Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (shifting the burden of proof fallacy)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, since you put it that way, I guess anyone who claims they saw anything must be presumed a liar.

That is presenting a false dichotomy. There are more options and possibilities. A person may genuinely believe what they say they saw but be mistaken, maybe the light played tricks with their vision, they may be a poor observer through no fault of their own (they are what they are).

I saw a werewolf once. I was a very young kid and I stumbled and fell down the stairs. After I reached the bottom, I looked across the basement and saw a werewolf sticking its head from a doorway, then it disappeared.

I'm not lying, this actually happened. That is what I saw in a brief moment.

According to Lion IRC, werewolves are real.

 

[fromderinside]

adventures in finding where wolves are ..... I wonder ...... naw ...... on the other hand ........ maybe that's it. Its actually where wolves are misheard some centuries back in Transylvania, a place twixt Hungary and Romania, from where my friend Andrew Rosza came after the Hungarian revolution against the USSR in ought-56. So he knows .... else .... (are we to evidence yet).

 

[Underseer]

That is presenting a false dichotomy. There are more options and possibilities. A person may genuinely believe what they say they saw but be mistaken, maybe the light played tricks with their vision, they may be a poor observer through no fault of their own (they are what they are).

I saw a werewolf once. I was a very young kid and I stumbled and fell down the stairs. After I reached the bottom, I looked across the basement and saw a werewolf sticking its head from a doorway, then it disappeared.

I'm not lying, this actually happened. That is what I saw in a brief moment.

According to Lion IRC, werewolves are real.

You had a personal experience of werewolves, and your not alone in that. There used to be such a thing as werewolf trials, so clearly others also had personal experience of werewolves.

Also, werewolves can't be disproved.

Lastly, werewolves are mentioned in books that also mention real places.

Take all of this evidence together, and werewolves are definitely real.

 

[blastula]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I saw a werewolf once. I was a very young kid and I stumbled and fell down the stairs. After I reached the bottom, I looked across the basement and saw a werewolf sticking its head from a doorway, then it disappeared.

I'm not lying, this actually happened. That is what I saw in a brief moment.

According to Lion IRC, werewolves are real.

You had a personal experience of werewolves, and your not alone in that. There used to be such a thing as werewolf trials, so clearly others also had personal experience of werewolves.

Also, werewolves can't be disproved.

Lastly, werewolves are mentioned in books that also mention real places.

Take all of this evidence together, and werewolves are definitely real.

When I was much younger I was regularly visited by a succubus, or succubi, and always at night. There is simply no other way to explain my body's behavior at the time. I was doing all the right religious things and this succubus would come right into my bedroom and give me orgasms.

If that isn't proof of a succubus I don't know what is.

 

[Lion IRC]

That is presenting a false dichotomy. There are more options and possibilities. A person may genuinely believe what they say they saw but be mistaken, maybe the light played tricks with their vision, they may be a poor observer through no fault of their own (they are what they are).

I saw a werewolf once. I was a very young kid and I stumbled and fell down the stairs. After I reached the bottom, I looked across the basement and saw a werewolf sticking its head from a doorway, then it disappeared.

I'm not lying, this actually happened. That is what I saw in a brief moment.

According to Lion IRC, werewolves are real.

How does your personal experience of werewolves equate to a claim by me about werewolves?
I have no personal experience of werewolves.

The only evidence I have for the existence of werewolves is your firsthand account.

Suppose others made similar claims of firsthand experience of werewolves. That would be MORE evidence.
Suppose I have no evidence to the contrary and no evidence that you are prone to lying. What should I think?

Should I persist with the claim that there's no reason to think werewolves exist?

At what point does my uber skepticism become unreasonable if I keep on saying "that's not evidence!" irrespective of the number of people who claim they saw a werewolf?

Sooner or later my open-mindedness to the possibilty of werewolves would start to be challenged and people would rightly start to wonder if I had some ulterior motive for disbelieving all/any evidence which pointed to the possibility that werewolves exist.

Eventually my persistent denial of reported werewolf sightings/experiences would start to look like an unwarranted dogmatic belief that there is no such thing as werewolves. (Much like the atheist who asserts that there is no God/gods.)

