There is indeed a presumption of atheism

Yesterday someone  left this comment on my post, "Sorry. No winner in 'Tell me why you believe in God contest.'"

There are arguments for theism. There are arguments for atheism. The failure of arguments for one side, does not mean that the other position is true by default. There is no "presumption of atheism" or "presumption of theism."

The commenter is completely wrong. What they said lacks any foundation in logic, reason, or direct experience.

I talk about this a lot on this blog. Almost always there's no way to prove the non-existence of something. What we do in both science and everyday life is demand proof that something exists.

If you say, "There's an invisible pink elephant standing on the sidewalk," it's absurd to consider that this statement is as believable as "There's no invisible pink elephant standing on the sidewalk."

Why? Because once we assume that things unseen and unprovable possess as much reality as things seen and provable, we've lost touch with reality. 

That's another word for psychosis. 

Now, it's unlikely the commenter is psychotic. They just have a deficiency in clear thinking, which is very different from being mentally ill.

That's why I'm writing this post -- to help them, and others, understand where they are going wrong in their approach to reality.

Glad to help! That's what we do here at the Church of the Churchless, help bring people back into touch with reality after wandering in the desert of religious delusion.

Hey, I've been a wanderer myself before I understood in what direction truth lies.

Atheism is the presumptive truth because there is no demonstrable evidence that any of the thousands of gods theorized to exist actually does. Atheism simply means "no theism" or "no god."

Likewise, no invisible pink elephants is the presumptive truth because there is no demonstrable evidence that such creatures exist -- except in the minds of people who claim that they see them.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

The way science actually works is acknowledging some effect, creating theories about its existence, and testable hypotheses about its causes.

No where in science is there any presumption that something doesn't exist simply because it hasn't been tested or appears invisible.

Pink elephants may exist. But first the question must be raised as to what effect do they have that might be measured?

The very fact that someone sees them means they may exist. They could exist in the imagination. That is real. What caused that vision?

If you claim pink elephants exist as a scientist I cannot disagree. If you want me to believe it, then I will ask for evidence of its effect that can be tested by others.

What I cannot do is say that simply because they are invisible to me they don't exist. That is equally unscientific. I can say they are invisible to me and in my realm of reality testing I can't locate their effect.

Subatomic particles are invisible. Gravity is invisible. Oxygen is invisible. So many invisible things have been proven. Invisibility is no argument for non - existence.

Most of the things science has proven exist weren't known three hundred years ago. And science has provided evidence that we are discovering more every day. They're is more in this universe we don't know than we do. Where people get it wrong is trying to use science to say something doesn't exist. That's scientism. The political subversion of science to defend another unproven belief.

If there is a God, if there is universal consciousness, if there is a soul, science will prove it in time. But as with all scientific findings, the definition of God, Death, Soul and Life, as well as consciousness, will likely be dramatically different from the common notions of today.

[Spence Tepper]

Let me go further on this point. What science has proven exists today is radically different than what both religion and science thought just a few hundred years ago.

When people said for millennia "nothing is there" science has proven something is there.

[Spence Tepper]

And finally, as one example, though many claimed to have seen UFOs, the evidence did not hold up under inspection. There were flights of imagination, doctored videos, but no real hard evidence for decades.

Then, just a few years ago, the military released footage of aircraft and submerged craft that moved in ways we have no known technology to duplicate.

UFOs are real.

But exactly what they are, where the technology came from, what their design or purpose is no one knows. We only know that no known technology can perform such acrobatics at such speeds.

And there is enough corroborated evidence to prove that much.

People who don't like the unknown, have no respect for it or interest in it, dismiss it as "hallucination" and "hoax". People who need conclusive answers, and so cling to the popular or convenient explanations, though unproven, have no comfortable place in science or the search for truth.

[Dungeness]

@ BrianJi "Likewise, no invisible pink elephants is the presumptive truth because there is no demonstrable evidence that such creatures exist -- except in the minds of people who claim that they see them."

