How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[MindOverMatter2]

I wanted to add that you probably wouldn’t accept the claims of religions other than your own partly because you haven’t been shown evidence to justify belief in the god/gods of those religions.

It seems in each case, whether one be atheist or theist, the choosing of what one ought to believe is very evidence orientated, and not merely a suspension of belief. One is choosing not to believe because such and such is not evident. One feels if evidence is not provided for “X” then in-order to keep ones rational integrity one ought not to believe that X exists. This is a philosophical position about how one ought to approach reality. Its not simply a matter of “I don’t know”, since we know that disbelief in all Gods has philosophical connotations about reality; because it is at heart a disbelief that the world has a objective meaning, purpose and moral value, whether one realises it or not. Therefore one is not simply suspending belief, but rather one is taking on a very specific philosophical world view in choosing not to believe in God. People are making an assumption about the ultimate reality of things and they are living according to that assumption or belief. Thus we are left with the question of what it really means to be rational in a universe that many so called intellectual atheists “believe” to have popped out of absolutely nothing by itself. In believing such things, I fail to understand why they perceive them selves to be intellectually dominant over belief systems which claim to have seen miracles or beings from other worlds, since in the end we are all claiming things or believing things that for the most part we cannot prove or provide evidence for outside of the immediate experience of any witness. I don’t see rationality in an atheistic universe. In fact such a reality is completely alien to my rational mind.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For something as extraordinary as God, one should not believe in God’s existence (as opposed to claim that God doesn’t exist)

You don’t believe that God exists. Thus you live your life according to the assumption that there is no Christian God.

 

[Windfish]

The whole internet notion of atheism being a “lack of a belief” is just that, an internet notion. It has its roots in 20th century atheists like Flew, but in the English language, positive claims usually accompany “-isms.” It would be rather odd for an “-ism” to be “a lack of” something. Atheism is the theory or belief that there is no god or gods (Oxford American Dictionaries). This is a positive claim that needs to have rational justification. The “i won’t believe until i have evidence” is something else entirely: skepticism. Someone who espouses that is not an atheist, but a skeptic.

The innovative definition and the attempt to shift “burden of proof” entirely on Christians are just attempts to frame the discussion in a dishonest way. Another attempt is the so-called “default position” which is, according to these atheist, “there is no God.” But this is obviously not true - the true default position is “there may or may not be a god.”

 

[AntiTheist]

You don’t believe that God exists. Thus you live your life according to the assumption that there is no Christian God.

No more than he lives his life according to the assumption that there is no Shiva or Cthulhu.

 

[Windfish]

No more than he lives his life according to the assumption that there is no Shiva or Cthulhu.

Uh-huh…

(Your point?

 

[tonyrey]

No more than he lives his life according to the assumption that there is no Shiva or Cthulhu.

I take it that you live your life according to some assumptions!

 

[cassini]

Re: How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

I suggest you remove unicorn from this list and I will tell you why. Because we do not have unicorns on earth today, and because we have not found a unicorn fossil, they might have existed. The reason I say this is because there is a creature with the ‘missing link’ between an antelope and a unicorn, that poker cue ivory horn. Yes, to my amazement, I found the narwhal alive and swimming.
youtube.com/watch?v=ykwqXuMPsoc

Just thought I’d let you know before someone puts their philosophical foot in it.

 

[lemondiesel]

I take it that you live your life according to some assumptions!

Doesn’t everyone when it comes to ‘God’ and the unknowns?

Re: How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

I suggest you remove unicorn from this list and I will tell you why. Because we do not have unicorns on earth today, and because we have not found a unicorn fossil, they might have existed. The reason I say this is because there is a creature with the ‘missing link’ between an antelope and a unicorn, that poker cue ivory horn. Yes, to my amazement, I found the narwhal alive and swimming.
youtube.com/watch?v=ykwqXuMPsoc

Just thought I’d let you know before someone puts their philosophical foot in it.

You do realize the narwhal ‘horn’ is a tooth?

 

[cassini]

Doesn’t everyone when it comes to ‘God’ and the unknowns?

You do realize the narwhal ‘horn’ is a tooth?

So, some say, was the Unicorn’s.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

One feels if evidence is not provided for “X” then in-order to keep ones rational integrity one ought not to believe that X exists. This is a philosophical position about how one ought to approach reality. Its not simply a matter of “I don’t know”, since we know that disbelief in all Gods has philosophical connotations about reality; because it is at heart a disbelief that the world has a objective meaning, purpose and moral value, whether one realises it or not.

One can have various positions on meaning, purpose, and morality without subscribing to a belief in a god.

