One troublesome objection is the idea that it's somehow invalid to claim that no gods exist -- that we somehow have to be omniscient or have to have inspected every corner of the universe in order to dismiss the existence of gods. This might make sense if the gods proposed by believers were the sort to be hiding in the corner of a distant nebula, but otherwise it's just incoherent. Even worse it's hypocritical because it requires adopting standards which religious theists never employ in any other circumstances.
I normally think of it in terms that Russell described it loosely:
Logically speaking a general claim "god exists" can't be refuted (until there are specifics and I have some idea what "god" is supposed to represent). But from a practical reality standpoint of what is and what is not, it's perfectly reasonable to assert something does not exist in the absence of any evidence for the existence of that item. In other words, if I say to you "Grab my notebook off the coffee table for me," and you look and there is a mug and a coaster, but no notebook on the table, it is absolutely reasonable for you to respond, "There is no notebook on the table."
Nobody would assert that simply from an absence of evidence you are being illogical to conclude the notebook isn't there--simply because there is no evidence of a notebook on the table.
Such a response to your statement would be ludicrous in practical terms.
So, when I argue with theists, I do note I'm a strong atheist in terms of practical reality. I tell them:
"When I say there is no god, I mean that in the same way anyone else might mean 'there are no gremlins.' And if you take issue with my stance on god, due to the fact it is based on a lack of evidence of manifestation of any god, then you must show me how the general stance on gremlins is not also unreasonable based solely on the lack of evidence of their existence/manifestation. And if you think that it's also unreasonable to claim there are no gremlins, then there isn't much for us to discuss, because we're not even aligned on the most basic principles for what constitutes reality."
Since I hold it's just as illogical to claim there are no gremlins as there are no gods, I recognize that using the statement "there are no" is a practical, not logical statement in regard to items for which we have no evidence of existence. And I'm fine with that. If a theist thinks it's reasonable to claim "there are no gremlins"--in light of that being based on the lack of evidence of manifestation--then he should not disingenuously feign to be ignorant of what I mean when I say "there is no god."
[original post]
People who say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are wrong. Such a principle is true in the sense that an absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but declaring it as a general principle which applies all the time is simply false. It's also frequently self-serving, since it tends to be asserted by people who are making claims for which they can provide no evidence but who don't want the complete absence of evidence to be used as a reason to disbelieve them.
The more specific a claim is, the more specific our predictions about its implications can be. If those predictions fail to come true, this becomes an absence of evidence which points towards the original claim being false. The more such failures we have, the stronger and stronger the likelihood becomes that the claim was false and should be dismissed or at least significantly revised. If we look where we expect to find something, and nothing is there, then either: we're looking in the wrong place, we're looking for the wrong thing, or it doesn't exist.
In the first two cases, this points to something wrong with our original assertion -- the claim implies something about location or evidence which has proven false. Revisions have to be made, at least if we want to claim to care about evidence, reason, or reality. Much of the time, and in most practical matters, the latter is the case: whatever it is we thought was true simply proves to be false. There is no notebook on the table. There is no unicorn in the garden. And there are no gods watching over us.
I always like painting theists into a corner when I point out that not only is there lack of evidence, but even contradictory evidence to their primitive bronze age fables. Eventually one can at least get them to the definition of the non-involved, non-interfering deist approach. At least from that viewpoint they won’t be trying to force me to adhere to their dogmas and superstitions…
SeanG says:
( And if you think that it’s also unreasonable to claim there are no gremlins.
0
Gremlins are real!!!! Ask any pilot if you don’t believe me.
Darwin’s Evolution never happened. Neither of us if your honest never saw it. You can’t prove it by DNA or RNA . In fact its a hoax and not a theory. Only a “self-serving “Darwinian will believe Darwin (Charles Darwin , Origin Of The Species.
The only way you’ll ever experience God according to The Lord Jesus is “ye must be born-again” in John 3. Also to do that you must repent (turn from sin and self to God) and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). I believe The Lord Jesus Christ is REAL and I believe Russell like Mary Baker Patterson Eddy was afraid of what might happen if they believed.
Is Dunnam serious? Poe’s Law and all.
I honestly wouldn’t give dunnam a second thought. If he’s joking, it’s kinda a pointless joke. And if he’s serious then there is no hope for him. His lack of logic has has made his ideas undeserving of even the respect needed to dignify them with a response. Hopefully he is just not registered to vote…
Ron (3). As a pilot, I have encountered many gremlins. As a passenger on a flight preparing to depart from Boston about a month ago, the door handle came off in the Flight Attendant’s hand as she closed it. A pesky gremlin was responsible; no other possibility.
SeanG:
I know this is old, but I’m back from a trip and just now catching up. On my trip I enjoyed a very interesting conversation about human consciousness. In it, I took a room key and held it over the floor in the air. I asked two people, “If I drop this key, what will happen?”
