'Splain this one Atheists...

[Seth]

I don't know.

You don't know if that's the ONLY explanation?

I don't know. I have insufficient credible evidence to indicate whether it is the only answer or merely one of many possible answers. I can speculate on the matter, but that is all.

Do you consider divine intervention a "possibility" or only mere speculation?

That is, the way you come across - and you can correct me if I'm wrong - you seem to say that divine intervention is a possibility. But, if in reality you just don't know and all you can do is speculate, then isn't it true that you don't know if divine intervention is even a possibility?

Isn't it correct to say that you don't know even if divine intervention is a possibility or if any other nondivine possibilities exist? The one thing we do know is that she got better, but you have no idea how that happened, right?

Or, do you credit divine interventions as being a stronger possibility than any other possibility?

I don't know how or why she got better, and neither, it seems, does medical science. The universe is rife with possibilities, like magical teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, but it's far from scientific fact that such things exist. I cannot say if they do because I don't konw. But what I can say is that there is no evidence that divine intervention is, in this case, an impossibility.

Being uncertain of the factual status of possibility is completely different from being certain of the factual status of impossibility. That is the core of the argument against Atheist claims of the non-existence of God. We only "know", in the sense of having true knowledge, of those things we have true knowledge of. Everything else is, ipso facto, unknown as to the truth of the proposition. Being unknown, one cannot rationally claim that any proposition is impossible because one does not have any critically robust scientific evidence of that impossibility.

Thus, the rational response to unproven claims of truth, in the absence of countervailing scientific refutation, can only be "I don't know."

Nothing, you see, can be claimed to be "impossible" without first having perfect knowledge of the universe, which no human being even comes close to having.

Let me ask it this way -- other than divine intervention, is there another possible way Taylor emerged from a coma?

I don't know. Neither, evidently, do the medical experts. Could be space aliens with a "healing ray" of some sort I suppose, but that's just rank speculation.

And, divine intervention is, likewise, rank speculation to that same extent, yes?

Could be. Or, it could be the truth. The issue is not whether divine intervention is axiomatically rank speculation, it's whether a particular individual who is assessing the claims associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to base a conclusion about the truth-value of the claim. Thus, while it might be rank speculation for me to draw a conclusion about divine intervention, it might be an expression of truth on the part of someone who has different knowledge of the facts of the situation.

For me to say that Obama has a three-foot-long cock would be rank speculation on my part. But Michelle Obama has knowledge that I don't have and therefore is qualified to make a statement of observed truth that would not be rank speculation.

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

I doubt it.

O.k., so then would you consider it a "possibility" that there was no divine intervention in this instance?

And, do you consider it a "possibility" that there was divine intervention in this instance?

Anything is possible. The issue here is whether anyone can claim that something is impossible without the scientific proof to back up the claim. Skepticism is not scientific proof, it's just rank speculation when one draws a conclusion based only on skepticism.

[Forty Two]

I don't know.

You don't know if that's the ONLY explanation?

I don't know. I have insufficient credible evidence to indicate whether it is the only answer or merely one of many possible answers. I can speculate on the matter, but that is all.

Do you consider divine intervention a "possibility" or only mere speculation?

That is, the way you come across - and you can correct me if I'm wrong - you seem to say that divine intervention is a possibility. But, if in reality you just don't know and all you can do is speculate, then isn't it true that you don't know if divine intervention is even a possibility?

Isn't it correct to say that you don't know even if divine intervention is a possibility or if any other nondivine possibilities exist? The one thing we do know is that she got better, but you have no idea how that happened, right?

Or, do you credit divine interventions as being a stronger possibility than any other possibility?

I don't know how or why she got better, and neither, it seems, does medical science.

Well, you don't know that medical science doesn't know, do you? You only know that you don't know and nobody has told you (verbally or in writing), right?

The universe is rife with possibilities, like magical teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, but it's far from scientific fact that such things exist. I cannot say if they do because I don't konw. But what I can say is that there is no evidence that divine intervention is, in this case, an impossibility.

You can also say that there is no evidence that divine intervention is, in this case, a possibility, correct?

Being uncertain of the factual status of possibility is completely different from being certain of the factual status of impossibility.

Yes, but who said "impossibility?" I mean, most atheists don't say "impossibility." Like Richard Dawkins and his scale of certainty, he doesn't claim complete certainty.

That is the core of the argument against Atheist claims of the non-existence of God.

Look, this kind of argument descends into sophistry. Nobody is claiming -- well, almost nobody -- certainly nobody I have ever talked to -- is claiming the "certainty" that you refer to. it's not even "certain" that we exist. Existence may be an illusion. We may be a simulation in a computer program. We may be someone else's dream. Maybe only I exist, and you don't, or vice versa. I'm still an atheist, because I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe they exist, because no good reason has been offered to me to believe in one. That is not to say that it's "impossible" that there is a God, or god, or gods, or giant computer running a simulation..... I can't say that ANYTHING is impossible, and neither can anyone else. Maybe I can jump to the moon if I will it hard enough, and try hard. So far, I can't, but maybe next time. I can't "prove" I can't. But, I don't believe I can, because of what I think I know about my body, musculature, basic physics, etc. However, all of that may just be an illusion, and when I think I haven't jumped to the moon, I really have.

That's why your whole argument is sophistry. You argue that it's impossible to say that there is no god, because it can't be proved with absolute certainty that it's nonexistent. By that test, there is no knowledge at all, as we cannot prove with absolute certainty that anything at all exists or that reality exists, or that any of our senses are reliable. If you are going to start with the proposition that every belief which cannot be proved with absolute certainty is irrational, then no beliefs are rational since nothing can be proved with "absolute" certainty because even reality itself is not absolutely proven to exist in the way we think we perceive it and/or at all.

We only "know", in the sense of having true knowledge, of those things we have true knowledge of.

Tautology. This is meaningless semantics and pettifoggery at its best. We only "know" those things of which we have knowledge? Well, no shit Sherlock. We only pee the "pee" that we pee, too, and we only think the thoughts that we think.

Everything else is, ipso facto, unknown as to the truth of the proposition.

LOL - yes, things that we don't know, we don't know.

Being unknown, one cannot rationally claim that any proposition is impossible because one does not have any critically robust scientific evidence of that impossibility.

That's only important to the people who claim that something is "impossible." Atheists generally don't make claims that it is "impossible" that god exists or that divine intervention is "impossible." They claim they don't believe in gods or divine intervention because they don't see a reason to believe in them.

By your specious sophistry, it's irrational to disbelieve anything because it's not possible to prove anything to be impossible. Thus, disbelief in gods is, in your mind, irrational because it is impossible to prove their nonexistence. That's pure sophistry and pettifoggery.

People don't disbelieve gods because gods are "impossible" or that it has been proven with certainty that no gods exist anywhere, anyhow. They disbelieve the existence of gods because they haven't seen a reason to believe in them. Like, do you believe there is a blue blimp over my house. I don't know, but I don't believe so. Let me look out the window. Hmmm.. I see no blimp, so I don't believe one is there. Can you prove with absolute certainty there is no blimp there? Of course not. Is it possible there is a blue stealth blimp up there, with super quiet propellers hovering there? Sure. Do you believe it is there? No. Is it irrational to not believe in a blimp above your house when there is no reason to think one is there? Of course not.

