Default position

[mikkel_the_dane]

Picking up on what Trailblazer writes.
Zero evidence for God and zero evidence for his claimed prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.
Why can an omni-potent God cannot turn himself into a human? How can you limit an omni-potent God? He can do whatever he wants. He has no constraints of form or time. Hindu Gods and Goddesses do it at their will.

Zero evidence that the universe is ontologically physical.

 

[Altfish]

Well, we sure spent a lot of time debating how atheism is better than non atheism. I have never seen evidence for either.

"Non atheism", now there is a term! Are Humanists non atheists?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Zero evidence that the universe is ontologically physical.

What do you mean by 'physical'? Is Dark Energy or Dark Mass physical? A ray of light - is it physical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by 'physical'? Is Dark Energy or Dark Mass physical? A ray of light - is it physical?

No, I mean ontologically as per the idea that everything is physical and nothing else for being qua being.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Non atheism", now there is a term! Are Humanists non atheists?

No, humanists can be both, i.e. there are both kinds for atheists and nones for atheism.
I deleted the old answer as that was wrong

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I mean ontologically as per the idea that everything is physical and nothing else for being qua being.

When I have not understood the difference between existence and non-existence, what can I say about physical or non-physical?
Who knows is physical is non-physical and existence is non-existence?
It will take decades, centuries for science to find that out. What can I reply to you now?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I have not understood the difference between existence and non-existence, what can I say about physical or non-physical?
Who knows is physical is non-physical and existence is non-existence?
It will take decades, centuries for science to find that out. What can I reply to you now?

You are confusing different kinds of existence and treat the difference between physical and non-physical as existence versus non-existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mikkel, it is the same big question, and at the moment science does not have any answer to it. If you want a quick even if false answer, check with the theists.

 

[an anarchist]

Do you also require to have it proven to you that an undetectable dragon doesn't follow you around everywhere you go?
Do you believe such a dragon exists until proven otherwise?

More generally: is there ANYTHING aside from a god that you believe for no other reason then it not having been proven wrong?

I submit you don't. I submit you hold a double standard here.
There's literally an infinity of potential claims you don't believe even though they haven't been proven wrong.

So why do you make an exception for the god claim? What is it about the god claim that isn't present in the dragon claim?



Magical thinking is fallacious.
So yes, that makes sense.

The only way to defend belief in things that have no evidence, is through fallacious reasoning.

I've been thinking on this thread more.

Yesterday, I was outside looking at space, looking at all the cars and human structures, and thinking about my biological body. To think that all these complex processes came into existence and works without any source of a higher power ... It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

So I stand by my default position of magical thinking.

I don't believe in all magical thinking, but by default I believe in something greater.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've been thinking on this thread more.

Yesterday, I was outside looking at space, looking at all the cars and human structures, and thinking about my biological body. To think that all these complex processes came into existence and works without any source of a higher power ... It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

So I stand by my default position of magical thinking.

I don't believe in all magical thinking, but by default I believe in something greater.

Well, you do believe in it for politics. You have to learn the differences between individual subjective, social subjective and objective for the everyday world. I.e. that you believe as you, is not the same as what you believe about humans as such.

 

[an anarchist]

Well, you do believe in it for politics.

LOL you're just trying to rile me up.

You have to learn the differences between individual subjective, social subjective and objective for the everyday world. I.e. that you believe as you, is not the same as what you believe about humans as such.

I don't really understand. But usually all your subjective/objective talk goes over my head.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

LOL you're just trying to rile me up.


I don't really understand. But usually all your subjective/objective talk goes over my head.

Shall I try to give examples? If no, that is okay.

 

[an anarchist]

Shall I try to give examples? If no, that is okay.

Sure, shoot. I'll try to understand

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah are the primary ones, but there might be others.

No, belief without good reasons by a lot of people is not evidence the claim is true, but people of different religions have good reasons to believe in God.

The same evidence that can be used as evidence for different gods is not good evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, shoot. I'll try to understand

Very simple example of objective in practice. A 6-sided dice and the outcomes of rolling a non-loaded dice on a correct surface. That is a practical outcome of objective. It doesn't matter how I or you think/feel.
For these 3 definitions of objective:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
-having reality independent of the mind.
The above example applies to all 3.
Is that good enough or do you want more words?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yesterday, I was outside looking at space, looking at all the cars and human structures, and thinking about my biological body. To think that all these complex processes came into existence and works without any source of a higher power ... It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

That's another fallacy, off course. A combination of several, actually

Argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity and argument from awe

Essentially you are saying "I don't know / understand, therefor god" or "it's overwhelming / amazing, therefor god"

So I stand by my default position of magical thinking.

So you double down on fallacious reasoning.
Fair enough if you acknowledge it.

But surely you understand that fallacious reasoning is not the way to come up with accurate answers to questions.....

I don't believe in all magical thinking, but by default I believe in something greater.

So why not believe in something even greater, still?

If a human is "too complex" to be natural and thus requires a god....
Then surely the same would apply to a god. A god would be even more complex then a human. So wouldn't a god require "something greater" still?

If not, then you can add special pleading as yet another fallacy you engage in.

 

[an anarchist]

If a human is "too complex" to be natural and thus requires a god....
Then surely the same would apply to a god. A god would be even more complex then a human. So wouldn't a god require "something greater" still?

HMMMM have to clock into work now but thanks for giving me an new concept to ponder while working! Have to think this over

 

[Trailblazer]

Accept what though, given there are so many choices? One could accept there being a God and simply not accept any particular religious belief - which is no doubt what so many do - because such seems more a personal preference - if one has not already been indoctrinated into one religion or another.

Yes, one could do that and these days many people do. Imo, it is better to believe in God than not, even if one has no religion, and it might be better to believe in God and have no religious beliefs rather than some of the religious beliefs that are out there.

 

[Trailblazer]

Accept what though, given there are so many choices?

An afterthought: One could also say "I cannot buy any car because I cannot choose between all the makes and models."

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, one could do that and these days many people do. Imo, it is better to believe in God than not, even if one has no religion, and it might be better to believe in God and have no religious beliefs rather than some of the religious beliefs that are out there.

Not sure why though. God is just a label applied to whatever you feel appropriate or not. Whether you do apply the label to something or not doesn't really change anything.

You can call something God or you decide not to call something God. How does this change what is?