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.
Cute try , but not accurate. In your Chinese example, there is nothing to accept or not. One is simply hearing unintelligible stuff. But in my example, Bob doesn't have to NOT believe, he simply has to have a lack of belief. And you stumbled into a partially correct statement in the last paragraph. Someone who lacks knowledge of a thing simply doesn't know, and therefore doesn't believe. This is in line with what atheists continually say. Atheism isn't a belief AGAINST anything, it simply is a lack of belief.
Let us just deal with the text and not attribute any cuteness or other motives.That pollutes any decent discussion.
When did acceptance enter the picture? We are discussing belief and non-belief, your terms and so let's stay with that. The person is not convinced what he is hearing as "evidence" is Chinese or not. He remains ignorant. He neither believes nor disbelieves.
Ignorance is not disbelief. I don't believe this is a confirmation. I don't know this is another confirmation. They don't mean the same thing.
Nobody believes AGAINST anything, maybe only atheists. They believe god does not exist.
No, you equivocated and avoided the direct question. But I can possibly reword it to work around your equivocation.
Bob isn't vaccinated against Covid. You think he should get the vaccine and point out all the benefits of it and the risks of not getting it. Someone else thinks the vaccine is harmful and could cause deadly allergic reactions and may cause organ damage years down the road. Both sides argue and debate, but in the end both admit that at this stage there is no firm evidence for either position. Bob can choose to (A) accept your assertion and get the vaccine, (B)accept the assertion of the anti vaxers and choose not to ever get it, or (C)decide that he can't tell who is correct and not make any decision for a while until more evidence comes out either way.
If Bob decides C, is he vaccinated against Covid?
Cute try, but wrong. The time factor means the object in question in your example does NOT exist! We are talking about what DOES exist. If you want to claim he does not have a definitive state of mind about vaccination, that would not be a BELIEF, but IF he establishes a default state of mind about it THAT would be a BELIEF about it.
Let us just deal with the text and not attribute any cuteness or other motives.That pollutes any decent discussion.
When did acceptance enter the picture? We are discussing belief and non-belief, your terms and so let's stay with that. The person is not convinced what he is hearing as "evidence" is Chinese or not. He remains ignorant. He neither believes nor disbelieves.
Ignorance is not disbelief. I don't believe this is a confirmation. I don't know this is another confirmation. They don't mean the same thing.
Nobody believes AGAINST anything, maybe only atheists. They believe god does not exist.
Your Chinese example still fails because it is not a yes/no/I don't know option. There is nothing to accept ,reject, or be uncertain about concerning trying to understand Chinese. And correct, ignorance is not disbelief. Ignorance is a lack of understanding, but if that lack of understanding results in refusing to make a decision to believe a claim because the ignorance has not been remedied, then not accepting the claim through continued ignorance still puts dear old Bob in the state of non belief.
Cute try, but wrong. The time factor means the object in question in your example does NOT exist! We are talking about what DOES exist. If you want to claim he does not have a definitive state of mind about vaccination, that would not be a BELIEF, but IF he establishes a default state of mind about it THAT would be a BELIEF about it.
LOL. You are as slippery as an eel in finding things to hide behind. The time factor doesn't matter, that's nonsense on your part, but if you wish to hide behind it I will let you and move on. I will work to find another way you can't run and hide from. Right now I have other things to attend to. You are good at avoidance though, I will admit
But the thing is , those so expert in being slippery are so because they know their stance is nonsense and they can't have a simple, straightforward discussion on it.
But I will work on it and get back to you. It's becoming enjoyable to see what lengths you will resort to to avoid engaging in a simple and honest discussion.
Let me ask this though. Do you understand the difference between the gnostic/agnostic knowledge part of the equation (knowledge that something exists) , and the theist/atheist belief part of the discussion ( belief/non belief on what this something is), and that this are two different subjects that take place at different points in the equation ?
Last edited by NatesDude; 02-15-2021 at 03:30 PM..
Insults aside, you seem not to understand the FACT that "a definitive state of mind" about ANYTHING is a BELIEF absent supporting evidence and for this metaphysical issue there can be no evidence for EITHER definitive BELIEF whatever valence, polarity, or "whatever" you assign to it.
You are still either failing to understand the significance about valid belief and invalid or just pretending to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
ALL the evidence supports both BELIEFS because they are indeterminate! It is sad that you are so devious and deceptive that you must try to discredit and denigrate anyone in opposition to you. Your claims and accusations about other posters' posting history and arguments have no credibility because you seem unable to distinguish fact from fiction as you denigrate everyone who opposes your default atheism. Sad, very sad.
