The default position...

[Bunyip]

That would date back to before you were a member. You'll have to be more specific. That way, all you need to do is quote him and I'll provide the refutation I have already (whether in whatever discussion you posted or a previous one). Alternatively, you could just use science and logic here (I don't see why that's too much to ask for someone "pro science" in a debate forum addressing a practicing scientist in the same forum).

LOL Buddy, you have refuted nothing.

 

[Bunyip]

No, it's just usually easier to give examples rather than provide a formal proof using many-valued or modal logics.

Utterly irrelevant.

LOL. No Legion, it is critical to the discussion here.

Given any proposition, anyone can say that the truth value of the proposition is "true" or "false", even if the "proposition" is "all gronks are grankled" (the scare quotes surrounding "proposition" are because, in the philosophy of logic, whether statements are actually propositions if they are identical to propositions syntactically but are meaningless is a matter of debate).

More importantly, even were I to provide a formal proof, I can't use classical logic as it is impossible to do so for the evaluations of propositions that include mental state predicates, and there is no formal logic that relies upon the naïve, simplistic binary-valued logic you implicitly do for mental state predicates like "believe".
Put simply, your position contradicts classical and non-classical logics, and is logically untenable.

However, as I can't rely on logics you don't know to prove this, I use examples. It seems intuitive that if you don't know if X is true that you neither believe X or disbelieve it, but it also seems intuitive that if you don't believe X, then clearly you "must" believe that X isn't true. This is the fallacy of equating propositions in sentential logic with modal logics or many-valued logics (while the latter lack the canonical status that classical predicate/propositional logic have, classical logic disallow statements of "belief" as possessing truth value).


What if I believe daimon exist? What if I believe that Jesus existed, and the proposition "Jesus was the son of God" is true?

Legion, that (as usual) was all hot air, posturing and off topic ranting.

 

[Bunyip]

Again, this line of reasoning leads to logical contradictions.
For example, consider the logically valid contradiction that follows from an otherwise valid logical argument:
Premise: Clark Kent is Superman
Premise: Louis works with Clark Kent
Premise: Louis believes she works with Clark Kent
Conclusion: Louis believes she works with superman (by identity)

Even less formally, classical logic requires the identity principle/rule. That is, given that x=y, we should be able to replace x with y (or vice versa) anywhere. And in classical logic, this is true. That's because they don't allow mental state predicates, because one can believe some proposition involving x, that proposition could be true about y because x=y, but one can disbelieve the proposition as applied to y because one doesn't believe x=y.

There is no logic there at all mate.

 

[Bunyip]

They are all weak atheists. Strong atheists know what to believe that is the difference between strong and weak atheists.

What? Can you write that again? Strong atheists do not hold the belief in question.

 

[ArtieE]

What? Can you write that again? Strong atheists do not hold the belief in question.

Sure. Weak atheists don't believe God exists and don't believe God doesn't exist. Strong atheists believe God doesn't exist. That's why we call them weak and strong so we can tell if we are talking about people who believe God doesn't exist or people without that belief.

 

[Curious George]

LOL. No Legion, it is critical to the discussion here. Legion, that (as usual) was all hot air, posturing and off topic ranting.

I may not agree but this is hilarious.

Did we ever resolve that dispute? They are different, they are the same, no they are different?

So, I was wondering why are does not believe in God and believes god does not exist the same?

 

[ArtieE]

If it's useful to distinguish between people who believe God exists (theists) and people without that belief (atheists) it's useful to distinguish between people who believe God doesn't exist (strong atheists) and people without that belief (weak atheists).

Obviously you can be without belief that God exists and without belief that God doesn't exist at the same time.

 

[Bunyip]

I may not agree but this is hilarious.

Did we ever resolve that dispute? They are different, they are the same, no they are different?

So, I was wondering why are does not believe in God and believes god does not exist the same?

How are they different? (Other than in terms of semantics)

 

[Bunyip]

If it's useful to distinguish between people who believe God exists (theists) and people without that belief (atheists) it's useful to distinguish between people who believe God doesn't exist (strong atheists) and people without that belief (weak atheists).

How is that useful? They are most likely views found in the same person. Not two different groups.

Obviously you can be without belief that God exists and without belief that God doesn't exist at the same time.

No, that is contradictory. They are two mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure. Weak atheists don't believe God exists and don't believe God doesn't exist.

What? No, those people are nuts - that is an impossible position, it is contradictory. If you do not believe god exists - you therefore believe he does not exist.

