The default position...

[atanu]

This doesn't make sense either. A person who says "I have not enough data to decide" is an agnostic.

Yes. That at least is meaningful.

 

[atanu]

Still doesn't make any sense. Saying "I have no belief" is the same as saying "I disbelieve". Try using different words.

Can you pay a little more attention please? I beg of you to.

I agree that saying "I have no belief" is the same as saying "I disbelieve" (and that is why I do not agree to Implicit atheists position). But in the second part of the sentence I am negating the 'disbelief' also.

Please read again. "I have neither belief nor disbelief". The red and blue parts are negating opposite facts.

 

[ArtieE]

Please read again. "I have neither belief nor disbelief". The red and blue parts are negating opposite facts.

What does "negating opposite facts" mean? Can you explain in your own words?

 

[Curious George]

How can one say "I don't believe that X exists" and also "I don't believe that X doesnot exist" in same breath? "I don't believe that X exists" means "I believe that X does not exist".

Consider "I don't believe that there is beer in fridge". This person believes that there is no beer in the fridge. Now, if he were to say in same breath "I don't believe that beer is not in the fridge", most likely he is out of his mind.


Probably there is confusion regarding the use of double negation. It is perfect to say "I neither believe nor deisbelieve in God. I have not considered the question at all." Or " I neither believe nor disbelieve, since I found no confirmation this way or that way."

I just showed these were different.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So what would the name for the middle term be?
If 'theism - atheism' isn't a polarity then what do you call the middle point(s)?

For example: You can't either be fat or skinny there is a middle between them (actually there's like three...).

 

[ArtieE]

So what would the name for the middle term be?
If 'theism - atheism' isn't a polarity then what do you call the middle point(s)?

For example: You can't either be fat or skinny there is a middle between them (actually there's like three...).

1. Theism (belief gods exist)
2. Weak atheism (absence of belief gods exist, absence of belief gods don't exist)
3. Strong atheism (absence of belief gods exist, presence of belief gods don't exist)

 

[Deathbydefault]

1. Theism (belief gods exist)
2. Weak atheism (absence of belief gods exist, absence of belief gods don't exist)
3. Strong atheism (absence of belief gods exist, presence of belief gods don't exist)

Cool.
So what would they be called?
You're 1,2,3, does nothing but confirm the polarity.

 

[ArtieE]

Cool.
So what would they be called?
You're 1,2,3, does nothing but confirm the polarity.

Theist
Weak atheist
Strong atheist

 

[Deathbydefault]

Theist
Weak atheist
Strong atheist

Are you possibly for the polarity?
I've only been paying attention to select people in this thread and have read just a bit of your content.
Again, the 1-2-3 supports the "either you are a theist or an atheist" polarity.

 

[Curious George]

So what would the name for the middle term be?
If 'theism - atheism' isn't a polarity then what do you call the middle point(s)?

For example: You can't either be fat or skinny there is a middle between them (actually there's like three...).

Is algebra fat or skinny? Categories that are not applicable usually have no purpose in being described by the terms to which are not applicable.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you possibly for the polarity?
I've only been paying attention to select people in this thread and have read just a bit of your content.
Again, the 1-2-3 supports the "either you are a theist or an atheist" polarity.

Theist
Weak atheist
Strong atheist

Theist
Atheist

Both are equally correct.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Theist
Weak atheist
Strong atheist

Theist
Atheist

Both are equally correct.

Eh, I suppose I can agree with that so long as they stay true to the definition of atheism.
The weak/strong atheist thing.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol
You said premise 1.

Premise 1:
not believing that god does not exist= believing God exists.
Premise 2:
Babies cannot believe.

Therefore babies cannot believe that God does not exist.

For God's sake mate - your English is just appalling. Of course babies don't believe God exists.

Since, not believing God does not exist is equal to believing God exists

Babies believe that God exists.

This contradicts, our second premise

Do you really think that writing disbelief in a different way magically changes anything? Really? Are you serious here George?

Therefore either the first or the second premise is not true.

Assuming your premise, leads to the absurdity that babies believe in God.

Game, set, match...thank you for playing.

What was the game? Pidgeon Chess?


Your endless confusion seems to stem from simply writing things out in ways that render them as illegible as possible.

Try it this way: If you mean that the person does believe God exists - just write it; They believe God exists.

You write: They do not believe God does not exist - but if you wrote it as 'They believe God exists' (getting rid of all the double negatives) your meaning would be far more clear.

 

[Willamena]

For God's sake mate - your English is just appalling.

His English is just fine.

Must be a local thing.

 

[Willamena]

What does "negating opposite facts" mean? Can you explain in your own words?

Belief and disbelief are facts that are opposites. In negating them both, one is left in a position.

i.e. A conscious person can never not be left in a position.

 

[Curious George]

For God's sake mate - your English is just appalling. Of course babies don't believe God exists. Do you really think that writing disbelief in a different way magically changes anything? Really? Are you serious here George? What was the game? Pidgeon Chess?


Your endless confusion seems to stem from simply writing things out in ways that render them as illegible as possible.

Try it this way: If you mean that the person does believe God exists - just write it; They believe God exists.

You write: They do not believe God does not exist - but if you wrote it as 'They believe God exists' (getting rid of all the double negatives) your meaning would be far more clear.

Lol, I meant what I said.

You are the one equating the two. I am the one who just distinguished them. Ad hominem all you like, the proof is there. Now if you care to illustrate how the proof is wrong, or issue forth some attempt at proving your now baseless assertion, I will certainly entertain such.

 

[Willamena]

The primary denotation of disbelief is incredulity. If you're meaning it in some other way than, "Oh, man, that's too weird to believe," then you're not using the primary denotation ("inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real") of disbelief.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, I meant what I said.

You are the one equating the two. I am the one who just distinguished them. Ad hominem all you like, the proof is there. Now if you care to illustrate how the proof is wrong, or issue forth some attempt at proving your now baseless assertion, I will certainly entertain such.

What proof? You've lost me.

As I said, rather than write - 'doesn't believe God does not exist'', just edit out the double negative and write it as 'believes God exists'. That will save you a lot of confusion.

I apologise if you took what I said as an ad hominem attack, but who (other than a person trying to be deliberately deceptive, or with poor English skills ) would write; "I didn't not go to the shop today!", in favour of "I went to the shop today."?
"
Just try it George - instead of writing; "Doesn't believe God does not exist", substitute "believes God exists" and the "proof" you presented evaporates in a flash of bad grammar.

 

[Windwalker]

OMG, it's still going on!

 

[Thief]

ridiculous...is it not?