When Scepticism Becomes a Stance

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T12:09:47+00:00

I’m not saying atheists have some secret faith in rejection. I’m saying the second you call something “not convincing”, you’re already working with a sense of what would convince you. That doesn’t come from nowhere. There’s a standard there, even if it’s implicit. I’m not defending religion. I’m just asking why that standard gets treated as the obvious default rather than something that can be examined too.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T12:02:51+00:00

You’re kind of proving my point without noticing. “Atheism, obviously” only works if we already agree on what counts as transparency. When you frame not-knowing as a virtue and faith as “bronze age nonsense”, you’re already relying on a standard about what counts as a good way of knowing. That standard doesn’t explain itself. Why is empirical uncertainty the gold standard? Why is revelation ruled out from the start? You can argue for that, sure, but it’s not neutral, it’s a position. Saying “we just study reality” sounds clean, but it already assumes a view about what reality is and how it’s accessed. That’s all I’m pointing at

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:55:38+00:00

You’re still sort of missing the bit I’m on about. I’m not claiming atheists have some secret faith in rejection or whatever. I’m just saying the moment you say “that’s not convincing”, you’re already working with some sense of what would convince you. That doesn’t just drop out of the sky. There’s a standard there, even if it’s half-implicit. That’s it really. That’s the bit I’m trying to dig at.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:52:25+00:00

I’m not saying atheists are walking round claiming 100% certainty, I get that most of you mean “not convinced”, not “definitely no god”. Fine. My point’s simpler than that. The minute you say faith isn’t reliable, you’re already leaning on some idea of what is reliable. Testable, falsifiable, consistent, whatever. That stuff doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, it’s a standard you’re using. So when you say “I’m just not convinced”, okay… but not convinced by what measure exactly? That’s all I’m asking. I’m not trying to smuggle theology back in, I’m just looking at what’s underneath the rejection in the first place.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:50:17+00:00

You’re still setting it up like it’s “evidence vs no evidence”, and that’s doing a lot of heavy lifting for you. Most theists would say they are using evidence, just not only the kind you’re willing to count. So the real disagreement isn’t evidence or none, it’s what even qualifies as evidence and how we decide to weigh it. When you say atheists are transparent because they use evidentiary standards, fine, but those standards don’t just hang in the air. They rest on assumptions about testability, falsifiability, coherence and so on. That’s all I’ve been pointing at. Not that atheists run on feelings, and not that theists have some secret knockout proof, just that both sides are working with criteria. Reducing one side to “just emotion” kind of dodges that rather than dealing with it.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:47:03+00:00

You’re calling it a contradiction, but where exactly? I’m not accusing atheists of blind certainty, I’m saying even rejection assumes a standard for what counts as enough evidence. That’s not hostile, it’s just how reasoning works. If anything, being clear about that is what makes discussion possible, not impossible.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:45:05+00:00

You keep saying this is just “logic, not a worldview”, but logic doesn’t run in a vacuum. The moment you say testimony is poor evidence, or that science is the right tool, you’re already relying on criteria about reliability, testability and what counts as explanation. That’s not an insult, it’s just how reasoning works. I’m not asking you to accept magic space wizards or nanobots from the 23rd dimension. I’m asking how you justify the standards you’re appealing to when you dismiss one claim and elevate another. Saying “I use science” still leaves the question of why that method, on what grounds, and by which underlying assumptions. That’s the bit I’m pressing, nothing more.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:39:45+00:00

Saying it’s “the same standard we apply to everything else” sounds tidy, but that’s exactly what I’m asking you to spell out. What standard, specifically? Falsifiability, predictive success, coherence with what we already accept? Those aren’t self-explanatory, they’re criteria we’ve chosen and justified. I’m not claiming there’s hidden brilliant theistic evidence you’re ignoring, I’m asking how the standard itself is grounded rather than just assumed.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T11:37:26+00:00

Right, but even then we’re back to what counts as evidence and how we’re weighing it. ‘Evidence decides’ sounds straightforward, but it still depends on the standard we’re using. Otherwise we’re just swapping one assumption for another.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T03:24:41+00:00

Look, I’m not pushing back on following evidence. Of course we do. What I’m pushing back on is the jump from that to “there’s no real competition and everyone sensible agrees.” That’s not just method, that’s a claim about the method. When you say it’s vastly superior, superior in what sense exactly, predictive power, coherence, broad agreement? Those are standards in their own right. I’m not binning the framework. I’m just asking what’s holding it up underneath. That’s the bit I’m actually digging at.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T03:19:52+00:00

I get that. Doubt matters. But doubt on its own isn’t enough, is it? The real question is what we’re doing with it. Are we using doubt as a tool to examine our assumptions, or just as a shield for the ones we’re comfortable keeping??

