Default position

[MikeDwight]

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?

Presbyterianism isn't a belief. Its a polity. Its the Archbishop/Pope/Patriarch then Episcopal/Bishop then Priests/Presbyters, then the Priestly class led most of the exiles on this particularly the Bishops War, whats a Parish?
par·ish
[ˈperiSH]

NOUN

1. (in the Christian Church) a small administrative district typically having its own church and a priest or pastor:
   "a parish church"
   Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, the Reformation have no names inspiring a Christian belief in the Structure of the Universal Church would not be touching on a "Second Great Awakening" fervor spawning the Methodists and Baptists.
   

 

[ratiocinator]

The issue under discussion is the assertion that "no evidence of "X" defults to "X" does not exist".

Who made that assertion? It's certainly not in the OP that you responded to. The rational response to no evidence to support a (any) proposition is to simply not accept it until and unless some evidence comes to light.

For "no evidence" to imply non-existence the evidence not found would have to have been explicitly defined and sought out. Then, found to be lacking.

Yes, but that would be the responsibility of the person who proposes that something exists. This applies to everything, including scientific hypotheses. It's always up to those who propose them to work out how they could be tested and what would falsify them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who made that assertion? It's certainly not in the OP that you responded to. The rational response to no evidence to support a (any) proposition is to simply not accept it until and unless some evidence comes to light.


Yes, but that would be the responsibility of the person who proposes that something exists. This applies to everything, including scientific hypotheses. It's always up to those who propose them to work out how they could be tested and what would falsify them.

Then test that something exists as something exists and what would falsify that.

I mean I can't see or otherwise with 5 senses experince something or exists as both of them have no external sensory properties, if I test if those have properties as per the 5 senses. So I conclude that I don't accept something exists and even that there is no evidence for exists.
Now I then notice that I can think that something exists, but it has no eivdence, so I class it as a belief just like God.

Further the bold one is a proposition so if it has no evidence, it shouldn't be accept as per its own rule. What is your evidence for the bold?

 

[ppp]

That's not the question at hand. Nor the issue under discussion.

Then you should not have said it, and you should be admonishing yourself. Not me. Here is a hint. If you dont want someone to point out when you say something silly, then don't say silly things.

Unless you can define what proof would entail, and you have a way of ascertaining it, "no proof" is completely meaningless.

That was a silly thing. People learn things every day that they could not have explained how to demonstrate prior to the demonstration..

The issue under discussion is the assertion that "no evidence of "X" defults to "X" does not exist". And this is patently false. It's defaults to "unknown". Period.

Nah. No one complains when I say that some mythical being doesn't exist; not unless it is a being from their particular religion. It is the specialest of special pleading.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then you should not have said it, and you should be admonishing yourself. Not me. Here is a hint. If you dont want someone to point out when you say something silly, then don't say silly things.

That was a silly thing. People learn things every day that they could not have explained how to demonstrate prior to the demonstration..


Nah. No one complains when I say that some mythical being doesn't exist; not unless it is a being from their particular religion. It is the specialest of special pleading.

What does it mean that something doesn't exist and how do you know that it is true?

 

[PureX]

Who made that assertion? It's certainly not in the OP that you responded to. The rational response to no evidence to support a (any) proposition is to simply not accept it until and unless some evidence comes to light.


Yes, but that would be the responsibility of the person who proposes that something exists. This applies to everything, including scientific hypotheses. It's always up to those who propose them to work out how they could be tested and what would falsify them.

You're just restating your bias. You are not logically justifying it.

Because you can't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who made that assertion? It's certainly not in the OP that you responded to. The rational response to no evidence to support a (any) proposition is to simply not accept it until and unless some evidence comes to light.


Yes, but that would be the responsibility of the person who proposes that something exists. This applies to everything, including scientific hypotheses. It's always up to those who propose them to work out how they could be tested and what would falsify them.

Take #2. How do you test according to your system that a response is rational?

 

[ratiocinator]

You're just restating your bias. You are not logically justifying it.

You didn't answer the question. And the justification is obvious (not to mention bog standard critical thinking). If we accepted every claim without supporting evidence, we'd soon end up accepting multiple contradictory claims.

It is what everybody does about everything (that they don't have blind faith in), just to remain sane.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You didn't answer the question. And the justification is obvious (not to mention bog standard critical thinking). If we accepted every claim without supporting evidence, we'd soon end up accepting multiple contradictory claims.

It is what everybody does about everything (that they don't have blind faith in), just to remain sane.

Well, then you can do what science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

BTW what is your evidence for the fact that there is a we as you use it?

 

[PureX]

You didn't answer the question. And the justification is obvious (not to mention bog standard critical thinking). If we accepted every claim without supporting evidence, we'd soon end up accepting multiple contradictory claims.

You can't seem to recognize the difference between a claim and a proposition. Mostly because you want to stand in judgment of everything everyone else thinks and says. The whole world is supposed to bring their ideas to you to be vetted. And of course that means they must be vetted against your own. So that it's everyone else on Earth's job to change you closed and biased mind.

It is what everybody does about everything (that they don't have blind faith in), just to remain sane.

No, it really isn't what everyone else does. Most people leave a proposition open (undetermined) until they're either forced to decide, or until circumstances decide it for them. Most people don't sit on their imaginary throne demanding that everyone else convince them.

 

[ratiocinator]

You can't seem to recognize the difference between a claim and a proposition. Mostly because you want to stand in judgment of everything everyone else thinks and says. The whole world is supposed to bring their ideas to you to be vetted. And of course that means they must be vetted against your own. So that it's everyone else on Earth's job to change you closed and biased mind.

