The default position...

[Guy Threepwood]

"someone else was here before me and may still be here I should look for other people"
Good enough?

so you default to ID rather than chance in this case, why?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Eh, I've seen articles that say that, I've also seen articles that say different.

How about simply checking the LSJ?

What I do know is that if religions did not exist then neither would atheism.

Religions don't require gods. Atheism, even in your arbitrarily, narrowly selected "definition", implies that atheists "lack a belief" about god(s). Plenty of religious people do too, and the archaeological evidence suggests they have long before the written word.

 

[Deathbydefault]

so you default to ID rather than chance in this case, why?

Intelligent design? Ha. Funny joke.
Because "help" is written out so "there must have been someone else" is the most logical option.
There is still the possibility of chance but it would be much more likely another person had done such things.

 

[Deathbydefault]

How about simply checking the LSJ?


Religions don't require gods. Atheism, even in your arbitrarily, narrowly selected "definition", implies that atheists "lack a belief" about god(s). Plenty of religious people do too, and the archaeological evidence suggests they have long before the written word.

Reply as you please, I'm not in the mood to have such a drawn out and over done debate.
I know what I think and you know what you think. Leave it at that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Intelligent design? Ha. Funny joke.
Because "help" is written out so "there must have been someone else" is the most logical option.
There is still the possibility of chance but it would be much more likely another person had done such things.

exactly.. so even though the analogy concedes no direct evidence of ID, while utterly granting you a random generator 100% capable of producing the result by chance.. you still chose ID.

i.e. the analogy is heavily biased towards atheism, not to mention that 'help' is selling the universe very very very very short in terms of the improbability of being randomly generated.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm quite tired and have confused myself re-reading your post so many times.
Regardless, your default position is filled with all the things you know as fact.
Anything outside of that must be proven as fact or it does not become included in the default position.

So coming to the conclusion that has the highest probability of being true might also be a part of that.
You find the answer most likely to be true and then proceed to seek proof.
Just saying, "Oh it was chance" and leaving it at that would be strange, IMO.

 

[idav]

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!

This is sort of describing an atheist by convenience. I would have to ask said atheist to take a stab at it. Will we find evidence, does evidence exist, yes or no separates atheism from theism and still ultimately an educated guess.

 

[Curious George]

None of that is my concern.
Atheism was originally the response to theism, I believe.
Also, theists can think whatever they please, they aren't any of my concern either.
You can find whatever means you feel is sufficient to not give them another thing to use against you.
I do not care about what they say.

Lol, that sounds very aggressive.

It is not my aim to simply reduce their claims against atheism. Rather, it is my aim to use the most meaningful definitions. Those are but a couple reasons I favor the less broad definition of atheism.

It is not something, I am trying to argue. I am simply explaining, because it might very well help you understand some of the atheists who object to the classification of theist vs. Everything else.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Lol, that sounds very aggressive.

It is not my aim to simply reduce their claims against atheism. Rather, it is my aim to use the most meaningful definitions. Those are but a couple reasons I favor the less broad definition of atheism.

It is not something, I am trying to argue. I am simply explaining, because it might very well help you understand some of the atheists who object to the classification of theist vs. Everything else.

Ah, my apologies.
My school hours and work hours have left me little time for sleep, so I tend to comment more honestly.
Not that holding back is something I put effort into doing.

It's not that I actually care about this argument, I've milked it enough to know what I wanted to know.
I've kinda just kept up with it for entertainment, that of which is starting to wear thin.

[Edit] Forgot to say.

It is a theist vs. everything else situation. That is accurate.
If theist feel the need to opt away from what is natural from birth then so be it.
I don't lose anything, I gain some entertainment though.

 

[Bunyip]

And everyone else are divided into those who just don't believe either way and those who also believes god doesn't exist.

How is that a divide? That is the same - neither believe in God, so are atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure. Just like whether there exists intelligent life on other planets. Either there is, or there isn't. So the chances are 1/2.

Everything is simple if your only analytical tools are simplistic.

Terrible analogy. This is about BELIEF Legion, not whether something really does or does not exist.

The PROBABILITY that there is life elsewhere in the universe is indeed a complex equation.
However whether an individual believes there is life elsewhere in the universe is not.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Terrible analogy. This is about BELIEF Legion, not whether something really does or does not exist.

The PROBABILITY that there is life elsewhere in the universe is indeed a complex equation.

If only there philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, etc., had thought about the relationship between beliefs and probabilities since the early 1700s! Oh wait. They did. For example:

But forget Bayesian analysis, subjective probability, uncertainty analysis, etc. Let's just stick with language and logic. You cannot physiologically lack a belief in anything that you can conceptualize. It's simple neuroscience.

 

[Bunyip]

If only there philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, etc., had thought about the relationship between beliefs and probabilities since the early 1700s! Oh wait. They did. For example:

But forget Bayesian analysis, subjective probability, uncertainty analysis, etc. Let's just stick with language and logic. You cannot physiologically lack a belief in anything that you can conceptualize. It's simple neuroscience.

Sure. And your point is?

 

[Bunyip]

exactly.. so even though the analogy concedes no direct evidence of ID, while utterly granting you a random generator 100% capable of producing the result by chance.. you still chose ID.

i.e. the analogy is heavily biased towards atheism, not to mention that 'help' is selling the universe very very very very short in terms of the improbability of being randomly generated.

Obviously there is something about evolution not being random that you simply refuse to process. Or choose to pretend to be unaware of.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Time for me to tag out for a bit.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure. And your point is?

That you cannot physiologically lack a belief in anything you conceptualize.

 

[Bunyip]

That you cannot physiologically lack a belief in anything you conceptualize.

Sure, agreed. And in the context of a discussion, that the God concept in question is mutually understood is of course fundamental to any meaningful exchange.

 

[lstan135]

What is supernatural cannot be proven by the natural. It is only by faith and personsal experience and personal encounters that one can be truly convince.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What is supernatural cannot be proven by the natural. It is only by faith and personsal experience and personal encounters that one can be truly convince.

Why not? Doe it interact with the "natural" wold in any demonstrable way?

 

[lstan135]

Yes. Only when and where the supernatural choose to demonstrate. Eg. Earthquakes, Sunami, volcano eruptions, flooding, faith healing, raising the dead, fulfilled prophecies, appearance of angelic beings, etc.