Remaining agnostic is safer particularly if the 'delusionist' says there's
a way to experience the same 'pink elephants' yourself. That assumes
you remain dubious even though no alcohol/hallucinogens are required
and they guarantee you will wake up without a hangover.

Similarly, mystics say there is a method of experiencing inner realms
and a transcendent 'self' through intense mindfulness and devotion.
The elusiveness of the mystic goal and that 'demonstrable evidence'
must be apprehended within -in consciousness itself and not outwardly
in the physical world- doesn't invalidate the claim.

[S]

Beliefs are thought systems. If you experience/see/feel positive results from your particular thoughts, then that’s probably all the proof you need.

[Tendzin]

Let me answer the God question this way:

Let's say I had to hand my wallet over for safekeeping to one of 2 people I didn't know.

One was an atheist, and the other was a Mormon.

I would choose the Mormon every time.

That's despite the fact that Mormonism is so far out as a Christian sect, some don't even consider it Christian. For God's sake, Mormons believe that God has a physical body and was once a human man.

Nevertheless, I would automatically choose to trust the Mormon because the odds are he/she is more trustworthy and honest than the average person. (Some would counter that Joseph Smith was the biggest liar who ever came down the pike, but somehow he created a religious culture that is abundantly moral).

If given the same choice between trusting an atheist or an RSSB initiate, again, I'd choose the initiate. If I dropped my wallet on the Dera grounds, I'd be way more likely to get it back than if it dropped it on the streets of Los Angeles or NY.

People of faith are demonstrably more trustworthy than the average person. Communities of faith usually produce cultures that produce productive people of mortal integrity and sound psychological health.

[S]

The Mormons of today are pretty amazing. I’ve had the pleasure of working with several on charity projects. That said, I’m not going to start drinking their kool-aide. But, I agree, good people. Same for a lot of faiths.

But it’s not the atheist I worry about. Typically confirmed atheists and agnostics have conviction. It’s the I-don’t-even-care-to-think-about-whether-god-exists-or-not people that I worry about. And the pagans—they freak me out a little.

[Osho Robbins]

For some strange reason very few people actually understand that position of the atheist.

for clarity - watch this at 4 mins in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3aVhJTvKM

Here's the mis-understanding

many people think that the atheist is making a claim. He is not.
That is why it is the default position.

claim: There IS a God and his name is Allah.

non-claim (default position): I don't believe you - so prove it
This is what the atheist is saying. he is not saying the following:

There IS NO God! God does NOT exist (That is a claim and now the
claimer has the burden of proof since he is making a claim)

By contrast - the atheist is NOT making a claim
His is expressing DISBELIEF (Not DENYING) the theist claim
Those two are very different.

It is the different between saying in a court:

X was caught red-handed and is GUILTY (He did the crime)
for this to stand - the prosecution has to produce PROOF

The jury says: We are NOT SURE - so give us proof.
If the proof is not sufficient - the jury says NOT GUILTY
note that this DOES NOT MEAN that X is INNOCENT.
He MIGHT well be guilty but not enough proof has been presented.

The defense team does NOT have to PROVE INNOCENCE.
They only have to show that the proof is not foolproof.
That there are holes in the argument of guilt.
The DEFAULT position is NOT GUILTY (not the same as innocent)

practically it might appear that NOT GUILTY is the same as INNOCENT because it means that X goes free!
X MAY WELL have done the deed and still goes free because there was insufficient proof.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
"non-claim (default position): I don't believe you - so prove it
This is what the atheist is saying. he is not saying the following:

" There IS NO God! God does NOT exist (That is a claim and now the
claimer has the burden of proof since he is making a claim)

" By contrast - the atheist is NOT making a claim
His is expressing DISBELIEF (Not DENYING) the theist claim
Those two are very different."

I think these are confusing two concepts.

It begins with your statement
"I don't believe you."

That is the default position regarding another belief, different from one's own. But one's own belief is something different.

So this response of "I don't believe you" can apply to everyone presented with a different view of their own. What is that actual view they do believe in?

Let's review a few positions that are possible.

