The default position...

[George-ananda]

See that lines up with the default position though, we do not accept anything without sufficient reasoning and evidence.
So when someone tries to add something without both of those to what we believe they have to fill in the blanks.
They have to insert the evidence for us to insert the belief, if you understand what I'm saying?

I have terrible soft skills sometimes....

Yes, I understand what you are saying. One point is maybe about this idea that someone else has to convince you away from the default position of believing in only that which is within the range of your senses; I think we need to be self-motivated and want to consider all the evidence and argumentation and form our view on what is most reasonable on our own.

My default position is curiosity. I'm not going to stand with my arms folded saying: Prove It.

 

[outhouse]

It is to my research of the default position that I have discovered the atheistic default position is what prevents most atheists from having a BOP (Burden of Proof).

BoP is not required.

Most people do not understand implicit atheism is the default position.

 

[outhouse]

Note 2: A BOP is necessary for anyone making a claim, atheists and skeptics are not making a claim they are denying it.

Not always in denial. One can be an atheist without a conscious rejection of theism.

As an atheist I am making a claim. A claim that only man makes gods in mythology. There is a proven track record of men creating gods in mythology, and factually only man has defined the concepts, yes plural concepts that is used as evidence for mans creation only.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I think we know it is not provable or disprovable by now; so the burden of proof doesn't really mean anything in this case. In the end we each take our position as to what is the most reasonable belief considering all evidence and argumentation.

That would depend strongly on the actual claims being made.
A god that answers prayers, for example, IS moving into the realm of testable, or one that interacts with the material world in any meaningful way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So the default position has recently come to my attention in my long hours of surfing the web.

It is to my research of the default position that I have discovered the atheistic default position is what prevents most atheists from having a BOP (Burden of Proof).
It is most certainly and interesting idea that has received a high level of attention from me personally.

The default position, in terms of atheism and skepticism, states that as an atheist or skeptic we only believe in what we know to be factual or true or what has a large amount of sufficient evidence, such as gravity. When someone tries to force in an idea, such as a God or set of Gods, they must first present the password aka the proof of existence. If such evidence cannot be presented then it cannot be accepted as reality.

Note 1: This does not mean to say that atheist and skeptics say, "God(s) is not real". More along the lines of, "it cannot be proven".

Note 2: A BOP is necessary for anyone making a claim, atheists and skeptics are not making a claim they are denying it.

Note 3: Atheist: http://www.defineatheism.com/#atheist Skeptic: Skepticism | Definition of skepticism by Merriam-Webster

So, finally, my question.

Can the default position be used vice versa?

I would like to know specifically if it would be possible for a theist to turn the default position in their favor.

Thank you for viewing my thread, let the debates begin!

Can't argue from silence.

 

[Bunyip]

I understand, I'm not saying they are the same just that they are alike.
Kind of how religions as big as Christianity have different sects with only slightly different beliefs.

Here'show it works;

Atheism/theism speaks to what a person BELIEVES, Gnostic/agnostic speaks to what a person KNOWS.

Most atheists are agnostic. There are gnostic and agnostic theists, and gnostic and agnostic atheists.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I was at a wedding all day today so I was not able to reply to any comments sent to me.
I'll get right on that now.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. One point is maybe about this idea that someone else has to convince you away from the default position of believing in only that which is within the range of your senses; I think we need to be self-motivated and want to consider all the evidence and argumentation and form our view on what is most reasonable on our own.

My default position is curiosity. I'm not going to stand with my arms folded saying: Prove It.

I don't think you could ever leap to a belief in magic on the basis of reason. It is not what is 'most reasonable, that is not good reasoning.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes, both are true therefore equally valid to prove until the truth of one becomes excluded...see shrodinger...

The default position deals with likelihood...evidence is put forth and discredited constantly...my question would be what type of likelihood are we dealing with that regardless of the "evidence" which is accepted or rejected leaves us at a perpetual default position? So, I don't think it is true that people actually stay at the default position. People may claim such, but I think we can all agree that we cannot choose what to believe. More than likely people claim they sit at the default position when they in fact fall to one side or the other. That is they either believe some God exists or they believe no gods exist.

Alright so the way it was described to me verbally may make sense to you.

"We all are a part of the default position in some way or another, seeing that it deals only in what you can see, hear, feel, and what is logically sound.
Anything outside of the default position is not factual or logically sound, if I could break it down into simpler terms I would, trust me.
So it's basically objective vs subjective all over again... Just with a bit more of a structure I suppose." -James10TheGun

So the default position is basically the preventive measure from accepting an opinion as a fact, it's saying, "prove it first".

