I thought that this was a fantastic article and was surprised to see it on the Quora website:

https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-it...hypothesis

In any case, the burden of proof is on those who assert.

A tip: If you want to read anything on Quora without logging in, just put " ?share=1 " after the link.

(March 29, 2016 at 3:22 am)Red_Wind Wrote: A tip: If you want to read anything on Quora without logging in, just put " ?share=1 " after the link.

Thanks.  What did you think of the article, though?  Feel free to be critical of it; I didn't write it.  My impression of a lot of so-called "believing" scientists is that, "Yeah, my faith makes me feel good, helps people cope, etc., etc., but, I won't want to defend it in a court of law."  Well, why not?  Why believe in something that you are unwilling to defend, to go to bat for?

Yes, I agree. It's the default position, that any claim should not initially be believed. It's the correct application of scepticism, hence atheism.

It's true that a good theist scientist puts their theistic beliefs to one side. Those that don't end up wasting time trying to force round blocks through square holes, or using questionable methods to try and force results (as we've seen on this forum several times). Either way, their work will fall down under proper peer review.

It almost seems like an admission that theistic beliefs are not to do with reality. And of course, they are not. If they were, they should survive scientific inquiry. It's more akin to a "favourite colour", in that it has no application.

(March 29, 2016 at 7:44 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 29, 2016 at 3:22 am)Red_Wind Wrote: A tip: If you want to read anything on Quora without logging in, just put " ?share=1 " after the link.

Thanks.  What did you think of the article, though?  Feel free to be critical of it; I didn't write it.  My impression of a lot of so-called "believing" scientists is that, "Yeah, my faith makes me feel good, helps people cope, etc., etc., but, I won't want to defend it in a court of law."  Well, why not?  Why believe in something that you are unwilling to defend, to go to bat for?

I agree with the position.
Reading Mark Harrisons post, i don't understand why the burden of proof should be on atheists claiming that there is no god.How do you find evidence to disprove something when there is no evidence to support it in the first place, 2 negatives don't make a positive.

(March 28, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I thought that this was a fantastic article and was surprised to see it on the Quora website:

https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-it...hypothesis

In any case, the burden of proof is on those who assert.

Okay then, please prove the burden of proof is on the asserters.  Go.

Well, atheist have nothing to prove anyway. We're never suggesting any action be taken because there (probably) isn't a god.

Atheism is not the default position. It is the agnostic's position that should be the default position.

1. There is no God.

This is either true or false. Atheist believe this to be true. Agnostics don't know. Theist believe it to be false. Verificationists think the statement meaningless. Even if evidence and argumentation fail at proving there is a God, that does not mean there is no God. To say there is no God is a claim to knowledge and must be justified.

If you are defining atheism as an absence of belief in God (as I believe many of you like to do), that would only be a psychologically state. In that case, "absence of a belief in God" cannot be the default position because that would include a wide range of views: traditional atheists, agnostics, and verificationists and therefore incoherent.

(March 29, 2016 at 10:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Atheism is not the default position. It is the agnostic's position that should be the default position.

1. There is no God.

This is either true or false. Atheist believe this to be true. Agnostics don't know. Theist believe it to be false. Verificationists think the statement meaningless. Even if evidence and argumentation fail at proving there is a God, that does not mean there is no God. To say there is no God is a claim to knowledge and must be justified.

If you are defining atheism as an absence of belief in God (as I believe many of you like to do), that would only be a psychologically state. In that case, "absence of a belief in God" cannot be the default position because that would include a wide range of views: traditional atheists, agnostics, and verificationists and therefore incoherent.

Depending upon how you define agnostic, it too is "only a psychological state." (Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not. Merriam-Webster.)

Agnosticism as a form of amnesia? Please don't find a cure.