But, in your logic, Seth, you think it is irrational to not believe the blimp is there, unless you have absolute certain proof it is not there. Since it is impossible to disprove that a blimp is there that just can't be detected by our means at this time, then the only rational answer, in your view, apparently, is "I don't know." In other words, you argue that the only rational answer to any question is "I don't know."

Once again, sophistry and pettifoggery at its finest.

Thus, the rational response to unproven claims of truth, in the absence of countervailing scientific refutation, can only be "I don't know."

Can you pose a question regarding the existence or nonexistence of something for which "I don't know" is not the only answer?

Nothing, you see, can be claimed to be "impossible" without first having perfect knowledge of the universe, which no human being even comes close to having.

Who claims that gods are impossible? Who claimed that divine intervention was "impossible?"

Not me, of course. Gods don't have to be impossible for someone to be an atheist. Not accepting a claim of divine intervention does not require a finding that divine intervention is impossible.

You're the only one talking about impossible.

Let me ask it this way -- other than divine intervention, is there another possible way Taylor emerged from a coma?

I don't know. Neither, evidently, do the medical experts. Could be space aliens with a "healing ray" of some sort I suppose, but that's just rank speculation.

And, divine intervention is, likewise, rank speculation to that same extent, yes?

Could be. Or, it could be the truth. [/quote] Same goes for aliens with their healing ray. Could be speculation, or could be truth, in your view, right?

The issue is not whether divine intervention is axiomatically rank speculation, it's whether a particular individual who is assessing the claims associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to base a conclusion about the truth-value of the claim.

It's also whether a person MAKING a claim associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to make the assertion, isn't it? And, if a person assessing that other person's claim is not provided sufficient information by the person making the claim, then isn't the person assessing the claim entitled to reject the insufficiently supported claim?

Thus, when the chiropractors says "it can only be divine intervention," unless he can provide sufficient information to support that claim, aren't I justified in rejecting his claim (subject to his future presentation of sufficient information on which to assess his claim)?

Thus, while it might be rank speculation for me to draw a conclusion about divine intervention, it might be an expression of truth on the part of someone who has different knowledge of the facts of the situation.

Sure, but speculation that an assertion might be true because someone has different knowledge of the facts is not a reason to believe that the assertion is true, is it? I certainly understand that other people may know things that I don't, but that doesn't mean I accept any assertion made. It's up to a person with the different knowledge of the facts of the situation to demonstrate that knowledge. Otherwise, logically, I don't need to accept their assertions. I.e., I don't need to take their word for it. And, in many cases it would be irrational to take their word for it.

For me to say that Obama has a three-foot-long cock would be rank speculation on my part. But Michelle Obama has knowledge that I don't have and therefore is qualified to make a statement of observed truth that would not be rank speculation.

Sure, but the rational position to take is to be an athreefootcockist until such time as it is demonstrated that the threefootcock exists. If Michelle says "I saw the cock, and it is three feet long," she may be right, but it would not be reasonable to take her at her word. It would be even less reasonable to take her word if she didn't claim to have actually seen the cock, but only indirectly observed the effects of the cock in the dark. She might claim, it felt so huge and hurt me so much, it could only have been a divine threefootcock. We'd say, let's see the proof Michelle! And, if proof was not forthcoming, we might say, well, technically it's "possible" that Obama has a three foot cock, but since nobody has presented any sort of reason to believe it exists, we don't believe in it.

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

I doubt it.

O.k., so then would you consider it a "possibility" that there was no divine intervention in this instance?

And, do you consider it a "possibility" that there was divine intervention in this instance?

Anything is possible. The issue here is whether anyone can claim that something is impossible without the scientific proof to back up the claim.[/quote]

No it isn't. The issue here is whether the claim that it was divine intervention has been supported by reason or evidence. As far as I can tell, the answer to that is no.

It is "possible" it's divine intervention, just as it is "possible" it was aliens with a healing ray.

Skepticism is not scientific proof, it's just rank speculation when one draws a conclusion based only on skepticism.

Nobody said it was.

[rainbow]

You talk nonsense.

No, you do.[/quote]

[Seth]

Well, you don't know that medical science doesn't know, do you? You only know that you don't know and nobody has told you (verbally or in writing), right?

Correct. I don't know. If you have critically robust scientific evidence showing how and why this girl recovered, then I'll be more than happy to examine it and amend my beliefs on the matter. As it stands, however, no one here has met the challenged posed by the OP, which is for YOU (Atheists) to provide such an explanation in order to rebut the (albeit irrational) claims of the participants.

Yes, but who said "impossibility?" I mean, most atheists don't say "impossibility." Like Richard Dawkins and his scale of certainty, he doesn't claim complete certainty.

Indeed. He's admitted both that the question of whether God exists is a purely scientific question and that he doesn't know whether God exists or not. But, that's just temporizing on his part because he belies that proviso every time he actually espouses his opinion on the subject.

Moreover, he spends zero time advocating for a scientific investigation into the truth about the existence of God, which belies his formulaic and self-serving quibbling.

The same is true here, by and large. Atheists here, and elsewhere, only invoke the "well, I never said it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist or do this or that" defense as an evasion when they are called out on their constant drone of religious hate-speech and ridicule. It's just a rhetorical evasion and nothing else. In fact every Atheist I've ever encountered is lying through their teeth when they present that obvious rhetorical evasion and they in point of actual fact firmly disbelieve that God does, or can exist, as demonstrated by the reams and terabytes of bigoted anti-theistic abuse they publish.

Look, this kind of argument descends into sophistry. Nobody is claiming -- well, almost nobody -- certainly nobody I have ever talked to -- is claiming the "certainty" that you refer to.

Funny, because pretty much EVERY Atheist I've ever debated with does exactly that, but not in so many words. See above. They are happy to rant and rave and insult, belittle and castigate theists, or even anyone who doesn't march to the beat of the anti-theist Atheist drum, in the most insulting manner and demonstrate by their candid rhetoric just how much they hate the very concept of theism and actively disbelieve the claims of theists, but when I challenge their rhetoric they almost always resort to the obfuscation and evasion that you are now engaged in.

it's not even "certain" that we exist. Existence may be an illusion. We may be a simulation in a computer program. We may be someone else's dream. Maybe only I exist, and you don't, or vice versa. I'm still an atheist, because I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe they exist, because no good reason has been offered to me to believe in one. That is not to say that it's "impossible" that there is a God, or god, or gods, or giant computer running a simulation..... I can't say that ANYTHING is impossible, and neither can anyone else. Maybe I can jump to the moon if I will it hard enough, and try hard. So far, I can't, but maybe next time. I can't "prove" I can't. But, I don't believe I can, because of what I think I know about my body, musculature, basic physics, etc. However, all of that may just be an illusion, and when I think I haven't jumped to the moon, I really have.

Now THAT'S sophistry in a nutshell.

That's why your whole argument is sophistry. You argue that it's impossible to say that there is no god, because it can't be proved with absolute certainty that it's nonexistent.

