The default position...

[Curious George]

I can assure you otherwise George, you seem to have missed my point no matter how often I respond - this goes nowhere.

What is your point...let us see.

 

[Bunyip]

That reminds me of a cat who was very ill when I adopted her. Her condition went beyond my ability to tell if she was going to live or die. I had no idea, and I couldn't work it out either way. She did live, but there were times when I thought she wouldn't, and some times when I thought she would, and she would relapse and I would have no idea.
With this, you are moving the goal posts around so much that even theists would be atheists.

No, not at all. That is a claim you know to be false. I have not moved 'the goal posts' once. Nor do I need to, I gave definitions and made distinctions consistently and from the outset. Nothing I have said would equate theism with atheism, in fact quite the opposite. Given that you are reduced to misrepresentation - let's leave it there..

In my case, it isn't a perspective of equally likely, but equally unknowable. Because it is entirely impossible to know, it isn't worth being concerned about.

Unlike an atheist, I do not hold a disbelieve in god. It's like trying to figure out what is wrong with my car when I can only narrow it down to a few possibilities without running a diagnostics and examining things. It could be the alternator, the batter, different sensors, I just don't know and I can't "disbelieve" in any certain possibility until I have eliminated that possibility.
Unlike a theist, I do not hold a believe in god. With my car example, without further examination, I can narrow the possibilities down, but I can't "believe" without running a diagnostics and examining things.
Without the proper knowledge, it is entirely unknowable, and it is foolish to try to fix a car if you don't know what is wrong with it. I can say x, y, and z is (or is not) happening, but that is all I know. Without proper knowledge, there is just something, but nothing to explain this something.

This thread reminds me of that saying "you're either gay, straight, or lying." And the people who hold the idea a person is either female or male, despite the numerous things and conditions that render that dichotomy useless. Or "you're either with us or against us." People can believe you have to be either atheist or theist, but believe is not sufficient grounds for proving something.

 

[Bunyip]

Ahh I thought you were somehow referencing my argument in this thread..

Given you are reduced to such games, I'll leave it there. I quoted the post in question.

 

[Curious George]

Given you are reduced to such games, I'll leave it there. I quoted the post in question.

Forgive me for not wanting to engage in an off topic discussion, when you are having trouble understanding the one on topic.

As to my skipping over your points, please highlight them. If I have missed any I will gladly address them.

 

[Bunyip]

Forgive me for not wanting to engage in an off topic discussion, when you are having trouble understanding the one on topic.

As to my skipping over your points, please highlight them. If I have missed any I will gladly address them.

No thanks George, I have reached the limit of times I am willing to repeat responses only for you to ignore them.

Have a lovely day.

 

[Willamena]

Why on earth would that be true Willa? How did you even think that makes senses? A non-smoker is a person who does not smoke, a pianist plays piano, a non-pianist does not.
How you could imagine that defining atheism as not-a-theist is broad at all, let alone too broad -I have no idea.

Not sure what goats and the moon have to do with anything.

Man, you really missed the point.

Here: The rules of definition by genus and difference explained

The definition of "human beings" as "featherless bipeds" is not a good definition even if it picks out the right individuals. Violation of this rule leads to the fallacy of incomplete or over complete definition.

It's entirely true that an atheist is not a theist. It's also over complete definition.

Edit: And, frankly, it's incomplete, too, considering the variety of people who identify as "theist."

Edit: Oh, and my favourite rule: "A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative."

 

[Willamena]

Sorry George, I can not make sense of your comments. How you could disagree that implicit and strong atheists are a subset of atheism I can only wonder. It is like disagreeing that black dogs and brown dogs are in the category 'dogs'.

Taking "atheism" as an umbrella term has proved itself a disservice in other threads. The atheist may be the agnostic, the strong atheist, or the ignostic, but neither of those terms lend themselves easily to a sole claim of "atheist." I suggest that we have three different breeds.

 

[Curious George]

No thanks George, I have reached the limit of times I am willing to repeat responses only for you to ignore them.

