Why do creationists largely use only straw-man arguments?

[Aizen]

You cannot not say that because you can't prove the supernatural is isn't real, that it is equally valid to believing it is real. Because there is no evidence for it, rational thinkers will choose not to believe it.

That's like arresting me now and accusing me of murdering somebody who I didn't even know, and have no way to prove didn't happen.

Does that make it just as likely that I'm guilty as innocent?

Both sides can't prove of disprove Heaven or Hell. So why are we even talking about it?

You're the one who said "Sorry to burst your bubble but there is a heaven and hell" as if it were a fact. The whole ordeal is your fault enitirely.

[Devilman88]

Once again, this displays simply clinging to the idea of god and not be able to let go. Have you ever thought why would god use such a process when he could just poof it into existence? Accept your fate, there's no fairytale life for the goody goodies, and no endless torment for the baddies.

I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but there is a Heaven and Hell.

No shadowofthewave started it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You cannot not say that because you can't prove the supernatural is isn't real, that it is equally valid to believing it is real. Because there is no evidence for it, rational thinkers will choose not to believe it.

That's like arresting me now and accusing me of murdering somebody who I didn't even know, and have no way to prove didn't happen.

Does that make it just as likely that I'm guilty as innocent?

Both sides can't prove of disprove Heaven or Hell. So why are we even talking about it?

     The burden of proof is on the one who seeks to show a positive. That is, until you prove that heaven & hell exist, the fair assumption is that they do not.

[A18]

There is, in fact, no warrant for that standard.

[Aizen]

There is, in fact, no warrant for that standard.

Incorrect. I can claim that the flying spaghetti monster exists. Are you insinuating that the burden of proof does not lie with me to prove the existence of said being? In the world of law it is on the shoulders of the prosecution to provide substantial evidence for the guilt of the defendant. Yes, there is very much a warrant for that standard that Pit described.

[A18]

The world of law is not the world of epistemology.

When there is no evidence for or against a proposition, its reality and falsehood are equally probable. Only intuition is then left to fall back on.

[Franzl]

When there is no evidence for or against a proposition, its reality and falsehood are equally probable. Only intuition is then left to fall back on.

So is there any evidence that the Spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

[A18]

None that I am aware of. Nor is there a shred of evidence that my senses and memory are accurate. At root, we are all intuitionists—but only some of us are willing to admit it.

[Franzl]

None that I am aware of. Nor is there a shred of evidence that my senses and memory are accurate. At root, we are all intuitionists—but only some of us are willing to admit it.

So the "reality and falsehood" of the Spaghetti Monster are "equally probably", in your opinion?

[A18]

In supposing that there is no evidence undermining this "Spaghetti Monster" thesis, you implicitly concede as much. Your claim, as I understand it, is that we should nonetheless assume it doesn't exist. Correct?

I also believe we should assume it doesn't exist. But I ground the assumption in intuition, while recognizing its arbitrariness. You instead obfuscate, conceding on the one hand that there is no evidence in either direction, while still awkwardly maintaining that the creature's existence is "improbable." The two positions directly contradict one another.

All I object to is the notion that a "presumption" against the existence/occurrence of anything/everything is justified by objective considerations.

[Aizen]

 You instead obfuscate, conceding on the one hand that there is no evidence in either direction, while still awkwardly maintaining that the creature's existence is "improbable." The two positions directly contradict one another.

Incorrect. There was no "concession" that there is no evidence in either direction. That was given from the get-go. The claim was that there is no proof in either direction and that the existence of "god" is essentially 50/50. All we did was replace "god" with "flying spaghetti monster". Without the burden of proof being on the one attemtping to prove something the conclusion is that anyone can make any claim and have it be 50/50. The only "contradiction" here is the one you're attemtping to maufacture. Does god and the flying spaghetti monster have an equal chance of existing? That is what you're arguing.

[Aizen]

By the way, I must inform you that your articulation of the English language would benefit from a more parsimonious usage of monolithic words.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

If we have no evidence for the existence of something, than we should assume it does not exist until proven otherwise.