No, I said it's not rational to say that there is no god. There's a difference.

By that test, there is no knowledge at all, as we cannot prove with absolute certainty that anything at all exists or that reality exists, or that any of our senses are reliable.

True enough, and libraries full of philosophical musings on the nature of knowledge, truth and existence have been written, haven't they?

If you are going to start with the proposition that every belief which cannot be proved with absolute certainty is irrational, then no beliefs are rational since nothing can be proved with "absolute" certainty because even reality itself is not absolutely proven to exist in the way we think we perceive it and/or at all.

Now you're beginning to get it. Then again I never said "absolute certainty" did I? No, I used (quite deliberately) the phrase "critically robust scientific evidence." I use that metric quite deliberately for several reasons, chief among which is the fact that this is the metric demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists or that miracles happen. It's my attempt to hold Atheists to their own standards of evidence and proof. I'm not asking for absolute certainty, just the same level of proof that science requires for any claim. Is that too much to ask?

We only "know", in the sense of having true knowledge, of those things we have true knowledge of.

Tautology. This is meaningless semantics and pettifoggery at its best. We only "know" those things of which we have knowledge? Well, no shit Sherlock. We only pee the "pee" that we pee, too, and we only think the thoughts that we think.

Isn't tautology fun?

Everything else is, ipso facto, unknown as to the truth of the proposition.

LOL - yes, things that we don't know, we don't know.

It's important to keep that in mind in these sort of discussions, don't you think?

Being unknown, one cannot rationally claim that any proposition is impossible because one does not have any critically robust scientific evidence of that impossibility.

That's only important to the people who claim that something is "impossible." Atheists generally don't make claims that it is "impossible" that god exists or that divine intervention is "impossible." They claim they don't believe in gods or divine intervention because they don't see a reason to believe in them.

Evasive sophistry. The facts of their rhetoric don't support this allegedly philosophical detachment. They only resort to this dodge when challenged on the irrationality of their statements. If they were honest and used the language you suggest, then I wouldn't be challenging them, but they don't. They mostly claim knowledge of the truth and certainty of the non-existence of God, either directly or through the use of their abusive and insulting rhetoric towards those who argue the opposite position. That's why I keep insisting that the only rational response is "I don't know." But no Atheist I know says this, except under duress, as in this case.

By your specious sophistry, it's irrational to disbelieve anything because it's not possible to prove anything to be impossible. Thus, disbelief in gods is, in your mind, irrational because it is impossible to prove their nonexistence. That's pure sophistry and pettifoggery.

No, it's recognition of the fact that my knowledge is limited and therefore it is irrational for me to draw conclusions about things of which I am ignorant.

People don't disbelieve gods because gods are "impossible" or that it has been proven with certainty that no gods exist anywhere, anyhow. They disbelieve the existence of gods because they haven't seen a reason to believe in them.

And how does that affect the actual existence or non-existence of gods, pray tell? What you are actually saying is that they disbelieve because they are ignorant, something with which I would agree. But, rationally speaking, an honest person is not afraid to admit ignorance and to withhold making counter claims or otherwise ridiculing someone else's claims (of anything) if they are ignorant of the facts. It's irrational to castigate or abuse someone for believing in quarks as it is believing in God if you yourself don't know the facts regarding either quarks or gods. It's the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to insult someone for their putative ignorance when your own ignorance is at least equal to, if not greater than theirs regarding the subject under consideration.

My opinion is that when you're ignorant about something being discussed it's best to shut your pie hole, listen and learn before expounding your own ignorance.

Like, do you believe there is a blue blimp over my house. I don't know, but I don't believe so. Let me look out the window. Hmmm.. I see no blimp, so I don't believe one is there. Can you prove with absolute certainty there is no blimp there? Of course not. Is it possible there is a blue stealth blimp up there, with super quiet propellers hovering there? Sure. Do you believe it is there? No. Is it irrational to not believe in a blimp above your house when there is no reason to think one is there? Of course not.

But, in your logic, Seth, you think it is irrational to not believe the blimp is there, unless you have absolute certain proof it is not there. Since it is impossible to disprove that a blimp is there that just can't be detected by our means at this time, then the only rational answer, in your view, apparently, is "I don't know." In other words, you argue that the only rational answer to any question is "I don't know."

Inapt analogy. The correct analogy would be that you believe there is a blue blimp over your house and yet you refuse to go look out the window but continue to insist that no such blimp exists, with absolute certainty. Do you see the difference? If you have no evidence that God does not exist, and yet you continue to insist that God does not exist without going out and looking for the evidence, you are drawing an irrational conclusion. What you're trying to argue is that it is the burden of someone else (a theistic claimant) to present you with critically robust scientific evidence meeting your standards of proof that God exists as a pre-condition to your examining the question of whether God exists or not.

Who gave you the silly idea that anyone is obliged to spoon-feed you the evidence you seek as a condition of making a truth-claim about the existence of something? If I say "quarks exist" you're free to disagree, but I'm under no obligation to drag you by the ear to CERN and explain to you how the Supercollider works and show you the plates, am I? Is it then rational for you to claim that quarks do not exist or even that you are skeptical of their existence merely because of your ignorance of the subject?

The rational person either investigates a claim him/herself and draws a rational conclusion based on the evidence found or he/she simply withholds judgment and says "I don't know" unless and until he or she DOES know, through his or her own efforts.

In other words, if you want to make a claim about the existence of God, or anything else, it's incumbent upon you to do the research to support your claim, not demand that others do your homework for you.

And if you reject a claim merely because you don't view the evidence provided by others (like the recovery of this girl) as credible, then you are drawing an irrational conclusion because you have done nothing to show that your investigation and conclusion are any more or less true than anyone else's.

It's rational to believe there's no blimp if you go and look and do not find a blimp. It's irrational to believe there's no blimp if you refuse to go look for it but insist on arguing that there is one.

Once again, sophistry and pettifoggery at its finest.

Not really, it's more a failure in your understanding.

Thus, the rational response to unproven claims of truth, in the absence of countervailing scientific refutation, can only be "I don't know."

Can you pose a question regarding the existence or nonexistence of something for which "I don't know" is not the only answer?

I don't know.

Nothing, you see, can be claimed to be "impossible" without first having perfect knowledge of the universe, which no human being even comes close to having.

Who claims that gods are impossible? Who claimed that divine intervention was "impossible?"

Every Atheist I've ever encountered, whether they choose to temporize when challenged or not.

Not me, of course. Gods don't have to be impossible for someone to be an atheist. Not accepting a claim of divine intervention does not require a finding that divine intervention is impossible.

And that's exactly what I've been saying for quite a long time now. "Not accepting" a claim is something entirely different from rebutting a claim with a counter-claim.

You're the only one talking about impossible.

Not really.

The issue is not whether divine intervention is axiomatically rank speculation, it's whether a particular individual who is assessing the claims associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to base a conclusion about the truth-value of the claim.

It's also whether a person MAKING a claim associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to make the assertion, isn't it?

Yes, of course.

And, if a person assessing that other person's claim is not provided sufficient information by the person making the claim, then isn't the person assessing the claim entitled to reject the insufficiently supported claim?