The first replied, “it will fall.” The second (a man in his late 40s) actually said, “I don’t know.” I dropped the keys and they fell to the floor. I then asked the first person how she was able to predict what person 2 had no clue about? She said, “repeated past experience.” I said, “that, and you understand gravity is at work.”
Later in the conversation, person 2 claimed “human imagination is limitless.” I said he was wrong and gave examples, such as, “As a human, I can’t ‘imagine’ how a cat thinks or what a dog dreams.” He tried to talk about invention and fiction, and I explained that if it wasn’t directed by prior ideas leading up to it–that framed the “new” idea–the fiction would be incoherent and nobody would be able to understand the story–as it would have no relationship to any prior human experiences. And I noted that many major inventions are invented by different people in different places at about the same time–because they are founded on the same prior technologies. To a Yanamamo Indian 200 years ago, there would be no imagining the space station or the shuttle.
After a few such exchanges I finally had to pointedly say to person 2 that I was trying to engage in “honest dialogue” and call him on disingenuous statements/claims.
I later told person 1 that I would have had far more respect for person 2 if, when I dropped the keys, he would have caught them before they hit the floor. I believe I still could have argued cause/effect; however his point about unpredictability would have been much better demostrated than “I don’t know” with regard to what happens when an item with sufficient mass is released in thin air over the ground.
Dunnam, whether wittingly or not, offers a common theist paradox: You have to believe in order to gain the evidence you need to believe. I’ve been presented this by Muslims and Christians alike. They are indoctrinated, so they honestly don’t see the ridiculousness of that claim.
The Muslim told me that if I read the Koran, I would see Allah was real and it was a book inspired by his god. When I agreed to read it, he replied and added that when I read it, I had to “believe” it, in order for the evidence to work.
The evidence is supposed to generate belief–that’s the point of considering it. If I could believe the claim without evidence there would be no conversation, we’d just both believe. The fact that a believer offers evidence to help me gain belief, that only “works” if I believe as I consider the evidence is a sign that the person has been heavily indoctrinated. He would see the problem with this logic immediately in any other setting–but can’t see it in regard to his god, because he’s been brainwashed to stop thinking properly when questions of religion arise. That’s the ugly result of indoctrination.
So, by your own oft-repeated definition, you are not an atheist at all. You are an anti-theist.
I don’t try to reason or persuade a theist. I just tell them that what they believe is idolatry. Idolatry makes God impossible.
Charles Darwin , Origin Of The Species. — Joseph Dunnam on November 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm
It’s Origin of Species, not Origin Of The Species.
I’m surprised you didn’t notice that during your exhaustive research.
While absence of evidence might not be evidence of absence, it certainly is not evidence of existence. Oh well, at least they are willing to admit they lack evidence for their claims.
(Atheism.)
Is simply free thinking.
Roses are red and violets are blue being a christion is up to you, as God made you a man/or woman.
Joseph Dunnam (5). When are you Fundies going to learn a little English grammer, or don’t you believe in it? “Neither of us…never saw it”. translates as “Both of us did see it.”
“your honest” and “you’re honest” do not have the same meaning; which did you mean?
Please don’t try to compare Lord Bertrand Arthur William Russell with Mary Baker Eddy!!
I must remember to edit prior to, instead of after, posting (16). Grammar; not grammer!
Religion is the hoax. Darwin helped expose it.
Mr Dunman. What are the odds on his return return?
Without being too pretentious I will interpret that his first sentence really meant “None of us have ever seen evolution.” Apart from this being incorrect we have also seen the supporting evidence, which continually surfaces, virtually daily. Even the water living tadpole transforming into an air breathing frog is a form of evolution.
I add, and forgive my emphasis Mr Dunman. _NOT ONE person has seen a God. NOT ONE person saw Jesus actually rise again. NOT ONE person saw the biblical beginnings, except as hallucinatory experiences. What is more there isn’t a scintilla of supportive evidence for these mythical stories, in stark contrast to the mounting evidence supporting Darwin’s “Origin of Species”.
You used the word evolution once in your short comment.
Darwin also used it ONCE. On the last page of his book.
I still lay odds Dunman will not rise again.
Joseph Dunnam (5). Every statement you made in the 1st paragraph is totally incorrect. Therefore, why should anyone care what you think about Jesus, Bertrand Russell, or Mary Baker Eddy?
Dunham, “none of us have seen evolution”.
Well nobody has seen gravity but the same applies to evolution. We can’t see it in our lifetimes or even a couple of hundred years. Evolution works in thousands, millions, and billions of years. Darwins theory seems to be our best understanding of the fact of evolution. Of understanding the mechanisms such as natural selection. The fact is every living thing on this planet is descended from a common ancestor.
Joseph Dunnam (5). You are continuing the Fundie tradition; preach and run. Will none of you ever realize that you will be challenged when your ignorance is posted on this site?