Nonsense.

No, it really isn't what everyone else does. Most people leave a proposition open (undetermined) until they're either forced to decide, or until circumstances decide it for them.

It is true that any claim may be true (unless there is some falsification) but people do not believe that random fantastical claims are true. That is the direct equivalence to agnostic atheism.

That's exactly why I asked the question about who had made the "assertion that "no evidence of "X" defults to "X" does not exist"". One that you still haven't answered.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, then you can do what science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

BTW what is your evidence for the fact that there is a we as you use it?

**YAWN**

 

[PureX]

Nonsense.


It is true that any claim may be true (unless there is some falsification) but people do not believe that random fantastical claims are true. That is the direct equivalence to agnostic atheism.

What you decide is random and fantastical is irrelevant to anyone but you. What others believe is irrelevant to anyone but them. Yet you seem to imagine that you are in charge of it all.

That's exactly why I asked the question about who had made the "assertion that "no evidence of "X" defults to "X" does not exist"". One that you still haven't answered.

You did, and do often. But you can't justify it, so now you're pretending you didn't assert it. Nearly every atheist on here asserts it, often. And not one of them can justify it logically. Doesn't matter, though. They hold to it just the same. Like the true believers in their own bias that they are.

 

[ratiocinator]

What others believe is irrelevant to anyone but them.

So why do you spend so much time on here telling others how wrong they are?

You did, and do often.

Patently untrue. I have never once made the assertion that no evidence for something means that it doesn't exist.

Not only are you telling people they are wrong, but you're putting words into their mouths and then telling them that those are wrong. Then you say what other people believe is none of anybody else's business!

 

[PureX]

So why do you spend so much time on here telling others how wrong they are?

If you pay close attention, you will see that I don't tell anyone how wrong they are. I simply point out how dishonest and illogical the things they post are. Because as humans we are all susceptible to this, and should want to rise above if that's possible. But our egos keep telling us to fight against enlightenment. That a closed and well defended mind is never wrong. And we stay stuck in our ignorance and bias as a result.

Patently untrue. I have never once made the assertion that no evidence for something means that it doesn't exist.

Oh, please.

Not only are you telling people they are wrong, but you're putting words into their mouths and then telling them that those are wrong. Then you say what other people believe is none of anybody else's business!

I must be a really awful guy.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you pay close attention, you will see that I don't tell anyone how wrong they are. I simply point out how dishonest and illogical the things they post are.

In your opinion. An opinion you seem unable to defend when challenged. Also, the distinction seems technical at best. If you think something is dishonest and illogical, how do you not also think it's wrong?

Oh, please.

You posted something about me that was simply untrue. An apology would be in order here.

I must be a really awful guy.

No idea what sort of guy you are in general, but on here, you accuse others of being dishonest and illogical and them make up claims they haven't made, and tell them they're wrong.

 

[PureX]

In your opinion. An opinion you seem unable to defend when challenged. Also, the distinction seems technical at best. If you think something is dishonest and illogical, how do you not also think it's wrong?

It's only our ego that makes us think we are being 'attacked' when someone questions our rationale and then causes us to become irrational in response to the perceived attack. When in fact we ought to be grateful for the inquisition because it can help us to see when we are fooling ourselves into believing nonsense.

No idea what sort of guy you are in general, but on here, you accuse others of being dishonest and illogical and them make up claims they haven't made, and tell them they're wrong.

We are all ignorant and dishonest in our quest to presume that we know things that we can't know. Humans survive and thrive by using their knowledge of how things work to manipulate the world to their own advantage. We fear the unknown because we have no control over it. And we fight this fear, too often, with delusions of knowledge that we don't actually possess. But we can't learn when we are so busy pretending that we already know everything that matters. So we need someone to poke at us when we fall into these delusions. Even though our egos hate it, and fight it.

So sorry, but you're welcome.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's only our ego that makes us think we are being 'attacked' when someone questions our rationale. And causes us to become irrational in response to the perceived attack.

Sorry, are you now trying to make up how I feel as well as what I've said? Seriously? In case you haven't noticed, this is a debate forum and I'm doing what it says on the tin (as they say).

We are all ignorant and dishonest in our quest to presume that we know things that we can't know. Humans survive and thrive by using their knowledge of how things work to manipulate the world to their own advantage. We fear the unknown because we have no control over it. And we fight this fear, too often, with delusions of knowledge that we don't actually possess. But we can't learn when we are so busy pretending that we already know everything that matters.

Hummm. Have you looked in the mirror recently?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

**YAWN**

Yeah, I like your posts when you are rational, but that is when you are rational. And that I like them, is not rational.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you decide is random and fantastical is irrelevant to anyone but you. What others believe is irrelevant to anyone but them. Yet you seem to imagine that you are in charge of it all.

You did, and do often. But you can't justify it, so now you're pretending you didn't assert it. Nearly every atheist on here asserts it, often. And not one of them can justify it logically. Doesn't matter, though. They hold to it just the same. Like the true believers in their own bias that they are.

Not true.

And in fact, I've spent countless hours on this very site explaining to people like yourself that saying "there is no evidence of X" is not the equivalent of saying "X does not exist." Some people don't seem to be able to wrap their mind around that, for some reason.

To me, "there is no evidence of X' means that I don't believe in X. It does NOT mean that I'm asserting "X does not exist."