Have a lovely day.

Well if anyone else can point out which points of yours I did not address I would appreciate it...However, I am pretty sure they are well and covered.

Thank you for your wishes, May your day be just as lovely.

 

[Bunyip]

Well if anyone else can point out which points of yours I did not address I would appreciate it...However, I am pretty sure they are well and covered.

Thank you for your wishes, May your day be just as lovely.

That would he the central point George, the one I kept repeating, the one that relates to your original contention - that it is ridiculous to propose that a person can neither believe in God, nor not believe in God.

 

[Bunyip]

Man, you really missed the point.

Here: The rules of definition by genus and difference explained

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. Apparently you are criticizing me for broadening the term 'Atheism', although it is you who is including inanimate objects. I gave only a very specific definition.

It's entirely true that an atheist is not a theist. It's also over complete definition.

Wow, so it is too broad and an over definition at the same time? Gee, so I am both over and underdefining it? Naughty me.

Edit: And, frankly, it's incomplete, too, considering the variety of people who identify as "theist."

Edit: Oh, and my favourite rule: "A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative."

 

[Bunyip]

Taking "atheism" as an umbrella term has proved itself a disservice in other threads. The atheist may be the agnostic, the strong atheist, or the ignostic, but neither of those terms lend themselves easily to a sole claim of "atheist." I suggest that we have three different breeds.

Willa, it is an 'umbrella term' that only includes all atheists, that is just an absurd objection.

And yes strong atheists are a subset of atheists. I suggest you think harder.

 

[Willamena]

Willa, it is an 'umbrella term' that only includes all atheists, that is just an absurd objection.

I don't know. What do you think? I think they're separate terms.

And yes strong atheists are a subset of atheists. I suggest you think harder.

I disagree. I don't think anyone who accepts agnosticism can possibly continue to be a hard atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know. What do you think? I think they're separate terms.

Strong atheism is obviously a subset of atheism.

I disagree. I don't think anyone who accepts agnosticism can possibly continue to be a hard atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist in relation to gods not known to me, and a hard atheist in relation to Yahweh. So it is demonstrably possible, and I would think almost universal to atheists.

 

[Curious George]

That would he the central point George, the one I kept repeating, the one that relates to your original contention - that it is ridiculous to propose that a person can neither believe in God, nor not believe in God.

Again, I have certainly adressed this. I said that a person does believe God exists. And also does believe God does not exist. You are trying to make this equal does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.

This comes from a mistake on your part. You are assuming that of someone believes god does not exist then they must therefore not believe God exists. Why you assume this you have not stated. The closest you have come is stating that believing both statements are true would create cognitive dissonance. I also addressed cognitive dissonance. People can certainly hold contradictory beliefs. I do not think that this necessarily creates cognitive dissonance but assuming that every instance of believing contradictory things did create cognitive dissonance, we would only be left saying that a person that held two contradictory beliefs would experience cognitive dissonance. This is a long way from proving that it is not possible to hold two contradictory beliefs. In fact, that there is a term for such a feeling that some experience when holding contradictory beliefs furthers my point that it is possible.

I never stated that a person does not believe in God, nor does not - not believe in God. This would violate the law of non contradiction. I stated that the person did believe God exists, and also did believe God doesn't exist. These are both termed in a belief that a person holds. This is the case where x believes a, and x believes b. That a and b are contradictory does not matter. The law of non contradiction prevents the scenario where x believes a and x does not believe a. I never said this. I have pointed out that I never said this several times over. That you are the only one who cannot understand that I have not said what you think I am saying...should be sufficient for you to elaborate on why you do not think I answered this.

Please find me one post where I said x believes a and x does not believe a.

The movement of the negation matters. I want to see x does believe....And x does not believe.... With the negation in front of the verb believe.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Tonight I have no work so I can jump into a debate or two

When it comes to negative and positive atheism which comes first, or rather which one gets priority?
I believe that, by definition, negative atheism gets priority, and positive atheism is indeed sub categorized.