That there is objective is something that itself need to be justified.

Not believing in a god or gods is not necessarily a rejection of everything taught by various religions. One can lack belief in Yahweh, yet still hold certain moral values. I don’t believe in a God, yet have certain moral values. I think “don’t do unto others as they don’t do unto you” has proven to be an excellent moral principle.

BTW, what’s the objective morality contained in the Bible? Psalm 137:9 says that dashing babies against rocks can be a source of happiness. Yahweh mandated in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that if a virgin is raped, she has to marry the rapist. In Deuteronomy 28:53, Yahweh threatened people to eat their own children. Basically, I think these and many other parts of the Bible indicate that you and I have moral standards that transcend the Bible and doesn’t need to come from religion.

Regarding meaning and purpose, why can’t someone find something other than a god to give their life meaning and purpose?

People are making an assumption about the ultimate reality of things and they are living according to that assumption or belief. Thus we are left with the question of what it really means to be rational in a universe that many so called intellectual atheists “believe” to have popped out of absolutely nothing by itself.

This is a strawman.

Most people who label themselves as atheist don’t claim to know how the universe exists. I don’t. I certainly don’t think that the universe popped into existence.

Most outspoken individuals who don’t believe in a god would rather humbly admit ignorance than to assume something that isn’t justified. Science does that, while continuously testing to expand knowledge of how things work.

However, I don’t see lack of knowledge about the universe as somehow giving room for the idea of a god. In the time of Jesus, it was widely believed that the cause of disease was demons (some people think Matt 17:14-20 and Matt 10:5-8 back this up). This was because they attributed something “supernatural” to what we now understand to be caused by microscopic organisms. If the germ theory of disease was presented to people back then, it probably would have sounded ridiculous.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7187893:

For something as extraordinary as God, one should not believe in God’s existence (as opposed to claim that God doesn’t exist) until there is proper evidence.

You don’t believe that God exists. Thus you live your life according to the assumption that there is no Christian God.

I live my life primarily by principles such as “don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you.” How I live life actually hasn’t changed much since I dropped believing in the Catholic faith.

Are you indicating that it’s OK for someone to believe a claim about a God without proper evidence so long as it effects one’s life? If so, why choose to believe in your god without proper evidence over the other gods?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Words mean whatever people use them to mean. “Atheism” is a general umbrella term for not believing in God, regardless of the history behind the word. Of course, the non-existence of anything isn’t fully provable.

Instead of debating about the word atheist, how about you defend your beliefs versus those who you the word “atheist” to describe their positions on such beliefs.

It would be rather odd for an “-ism” to be “a lack of” something.

I would agree in a way on this point. We don’t have “-ism” to describe the lack of belief in the existence of Santa Clause, Superman, or Spiderman. However, there are no people out there (except for maybe people with schizophrenia and children) who actually claim that these characters exists, and try to shape the world accordingly (especially through public policy). If there were a substancial number of believers in these characters, you and I might need to label ourselves as “Asupermanist”. In such a case, we subscribe to “Asupermanism”.

Also, there aren’t people who think they have been commanded to kill people who encourage them to change beliefs. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 says that if a person encourages you to worship another god, you are kill him.

Atheism is the theory or belief that there is no god or gods (Oxford American Dictionaries). This is a positive claim that needs to have rational justification.

What about subscribing in the belief that there is no Santa Clause or Superman? Isn’t the lack of evidence for a Superman sufficient for believing there is no Superman? Isn’t the belief that there is no Superman the default? You’ve avoided addressing this.

The “i won’t believe until i have evidence” is something else entirely: skepticism. Someone who espouses that is not an atheist, but a skeptic.

If someone claims to know, not just believe, there is no God, than that would be different from skepticism. I don’t think you’ve appreciated or understood the difference between claiming to know, and believing.

The innovative definition and the attempt to shift “burden of proof” entirely on Christians are just attempts to frame the discussion in a dishonest way.

If someone believed that Superman exists, wouldn’t you demand evidence before thinking that such a belief is justified? Isn’t the burden of proof on them to justify their belief.

Another attempt is the so-called “default position” which is, according to these atheist, “there is no God.” But this is obviously not true - the true default position is “there may or may not be a god.”

I don’t know anyone who claims that the default “is there is no god”. Almost all outspoken individuals who label themselves atheists will hold that “belief in god isn’t justified” until it is backed up. That’s a big difference.

Isn’t the belief in Superman not justified until it’s backed up to evidence proportional to the claim?

There weren’t many people who didn’t believe in God before the 20th century.

 

[Windfish]

Words mean whatever people use them to mean.

