Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not pegging people into holes, I am trying to reduce the level of ignorance and LACK of critical thinking that abounds. You cannot have a lack of belief that is NOT a belief!! It is just a negative BELIEF because you have a position on it!! It may be a weak position, or an uncertain position, but you HAVE chosen one. The allergy to its use by some atheists is a BS attempt to avoid being asked to provide proof they can NOT ever provide.
Atheists here want to keep asking theists for their proof of God that they cannot ever provide!!! It is a stupid childish game of passing the burden of proof for BELIEFS that cannot be proven!!! That is the puerile word games that are being played here in the forum. Belief in God or disbelief in God are BOTH beliefs about God, period!!!
No the real problem here is you want to create an argument (strawman) that people that reject a claim are required to provide evidence supporting their lack of acceptance, because you have no other way (evidence) to defend your claim.
Why are they different, they are both claims about the existence of gods based on evidence, or for agnosticism, lack of evidence? You rarely just believe something in vacuo.
Theism, atheism and agnosticism are all just degrees of confidence about whether gods exist or not, with agnostics not having enough evidence to make a claim either way.
That is OK if you do not ask why one believes something. But evidence is the knowledge you have, or believe you have, and belief is usually based on evidence (whether credible or not). Any belief not based on evidence can simply be dismissed.
Another problem I have with your chart is how do you know how much knowledge you have?
They are different because evidence is not required to have a belief, but evidence is fundamental to knowledge. I can say I believe in unicorns, without evidence, only the concept of one is necessary. But to say I have knowledge (gnosticism) requires evidence supporting the learning.
How little or how much knowledge is what the vertical line would represent.
How much fortitude is the representation the vertical line of belief denotes
You seem to be suggesting knowledge is synonymous with belief.
I see belief used in lieu of knowledge to support an assertion.
They are different because evidence is not required to have a belief, but evidence is fundamental to knowledge. I can say I believe in unicorns, without evidence, only the concept of one is necessary. But to say I have knowledge (gnosticism) requires evidence supporting the learning.
How little or how much knowledge is what the vertical line would represent.
How much fortitude is the representation the vertical line of belief denotes
You seem to be suggesting knowledge is synonymous with belief.
I see belief used in lieu of knowledge to support an assertion.
The truth is that any assertion about the "unknowable default status" of the reality we inhabit can ONLY be a belief. It is the base about which we discern what we can establish as "facts," but it, itself, is beyond our capability to discern. It is and can only be adopted a priori.
No the real problem here is you want to create an argument (strawman) that people that reject a claim are required to provide evidence supporting their lack of acceptance, because you have no other way (evidence) to defend your claim.
No, the problem is that atheists want to demand evidence of theists' default BELIEF by claiming a lack of BELIEF. I am educating them on the fact that they can't do that with theist default BELIEFS because they can't do that with THEIR a priori default BELIEF in atheism.
No, the problem is that atheists want to demand evidence of theists' default BELIEF by claiming a lack of BELIEF. I am educating them on the fact that they can't do that with theist default BELIEFS because they can't do that with THEIR a priori default BELIEF in atheism.
That doesn't really work because someone that has never been exposed to the concept of God(s) would be an atheist without any belief. So lack of belief IS THE DEFAULT.
That doesn't really work because someone that has never been exposed to the concept of God(s) would be an atheist without any belief. So lack of belief IS THE DEFAULT.
Uhhh, thanks, it seems a pretty obvious thing. Even when I was a believer I wrestled with that fact. I tried using the explanation that all newborn babies were first with God and knew him, but soon realized there was an inherent gap if that baby failed to be schooled on God(s), where they must forget(?) God ???
Well that hardly works in any sense either so I conceded the default would have to be a lack of belief.
That doesn't really work because someone that has never been exposed to the concept of God(s) would be an atheist without any belief. So lack of belief IS THE DEFAULT.
But is it? How long would it take such an unexposed person to start thinking in terms of the supernatural? If not a modern human in the present technological environment, then what about a tribal person living in the wild?
It's just something I have wondered about. The tribal people I have known or know about have a very different 'spiritual' concept to theistic folks.
That doesn't really work because someone that has never been exposed to the concept of God(s) would be an atheist without any belief. So lack of belief IS THE DEFAULT.
You do NOT get to write off the entire concept because of the remote possibility that SOMEONE somewhere might never have considered the issue. That does not apply to ANY atheist in this forum so they cannot claim that status. It is absurd in the extreme to be posting and claiming to BE an atheist while trying to claim it is only a lack of belief!!!! Give me a break!!! Every atheist posting in this forum has a BELIEF that God does not exist, however, weak, uncertain, or strong it is or is not!!! That is implicit in the claimed status!!!!
Uhhh, thanks, it seems a pretty obvious thing. Even when I was a believer I wrestled with that fact. I tried using the explanation that all newborn babies were first with God and knew him, but soon realized there was an inherent gap if that baby failed to be schooled on God(s), where they must forget(?) God ???
Well that hardly works in any sense either so I conceded the default would have to be a lack of belief.
That's why it's excellent. Look at Mystic fail to grasp it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The truth is that any assertion about the "unknowable default status" of the reality we inhabit can ONLY be a belief. It is the base about which we discern what we can establish as "facts," but it, itself, is beyond our capability to discern. It is and can only be adopted a priori.