Of course. But that doesn't affect the actual truth-value of the claim one little bit.

Thus, when the chiropractors says "it can only be divine intervention," unless he can provide sufficient information to support that claim, aren't I justified in rejecting his claim (subject to his future presentation of sufficient information on which to assess his claim)?

Of course. Nobody said that rejecting an unsupported claim is improper. I merely say that making a positive counter-claim in the absence of such proofs is irrational.

Thus, while it might be rank speculation for me to draw a conclusion about divine intervention, it might be an expression of truth on the part of someone who has different knowledge of the facts of the situation.

Sure, but speculation that an assertion might be true because someone has different knowledge of the facts is not a reason to believe that the assertion is true, is it?

Of course it's a "reason." The question is what sort of "reason" it is. Do you believe assertions that Dawkins makes about genetics?

I certainly understand that other people may know things that I don't, but that doesn't mean I accept any assertion made.

Nor should you.

It's up to a person with the different knowledge of the facts of the situation to demonstrate that knowledge. Otherwise, logically, I don't need to accept their assertions. I.e., I don't need to take their word for it. And, in many cases it would be irrational to take their word for it.

Nobody said that you have to accept their unsupported assertions. What's irrational is when you make an unsupported counter-assertion in response. That's what I'm saying.

For me to say that Obama has a three-foot-long cock would be rank speculation on my part. But Michelle Obama has knowledge that I don't have and therefore is qualified to make a statement of observed truth that would not be rank speculation.

Sure, but the rational position to take is to be an athreefootcockist until such time as it is demonstrated that the threefootcock exists.

Why would that be rational? You have no evidence that such cocks do not exist, therefore it is irrational to take that position. You may find it to be implausible or unlikely, but the rational response to your own ignorance of a thing is "I don't know", not automatic, default disbelief.

If Michelle says "I saw the cock, and it is three feet long," she may be right, but it would not be reasonable to take her at her word.

Why wouldn't it? She's would qualify as a subject-matter expert would she not? Do you apply the same criteria to claims by Dawkins or any other person whose opinions and knowledge you trust?

It would be even less reasonable to take her word if she didn't claim to have actually seen the cock, but only indirectly observed the effects of the cock in the dark. She might claim, it felt so huge and hurt me so much, it could only have been a divine threefootcock. We'd say, let's see the proof Michelle! And, if proof was not forthcoming, we might say, well, technically it's "possible" that Obama has a three foot cock, but since nobody has presented any sort of reason to believe it exists, we don't believe in it.

That's non-scientific, irrational thinking. If you don't know something, then own up to your ignorance, admit it, and simply admit that you don't know.

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

I doubt it.

O.k., so then would you consider it a "possibility" that there was no divine intervention in this instance?

And, do you consider it a "possibility" that there was divine intervention in this instance?

Anything is possible. The issue here is whether anyone can claim that something is impossible without the scientific proof to back up the claim.[/quote]

No it isn't. The issue here is whether the claim that it was divine intervention has been supported by reason or evidence. As far as I can tell, the answer to that is no.

The key words in your sentence are "as far as I can tell." They are nothing more than an admission of your own ignorance, and ignorance NEVER supports a conclusion that a claim is false.

It is "possible" it's divine intervention, just as it is "possible" it was aliens with a healing ray.

I don't know about that...

Skepticism is not scientific proof, it's just rank speculation when one draws a conclusion based only on skepticism.

Nobody said it was.

Plenty of people act as if it is.

[JimC]

I'm glad that track pad scrolling on my MacBook is quite rapid.

[Seth]

I'm glad that track pad scrolling on my MacBook is quite rapid.

Congratulations, your trackpad is doing a find job of perpetuating ignorance.

[Hermit]

I'm glad that track pad scrolling on my MacBook is quite rapid.

Congratulations, your trackpad is doing a find job of perpetuating ignorance.

I actually started reading your reply to Forty Two. By the time I got to the bit where you held forth on critically robust scientific evidence I realised, without surprise, that I had not read anything you had not already written when you posted at the Richard Dawkins forum seven or eight years ago. So I skipped the rest without feeling that by doing so I'd miss out on reading anything I had not read before. This generally applies whenever you turn your attention to religion and politics.

So, no, in your case trackpad, scrollwheel or page down key do not perpetuate ignorance. They are tools enabling me, and evidently others, to waste more time elsewhere or perhaps even re-reading something interesting. David Hume comes to mind, though I must admit that I find his style of writing decidedly user unfriendly, particularly to the modern ear.

ETA: I just read another one of Seth's post. This one is in the ethics of shagging thread. Before I started reading I decided to cut the reading short the moment the word 'menses' crops up. Sure enough...

[rainbow]

I'm glad that track pad scrolling on my MacBook is quite rapid.

Congratulations, your trackpad is doing a find job of perpetuating ignorance.

I actually started reading your reply to Forty Two. By the time I got to the bit where you held forth on critically robust scientific evidence I realised, without surprise, that I had not read anything you had not already written when you posted at the Richard Dawkins forum seven or eight years ago. So I skipped the rest without feeling that by doing so I'd miss out on reading anything I had not read before. This generally applies whenever you turn your attention to religion and politics.

So, no, in your case trackpad, scrollwheel or page down key do not perpetuate ignorance. They are tools enabling me, and evidently others, to waste more time elsewhere or perhaps even re-reading something interesting. David Hume comes to mind, though I must admit that I find his style of writing decidedly user unfriendly, particularly to the modern ear.

ETA: I just read another one of Seth's post. This one is in the ethics of shagging thread. Before I started reading I decided to cut the reading short the moment the word 'menses' crops up. Sure enough...

Surely no-one actually reads Seth's posts?

Who has the time and inclination?

[Hermit]

Surely no-one actually reads Seth's posts?

Going by the traffic he generates it would appear that quite a few people read at least bits of his posts. And that includes you.

[rainbow]

Surely no-one actually reads Seth's posts?

Going by the traffic he generates it would appear that quite a few people read at least bits of his posts. And that includes you.

Oh yes bits like the first and last line sometimes, but who would actually wade through all that drivel?

[Forty Two]

Well, you don't know that medical science doesn't know, do you? You only know that you don't know and nobody has told you (verbally or in writing), right?

Correct. I don't know. If you have critically robust scientific evidence showing how and why this girl recovered, then I'll be more than happy to examine it and amend my beliefs on the matter. As it stands, however, no one here has met the challenged posed by the OP, which is for YOU (Atheists) to provide such an explanation in order to rebut the (albeit irrational) claims of the participants.

Yes, but who said "impossibility?" I mean, most atheists don't say "impossibility." Like Richard Dawkins and his scale of certainty, he doesn't claim complete certainty.

Indeed. He's admitted both that the question of whether God exists is a purely scientific question and that he doesn't know whether God exists or not. But, that's just temporizing on his part because he belies that proviso every time he actually espouses his opinion on the subject.

Moreover, he spends zero time advocating for a scientific investigation into the truth about the existence of God, which belies his formulaic and self-serving quibbling.