1. I believe in a different version of God.

2. I believe there is no God.

3. I have not seen compelling evidence either way (for or against a belief in God).

4.I believe in something divine. There is compelling evidence of something, but not with enough clarity to define for me a precise view of divinity.

All of these are honorable positions, but each may have their prejudices in viewing other positions.

[Osho Robbins]

Hi Spence
you wrote
"What is that actual view they do believe in?"

the answer is - it is irrelevant.
The atheist is saying : I disbelieve YOUR claim of a God - so prove it.
He is NOT saying anything at all about HIS OWN BELIEF.
if you watch the same video at 1:50 from the start - the caller is expressing exactly your point: saying that "You have your own belief which is that God does NOT exist"
and Matt is saying : NO I am not - and then adds - actually I will make that claim (which is a separate issue : it now becomes a claim) but - and he clarifies - I am not doing that and then he goes into great detail saying: If I say NOT A (where A = God exists, for example) - then I don't have to follow up with B (another claim) or C (yet another claim). I can just say NOT A. That is what the atheist is saying.

I can see what you are saying but this is just about the definition of an atheist.

Theist: There IS a God
A-theist: I don't accept your claim without proof - so give me proof and I will accept your view
to complicate things further,
there is a STRONG ATHEIST who DOES make a claim
he says: There IS NO GOD - this is a CLAIM and therefore the burden of proof is on him to present evidence of his position.

In the lengthy discussion with Appreciative Reader - I made a claim - namely that the ONENESS is real (exists). I further said "I KNOW it" which is a very difficult position to defend. Hence AR is asking HOW I know - what is the mechanism, because through every known mechanism, such a claim is absurd. Especially if we go into epistemology of knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Y3utIeTPg

What makes my claim especially absurd is that "exists" cannot apply to what I am claiming (ONENESS) because by it's nature it is not within time - and anything outside of time cannot exist (as far as we are concerned) because the very meaning of "exists" is that it MUST be within time and space,

To claim that something outside of time and space actually exists is absurd because that which is outside of time and space cannot communicate with someone within time and space. If it did - it would now be part of time and space (phenomena) whereas I am talking about non-phenomena or non-duality. AR is logically correct in his position.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
" : I disbelieve YOUR claim of a God - so prove it."

Ah the burden of Sysiphus.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Osho
You wrote
"To claim that something outside of time and space actually exists is absurd because that which is outside of time and space..."

It has to do with set theory and its natural reflections in reality. In which yes things do exist outside time and space. That is the only means by which time and space can be defined. Time and space only exists because no time or space also exists in the same place.

As I discussed earlier about Calculus, moments exist as a summation of discrete points in time and space that have no actual time or distance of themselves.

Reality could not exist without them.

[Dungeness]

@ Osho: "What makes my claim especially absurd is that "exists" cannot apply to what I am claiming (ONENESS) because by it's nature it is not within time - and anything outside of time cannot exist (as far as we are concerned) because the very meaning of "exists" is that it MUST be within time and space,"

We use the words of a language only to hint at truth. They're imperfect
naturally and can't convey the ineffability of a state of 'being' or 'is-ness'
beyond time or space. But, without them, would be no mechanism for
suggesting there's a timeless state for instance. No way out of this trap
of confusion about the limitations words themselves impose.

So this 'oneness' does 'exist' despite the head-spinning contradictions
that words wrap it in. It's the start of the journey, however, fraught with
misunderstanding. That's what's important for a mystic to convey. That's
there's a practice to realize the truth. One leading from darkness to light.

[Spence Tepper]

"A-theist: I don't accept your claim without proof - so give me proof and I will accept your view"

Let's amend this with a touch of reality :
.. "Give me proof that doesn't actually meet a standard I don't actually use for everyday life or any of my other beliefs, but which, setting, by definition eliminates the possibility of any other view but my own, and if you actually can provide evidence that meets that standard no I won't believe it. I'll just invent another reason it doesn't pass my standard, geared as it is conveniently to support my current view. "

This doesn't just apply to Atheism. It applies to all of us who carry strong opinions regardless of what they are. The stronger we cling to them, the less rational we become.

