How did you choose your religion? Or was it chosen for you?

[OldTrees]

Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.

And what is your starting position on the existence or otherwise of my unicorn?  And can you please explain your reasoning.

My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult. My upbringing did not mention intangible unicorns so my starting position on the topic of intangible unicorns is one of disbelief.

I see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.

If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.

Your initial position not being logical or rational is a reason to change your position.

When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational. Therefore there is no reason to waste time considering your starting position on each of the infinite topics that have no possible evidence.

A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?

"Assert" does not necessarily mean trying to persuade anybody of anything. 

You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.
Especially address the phrases: "I think X" and "I claim X".

Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.

It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?

False equivalence.  God, in this instance, is being posited as an explanation for the existence of the world as we currently understand it to exist.  God not being necessary for the world as we currently understand it to exist is evidence against the existence of God.

False. God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.
"X is not necessary for Y is evidence of not X" is the form of your argument.
Being human is not necessary for you breathing air is evidence against you being human.

Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.

No, it is not proof, but it is evidence.  That, say, the God of the Church of Jesus Christ And The Latter Day Saints exists yet mankind only came to know this through the circuitous route of developing the Sumerian and Canaanite religions, from there venerating Yahweh the God of War above the others, this becoming a monotheistic religion known as Judaism, which then became Christianity, from which emerged Joseph Smith's Mormonism, which became the Church of Jesus Christ and the Later Day Saints is less probable than that God doesn't exist and that these stories are just stories.  Especially as we're talking about a God who has no influence on the world whatsoever, which would necessarily mean that he didn't influence these religions whatsoever, which would mean that Thomas S. Monson has ended up landing on the truth by pure chance.

Surely you don't disagree that the probability of someone alighting on the exact truth by chance in amongst a literally infinite number of possible alternatives is infinitely small?

Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)

The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.

You had expected to say "no you're wrong" and for me to simply agree with you?  Not to be rude, but that's a little ironic, given that you're arguing that one should not change one's position unless given cause to do so.

I have found that people tend to notice when they misread something if they are merely notified. Usually in depth correction of a misreading is insulting.

You believe you are arguing against an ignorant theist and thus used arguments meant to address certain arguments that ignorant theists present. I had hoped you would have taken my hint and noticed that I was not using God being necessary or Religion being inspired as premises. I had hoped you would have noticed that either of those details would mean that evidence would necessarily exist if God existed (why god would be necessary/how the inspiration occured). Since my premise is there is no necessary evidence that would exist if God existed, obviously you were not addressing my argument and thus I assumed you misread.

Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.

And the parsimonious explanation is to be preferred.

I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.

This is a strange argument to be making.  Obviously something either exists or it doesn't.  But we're talking about assessing the probability of something existing.  If I draw a card from a deck and hold it face down and ask you what colour it is, then the probability of the card being red is 100% if I drew a red card or 0% if I drew a black card, but all you can tell is that the probability of drawing a red card is 50%.  In that situation, were I to draw a card and ask you what you thought the probability of it being red was, would you honestly say "either 100% or 0%"?  Because that's the least useful application of probability I've ever heard of.

Now, leaving aside the cards, what we're assessing is not whether or not God exists, but what the probability is that someone who states that God exists is correct.  This probability is not 50%.  There being 2 possible outcomes does not make those two possibilities equally probable.  If I roll a fair 6-sided die then I can either roll a 1 or I can not roll a 1.  Despite this, the probability of me rolling a 1 is 16.66%, not 50%.

Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)

[ElementalDearWatson]

I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.

I have no need to convince anybody of the existence of atoms, as atoms are perceptible and therefore there is evidence of their existence.

[ElementalDearWatson]

My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult.

How do you determine exactly when you developed from a child into a "fully rational pre adult"?  What are your criteria for this?

When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational.

I disagree.  The rational position is not to believe in something unless there is reason to believe in it.

You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.

An assertion in the sense I'm using it is no different to any other statement.  If someone is making a positive assertion about something, the burden of proof is upon them.

Especially address the phrases: "I think X" and "I claim X".

I don't think I've used either of those phrases, and am not sure whether you're using "I" there to mean me, or to mean a hypothetical person saying something, be that Theo or a hypothetical atheist.  Furthermore, I don't know whether you're asking me to define the words "think" and "claim", or whether you're asking me to fill in what "X" is in my own personal estimation.  So I can't answer that without you being a little clearer.

Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.

I've not said that anybody needs to defend anything.  I also find it extremely curious that you've found anything in this conversation "enraging".  Rage is an extremely strong emotion to have and perhaps, if this is the reaction you're having to what I've thus far considered to be a friendly discussion of differing viewpoints, then we should simply leave it here.

God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.

Vapour condensing is not a more parsimonious explanation for the formation of water than ice melting, and vice versa.

Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)

There is no "probability" of someone inventing Christianity.  The history of Christianity is a matter of historical record.  The history of Christianity as developed from Yahwism is taught in seminary.  It's as much fact as anything from 4,000 years ago can be said to be.