The same is true here, by and large. Atheists here, and elsewhere, only invoke the "well, I never said it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist or do this or that" defense as an evasion when they are called out on their constant drone of religious hate-speech and ridicule. It's just a rhetorical evasion and nothing else. In fact every Atheist I've ever encountered is lying through their teeth when they present that obvious rhetorical evasion and they in point of actual fact firmly disbelieve that God does, or can exist, as demonstrated by the reams and terabytes of bigoted anti-theistic abuse they publish.

Look, this kind of argument descends into sophistry. Nobody is claiming -- well, almost nobody -- certainly nobody I have ever talked to -- is claiming the "certainty" that you refer to.

Funny, because pretty much EVERY Atheist I've ever debated with does exactly that, but not in so many words. See above. They are happy to rant and rave and insult, belittle and castigate theists, or even anyone who doesn't march to the beat of the anti-theist Atheist drum, in the most insulting manner and demonstrate by their candid rhetoric just how much they hate the very concept of theism and actively disbelieve the claims of theists, but when I challenge their rhetoric they almost always resort to the obfuscation and evasion that you are now engaged in.

it's not even "certain" that we exist. Existence may be an illusion. We may be a simulation in a computer program. We may be someone else's dream. Maybe only I exist, and you don't, or vice versa. I'm still an atheist, because I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe they exist, because no good reason has been offered to me to believe in one. That is not to say that it's "impossible" that there is a God, or god, or gods, or giant computer running a simulation..... I can't say that ANYTHING is impossible, and neither can anyone else. Maybe I can jump to the moon if I will it hard enough, and try hard. So far, I can't, but maybe next time. I can't "prove" I can't. But, I don't believe I can, because of what I think I know about my body, musculature, basic physics, etc. However, all of that may just be an illusion, and when I think I haven't jumped to the moon, I really have.

Now THAT'S sophistry in a nutshell.

That's why your whole argument is sophistry. You argue that it's impossible to say that there is no god, because it can't be proved with absolute certainty that it's nonexistent.

No, I said it's not rational to say that there is no god. There's a difference.

By that test, there is no knowledge at all, as we cannot prove with absolute certainty that anything at all exists or that reality exists, or that any of our senses are reliable.

True enough, and libraries full of philosophical musings on the nature of knowledge, truth and existence have been written, haven't they?

If you are going to start with the proposition that every belief which cannot be proved with absolute certainty is irrational, then no beliefs are rational since nothing can be proved with "absolute" certainty because even reality itself is not absolutely proven to exist in the way we think we perceive it and/or at all.

Now you're beginning to get it. Then again I never said "absolute certainty" did I? No, I used (quite deliberately) the phrase "critically robust scientific evidence." I use that metric quite deliberately for several reasons, chief among which is the fact that this is the metric demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists or that miracles happen. It's my attempt to hold Atheists to their own standards of evidence and proof. I'm not asking for absolute certainty, just the same level of proof that science requires for any claim. Is that too much to ask?

We only "know", in the sense of having true knowledge, of those things we have true knowledge of.

Tautology. This is meaningless semantics and pettifoggery at its best. We only "know" those things of which we have knowledge? Well, no shit Sherlock. We only pee the "pee" that we pee, too, and we only think the thoughts that we think.

Isn't tautology fun?

Everything else is, ipso facto, unknown as to the truth of the proposition.

LOL - yes, things that we don't know, we don't know.

It's important to keep that in mind in these sort of discussions, don't you think?

Being unknown, one cannot rationally claim that any proposition is impossible because one does not have any critically robust scientific evidence of that impossibility.

That's only important to the people who claim that something is "impossible." Atheists generally don't make claims that it is "impossible" that god exists or that divine intervention is "impossible." They claim they don't believe in gods or divine intervention because they don't see a reason to believe in them.

Evasive sophistry. The facts of their rhetoric don't support this allegedly philosophical detachment. They only resort to this dodge when challenged on the irrationality of their statements. If they were honest and used the language you suggest, then I wouldn't be challenging them, but they don't. They mostly claim knowledge of the truth and certainty of the non-existence of God, either directly or through the use of their abusive and insulting rhetoric towards those who argue the opposite position. That's why I keep insisting that the only rational response is "I don't know." But no Atheist I know says this, except under duress, as in this case.

By your specious sophistry, it's irrational to disbelieve anything because it's not possible to prove anything to be impossible. Thus, disbelief in gods is, in your mind, irrational because it is impossible to prove their nonexistence. That's pure sophistry and pettifoggery.

No, it's recognition of the fact that my knowledge is limited and therefore it is irrational for me to draw conclusions about things of which I am ignorant.

People don't disbelieve gods because gods are "impossible" or that it has been proven with certainty that no gods exist anywhere, anyhow. They disbelieve the existence of gods because they haven't seen a reason to believe in them.

And how does that affect the actual existence or non-existence of gods, pray tell? What you are actually saying is that they disbelieve because they are ignorant, something with which I would agree. But, rationally speaking, an honest person is not afraid to admit ignorance and to withhold making counter claims or otherwise ridiculing someone else's claims (of anything) if they are ignorant of the facts. It's irrational to castigate or abuse someone for believing in quarks as it is believing in God if you yourself don't know the facts regarding either quarks or gods. It's the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to insult someone for their putative ignorance when your own ignorance is at least equal to, if not greater than theirs regarding the subject under consideration.

My opinion is that when you're ignorant about something being discussed it's best to shut your pie hole, listen and learn before expounding your own ignorance.

Like, do you believe there is a blue blimp over my house. I don't know, but I don't believe so. Let me look out the window. Hmmm.. I see no blimp, so I don't believe one is there. Can you prove with absolute certainty there is no blimp there? Of course not. Is it possible there is a blue stealth blimp up there, with super quiet propellers hovering there? Sure. Do you believe it is there? No. Is it irrational to not believe in a blimp above your house when there is no reason to think one is there? Of course not.

But, in your logic, Seth, you think it is irrational to not believe the blimp is there, unless you have absolute certain proof it is not there. Since it is impossible to disprove that a blimp is there that just can't be detected by our means at this time, then the only rational answer, in your view, apparently, is "I don't know." In other words, you argue that the only rational answer to any question is "I don't know."

Inapt analogy. The correct analogy would be that you believe there is a blue blimp over your house and yet you refuse to go look out the window but continue to insist that no such blimp exists, with absolute certainty. Do you see the difference? If you have no evidence that God does not exist, and yet you continue to insist that God does not exist without going out and looking for the evidence, you are drawing an irrational conclusion. What you're trying to argue is that it is the burden of someone else (a theistic claimant) to present you with critically robust scientific evidence meeting your standards of proof that God exists as a pre-condition to your examining the question of whether God exists or not.

Who gave you the silly idea that anyone is obliged to spoon-feed you the evidence you seek as a condition of making a truth-claim about the existence of something? If I say "quarks exist" you're free to disagree, but I'm under no obligation to drag you by the ear to CERN and explain to you how the Supercollider works and show you the plates, am I? Is it then rational for you to claim that quarks do not exist or even that you are skeptical of their existence merely because of your ignorance of the subject?