If that is the case, then I will happily stick with the authorities on this one and not let people like you frame the discussion dishonestly. After all, words mean whatever people use them to mean.

Of course, the non-existence of anything isn’t fully provable.

Not at all. I can prove that there are no Muslims in the U.S. Senate.

I would agree in a way on this point. We don’t have “-ism” to describe the lack of belief in the existence of Santa Clause, Superman, or Spiderman. However, there are no people out there (except for maybe people with schizophrenia and children) who actually claim that these characters exists, and try to shape the world accordingly (especially through public policy). If there were a substancial number of believers in these characters, you and I might need to label ourselves as “Asupermanist”. In such a case, we subscribe to “Asupermanism”

Asupermanism
noun
the theory or belief that no Superman exists.

]Also, there aren’t people who think they have been commanded to kill people who encourage them to change beliefs. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 says that if a person encourages you to worship another god, you are kill him.

Ok…

What about subscribing in the belief that there is no Santa Clause or Superman? Isn’t the lack of evidence for a Superman sufficient for believing there is no Superman? Isn’t the belief that there is no Superman the default? You’ve avoided addressing this.

Logically, no, the lack of evidence for Superman would not be sufficient to disbelieve in Superman, but it may be one of several good reasons. The same does not at all apply for God, though, because entities like God belong in a different category.

Ah, the “default position.” I talked about this already, but the default position is not that Superman does not exist, that would actually be a position that requires rational basis beyond what the default position actually is, and that is: Superman may or may not exist.

If someone believed that Superman exists, wouldn’t you demand evidence before thinking that such a belief is justified? Isn’t the burden of proof on them to justify their belief.

If that person came up to and tried to convince me of his existence, yes. But, again, this involves the terms of the discussion, which is something you have not grasped yet
I don’t know anyone who claims that the default “is there is no god”. Almost all outspoken individuals who label themselves atheists will hold that “belief in god isn’t justified” until it is backed up. That’s a big difference.

Isn’t the belief in Superman not justified until it’s backed up to evidence proportional to the claim?

“Proportional to the claim” does not make any sense. Is there some threshold of evidence that needs to be crossed? Nonsense. Something only need ever be demonstrated once, and this may rely on whatever evidence needed. The whole notion of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is meaningless, since there is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence, only evidence.

All that said, yes, belief in Superman is not justified until it is supported.

 

[Rocinante]

Forgot the comma in the title. There is no such thing as a “leprechaun unicorn.” :doh2:

(Man, I love any excuse to use these awesome smileys.)

oh really? prove it!

 

[Pieman333272]

oh really? prove it!

I believe he meant a “Leprechaun Unicorn” is neither believed by those who believe in other things such as these and atheists don’t use the comparison. It can exist, but he’s not referring to that specific example in the original title.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7189686:

Words mean whatever people use them to mean.

If that is the case, then I will happily stick with the authorities on this one and not let people like you frame the discussion dishonestly. After all, words mean whatever people use them to mean.

I’m not sure if you accidentally misinterpreted what I meant, or if you intentionally did so to attack my character (saying I’m framing the discussion dishonestly). In any case, what I was trying to say was that words mean what people in a society use them to mean. In other words, if people use the word “fag” to refer to a homosexual, as opposed to what it used to mean (an old lady I think), then the official meaning of the word will change, which will eventually gain recognition of dictionaries that are considered authoritative.

TruthSeeker60;7189686:

Of course, the non-existence of anything isn’t fully provable.

Not at all. I can prove that there are no Muslims in the U.S. Senate.

Proving there are no Muslims in the U.S. Senate is not proving the non-existence of something. By saying “in the U.S. Senate” you are merely showing that specific individuals are not Muslims. Once you implement some restriction, you are disproving the existence of something within that restriction, rather than proving the non-existence of something.

I could show that I don’t have any unicorns in my pocket, but I can’t prove the non-existence of unicorns. Just like I can’t disprove unicorns, I can’t disprove God. If I saw a unicorn, that would justify belief in unicorns. If there was an an event in which there is overwhelming evidence that it was a miracle done by Yahweh, then belief in Yahweh would be justified.

TruthSeeker60;7189686:

What about subscribing in the belief that there is no Santa Clause or Superman? Isn’t the lack of evidence for a Superman sufficient for believing there is no Superman? Isn’t the belief that there is no Superman the default? You’ve avoided addressing this.

Ah, the “default position.” I talked about this already, but the default position is not that Superman does not exist, that would actually be a position that requires rational basis beyond what the default position actually is, and that is: Superman may or may not exist.

