, reason and logic require both evidence and analysis of a proposition before drawing valid conclusions and stating them either as a claim or as an argument.

If you have an argument for the existence of God feel free to present it here and we'll see if it can be refuted, and on what grounds. If you insist that a claim must be refuted before it can be dismissed then you are equivocating.

You have it bass-ackwards. Yet again. I make no argument or claim for or against the existence or non-existence of God. My argument is that when you state a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of God in the absence of any evidence whatsoever pointing either towards or away from either proposition you are drawing a false conclusion and you are abandoning both reason and logic.

If you have have a claim for the existence of God we will do the reasonable and rational thing and ask you to provide some rational and relevant evidential support for it.

I am not and have never made such a claim.

If that evidence is not forthcoming, or if the evidence presented does not support its case, the claim will be dismissed.

Which your free to do even if evidence is produced which supports the case. You may dismiss anything you like any time you like for any reason or no reason at all. However, just because you dismiss something doesn't mean it's a rational or logical act.

If you insist that we have no grounds on which to dismiss any such claim then must we say that any claim that Obama has a five-foot dong cannot be dismissed, or even must stand as a reasonable and rational possibility, until or unless rational and relevant evidence to the contrary is rolled out?

Once again you create a strawman argument by deliberately, and I must now assume mendaciously, conflating "dismiss" and "refute" or "rebut" in order to evade the consequences of making an irrational and illogical argument.

The issue is not whether there is a question as to the size of Obama's dong, the issue is when you say "Obama does not have a five-foot dong," which is a conclusion, but you have no evidence either for or against the proposition that he has such equipment. You may BELIEVE that Obama cannot have a five-foot dong, just as you may BELIEVE that God does not exist, but when you state either as a conclusion (rather than an opinion) based upon a logical syllogism such as "Because A, therefore B" without any supporting evidence that A logically and rationally leads to B, you are stating an irrational conclusion.

[Animavore]

Seth is getting owned big time. Lulz.

[pErvinalia]

It won't make any difference to him. He's been owned for most of his rationalist forum posting life.

[tattuchu]

I keep looking for the "Like" button but then remember there isn't one here

[Tero]

Obama's 5 Foot Dong would be a great name for a rock group.

[rachelbean]

I hope Pappa doesn't find out about this...

He knows, he knows, and anyway he has a boner for him too

[Brian Peacock]

I hope Pappa doesn't find out about this...

He knows, he knows, and anyway he has a boner for him too

[Seth]

Seth is getting owned big time. Lulz.

That depends on the power of your intellect. If you think I'm getting owned, your intellect isn't up to snuff.

[Animavore]

Seth is getting owned big time. Lulz.

That depends on the power of your intellect. If you think I'm getting owned, your intellect isn't up to snuff.

Badly.

The problem is your intellect isn't good enough to know it.