Claims Without Evidence ...
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 121800)

How should one deal with them?

Should one fear them based on the size of the claim?
In other words, if someone says that the super-being
creator of it all exists - believe and live in immortal
pleasure, disbelieve and suffer eternal torment or
oblivion ...

Does one cower in fear, accept blindly, -or- request
evidence and reject the claim if there's no evidence
that it's true?

Let's say someone says they saw or heard god.
I can say I can't believe that he / she has seen one
unless there is evidence to support the claim. Claims
without evidence are all equal in refutability. All non-
falsifiable claims are equivalent in nature, from the
tooth fairy to the god of gods.

Claims and preferences are part and parcel of life.
Anyone can claim anything. It's the evidence that
provides meaning regarding the veracity or lack of
veracity in a claim.

For example, consider someone who states that
they cannot, they will not, disbelieve in deities, no
matter what, regardless of the absurdity or illogic
involved in lack of disbelief. They won't disbelieve
in 'em and they won't believe in 'em. Well, first off,
one would have to understand what is meant by the
word deities, and one would be hard-pressed to
neglect including all of 'em.

For such an individual, he / she would be logically
placed in the uncomfortable position of allowing
for the possibility, however remote, of all deities.

To be true to an absolute lack of disbelief, you
would have to ...

Whip out your sacred masks, your voodoo dolls,
your little buddha statue, your holy cross, your holy
bible, your quran, your bhagavad gita, your writ of
holy ancestors, your chest of the bones of sacred
spirits, your holy water, your holy wafers, your book
of satanic rituals, and, well, keep in mind you've only
just begun in the course you'd have to go down to
pay homage to not disbelieving in any of the claims
of the imaginary being crowd ...

It must be difficult, being in those shoes, what with
the obligation to always be wary of what you do,
say, eat, disbelieve in, what with all the imaginary
being claims you must not disbelieve in, to be
worthy of refusing to disbelieve in any of 'em.

Even then, how could one be sure that he / she was
covering *all* bases regarding refusal to disbelieve?

One would be required to deny disbelief in Horus,
Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Apollo, Dionysus, Satan,
guardian angels, demons, ghosts, goblins, ghoulies,
elves, trolls, fairies, the deistic claims of Roman
Emperors, the deistic claims of any modern-day
cult figure, etc.

One would be required to deny disbelief towards
*all* claims that are *non-falsifiable*, a veritable
bottomless pit of lack of disbelief.

On the other hand, perhaps one is selective in
which imaginary beings one chooses to refuse to
disbelieve.

It would be a difficult argument to make, the rela-
tive worth of some imaginary beings compared to
others, as the best you can do for any of them is
establish the relative worth of their imaginary na-
tures, and somehow justify diminishment of dis-
belief in those imaginary beings you find worthy of
less disbelief than others, as relates to the impact
of humans' use of them, I suppose. Once you
open the door to allowing for the possibility of the
existence of any one of them, how do justify clos-
ing the door on allowing for the existence of any
of them?

If one is a disbeliever towards most deities and
allows for the possibility, however remote, of the
existence of some of them, depending on the
choices of which ones to allow for, it would appear
that one has fallen into the same social / cultural trap
that most theists fall into (with the "gods" of their
culture being acceptable and the "gods" of other
cultures on some kind of lesser plateau).

In my view, all imaginary beings are equal in their
imaginary worlds - if claims are made regarding
their impact on the real world, the only way to
differentiate between them is to the extent that the
claims are falsifiable. A little invisible pink furry
friend -or- Fud (god's dad), for example, quite
nicer deities than any I've run across lately, and
just as non-falsifiable as the rest of the imaginary
being crew.

Many fence-sitters make the mistake of adopting
the position that you cannot disbelieve in, well, any
non-falsifiable nothing / something, and that, it would
appear, is simply solipsism in disguise -or- the first
step to theism -or- the last step away from theism,
in my view, especially when it's expressed as some
kind of so-called "intellectually superior to atheism"
type manner.

As any atheist will tell you, logically speaking, dis-
belief ends when validation begins, so if *any* deity
shows itself in an existentially validatable way, athe-
ists analyze the data and skeptically research it, as
would most other than disbelieving theists and others
whose bias towards disbelieving in gods apart from
their culture would dictate their ignoring any gods
apart from their culture. Many would blindly follow
simply because some authority figure said it was
true, with evidence being of a lesser interest than
the social / cultural influences.

If one considers that most of the unknowns that were
claimed to be the work of gods (by early human cul-
tures) have become knowns explainable by the work-
ings of a natural world over the past few millennia, the
relevance and merit of those "god claims" has dimin-
ished until all that's left of them appears ancient and
out of place in the modern day, with the primary ex-
ception being ...

The social / cultural impetus to support them, with the
favorite gods of each culture praised in large buildings,
thanked by world leaders, and indoctrinated into chil-
dren from birth. The only escape is education of a
secular nature in an open-minded "is it true?" method.

If you cannot ask "is it true?", then you cannot justify
blindly following it. If "it may be true", then you must
compare it to other imaginary creatures from early "god
claims" as well as from your own theoretical framework,
in order to assess its verity or lack thereof.

Then, comparing all the imaginary creatures to the
natural world, the next logical step would be to dismiss
all of them as without existential data and with the know-
ledge that any human can spin up any imaginary crea-
ture, how can one justify adopting a disbelief of disbelief
position towards any of them?

- - -