The default position...

[Bunyip]

This agnostic does accept God exists as true...I assume that is what you mean by "believes in God"

Well yes. I think most theists are agnostic, as are most (if not all) atheists.
There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, agnostic atheists.

Gnostic/agnostic speaks to what you KNOW, theist/atheist speaks to what you believe.

What I mean by 'believes in God', is that the person in question believes a god exists. I don't see how it is so difficult for you to grasp that.

 

[Curious George]

Well yes. I think most theists are agnostic, as are most (if not all) atheists.
There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, agnostic atheists.

Gnostic/agnostic speaks to what you KNOW, theist/atheist speaks to what you believe.

What you believe is based on what you know.

So then my characterization was fair? We have an agnostic that we classify as a theist because they accept that god exists is true, yet we classify them as such despite the fact that they accept God does not exist as true--- a belief reserved for strong atheists.

So now we have a theistic strong atheist who is not an atheist under your classification system?

 

[Deathbydefault]

My statement was that a person could believe that god exists is true and God does not exist is true. We cannot describe this person as "not believing in God" because they clearly do believe in god.

That they also believe that god does not exist is separate from the discussion of whether someone believes god exists. Just as you have articulated that someone rejects god exists is separate from their rejection of god does not exist.

Do you follow now?

We share the same ability in soft skills it seems.

All I really got from that was that 'God belief' gets prioritized over 'no God belief'.

Remember I am completely fresh to this idea.
You gotta teach me algebra before you teach me calculus here.

It's not something I have the ability to comprehend on my own for some reason, obviously due to logical blockage.
What is known to me about these beliefs is not the same as what you are telling me, hence my overall confusion.

I simply want to completely understand your point so that I may either agree or disagree.
(I'm not trying to waste your time via trolling, I assure you)

 

[Bunyip]

What you believe is based on what you know.

No, it is based on what you think you know - that is very, very different to what is knowable.

So then my characterization was fair?

George I contradicted it point by point and you ignore everything I say.

We have an agnostic that we classify as a theist because they accept that god exists is true, yet we classify them as such despite the fact that they accept God does not exist as true--- a belief reserved for strong atheists.

Sorry, that sentence doesn't scan. I can't make sense of it.

So now we have a theistic strong atheist who is not an atheist under your classification system?

You seem to have lost the plot George.

 

[Curious George]

No, it is based on what you think you know - that is very, very different to what is knowable. Sorry, that sentence doesn't scan. I can't make sense of it. You seem to have lost the plot George.

Lol..

A person who believes god exists is a theist.

A person who is not a theist is an atheist.

A person who believes god does not exist is a strong theist.

(With me so far?)

We have an agnostic. This agnostic believing that the truth or falsity is equally likely of the dichotomy- God exists/God does not exist- accepts both propositions as true until evidence to exclude one of the propositions presents itself.

Thus, this agnostic believes go exists and this agnostic believes god does not exist.

According to your classification system this person is a theist because they believe that god exists is true. According to your classification system this agnostic is not an atheist because they are a theist. According to your classification system this agnostic is a strong atheist because they believe the statement that god does not exist is true...

Thus we have labeled this person a theistic strong atheist who is not an atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol..

A person who believes god exists is a theist.

A person who is not a theist is an atheist.

A person who believes god does not exist is a strong theist.

What is the difference between the 2nd and third positions?

(With me so far?)

We have an agnostic. This agnostic believing that the truth or falsity is equally likely of the dichotomy- God exists/God does not exist- accepts both propositions as true until evidence to exclude one of the propositions presents itself.

Thus, this agnostic believes go exists and this agnostic believes god does not exist.

No, that was another contradictory sentence.

According to your classification system this person is a theist because they believe that god exists is true. According to your classification system this agnostic is not an atheist because they are a theist.

What? No, you must have misread.

According to your classification system this agnostic is a strong atheist because they believe the statement that god does not exist is true...

No idea how you got that George, no.

Thus we have labeled this person a theistic strong atheist who is not an atheist.

Which would be gibberish.

