Many theists would argue that absence of evidence is not evidence

>>1596368
Nah, you can hold two conflicting views without much of a problem.

>>1596368
How are any of these things related?

Solipsism is the only rational position, yes.

>>1596441
Basically, to believe that other people are cognizant requires the same leap of faith that it takes to believe in a God. OP is saying that atheists are hypocrites.

>>1596460
But, if you know you exist, you have at least evidence that things like you can and do exist. And then you can see other people and that they behave like you and any test wether they are cognizant shows they are, reliably. Where is faith involved in that?
To even think that it is proven that a god could exist, you'd have to have at least one testable example of a god. That is faith, exclusively, wiht zero evidence.

How the fuck is that related in any way?
And why would an atheist have to be solipsistic, and what does this have to do with absence of evidence not being evidence of absence?

Is this just gibberish?

>>1596525
You have absolutely no evidence of other people existing. All you know is that within your consciousness exist forms that follow similar behaviour as your own consciousness. You have no way of knowing if they are conscious or even real at all.

>>1596368
>Many theists would argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In other words, if that's the case, it would be an unfalsifiable hypothesis and thus to be regarded with the utmost skepticism.

>>1596525
You cannot test whether they are conscious or not. For all you know they are philosophical zombies.

An atheist would have to be solipsistic because they cannot know that others are not philosophical zombies. To believe they aren't requires a leap of faith; the same thing they attack theists for.

A person who doesn't subscribe to solipsism has only one argument: I cannot know that they AREN'T cognizant. This is similar logic to that of the theist who says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" or "you can't say there ISN'T a God".

>>1596576
And, much like in the theists mind, in the non-solipsistic mind, it is simply more practical to take that leap of faith.

>>1596368

If you're an atheist, it really doesn't matter what else you are.

>>1596576
Well there is some evidence, though not a proof, that others are cognizant; for one, you exist and are cognizant. This proves that cognizant things both can and do exist. This already puts others being cognizant in a favourable position vs any particular religion, because not only is there no evidence of a particular god's existence, there is no proof even of the possibility that deities can, in principle, exist.

>>1596450
>He thinks his mind exists.

>>1596576
There would need to be some mechanism for myself existing as a concious person and everyone else being a p-zombie. As one of many humans, I would need to see evidence that I am somehow special and am exclusively the only concious being, which would seem unlikely given the way species seem to work.

>>1596960
I think therefore I am, bitch.

>>1596960
>I think my mind exists.

>>1597013
Not evidence for a mind, only evidence that thought exists.

>>1596368
Absence of evidence CAN be evidence of absence, we've already discussed this.

>>1597273
So solipsism is correct?

>>1597230
Thinking is an act of consciousness. It by definition requires a subject.

>>1596641
What about people who claim to have experienced miracles? If that is true, than you must accept that for those specific individuals, believing in God is a rational choice.

>>1596368
*tips fedora*

>>1597327
No, the belief on other minds is a basic belief, it doesn't require evidence.

>>1596542
To know that one mind exists (yours) makes it more possible that other minds other than yours exist. It's just extrapolation.

Of course it doesn't prove it, nor does it mean they exíst, it just makes it more likely.

>>1599349
It's more likely that I'm Chinese, but I am not.

>>1599378
I am not arguing you are chinese though, just saying that it's more likely you are chinese, which you already agree with.

>>1599382
The way I've always seen it, even if reality is an illusion, it is an illusion you cannot escape, so you might as well treat things if they are real anyway.

>>1599436
I was the same way, as long as the illusion is consistent and we don't have evidence for it being an illusion it is irrelevant and as good as reality would be anyway, however, we don't have no idea what kind of illusion we would be actually living in.

How would we know that someone isn't altering and/or controllign our illusions and contantly shifting its rules? If it's just an illusion of sorts, maybe its rules actually are being broken and we just scuff off at others who are experiencing these actual malicious alterations that are impossible unless the reality is a controlled illusion.

Maybe someone made ghost exist for a period of time, maybe Loch Ness monster was an actual entitiy for some period of time, maybe some people can talk with the dead, maybe some people actually were given psychic powers.

If reality is an illusion anything might be permiteable and possible. Not that these things cannot be actually possible even in reality, but if we are indeed in an illusion, the likelyhood of someone being capable of altering the illusion seems way more likely than if we were in a reality.

This scenario is especially strong with the simulation scenarios.

>>1597819
>but what if miracles are true
Wow knock-down argument there. Let me just hypothetically grant God's existence and then think about whether that would justify belief in God.

>>1599454
I typed it in a confusing way. What I meant was if this statement is true:

>Well there is some evidence, though not a proof, that others are cognizant; for one, you exist and are cognizant. This proves that cognizant things both can and do exist. This already puts others being cognizant in a favourable position vs any particular religion, because not only is there no evidence of a particular god's existence, there is no proof even of the possibility that deities can, in principle, exist.

Than if someone has experienced what they consider a divine occurrence, it is rational for them to believe in a religion whether it is actually true or not.

>>1596368
no, for starters there are two basic atheist positions, the weak atheist position being that given the complete lack of evidence for a god it is reasonable to conclude that there is almost certainly not a deity and the strong atheist position 'there is no god'

in either case it is not the atheist who is making the extraordinary claim, it is the theist.

it is reasonably to suppose that there are no invisible pink unicorns, and that a flying spaghetti monster didnt create the universe, it is no less reasonable on the basis of the available evidence to suppose that there is no deity