05-16-2019, 06:30 PM
(05-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Indeed, you didn't. That was a mistake on my part, as I read it incorrectly.
This is where you are mistaking my stance - and maybe it's my fault for not explaining well enough - and perhaps it's causing some confusion in our exchanges. I don't hold the position that there "isn't a God". My position is that I have yet to find sufficient reason - from my perspective - to justify believing there is one.
There's a big difference between declaring X is not the case and having insufficient reasons to think X is the case.
Just because I currently think it seems unlikely that X is the case, it does not mean that X could not be the case.
The difference between an agnostic atheist and an atheist is slight, not big. It's just a spoonful of uncertainty to make the afterlife go down. But, I was giving an example of a presupposition, not classifying your belief as I did just now. Another example: there is no evidence to support a belief in god. Restated as a presupposition: there is no god.
Quote:Are you offended in some way by the practice of exploring people's rationalizations, justifications and evidences (if they offer)? They are free to answer or not answer as they choose. I find the best conversations are those not restrained by limitations on what can and can't be asked.
What makes you think I'm offended by exploring your justifications? No limits and all.
Quote:Are you stating, that because I've yet to find any compelling evidences of any nature in past conversations and interactions, that I should therefore not continue to seek possible examples in the future discussions with different people?
You've explored "countless" examples of evidence spanning the entire course of human history and have yet to encounter a single piece of convincing evidence. As I stated before, if you're looking for evidence to make you believe then you miss the point. I think you know that.
Quote:Your request for me to "demonstrate" non-belief would be a bit more applicable - although still nonsensical - if I had asked anyone to demonstrate the opposite.
If you told me that you have found insufficient reasons - to this point - to believe that Bigfoot exists, and I asked you to demonstrate your lack belief in Bigfoot, that would be rather silly on my part, wouldn't you say?
Others here have a belief. You asked for evidence of their belief. Your "non-belief" in their belief is a belief in and of itself. I asked you for evidence of your belief. There is no difference between my call for evidence and your call for evidence. You were just confused by my use of "non-". So can you demonstrate the evidence of your belief? Your belief is based upon the same amount of evidence as their belief.
You wrote, "Personally, if it can't be demonstrated, I feel non-belief in such a proposition is the justifiable default." Can you demonstrate there isn't a god or gods? No, you can't. Therefore, you believe in something even though it can't be demonstrated. Does that mean you're going to default to non-belief in the proposition there is no reason to believe there is a god or gods? Probably not. Which means you believe in something which can't be demonstrated due to a lack of evidence.
Your lack of evidence won't convince them. Their lack of evidence won't convince you. Why? Because we all have the same evidence; none. No one has any evidence about what happens after we die. So we're are all going to believe what we are going to believe based upon a complete lack of evidence. Including you. You're not going to find enlightenment on a football message board. Which brings me back full circle to where are you going with this and why?
