To completely dismiss the opinions of others at all times is a sign of narcisism. We should all value atleast somebody else's opinion. — christian2017

"Either I'm going to endorse argumentum ad populums rather than consider them a fallacy, or I'm going to completely dismiss the opinions of others at all times."

Now there's a fine example of nuance.

ok

who said that? Its not all or nothing.

Disproving the existence of things doesn't usually involve ruling out the possibility of it's existence. — Echarmion

Disproving the existence of something means ruling out the possibility of its existence. I know what you mean, but still it is strictly speaking a contradiction.

Unless there is a reason to posit some metaphysical entity, we might as well consider it nonexistent. — Echarmion

There are many arguments for the existence of God. So there is some (debated) evidence of presence and also no evidence of absence. I do not see now on this basis a fully rational person could dismiss the existence of a deist god with 100% certainty - that leads to a conclusion (with the deist definition of God) that there are no fully rational atheists.

Depends on the context. If you run a drug trial and detect no difference compared to the control group, that is evidence of absence (in that case absence of a pharmaceutical effect). — Echarmion

I think this is a different situation. Here we have changed something (put drugs into a patient) and noted no effect. So we have positive evidence (that the drug is not working).

who said that? Its not all or nothing. — christian2017

You did, by responding to a critical comment about endorsing argumentum ad populums as if it implied completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times.

Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times?

ok

i disagree with that.

don't pretend you would listen to any of my arguments either.

i disagree with that. — christian2017

Then you answer "Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times? "

Disproving the existence of something means ruling out the possibility of its existence. I know what you mean, but still it is strictly speaking a contradiction. — Devans99

It's only strictly speaking a contradiction if possibility of existence is equivalent to actual existence.

There are many arguments for the existence of God. So there is some (debated) evidence of presence and also no evidence of absence. I do not see now on this basis a fully rational person could dismiss the existence of a deist god with 100% certainty - that leads to a conclusion (with the deist definition of God) that there are no fully rational atheists. — Devans99

Arguments are not evidence though. Just the fact that there are arguments doesn't mean one has to agree with them. Without looking at the arguments themselves, you cannot say that disagreeing with all of them is per se irrational.

I think this is a different situation. Here we have changed something (put drugs into a patient) and noted no effect. So we have positive evidence (that the drug is not working). — Devans99

I agree we have evidence of absence. But this evidence is based on absence of evidence - quite literally nothing happening.

i dismiss your opinion everytime. Not everyone else.

i dismiss your opinion everytime. Not everyone else. — christian2017

At least you care enough to respond to tell me this.

Weak/negative atheism is lack of belief in any particular deity. I think it falls under the wider category of of agnosticism. To justify weak atheism, nothing is required because it is a negative belief.

Strong/positive atheism is a belief that no deities at all exist (strong atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false according to Wikipedia). To justify that belief/assertion, strictly speaking, one has to be sure that no deities exist at all. That requires a proof that no deities at all exist. That is surely unprovable for a deist deity (=no 3Os).

But maybe the above is unreasonable. I think a proof that the universe is not a creation would be sufficient for most people to adopt strong atheism. But no such prove exists.

So strong/positive atheism is a positive belief/assertion - which requires proof - else it is classed as belief without evidence - which is irrational.

I agree we have evidence of absence. But this evidence is based on absence of evidence - quite literally nothing happening. — Echarmion

But in the drug trial example, you expect something to happen if the drug is effective and it does not so you can reach the conclusion that the drug is not effective.

In terms of God, it would be a like building a God detection device, turning it on and getting a negative result.

In both cases there is evidence of absence (of drug effects / God) rather than absence of evidence.

your welcome. as you can tell i'm so compassionate. lol

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. — Devans99

It’s not evidence of anything.

Yes I agree. Absence of evidence of evidence (for God) is not evidence of absence (of God).

Weak/negative atheism is lack of belief in any particular deity. I think it falls under the wider category of of agnosticism. To justify weak atheism, nothing is required because it is a negative belief. — Devans99

It's perhaps worth pointing out that "atheist/agnostic" in this context are merely more or less arbitrary groups of related beliefs. They are useful to indicate the direction your thoughts go into, but what ultimately matters are the specific reasons.

Strong/positive atheism is a belief that no deities at all exist (strong atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false according to Wikipedia). To justify that belief/assertion, strictly speaking, one has to be sure that no deities exist at all. That requires a proof that no deities at all exist. That is surely unprovable for a deist deity (=no 3Os). — Devans99

I don't really see what you mean by "proof" here. A "proof" in the strict sense only exists in purely deductive systems like formal logic or mathematics. There is no "proof" of that kind for empirical science, and I don't believe very much can be deduced about metaphysics other than that something exists that thinks my thoughts. But since the possibility of metaphysics are essentially unlimited, it doesn't make sense to call this "being agnostic". Because it would follow that one is agnostic towards everything, from naive realism to the simulation hypothesis.

But in the drug trial example, you expect something to happen if the drug is effective and it does not so you can reach the conclusion that the drug is not effective.

In terms of God, it would be a like building a God detection device, turning it on and getting a negative result.

In both cases there is evidence of absence (of drug effects / God) rather than absence of evidence. — Devans99

Well, the quality of the evidence will depend on the circumstances, as I already stated. With God, the problem isn't really about whether the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence but more about how God can even be imagined as a physical entity in the first place and what predictive power such a theory of God would have. Rules such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are only true for purely deductive formal logic, not for inductive empirical science, and are useful shorthands rather than actual rules in the latter.

I don't really see what you mean by "proof" here. A "proof" in the strict sense only exists in purely deductive systems like formal logic or mathematics. There is no "proof" of that kind for empirical science, and I don't believe very much can be deduced about metaphysics other than that something exists that thinks my thoughts. But since the possibility of metaphysics are essentially unlimited, it doesn't make sense to call this "being agnostic". Because it would follow that one is agnostic towards everything, from naive realism to the simulation hypothesis. — Echarmion

'Proof' is the wrong word - sorry. Strong atheists hold a positive belief in the non-existence of any deities. What I'm suggesting is they need a justification for that belief (as in Justified True Belief). Evidence/a strong argument for the non-existence of a deist God is what is required to rationally hold the strong atheist viewpoint. I am not aware that any such evidence/strong arguments exist.

Well, the quality of the evidence will depend on the circumstances, as I already stated. With God, the problem isn't really about whether the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence but more about how God can even be imagined as a physical entity in the first place and what predictive power such a theory of God would have. Rules such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are only true for purely deductive formal logic, not for inductive empirical science, and are useful shorthands rather than actual rules in the latter. — Echarmion

It is a fair point, but I think there is a natural tendency for humans to limit their consideration of what is possible to what they are familiar with when in fact what they are familiar could be only a tiny subset of what is actually possible. It seems God must be timeless so straight away we are in very unfamiliar / non-earth-like territory. God maybe extra dimensional. God may not be a physical entity. These things could be possible but are completely alien to us.

I listen to your arguments, christian2017. They bring me great happiness.

Speaking of which, I truly grieve for the loss of the thread with all the snakes and lizards and small vaginas. I think the forum is a poorer place without it.

:) You seem very intelligent. I'm not sure what to say. I don't usually do this but if you would like send me a private message. No wrong answer.

You seem very intelligent. I'm not sure what to say. I don't usually do this but if you would like send me a private message. No wrong answer.

:)

You seem very intelligent. — christian2017

Recognition!

Finally... :roll: