(March 29, 2016 at 10:36 am)Time Traveler Wrote:

(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.)

From the same dictionary: (Full Definition of agnostic. 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly 2: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.)

So no, it is not just a psychological state. It is a viewpoint complete with justifications for thinking it to be true.

(March 29, 2016 at 8:49 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(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.

---

---

I could assert anything; I could assert that there is a race of talking donkeys on a planet 100 light years away who speak fluent English and act-out plays of Shakespeare.

(March 29, 2016 at 8:42 am)Red_Wind Wrote:

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

Saying that something does not exist for which there is no evidence is a negative assertion.  Falsifiability would, however, warrant at least some hypothetical consideration of the "alternate hypotheses," that is, there is a god.

(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.

Agnosticism is, of course, a statement about knowledge; atheism is a statement about belief, or, rather, the lack, positive or negative, of a particular belief.  A true agnostic would regard the existence of god, any god, to be a 50/50 proposition.  Dawkins' scale comes to mind, which certainly, IMHO, deserves a promotional place on a Starbuck's cup.

(March 29, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(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.

Agnosticism is, of course, a statement about knowledge; atheism is a statement about belief, or, rather, the lack, positive or negative, of a particular belief.

Your statement above is quite correct.

Quote:A true agnostic would regard the existence of god, any god, to be a 50/50 proposition.

This is not correct.

There is nothing within any definition of agnosticism that requires any sort of probability calculation. Nor, is there really any way to calculate such a probability. 

To calculate probabilities, data points are required. I'd be very interested to know where your hypothetical agnostic acquired their data points. As in: how many universes did they study in order to determine how many of them have gods vs how many do not? 

The classic, formal definition of agnostic is, "a person that does not know, and/or believes it may be unknowable, if a god exists".

(March 29, 2016 at 7:58 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(March 29, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Agnosticism is, of course, a statement about knowledge; atheism is a statement about belief, or, rather, the lack, positive or negative, of a particular belief.

Your statement above is quite correct.

Quote:A true agnostic would regard the existence of god, any god, to be a 50/50 proposition.

This is not correct.

There is nothing within any definition of agnosticism that requires any sort of probability calculation. Nor, is there really any way to calculate such a probability. 

To calculate probabilities, data points are required. I'd be very interested to know where your hypothetical agnostic acquired their data points. As in: how many universes did they study in order to determine how many of them have gods vs how many do not? 

The classic, formal definition of agnostic is, "a person that does not know, and/or believes it may be unknowable, if a god exists".

I see your point, and there are, of course, different flavors of agnosticism as there are different flavors of atheism.  I agree with Dawkins, however, (see The God Delusion, "Poverty of Agnosticism"), that a true agnostic would have no knowledge one way or the other, for or against, some type of theistic/deistic god.

I don't believe there is a god.
If a god presented itself to me and demonstrated it's abilities to my satisfaction, then I would believe.
That doesn't mean I would worship it or that I would believe anything that mere humans have written about it.
I would worship it if it told me it would hurt me if I didn't, but I would do so for anything more powerful than me and I wouldn't really mean it.
If someone demonstrated that this god had deceived me with magic tricks I would go back to not believing in it.
I call this 'commonsense atheism'. I don't personally need any other big words or complicated jargon to describe it. :-)

I know fantasy when I see/hear it. god(s) have never existed except in the fantasies of mans mind. I'm fine with my position being the null fantasy position.

I'd say someone who thinks God is 50/50 is an atheist. They don't believe God is real, if they deem the judgement to be no more reliable than a coin toss. Clearly they don't believe it's not real, either. So a weak atheist.

But what they choose to label themselves is up to them.

(March 29, 2016 at 9:46 pm)Little lunch Wrote: I don't believe there is a god.
If a god presented itself to me and demonstrated it's abilities to my satisfaction, then I would believe.
That doesn't mean I would worship it or that I would believe anything that mere humans have written about it.
I would worship it if it told me it would hurt me if I didn't, but I would do so for anything more powerful than me and I wouldn't really mean it.
If someone demonstrated that this god had deceived me with magic tricks I would go back to not believing in it.
I call this 'commonsense atheism'. I don't personally need any other big words  or complicated jargon to describe it. :-)

My sentiments, exactly, although, I refer to it as "agnostic atheism" (not knowing and not believing).