 

[ArtieE]

Lol..

A person who believes god exists is a theist.

A person who is not a theist is an atheist.

A person who believes god does not exist is a strong theist.

(With me so far?)

We have an agnostic. This agnostic believing that the truth or falsity is equally likely of the dichotomy- God exists/God does not exist- accepts both propositions as true until evidence to exclude one of the propositions presents itself.

Thus, this agnostic believes go exists and this agnostic believes god does not exist.

According to your classification system this person is a theist because they believe that god exists is true. According to your classification system this agnostic is not an atheist because they are a theist. According to your classification system this agnostic is a strong atheist because they believe the statement that god does not exist is true...

Thus we have labeled this person a theistic strong atheist who is not an atheist.

You have stopped making any sense at all.

 

[Curious George]

We share the same ability in soft skills it seems.

All I really got from that was that 'God belief' gets prioritized over 'no God belief'.

Remember I am completely fresh to this idea.
You gotta teach me algebra before you teach me calculus here.

It's not something I have the ability to comprehend on my own for some reason, obviously due to logical blockage.
What is known to me about these beliefs is not the same as what you are telling me, hence my overall confusion.

I simply want to completely understand your point so that I may either agree or disagree.
(I'm not trying to waste your time via trolling, I assure you)

No worries. Assuming the truth of mutually exclusive claims until one finds evidence to exclude one of the claims is just another way of addressing a lack of knowledge. Think of it as reversing the default position from rejection to acceptance. This still leaves a person in the same position, but the burden of proof shifts. That is all. Instead of looking for evidence to prove truth you are looking for evidence to exclude.

Take for instance the mutually exclusive views that all frogs are green and at least one frog is not green. The default position is to reject both of these as true such that you would not say that all frogs are green is true nor would you say at least one frog is not green. The default searches for the evidence that supports the truth of either statement. That is you look for evidence that supports either all frogs are green and look for evidence that supports the statement that at least one frog is not green.

Similarly, we can do the same by assuming both of these are true until evidence excludes on of the statements.

My point is that it is two ways of approaching the same situation. Either way you end up with the same result.

 

[Curious George]

What is the difference between the 2nd and third positions? No, that was another contradictory sentence. What? No, you must have misread. No idea how you got that George, no. Which would be gibberish.

What is the difference between an atheist and a strong atheist?

You have asserted that the difference is that a strong atheist believes that god does not exist while an atheist is without belief in god. Are you trying to say that these two statements are the same?

It is not a contradictory statement. It is about a belief, one can hold more than one belief, the law of non contradiction does not apply to whether someone can hold contradictory beliefs. The law of non contradiction only applies to the truth. People can obviously believe in contradictory assertions.

What exactly do you not understand?

 

[Curious George]

You have stopped making any sense at all.

Hmm, I am sorry you cannot understand this simple logic. If it does not make sense break it down and explain where it fails.

 

[Bunyip]

What is the difference between an atheist and a strong atheist?

You have asserted that the difference is that a strong atheist believes that god does not exist while an atheist is without belief in god. Are you trying to say that these two statements are the same?

Yes. That is why I asked you what the difference is.

It is not a contradictory statement. It is about a belief, one can hold more than one belief, the law of non contradiction does not apply to whether someone can hold contradictory beliefs.

Why apply the law of non-contradiction to beliefs then? I didn't. As you say - it does not apply.

The law of non contradiction only applies to the truth. People can obviously believe in contradictory assertions.

What exactly do you not understand?

You are creating a lot of strawmen, but never directly answering. I do not understand how you can think you can both hold and not hold a given belief.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No worries. Assuming the truth of mutually exclusive claims until one finds evidence to exclude one of the claims is just another way of addressing a lack of knowledge. Think of it as reversing the default position from rejection to acceptance. This still leaves a person in the same position, but the burden of proof shifts. That is all. Instead of looking for evidence to prove truth you are looking for evidence to exclude.

