The default position...

[Curious George]

There is nothing to prove, they are just two slightly different ways of writing the exact same thing (as I have said to you many times.).
1. Believing in God
and 2. Not disbelieving in God

Are equivalent, they mean the same - but 2. is poorer English,

I did not say that..good grief! It is not "not disbelieving" it is believing God exists and believing God does not exist.

I have not put the negation before the word believe. Why is this hard for you to understand.

I am saying believe a
And believe b

There is no disbelief or not believing involved.

 

[outhouse]

Strong atheism nothing to do with knowledge only belief.

Factually false.

Belief can factually change from belief to knowledge.

Example 1 + 1 =2 DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS 2 or do you know it is 2. OK, you "know" it is two and knowledge has changed belief.

All implicit atheists are weak atheists

They fall in that category, but implicit has its own definition outside weak atheism.

Please learn the definition

Knowledge has to do with agnosticism.

You have no context of the definition of atheism, and I have not brought up agnosticism.

Stop talking about knowledge when discussing atheism

Why? because you don't understand the definition of atheism and have issues with the definition of belief and how belief can evolve into knowledge.


I know god was created by man, so I am an atheist. At one time I did have a belief, but with knowledge and education, I no longer have any belief.

 

[Bunyip]

I did not say that..good grief! It is not "not disbelieving" it is believing God exists and believing God does not exist.

I have not put the negation before the word believe. Why is this hard for you to understand.

What is hard for me to understand George, is why you think it makes a difference. (Other than semantically).

1. Believing God does not exist.
And
2. Disbelieving in God.

Are the same.
How can you keep ignoring that?

I am saying believe a
And believe b

There is no disbelief or not believing involved.

George, that is a purely semantic difference - slightly altering how you write a claim does not really change anything. Not believing 'A', is the SAME as disbelieving 'A'.

 

[Bunyip]

Factually false.

Nonsense. Strong atheism is a belief.

Belief can factually change from belief to knowledge.

Example 1 + 1 =2 DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS 2 or do you know it is 2. OK, you "know" it is two and knowledge has changed belief.




They fall in that category, but implicit has its own definition outside weak atheism.

Please learn the definition





You have no context of the definition of atheism, and I have not brought up agnosticism.



Why? because you don't understand the definition of atheism and have issues with the definition of belief and how belief can evolve into knowledge.


I know god was created by man, so I am an atheist. At one time I did have a belief, but with knowledge and education, I no longer have any belief.

 

[outhouse]

Nonsense. Strong atheism is a belief.

And implicit atheism does not require a conscious rejection of the concept.

Your wrong, as I don't hold a belief, I flat know man created god. I do not disbelieve the answer is 2 I know it is 2.


Do you believe 1 + 1 + 2 of course not, you know it is 2

 

[outhouse]

when you see a stop sign, do you know it means that you have to stop? Or do you believe you have to stop.

You can play word games all you or anyone else wants. But there are levels when belief evolves into knowledge.

 

[Bunyip]

And implicit atheism does not require a conscious rejection of the concept.

Your wrong, as I don't hold a belief, I flat know man created god. I do not disbelieve the answer is 2 I know it is 2.


Do you believe 1 + 1 + 2 of course not, you know it is 2

Dude, 1+1+2=4.

 

[Bunyip]

when you see a stop sign, do you know it means that you have to stop? Or do you believe you have to stop.

You can play word games all you or anyone else wants. But there are levels when belief evolves into knowledge.

So what? Theism is still a belief. If it becomes knowledge - that would be gnostic theism.

 

[outhouse]

Dude, 1+1+2=4.

Moving goal post, non sequitur

 

[outhouse]

So what? Theism is still a belief. If it becomes knowledge - that would be gnostic theism.

Moving goal post.

Im strictly talking about the default position of atheism.

I don't have a belief about gods status as man made.

 

[Bunyip]

Moving goal post.

Im strictly talking about the default position of atheism.

I don't have a belief about gods status as man made.

How is that moving the goal posts? Atheism is a disbelief, not a knowledge claim.

 

[Bunyip]

Moving goal post, non sequitur

Ahhahahahahah........LOL. You said 1+1+2 equals 2 and accuse me of moving the goal posts and a non sequitur.

ROLFMAO.

Wow dude, you're a riot.

So you get your maths wrong, but that's a failure on my part huh?
Like Chuck Norris - you didn't get yer math wrong, I just read it wrong. LOL

In all my time here, that was by far the nuttiest response ever.

You; "1+1+2=2!"
Me; "Actually it equals 4."
You; "Moving goalposts, non sequitur!"
Me; (fell off chair laughing)

 

[outhouse]

You said 1+1+2

don't have my reading glasses. It was supposed to be a "= " not a "+" 1+ 1 = 2

Context was evident, but my fault.

 

[Curious George]

What is hard for me to understand George, is why you think it makes a difference. (Other than semantically).

1. Believing God does not exist.
And
2. Disbelieving in God.

Are the same.
How can you keep ignoring that?George, that is a purely semantic difference - slightly altering how you write a claim does not really change anything. Not believing 'A', is the SAME as disbelieving 'A'.

The first part is what I disagree with.

The second part is a misstatement of my position. I am not saying that disbelieving a is different from not believing a. I am saying not believing a is different from believing not a.

 

[Bunyip]

The first part is what I disagree with.

The second part is a misstatement of my position. I am not saying that disbelieving a is different from not believing a. I am saying not believing a is different from believing not a.

Is it? How so? What is the difference? (Other than semantics).

This is what I keep asking you, but you never answer to it.

 

[Curious George]

This is what I keep asking you, but you never answer to it.

Would you say someone who did not believe in God must say God does not exist? An example of this would be a baby?

The statements are saying different things. I assume you agree with this?

 

[Bunyip]

Would you say someone who did not believe in God must say God does not exist? An example of this would be a baby?

What? A baby that talks philosophy? Why would it have to say anything?

The statements are saying different things. I assume you agree with this?

Sheesh George, how many times do I have to answer before it registers? No George I don't agree with that. It is the same thing. Not believing God does exist and believing God does not exist are THE SAME POSITION. As I keep saying, it is two different ways of writing the same thing.

 

[Curious George]

What? A baby that talks philosophy? Why would it have to say anything?
Sheesh George, how many times do I have to answer before it registers? No George I don't agree with that. It is the same thing. Not believing in God and believing God does not exist are THE SAME POSITION.

Hmm. Have you not stated that you were a weak atheist concerning religions you do not know?

 

[Bunyip]

Hmm. Have you not stated that you were a weak atheist concerning religions you do not know?

George respond to what I said please - I don't want to keep repeating it and you never engage on the central point.


George, what I am saying is that not believing God exists, and believing God does not exist ARE THE SAME

Please respond on that point before we go further.

 

[Curious George]

George respond to what I said please - I don't want to keep repeating it and you never engage on the central point.


George, what I am saying is that not believing God exists, and believing God does not exist ARE THE SAME

Please respond on that point before we go further.

I am trying to get there. I believe you have said you were a weak atheist with regard to religion that you did not know. This is because you lack belief. Consequently, you do not believe that these gods (unknown to you) exist. However, you have stated you are a strong atheist (if I remember correctly) with regard to xtian God. Thus you do not believe in the xtian God. If these statements are the same, you could not differentiate between weak atheists and strong atheists.