If the evidence supports the god -claim, produce it.
Ok I know you produce your God -claim with a lot of science -jargon stuck onto it to make it look impressive, but that won't do. Your 'science' has been refuted several times and (despite your attempts to wriggle out of it) got nowhere on trying to submit your ideas on the science forum. Frankly, if you thought your ideas would stand up there, you'd try harder.
Thus the default (which is valid despite your denial - which by now has no credibility) is that science is on the side of non - belief in the god claim and is not on the side of the god -belief. Call it belief, call it non - belief. Science does Not support your faith -based assertions, even as plausible hypotheses.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-15-2021 at 03:53 PM..
Wrong. Ignorance of a god claim is technically (automatic/default) non -belief in the claim. Technically that is an atheist position, though of course people think of atheists as having heard the god -claim and not buying into it.
This is why babies are technically atheist until taught the god -claim and then they either buy into it or continue to be atheist. I was a lifetime atheist from babyhood myself, so you may take my word for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I really think you are atheist Mystic. ...
He doesn't care so long as you help him to bash atheists.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-15-2021 at 04:06 PM..
There are so many flaws in the way you have set this up. A Bob/kid who has no concept of a god is in a state of ignorance not non-belief. If you don't know that there is a language called Chinese, you are in ignorance, not non-belief which is totally devoid of meaning. And if the person who is ignorant of Chinese is made to listen to a sentence in Chinese as *evidence*, he does not believe or not believe, he simply does not know.
Same way the ignorant-of-god Bob was presented the 'evidence' by theists and atheists and is not convinced by either, he simply does not know if god exists or not. He is still ignorant, lacking in knowledge. He cannot NOT-believe something he knows nothing about.
This is a common fallacy, in fact the 'skeptics denied powered flight' related to the 'black swan fallacy'(1). The fallacy is that you make Bob's disbelief in Chinese seem unreasonable because we know it's real. But if Bob doesn't believe in Venusian, is that unreasonable? It is reasonable because so far as we know there is no Venusian language. On all evidence there cannot be, but there is no 100% proof. It is the not knowing (agnosticism) that is the basis for non -belief. With chinese, there is no agnostic basis - we know there is Chinese.
Do you see how the fallacy is wrong?
(1) The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalised after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. The term is based on an ancient saying that presumed black swans did not exist – a saying that became reinterpreted to teach a different lesson after the first European encounter with them. (wiki)
any bets on whether we get sneering at 'fallacies' or a denigration of Wiki first?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-15-2021 at 04:12 PM..
Your Chinese example still fails because it is not a yes/no/I don't know option. There is nothing to accept ,reject, or be uncertain about concerning trying to understand Chinese. And correct, ignorance is not disbelief. Ignorance is a lack of understanding, but if that lack of understanding results in refusing to make a decision to believe a claim because the ignorance has not been remedied, then not accepting the claim through continued ignorance still puts dear old Bob in the state of non belief.
We are talking about belief, not acceptance. Stay with those terms that you started with. Words have meaning. Acceptance is not belief. Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not lack of understanding. They mean different things. I think you understand all this very well and obfuscating because your argument has failed.
Wrong. Ignorance of a god claim is technically (automatic/default) non -belief in the claim. Technically that is an atheist position, though of course people think of atheists as having heard the god -claim and not buying into it.
This is why babies are technically atheist until taught the god -claim and then they either buy into it or continue to be atheist. I was a lifetime atheist from babyhood myself, so you may take my word for it.
He doesn't care so long as you help him to bash atheists.
And you don't care so long as people bash believers. Or if they "heel" like good boys when you tell them too.
.
Nope, all the evidence supports both claims regarding the evidence of your concept. This , once again, is where you continually go wrong. From there one can either accept the concept, reject it, or decide they don't know if it is true. But deciding there is no evidence either way on the concept is a default decision to not believe in the concept.
It's just that simple. All the insults in the world won't change it either.
I get what your are saying. You calling anyone that doesn't come out and say "I believe that" as non belief. Its sort a true for sure. But that is not what we have a high concentration of here at CD.
And when we claim we don't and still argue with that person and tell them they have no evidence (when the person doesn't know and there is some evidence) what do we classify that as.
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.
