That means dismissing things from the outset—simply assuming, before even considering evidence, that their probability should a priori be low.
And few in this discussion are dismissing anything from the outset, so it becomes a moot point, definitional differences aside.
I don't see how "no good reason" differs significantly from "no reason" here.
Really?
DS wrote:
To be clear, from the outset, I actually accepted a spirit world. It's what my parents taught me since I was aware of anything. I'm here after decades of accepting a spirit world for me. A spirit world really must have been in my mind given I loved my parents and trusted them, when I was young. Then as I grew, I too had spiritual experience. Now its far more likely that I dreamed and imagined a different world, as I see it, and called that a spirit world. I haven't said there is no possibility for a spirit world even today. I simply disagree that we have good reason to think there is such a world.
Maybe too much was left out of this story, which is understandable given it’s a common process for many here, and has been detailed in many other threads. When I made the same transition I put considerable effort into working through my analysis. There was a significant difference for me between the conclusion of “no good reason” and “no reason.” The implication of “no reason” implies no effort put into analyzing the reason, which was not the case. Given the decades spent being indoctrinated into this position, it’s very difficult to simply dismiss from the outset what was bred into one. Others have come to other conclusions, obviously.