So I suppose we agree yet again Bunyip.

I dislike the phrase "umbrella term" it would be more accurate to say "family tree" IMO.
Negative atheism (lack of belief in God(s)) would be the roots of said tree, and it would extend out in every which way, just as theism has.
The tree of theism would have the belief in God(s) as the roots, and all the religions and their various sects would extend out in every which way.

That's the way I look at it as it helps me to make sense of the subject as a whole.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Again, I have certainly adressed this. I said that a person does believe God exists. And also does believe God does not exist. You are trying to make this equal does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.

This comes from a mistake on your part. You are assuming that of someone believes god does not exist then they must therefore not believe God exists. Why you assume this you have not stated. The closest you have come is stating that believing both statements are true would create cognitive dissonance. I also addressed cognitive dissonance. People can certainly hold contradictory beliefs. I do not think that this necessarily creates cognitive dissonance but assuming that every instance of believing contradictory things did create cognitive dissonance, we would only be left saying that a person that held two contradictory beliefs would experience cognitive dissonance. This is a long way from proving that it is not possible to hold two contradictory beliefs. In fact, that there is a term for such a feeling that some experience when holding contradictory beliefs furthers my point that it is possible.

I never stated that a person does not believe in God, nor does not - not believe in God. This would violate the law of non contradiction. I stated that the person did believe God exists, and also did believe God doesn't exist. These are both termed in a belief that a person holds. This is the case where x believes a, and x believes b. That a and b are contradictory does not matter. The law of non contradiction prevents the scenario where x believes a and x does not believe a. I never said this. I have pointed out that I never said this several times over. That you are the only one who cannot understand that I have not said what you think I am saying...should be sufficient for you to elaborate on why you do not think I answered this.

Please find me one post where I said x believes a and x does not believe a.

The movement of the negation matters. I want to see x does believe....And x does not believe.... With the negation in front of the verb believe.

The way one might describe this is an objective view on God, which would disregard the idea of belief, as a belief is an opinion statement.
But if someone were to preform an objective view on a God or all Gods they would have to relate it to the idea of God(s) as any have yet to be proven.

So this is an argument that essentially states an objective view on the idea of God(s) and doesn't give to a belief or disbelief, correct?
Your early explanation helped me to come to this point of understanding, thank you for that.
I would have just sat here thinking you were crazy without it, lol.

But, back to topic, this raises a whole new line of questions.
The one I want to ask (before I go off an research it myself) is can an objective view be involved in belief/disbelief systems?

 

[Curious George]

That would he the central point George, the one I kept repeating, the one that relates to your original contention - that it is ridiculous to propose that a person can neither believe in God, nor not believe in God.

Really, I didn't address that in these posts?

I did not make such a claim. In my example the person believes god exists and God does not exist.

You still are not following.

I am not saying a person neither believes in God nor does not believe In God.

I am saying a person can believe that god exists and that god does not exist.

Well let us slow down and not assume this person is confused...

I assume you understand the default position as I do:

That when faced with mutually exclusive probability the default position is to accept none until evidence of one is offered.

This is a rejection of the truth of all mutually exclusive claims despite knowing that one must be true until evidence of the truth of one is discovered. Please differentiate this from the acceptance of the truth of all mutually exclusive claims until the falsity of one is discovered.

Your answer, which I am not avoiding, seems to be cognitive dissonance. I disagree. But assuming that one could experience cognitive dissonance from such an acceptance, please show how all must experience cognitive dissonance. Then please show how such cognitive dissonance would prevent such acceptance of the claims.

Best case scenario for you, a person experiences cognitive dissonance. This does not invalidate the position. Nor does experiencing cognitive dissonance prevent this position from occurring. All cognitive dissonance means is that the person experiences cognitive dissonance.

So, please explain apart from the ad hominem attacks of that person is crazy, why the logic behind the thought is erroneous while the default position is not.

Next please explain whether the person is an atheist or a theist.

