Too many questions fallacy?

[Lord Emsworth]

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I don't think that's quite what's being described though. I thought the OP was referring to lots of sequential questions.

Argumentum ad verecundiam/Gish Galloping is lots of questions in one go.

That can't be right. Ad verecundiam is the fancy name for appeal to authority.

 

[Gadarene]

It's fun when we ask what objective is and it's just a plural version of subjective.

Some degree of subjectivity is unavoidable.

I don't deny that people's standards have subjective elements. But I'm not having a go at Christians because their standards have subjective elements while mine don't. I'm having a go because in my experience their standards for their own beliefs are different from their own.

As I said - the problem is inconsistency. The quality of the standards is a related problem.

 

[Gadarene]

That can't be right. Ad verecundiam is the fancy name for appeal to authority.

Derp.

Argumentum ad verbosium, rather.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And to the OP:
There simply is no fallacy. You see, you can only have a fallacy if there is some kind of reasoning involved, if somebody draws some kind of conclusion.

 

[Gadarene]

No, the OP was referring to actual, completely relevant questions. The Gish Gallop is more of a red herring fallacy - have so many questions (talking points, actually) that you disguise and shift the purpose of the debate entirely.

Also, argumentum ad verecundiam is argument from authority.

I still think you can Gish Gallop by asking too many relevant questions far too quickly. The aim as much as anything else is to make your opponent look incompetent by giving them more claims to address than they can reasonably deal with.

It can work with either relevant or irrelevant material.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Most skeptics (sceptics is the proper spelling ) are fairly reasonable people; it kind of goes with the territory. As the person making the claim, it is upon the claim-maker to provide positive evidence for the claim.

The way I see it, there are always two (or more) sides to any issue, if there weren't more than one side, there wouldn't be an issue, right?

In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?

It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?

This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.

There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?

I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down. Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.

I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?


**Note: all my examples using Mitt and Obama are just that: hypothetical examples. I don't want this to turn into a political debate.

 

[Gadarene]

In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?

Yes. The person making the claim can attempt to justify it, and the other person can query it.

It may not match the official format where you're required to oppose the motion, but here there is no such restriction, and if an atheist doesn't make any claim then griping about how they should have to defend "their side" is in effect insisting they defend a strawman of their own position.

It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?

Again, different format. We are not voting for anyone here.

I keep coming up against this mentality among Christians - like "any answer is better than none".

Sometimes we don't know the answers to things. That's a fact of life. Pointing out that that's the case IS actually providing you with helpful information - it informs you of the correct state of affairs.

This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions.

Again - why should atheists be required to defend claims they haven't made?

I don't claim that gods definitely do not exist - I just don't think there's evidence for them.

The most expedient way then to resolve the matter is for the person who IS convinced a god exists to stop faffing about and just STATE THE DARN EVIDENCE.

Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.

Too bad. If an atheist doesn't make a positive claim then they don't have to defend anything. They are not required to hold a position they do not hold.

I'm sorry you feel so hard done by that you expect special treatment to not back up a claim you make like everyone else.

There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?

If they believe something to be true and make a positive claim about it then yes. A strong atheist who claims that no gods exist would.

Most atheists are not strong atheists however.

This is basically just trying to impose a false equivalency however in order to sidestep providing evidence for your claims. And you want to call the opposing side "cheaters"?

I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down. Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.

Why, when in debate with a Christian, would you waste time trying to show that a god they don't believe exists, exists?

So not only do you want atheists to defend a position they do not hold, you also want them to attack a position that their opponent does not hold.

I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?

Perhaps they are simply strongly convinced that there is no evidence - and that like celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, and the remaining 99.999% of things in the category of "things alleged to exist that aren't Yahweh" that atheists and Christians agree there is no positive evidence for, they live their lives as if Yahweh doesn't exist?

Atheists could spend some time defending this principle, I suppose, but I'd argue someone who queries this is engaging in blatant obfuscating to avoid defending their own point of view.

If Christians want an exception to this principle made for their deity, it is up to THEM to justify THEIR special pleading.

 

[Davian]

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

I don't think that's quite what's being described though. I thought the OP was referring to lots of sequential questions.

Argumentum ad verecundiam/Gish Galloping is lots of questions in one go.

The Gish gallop was a technique used in debates, particularly those that offered less rebuttal time than that for the presenter. In five minutes, you could throw out a handful of erroneous statements that would take two hours to clarify and rebut, and "win" when your opponent could not do so in the time allotted.

