Post by flyingteapot on Feb 14, 2012 17:27:53 GMT
Ok so you wouldn't change your mind without proof. But the question still stands.
Not really. How does the question still stand, exactly?
You're asking me if one applies logic, would they not believe that there's a god until it's proven. My answer is that, apart from people who want to believe in god no matter what, we all apply logic and we all look for evidence.
Ok, I am asking you specifically.
I also agree that evidence has to meet criteria, but I put it to you that this process is subjective. Evidence is subjective. Criteria is subjective. There is no default position.
Evidence is subjective? No, repeatable and testable phenomena are not really subjective. Google 'scientific theory' for more.
What are your scientific standards? What is your logic? How do you know it's absolute? How do you know you've got it right? It's all very well claiming to apply objectivity and logic, but how do I know, how does anyone know, and more importantly, how do you yourself know that you're doing it right?
MY scientific standards, MY logic? Are you seriously asking me this? Logic is universal, standards are universal, which is why they are called 'standards'.
By the way you have a fixation on other people providing you with evidence. Get your own evidence.
I did not make the claim. I don't need to find evidence for something I am not claiming. First you come to be with a claim, and then ask me for evidence for your claim? There needs to be a semblance of reason if we are to have this discussion.
But you're an atheist, I don't expect you to really sincerely ever actually seek it.
You seek it because you believe your theory. I don't and hence have to desire to seek it.
Believing is seeing. Beliving in a godless universe is seeing a godless universe. In a way it's kind of pointless for me to ask you to sincerely seek evidence foe god, because your mind is closed to the possibility. You can't seek it, and you can't see it. Nevertheless, it's not my job to have your convictions for you.
Yup. You don't need to have my convictions for me, thank you for trying though
You claim that you're a logical person who adheres to absolute neutrality and the idealistic idea of a default position. You've said in in one way or another many times. But you're human, and an atheist with a particular worldview. That puts you firmly in the box of "subjective". You're not omniscient, and you're not perfectly logical or objective, try as you might.
For someone who keeps reminding everyone they are not omniscient, you are remarkably certain as to what my position is, even though you have made little effort to understand it.
According to your last paragraph, if I understand correctly, you're implying that atheism should be assumed to be true. Your reason is that atheism is the default position.
Yes, I did say atheism is the default position regarding the claim "I believe a god exists"
There are no default positions for us humans, and besides, default position does not equal true.
I did not say there is a default position for humans, I said atheism is the default position regarding a specific claim.
Your premise is that because you have no reason to believe in god, then there is no god. Atheism is true. Words can't describe how poor that line of thinking is. What you should have said is that as long as you're an atheist, you're an atheist, and left it at that.
Your efforts to misunderstand me leave me very impressed. Congratulations! Words cannot describe how well you manage to misunderstand me (deliberately?) on a regular basis.
I did not say since there is no reason to believe in god, there is no god. What I said was Since there is no god, I don't believe in a god. I hope this is easy to understand for you , especially since you don't seem to be able to fathom the simplest of things.
Besides, I understand all that, it's you that's missing the point. I'm saying that it's all very well for you to draw an analogy, but it's another thing for that analogy to actually apply to what we're discussing. Your analogy is wrong. It's wrong because there is no default position.
Ah! The old 'you are wrong!' argument! You certainly stumped me there.
You, as a person, have no default position, you only have your opinion.
Please show me where I claimed humans have default positions. Your constant fixation to misunderstand me is starting to grate.
To you, it's a case of there being no evidence, but that point of view is dictated by, well, your point of view.
Is that right? So you do have evidence? Lets see it then. I am always open to evidence.
I don't think you realise that your argument is circular.
I don't think you realize that you are not arguing against my position. You are arguing what you hope my position is because it is easier to argue against.
It's also wrong because atheism is your opinion, not necessarily the truth just because you yourself have no reason to believe in god.
Actually, atheism is my response to a claim. Atheism is a response. Nowhere did I claim it is a truth.
You can't even express what you said without mentioning the word "I" (YOU). It's all about you and your view. It's subjective.
And here I was under the impression that forums were for expressing our opinions and views! Silly me!
Innocent until proven guilty and default positions is fine when you're in court with your freedom on the line. It's irrelevant when it comes to you and your worldview. This isn't a courtroom. The reason we have innocent until proven guilty in court isn't because everyone actually thinks you're innocent, it's because it's the job of someone to prove to someone else (someone who is considered to have good judgement) or to a concensus (a jury) that you're guilty, if they can, and so innocent until proven guilty means that you are treated (not even assumed, just treated) as though you are innocent, for the simple practical reason that we can't just lock up every tom dick and harry that ends up in court. That's why the concept exists. You're taking that concept and applying it here, but the trouble is that that concept refers to how you are treated, not to what anyone actually thinks.
That is why it is called an analogy. We cannot believe any Tom Dick and Harry of claims until they are proven.
But you're saying that atheism is true
Nope, never said that. You keep making strawman arguments. I am tired of this.
(according to your comparison) simply because you can't see evidence of god, and you think there's a magical default position which you happen to inhabit.
Simply because I can't see evidence of god? Well, I am sorry, if you have it in such abundance, do share it with me. Magical default position? At least I am making the effort to back up my assertions with analogies, examples and logic. All I am hearing from your side is, "Because I said so, that's why!"
So in actual fact, when you say :
"Atheism is the default position. If you can't prove that there's a god, to me, then there's no god. It's your job to do this, otherwise I won't believe"
What you're actually saying is :
"I'm an atheist and atheism is correct and true. I won't seek evidence, and even if I did I won't ever see any and in fact I won't really even genuinely and openmindedly seek it anyway because I'm already an atheist, and in atheism, there is no god".
"Atheism is the default position. If you can't prove that there's a god, to me, then there's no god. It's your job to do this, otherwise I won't believe"
What you're actually saying is :
"I'm an atheist and atheism is correct and true. I won't seek evidence, and even if I did I won't ever see any and in fact I won't really even genuinely and openmindedly seek it anyway because I'm already an atheist, and in atheism, there is no god".
Even if we accept that faulty logic, that is not my position anyway. I never stated there is no god. You keep attacking a position I don't hold, because A) You don't understand my position. B) Are deliberately trying to paint my position as what you think it is in hopes of arguing against that position.
Can you not see that by saying "prove it to me otherwise I won't believe", you're actually telling me that you have a worldview (subjective, not default position) which prohibits the existence of something?
It certainly does not prohibit existence of something. Faulty Faulty logic. Just because I don't believe unicorns exist does not mean they are prohibited from existence, it just means that I personally would not believe their existence until I see some proof. I really cannot understand why this simple concept is so hard for you to grasp.
I am tired of replying to you and your continual mis-characterization of my position. I read the rest of your reply and you are not really arguing against my position. So good luck finding an atheist who does hold that position and argue against him/her. I realize it is an easy position for you to argue against because you made up that position out of whole cloth so that it is easy for you to argue against. Have a good day.