Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadChannel
That's not how logic works because there is a difference between positive and negative claims. Saying that you don't believe in something is only a declaration that you have no been presented with sufficient evidence to do away with your doubts -- a totally reasonable position when no evidence at all has been presented. Further, there is a difference between the sentences "I do not believe in X" and "I believe that there is no X". The later requires a justification, the former needs none unless a justification is given for the existence of X.
For instance, I do not believe in the giant plush orang-utan suction cupped to the back of Jupiter. I'm totally justified in my lack of belief in this entity despite the fact that I've never been to Jupiter, because the burden of proof is on the maker of extraordinary claims.
This exists for a reason. The natural conclusion of your line of thinking is silly and absurd: we ought to take every claim, and indeed, every possible metaphysical claim seriously. Since no one has time for this, the only reasonable method of determining what is true and what is false is expecting justifications from those making claims, not the other way around.
|
I never insinuated that your position is absurd. You're making assumptions
I made fun of Frownland's position because he was (perhaps jokingly) centering his disbelief around his own self-image ("because I'm to smart for that"), and refusing to at least be open to the possibility that his strange experience might have been supernatural. Whereas your argument is more or less centered around more of a "I've seen no evidence of this, nor have I ever experienced anything which would leave me to believe in its existence" kind of position, which I can respect... However, your argument at least left me with the impression that you'd be open-minded to new evidence that suggested otherwise, whereas Frownland gave the impression of siding with disbelief (even after having experienced something possibly "paranormal") because he's more concerned about being "correct" than actually exploring the possibility that there may be something out there that current science cannot yet explain/measure/replicate. (Note to Frownland: I apologize if you were merely being self-effacing with your previous post, just trying to elaborate my stance to DeadC).
I haven't proofread this, and I typed it on my iPhone with man hands, so bring on the grammar nazis.