[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Belacqua]

I personally have no problem with anyone adopting a position because it's comforting for them, 

The trouble I see is that people sometimes assume this is the reason why positions are adopted, without really knowing. So you've got zillions of Christians and other religious people believing a wide variety of things for a wide variety of reasons, and somebody will just announce "they believe that because it's comforting." Well, maybe, but we don't really know. And it's not good to pretend we can do mind-reading.

After all, some Christians do their own mind-reading, and announce that atheists deep down really do believe in god, but adopt an atheist position because it's comforting to think there's no judgment. 

I don't want to do that kind of thing.

but as soon as one comes here to defend such position and in such a confident manner, then they're acting like it's intellectual and it's understandable to expect them to back up their position with something concrete rather than arguing from ignorance or appealing to their personal intuitions ... 

Yes, indeed. People will come here and confidently proclaim that their position is correct, based on their mind-reading. Or their intuitions. 

I would like people to back up what they say with intellectual arguments and concrete evidence. Somebody here was making a classic argument from ignorance just yesterday: "I don't know of any evidence therefore I am sure the thing doesn't exist." If it's bad for Christians to use logical fallacies, then it's bad for us too. 

or adopting naive and clearly false understanding of cognitive/developmental social/psychological phenomena ...

This is a constant problem. 

For example, it's been frequently and confidently asserted that religion is a failed attempt to explain natural phenomena, and that it started out 100% literalist and due to the advancement of science had to be converted to figurative. 

This is an over-simple, almost certainly false understanding of complex social/psychological stuff.

---

Just now on another thread, the poster called Simon Moon wrote this:

I agree with others, there is no reason to take the position that there is no soul, in a debate. Why take on the burden of proof, unnecessarily?

Here, he is agreeing with Acrobat and me that if you positively assert the non-existence of something, you take on a burden of proof.

On that thread he is arguing against the existence of a soul. Since his position is generally anti-religion/superstition, his statement about a burden of proof won't be challenged, I expect.