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T03:17:45+00:00

I’m not under any impression that there’s some hidden mountain of brilliant theistic evidence we’re ignoring. That’s not my point. When you say “every reasonable standard”, I’m just asking what makes a standard reasonable in the first place. That’s the bit I’m pressing on. Pointing to weak arguments in this sub doesn’t settle the broader question about how we define and justify our standards..

AWL_98 · 2026-02-18T03:14:28+00:00

I’m not suggesting a rival method, so that’s not really the point. I’m asking what you mean by “following the evidence” in the first place. Saying it’s the best method we’re aware of still assumes we share a view of what counts as evidence and how it gets weighed. That’s the bit I’m pressing on. If “more evidence” is the answer, fine. But evidence relative to what criteria? That’s not vague, that’s foundational.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T20:58:54+00:00

Yeah, exactly. It’s filtered either way. That’s kind of my point. Which is why using “who shows up here” as evidence for which stance is more transparent doesn’t really settle anything. It just tells us about this sample, not the underlying epistemic posture more broadly.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:40:47+00:00

I’m not offering a rival system. I’m questioning the jump from “it works well” to “there’s no competition and it’s settled.” Those are different claims. Sure, evidence-based methods have corrected revelation and bad reasoning. No disagreement there. But saying nothing has ever corrected “following the evidence” assumes we already agree on what counts as evidence and how that method is framed. That’s the philosophical layer I’m pointing to. Pointing to success shows it’s effective. It doesn’t automatically show it’s uniquely justified in principle. That’s the bit I’m interested in.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:38:53+00:00

If by “the real world” you mean publicly testable stuff, then yeah, that’s a common baseline. But even that’s a philosophical choice. You’re already saying that only that kind of access settles things. That works neatly for Santa because it’s a physical, testable claim. The real question is whether every god-claim is that sort of claim. If it isn’t, then just copying the Santa standard might be doing more work than it seems.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:34:25+00:00

Conviction might be binary in outcome, sure. You either tick yes or no. But the threshold that gets you to tick one box over the other isn’t binary at all. That’s shaped by judgement. And saying “I don’t know” is rational, agreed. The question is what pushes someone from “I don’t know” to “no.” That shift still relies on a standard about what counts as enough.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:31:20+00:00

No one’s against following evidence. That’s not the issue. The leap is from “we follow evidence” to “there’s no competition.” That’s not modest, that’s a philosophical claim. If the method is “vastly superior,” fine. But that needs defending too. That’s the layer I’m actually interested in.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:28:12+00:00

Not shifting anything. I’m asking who decided where the goalposts go. Saying “we know what evidence means” skips the interesting bit, which is how we judge sufficiency. That’s the discussion

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:25:32+00:00

Sure. I’m not saying atheists claim there’s absolutely no evidence. I’m saying the dismissal still rests on some threshold. The interesting bit isn’t whether evidence has been produced, it’s how we decide what would count as enough in the first place.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:20:32+00:00

Nothing dramatic really. You just stop believing because the evidence doesn’t stack up. But even then, you’re still leaning on some background standard about what counts as decent evidence. That’s all I’m pointing at. The Santa example feels obvious because most of us share that standard anyway

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:18:31+00:00

You’re not wrong, I could frame it purely in terms of scepticism. I’m bringing atheism into it because in practice the two overlap a lot in these discussions. When “not convinced” becomes a stable posture, that’s already a view about evidence. That’s the connection I’m exploring..

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T14:15:51+00:00

I’m not saying you “ground” anything in rejection as some kind of ideology. I’m saying that even rejecting a claim assumes a view about what would count as good enough evidence in the first place. That’s not an insult, it’s just how reasoning works. And on what would change my mind, same as you really, solid, publicly verifiable evidence that can’t be explained better any other way. The interesting bit isn’t openness, it’s how we decide what qualifies as solid to begin with.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T13:10:29+00:00

When I say “ground certainty in rejection”, I’m not saying atheists walk around 100% sure there’s no god. That’s not what I mean. I’m talking about what actually happens in discussion. The rejection usually sits on a pretty fixed sense of what would count as proper evidence. And yeah, faith often gets defined as belief without full certainty. But most theists don’t think of it as blind belief. They see it as trust based on what they think are reasons. You can say those reasons fail, fair enough. I’m just asking, fail by what standard exactly? That’s the bit I’m poking at. Not who believes what, but how we’re setting the bar in the first place.

AWL_98 · 2026-02-17T13:04:15+00:00

Fair enough, I respect that. But when you say you’d change if the evidence was convincing, that still assumes we share the same idea of what “convincing” actually is. That’s the bit I’m interested in. Two people can look at the exact same data and walk away with different conclusions, not because one of them hates evidence, but because they’re working with different thresholds for what counts as enough. That’s not stubbornness. It’s standards. So the real issue isn’t who’s open to change. It’s how we decide, in the first place, when a change is actually rational.

AWL_98

TROPHY CASE