This can still happen in the written debate format that has limitations on word space.

I see those that attempt a 'Gish gallog' type post, a wall-of-text with no paragraphs and little punctuation. I believe the technique where the responder breaks those posts down into smaller or single sentence sections, with a rebuttal or question for each part, is called "frisking", although I do not have an online reference for that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The way I see it, there are always two (or more) sides to any issue, if there weren't more than one side, there wouldn't be an issue, right?

In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?

It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?

This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.

There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?

I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down. Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.

I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?


**Note: all my examples using Mitt and Obama are just that: hypothetical examples. I don't want this to turn into a political debate.

To use your example, let's say Obama claimed his healthcare law would lower the costs of healthcare for everyone (positive claim). Mitt doesn't have to present a positive claim himself. If Obama cannot provide evidence of his claim, then Mitt is absolutely right in questioning the truth of that claim. If Obama can provide evidence of his claim, then the debate should become an examination of that evidence. If the evidence is sufficient, testable, and conclusive...then Obama has effectively proven his claim.

 

[Gadarene]

To use your example, let's say Obama claimed his healthcare law would lower the costs of healthcare for everyone (positive claim). Mitt doesn't have to present a positive claim himself. If Obama cannot provide evidence of his claim, then Mitt is absolutely right in questioning the truth of that claim. If Obama can provide evidence of his claim, then the debate should become an examination of that evidence. If the evidence is sufficient, testable, and conclusive...then Obama has effectively proven his claim.

And conversely, saying "well Romney hasn't presented an idea" doesn't mean that his criticisms of the idea that HAS been presented are wrong or irrelevant.

And this mentality of "any answer is better than none" would mean that in the above scenario you would end up following a demonstrably bad idea merely because no other solution had been presented, so as standards go it is rather foolish.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I still think you can Gish Gallop by asking too many relevant questions far too quickly. The aim as much as anything else is to make your opponent look incompetent by giving them more claims to address than they can reasonably deal with.

It can work with either relevant or irrelevant material.

If you say so

The way I see it, there are always two (or more) sides to any issue, if there weren't more than one side, there wouldn't be an issue, right?

Well, yes and no. Reality kind of ensures that there are multiple considerations to take into account whenever something is considered. But these considerations are not always equal in terms of relevance and merit.

In a formal debate, both sides present their case and then question and/or respond to one another via a moderator. Is it possible to have such a formalized debate if only one of the people is making a positive claim while the other is just skeptical of the other person's position?

Yes. Given that the role of the claimant is to provide evidence for why the claim should disrupt the status quo, the other side really just has to shoot down all the points.

It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism?

No, it would be like Obama saying "The sky is blue" and Romney saying "No it's not".

Sorry, hurrying through these questions a bit because I have to go to work and give a presentation soon. If you have further concerns about what I've written, flag them and I'll try address them tomorrow.

This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.

But...it is.

I am an atheist because I feel this is the logical and intellectually honest position to take, purely because there is not enough evidence to subscribe to an alternative hypothesis. I didn't become (be) an atheist to be ornery or annoying.

There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?

From my point of view? Not really. Theists are the ones making the positive claims.

I note that from personal experience, not many atheists tend to argue with deists. That may be because deists have thought more about their positions and can justify them better, but it could also be that some atheists (myself included) don't really have a problem with the deists' god. Personally, it is only when you start making claims that influence how you and other people interact with the world (such as "the world must be the center of the universe cause Genesis implies so") that I start having problems with theism. Because the observations we make clearly contradict this position.

I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics. But I feel like it doesn't work in the situation with Mitt (in politics) or with atheists (in philosophical debates) because there isn't one definite alternative, there are hundreds of other alternatives that you would have to prove false. Even if Mitt knocks down Obama's one vision for healthcare in America, there are still an infinite number of other options to be knocked down.

Someone once said (I'm paraphrasing here) that if religion was the reliance on axiomatic statements that cannot be proven to be true, then mathematics is a religion and further, it is the only one which can prove it is one.

Mathematics is a study of ideal relationships. Reality is nothing like it. Sometimes, temporarily, we can mathematically describe reality when it fits enough with mathematical ideals. But most of the time reality is very complex, very analogue, and very difficult to model mathematically.

Similarly, even if the atheist convincingly knocks down the specific Christian concept of God there are still thousands of other God concepts, plus hundreds of other views of God/gods/deism/pantheism etc.