I am not saying that a person can believe something and not believe something at the same time.

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?

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?

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.

You are moving the "no". The person believes god exists, the person believes god does not exist.

The person does not lack a belief that god exists, the person does not lack a belief that god does not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Again, I have certainly adressed this. I said that a person does believe God exists. And also does believe God does not exist.

Exactly! And that is absurd. That is madness.

You are trying to make this equal does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.

Yes George, because it does equate to that.

This comes from a mistake on your part. You are assuming that of someone believes god does not exist then they must therefore not believe God exists.

Correct, and obviously true. [/QUOTE]Why you assume this you have not stated. [/quote] Well because it is self evident.

The closest you have come is stating that believing both statements are true would create cognitive dissonance. I also addressed cognitive dissonance.

No you haven't. In fact you keep trying to re-state it.

People can certainly hold contradictory beliefs.

Not that one they can't.

I do not think that this necessarily creates cognitive dissonance but assuming that every instance of believing contradictory things did create cognitive dissonance, we would only be left saying that a person that held two contradictory beliefs would experience cognitive dissonance. This is a long way from proving that it is not possible to hold two contradictory beliefs. In fact, that there is a term for such a feeling that some experience when holding contradictory beliefs furthers my point that it is possible.

I never stated that a person does not believe in God, nor does not - not believe in God.

Yes you have George, many, many times - including in the post I am responding to now.

This would violate the law of non contradiction. I stated that the person did believe God exists, and also did believe God doesn't exist.

Different way of writing the same contradiction.

These are both termed in a belief that a person holds. This is the case where x believes a, and x believes b. That a and b are contradictory does not matter. The law of non contradiction prevents the scenario where x believes a and x does not believe a. I never said this. I have pointed out that I never said this several times over. That you are the only one who cannot understand that I have not said what you think I am saying...should be sufficient for you to elaborate on why you do not think I answered this.

Given that truly ridiculous comment, you have not surveyed the opinion of others on this. I see we are reduced to fatuous inventions and will leave it there.

Please find me one post where I said x believes a and x does not believe a.

Earlier in the post I am quoting now.

The movement of the negation matters. I want to see x does believe....And x does not believe.... With the negation in front of the verb believe.

 

[Bunyip]

Really, I didn't address that in these posts?

Correct, you just obfuscate and repeat the same contradiction over and over. As if simple repetition will transform a contradictory sentence into a rational response.

You never once addressed it directly, instead you swung from equivocating with hypothesis, possible states, the scientific method, the law of non-contradiction and endless attempts to refer to unrelated examples.

The central issue, that a person can not believe that there is a god, and at the same time not believe that there is not a God (which is patently absurd) you have never addressed.

 

[Curious George]

The way one might describe this is an objective view on God, which would disregard the idea of belief, as a belief is an opinion statement.
But if someone were to preform an objective view on a God or all Gods they would have to relate it to the idea of God(s) as any have yet to be proven.

So this is an argument that essentially states an objective view on the idea of God(s) and doesn't give to a belief or disbelief, correct?
Your early explanation helped me to come to this point of understanding, thank you for that.
I would have just sat here thinking you were crazy without it, lol.

But, back to topic, this raises a whole new line of questions.
The one I want to ask (before I go off an research it myself) is can an objective view be involved in belief/disbelief systems?

Yes one can describe it as objective, but it does incorporate belief.

Belief is the acceptance of truth. If you accept something as true, you believe it. Thus, this does deal with belief.

But it also assumes only one of the two will be correct. When you acquire sufficient knowledge to exclude one of the two beliefs: when you open the box the cat will be dead or alive. This paradox however, allows for the macroscopic world to exist in multiple states when unkown. Though, this is beyond my point.

The point here is that it is possible to accept as true, contradictory positions until sufficient information to exclude one of the positions is discovered. Thus, you would believe mutually exclusive positions.

Apparently the belief in two mutually exclusive positions is being conflated with holding a belief and not holding a belief. These are not the same thing.