 

[Lion IRC]

And the claim that God doesn't exist is either a belief or a certainty.

If it's a belief, then such atheists can rightly be called 'believers' in the truest sense of the word.

And if it's a certainty rather than a belief insofar as God's existence or otherwise, then the strong atheist who is a #7 on Dawkins' theism scale presumably can offer evidence rather than opinion.

Needless to say, we would expect that God-denial by this type of atheist is based on strict, rigorous empirical evidence. (Because it would be hypocritical for such an atheist not to live up to the same standard of proof they expect of their opponent.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The logical problems that the God of revealed religions of Islam, Christianity et al gets involved in, when we take their supposed revelations as granted, demonstrates God as a concept is self defeating. In science, a hypothesis is examined at early stages to see if it is coherent and logical. If it isn't, that hypothesis is amended or abandoned entirely. Religion doesn't really do that.

Strong atheism is not a mere belief, but is a belief that is based on close examination of the claims of theology. Justified belief.

 

[DBT]

And the claim that God doesn't exist is either a belief or a certainty.

It's not necessarily either. In principle, it's a lack or absence of a belief or a conviction in the existence of a God or gods based on an lack of evidence for the existence of these things.

 

[Lion IRC]

God(s) probably/definitely - yes.
God(s) probably/definitely - no.
God(s) - maybe/don't care.

There only seems to be 3 options.

 

[Underseer]

I saw a werewolf once. I was a very young kid and I stumbled and fell down the stairs. After I reached the bottom, I looked across the basement and saw a werewolf sticking its head from a doorway, then it disappeared.

I'm not lying, this actually happened. That is what I saw in a brief moment.

According to Lion IRC, werewolves are real.

How does your personal experience of werewolves equate to a claim by me about werewolves?
I have no personal experience of werewolves.

The only evidence I have for the existence of werewolves is your firsthand account.

Suppose others made similar claims of firsthand experience of werewolves. That would be MORE evidence.
Suppose I have no evidence to the contrary and no evidence that you are prone to lying. What should I think?

Should I persist with the claim that there's no reason to think werewolves exist?

I and others have personal experiences of werewolves.

According to your own arguments, you should therefore accept the claim that werewolves are real.

If you wish to argue that we should believe your religious claims but not my werewolf claims because more people believed in your religious claims than believe in werewolves, then that would mean that you should also believe that Islam and Hinduism are true.

If you think we should reject the claims about werewolves because some of those who claim werewolves are real are known to be liars, then you should find Christianity to be false.

At what point does my uber skepticism become unreasonable if I keep on saying "that's not evidence!" irrespective of the number of people who claim they saw a werewolf?

If the number of claimants makes a claim true, then you must decide that Islam and Hinduism are true.

But the Bible claims to represent the one and only true religion, so if the number of claimants makes something true, them that means that the Bible is definitely false.

So you can stick to your argument that the number of claimants makes a claim true, in which case you have to admit that Christianity is false, or you can withdraw your argument and insist that there personal experiences of Jesus is not different from the personal experience of werewolves.

Sooner or later my open-mindedness to the possibilty of werewolves would start to be challenged and people would rightly start to wonder if I had some ulterior motive for disbelieving all/any evidence which pointed to the possibility that werewolves exist.

Motives don't matter. What matters is the quality of the evidence presented. Personal experience is simply not valid evidence. It is not valid evidence for werewolves, nor Islam, nor Hinduism, nor your religion, nor anything else.

Eventually my persistent denial of reported werewolf sightings/experiences would start to look like an unwarranted dogmatic belief that there is no such thing as werewolves. (Much like the atheist who asserts that there is no God/gods.)

No, your denial of werewolves is entirely reasonable given the lack of valid evidence for werewolves.

Do you honestly think it is unreasonable to not accept the claims that werewolves are real?

 

[Lion IRC]

Underseer has had a personal experience of werewolves.
...yet claims denial of werewolves is entirely reasonable given the lack of evidence.

Which is it?

 

[Learner]

If the number of claimants makes a claim true, then you must decide that Islam and Hinduism are true.

