Link: Copy link
I find it perfectly reasonable to assume something doesn't exist if you have no empirical evidence of that thing and plenty of data that points to more simple alternatives. If someone you know fairly well says to you that they have an elephant in their bedroom, based on what you know of this person and their lifestyle, the size of their bedroom, the layout of the house etc you can make a reasonable claim in regard to whether or not they are telling the truth. It is perfectly reasonable for you to say "I don't believe you have an elephant in your bedroom" rather than "I don't know". It's called probability.:ninja: wrote:Unless there is sufficient evidence to sway me in either direction, the only thing I can do is say "I don't know."
And sometimes that is the only right answer.
You don't have to defend your position if you don't want to. From my perspective it seems like explaining a belief in God is a much more difficult position than someone who disbelieves in God.. the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.Gonorrherpesyphilis wrote:E - F.
The "F" position is not so much incorrect as it is extremely time-consuming to bother defending. It's like going out of your way to conclusively disprove any random person's whimsical imaginings. Not to say it's impossible to do so, but it's an extreme waste of time, because if you in fact succeed, then the attributes of the object of your disproof will seem to magically transform into something slightly different to evade you, and you will eventually realize you have been wasting your time all along.