[Spence Tepper]

One more point about noon - existence.

The number zero is a perfect example. It cannot exist in what we perceive as reality yet without it nothing else can... There can be no size or time without zero.

I have zero dollars on my pocket. That is both an impossibility and a very real condition.

When you can see the whole you see it must include and does include zero.

The negative space is equal to creating space.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello again, Osho Robbins.

I hope you won't mind if I revisit one or two things here from that discussion, that you bring up here. No, not another interminable comment-slug-fest, just a single comment from me, that you may choose to answer as you like, or not answer at all. I leave this comment here because I'm genuinely curious about this, but I don't want to force the issue beyond just asking this one last time here.

.

Quote Osho Robbins:

"In the lengthy discussion with Appreciative Reader - I made a claim - namely that the ONENESS is real (exists). I further said "I KNOW it" which is a very difficult position to defend. Hence AR is asking HOW I know - what is the mechanism, because through every known mechanism, such a claim is absurd. Especially if we go into epistemology of knowledge."

---------------------------Going into a general framework of the epistemology of knowledge would have added greater clarity to the discussion, which is why I'd introduced it. But, and like I'd clarified a few times towards the end, there is no reason to invoke that framework, a bare-bones explanation can be brought in without any reference to it.

You never did answer my question : What is that mechanism?

Sure, it isn't some "known mechanism", as you'd said then. Okay, but still, what IS that mechanism, even if unknown?

It doesn't have to be a detailed explanation, if that is difficult.

It was a simple question : What mechanism resulted in knowledge of Oneness, hitherto absent, manifesting itself to you at that point in time?

Why don't you have a go at answering that, however tentatively?

(And if you don't know, just say it. Just say you don't know. That won't devalue your Oneness, it will only mean that somehow that knowledge came to you, and you can't explain how. And that can admit of delusion, certainly; but that can also admit of some bona fide but as yet inexplicable epistemology.)

.

Quote Osho Robbins again:

"What makes my claim especially absurd is that "exists" cannot apply to what I am claiming (ONENESS) because by it's nature it is not within time - and anything outside of time cannot exist (as far as we are concerned) because the very meaning of "exists" is that it MUST be within time and space,

To claim that something outside of time and space actually exists is absurd because that which is outside of time and space cannot communicate with someone within time and space. If it did - it would now be part of time and space (phenomena) whereas I am talking about non-phenomena or non-duality. AR is logically correct in his position."

...........................Well, thank you for so readily admitting this, and agreeing with my POV (that's clearly contrary to yours), but that does raise the question : Why do you keep claiming this, then? This claim that you agree is not defensible, why make it to others?

And, at a more fundamental level, and forgetting for the moment the pesky Appreciative Readers of the world : given that you agree that your claim is not defensible, why do you make that claim even to yourself?

(You've had some experience. Why not stop right there, and, until such time as you can formulate some rational means of defending this, why not stop claiming this Oneness worldview EVEN TO YOURSELF? That is what seems to me to be the sane and rational thing to do. Certainly that's what I'd do, if I myself somehow, maybe with the help of you or someone like you, managed to replicate that experience.)

[Osho Robbins]

Hi Appreciative
I have replied to this in open thread 39

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Osho Robbins.

Yep, saw your comments. You're right, these comments belong in the Open Thread, rather than here. I've already responded, in that thread.

-------------------------

Like I said, in my response in Open Thread 39, we need first and foremost to be clear about the role of rationality in all of this. I totally disagree with your fundamental assumption --- which is precisely the argument that was at the base of those comments of manjit in Open Thread 38, that I took issue with --- that your Oneness is somehow outside of the reach of rationality.

Like I said there, that discussion on rationality is another discussion, for another day. And for another thread (an Open Thread, not here.) Nevertheless, now that I'm typing this here, I'd like to take this opportunity to show you right here, right now, through a very brief argumentum ad absurdum how entirely misguided are your ideas on rationality vis-a-vis Oneness (and manjit's as well, with his talk of Oceans and thimbles and whatnot).