Let me be more direct. Until reasons have been given for or against the existence of Superman, Superman may or may not exist, but would it be justified to assume Superman exists without proper evidence?

Presuming neither you or I have evidence for or against the existence of fairies, we both have to, in a general sense, say fairies may or may not exist. This in no way validate the idea that they do exist, but rather means that believing in the existence of fairies may become justified if there is proper evidence.

TruthSeeker60;7189686:

If someone believed that Superman exists, wouldn’t you demand evidence before thinking that such a belief is justified? Isn’t the burden of proof on them to justify their belief.

If that person came up to and tried to convince me of his existence, yes. But, again, this involves the terms of the discussion, which is something you have not grasped yet

Forget about talking to another person. If you learn about the idea of a Superman, would you be justified believing in it without having evidence?

TruthSeeker60;7189686:

Isn’t the belief in Superman not justified until it’s backed up to evidence proportional to the claim?

“Proportional to the claim” does not make any sense. Is there some threshold of evidence that needs to be crossed? Nonsense. Something only need ever be demonstrated once, and this may rely on whatever evidence needed. The whole notion of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is meaningless, since there is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence, only evidence.

The degree to which something backs up a belief varies by degree. Thus, there is a difference between extraordinary evidence and weak evidence. Otherwise, why would a prosecuter bother presenting more than one piece of evidence against a defendant? Also, why would a prosecuter choose to focus the prosecution more on one particular piece of evidence more than the others if they don’t vary based off degree?

Lets say that I claim that I’ve sat on top of a unicorn before. To back this up I send you a high-quality photo and video of me sitting on top of a unicorn. The video would be better evidence than the photo. Lets consider the same scenario, except this time I claim to have shaken the pope’s hand. You’d probably accept the photo as sufficient evidence that I shook the pope’s hand, but not for riding the unicorn (you’d probably say I used photoshop very well for the unicorn). For the video, you’d say that it’s better evidence than the photo, yet would probably not believe that I sat on a unicorn unless you saw a flood of consistent videos of unicorns on the internet, and it is attested to by many people.

 

[NE_Catholic]

just an OT Observation:

Why is every other atheist on this board named “TruthSeeker”?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

All that said, yes, belief in Superman is not justified until it is supported.

Would you say the same thing about God? If not, why?

 

[lemondiesel]

I could show that I don’t have any unicorns in my pocket, but I can’t prove the non-existence of unicorns. Just like I can’t disprove unicorns, I can’t disprove God. If I saw a unicorn, that would justify belief in unicorns. If there was an an event in which there is overwhelming evidence that it was a miracle done by Yahweh, then belief in Yahweh would be justified.

Yet if we do not have any evidence for a phenomenon, we suspend judgement. That thing is assumed nonexistent until proved otherwise.

Let me be more direct. Until reasons have been given for or against the existence of Superman, Superman may or may not exist, but would it be justified to assume Superman exists without proper evidence?

Superman is influenced by media. My question for you (going on your belief) would you have discovered Superman without the influence from an external source? This is a big issue, because many find “God” individually.

Presuming neither you or I have evidence for or against the existence of fairies, we both have to, in a general sense, say fairies may or may not exist. This in no way validate the idea that they do exist, but rather means that believing in the existence of fairies may become justified if there is proper evidence.

Fairy: a small being, human in form, playful and having magical powers. If we go on your universal acceptance of language, the definition of fairy lacks any sort of words that make it existent. Therefore, we can say** by definition**, fairys do not exist.

Forget about talking to another person. If you learn about the idea of a Superman, would you be justified believing in it without having evidence?

once again, this depends on where one learns the idea from.

Lets say that I claim that I’ve sat on top of a unicorn before. To back this up I send you a high-quality photo and video of me sitting on top of a unicorn. The video would be better evidence than the photo.

Something that is composed of matter must have a physical measurement, which a photo lacks.

Lets consider the same scenario, except this time I claim to have shaken the pope’s hand. You’d probably accept the photo as sufficient evidence that I shook the pope’s hand, but not for riding the unicorn (you’d probably say I used photoshop very well for the unicorn). For the video, you’d say that it’s better evidence than the photo, yet would probably not believe that I sat on a unicorn unless you saw a flood of consistent videos of unicorns on the internet, and it is attested to by many people.

Well, according to you:

In any case, what I was trying to say was that words mean what people in a society use them to mean.

We would need a flood of consistent unicorn videos.

 

[Rocinante]

I believe he meant a “Leprechaun Unicorn” is neither believed by those who believe in other things such as these and atheists don’t use the comparison. It can exist, but he’s not referring to that specific example in the original title.

i was just kidding.