Post by Worldquest on Feb 5, 2012 14:42:49 GMT
Ok so you wouldn't change your mind without proof. But the question still stands.
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.
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.
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?
By the way you have a fixation on other people providing you with evidence. Get your own evidence. But you're an atheist, I don't expect you to really sincerely ever actually 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.
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.
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. There are no default positions for us humans, and besides, default position does not equal true. 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.
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. You, as a person, have no default position, you only have your opinion. To you, it's a case of there being no evidence, but that point of view is dictated by, well, your point of view. I don't think you realise that your argument is circular. It's also wrong because atheism is your opinion, not necessarily the truth just because you yourself have no reason to believe in god. 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.
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. But you're saying that atheism is true (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.
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".
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?
You are not free of subjectivity. Your atheist worldview dictates to you what is possible and what is not. And you are not free of worldviews. Until you are (which you will never be), you do not inhabit the realm of the default position which you claim to think from. You're carrying around baggage yet claiming to have none.
In atheism, there is no evidence of god. As a result, you have no motive to seek any.
So when that worldview tells you that there's no god, it's hardly surprising. And hardly objective. If a fundamentalist christian insisted to me that the christian god is real, the first thing I'd think to myself would be, this is a person with a worldview insisting that their worldview is correct. Why doesn't that surprise me? Likewise, if an atheist insists that there's no god, I think exactly the same. Your arguments arise from your worldview. I'm not having this discussion with an impartial, neutral, objective person. I'm having it with a partial, biased and subjective person who thinks they're none of those things and who thinks that there's a default position, which also happens to be their position. I believe in an omniscient god, but it's going to require a huge leap of faith to believe in an omniscient human. And if I were to turn the question on you, I'd ask you to give me evidence of your omniscience. But I won't.
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.
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.
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?
By the way you have a fixation on other people providing you with evidence. Get your own evidence. But you're an atheist, I don't expect you to really sincerely ever actually 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.
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.
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. There are no default positions for us humans, and besides, default position does not equal true. 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.
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. You, as a person, have no default position, you only have your opinion. To you, it's a case of there being no evidence, but that point of view is dictated by, well, your point of view. I don't think you realise that your argument is circular. It's also wrong because atheism is your opinion, not necessarily the truth just because you yourself have no reason to believe in god. 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.
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. But you're saying that atheism is true (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.
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".
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?
You are not free of subjectivity. Your atheist worldview dictates to you what is possible and what is not. And you are not free of worldviews. Until you are (which you will never be), you do not inhabit the realm of the default position which you claim to think from. You're carrying around baggage yet claiming to have none.
In atheism, there is no evidence of god. As a result, you have no motive to seek any.
So when that worldview tells you that there's no god, it's hardly surprising. And hardly objective. If a fundamentalist christian insisted to me that the christian god is real, the first thing I'd think to myself would be, this is a person with a worldview insisting that their worldview is correct. Why doesn't that surprise me? Likewise, if an atheist insists that there's no god, I think exactly the same. Your arguments arise from your worldview. I'm not having this discussion with an impartial, neutral, objective person. I'm having it with a partial, biased and subjective person who thinks they're none of those things and who thinks that there's a default position, which also happens to be their position. I believe in an omniscient god, but it's going to require a huge leap of faith to believe in an omniscient human. And if I were to turn the question on you, I'd ask you to give me evidence of your omniscience. But I won't.