The Sicarii

Former pastor & author, now #atheist mental health therapist. MDiv, MSMHC, LMHC. Still fascinated by #religion & what leads people to believe what they believe.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

First, I was an apologist to prove that Christianity was true.

Then, I was an apologist to prove Christianity wasn't false.

Then, I was an apologist to prove that my beliefs were rational.

Then, I was an atheist because I had been wrong.

#Atheism

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ Thank you Steve. I’m actually really honored that you would invite me. Even when we disagree, I appreciate your perspectives and learn from you often.

Unfortunately, I’ll be working tomorrow and won’t be available, and finding time during the holidays will be really difficult.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@DoulosChristou7 @SteveMcRae_ @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 The only reason you have an issue with my statement is because you need to reduce appropriate levels of certainty to absolute, binary statements.

This is dichotomous thinking, which is both limiting and fallacious.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 Once you are asking about BELIEF, you’re discussing a spectrum of certainty regarding the truth of a proposition. That spectrum cannot simply be reduced to a yes/no binary.

Saying a prop is MOST LIKELY true is stronger certainty than neutrality, but less than an absolute yes.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 I’ve answered your question and addressed the reasons I’m answering it the way I am. I’ve communicated clearly, and won’t reduce to your binary certainties.

You can shout “dishonest!” all you wish, but just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean I’m required to change it.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 There’s a very important distinction between rejecting belief in a proposition and rejecting the proposition itself.

The former proportions certainty to available evidence, the latter deals in absolutes.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 I’ve answered this.

I believe that gods most likely do not exist.
I believe that aliens most likely exist.

Both are statements of certainty proportionate to available evidence.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 This phrasing is important, because it establishes a belief with a degree of certainty that still allows for the possibility of being wrong or changing that degree of certainty as new information becomes available.

This isn’t a dodge, it’s a really critical component.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 Steve, I’m not trying to avoid your question here. You are phrasing this in a way that limits the spectrum of certainty re: a belief to an absolute yes or no answer. I’m not willing to make a declaration of absolute certainty.

I believe the universe is most likely without gods.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 For example:

1. You’ve accused me evidentialism, which I’ve never argued for
2. You asked me about my belief, which I responded to by specifying my level of certainty in that belief, and you tried to pin me in a false dichotomy
3. You’ve made claims and changed them mid argument

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 1) I’ve answered your questions
2) I added specific terms in order to be clear in what I communicated
3) I never rejected classical logic. We were discussing certainty of belief, along a spectrum, and I maintained that throughout.

You’ve consistently misrepresented my arguments

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@IntriguedFeline @SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 I acknowledged that my phrasing was confusing and did not accurately communicate my point. I’ve since clarified. So are you wanting to discuss the argument that I was actually making, or discuss linguistics?

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@IntriguedFeline @SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 Every response I’ve given has been about reliability, as well as every preceding argument. If you want to argue about consistency, go ahead, but you’re not addressing my arguments by doing so.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@ReliefBelief @DeusBryant505 @JacksonWheat1 For example:

Claim: Unicorns exist.

If unicorns exist, we can reasonably expect evidence of their existence.

If unicorns do not exist, we would not expect any evidence, for or against.

Absence of evidence more consistently aligns with a statement being fake than true.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@ReliefBelief @DeusBryant505 @JacksonWheat1 I’m not claiming this is a formal principle, so my wording is sloppy and that’s a fair criticism.

I’m aligning expectations with outcomes.

A true claim can be expected to have supporting evidence/reason.

A false claim can be expected to have contrary evidence OR none at all.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@IntriguedFeline @SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 This was the tweet you’re responding to. It was about reliability. At least, it was intended to be about reliability, but I’ll acknowledge that “reliably consistent” was poor phrasing to communicate that.

https://t.co/BU2rj3Jwar

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 Can you identify a reliably consistent means to acquire knowledge other than evidence or the application of reason?

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@IntriguedFeline @SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 So you’re saying that when science makes mistakes, it is science that discovers and rectified those mistakes.

Thus defending science as a reliable method for determining what is true.

[The Sicarii @TSicarii]

@OutgoingStroke @IntriguedFeline @SteveMcRae_ @DoulosChristou7 @1karus_ @DeusBryant505 @La_Scettica @JacksonWheat1 You can absolutely challenge P2. To do that, you have to provide evidence/reason in support of a deity.

Until you can provide that, the C stands. By providing evidence/reason, you disprove the syllogism.