So, given this, the probability of any one of them being correct is relevant.  And the probability of any of them being correct by pure chance in amongst the infinite alternatives is infinitely small.

You believe you are arguing against an ignorant theist[...]

Not only have I not even vaguely implied this, I've explicitly presented some of my arguments in a manner which directly contradicts this assertion.

I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

I don't think Wikipedia is exactly the best source.

Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)

Correct., but this doesn't address anything I've said.

[OldTrees]

My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult.

How do you determine exactly when you developed from a child into a "fully rational pre adult"?  What are your criteria for this?

The existence of such a point is all I need for my point. I will leave it to Psychologists to define the criteria and find the average moment.

When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational.

I disagree.  The rational position is not to believe in something unless there is reason to believe in it.

So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions. Since you have not supported this positive assertion (which is different than a positive starting position) then I see no reason to be convinced to abandon my starting position that their is no superior position when evidence cannot exist.

In order to convince you of my position I have described how when evidence is possible but not necessary its lack is not evidence of lack. Since there is no evidence of existence
and no evidence of lack there is no evidence to convince people from their starting positions. Previously I have described how the null hypothesis in science is justified by evidence of existence being necessary if existence is true. Since the justification is not applicable in this case, the bias is unsupported and should be abandoned until evidence is provided to support the bias (since if the bias were valid then support would necessarily exist).

You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.

An assertion in the sense I'm using it is no different to any other statement.  If someone is making a positive assertion about something, the burden of proof is upon them.

Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.

I've not said that anybody needs to defend anything.  I also find it extremely curious that you've found anything in this conversation "enraging".  Rage is an extremely strong emotion to have and perhaps, if this is the reaction you're having to what I've thus far considered to be a friendly discussion of differing viewpoints, then we should simply leave it here.

You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.

If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.

God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.

Vapour condensing is not a more parsimonious explanation for the formation of water than ice melting, and vice versa.

See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence. Since the analogy was describing how "not being necessary is not evidence of not being", the parsimony difference is not relevant to this analogy.

Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)

There is no "probability" of someone inventing Christianity.  The history of Christianity is a matter of historical record.  The history of Christianity as developed from Yahwism is taught in seminary.  It's as much fact as anything from 4,000 years ago can be said to be.

So, given this, the probability of any one of them being correct is relevant.  And the probability of any of them being correct by pure chance in amongst the infinite alternatives is infinitely small.

As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.

I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

I don't think Wikipedia is exactly the best source.

Wikipedia is usually maintained by people interested in the fields the pages are on. It is much better to have a scientist talking about science as a source than either a theist or an atheist talking about god as a source. You can read the links if you find Wikipedia to be below your standard. Until you link a better source, I will go with this citation.

Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)

Correct., but this doesn't address anything I've said.

If so then only because you were not addressing my sidenote. The above quote is my sidenote. Whether a religion is correct or mistaken is an unknown determined state. Aka a Binary (100% or 0%) probability.

[AnonymousRevival]

I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.

I have no need to convince anybody of the existence of atoms, as atoms are perceptible and therefore there is evidence of their existence.

You can't touch it, you can't smell it, you can't hear it. The limitation of the senses causes atoms to not be perceptible. That was why Democritus was being ridiculed by Aristotle because atoms aren't perceptible objects.

[ElementalDearWatson]

The existence of such a point is all I need for my point.

No, not really.  You can't just say that there is a cut off point for something being someone's starting position and then say that how this starting point is defined is unimportant.  This is a premise that your entire argument is built upon.  As it is you haven't even established that such a point exists.

So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions.

You keep presenting straw men as if they were my arguments.  Please don't do this.  I had hoped for a rational discussion of the issues, but that will be impossible to do if you keep making up viewpoints for me and then arguing against those, rather than what I've actually said.

You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.

If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.

This is starting to become a little bizarre.  I've explained how I'm defining the word "assert" in this conversation, yet you seem to have ignored that.  Perhaps for clarity's sake you should define how you are using the term in the above sentences.

See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence.

I wonder if you've actually read all of that Wikipedia page?  Perhaps you should read the section where it talks about Occam's own application of his Razor to the question of God's existence or otherwise.  Are you claiming the Occam did not understand the Razor correctly?

As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.

This is another straw man.  Please read and respond to what I've actually posted.

[ElementalDearWatson]

You can't touch it, you can't smell it, you can't hear it. The limitation of the senses causes atoms to not be perceptible. That was why Democritus was being ridiculed by Aristotle because atoms aren't perceptible objects.

Well, you can touch atoms, in fact.  Or, at least, the electromagnetic fields of your atoms can repel them in the manner that we class as "touching".  If that wasn't the case then you'd pass through everything.

And there's more ways of perceiving things than directly with your unaided senses.

[OldTrees]

The existence of such a point is all I need for my point.

No, not really.  You can't just say that there is a cut off point for something being someone's starting position and then say that how this starting point is defined is unimportant.  This is a premise that your entire argument is built upon.  As it is you haven't even established that such a point exists.

