Default position

[Trailblazer]

Do it... I dare ya!

I will, if I get a request from @ratiocinator.

 

[dybmh]

@Xavier Graham ,

Magical thinking isn't bad. It all depends on what you do with it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would you even bother looking at someone at all unless he made a claim to be a prophet?

Why would I if they did?

Nobody should accept that a man is a Prophet unless he meets the criteria that he presented as criteria for that determination.

But you said you got the criteria from a prophet. So they met the criteria that they, themselves made up? Again, are you not seeing a tiny hint of a problem?

They are not my claims since I have nothing to claim because I am not a Prophet of God.

You are making claims about prophets on this forum.

Fair enough. What if I could present evidence that drastically reduces the probability that there is any other explanation at all for what I believe?

Go for it. I can't actually see how that's possible since you are limited to typing text onto a message board, but if you think you can...

So you would want superhuman behavior such as miracles? Baha'u'llah performed miracles, but miracles are only proof to those people who actually witnessed them.

Again, this isn't my problem.

Fair enough, but unless you believe that Bible was inspired by God why would you believe the Bible prophecies are predictors of a Prophet?

More to the point, the bible doesn't contain anything remotely specific enough to provide the necessary level of certainty to avoid false positives. If it did, however, and all of them happened, that would be evidence.

You have to look inside the waffle to see what's in there.

Extraordinary evidence of the quality needed, doesn't hide in waffle. It needs to be as clear as day, and totally unambiguous.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Some. There may be other origins for atheism (there is evidence pointing in that direction), but I am convinced that most long-standing atheists are indeed inherently atheists.

We never chose atheism, and in most cases we would not avoid it if we could. We may or may not wonder what exactly is that theism thing that some people speak of and whether it is really perceived as being so very important as some people claim it to be.

Personally, I have concluded that theism is never better than a nuisance. It has no legitimate religious role, it is not conductive to clarity of thinking, it is actively harmful for ethical development.

There are legitimate and constructive religious values. Belief in the literal existence of a deity is not among them. It may be unavoidable for some people, perhaps even for neurological reasons. But it is never desirable.

 

[osgart]

I think many atheists default position is that there is nothing beyond what can be observed, or logically validated by currently existing knowledge. Their bias is that this existence is all there is, and why bother wasting time with something that can't be shown to exist empirically. To me that's existing in a box.

My default position is that whatever is beyond our universe is a mystery. There are clues to an natural eternal intelligence because intellect has purposes built into it's very nature, and purposes do not arise from purposelessness. I don't think life is mere mindless functionality, because of the forms and functions some life takes. We live in a process of trial and error.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think many atheists default position is that there is nothing beyond what can be observed, or logically validated by currently existing knowledge. Their bias is that this existence is all there is, and why bother wasting time with something that can't be shown to exist empirically. To me that's existing in a box.

My default position is that whatever is beyond our universe is a mystery. There are clues to an natural eternal intelligence because intellect has purposes built into it's very nature, and purposes do not arise from purposelessness. I don't think life is mere mindless functionality, because of the forms and functions some life takes. We live in a process of trial and error.

Are you implying that the hypothetical existence of something beyond what can be observed would somehow be evidence of some form of divine existence?

Maybe it is just me, but I see no connection. Maybe I demand more from the gods that I do not believe to exist than I should?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would I if they did?

Only if you wanted to know if they were a Prophet.

But you said you got the criteria from a prophet. So they met the criteria that they, themselves made up? Again, are you not seeing a tiny hint of a problem?

If I said that I misspoke. I did not get the criteria from the Prophet. I got what constitutes evidence for the claims of the Prophet from the Prophet. I have my own set of criteria I believe a Prophet would have to meet, but that is a separate matter.

You are making claims about prophets on this forum.

No, I am only sharing beliefs about their claims.

Go for it. I can't actually see how that's possible since you are limited to typing text onto a message board, but if you think you can...

I can only cite history and you can make of it what you will.

Again, this isn't my problem.

