Do you agree that the default position is to not accept things as fact until evidence proves them to be true?

Question

1) Do you agree that the default position is to not accept things as fact until evidence proves them to be true?

1a) Do you agree that the default position is to accept all things as fact until evidence proves them to be false?
=========================
2) Do you agree that the default position in the debate over religion is to not accept things as fact until evidence proves them to be true?

2a) Do you agree that the default position in the debate over religion is to accept all things as fact until evidence proves them to be false?
========================
3) Do you agree that, in the debate over religion, atheism is the default position?

3a) Do you agree that, in the debate over religion, belief in all claims is the default position?

Answer 1

If the answer to 1 is true, then the response dictated on 2 and 3 must reflect that. Which means that neither religion or must be rejected as being false.

If the answer to 1 is false then that dictates that a person must accept both religion and atheism as being true.

Which because shows that a blanket endorsement of either the proposed solutions in item one only reaches a contradictory resolution in the two items that follow.

This is why preponderance of evidence comes into play. Neither side can produce enough evidence for a resolution other wise. So it one considers the consistency of the Bible, the number of those who endorsed it and the observable results- removing those from the list that acted clearly contradictory to the message Christianity wins. Science can not be trusted because it is always under revision and is not consistent with it's self- which dictates any testimony from it will be wrong based on past performance.

But these two should not be seen in conflict with each other

Answer 2

<>



NO, I do not find that most human beings actually operate in a state of total skepticism and denial UNTIL proven otherwise.



I think MOST human beings operate in a state of either basic neutrality OR to accept, so long as they don't hold any background information that seems to truly contradict what is being told to them.



For instance...



You claim that your Uncle is rich and installs home entertainment systems for the rich n famous and sometimes you go with him and meet celebrities.



OK... since I don't know you.. I am at worse neutral towards this topic and at best -- I tentatively agree with you, since it seems plausible and I have no information to contradict your statement.



NOW.. if I knew a little about you.. I might be more skeptical, because I have never heard you or your spouse make ANY mention to meeting celebrities and you live in a small town where there aren't any celebrities and I never hear of you traveling to the big city.



So as long as my background information doesn't call your statement into question -- I generally accept.



HOWEVER, contrary to this general position, when it comes to Religion - many people are the opposite. They tend to default to denial until proven otherwise.



So on the surface this may seem like EITHER people are hypocritical when it comes to religious maters OR, more likely.. that almost everyone already posesses a personally held belief on religion and therefore is not neutral or open, because they already have background information on the topic.



TRULY, that's how I think most people operate.



SO.. my answers are:



1a) .... that the default position is to accept all things as fact until evidence proves them to be false



2) ...that the default position in the debate over religion is to not accept things as fact until evidence proves them to be true



3b) ..... that, in the debate over religion, the default position is theism, but each person has their own personally help belief (personal religion)

Answer 3

Life is not "one size fits all" yet THAT is what YOU want with these individual statements. Voting does NOT make evidence! This is NOT a popularity contest. This is an argument over FACTS. Religion claims there is a god, and the non-believers say "prove it" and religion fails to deliver evidence that will stand up in court that proves that their claim is true. I lack a belief in a deity, no more, no less. I do not have a "default" position nor do I need one.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as the default position as you use it. That's a load of BS. Everyone is biased towards their position. There is no default. If you say that atheism is the default position it just means you are a biased atheist. When it comes to God we have to look at all of the information available to make a decision. We can't stick our head in the sand and say we exist for no reason. For many God is simply the most rational explanation and is intuitive. And for those who experience God they need no rationale.



Atheism could not be default. The only neutral position is agnostic. But even agnostics are biased. Atheism says that God doesn't exist. But how could you make such a statement without proof? So it is a belief. Thus, atheism is not a default.



There is more than enough evidence for God.

Answer 5

i think while not appropriate in all situations - for example when somebody says "I'm going to the shops" I don't ask for proof - that generally speaking a healthy skepticism should be the default position.



To quote Noam Chomsky "when ever you hear something said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is 'wait a minute, is that actually true' ". It's out of context because he was talking about something else, but i think it's relevant none the less.

Answer 6

1). Neither. The default is to accept nothing until there is some evidence, but not necessarily proof. It could be as simple as word from an authority figure (such as a parent)



2) same answer



3) it is self evident that atheism is the default position. No baby is born with knowledge of god. If they were, there would BE only one religion.

Answer 7

Usually yes but there might be problems with that approach sometimes. For example imagine someone issues a bomb threat to your workplace. Do you take his claim to be false until demonstrated to be true? No, you go out of the building and get the rest of the day off.



It's said that the difference between a good general and a good philosopher is that a good general takes reasonable precautions in case of unknown unknowns.

Answer 8

Atheism is the default position. It's illogical to believe that something is true without evidence to back something up.



It's like wondering why the mercury in a thermometer rises as the temperature increases. I could suggest that the mercury's soul dies as the temperature increases, and that dead souls weigh less than living souls so therefore the mercury rises.



Of course, I just made up a load of rubbish. But I hope you see my point; you need evidence or else you can claim anything is true.

Answer 9

Always one must look to see if they are on the wrong road or they will never know if they are on the right road.



Atheism, however, goes against the obvious science of universal law which demands a Law Giver and Keeper. Such things as evolution, global warming, etc. have been proven to be false, but you can see how the masses continue to hold on to those lies and even propagate them. Atheism has no legs on which to stand, yet is still there.

Answer 10

It is the logical default position, but not the human one.

Answer 11

Nothing proves anything true in science. Evidence is simply justification for BELIEF that a theory is true, not for truth itself.

Proof of truth only occurs in mathematics and logic

Answer 12

But i've seen proof of "gods" before, what should i do exactly?



And it really sucks balls because i can't show other people!



Dammit!

Answer 13

yes

Answer 14

mostly As: congratulations! you're the kind of person that this quiz is trying to ridicule.

Answer 15

You add to the facts, what Scientists have never observed.