Theists: Why do you think more scientists are atheists?

[fantome profane]

Um...no, it's because the default position for something is to assume it's not true, or that there is not something. I don't assume there's a country called Australia until I am given some reason to. I don't assume there's a sun until I am given some reason to. I don't assume there's a God until I am given reason to. I don't assume anything until I am given reason to.

I know you think you have to prove this wrong because you think it hurts your position as a theist, but it doesn't. You can admit that atheism is the default position, and still not admit that atheism is in any way superior to theism. the two things are completely unrelated.

Exactly right. I don’t know why anyone would consider the default position to be superior to one that was reached only after a great deal of thought.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You can admit that atheism is the default position, and still not admit that atheism is in any way superior to theism.

So, you contend that your point is absolutely pointless. I am astounded by your superior intellect. Would that all of us were able to say so little without any substance while using so many words.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

A healthy skepticism is the vehicle that drives our curiosity. Philosophy is the (love of) study of knowledge.

From Merriam Websters Online Dictionary:
Skepticism
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation

The equivocation of terms is tiring. This is the English language. You can't just make up a meaning for a word - they are all predefined.

Hey, I agree. Skepticism is a philosophy and a religion that isn't submitted to scrutiny isn't fit to be called a religion. So why not apply that same scrutiny to scientism? Why make atheism the "default position"? Is it wisdom* to say, "If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it can't be a duck because there are no ducks"?

(*Philosophy is love of wisdom.)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hey, I agree. Skepticism is a philosophy and a religion that isn't submitted to scrutiny isn't fit to be called a religion. So why not apply that same scrutiny to scientism? Why make atheism the "default position"? Is it wisdom* to say, "If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it can't be a duck because there are no ducks"?

(*Philosophy is love of wisdom.)

Hello?

Hello?

Is this microphone on?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Hello?

Hello?

Is this microphone on?

Not my fault that you don't know what philosophy and wisdom are.

 

[Magic Man]

On this, we completely disagree. That's like saying the default position is "No sun, and no moon." Just because you are blind to God does not mean that he is a myth.

Yes, the default position is that there is nothing.

Yet you have provided NO proof that this is so. None, nada, squat. You only guess and then you pass your guess off as somehow being real. Why? Because YOU came up with the guess? How droll.

Um...no, it's because the default position for something is to assume it's not true, or that there is not something. I don't assume there's a country called Australia until I am given some reason to. I don't assume there's a sun until I am given some reason to. I don't assume there's a God until I am given reason to. I don't assume anything until I am given reason to.

I know you think you have to prove this wrong because you think it hurts your position as a theist, but it doesn't. You can admit that atheism is the default position, and still not admit that atheism is in any way superior to theism. the two things are completely unrelated.

So, you contend that your point is absolutely pointless. I am astounded by your superior intellect. Would that all of us were able to say so little without any substance while using so many words.

OK, so first you claim that Atheism is not the default position, then when I claim that it is (and show how it is), you make no effort to explain your position but choose instead to say that I have no proof or good reason for mine. Then, when I show you why my position is right, you resort to saying that the whole thing was pointless.

Is that how you always react when you are proved wrong?

The point was that you said atheism was not the default position. I showed why it is the default position. I also showed why it's ok for you to admit that. No one has ever used the argument "Atheism is the default position, so it is superior to theism" as far as I know. You take the claim that it is the default position, though, to mean that for some reason.

 

[Storm]

I still say that the default position is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism implies that a decision has been reached.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is that how you always react when you are proved wrong?

I never was proven WRONG. You provided no evidence, much less logic or "proof" to support your position.

The point was that you said atheism was not the default position.

Actually, YOU (or someone) introduced the fallacious concept of the "default position". Then you came out and showed us just how pointless your point actually was. I fully agreed with that. Please get your "facts" straight in the future. Now, can we leave this pointless sidetrack?

 

[Magic Man]

I still say that the default position is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism implies that a decision has been reached.

I know you do. With you I will have to agree to disagree, though. At least with you, it was an actual discussion.

 

[Magic Man]

I never was proven WRONG. You provided no evidence, much less logic or "proof" to support your position. Actually, YOU (or someone) introduced the fallacious concept of the "default position". Then you came out and showed us just how pointless your point actually was. I fully agreed with that. Please get your "facts" straight in the future. Now, can we leave this pointless sidetrack?