-------------------------

You go ahead and glibly talk of soft atheism and hard atheism and whatnot. All well-crafted arguments, and arguments I myself I agree with. Arguments you've made in this thread itself.

Well, this argument of this-is-outside-of-time-and-space-and-so-outside-the-reach-of-your-logic-and-your-science that you make for Oneness is not a new one. It has long been made for God, The God of the Bible, I mean to say. God is outside of time and place, goes that argument, and therefore, while science is a tool that is properly used to understand things of this world, but God is outside of its scope. Sure, the Trinity does not make sense, sure Jesus being God's son, and yet Jesus being God, doesn't make sense. That's because your "sense" cannot fathom God, who is beyond rationality.

The God of the Bible cannot be known by any means that our rationality knows. He reveals Himself to prophets, like Abraham, and Moses. He sends His son down to earth. His angel Gibrael speaks to Mohammed. It is pointless to ask for the mechanism by which these things were made known, because that knowledge is outside of time and space, and outside of known modes of knowledge, and outside of the purview of rationality.

Therefore, going by your POV, you are committing utter blasphemy in speaking so glibly of the nature of theism and atheism, as you do in this thread, in terms of epistemology.

-------------------------

This brief argumentum ad absurdum ought to be sufficient to show you how entirely misguided are your views on rationality vis-a-vis Oneness. Your claiming that Oneness is outside of the scope of rationality is no more than a rehashing of the Separate-Magesteria position that theists (specifically, Christian apologists) have long advanced to try to fend off their irrational faith from the increasingly longer reaches of science.

If the above has not shown you the spectacular double standards you employ in your reasoning, then I guess that would be another long discussion, focused on the role of rationality. Let us leave that discussion for another day, and another thread.

But the upshot of all of this is : While I continue to be very interested indeed in the experience you'd had, nevertheless I find your worldview of Oneness entirely insupportable. I don't see that it makes any sense to hold that worldview, even granted that your experience itself had been bona fide.

I will not quarrel with your holding that view, no more than I will question the right of the RSSB faithful or the Jesus worshipers or the Allah worshipers to follow their own irrational beliefs in private. But I don't see, basis our lengthy discussions, that your own POV is any more reasonable than theirs. I don't see there is any basis for the special pleading you employ for your Oneness, even as you readily (and correctly) criticize the irrational beliefs of theists of other stripe, like the RSSB folks and the Christians and the Muslims.

[um]

@ AR

Abraham, Mozes and other prophets had inner and outer visions in which, according their testimony, god or an angel, informed them and commanded them.

That way they were given to understand, that the Hebrews were Gods chosen people and that they had to live in a given place and in a given way, all to be found in the books that were written on the command of those character figuring in the visions.

It make no sense, to doubt that they had these visions and the content thereof.

The only thing possible is the discussion about the cause of these visions. Written history tells us that there was never an confirmative vision in other people. W

What made me say time and again .... it is alright that god informed these people but he certainly forgot to inform me to heed their words and "me" can be replaced by any other.

We also can learn from history that those who had these type of experiences are in no position other that to believe that the vision was caused by the person that appeared in the vision.

So discussion with these people is also useless.

What remains are the believers, those who believe these prophets on their word.
With them debate is also useless... if people think otherwise, I would suggest them to have a discussion with them about who owes the land of Palestine. Moreover believing what prophets have to say is problem solving in such an way it otherwise would not be found.

I just use the fate of the Hebrews as an example, otherwise the same mechanisms are to be found everywhere else.

And AR you are the one that makes his choices as with whom to debate about rationalism.... the choices serve you in a subjective way and are all but rational.

But again ... you are a stanch warrior and you will find certainly the answer some time but it will probably be different from what you ever imagined.

[umami]

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Ever seen that bumper sticker?

It epitomizes the worst of religion--complete and utter bullheadedness! Presume God all you want, but don't presume to know God's mind, because unless you're a bona fide mystic, you don't know what "God said." All you really know are the stories other people said about what God said, and then you're on the hamster wheel of scripture and a priesthood.

