The default position...

[Bunyip]

"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?

No they are not. This has been covered earlier in the thread. Of course a person stating that they do not believe the number is odd, is inferring that they think it is even - Unless of course they are messing with you. Otherwise they would not state a position in regard to the number being even.
If they wanted to say that they do not know either way - then it would be far, far less deceptive if they just said so.

 

[Deathbydefault]

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!!!

Are you trying to make me laugh?
It's working.

The BOP is on whoever makes the claim.
Your idiotic half-rant there is a claim.
Actually it's like five claims, so you have to prove five things.

I also get the distinct impression that you're a troll.
I know people 'like you' exist, but I don't meet enough on the internet to jump straight to that conclusion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

In that case, believing God does not exist is an epistemic claim, not a default position. After all, no infant can believe that God does not exist anymore than said infant can believe that the luminous aether does not exist (and "believing God does not exist" is a belief or position one holds, and thus cannot be default).

 

[Bunyip]

In that case, believing God does not exist is an epistemic claim, not a default position. After all, no infant can believe that God does not exist anymore than said infant can believe that the luminous aether does not exist (and "believing God does not exist" is a belief or position one holds, and thus cannot be default).

Infants don't believe God exists, they don't believe in the 'luminous aether' either. So that doesn't work mate.
Believing God doesn't exist is just a less lucid way of saying that they don't believe in God - which of course infants don't. So it remains the default.

Frankly it amazes me how often people imagine that writing something slightly differently in any meaningful way changes the position of the person whose beliefs are being discussed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Infants don't believe God exists

Nor do they believe god doesn't exist. Here I'm simply using your own definition. You claim that believing X isn't true is the same as not believing X is true, which means that anybody who doesn't believe X MUST NESSARILY believe NOT X.

This is quite logical, but makes it impossible for infants to not believe in god existence, for if they did, it would (according to you) be equivalent to an infant believing that god doesn't exist.

Believing God doesn't exist is just a less lucid way of saying that they don't believe in God

It's not only not "less lucid", but is highly problematic. Let P be the proposition "God exists". Now, unless you abandon classical logic in favor of some many-valued logic, modal logic, etc., then it must be the case that this proposition is either true or false. The belief that it is true correspondents with belief in god, and the belief it is false corresponds to belief that god doesn't exist. Neither corresponds (logically) to not believing in god, as unless this is the belief in the negation of the proposition, it is neither belief nor disbelief in god.

Frankly it amazes me how often people imagine that writing something slightly differently in any meaningful way changes the position of the person whose beliefs are being discussed.

It might amaze you less if you studied a little logic and/or language.

 

[Bunyip]

Nor do they believe god doesn't exist.

Pointless semantics are not very interesting Legion. They don't believe God exists - that is all that matters or is relevant to atheism being the default.

Here I'm simply using your own definition. You claim that believing X isn't true is the same as not believing X is true, which means that anybody who doesn't believe X MUST NESSARILY believe NOT X.

This is quite logical, but makes it impossible for infants to not believe in god existence, for if they did, it would (according to you) be equivalent to an infant believing that god doesn't exist.


It's not only not "less lucid", but is highly problematic. Let P be the proposition "God exists". Now, unless you abandon classical logic in favor of some many-valued logic, modal logic, etc., then it must be the case that this proposition is either true or false. The belief that it is true correspondents with belief in god, and the belief it is false corresponds to belief that god doesn't exist. Neither corresponds (logically) to not believing in god, as unless this is the belief in the negation of the proposition, it is neither belief nor disbelief in god.


It might amaze you less if you studies a little logic and/or language.

Yeah, maybe if I study hard enough I could write pompous gibberish as well as you can.

 

[Pudding]

Theist
1. a person who believes in the doctrine of theism
2. a person who believes in the existence of God or gods

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

------------

Agnostic don't believe God(s) exist. Do they also don't believe God(s) doesn't exist?
The reason for them don't believe God(s) exist is because 1. lack of objective or credible evidence of God(s) existence 2. evidence propose by religion is unconvincing to them.
The reason for them don't believe God(s) doesn't exist is because of what reason?

------------

Also note that:
Theist may divided into Gnostic Theist and Agnostic Theist.
Atheist may divided into Gnostic Atheist and Agnostic Atheist.
Agnostic may divided into Agnostic Theist and Agnostic Atheist.

Atheism vs Theism vs Agnosticism vs Gnosticism. A simple guide to know what the hell you are.

Atheism, agnosticism and theism 4: Existence claims

 

[ArtieE]

Agnostic don't believe God(s) exist. Do they also don't believe God(s) doesn't exist?

Agnostics say they don't know if God exists or not. They say nothing about what they believe.

 

[Pudding]

Agnostics say they don't know if God exists or not. They say nothing about what they believe.

Is Agnostics equal to weak atheists?

Is "don't know if God exists or not" equal to "don't believe God exists and at the same time don't believe God doesn't exist" ?

LOL People who don't believe God exists and don't believe God doesn't exist are weak atheists not theists. You see, theists believe God exists strong atheists believe God doesn't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

It might amaze you less if you studied a little logic and/or language.