The rational person either investigates a claim him/herself and draws a rational conclusion based on the evidence found or he/she simply withholds judgment and says "I don't know" unless and until he or she DOES know, through his or her own efforts.

In other words, if you want to make a claim about the existence of God, or anything else, it's incumbent upon you to do the research to support your claim, not demand that others do your homework for you.

And if you reject a claim merely because you don't view the evidence provided by others (like the recovery of this girl) as credible, then you are drawing an irrational conclusion because you have done nothing to show that your investigation and conclusion are any more or less true than anyone else's.

It's rational to believe there's no blimp if you go and look and do not find a blimp. It's irrational to believe there's no blimp if you refuse to go look for it but insist on arguing that there is one.

Once again, sophistry and pettifoggery at its finest.

Not really, it's more a failure in your understanding.

Thus, the rational response to unproven claims of truth, in the absence of countervailing scientific refutation, can only be "I don't know."

Can you pose a question regarding the existence or nonexistence of something for which "I don't know" is not the only answer?

I don't know.

Nothing, you see, can be claimed to be "impossible" without first having perfect knowledge of the universe, which no human being even comes close to having.

Who claims that gods are impossible? Who claimed that divine intervention was "impossible?"

Every Atheist I've ever encountered, whether they choose to temporize when challenged or not.

Not me, of course. Gods don't have to be impossible for someone to be an atheist. Not accepting a claim of divine intervention does not require a finding that divine intervention is impossible.

And that's exactly what I've been saying for quite a long time now. "Not accepting" a claim is something entirely different from rebutting a claim with a counter-claim.

You're the only one talking about impossible.

Not really.

The issue is not whether divine intervention is axiomatically rank speculation, it's whether a particular individual who is assessing the claims associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to base a conclusion about the truth-value of the claim.

It's also whether a person MAKING a claim associated with divine intervention has sufficient personal knowledge upon which to make the assertion, isn't it?

Yes, of course.

And, if a person assessing that other person's claim is not provided sufficient information by the person making the claim, then isn't the person assessing the claim entitled to reject the insufficiently supported claim?

Of course. But that doesn't affect the actual truth-value of the claim one little bit.

Thus, when the chiropractors says "it can only be divine intervention," unless he can provide sufficient information to support that claim, aren't I justified in rejecting his claim (subject to his future presentation of sufficient information on which to assess his claim)?

Of course. Nobody said that rejecting an unsupported claim is improper. I merely say that making a positive counter-claim in the absence of such proofs is irrational.

Thus, while it might be rank speculation for me to draw a conclusion about divine intervention, it might be an expression of truth on the part of someone who has different knowledge of the facts of the situation.

Sure, but speculation that an assertion might be true because someone has different knowledge of the facts is not a reason to believe that the assertion is true, is it?

Of course it's a "reason." The question is what sort of "reason" it is. Do you believe assertions that Dawkins makes about genetics?

I certainly understand that other people may know things that I don't, but that doesn't mean I accept any assertion made.

Nor should you.

It's up to a person with the different knowledge of the facts of the situation to demonstrate that knowledge. Otherwise, logically, I don't need to accept their assertions. I.e., I don't need to take their word for it. And, in many cases it would be irrational to take their word for it.

Nobody said that you have to accept their unsupported assertions. What's irrational is when you make an unsupported counter-assertion in response. That's what I'm saying.

For me to say that Obama has a three-foot-long cock would be rank speculation on my part. But Michelle Obama has knowledge that I don't have and therefore is qualified to make a statement of observed truth that would not be rank speculation.

Sure, but the rational position to take is to be an athreefootcockist until such time as it is demonstrated that the threefootcock exists.

Why would that be rational? You have no evidence that such cocks do not exist, therefore it is irrational to take that position. You may find it to be implausible or unlikely, but the rational response to your own ignorance of a thing is "I don't know", not automatic, default disbelief.

If Michelle says "I saw the cock, and it is three feet long," she may be right, but it would not be reasonable to take her at her word.

Why wouldn't it? She's would qualify as a subject-matter expert would she not? Do you apply the same criteria to claims by Dawkins or any other person whose opinions and knowledge you trust?

It would be even less reasonable to take her word if she didn't claim to have actually seen the cock, but only indirectly observed the effects of the cock in the dark. She might claim, it felt so huge and hurt me so much, it could only have been a divine threefootcock. We'd say, let's see the proof Michelle! And, if proof was not forthcoming, we might say, well, technically it's "possible" that Obama has a three foot cock, but since nobody has presented any sort of reason to believe it exists, we don't believe in it.

That's non-scientific, irrational thinking. If you don't know something, then own up to your ignorance, admit it, and simply admit that you don't know.

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

I doubt it.

O.k., so then would you consider it a "possibility" that there was no divine intervention in this instance?

And, do you consider it a "possibility" that there was divine intervention in this instance?

Anything is possible. The issue here is whether anyone can claim that something is impossible without the scientific proof to back up the claim.

No it isn't. The issue here is whether the claim that it was divine intervention has been supported by reason or evidence. As far as I can tell, the answer to that is no.

The key words in your sentence are "as far as I can tell." They are nothing more than an admission of your own ignorance, and ignorance NEVER supports a conclusion that a claim is false.

It is "possible" it's divine intervention, just as it is "possible" it was aliens with a healing ray.

I don't know about that...

Skepticism is not scientific proof, it's just rank speculation when one draws a conclusion based only on skepticism.

Nobody said it was.

Plenty of people act as if it is.[/quote]

[Forty Two]

Well, you don't know that medical science doesn't know, do you? You only know that you don't know and nobody has told you (verbally or in writing), right?

Correct. I don't know. If you have critically robust scientific evidence showing how and why this girl recovered, then I'll be more than happy to examine it and amend my beliefs on the matter. As it stands, however, no one here has met the challenged posed by the OP, which is for YOU (Atheists) to provide such an explanation in order to rebut the (albeit irrational) claims of the participants.

Right, and nobody here has claimed that they do know. However, the challenge in the OP was "Splain this one Atheists" -- it was not "rebut the claims made by the chiropractor and family."

I can't explain it. She had a traumatic brain injury, was put into a medically induced coma, and then she recovered. That occurrence, to me, does not imply divine intervention. But, I can't explain how she recovered.

I do not have any rebuttal to the claims made by the chiropractor, other than to say that irrational claims are not reasonable. And, if we are in agreement that the claim "divine intervention is the only explanation" is irrational, then it's self-rebutting. It's an irrational claim. Irrational means "not logical or reasonable." So, its an unreasonable and illogical claim. Such claims hardly need rebutting.

Yes, but who said "impossibility?" I mean, most atheists don't say "impossibility." Like Richard Dawkins and his scale of certainty, he doesn't claim complete certainty.

Indeed. He's admitted both that the question of whether God exists is a purely scientific question and that he doesn't know whether God exists or not. But, that's just temporizing on his part because he belies that proviso every time he actually espouses his opinion on the subject.

You'll have to back up that statement with examples of him belying that proviso. Just saying he does it is not good enough.

