The default position...

[Bunyip]

And would simply ignore all the people who sit on the fence and don't want to say they believe God exists or say they believe God doesn't exist because they think they lack enough evidence to make a decision either way. Fence-sitters apparently don't exist in your world Bunyip.

What fence? A person is either a theist or not. If you do not believe God exists - you are atheist. I have explained this to mm you several times - but you keep confusing my INCLUDING 'fence sitters' within atheism with denying their existence. I don't deny their existence - I categorise them as atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, it is getting more and more apparent that you have no reasoning. You asked for me to explain why the two statement were not equal. I have done such. I ask you to explain why you believe I have not done this and you say that the double negatives cancel out. Nothing on your wiki page nor any grammar page refute what I have said.

But instead of clearly showing how the negatives "cancel out" in the instance I have used, you direct me to read grammar pages, and insist that I am obfuscating. Yet I have given reasons, and you have not. So who is dodging what?

George: Believes in god, and doesn't believe in no god is the same thing - how many times must I repeat myself?

Writing things badly is not an argument George - you leave me nothing to engage with.

 

[Curious George]

George: Believes in god, and doesn't believe in no god is the same thing - how many times must I repeat myself?

Writing things badly is not an argument George - you leave me nothing to engage with.

Please quote me saying "doesn't not believe in God.

I said, and have been saying "does not believe (verb) (begin new clause) that God does not exist (different verbs).

 

[Bunyip]

Please quote me saying "doesn't not believe in God.

I said, and have been saying "does not believe (verb) (begin new clause) that God does not exist (different verbs).

Does not believe that God does not exist.

Equates to: Believes God exists.


Just remove the double negatives (not and not) in the proposition.

 

[Curious George]

Does not believe that God does not exist.

Equates to: Believes God exists.


Just remove the double negatives (not and not) in the proposition.

They are in separate clauses, you can't remove them, because they cannot cancel out. They are part of separate clauses!

Please explain why you think these negatives cancel out.

 

[Bunyip]

They are in separate clauses, you can't remove them, because they cannot cancel out. They are part of separate clauses!

Please explain why you think these negatives cancel out.

Because they form the same premis.
The same sentence.

This is the first line of the wiki page on double negatives you said you read;

"A double negative is a grammatical construction occuring when two forms of negation are used in the same sentence."

Sheesh George, you only had to read the first sentence.

 

[Curious George]

Because they form the same premis.
The same sentence.

I could write a sentence with a thousand clauses and a thousand verbs without one canceling each other out. That two negatives occur in the same sentence does not mean they cancel. Double negative which cancels must first and foremost be in the same clause.

For reference please think of this:

John has never seen a movie.

John did not watch a movie that did not have a swear word.

This sentence is true. This sentence claims that John has not seen a movie that contains explicit language.

If we cancel the negatives we are left with
John watched a movie with a swear word.

This cannot be true because John has never seen a movie.

Now compare
John has not had a belief

John did not believe that God does not exist.

The same is true here with negation. That is because how this sentence is what John did not believe was the assertion that God does not exist.

Any belief you put after John did not believe must be true because John has not had a belief.

The assertion God does not exist, is a belief.

 

[Bunyip]

I could write a sentence with a thousand clauses and a thousand verbs without one canceling each other out. That two negatives occur in the same sentence does not mean they cancel. Double negative which cancels must first and foremost be in the same clause.

For reference please think of this:

John has never seen a movie.

John did not watch a movie that did not have a swear word.

This sentence is true. This sentence claims that John has not seen a movie that contains explicit language.

If we cancel the negatives we are left with
John watched a movie with a swear word.

This cannot be true because John has never seen a movie.

Now compare
John has not had a belief

John did not believe that God does not exist.

The same is true here with negation. That is because how this sentence is what John did not believe was the assertion that God does not exist.

Any belief you put after John did not believe must be true because John has not had a belief.

The assertion God does not exist, is a belief.

George, I have passed my threshold of boredom. Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

George, I have passed my threshold of boredom. Cheers.

Cheers

 

[ArtieE]

What fence? A person is either a theist or not.

The fence between a person who believes God exists (theist) and a person who believes God doesn't exist (strong atheist). You don't seem to be capable of distinguishing between theism/atheism and theism/strong atheism/weak atheism in your arguments. As long as you keep mixing them up it's impossible for you to make any sense.