[Earth]

I also believe we should assume it doesn't exist. But I ground the assumption in intuition, while recognizing its arbitrariness. You instead obfuscate, conceding on the one hand that there is no evidence in either direction, while still awkwardly maintaining that the creature's existence is "improbable." The two positions directly contradict one another.

All I object to is the notion that a "presumption" against the existence/occurrence of anything/everything is justified by objective considerations.

You're intentionally moving the goalposts now, of course there's no objective criteria to use; but then again, no one was claiming there to be.

"Improbability" is the perfect term for a discussion dealing with the unknown, particularly notions like this one. You end up reducing the burden of proof concept into your own straw man, ascribing claims of 'objectivity' onto those who argue with you, and then while agreeing with our conclusions, you seem to miss exactly what what that agreement rests on; namely the "improbability" of the creature's existence.

You sound like a first year philosophy student flexing his mouth.

[A18]

Franzl asked, rhetorically, "So is there any evidence that the Spaghetti monster doesn't exist?" It was in response to him that I said the concession had been made. Oddly, though, you actually make the same assumption that Franzl did. If there is evidence against the spaghetti monster's existence, then no presumption is needed to defeat the claim. (Surely you don't think evidence in its favor exists!)

I agree, of course, that the burden of proof is on "the one attemtping [sic] to prove something." By definition, proving something means proving it. But we're discussing PiT's very different claim: that any positive statement should be presumed wrong until evidence is found in its favor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the absence of any evidence in either direction (i.e., what we're actually talking about)? Yes; for each, there is a 50-50 chance.

As for Earth, I suggest that he read PiT's post, and figure out how he wants to torture it into anything other than an appeal to an objective standard.

[Earth]

I agree, of course, that the burden of proof is on "the one attemtping [sic] to prove something." By definition, proving something means proving it. But we're discussing PiT's very different claim: that any positive statement should be presumed wrong until evidence is found in its favor.

That's not quite the gist of it; one attempts to assert the existence of x, especially through faith, not to actually prove it. This is the crux of faith, and it's circumvention of reason. I didn't see Pit's post earlier, but his post most definitely rings true, so long as spirituality is concerned.

As for Earth, I suggest that he read PiT's post, and figure out how he wants to torture it into anything other than an appeal to an objective standard.

Nevertheless, I don't take your "objection" against "presumption" seriously. Might as well toss out all assumptions of scientific accuracy since an appeal to an objective standard is now deemed useless. 

[12th Doctor]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common among most people who have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

In other words, i don't see how this is all that different from any other issue.

[12th Doctor]

And so, as a prime example, as it has already been used in this thread, the atheist side comes out with the "flying spaghetti monster" as their supposed masterful argument against God.  First off, its an obvious over-simplification of the debate.  Secondly, it is indicative of the major flaw in their arguments, which is that they consistently rely on attacking the individuals belief in God, rather than the notion that God exists, itself.  They know they can't win that fight, because they can't prove their point, regardless.  And so, they change the argument by stating that the "burden of proof" is on the Believers.  Well, why?  God fits into a category of many things that humans have a notion of, which cannot be scientifically proven, many of those things having some basis in material reality... such as... well pretty much all of theoretical physics.

As I have said before, theoretical physics actually provides a scientific outlet for God belief, if not traditional God belief (and the fact is, all atheists ever attack is more traditional beliefs), because there are serious theories out there concerning dimensional levels of the universe, and the relationship of beings in those dimensions to each other... and no, this is not sci-fi.

Also, philosophy provides an outlet in any number of ways.

Is this proof.  No, of course not.  But there are plenty of people who do have a rational belief in a higher power, and Dawkins never debates these people, because he knows he would get crushed.  Instead, he mocks grad students who attempt to challenge his "magnificent" reasoning and goes after people who simply clearly have not really thought it through.

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

[12th Doctor]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

[12th Doctor]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[12th Doctor]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.

The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.

The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.

what was your point again? i was distracted by your errors but i'm ready to listen to you now. let's do this.