From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:16 AM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: The psychology of Atheism From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: The psychology of Atheism References: <418ab395.0201121341.64afa18c@posting.google.com> <29c16047.0201171241.5802eda2@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201201116.2297b43b@posting.google.com> "Gurnemanz" wrote > > The fact remains that there is no credible evidence of any > > gods, and so rationality compels us (through the principle > > of Parsimony) to provisionally deny that any gods exist. > > > I must beg to disagree. First of all, Brian, when I > have pressed various atheists to define 'evidence' > there has been a great reluctance to respond. It's lame of you guys, theists and atheists alike, to debate burden of proof and definitions of "evidence". When I say "no credible evidence", I don't have in mind some algorithm for mechanically evaluating evidence. It's simply shorthand for saying that the best evidence and arguments for gods fall short of being persuasive for various possible reasons. Meta-debates over the definition of "credible" or "persuasive" are just lame. If you want interesting meta-debate, look up on Google the "3 questions for theists" thread I started in Dec 2000. You added one little posting to the thread at the time but then (perhaps wisely ;-) ran for the hills when I reiterated my primary questions. I'll repost them in expanded form, but I predict that you will not dare to engage me on them. If you want interesting non-meta-debate, the productive thing to do is to get hands-on and actually debate what you think is the best evidence for design, for historical miracles, etc. You appear not to want to do that, perhaps because the burden of proof might seem to fall too heavily on you. But there's an alternative: point us to what you consider the best theistic arguments. > My case is quite simple: there is a considerable body > of evidence in the form of non-compelling arguments, > historical reports, reports of religious experiences etc > etc which can be brought forward in support of > Christianity Yes, and that's ALL your case ever seems to amount to. What I want from you is the actual live URL of a theist argument (or exposition of evidence) that you consider persuasive and unrebutted. If you decline to give one, we can only conclude that this "considerable body" is in fact not considerable at all. > to define what is rational or irrational is itself > very difficult indeed-some would argue that > this is basically a relative notion. Defining rationality may be an interesting topic in its own right, but debating it hardly a productive way to begin the discussion over whether gods exist. If the definition of 'rationality' becomes contentious during the discussion, we can debate it then. Get in the game and debate the evidence, instead of debating the rules for the game. > I'm afraid that reason and rationality do not > dictate that atheism is correct. I didn't say they do. I said there's no credible evidence of any gods. If you think there is, then instead of debating the definition "credible" or "evidence" or "rational", just point us to what you think is the BEST evidence. If we can explain or refute it, then the definition of "evidence" will turn out not to have mattered. If we can't explain or refute it, then you should just consider yourself right, and not worry over whether or not we admit it. So again: I say that the best arguments for gods can be refuted as unpersuasive, and the best evidence for gods can be well-explained naturalistically. If you disagree, then give us (or point to) your best evidence, and stop hiding behind the inevitable lack of a mechanical procedure for resolving debates. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net