And, again, nobody here is saying "impossibility." It's the chiropractor and the family that are saying "divine intervention is the only explanation" (and by extension, all other explanations are impossible). So, if calling an explanation impossible is unreasonable absent conclusive proof that the explanation is impossible, then the chiropractor and family are, as you have said, irrational and their argument can be rejected as irrational. Since I do not say that it is "impossible" that it was divine intervention, then I do not have to defend that position. And, my being an atheist doesn't require me to adopt the position that divine intervention is impossible - as atheism only means that I don't believe in god, not that I think gods are impossible. There are many many things that are quite possible, but I don't believe in them.

Moreover, he spends zero time advocating for a scientific investigation into the truth about the existence of God, which belies his formulaic and self-serving quibbling.

What he spends time advocating has nothing to do with it. And, you'll have to be specific about what he's said that you think is formulaic and self-serving quibbling.

The same is true here, by and large. Atheists here, and elsewhere, only invoke the "well, I never said it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist or do this or that" defense as an evasion when they are called out on their constant drone of religious hate-speech and ridicule. It's just a rhetorical evasion and nothing else. In fact every Atheist I've ever encountered is lying through their teeth when they present that obvious rhetorical evasion and they in point of actual fact firmly disbelieve that God does, or can exist, as demonstrated by the reams and terabytes of bigoted anti-theistic abuse they publish.

Please identify any religious hate speech that was said here.

I firmly disbelieve that gods exist. But, I do not firmly disbelieve that gods CAN exist. Those are two different things, and the latter is not atheism, as atheism is the belief that there are no gods, or the disbelief in gods, or the lack of a belief in gods, depending on the strong vs. weak atheist formulation. Whether a god "can" exist or not as a possibility, well, that's not required for atheism, and is usually not something an atheist claims. Most atheists claim they don't believe gods exist, but I've never seen one claim that they have conclusively shown that gods cannot exist. If you can find any examples of these "Atheists" of which you speak doing that, I'd be much obliged.

I've not seen the bigoted of antitheistic abuse you're referring to. If you want to talk about that, then provide an example.

Look, this kind of argument descends into sophistry. Nobody is claiming -- well, almost nobody -- certainly nobody I have ever talked to -- is claiming the "certainty" that you refer to.

Funny, because pretty much EVERY Atheist I've ever debated with does exactly that,

Do you have any examples? Maybe from this site -- anywhere? A link? Who does that. I see you SAYING that you encounter this, but the responses here have not claimed that kind of certainty or that it is "impossible" for gods to exist. This seems to be something you've invented.

but not in so many words.

In other words, they don't say it, but you think they mean it.

See above. They are happy to rant and rave and insult, belittle and castigate theists,

I would expect some people to rant and rave and insult, and I certainly see theists do a lot of ranting, raving and insulting. I see YOU insult people. However, ranting, raving and insulting theists does not imply that a person has absolute certainty that it is "impossible" for gods to exist. Lots of stupid ideas are not theoretically impossible.

or even anyone who doesn't march to the beat of the anti-theist Atheist drum, in the most insulting manner and demonstrate by their candid rhetoric just how much they hate the very concept of theism and actively disbelieve the claims of theists, but when I challenge their rhetoric they almost always resort to the obfuscation and evasion that you are now engaged in.

Whoa, sir. I haven't obfuscated or evaded anything. YOU have. And, you do this a lot. You keep talking about ranting and raving atheists, but nobody here has ranted and raved and you have not linked to what you're talking about. You keep talking about people claiming it is impossible for there to be gods or divine intervention, and yet you haven't cited a single example. You then evade the issues by claiming that the OP asked us to "rebut" the "albeit irrational" claim of the participants in the article, when, in fact, the OP makes no such request. The OP only asks us to "Splain this atheists..." which I did, and then you keep telling me that my explanation is not really my explanation, because you think atheists really believe something other than what they say.

You demand that I explain how a person recovered from a traumatic brain injury, when neither I nor you could possibly know. I've not claimed to know, and I can't tell you. We both agree on that. We've both also agreed that the chiropractor is wrong when he says that "divine intervention is the ONLY explanation," and you've agreed that such a claim is irrational. So, we are in agreement on all that. Yet, you keep blathering on about how mean atheists are and how they claim that it's impossible for there to be gods and that atheists claim absolute certainty -- yet, I've never claimed absolute certainty or impossibility and you've not identified a single person who has claimed that.

The only person in this whole discussion that appears to have claimed absolute certainty is the chiropractor and maybe the family of the girl who recovered. THEY claim they are certain because they claim the ONLY explanation is divine intervention. Yet, you have no problem with them claiming such certainty, you only go on and rant about how atheists claim certainty and how bad and irrational it is for them to do that.

We have theists who claim certainty of divine intervention here, but so far we have no identified atheists or Atheists who claim such certainty. All we have is your bare allegation that the Atheists you talk to claim such certainty. Do you have any examples?

it's not even "certain" that we exist. Existence may be an illusion. We may be a simulation in a computer program. We may be someone else's dream. Maybe only I exist, and you don't, or vice versa. I'm still an atheist, because I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe they exist, because no good reason has been offered to me to believe in one. That is not to say that it's "impossible" that there is a God, or god, or gods, or giant computer running a simulation..... I can't say that ANYTHING is impossible, and neither can anyone else. Maybe I can jump to the moon if I will it hard enough, and try hard. So far, I can't, but maybe next time. I can't "prove" I can't. But, I don't believe I can, because of what I think I know about my body, musculature, basic physics, etc. However, all of that may just be an illusion, and when I think I haven't jumped to the moon, I really have.

Now THAT'S sophistry in a nutshell.

Exactly right. It's your argument in a nutshell.

That's why your whole argument is sophistry. You argue that it's impossible to say that there is no god, because it can't be proved with absolute certainty that it's nonexistent.

No, I said it's not rational to say that there is no god. There's a difference.

It's perfectly rational to not believe in God because one has no reason to believe in that God.

It is perfectly rational, also, for a person to believe there is no god, because that person has not seen any proof of or other reason to believe in god or gods.

By that test, there is no knowledge at all, as we cannot prove with absolute certainty that anything at all exists or that reality exists, or that any of our senses are reliable.

True enough, and libraries full of philosophical musings on the nature of knowledge, truth and existence have been written, haven't they?

Sure, the suggestion that nothing can be thought to exist or not exist, because we can have no knowledge at all and reality may really not exist, is sophistry. It's irrational, or presumes an irrational universe.

If one is going to approach the topic of gods scientifically -- as you are saying you do -- the foundation of science is on the assumptions that the universe is real, that we exist, and that the universe operates according to known and otherwise knowable laws and that it makes sense. Science presumes this, because otherwise there can be no science. These are basic axioms. If we simply have to say that there is no reality or that we can't trust that reality is what the evidence suggests it is, then we simply cannot have any knowledge at all and all of science is pointless. By discarding those basic assumptions, you make the problem insoluble. No proof of the nonexistence or existence of any gods could ever be good enough, because we can't trust reality is real. It's axiomatic.

If you are going to start with the proposition that every belief which cannot be proved with absolute certainty is irrational, then no beliefs are rational since nothing can be proved with "absolute" certainty because even reality itself is not absolutely proven to exist in the way we think we perceive it and/or at all.