Yes. And each and every one makes positive claims. It's like having a beer bottle in a box. I don't know what colour it is or what's inside it, but then having several people come up to me and say "there's an elephant inside" or "it's bright pink with orange and purple sparkles" or "it's made out of bits of $5 notes". I don't currently know what it looks like or what's inside it, but in the future I'll know a bit more, and in the meantime I see no reason to operate under the assumption that it's made of human hair.

I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that. The unconvinced person is not the one passionately in the fray. The unconvinced voter doesn't run for president; if all Mitt did was question Obama, then he could not turn around and say, "Oh, I'm just unconvinced of his position." Then why are you running? Why are you so passionately involved in disagreeing with him? If you so passionately disagree with him then you must have a position that you hold that is of more value than his position. Is atheism more valuable than theism?

See the analogy I gave above. I believe what I believe. I always operate under the assumption that it may be untrue and could be proven untrue any day, but I still operate under the assumption.

 

[Davian]

One person's demonstration that it is true is another person's lack of demonstration that it is true.

That's been my observation anyway, on these forums specifically.

The demonstration should be commensurable to the claim.

If I were to claim that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around, as it may appear, then I would be expected to provide the appropriate evidence for my claim, in this case astronomical observations that can be repeated by others. Claiming it was so because of a feeling in my head/heart/pancreas or appealing to tradition or an old book would not be sufficient.

 

[Loudmouth]

I still think you can Gish Gallop by asking too many relevant questions far too quickly.

The Gish Gallop is making claims in rapid fire succession to prevent any questions from being asked.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is what I see on this forum all the time. The atheist never brings anything to the table because every time they are questioned they automatically throw up their fences and say, "No, no, no, I don't have to back up my position, the burden of proof is on YOU." Okay...so you're not bringing anything to the table, you're just asking questions after questions that aren't going anywhere. Atheists have set up a situation where they can never "lose" a debate because they haven't actually said anything...they've just asked questions. Mitt can't "lose" his debate with Obama if he never makes a positive truth claim because there's nothing to lose! Its the cheaters way out of a debate, and I don't think it would even be allowed in a formalized debate, yet it happens here all the time.

Atheism makes no positive claims. Atheism is simple the lack of a positive belief in deities. That's it. There is nothing to prove or support in atheism since atheism is not a positive belief.

There are two (or more) sides to any discussion. There is theism and then there is atheism (with a bunch of others as well). If we, for simplicity sake, say there are two sides, atheism and theism, then is there any way for the atheist to make a positive truth claim that they actually have to back up?

There are two groups: those who believe that Bigfoot exists, and those who are unconvinced that Bigfoot exists. Who do you think is responsible for bringing positive evidence to support positive claims in this instance Do the skeptics have to prove that Bigfoot does not exist? Have you ever heard of Russell's Teapot?

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess you could say that you could prove your position by proving the alternative to be false. That's a legitimate tool used in logic and mathematics.

Not in all situations. It is a logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy:

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess you could also say that, "Well, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just unconvinced." I've never bought that response from an atheist. The atheists I've encountered live, act and talk as if there is no God, and as if that's the truth. They are not like researchers, constantly looking for evidence for God everywhere they go. They are not spiritual seekers, seeking everywhere they go. They are not "on the fence" on the issue, they are clearly in the "atheist" camp and they will debate theists passionately; more passionately than someone who was "unconvinced" should. An unconvinced person should sit back and listen to the discussion between two people and attempt to make their decision after that.

Many atheists grew up in the church. I know I did. I listened to the arguments for the first 22 years of my life. We have heard the arguments for many years. We know them inside and out.

Time and again these arguments are nothing more than bare assertions. We want evidence, not more claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

This quote will help you understand where atheists are coming from.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Thanks for all the quick replies. I read them all, but I don't think I have time to respond to ever single thing said. If I don't respond to something it either means I agree with you or, at the least, I understand where you're coming from.

I keep coming up against this mentality among Christians - like "any answer is better than none".

Sometimes we don't know the answers to things. That's a fact of life. Pointing out that that's the case IS actually providing you with helpful information - it informs you of the correct state of affairs.

My lack of knowledge for some reason leads me to the mysterious and to the awe that points me to some sort of God-thing. I recognize that I don't know a lot, and for some reason, this lack of knowledge inclines me to believe in some higher power.

