The default position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is atheism the default position and what exact argument or debate is it the default position of ?

[jeremyp]

Why is atheism the default position and what exact argument or debate is it the default position of ?

It works better if the assumption is things don't exist unless somebody brings some evidence to the table that they do. Otherwise you'd be forced to believe everything that anybody has ever thought of does exist.

Well that was a short thread. I don't think there's any need for anybody else to add anything to it.

[wigginhall]

It reminds me of Laplace, whose calculations, so he is supposed to have told Napoleon, didn't include God.  Then why would they?  Laplace worked a lot on the dynamics of tides, and, to be absolutely candid, he didn't describe God pushing water around.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It works better if the assumption is things don't exist unless somebody brings some evidence to the table that they do. Otherwise you'd be forced to believe everything that anybody has ever thought of does exist.

Well that was a short thread. I don't think there's any need for anybody else to add anything to it.

What do you mean by evidence Jeremy? Physical evidence I take it? Naturalistic evidence?

[jeremyp]

What do you mean by evidence Jeremy? Physical evidence I take it? Naturalistic evidence?

You produce the evidence and I’ll either accept it or tell you why it is worthless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Well that was a short thread. I don't think there's any need for anybody else to add anything to it.

Quite. For some reason he's started three separate threads all based on the the same logical confusion. Trolling cubed perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

Quite. For some reason he's started three separate threads all based on the the same logical confusion. Trolling cubed perhaps?

But claiming the default position because there is no naturalistic evidence is rather suspect as an argument isnt it?

[BeRational]

But claiming the default position because there is no naturalistic evidence is rather suspect as an argument isnt it?

The default position is that your claim is not to be accepted unless you meet your burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You produce the evidence and I’ll either accept it or tell you why it is worthless.

Ah So the default position comes down to a matter of opinion.

You were right Jeremy, it was a short thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The default position is that your claim is not to be accepted unless you meet your burden of proof.

I think the burden of proof comes out of establishing the default position in that the staus quo has to be stablished.
How are you doind that?

[Gordon]

I think the burden of proof comes out of establishing the default position in that the staus quo has to be stablished.
How are you doind that?

What is this 'status quo' in relation to this discussion?

As ever you seem to be chronically mixed up.

[SteveH]

The default position is non-belief - in God, atoms, unicorns, or anything else. You only believe in something if there is good reason to: the evidence of your senses, the word of people you trust, based on evidence or arguments you can access, the evidence and arguments themselves. It's really not difficult.

[Maeght]

The default position is non-belief - in God, atoms, unicorns, or anything else. You only believe in something if there is good reason to: the evidence of your senses, the word of people you trust, based on evidence or arguments you can access, the evidence and arguments themselves. It's really not difficult.

That only really applies when it comes to belief in God if you think it follows from a rational evaluation of evidence doesn't it? I'm not convinced this is what happens. I think people believe in God, then look for evidence to support that belief. One problem with a discussion like this is that when it comes to the supernatural the application of logic seems to fall down - hence why it is the supernatural. Someone who believes in the supernatural could argue that God puts belief into the heads of all humans  and that this belief is lost by cultural influences and the like. It is impossible to know what is in the mind of a new born child.

[SteveH]

Yes, they do, but I'm talking about what they ought to do.

[BeRational]

I think the burden of proof comes out of establishing the default position in that the staus quo has to be stablished.
How are you doind that?

Simple.

Whoever makes the claim, has the burden.

If you claim that a god exists, then you have the burden.

[SteveH]

Simple.

Whoever makes the claim, has the burden.

If you claim that a god exists, then you have the burden.

But in that case, someone who claims that no god exists has the burden. It is positive claims that carry a burden of proof. Negative claims are the default position.

[jeremyp]

But in that case, someone who claims that no god exists has the burden. It is positive claims that carry a burden of proof. Negative claims are the default position.

The atheists here aren't claiming "no god exists". They are just telling you they won't believe your claim that "God exists" until you provide the evidence.

If I say "there are unicorns on Mars", is it a positive claim on your part when you say "I don't believe you"?

[BeRational]

But in that case, someone who claims that no god exists has the burden. It is positive claims that carry a burden of proof. Negative claims are the default position.

Yes, if someone claims that no gods exist, then they have the burden of proof as you say.

Atheists on the whole do not say that though!

[SteveH]

You're both terminally confused, and talking nonsense. See my signature.

[BeRational]

You're both terminally confused, and talking nonsense. See my signature.

Explain why.

I think you just do not understand the burden of proof concept.

If you make a claim positive or negative, then you have the burden.

[jeremyp]

You're both terminally confused, and talking nonsense. See my signature.

Do you think there are unicorns on Mars? If not, do you think you have the burden of proof when you say you don't believe me?

[SteveH]

I'm off this thread for a while. You're doing my head in. How difficult can it be to understand that the burden of proof applies to positive claims, not negative ones such as "God does not exist"? As for BR's nonsensical definition of atheism, what can I say that won't get me suspended?
TTFN.

[BeRational]

I'm off this thread for a while. You're doing my head in. How difficult can it be to understand that the burden of proof applies to positive claims, not negative ones such as "God does not exist"? As for BR's nonsensical definition of atheism, what can I say that won't get me suspended?
TTFN.

FALSE

It also applies to negative claims.

There no black swans. That is a negative claim and I would have a burden of proof.

Can you not see this?

[SteveH]

FALSE

It also applies to negative claims.

There no black swans. That is a negative claim and I would have a burden of proof.

Can you not see this?

No, you wouldn't. The burden of proof lies with those who claim there are black swans. In that case, proof is easy; just produce a black swan. Nevertheless, the burden of proof lies with the existing-black-swan-claimer. Occam's razor,which I'm sure you've heard of.

[BeRational]

No, you wouldn't. The burden of proof lies with those who claim there are black swans. In that case, proof is easy; just produce a black swan. Nevertheless, the burden of proof lies with the existing-black-swan-claimer. Occam's razor,which I'm sure you've heard of.

If I say there are no black swans, then I have the burden of proof for such a claim.
Producing a black swan refutes my assertion, BUT my assertion should not be accepted until I can show that there are no black swans anywhere.
I have no idea how that could be done, so I would never say such a daft thing.

I am an atheist, but I would never say there are no gods.

how do I know?