Now you're beginning to get it.

Don't flatter yourself. It's you that don't get it.

Then again I never said "absolute certainty" did I? No, I used (quite deliberately) the phrase "critically robust scientific evidence."

Oh, yes, you used the term certainty and you used the term "impossible." You claimed that atheists claim they are certain that it is impossible that god exists. If a person says they are certain that it is impossible that gods exist, then they are claiming absolute certainty.

However, if what you mean is that atheists believe gods don't exist because they haven't seen any critically robust scientific evidence (or even non-robust evidence) that gods exist, then you are right about what most atheists believe. They don't claim it's impossible that gods exist. They claim that they don't have evidence that gods exist.

Atheists do not generally claim that they evidence proving that gods don't exist. They generally don't have evidence to prove the nonexistence of a supernatural being, and they don't claim to have it. That's not why they don't believe.

I use that metric quite deliberately for several reasons, chief among which is the fact that this is the metric demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists or that miracles happen. It's my attempt to hold Atheists to their own standards of evidence and proof. I'm not asking for absolute certainty, just the same level of proof that science requires for any claim. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, because its affirmative claims that require evidence. Carl Sagan's dragon -- http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

When Carl Sagan claims there is a fire breathing dragon living in his garage, you and I do not have the burden of providing evidence that the dragon is not there. Sagan has the burden of proving it is there. Based on Sagan's claims about the dragon, we can run some tests, like spread flower on the floor, use infrared technology to gather evidence to prove the truth of the claim, but no amount of testing will prove conclusively that the dragon is not there (when the dragon is defined as invisible, heatless, and undetectable).

Another way to look at it is that it's impossible to disprove unfalsifiable claims. If god is defined as a humaniform creature that lives on top of Mt. Olympus, we can prove there is no such god by going up to the top of Mt. Olympus and see that it's not there. The claim can only survive by redefining itself as "well, the god must have left for a while, just when we went to look on top of Mt. Olympus." We can keep checking, but the explanation can always be that coincidentally the god is gone when we look, or that the god doesn't want to be found or proved, so it keeps making sure we can't find it. That turns the claim into an unfalsifiable claim. We can't prove it wrong. it's those kind of claims that are scientifically not to be believed, precisely BECAUSE they cannot be disproved.

Being unknown, one cannot rationally claim that any proposition is impossible because one does not have any critically robust scientific evidence of that impossibility.

That's only important to the people who claim that something is "impossible." Atheists generally don't make claims that it is "impossible" that god exists or that divine intervention is "impossible." They claim they don't believe in gods or divine intervention because they don't see a reason to believe in them.

Evasive sophistry. The facts of their rhetoric don't support this allegedly philosophical detachment. They only resort to this dodge when challenged on the irrationality of their statements. If they were honest and used the language you suggest, then I wouldn't be challenging them, but they don't. They mostly claim knowledge of the truth and certainty of the non-existence of God, either directly or through the use of their abusive and insulting rhetoric towards those who argue the opposite position. That's why I keep insisting that the only rational response is "I don't know." But no Atheist I know says this, except under duress, as in this case.[/quote]

Who is "they" and "them" specifically? Any examples?

Your argument is complete sophistry, Seth, and you are projecting.

People don't disbelieve gods because gods are "impossible" or that it has been proven with certainty that no gods exist anywhere, anyhow. They disbelieve the existence of gods because they haven't seen a reason to believe in them.

And how does that affect the actual existence or non-existence of gods, pray tell?

nobody's beliefs or disbeliefs effects the "actual" existence or nonexistence of anything.

What you are actually saying is that they disbelieve because they are ignorant,

If by "ignorant" you mean "unaware of any proof or reason to believe in gods," yes. If you mean "ignorant" as in uneducated or unsophisticated, then no. Ignorant has a different connotation and usage than mere "lack of awareness of or access to proof."

However, people can only believe in the things they know about, and the things they don't know about they can't rationally believe in. That's not the same thing as saying that things are impossible, and it's certainly no reason to say "divine intervention" is what happened.

[Hermit]

Wow. 44 taps of the page down key to bypass seven posts.

[Seth]

I'm glad that track pad scrolling on my MacBook is quite rapid.

Congratulations, your trackpad is doing a find job of perpetuating ignorance.

I actually started reading your reply to Forty Two. By the time I got to the bit where you held forth on critically robust scientific evidence I realised, without surprise, that I had not read anything you had not already written when you posted at the Richard Dawkins forum seven or eight years ago.

It's not my fault that you folks keep on making the same errors in reasoning and logic year after year after year after year. Every time a new crop of Atheists shows up and makes the same stupid errors I have to correct them again.

So I skipped the rest without feeling that by doing so I'd miss out on reading anything I had not read before. This generally applies whenever you turn your attention to religion and politics.

So, no, in your case trackpad, scrollwheel or page down key do not perpetuate ignorance. They are tools enabling me, and evidently others, to waste more time elsewhere or perhaps even re-reading something interesting. David Hume comes to mind, though I must admit that I find his style of writing decidedly user unfriendly, particularly to the modern ear.

ETA: I just read another one of Seth's post. This one is in the ethics of shagging thread. Before I started reading I decided to cut the reading short the moment the word 'menses' crops up. Sure enough...

And you still have no rational rebuttal, do you?

[Seth]

Well, you don't know that medical science doesn't know, do you? You only know that you don't know and nobody has told you (verbally or in writing), right?

Correct. I don't know. If you have critically robust scientific evidence showing how and why this girl recovered, then I'll be more than happy to examine it and amend my beliefs on the matter. As it stands, however, no one here has met the challenged posed by the OP, which is for YOU (Atheists) to provide such an explanation in order to rebut the (albeit irrational) claims of the participants.

Right, and nobody here has claimed that they do know. However, the challenge in the OP was "Splain this one Atheists" -- it was not "rebut the claims made by the chiropractor and family."

I can't explain it. She had a traumatic brain injury, was put into a medically induced coma, and then she recovered. That occurrence, to me, does not imply divine intervention. But, I can't explain how she recovered.

And that is a perfectly rational statement.

I do not have any rebuttal to the claims made by the chiropractor, other than to say that irrational claims are not reasonable. And, if we are in agreement that the claim "divine intervention is the only explanation" is irrational, then it's self-rebutting. It's an irrational claim. Irrational means "not logical or reasonable." So, its an unreasonable and illogical claim. Such claims hardly need rebutting.

Exactly my point.

However, people can only believe in the things they know about, and the things they don't know about they can't rationally believe in. That's not the same thing as saying that things are impossible, and it's certainly no reason to say "divine intervention" is what happened.

Then again, it's no reason not to. Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound...or unsound, as the case may be, until some evidence pointing one way or another is produced. Therefore, rejecting one hypothesis because it conflicts with one's other beliefs, where evidence is absent, is an irrational act. It's just as irrational for the chiropractor as it is for the Atheist to reject any hypothesis based only on one's own internal beliefs and biases. He has an internal pro-miracle bias, Atheists have an internal anti-miracle bias. Neither are rational biases and neither are rational foundations for either drawing a conclusion or rejecting a different hypothesis. Science requires an open mind.