Default position

[an anarchist]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

 

[Trailblazer]

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking....
It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.
It seems to me that those believers are into rational thinking and the atheists are the ones who cannot think rationally since they deny all the evidence for God that everyone else sees.

 

[Nimos]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

That is correct.

In the same way as one might say one is an A-fairist or A-Unicornian etc.

The default position is a negative one and these things are not real until proven so, it is the most rational position one can hold. But for some reason, a lot of religious people do not seem to apply this logic to their own belief, while having no issue saying that they don't think that unicorns exist and that this is a perfectly rational position to take and the same apply to all the religious gods of other religions that one does not believe in either.

The majority of atheists don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

You must be able to see the failure in logic here with what you are writing?

"I have no proof of.. unicorns.. I believe in.. fantasy creatures.. It would have to be proven to me that.. unicorns.. does not exist.."

That is not a rational position to take and fails on several levels.

1. If you have no proof of unicorns, why on earth would you believe that fantasy creatures exist then?
2. That fantasy creatures exist, based on something that you admit you have no proof of, but then use that conclusion to demand someone or yourself, to demonstrate that unicorns don't exist in order for you to change your mind, is a formal fallacy or a complete neglect of the burden of proof.

That is a catastrophic failure in reasoning

If I make a claim "Invisible Smurfs rules the Universe", and then tell you that as long as you cannot prove that my claim is not true, then it is an equally valid and rational position to hold and therefore we as a society should follow the doctrine of the invisible Smurf overlords to not **** them off. Hopefully, you would also protest again such reasoning.

It follows the standard rules of "burden of proof"

1. You make a claim
2. You have the burden of proving or to demonstrate that the claim is true.
3. Everyone else that declines your claim is being perfectly rational in doing so.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

You are obviously free to do this. But the answer to the question is. No, it doesn't make sense, given what you have written.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is correct.

In the same way as one might say one is an A-fairist or A-Unicornian etc.

The default position is a negative one and these things are not real until proven so, it is the most rational position one can hold. But for some reason, a lot of religious people do not seem to apply this logic to their own belief, while having no issue saying that they don't think that unicorns exist and that this is a perfectly rational position to take and the same apply to all the religious gods of other religions that one does not believe in either.

The majority of atheists don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case.

...

So how do you reconcile these things are not real until proven so versus don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case?
Can you expand more on thing not real versus things don't exist?

 

[ratiocinator]

Russell's Teapot

Russell's Teapot, also known as the Celestial Teapot or Cosmic Teapot, is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim, whether in general or of any religion. By using an intentionally absurd...

rationalwiki.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Russell's Teapot

Russell's Teapot, also known as the Celestial Teapot or Cosmic Teapot, is an analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove a claim, whether in general or of any religion. By using an intentionally absurd...

rationalwiki.org

Yeah, that is an analogy, but it holds as such.
Now in general atheists are to be ignored for being atheists. It is when they as something else than being an atheist do something, that the game begins.

 

[Nimos]

So how do you reconcile these things are not real until proven so versus don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case?

Because it's not a claim, but a position.

If I were to claim that yetis are real, you are perfectly fine in taking the position that my claim is not valid before I provide you with evidence. You taking that position is not equal to you also claiming that yetis are not real at the same time.

But given the lack of evidence I have provided for yetis, yet still reaching the conclusion that they are real, it is also fair of you, to say that my belief in yetis being real is irrational given that it is not based on anything.

Can you expand more on thing not real versus things don't exist?

It depends on the context, in this case, by "real" I refer to something that is proven to exist. And "exist" refer to something that is up for questioning whether that is the case or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because it's not a claim, but a position.

If I were to claim that yetis are real, you are perfectly fine in taking the position that my claim is not valid before I provide you with evidence. You taking that position is not equal to you also claiming that yetis are not real at the same time.

But given the lack of evidence I have provided for yetis, yet still reaching the conclusion that they are real, it is also fair for you, to say that my claim is irrational as it is not based on anything.


It depends on the context, in this case, by "real" I refer to something that is proven to exist. And "exist" refer to something that is up for questioning whether that is the case or not.

So God are both proven to not exists and it is unknown if they exists. Okay.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking....
It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.
It seems to me that those believers are into rational thinking and the atheists are the ones who cannot think rationally since they deny all the evidence for God that everyone else sees.

More like the majority will accept a lower bar for evidence than the non-believers though - perhaps because it is easier to do so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More like the majority will accept a lower bar for evidence than the non-believers though - perhaps because it is easier to do so.

Well, you are not a non-believer. You are a human and you do a lot of things other than being a non-believer, or the only thing you do is not moving or anything else other that thinking: I am a non-believer. Do you have any evidence of that you are only a non-believer?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, you are not a non-believer. You are a human and you do a lot of things other than being a non-believer, or the only thing you do is not moving or anything else other that thinking: I am a non-believer. Do you have any evidence of that you are only a non-believer?

I think you know what I meant by non-believer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you know what I meant by non-believer.

Yeah, but that is irrelevant for all other aspect of you, including such words as evidence, science and so on, but not limited to those words.
In effect it totally meaningless to me that you are a non-believer, because it tells me nothing about you as a human.
Just as that I am believer tells you nothing else about me, including how stupid and irrational I am.

 

[AppieB]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

What you are actually saying is that you don't have good reason to believe, but yet you still believe.
That doesn't make sense. It's not reasonable. It's not rational thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you are actually saying is that you don't have good reason to believe, but yet you still believe.
That doesn't make sense. It's not reasonable. It's not rational thinking.

Well, I have a good reason to me for having faith in God. Now what?

 

[AppieB]

So how do you reconcile these things are not real until proven so versus don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case?
Can you expand more on thing not real versus things don't exist?

When things are things are not proven, that doesn't mean they are not real. It just means that there is no good reason to believe they are real.

 

[AppieB]

Well, I have a good reason to me for having faith in God. Now what?

So what is faith?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what is faith?

To trust in something without evidence, truth and/or proof.

 

[AppieB]

To trust in something without evidence, truth and/or proof.

What is this trust based on if not on evidence, facts and/or proofs?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is this trust based on if not on evidence, facts and/or proofs?

That objective reality in itself is unknowable other than being in itself. It is philosophy, not theology.

 

[AppieB]

That objective reality in itself is unknowable other than being in itself. It is philosophy, not theology.

That first sentence doesn't make sense. I think I know what you mean, but then you're doing the same as you always do: conflating the question What is reality? with the question What exists in reality?