Children undergo mental development.
Mental development eventually stops.
Adults can be rational.
Children are not completely rational.
Rationality is refined as part of mental development.
Therefore there exists a point where rationality is fully developed.
I did not say how the starting point is defined is unimportant. I said it is important but not to my argument. I said that Psychologists would be the best source for an accurate definition if you were interested in going more in depth to mental development. My argument uses the premise that people have a collection of beliefs/disbeliefs at the moment they become fully rationally that is infulenced by upbringing rather than rationality.

So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions.

You keep presenting straw men as if they were my arguments.  Please don't do this.  I had hoped for a rational discussion of the issues, but that will be impossible to do if you keep making up viewpoints for me and then arguing against those, rather than what I've actually said.

I did not intend to create a strawman. Where did I misunderstand your point?
I said people have starting positions. Some of these starting positions are beliefs rather than disbeliefs. Some of these beliefs are on topics where there is no possibility of evidence either way. You said the rational position is disbelief until evidence even in the case where evidence cannot exist. Therefore you are suggesting these people should take time to evaluate these beliefs that have no evidence against them and the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Therefore you are suggesting these people take time evaluating beliefs with no evidence either way to justify changing their position.

You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.

If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.

This is starting to become a little bizarre.  I've explained how I'm defining the word "assert" in this conversation, yet you seem to have ignored that.  Perhaps for clarity's sake you should define how you are using the term in the above sentences.

A) There is a theist standing on a corner. This theist exists.
B) There is a theist standing on a corner making the claim that god exists. This theist exists and is asserting theism.
There exist A that are B however not all A are B.
Therefore the existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism. The theist must be claiming god exist rather than merely silently believing god exists for it to be an assertion.

A) There is a kantian standing on a corner. This kantian exists.
B) There is a kantian standing on a corner making the claim that Kant was correct about deontology. This kantian exists and is asserting deontology.
There exist A that are B however not all A are B.
Therefore the existence of a believer of X is not an assertion of X. The believer of X must be claiming X is true rather than merely silently believing X is true for it to be an assertion.

See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence.

I wonder if you've actually read all of that Wikipedia page?  Perhaps you should read the section where it talks about Occam's own application of his Razor to the question of God's existence or otherwise.  Are you claiming the Occam did not understand the Razor correctly?

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred (Schmitt 2005).

1) There is no claim that Occam used it this way.
2) As seen above Occam's razor is not used that way(preferring between models) in science, why would it be used that way in theology?

As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.

This is another straw man.  Please read and respond to what I've actually posted.

How is this a strawman?
I initially claimed that past events had a fixed nature (100% or 0%). You said stuff about non binary probabilities and then agreed that past events have a fixed nature. An existent theory about the past is either correct or incorrect it is not some non binary probability of being correct. It does not have a 50% chance of being correct. It does not have an infinitesimal chance of being correct. It is either correct or incorrect.

[BluePriest]

Ill give you a real life example, as it seems to be the only way to get one of OldTrees points across, this is related to evidence, and saying that since there is no evidence, then you dont need to come up with evidence to disprove God.

Personal Evidence of God for me.
1)Feeling his presence, not just while in church but during prayer
2)Hearing footsteps by like the classic footsteps poem during a very dark time in my life when I wanted nothing to do with God and jumped out of a moving car. I heard footsteps by me which comforted me.
3)Having the chronic knee pain that the doctors said I was going to have for the rest of my life healed during a service at church

This is personal evidence of God for me.
You ask why I believe, I list this as some of the things. Now this is my evidence of God existing. If you want to change my mind when I am not asserting to you taht he does exist, and you are asserting that he doesnt, then it is your job to do soemthing to change my mind.

[AnonymousRevival]

The reason why a lot of people do not believe in God is because there is no evidence to support his existence. While this is true, but can you explain the mass population in Christianity then? While, there is no evidence, but the fact that I can feel his presence indicates makes me, at least, know that God exists. He has worked on me miracles too by sending me a wonderful guardian angel while I was depressed and cured me of it .

And you can't say that science and religion are in complete oppositional sides. According to Elaine Howard Ecklund's Science vs. Religion - What scientists really think, she states that through a survey of 1500 scientists and an interview with around 250 of them, almost half of the scientists have a spiritual faith and then even a quarter of them try to consolidate the forces of religion and science together. The anthropic principle further supports the case, with that with so many factors at hand, but yet everything is twined just right so that we have the universe as we know it today. In addition, science just works. It doesn't have to work that way, like E = mc^2, or F = ma, or E = hf. It doesn't have io be that way but rather some super complex equation. But how can these equations be so simple, yet have such a huge implication?

So, if you don't believe in God, I respect that. However, sometimes, there really isn't a need for evidence to prove something like that of the existence of God.

[furballdn]

While this is true, but can you explain the mass population in Christianity then?

33.32% of the world can't be wrong! It's the 66.68% of the world that is wrong!

Logically, the number of believers has nothing to do with the validity of something. During the greek times, everyone believed in the greek gods. During the medieval period, people believed the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe. That doesn't make them any more right or wrong.

[AnonymousRevival]

My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.