Nor is it anyone else's problem.

More to the point, the bible doesn't contain anything remotely specific enough to provide the necessary level of certainty to avoid false positives. If it did, however, and all of them happened, that would be evidence.

Many of the prophecies are general and some are specific, but they all did happen.
How they happened are delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Extraordinary evidence of the quality needed, doesn't hide in waffle. It needs to be as clear as day, and totally unambiguous.

Sorry, but that is not how God and His Messengers work. It is hiding, waiting to be found.
Determining if a man is a Messenger of God requires research and investigation.
The evidence is clear as day to those of us who have done our research and investigation.

 

[osgart]

Are you implying that the hypothetical existence of something beyond what can be observed would somehow be evidence of some form of divine existence?

Maybe it is just me, but I see no connection. Maybe I demand more from the gods that I do not believe to exist than I should?

I don't subscribe to divine existence, only one that includes purposes. Hypotheticals are not evidence of anything

 

[ratiocinator]

Many of the prophecies are general and some are specific, but they all did happen.

Do me a favour. I have read the bible. There is nothing remotely specific enough in it that could be unambiguously recognised later. The prophecies that are internal (both the prophecy and the supposed fulfilment are both just biblical claims) don't count anyway.

Sorry, but that is not how God and His Messengers work. It is hiding, waiting to be found.

Then it can stay hidden. If god can't be bothered to make itself known, I can't be bother to go look. Lazy gods who play silly games of hide-and-seek are not worthy of my attention.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't subscribe to divine existence, only one that includes purposes. Hypotheticals are not evidence of anything

Then it is not atheism that you are talking about, now is it?

 

[osgart]

Then it is not atheism that you are talking about, now is it?

My atheism doesn't rule out everything spiritual or religious.

I specifically mentioned that there are certain kinds of atheists who adhere only to empiricism, and what can be logically inferred from that. They'd consider anything beyond empiricism a waste of time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do me a favour. I have read the bible. There is nothing remotely specific enough in it that could be unambiguously recognised later. The prophecies that are internal (both the prophecy and the supposed fulfilment are both just biblical claims) don't count anyway.

There are two sides to every coin. You do not know that there is nothing remotely specific enough in it that could be unambiguously recognized later unless you know what happened later, and of course what is unambiguous is a judgment call. However, some things are just too obvious, once you trouble yourself to really look at them.

I was not raised as a Christian or any religion or believing in God so I never read one page of the Bible until I started posting to Christians on forums in 2013. Their own Bible proves they are wrong about the return of Christ because it proves that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ. The Bible prophecies were not the evidence I initially looked at that convinced me the Bahai Faith was true, but If the Bible prophecies were all I had for evidence of Baha'u'llah's claims they would be sufficient for me.

Then it can stay hidden. If god can't be bothered to make itself known, I can't be bother to go look. Lazy gods who play silly games of hide-and-seek are not worthy of my attention.

There is no hide-and-seek, there is only seek. God is the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden, but only God's essence is hidden.

God did make Himself known, just not in the way you want Him to, but an omnipotent God takes no orders from humans for obvious logical reasons.

It is no skin off God's nose if you choose not to look at the evidence that God provides, since God needs of nobody's belief, since God is self-sufficient and self-sustaining.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Again, I'm not sure belief in a God or not is a choice. You may wake up someday and discover that you are an atheist.

 

[Nakosis]

I think many atheists default position is that there is nothing beyond what can be observed, or logically validated by currently existing knowledge. Their bias is that this existence is all there is, and why bother wasting time with something that can't be shown to exist empirically. To me that's existing in a box.

My default position is that whatever is beyond our universe is a mystery. There are clues to an natural eternal intelligence because intellect has purposes built into it's very nature, and purposes do not arise from purposelessness. I don't think life is mere mindless functionality, because of the forms and functions some life takes. We live in a process of trial and error.

My default position is if it can't be observed/detected then it can't affect us. So then it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. It might as well not exist. I might as well go forth in life as if it doesn't exist because its existence doesn't affect me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I'd word that as agnostic atheism is the default position of a critical thinker.