Did you even stop to read the post? First off, do you understand the concept of a default position? It is a starting position, a position of nothing upon which other stuff is built. As in, you start with nothing in your mind, including God. After that, things start to be added, like the sun, the moon, and God. Once that happens, you're no longer at the default position, you're at a more advanced one.

I don't know how many different ways to explain this to you, although I can't imagine it's going to make a difference. You're obviously not listening anyway. In any case, I've provided my evidence and logic more than once now. You can ignore it all you want, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Also, I have now shown more than once what the point of all of this was, and you choose to ignore that too. Just because you say there's no point doesn't mean it's true. Try actually making an argument sometime, instead of just making unsupported claims.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I still say that the default position is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism implies that a decision has been reached.

Sounds good, but is it wisdom or cowardice? Is the lack of commitment one way or the other the result of brainwashing or honest doubt? Is it saying, "It looks, walks and sounds like a duck, but I'm afraid to commit myself to the likelihood that it is a duck" because the evidence is not empirical?

 

[Storm]

Sounds good, but is it wisdom or cowardice? Is it saying, "It looks, walks and sounds like a duck, but I'm afraid to commit myself to the likelihood that it is a duck"?

Neither. It's a simple lack of knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

First off, do you understand the concept of a default position? It is a starting position, a position of nothing upon which other stuff is built.

The starting position is "now".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Sounds good, but is it wisdom or cowardice? Is the lack of commitment one way or the other the result of brainwashing or honest doubt? Is it saying, "It looks, walks and sounds like a duck, but I'm afraid to commit myself to the likelihood that it is a duck" because the evidence is not empirical?

As an agnostic, I'm dissapointed that you don't understand the difference between reaching a logical conclusion (based on the evidence at hand), and fear.

Of course, if your belief system is built on the fear of your God, I can see why you would project that failing onto others.

 

[Magic Man]

The starting position is "now".

I see what you mean, but that's a little different meaning than what I was using.

 

[Willamena]

I see what you mean, but that's a little different meaning than what I was using.

A little.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did you even stop to read the post? First off, do you understand the concept of a default position?

Dude. Why are you SO obsessed with this vapid concept? You have already pointed out that it's pointless. Why go further? Please, stop blathering about it and move on to something more germane to the subject.

 

[fantome profane]

Sounds good, but is it wisdom or cowardice? Is the lack of commitment one way or the other the result of brainwashing or honest doubt? Is it saying, "It looks, walks and sounds like a duck, but I'm afraid to commit myself to the likelihood that it is a duck" because the evidence is not empirical?

You seem to have developed some kind of duck fetish.:sarcastic

 

[UnTheist]

Roasted duck is yummy

 

[Rolling_Stone]

As an agnostic, I'm dissapointed that you don't understand the difference between reaching a logical conclusion (based on the evidence at hand), and fear.

Of course, if your belief system is built on the fear of your God, I can see why you would project that failing onto others.

Did you read all of what I said?

Is the lack of commitment one way or the other the result of brainwashing or honest doubt?

I can't be the judge of that. That's between you and God, but "The unexamined life is not worth living." The wise are able to discern their true interests from those of the ego-mind.

Wisdom is total perspective: seeing an object, event, or idea in all its pertinent—even cosmic—relationships. It's superrational: it's insight into the nature of things and not necessarily supported by evidence.am not deluded into believing that I can know, or even should know, everything about everything; I am not so vain as to think that only those things that I can know are worth believing.

So, let me repeat the question everyone wants to evade: Is it wisdom to say the default position is atheism because even though "it looks, walks and sounds like a duck (design), it can't be a duck because there are no ducks" (no designer)? Is it wisdom to say, "I won't commit myself to the likelihood that it is a duck because the evidence is not empirical"? The former is the kind of brainwashing that occurs in our schools; the latter may or may not be honest doubt, but it is not wisdom if it doesn't see the "object, event, or idea in all its pertinent—even cosmic—relationships." The question requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer. So why is it not answered? Because if the answer is "no," then my original answer to the OP, "brainwashing," is correct. If it is "yes," the foolishness is self-evident.

A person can doubt everything it cannot grasp with ease, and some are more prone to doubt than others. But there is no excuse for the pretense that life is nothing but physics and chemistry. Relationships are real, too. Denying the reality of higher grades of significance because they can't be counted, measured and weighed is to live in a meaningless wasteland.