I've known atheist jerks, but the "godly" make international headlines on a daily basis. Words alone never really "settle it," because theocracy, repression and violence always hover. Ask an LGBTQ person. Ask a woman. Ask a refugee.

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"
--William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

[Appreciative Reader]

"It make no sense, to doubt that they had these visions and the content thereof."

.................I'd say it does make sense to doubt everything about those accounts, um.

To begin with, what are the odds that any of these stories are even true? The historicity of the Bible is, to say the least, extremely questionable.

Secondly: Even if it is true that, for instance, Moses came down the that hill with his account of his vision, who is to say that he wasn't plain lying, for reasons of his own?

Thirdly: Even if it were true that he wasn't lying, who is to say he wasn't deluded? For all we know he could be a nut job, or given to chewing on hallucinogenic roots, or maybe he was an epileptic, and all of that was no more than a raging hallucination.

Yes, there is a fourth option as well: that he was a real figure, and that he wasn't lying, and that he hand't hallucinated all of that. In which case, you could say, sure, that he did have those vision, and that, as you say, we then discuss the nature of his visions.

But by no means is even that much, that he did have visions, established.

.

"And AR you are the one that makes his choices as with whom to debate about rationalism.... the choices serve you in a subjective way and are all but rational.

But again ... you are a stanch warrior and you will find certainly the answer some time but it will probably be different from what you ever imagined."

.................Please don't embarrass me by inflating my humble attempts to reason things out for myself! :--) All I'm doing is trying to make sense, for myself, what seems plausible and what not ; so that I may further investigate for myself, experientially, those options that look the most promising as well as most doable. That's all there's to it. No big deal, at all. (Although absolutely, I'm entirely serious about this. This thing is, absolutely, important to me.)

You're right, though. Should I ever be so lucky as to reach some definitive answer, then it could well be something entirely beyond my conception. Thank you for your kind words, um. Life is short enough, and uncertain enough, and our lucidity even more so. I would be blest indeed if your words prove true, and such should come to pass.

[um]

@ AR

[1] To begin with, what are the odds that any of these stories are even true? The historicity of the Bible is, to say the least, extremely questionable.

Yes it is

[2] Secondly: Even if it is true that, for instance, Moses came down the that hill with his account of his vision, who is to say that he wasn't plain lying, for reasons of his own?

Yes, that is reasonable as most religious do's and don'ts are related to the needs op the people. The Hebrews in those days were certainly in the need and search for land. So what better "help" is imaginablke than god giving it to them.?!

[3] Thirdly: Even if it were true that he wasn't lying, who is to say he wasn't deluded? For all we know he could be a nut job, or given to chewing on hallucinogenic roots, or maybe he was an epileptic, and all of that was no more than a raging hallucination.

That is a possibility too but for that you have to read what James has to say about differentiating between delusion and a reel vision.

[4] Yes, there is a fourth option as well: that he was a real figure, and that he wasn't lying, and that he hand't hallucinated all of that. In which case, you could say, sure, that he did have those vision, and that, as you say, we then discuss the nature of his visions.

By now it has been impossible for science to come up with a explanation but what is well documented by now is what James started out to describe, the effects these visions have upon people, effects that cannot be had by other means.

Try to speak to a person that had an experience of sorts and see if he is able to see what happened to him as caused by his own body/mind. Or even those who are scared to death having seen this or that appearance in their bedroom. Or those who have gone through the process of using drugs to enter altered states of consciousness. Than it will not be so difficult accept the possibility of experiences with even grater impact. It is said that moses had to fight his family and friends who were not willing to accept at first his visions and feared he was deluded.

>>.................Please don't embarrass me by inflating my humble attempts to reason things out for myself! :--) >All I'm doing is trying to make sense, for myself, what seems plausible and what not ; > You're right, though. Should I ever be so lucky as to reach some definitive answer, then it could well be something entirely beyond my conception. <<

Those who seek will find ... the whole history tells that tale.

<

Yes, yes .... autumn of life as arived and winter is coming