Strong atheists believe God doesn't exist. That's why we call them weak and strong so we can tell if we are talking about people who believe God doesn't exist or people without that belief.

Strong and weak atheism are positions held by the same people, the same person - not two different groups.

 

[Curious George]

How are they different? (Other than in terms of semantics)

Lol, they deal with different mental states.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, they deal with different mental states.

LOL Oh do they? That's nice.

As I have said so many times - believing God does not exist, and not believing that God exists are the same thing just written differently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I have said so many times - believing God does not exist, and not believing that God exists are the same thing just written differently.

"I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd."
"I believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even."

Are these two the same position, written differently?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So what? I don't have any idea how micro-processors work either - it still has nothing to do with atheism. God doesn't exist, I am 99.999% certain.

Based on what? There being no evidence at all about the source/cause of the univers, how can it be anything other than 50-50--maybe so, maybe not. Your certainty is based on pure blind faith.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Based on what? There being no evidence at all about the source/cause of the univers, how can it be anything other than 50-50--maybe so, maybe not. Your certainty is based on pure blind faith.

While I would agree with you to an extent (until Bunyip presents their reasoning), how do you reason that - with no evidence - you can assert that the chance has to be 50 - 50?

 

[Curious George]

Based on what? There being no evidence at all about the source/cause of the univers, how can it be anything other than 50-50--maybe so, maybe not. Your certainty is based on pure blind faith.

A God construct is pure speculation, we know that these constructs are created to give authority to laws and people, and to explain phenomenon that they don't understand. Further, we know that us homo sapiens are a fanciful sort that love to buy into magic and fantasy especially when it feeds our ego. We know that people, desperate and scared often cling to notions of hope and miracles. Given this, and given the historical emergence of various religions, there is little reason to not believe that God does not exist. The same is true for ghosts and boogeymen. Now weighing the evidence in the opposite direction we have testimony that is less than credible based on motivations of either inflating/feeding egos, desire to for fantasy, or desire to know the unknown. With all of this, that some still think the propositions are equally valid is mind boggling. To further this we have logical contradictions with God concepts such as omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (sp?), static vs. Changing, and inserting itself into its creation. Further, we have enough knowledge to support an existence without God, a scientific understanding that has undermined religious thought throughout the years, and religious "prophets" falling on their face left and right. We have catalogued and understood mental disorders that account for at least some of the descriptions of God contact, and this creator has eluded us for all time. Over history we can watch the God construct change to accommodate our knowledge. This is more than enough evidence to tip the scales....But there could be, some might say. Well yes, and we could all wake up tomorrow and be chickens plucking around a farm, hell, we might not even exist and could all be figments of your imagination, but this and a God construct are extremely unlikely.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

While I would agree with you to an extent (until Bunyip presents their reasoning), how do you reason that - with no evidence - you can assert that the chance has to be 50 - 50?

Side story time!!!
My friend has a coin jar she keeps next to her laundry, an every time she empties her pockets before tossing things into the wash, she put the coins in this regular sized mason jar.
I was looking at it one day, and asked her how much was in it.. She had NO idea, but she guessed somewhere around 12 bucks.
I thought it was more like seven million, four hundred thousand and thirty.
Now, since she doesn't KNOW how much is in this jar, obviously, my guess is as valid as hers.. because that's how 50/50 chances work, right?
Also, I felt "very strongly" that it was around seven million, and she wasn't that sure about the twelve dollars.. sos I think that makes mine more likely than hers!

Sorry, back to the topic.. what were we talking about 50/50 chance and equal claims for again?

 

[lstan135]

Empty vessels make the most noise. By the words of your mouth shows the meditations of your heart which makes clear what your belief system is. Whether u r empty, silly, happy-go-lucky or 50/50, u are real filthy, ugly n untidy. We do not need to proof anything as the proofs are right before your very eyes. The heavens, the sea, the rivers, valleys and the trees are God's creations. It is therefore necessary for all atheist to provide real n concrete evident to prove that God doesn't exist. Until then, God will still remain as our creator, our heavenly father and our King. Amen!!!

 

[Awkward Fingers]

"Please, please, take my burden of proof!!!"

Oh look, more baseless assertions. That's surprising!
And you may be ugly, filthy and untidy, but don't project your personal issue onto the rest of us, thanks.

 

[Bunyip]

Based on what? There being no evidence at all about the source/cause of the univers, how can it be anything other than 50-50--maybe so, maybe not. Your certainty is based on pure blind faith.

Buddy, there is clearly something you are not getting about how the origins of the universe is irrelevant to atheism.