Default position

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

We are playing ontology/metaphysics versus epistemology. Now you can do that as you like in the end and if I can do different both cases are parts of what reality is, unless you can show that I am not in reality and not in contact with reality.
We have now left religion and entered the la-la of philosophy and you are rational and I am not.
Due warning. I use reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense a lot since I am skeptic.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In humans: rationality is a path to a goal, not a pure fountain of truth. Goals and desires direct our reasoning and what we cannot perceive. Any defense of rational thinking must acknowledge this flaw in humanity, or it is not rational. Minds are small not large, and to think otherwise is a mistake.

 

[AppieB]

We are playing ontology/metaphysics versus epistemology. Now you can do that as you like in the end and if I can do different both cases are parts of what reality is, unless you can show that I am not in reality and not in contact with reality.
We have now left religion and entered the la-la of philosophy and you are rational and I am not.
Due warning. I use reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense a lot since I am skeptic.

The TS is talking about what is reasonable to believe exists in reality. It is clear (to me) that the TS assumes we experience a shared reality So that's what I'm responding to. If you want to discuss something else, that's great. Just be clear what you are talking about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The TS is talking about what is reasonable to believe exists in reality. It is clear (to me) that the TS assumes we experience a shared reality So that's what I'm responding to. If you want to discuss something else, that's great. Just be clear what you are talking about.

Yeah, you can't point to reality and you can't point to God, so what are you talking about?
Both are first person complex abstracts.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, you can't point to reality and you can't point to God, so what are you talking about?
Both are first person complex abstracts.

What are YOU talking about? Are you even able to have an honest philosophical conversation?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are YOU talking about? Are you even able to have an honest philosophical conversation?

Well, how many years have you been doing philosophy on a regular basis?
That I can write philosophy and you can too, tell us we can both write the word. That is all.
As for honest, that is rational as per based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings only in a limited sense, because it in part ends in a subjective norm and not a fact or objective reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

No, it doesn't make sense.

By default, do you accept all types of magical thinking? If so, you would be accepting contradictory positions; it would be untenable.

Do you accept one type of magical thinking but not others? If we're talking about a "default," then we're talking about a scenario where you don't have enough information to choose one over the other, so you'd necessarily be irrational in your choice.

 

[syo]

Become a pagan, friend.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Not true. I am not convinced the evidence is good enough for belief of a god. I don't deny the evidence. All the evidence I have seen so far for a god is unconvincing and I have reasons for that stance. If 93% of people believed leprechauns exist that does not make the evidence all of a sudden convincing they do exist.

 

[ratiocinator]

It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nimos]

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

No, not sure why you would reach that conclusion? How would God be proven not to exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, not sure why you would reach that conclusion? How would God be proven not to exist?

Get you now. You call it position, I call it opinion. Fair enough.

 

[Nimos]

Get you now. You call it position, I call it opinion. Fair enough.

I think that is closer at least to what I mean. You could say that you have an opinion about the specific claim made. Whereas by position, I mean a general/default standpoint towards any claim.

Kind of like one would say that you should always be open towards other people's ideas, it is a general saying of how to approach ideas and not aimed specifically against one idea.

 

[an anarchist]

Become a pagan, friend.

Trying

 

[an anarchist]

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.

Hmmm.

I disagree I think.

There are reasons for believing. Perhaps rational ones. But often not. Many believe out of convenience. Some out of fear.

Maybe religion and spirituality is biologically ingrained in us, explaining why most rational humans can hold a possibly irrational belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

More likely the majority see the only evidence that God provides, the Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

There is a good reason to believe God is exists because there is evidence, but evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable, and there is no verifiable evidence for God, thus there is no proof that God exists.

God could only be proven to exist if God proved that He exists, but God does not do that since God wants us to look at the evidence that God provides and have faith.

 

[an anarchist]

More likely the majority see the only evidence that God provides, the Messengers of God.

Hold up...

Let's go back to that 93% figure.

We know that when you say "Messengers of God", you are talking about prophets that are canon in Bahai theology.

I don't feel like pulling up the figures, but do 93% of people believe in the prophets of Bahai theology? I don't think so

And those who believe in Krishna for example, I'm sure most of them (Hindus) view evidence of god very differently than how you suppose it.

i just disagree with your phrasing I guess "the only evidence that God provides"

and I think that 93% figure is misleading

 

[Trailblazer]

Not true. I am not convinced the evidence is good enough for belief of a god.

but just becaue you (and other atheists) are not convinced that the evidence is 'good enough' that does not mean the evidence is not good.

I don't deny the evidence.

You (and other atheists) do deny the evidence that God provides, which is the messengers of God.

All the evidence I have seen so far for a god is unconvincing and I have reasons for that stance. If 93% of people believed leprechauns exist that does not make the evidence all of a sudden convincing they do exist.

but 93% of people do not believe in leprechauns since there is no evidence that leprechauns exist.
93% of people believe in God because there is evidence that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nice try but no cigar.

I said: "It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking."
I did not say: "God exists is true because many or most people believe in God," so it is not ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia