The default position...

[Windwalker]

So in your view most atheists aren't atheists because they don't claim or deny anything?

"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism..."
What is Atheism? Overview of How Atheism is Defined in Dictionaries and By Atheists

You consider About.com to be an authoritative source?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist.

That is not how it works. There are many people who are not theist, but they aren't atheist either.
Such a limited view does not because it is an attempt to appropriate everyone who isn't a theist and label them as an atheist, even if they aren't an atheist.
Views of god, spirits, and religions stretch far beyond the limited and narrow approach of this "atheist/theist" dichotomy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You consider About.com to be an authoritative source?

I have found it to be decent. They have an awesome page about German prepositions, verb conjugation, and some other stuff. You just have to read the article and consider who wrote it.

 

[George-ananda]

But, doesn't this assume that making a decision on the subject is better than not. That one has to make the decision of whether they believe that God does or doesn't exist. Wouldn't the most prudent position be that we just don't have enough information either way.

Ah, we have to look at the evidence and our conclusions can be 'yes', 'no', 'unknowable', 'likely yes', 'likely no', etc..

Well, after doing my homework (and I was highly impressed by beyond the normal human experiences (paranormal), teachers claiming direct insight into the nature of what is beyond our known physical, and the great (allegedly) advanced souls of India's spiritual tradition) I believe the evidence dovetails to my belief that a non-dualistic God/Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt. So my conclusion was 'God/Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt'.

We each form our own opinion was my point.

 

[leibowde84]

Ah, we have to look at the evidence and our conclusions can be 'yes', 'no', 'unknowable', 'likely yes', 'likely no', etc..

Well, after doing my homework (and I was highly impressed by beyond the normal human experiences (paranormal), teachers claiming direct insight into the nature of what is beyond our known physical, and the great (allegedly) advanced souls of India's spiritual tradition) I believe the evidence dovetails to my belief that a non-dualistic God/Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt. So my conclusion was 'God/Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt'.

We each form our own opinion was my point.

But, isn't the most honest and prudent answer, "we just don't know yet"?

 

[Glaurung]

So in your view most atheists aren't atheists because they don't claim or deny anything?

Anyone who affirms the proposition that God does not exist is an atheist. This need not be the complete denial of the possibility of God however, thus we have the weak/strong distinction. Weak atheism is the assertion that there is no sufficient reason for belief, but it does not deny the possibility that God may potentially exist. Strong atheism is the denial of that possibility. In either case, theism is explicitly rejected and it is therefore a positive position.

Agnostics affirm neither theism or atheism, because they believe that the existence of God is unknowable. This is logically incompatible with the implicit knowledge claim of atheism. By being an atheist you are taking a position on the question. This is inescapable in any meaningful definition of atheism. Our claim is that the idea of 'implicit atheism' is meaningless.

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist.

If you would actually read our augments, you'll understand that we reject the very notion of implicit atheism as logically incoherent. That's what this is about. I see the idea as a word game designed to manipulate the discourse.

A blog by an atheist ideologue isn't going to change my position on this. I reject the very idea of implicit atheism. It's dishonest, and doesn't make sense. The only thing I rescind was my incorrect equivocation of agnosticism with implicit atheism earlier in the thread. I was wrong there.

 

[George-ananda]

But, isn't the most honest and prudent answer, "we just don't know yet"?

Let's take the example of a murder case. The jury looks at all information and argumentation relative to a case an forms a verdict. They conclude 'guilty' if the their reason tells them the defendant committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Is this proof; No. Can we say the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt; Yes.

Can I say Brahman is proved to exist; No. Can I say I conclude Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt; Yes. Almost nothing is provable in life.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So the default position has recently come to my attention in my long hours of surfing the web.

It is to my research of the default position that I have discovered the atheistic default position is what prevents most atheists from having a BOP (Burden of Proof).
It is most certainly and interesting idea that has received a high level of attention from me personally.

The default position, in terms of atheism and skepticism, states that as an atheist or skeptic we only believe in what we know to be factual or true or what has a large amount of sufficient evidence, such as gravity. When someone tries to force in an idea, such as a God or set of Gods, they must first present the password aka the proof of existence. If such evidence cannot be presented then it cannot be accepted as reality.

Note 1: This does not mean to say that atheist and skeptics say, "God(s) is not real". More along the lines of, "it cannot be proven".

Note 2: A BOP is necessary for anyone making a claim, atheists and skeptics are not making a claim they are denying it.

Note 3: Atheist: http://www.defineatheism.com/#atheist Skeptic: Skepticism | Definition of skepticism by Merriam-Webster

So, finally, my question.

Can the default position be used vice versa?

I would like to know specifically if it would be possible for a theist to turn the default position in their favor.

Thank you for viewing my thread, let the debates begin!

Logically the default position is upon the person making the claim. I don't have to provide any sort of counter claim if the original claim has not yet met burden of proof. The claim of an atheist who believes there is no god would need to support that claim. However is someone does not believe in the claim "there is a god" then they are in the default position.

 

[leibowde84]

Let's take the example of a murder case. The jury looks at all information and argumentation relative to a case an forms a verdict. They conclude 'guilty' if the their reason tells them the defendant committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Is this proof; No. Can we say the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt; Yes.

Can I say Brahman is proved to exist; No. Can I say I conclude Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt; Yes. Almost nothing is provable in life.

But with a trial there is a need for immediacy. Why is it necessary to make a decision of belief with the topic at hand?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Let's take the example of a murder case. The jury looks at all information and argumentation relative to a case an forms a verdict. They conclude 'guilty' if the their reason tells them the defendant committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Is this proof; No. Can we say the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt; Yes.

Can I say Brahman is proved to exist; No. Can I say I conclude Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt; Yes. Almost nothing is provable in life.

That particular analogy has a counter.

If you walked into a room and saw a man with a smoking gun and a dead guy with a bullet hole in his head would you say "well I didn't see it happen so I can't prove it"?

It's very obvious that this man killed the guy who is now a corpse, that's evidence.
Your analogy makes it seem like they just grabbed some random guy and blamed a murder on him.

 

[George-ananda]

But with a trial there is a need for immediacy. Why is it necessary to make a decision of belief with the topic at hand?

The shortness of our lives is one reason for the immediacy coupled with the human drive to wonder are we just temporary physical forms or are we something more.

 

[leibowde84]

The shortness of our lives is one reason for the immediacy coupled with the human drive to wonder are we just temporary physical forms or are we something more.

I agree with wondering, but settling on an answer that is unproven seems to contradict our aspiration to wonder.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That particular analogy has a counter.

If you walked into a room and saw a man with a smoking gun and a dead guy with a bullet hole in his head would you say "well I didn't see it happen so I can't prove it"?

It's very obvious that this man killed the guy who is now a corpse, that's evidence.
Your analogy makes it seem like they just grabbed some random guy and blamed a murder on him.

That the man was shot is apparent: there are still many whys that just seeing it will not answer.

 

[George-ananda]

Your analogy makes it seem like they just grabbed some random guy and blamed a murder on him.

Why does my analogy imply they grabbed a random guy? In a murder case the police have determined that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with the crime. Police don't grab random people.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That the man was shot is apparent: there are still many whys that just seeing it will not answer.

Ballistics.
That plus eye witness evidence.

The "seeing it" part is only a portion, I accept that.
One of which helps him to get convicted

 

[Deathbydefault]

Why does my analogy imply they grabbed a random guy? In a murder case the police have determined that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with the crime. Police don't grab random people.

Ah, let's not start on false cases.

I'm saying that you are excluding the 'situation' variable.
It's a murder case so what lead the man to be on the pedestal for murder?
What did he do to earn him the guilty sentence?

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with wondering, but settling on an answer that is unproven seems to contradict our aspiration to wonder.

When I say I believe Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt that doesn't mean I can't change my mind or that I stop wondering about all things beyond my ability to fully grasp. My opinion is just my best judgment of the evidence at this time. Until I know everything I will continue to wonder.

 

[leibowde84]

When I say I believe Brahman exists beyond reasonable doubt that doesn't mean I can't change my mind or that I stop wondering about all things beyond my ability to fully grasp. My opinion is just my best judgment of the evidence at this time. Until I know everything I will continue to wonder.

Exactly, so why even make that judgment now if you are going to keep wondering anyways? I guess I am having an issue with your claim that you have proved its existence "beyond a reasonable doubt". Can you go into how you've done that briefly?

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, let's not start on false cases.

I'm saying that you are excluding the 'situation' variable.
It's a murder case so what lead the man to be on the pedestal for murder?
What did he do to earn him the guilty sentence?

I'm not sure if I understand you here, but are you asking 'Why do we even consider the God hypothesis?'.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm not sure if I understand you here, but are you asking 'Why do we even consider the God hypothesis?'.

I'm saying that the jury, or whatever, believes the man committed a murder because they have evidence.
Physical, visible, tested, and sufficient evidence.

A God belief is not in comparison because it does not present such evidence.

You don't convict a man of murder because you think he did it, you do so because of proof he did it.
You may believe in God because you think he/she is real, not because you have proof he/she is.

That was my point.