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

What it says is that in the absence of evidence for or against magic, you choose magical thinking. That's what a default position is - the place you start and wind up when you have insufficient data to decide. In one country, if your trial doesn't establish innocence or guilt, what's the verdict? The default position, which might be guilt or might be innocence. In one court, you're found not guilty using the same evidence and arguments that might lead to a guilty verdict elsewhere.

For the critical thinker, ties go to unbelief - the default position, and where he started, like the defendant who is acquitted starts and ends not guilty.

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

It does to me. That's where we start as young children - magical thinkers. We try to will outcomes by wishing really, really hard or by trying to affect outcomes with possible magic powers in ourselves. But with time, things like object permanence and repeated failure threaten that belief, and if allowed to, and our world secure enough, we grow up and lose that.

But if somebody throws a Bible into your playpen, they will also eventually try to teach you that magic is real, and you do have those powers sufficient to move mountains like you unsuccessfully tried to do as a child, and you'll believe it and blame the failure on your faith being too weak.

Your natural maturation will be halted in multiple places. You will not develop a mature conscience, but instead will continue to function in terms of collecting rewards and avoiding punishments according to the rules of a strict father upon whom you are totally dependent, who is radically smarter and more powerful than you are, and with whom you can't pull a fast one on. You'll never lose your childlike fear of death and go on hoping for immortality - magic thinking - if you are encouraged not to.

I don't know about your number there, but that the world is mostly theists reflects on how vulnerable most people are and feel in underdeveloped parts of the world, and how effective organized religion is elsewhere at indoctrinating even the safe and well-fed.

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.

Then you don't know what rational thinking is. You call yourself a rational and critical thinker, but you think that whatever feels right to you is truth derived using reason properly applied to evidence without ever learning how that's done.

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

It means that it doesn't support a god belief for a critical thinker. It doesn't. And he isn't interested in custom versions of "reason" or their output.

93% of people believe in God because there is evidence that God exists.

Not the reason they believe. They believe by faith because most know of no other method for coming to belief. There is another, but only one other, but they don't know what it is or what it can do, and few can name it. What do you think you are telling people who know that their conclusions are sound when you say, "That's just your opinion"?

 

[osgart]

My default position is if it can't be observed/detected then it can't affect us. So then it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. It might as well not exist. I might as well go forth in life as if it doesn't exist because its existence doesn't affect me.

I would be that way. I may even be that way for most things. I'm detecting that there's more. It makes no difference to who I am , but it gives me a sense that there's a whole other side to life. So I'm intrigued by it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is not what I said.
I said: 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. #2

Yeah, it seems. What if none of us are really rational or irrational? What if there is no evidence for God or against God? You are trying to be rational as with reason and/or logic, because you in effect claiming that rationally you can give evidence for God. And you are doing to the effect of rationally your God is the correct God for all humans.

What if that is the joke? It only seems and you haven't realized that, it only seems. As long as you in effect claim and/or logic for what you claim with evidence for One God for all humans, you are playing rationalism. And it follows that because it is for all humans that there is this One God, then everybody who do that differently are not using the correct reason and/or logic.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So what if He could make His existence unambiguous? Has it ever occurred to you that He chooses not to do so for His own reasons?

How do you think God could resolve these conflicts, given humans have free will to choose what to believe?

Yes, of course I have considered this, but the consequences of the prophets and so many different religious beliefs might imply that any God has some questionable properties (given the carnage that has occurred over history), as so many have often pointed out, and/or who just doesn't care about loss of life - even if we do. Why posit anything in this case if life has no value to any God or just for those this God chooses? One could make up all sorts of possible and believable scenarios but none being true.

No idea as to what any God could do, given I don't tend to believe in such an existence and also don't tend to imagine as to such scenarios.

 

[viole]

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.

Well, then show this evidence to us.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

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

Not only it makes sense, it is the only explanation.

ciao

- viole