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

[Tom Sawyer]

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, this is correct.

Ancient people with few tools available to make sense out of the natural world got a lot of wrong answers when trying to do so. Now that we have better tools available, there's no need for us to bang two rocks together in order to light a fire when we can just use a lighter and there's no need to resort to religion to find out answers about the universe when we have science.

If you want to light your campfire by banging two rocks together, that's fine and its your own business. When you tell the guy next to you that your method is superior to his just using the lighter to do it, though, you're just wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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).

Then why mention them as false, strange gods anyway? Why wouldn't all those different magic books and magic stories encourage their people's to embrace these deities and spirits? Why call them false? Why burn their temples? Why even call them gods?

Obviously your claim is bogus but it is in keeping with other revisionism I have heard. It's a very modern revisionist line, kind of like saying all heresy is really truth, only disguised.

Whatever works to keep the pews full and the money coming in is the one religious strategy that has never changed and will never need changing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

All those false Gods and false religions and false revelations! Could it be then, all such revelations are wrong? Sure! So burden of proof is on those who claim their revelation, their God, their religion is true among all the false claims. And no, not possible, but is true with evidence to support that. Why should I pay any religious claim any attention at all? Especially when these omni-everything Gods create so many contradictions and puzzles?

 

[AJ113]

In order for atheism to be true...

Not sure if you're aware, but atheism isn't a belief, it's an absence of one, it can be neither true nor false.

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

Yeah but if turns out to be Zeus you're going to be in some serious shit mate. People are atheistic because they have no good reason to believe otherwise.

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.

That's a bit of a strawman you're building there mate. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), that is all - it doesn't necessarily come with claims of lies and delusions, just the same as not all theists believe in Jesus.

 

[Underseer]

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.

In order for not believing in fairies to be true, believing in fairies has to be completely, 100% false. Since you cannot disprove fairies 100%, therefore it is illogical to not believe in fairies, therefore fairies are real.

Have you just ignored everything we said about the burden of proof? The burden is not on the person rejecting the claim. It doesn't matter if you think not believing in fairies is reasonable, someone who believes in fairies has the burden of proving them. It doesn't matter how unreasonable a Hindu thinks you are for not believing in Vishnu, it is still the Hindu's burden to prove Vishnu, not your burden to 100% disprove Vishnu (you can't, by the way). It is already not your burden to 100% disprove Thor, or Zeus, or elves, or vampires. You can't disprove any of those things either.

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

And if any part of believing in fairies is even slightly true then not believing in fairies is completely false. If any part of Hinduism is even slightly true, then Christianity is 100% false because the Bible claims to be the one and only true religion.

Are you staying to see how this works yet? Or are you willing to accept these burden of disproving the thousands of Hindu gods with 100% certainty?

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.

Not believing in fairies is not a worldview.

Not believing in elves is not a worldview.

Not believing in vampires is not a worldview.

Not believing in pixies is not a worldview.

Not believing in Vishnu is not a worldview.

Not believing in the twin gods of the Wiccan religion is not a worldview.

Not believing in Allah is not a worldview.

Not believing in your god is not a worldview.

It is merely the default conclusion when someone makes a claim and then fails to provide adequate evidence for their claim.

 

[Underseer]

Lion, you can no more disprove any of the other thousands of gods from all the other religions than I can disprove your god.

If the burden of proof works the way you seem to think, then this means that all the gods from all the religions are real because you cannot disprove any of them. However, if all the gods of all the religions are real, that means the Bible is definitely false because the Bible says that it represents the word of the one and only true god.

So which is it? Are you going to accept the burden of proof of your own claims and show us your proof, out are you going to insist that the burden belongs to anyone skeptical of the claim? Because if you insist on the latter, then the Bible is definitely false, and therefore Christianity is false even if Jesus is real.

 

[blastula]

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.)

It shouldn't be hard to provide something tangible to prove werewolves it they do exist. So if others can't provide anything other than anecdotal evidence, then you are gullible to not doubt it.

 

[blastula]

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.)