 

[ArtieE]

Does not believe that God does not exist.

Equates to: Believes God exists.

What if the person who does not believe that God does not exist does not believe that God exists either and sits on the fence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Does not believe that God does not exist.

Equates to: Believes God exists.

No it doesn't, because the sentence deals with and addresses the belief "God does not exist", not the belief "God exists". The double negative doesn't negate or reverse that since a double negative isn't the same thing as multiple negation which is when it is applied to the same clause. "Does not believe that..." and "God does not exist" are two separate clauses, neither of which address belief in the existence of God. They are only addressing one position; one prong of a two-pronged question. To use the earlier analogy, stating "Does not believe that the number of grains of salt in the ocean is not odd" doesn't equate to "Believes the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even". The statement deals only with the position "the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd" and the person's acceptance of that claim - it says nothing about their acceptance of another claim, that claim being "the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even", and it is logically possible (in fact, arguably unavoidable) to disbelieve both possible answers of a mutually exclusive proposition. This is something you have previously agreed upon as a logically consistent position.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Never thought this thread would grow this big, lol.
I got the answer to my OP within the first 5 pages...
The next 42 are pretty much this argument.

Not that I mind, it is somewhat entertaining.
It's just been the same argument for the longest time.
This thread might end up as the next Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable
All we need now is a bigot that doesn't know when to quit...

 

[jonathan180iq]

John has never seen a movie.

John did not watch a movie that did not have a swear word.

This sentence is true.

John has never heard of god(s).

John does not believe in the God of Abraham.

This sentence is true, by your own example and admission, right?


What do you call people who don't believe in god(s)?

 

[atanu]

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.

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.

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

I hope you got your answer.

 

[ArtieE]

I hope you got your answer.

I got an answer but it didn't make any more sense than yours...

 

[atanu]

I got an answer but it didn't make any more sense than yours...

It is very simple but it seems that you are not willing to acknowledge for some reason.

Some people say that it is okay to say "Babies lack belief in deity and so they are atheists". We say babies cannot lack or hold belief since belief requires application of cognition faculties to the question.

In such a case, we would say "A baby has neither a belief nor a lack of belief".

 

[ArtieE]

Some people say that it is okay to say "Babies lack belief in deity and so they are atheists". We say babies cannot lack or hold belief

Since they cannot hold the belief that god(s) exist or the belief that god(s) don't exist they obviously lack those beliefs. There's an absence of those beliefs. They don't hold any of those beliefs.

In such a case, we would say "A baby has neither a belief nor a lack of belief".

The correct thing to say would be "A baby neither believes god(s) exist nor does a baby believe god(s) don't exist. There's a lack of those beliefs, there's an absence of those beliefs. They are not theists and not strong atheists. That leaves weak implicit atheists.

 

[atanu]

"A baby neither believes god(s) exist nor does a baby believe god(s) don't exist. There's a lack of those beliefs, there's an absence of those beliefs. They are not theists and not strong atheists. That leaves weak implicit atheists.

There's is no 'absence of belief'. There is neither a belief nor a disbelief in case of a baby.

'Absence' is only meaningful when a 'presence' is meaningful. In case of a baby, there is no belief and there is no disbelief. The question of a belief in deity has not arisen in a baby.

There is no atheism in baby's mind. Implicit atheism is in your mind only.

(The way adherents of implicit atheism want everyone to believe that babies have 'lack of belief' and thus are atheists, speaks only about their own beliefs.)

 

[leibowde84]

It is very simple but it seems that you are not willing to acknowledge for some reason.

Some people say that it is okay to say "Babies lack belief in deity and so they are atheists". We say babies cannot lack or hold belief since belief requires application of cognition faculties to the question.

In such a case, we would say "A baby has neither a belief nor a lack of belief".

This is utterly wrong. The term "lack" in this context does not mean "insufficient" or "lacking". It merely means "to be without". How on earth could you contend that a baby is "with the belief that God exists". If you can't say this, then, by definition, the baby would be implicitly atheist, as the baby is "without a belief in the existence of God". There is no requirement at all for cognition for something to be without any belief.