Legion imagine a conversation between a person and Bunyip:

Person: I don't believe God exists.
Bunyip: Oh so you believe God doesn't exist.
Person: No, I mean I don't believe God exists but I don't believe he doesn't exist either. I believe neither.
Bunyip: But not believing God exists is the same as believing he doesn't exist! It's just a different way of saying the same thing!
Person: No, I just told you I believe neither that God exists nor that he doesn't. What's wrong with you?

 

[ArtieE]

Is Agnostics equal to weak atheists?

No. Agnostics don't know weak atheists don't believe.

Is "don't know if God exists or not" equal to "don't believe God exists and at the same time don't believe God doesn't exist" ?

Of course not. The word know and the word believe are two different words. The word know deals with knowledge the word believe deals with belief. Agnostic theists don't claim to know that God exists but they believe he does.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No they are not. This has been covered earlier in the thread. Of course a person stating that they do not believe the number is odd, is inferring that they think it is even - Unless of course they are messing with you. Otherwise they would not state a position in regard to the number being even.
If they wanted to say that they do not know either way - then it would be far, far less deceptive if they just said so.

You're talking about language, but I'm actually addressing a logical position. It is logically reasonable to say "I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd" while still holding the position of not believing the number of grains of sand in the ocean is even. Do you agree? If they do not believe either way, it is still a perfectly logical position to state "I don't believe it is odd", even if they also don't believe it's even, right? That is still a factually correct and logical position.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Is not believing that god does not exist the same as believing God does exist then?

 

[Pudding]

Can anyone don't believe God exists and at the same time don't believe God doesn't exist? It maybe possible when the person is undecided on which way to approach?

Don't believe God exists doesn't equal to believe God doesn't exist?

Don't believe God doesn't exist doesn't equal to believe God exist?

 

[Pudding]

No. Agnostics don't know weak atheists don't believe.Of course not. The word know and the word believe are two different words. The word know deals with knowledge the word believe deals with belief. Agnostic theists don't claim to know that God exists but they believe he does.

Thanks for explain.

------------
That means that:

Gnostic Theist know God(s) exist because they have credible evidence/argument to support their knowledge that God(s) exist.

Agnostic Theist believe God(s) exist although don't know or can't know if God(s) exist or not.

Gnostic Atheist know God(s) doesn't exist because they have credible evidence/argument to support their knowledge that God(s) doesn't exist.

Agnostic Atheist don't believe God(s) exist and don't know if God(s) exist or not.
------------

Not sure what i want to debate about or relevant or not, because to me it's confusing what you guys is debate about. I just ask question and try to understand.

Edit......

 

[ArtieE]

Can anyone don't believe God exists and at the same time don't believe God doesn't exist? It maybe possible when the person is undecided on which way to approach?

Yes. That's the whole point. Maybe the person just feels he doesn't know enough about the subject to believe any of them.

Don't believe God exists doesn't equal to believe God doesn't exist?

No it doesn't equal simply because the person who says "I don't believe God exists" can just continue with "and I don't believe he doesn't exist either. I just don't know what to believe."

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks for explain.

That means that:
Gnostic Theist know God(s) exist

Knows and believes God(s) exist.

Agnostic Theist believe God(s) exist

Doesn't know but believes God(s) exist.

Gnostic Atheist know God(s) doesn't exist

Knows and believes God(s) doesn't exist.

Agnostic Atheist don't believe God(s) exist

Doesn't know and doesn't believe.

Not sure what i want to debate about or relevant or not, because to me it's confusing what you guys is debate about. I just ask question and try to understand.

Good and logical approach.

Simply think of it this way: We all start off as weak atheists (no belief either way) and then we have three possibilities:

1. Become theists and believe god(s) exist
2. Become strong atheists and believe god(s) don't exist
3. Remain weak atheists

 

[Pudding]

Yes. That's the whole point. Maybe the person just feels he doesn't know enough about the subject to believe any of them.

No it doesn't equal simply because the person who says "I don't believe God exists" can just continue with "and I don't believe he doesn't exist either. I just don't know what to believe."

Knows and believes God(s) exist.

Doesn't know but believes God(s) exist.

Knows and believes God(s) doesn't exist.

Doesn't know and doesn't believe.

Good and logical approach.

Simply think of it this way: We all start off as weak atheists (no belief either way) and then we have three possibilities:

1. Become theists and believe god(s) exist
2. Become strong atheists and believe god(s) don't exist
3. Remain weak atheists

Thanks, it's much clear for me now.

It's confusing because there have quite some different definition with them and misgeneralising or misuse.
Atheist
Strong/Explicit/Positive/Gnostic Atheist
Weak/Implicit/Negative/Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic

Your answer to op is that default position is Weak/Implicit/Negative/Agnostic Atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Your answer to op is that default position is Weak/Implicit/Negative/Agnostic Atheist.

The default is the absence of a position. The Weak/Implicit/Negative/Agnostic Atheist says "I don't say I know God(s) exist and I don't say I know God(s) don't exist. I don't believe God(s) exist and I don't believe God(s) don't exist. I have taken no positions."

 

[Deathbydefault]

Theist
Atheist
Lack

I sent each of those links to their corresponding google results.
Do your own research with definitions and linguistics.

Many of you seem to be confusing something extremely simple.