Take for instance the mutually exclusive views that all frogs are green and at least one frog is not green. The default position is to reject both of these as true such that you would not say that all frogs are green is true nor would you say at least one frog is not green. The default searches for the evidence that supports the truth of either statement. That is you look for evidence that supports either all frogs are green and look for evidence that supports the statement that at least one frog is not green.

Similarly, we can do the same by assuming both of these are true until evidence excludes on of the statements.

My point is that it is two ways of approaching the same situation. Either way you end up with the same result.

Ah, well that made it rather easy to understand.
I take it back, you don't share my luck with soft skills after all.

I see how you could term this as a 'reverse default position' very nice logic indeed.
So that answers the thread question for me, thank you.

I'll let you get back to your debate with Bunyip now, looks like fun but I have homework to do.

Sigh, stupid priorities.

 

[ArtieE]

What is the difference between an atheist and a strong atheist?

A (weak) atheist doesn't believe in God. A strong atheist in addition to not believing in God has the belief that God doesn't exist. A strong atheist has a belief. A weak atheist doesn't have any beliefs either way.

 

[Curious George]

Yes. That is why I asked you what the difference is. Why apply the law of non-contradiction to beliefs then? I didn't. As you say - it does not apply. You are creating a lot of strawmen, but never directly answering. I do not understand how you can think you can both hold and not hold a given belief.

Really you think they are the same...no distinction...then you believe that all atheists are strong atheists?

There is no hold and not hold a given belief. There is holding two different mutually exclusive beliefs. That these views contradict each other does not matter. If you were to ask...does this person hold the belief that god exists? I would answer yes. If you asked whether this person did not hold the belief that god exists. I would say no.

Similarly if you were to ask whether this person held the belief that god does not exist I would say yes. And no, they do not lack the belief that god does not exist.

 

[Curious George]

A (weak) atheist doesn't believe in God. A strong atheist in addition to not believing in God has the belief that God doesn't exist. A strong atheist has a belief. A weak atheist doesn't have any beliefs either way.

Ok, so by adding that strong atheists must be atheist to the definition, you have eliminated the theistic strong atheist problem, but we still have a theist who believes god does not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Really you think they are the same...no distinction...then you believe that all atheists are strong atheists?

According to the definitions you specified, yes.

There is no hold and not hold a given belief.

Of course there is, why not?

There is holding two different mutually exclusive beliefs. That these views contradict each other does not matter. If you were to ask...does this person hold the belief that god exists? I would answer yes. If you asked whether this person did not hold the belief that god exists. I would say no.

Ok. Whew! Sorted. Yes, so that person is theist.

Similarly if you were to ask whether this person held the belief that god does not exist I would say yes. And no, they do not lack the belief that god does not exist.

You've lost me, you just contradicted the previous sentence comprehensively - and yet assert that it follows.

 

[ArtieE]

Ok, so by adding that strong atheists must be atheist to the definition,

I have added nothing to the definition strong atheists have always been atheists.

you have eliminated the theistic strong atheist problem, but we still have a theist who believes god does not exist.

No we don't. All we have is faulty reasoning on your part that doesn't make sense.

 

[Bunyip]

Curious George.

So you would say no, this person did not believe god exists.

And yes, this person does not believe God does not exist.

And you wonder why I don't get it?

Doesn't not, not believe in no God? Does not, disbelieve in no God?

These are just increasingly redundant and obtuse ways of writing the same thing but adding extra 'dis' s' and 'not's' isn't it?

 

[Curious George]

I have added nothing to the definition strong atheists have always been atheists.No we don't. All we have is faulty reasoning on your part that doesn't make sense.

Show me the fault...you have extended the definition of my third premise...that is all you have done...it changes the "theistic strong atheist" conclusion but it does not eliminate the truth that we are calling a person who believes the statement -God does not exist- is true, a theist.

 

[Bunyip]

Show me the fault...you have extended the definition of my third premise...that is all you have done...it changes the "theistic strong atheist" conclusion but it does not eliminate the truth that we are calling a person who believes the statement -God does not exist- is true, a theist.

How so? Isn't that the exact opposite of what it infers?