But the Bible claims to represent the one and only true religion, so if the number of claimants makes something true, them that means that the Bible is definitely false.

but amazingly it seems other religious followers other than Christian more or less acknowledge Jesus and his teachings. Just borrowed examples from below
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/who-is-jesus-according-to-other-religions/

Jews believe Jesus was Mary’s son, was a teacher (Rabbi), had many disciples, was respected, performed miracles, claimed to be the Messiah and was crucified on the cross. They also acknowledge His followers reported Jesus was raised from the dead.

Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, is to be revered and respected, was a prophet, a wise teacher who worked miracles, ascended to heaven, and will come again.

Ahmadiyya Muslims believe Jesus may have been born of a virgin, was a prophet and wise teacher, worked miracles, and was crucified on a cross.

Bahá’í believe Jesus came from God, was a wise teacher who had a divine and human nature, worked miracles, and was crucified and resurrected as an atonement for humanity. Bahá’u’lláh described Jesus as a divinely wise teacher whose words contained the deep wisdom from God Himself:

Hindus believe Jesus was a holy man, a wise teacher, and is a ‘god’.

Buddhists believe Jesus was an enlightened man and a wise teacher.

New Age believers maintain Jesus was a wise moral teacher.

Bible doesn't seem to be false.

 

[Lion IRC]

In order for atheism to be true Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Pantheism, every single type of theism which has ever been held must ALL be 100% false.

Whereas if only the smallest portion of ANY theistic religion is even partly true then atheism is therefore completely false.

It's such an imbalance of worldviews - thousands of religions versus the astonishing solitary claim that all religious claims and all supernatural experiences are all lies or delusions.

 

[none]

I think a little different
there is no evidence of those various gods, if that renders them false I guess that they are false
if there was evidence you wouldn't need faith
in my opinion there could be a god even though I don't believe there is one or many

 

[DBT]

God(s) probably/definitely - yes.
God(s) probably/definitely - no.
God(s) - maybe/don't care.

There only seems to be 3 options.

What about evidence? If someone says to you that they have not only seen Mermaids but swim with them regularly...would you say - 'yes, indeed, you appear genuine, a decent fellow, it must be true' - or would you expect to see evidence before forming a conviction in the reality of Mermaids?

 

[none]

Jesus shaves!

 

[bigfield]

In order for atheism to be true Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Pantheism, every single type of theism which has ever been held must ALL be 100% false.

Whereas if only the smallest portion of ANY theistic religion is even partly true then atheism is therefore completely false.

It's such an imbalance of worldviews - thousands of religions versus the astonishing solitary claim that all religious claims and all supernatural experiences are all lies or delusions.

Yes--there are many wrong answers.

Does it comfort you that the majority of humankind believes religious falsehoods?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In order for atheism to be true Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Pantheism, every single type of theism which has ever been held must ALL be 100% false.

Whereas if only the smallest portion of ANY theistic religion is even partly true then atheism is therefore completely false.

It's such an imbalance of worldviews - thousands of religions versus the astonishing solitary claim that all religious claims and all supernatural experiences are all lies or delusions.

It did used to be true that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe - true because humans were ignorant. Lots of things used to be true because humans were ignorant.

Now because lots of humans are still ignorant, by your reasoning it is still true that there are invisible spacemen interested in our sex organs. Wonderful.

 

[Learner]

I think a little different
there is no evidence of those various gods, if that renders them false I guess that they are false
if there was evidence you wouldn't need faith
in my opinion there could be a god even though I don't believe there is one or many

It is known that people of the ancient past have seen in their times what seemed to them to be gods as depicted in various ancient artifacts. It is said in all cultures of ancient civilizations. Even in those days ordinary people could determine and be dazzled by the workings of proposed entities not quite as normal as the average humanbeings. How one reads these ancient stories "tittled under myths" is another thing. I personally wouldn't put my faith in any Smithsonian-like research for some of the said evidence or the humanist board of historic validators.

Even then from the perspective of the bible. These gods wouldn't be contradicting biblical scripture being there is only one real God and there are/were many false gods (fallen and nephilim for example).