An objective structure does not have an opinion, and this one in particular denies opinions.
Only facts or things very close to facts are allowed in.
So it's that voice in your head saying, "where's the proof" when you hear some outlandish tall tale.

I hope I made sense, I have terrible soft skills.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think you may be saying something here that sends waves of shudders over the ranks of atheists. Exactly what is entailed in being a "practitioner" of atheism? I know this plays straight into the hands of those who make the claim that modern atheism is actually a religion of sorts. Does this "practice" of atheism involve ritual forms and doctrinal beliefs, such as lighting candles in front of a photo of Richard Dawkins and a daily devotional reading of The God Delusion? Are you a "true follower"?

The language itself here, of being a "follower and practitioner of atheism", makes it sound that atheism, at least in how you speak of it, is a replacement for Christian beliefs and practices. Atheism is not mere disbelief, but something you follow and practice. These are your words. Food for thought?

I'm certain that how I meant it was implied.
Don't look for the black box in the dark room, you wont find it because it's not there.
But I suppose you can think how you want, just don't put words in my mouth when you do so.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. One point is maybe about this idea that someone else has to convince you away from the default position of believing in only that which is within the range of your senses; I think we need to be self-motivated and want to consider all the evidence and argumentation and form our view on what is most reasonable on our own.

My default position is curiosity. I'm not going to stand with my arms folded saying: Prove It.

Your default position is what is factual, what can be seen, heard, prove, logically sound, blah blah blah.
I've explained this already so I don't feel like doing it again, but I will :T .

Basically it's your sense of fact and opinion, just because you may accept an opinion, such as a God claim, will not make it a fact.
Not until it can be proven so.

All I want to know is, is there a turn around statement for the default position?

Every time you hear a friend tell a blatant lie you want to say, "prove it then", right?
That's your default position, what he is saying doesn't seem to be true to you so you want him to prove it.
So I want to know if there is a way for that friend to say, "prove I didn't" and get away with it.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm certain that how I meant it was implied.
Don't look for the black box in the dark room, you wont find it because it's not there.
But I suppose you can think how you want, just don't put words in my mouth when you do so.

I didn't put words into your mouth. You explicitly stated them. It's was pretty much impossible for me not to call them out since they were so bare upon the table as you chose to word it. Too bad you aren't willing to acknowledge this?

 

[Deathbydefault]

I didn't put words into your mouth. You pretty explicitly stated them. It's was pretty much impossible not to call them out. Too bad you aren't willing to acknowledge this?

Ehm, I did?

Look I can be a practitioner of eating my favorite cereal.
I can follow the belief that murder is bad.

So just because I may "practice" or "follow" atheism does not mean I do so in a religious manor, nor do I have to.

 

[Windwalker]

So just because I may "practice" or "follow" atheism does not mean I do so in a religious manor, nor do I have to.

Do you not understand how Christian this language is applied to atheism? Who or what are you "following"??? What are you "practicing" in "following" atheism? Explain.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Do you not understand how Christian this language is applied to atheism? Who or what are you "following"??? What are you "practicing" in "following" atheism? Explain.

Yes I can understand how you might see it the way you do, I didn't think about that at first.
The Christian mindset is not my own so I can be careless with terminology sometimes.

But the way it may be taken is not the way I have intended it to be taken.
If someone, such as you, has an issue with the wording I will happily correct such things.

Sorry to jump to conclusions about you, I have been in an argument with a bigot in another thread so when I get questioned like that I reply that way on instinct.
But the way I had intended my wording to be taken stands, and will continue to stand, as is.

I follow the practice of disbelieving in something when it does not give me sufficient enough evidence to believe.
Therefore I may be considered an atheist .

That ^^^^ was my intended meaning.

 

[Windwalker]

The Christian mindset is not my own so I can be careless with terminology sometimes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did mention you had left the Christian religion? If so, I'd offer friendly advice that you shouldn't underestimate the influence that has on the very way in which people think and perceive things after leaving the faith. It's not just a matter of changing beliefs, which is relatively easy. It's a matter of an entire mode of perception and way of thinking which takes years and years of very self-aware effort to even begin to change. Most just think they no longer think in these terms because they are no longer a theist. That's really not the case. It's a lot more deeply rooted and ingrained than that, and that make people uncomfortable to hear that as they think they've "overcome" all that.

