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.
Neither is a believe may be true, but that is all that is true. There is not active belief or disbelief without knowledge.
That's true but I presume that the idea is that that one can be a non -believer through never having known the belief -claim as much as one who knows of and rejects it. It is all non -belief in the claim and, if the claim is Christianity, they are both non -Christians. If the claim is Theism, they are both non - theists (e.g atheists).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
He is a person who has no knowledge of Christianity. That is all he is. And most likely a Hindu. Truth needs no explanation. The discussion was about why non-belief cannot be a thing. It is not thing except for atheists who apparently don't want to admitting to believing there is no god.
What a shame. You worked it out correctly and now you are trying to wriggle out of the conclusion. If the person has never heard of Christianity, he or she is not going to be a believer in it - no matter they have some other belief or not.
By analogy, someone - or something - that has no knowledge of or concept of - the god -claim will automatically be a non -believer in it. A non -believer in the god -claim is what an atheist is.
That's true but I presume that the idea is that that one can be a non -believer through never having known the belief -claim as much as one who knows of and rejects it. It is all non -belief in the claim and, if the claim is Christianity, they are both non -Christians. If the claim is Theism, they are both non - theists (e.g atheists).
What a shame. You worked it out correctly and now you are trying to wriggle. If the person has never heard of Christianity, he or she is not going to be a believer in it - no matter they have some other belief or not.
By analogy, someone - or something - that has no knowledge of or concept of - the god -claim will automatically be a non -believer in it. A non -believer in the god -claim is what an atheist is.
Non-belief is the not default state. Ignorance is. If you want to equate ignorance to non-belief you go right ahead.
If the Nepali is a Hindu, with no idea of Christianity, he does not suddenly become a non-believer. In no society is a Hindu a non-believer, unless you believe Christianity is the only religion that matters, which will make you ignorant and a fool.
You are inventing the fact that he must be a Hindu. I simply posed the question relative to your claim that ignorance does not equate non belief. I showed it does. You agreed that he was not a Christian by virtue of being ignorant of Christianity. Don't try to change the discussion .
You are inventing the fact that he must be a Hindu. I simply posed the question relative to your claim that ignorance does not equate non belief. I showed it does. You agreed that he was not a Christian by virtue of being ignorant of Christianity. Don't try to change the discussion .
Not much of a rebuttal, my friend. If you had something more substantive, you would no doubt offer it. Lacking such, you post this drivel, which impresses no one.
That you agreed that ignorance can equate non belief is beyond doubt. You admitted it yourself.
If this is the best you can do, then it appears you have exhausted your intellectual arsenal.
Non-belief is the not default state. Ignorance is. If you want to equate ignorance to non-belief you go right ahead.
Nice one! Yes 'not knowing' (agnosticism) or as you say 'ignorance' is the logical default on unvalidated claims. The often -misunderstood 'argument from ignorance' (taken as an insult by over - prickly theist apologists but only means 'argument from not knowing') fails because it is using unknowns as a validation of theistic claims (gaps for God). It is not.
Ignorance in the sense of not knowing is no shame. It is a urging to find out. Denial in the face of evidence is a shame.
It's rather interesting in fact that Christianity (and maybe others) recognises that ignorance of Christianity (reasonably) excuses the person who did not believe. But rejecting Christianity, once told, then you are guilty.
"The Eskimo said to the Missionary: “So, if I died without ever knowing about Jesus, I’d go to Heaven?”
“Yes,” said the Missionary.
“So, why did you tell me about him?” asked the Eskimo." (old story)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-16-2021 at 04:25 PM..
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.
Nice one! Yes 'not knowing' (agnosticism) or as you say 'ignorance' is the logical default on unvalidated claims. The often -misunderstood 'argument from ignorance' (taken as an insult by over - prickly theist apologists but only means 'argument from not knowing') fails because it is using unknowns as a validation of theistic claims (gaps for God). It is not. 