Perhaps at least atheists and theists can agree that the universe is a strange, mysterious and wonderful place with so many unknowns.

The most expedient way then to resolve the matter is for the person who IS convinced a god exists to stop faffing about and just STATE THE DARN EVIDENCE.

This is a debate that has been going on for thousands of years. The definition of evidence is subjective. No one is going to present evidence to you today or tomorrow or ever that you will find convincing because your definition of evidence is "biased" towards a certain kind of evidence. That's fine, but you can't say all theists are just faffing about without ever having produced anything that could be considered evidence.

Why, when in debate with a Christian, would you waste time trying to show that a god they don't believe exists, exists?

So not only do you want atheists to defend a position they do not hold, you also want them to attack a position that their opponent does not hold.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm making the point that by proving the falsity of the Christian's views, you haven't affirmed yours at all.

Perhaps they are simply strongly convinced that there is no evidence - and that like celestial teapots and flying spaghetti monsters, and the remaining 99.999% of things in the category of "things alleged to exist that aren't Yahweh" that atheists and Christians agree there is no positive evidence for, they live their lives as if Yahweh doesn't exist?

How could you be "strongly convinced that there is no evidence"? Don't you mean, they are not convinced by the evidence presented?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

And conversely, saying "well Romney hasn't presented an idea" doesn't mean that his criticisms of the idea that HAS been presented are wrong or irrelevant.

And this mentality of "any answer is better than none" would mean that in the above scenario you would end up following a demonstrably bad idea merely because no other solution had been presented, so as standards go it is rather foolish.

Obviously.

But there must be some limit. If Romney continues to just punch down Obama's ideas...all the time, then what is he contributing to the situation? And if Obama shows some piece of evidence supporting his claim and Romney just questions the evidence ad infinitum, then who is being helped? If every piece of evidence given is questioned and then thrown out because Romney didn't like it, then what? Romney throws up his hands and says, "Obama! There is no evidence!!"

Obama sputters..."but I just provided you with hundreds of pieces of evidence and you threw them all away..."

 

[Ken-1122]

One person's proof is another person's lack of proof.

That's been my experience anyway, on these forums specifically.

I've been on these fourms for a long time and I don't think I've ever seen that happen. There is a big difference between faith and proof; proof is an established truth.

Ken

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No, it would be like Obama saying "The sky is blue" and Romney saying "No it's not".

Then Obama provides some sort of evidence and Romney questions it and remains skeptical and/or throws out the evidence as "not really evidence".

And repeat...

The moderator eventually says, "Well thank you for your time and have a good night."

Romney feels like he won because he remained skeptical and threw out all the evidence. Obama feels like he lost because there was no way for him to prove himself because Romney was overly-skeptical and over-questioned everything to the point that there was no way to win.

I am an atheist because I feel this is the logical and intellectually honest position to take, purely because there is not enough evidence to subscribe to an alternative hypothesis.

Makes sense.

I note that from personal experience, not many atheists tend to argue with deists. That may be because deists have thought more about their positions and can justify them better, but it could also be that some atheists (myself included) don't really have a problem with the deists' god. Personally, it is only when you start making claims that influence how you and other people interact with the world (such as "the world must be the center of the universe cause Genesis implies so") that I start having problems with theism. Because the observations we make clearly contradict this position.

Hmm, I find most atheists are like this as well. And I agree with you. Unfortunately, the god in the atheists mind that he/she refuses to believe in is rarely like the god in the theists mind who he is talk to.

I am one who wants to keep imposed religion out of classrooms and politics. And I recognize that many parts of the Bible are meant to be allegorical or metaphorical. If scientific evidence blatantly conflicts with the Bible, I think that is a good indication that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. And I'm not alone. Many Christians think church and state should be separate and interpret the Bible non-literally.

 

[Ken-1122]

It would be like Obama and Mitt having a debate where Obama is making the positive claim that his healthcare bill should go through while Mitt is just bashing the bill. But Mitt isn't providing any alternative positive claim, he's just skeptical of Obama's bill. Is this even a valuable discussion to have? Mitt isn't actually bringing anything to the table. Would you vote for him if he never brought anything to the table for the whole campaign but only pointed out what's wrong with Obama ideas via his skepticism.

It sounds like you are suggesting that a wrong answer is better than no answer at all. Is that what you are saying? That might get you elected in politics but in the real world that is a horrible idea.

Ken