The non-existence of God is empirical because there is an absence of evidence where there should be evidence. God is not just a being who started the universe, it's a being that interacts daily in the world according to theists, even giving theists superpowers, yet there is no good evidence to substantiate any of that activity. It shouldn't be hard to provide such evidence if it were a true claim.

 

[FwL]

Look out. Here comes our old buddy Pascal's wager.

 

[none]

Hinstianity and Budeoism
wtf?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

You know what an analogy is, right? I'm making an "analogy" regarding experience and reality. I saw a werewolf for a moment. That happened. Yet, I know there is no such thing as a werewolf. I saw something that didn't exist. My experience of seeing it didn't all of a sudden lift the concept of werewolves from a man made concept to real things.

Substitute god experiences which are no more experienced than mine and see how the conclusion follows.

 

[Learner]

Then why mention them as false, strange gods anyway? Why wouldn't all those different magic books and magic stories encourage their people's to embrace these deities and spirits? Why call them false? Why burn their temples? Why even call them gods?

It says so in the bible, forbidding conjuring magic and calling upon spirits and woshiping other dieities. (The deities that called themselves gods are those that interacted with ordinary men).

Obviously your claim is bogus but it is in keeping with other revisionism I have heard. It's a very modern revisionist line, kind of like saying all heresy is really truth, only disguised.

I'm sure that happens but I much prefer keeping with the early Christianity where I get influenced from.

Whatever works to keep the pews full and the money coming in is the one religious strategy that has never changed and will never need changing.

I'm with you regarding so-called missions for profit which is not where I'm at.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It says so in the bible, forbidding conjuring magic and calling upon spirits and woshiping other dieities. (The deities that called themselves gods are those that interacted with ordinary men).

OK, but what if my neighbor is pissing me off and I want to conjure up an evil spirit to tear him and his family to pieces and then drag their souls into Hell to be tortured for all eternity in exchange for having me worship that spirit as a deity? The Bible is cool with that, right?

 

[Learner]

OK, but what if my neighbor is pissing me off and I want to conjure up an evil spirit to tear him and his family to pieces and then drag their souls into Hell to be tortured for all eternity in exchange for having me worship that spirit as a deity? The Bible is cool with that, right?

Well that would be against the bible. Besides, if your neihbour believed in Jesus then no evil spirit will dare try. Best be on Jesus's side as your neihbour maybe doing the very thing you were suggesting.

 

[Sarpedon]

"deities that called themselves gods?" Are the two terms not synonymous now? Please explain? Do you mean "Demons that called themselves gods?" I thought that was the orthodox view.

I've always wondered what the modern take on the ambivalence of the early bible as to the existence of other gods. The first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Not that there are no other gods, nor even that we can't have other gods, but only that none should be before him.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

How about them sons of God? Genesis 6 and Job 1 and 2. Aren't they gods also? Or just deities?

 

[DBT]

Isn't Yahweh Himself said to be the son of the High God El, given dominion over the tribe of Israel...

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion, you can no more disprove any of the other thousands of gods from all the other religions than I can disprove your god....

I don't have to disprove any other gods. If any other gods exist I'm only partly wrong.
You, one the other hand, are entirely wrong if any of those gods are real.

God still exists even if...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Lion, you can no more disprove any of the other thousands of gods from all the other religions than I can disprove your god....

I don't have to disprove any other gods. If any other gods exist I'm only partly wrong.
You, one the other hand, are entirely wrong if any of those gods are real.

God still exists even if...

View attachment 9020

Well, not really. That's like saying that even if your arguments about the historical accuracy of Robin Hood stories are wrong, there are still bandits, so you're more correct than someone saying he's a fictional character. You're saying that a specific deity exists and that deity has specific qualities and wants us to do specific things.

If there's an uncaring, deistic entity out there who doesn't give a shit about humans one way or the other, the Christian arguments about God would be just as inaccurate as the atheist ones.

 

[bilby]

I would be interested to see a Christian trying to convince the Norse, Roman or Ancient Egyptian gods that he was more right about them than the atheists.