I'll share one quick story to make this point. A friend of mine whom I had graduated from Bible college with many years ago, who like me had left that religion were out having lunch together. As a now self-proclaimed atheist he said to me looking back at those earlier days, "I'm so glad I know the truth now!". I paused and looked at him then answered to challenge him purposefully, "I remember you and I saying the same thing when we were students together back in Bible College". He stopped cold for a moment and responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth". You see? Had the mindset actually changed yet? No, I don't believe so. Only the beliefs changed.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did mention you had left the Christian religion? If so, I'd offer friendly advice that you shouldn't underestimate the influence that has on the very way in which people think and perceive things after leaving the faith. It's not just a matter of changing beliefs, which is relatively easy. It's a matter of an entire mode of perception and way of thinking which takes years and years of very self-aware effort to even begin to change. Most just think they no longer think in these terms because they are no longer a theist. That's really not the case. It's a lot more deeply rooted and ingrained than that, and that make people uncomfortable to hear that as they think they've "overcome" all that.

I'll share one quick story to make this point. A friend of mine whom I had graduated from Bible college with many years ago, who like me had left that religion were out having lunch together. As a now self-proclaimed atheist he said to me looking back at those earlier days, "I'm so glad I know the truth now!". I paused and looked at him then answered to challenge him purposefully, "I remember you and I saying the same thing when we were students together back in Bible College". He stopped cold for a moment and responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth". You see? Had the mindset actually changed yet? No, I don't believe so. Only the beliefs changed.

Well me "leaving" is a technicality on my part.
I naturally question things and have always been unsatisfied with half assed answers.

So I was a Christian until I was maybe 7.
Hardly old enough to start thinking about big issues.
But to me they were never big issues, just questions they couldn't answer for me.
My priest never liked being asked, "how do you know you aren't wrong?"

Even when I believed in the Christian faith I hated it.
My parents are fundamentalists and my mother is a control freak.
So Christian ideology being shoved down my throat literally on a daily basis was not the way to bring me over to their side.

Her actions towards me have also caused me some mental issues, as I have recently had diagnosed.
But that's for another time.

I had never really questioned a "God" because I had no reason to, the area I lived in and my life style revolved around that.
As soon as I got into books (I've loved reading for as long as I can remember) I realized that there are other things out there.
My opinions changed with my level of knowledge, eventually leading me to apatheism.

So to say something on the lines of, "it sticks with you" is only accurate in some areas.
The only thing that has stuck with me religion wise is a hatred for whichever Christian brainwashed my mother into disowning me,
and simply because I don't believe the same thing as her.

I still live with her, sadly.
I am 17 after all, but 1 more month and I'm out.
I've been paying for my own food almost every day and my college too.
I've also been kicked out several times, only to be brought back by police.

Blah blah blah. My life is sad. Who cares.
Back to topic.

The only Christian thoughts I have now are of a biased distaste.
I realize that is biased and refuse to make an effort to change it.

So, was my response sufficient in answering any doubts about how I think?

 

[Curious George]

All I want to know is, is there a turn around statement for the default position?

Every time you hear a friend tell a blatant lie you want to say, "prove it then", right?
That's your default position, what he is saying doesn't seem to be true to you so you want him to prove it.
So I want to know if there is a way for that friend to say, "prove I didn't" and get away with it.

I tried to answer this for you in the first sentence of my post...Yes the is a turn around. Shrodinger showed us that it is just as viable to see multiple truths until one is disproved. So you say prove it...your friend says disprove it. Either way works logically.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I tried to answer this for you in the first sentence of my post...Yes the is a turn around. Shrodinger showed us that it is just as viable to see multiple truths until one is disproved. So you say prove it...your friend says disprove it. Either way works logically.

I understand that part, lol.
I want to know if there is already a set up system similar to the default position that a theist may use to defend the "why don't you disprove it" statement.

 

[Curious George]

I understand that part, lol.
I want to know if there is already a set up system similar to the default position that a theist may use to defend the "why don't you disprove it" statement.

I would assume that it is the id v creation...that both are equally true and therefore need to teach both. If one only has the default position, then I am not sure one can refute such a process...

It certainly allows for the theist or the atheist to say disprove it...but I don't think that a similar system exists where the truth of one of x possibilities is assumed and that person can say "disprove" it while not saying the same for the others.

I think the closest thing we have to that are ideas which are necessarily assumed. For instance the truth of inductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning for proof and is not logically sound because it begs the question. Similarly, notions of existence "I think therefore I am" must be accepted as true because without these base assumptions we cannot get any further in our inquiry...I assume a similar assumption of God might be put forward, but I don't think any exceptionally persuasive one has.