The default position...

[ImmortalFlame]

It remains a double negative - and the convention in English is that they cancel each other out

A double negative is when you use two negatives in the same sentence; they don't necessarily have to cancel each other out. Multiple negation is when they cancel each other out. For example:

"George did not tell me that he wasn't coming here tonight".

"George isn't not coming here tonight".

Note that the first uses negatives in two separate clauses, and the second uses two negatives in the same clause, and note the difference in negation. One says "George is coming here tonight", the other says something completely different.

- whatever gave you the impression that being separate 'clauses' of the same sentence/claim and thus don't cancel each other out I can only imagine -

The years I spent studying English at University, probably. A single clause addresses a single subject, so multiple clauses addressing separate subjects don't always cancel each other out. As in the example above, the first clause "George did not tell me..." is addressing the subject "George" and whether or not they told the speaker something; while the second clauses "that he wasn't coming here tonight" changes the subject to "here" and whether or not George actually arrived. The first addresses what George said, the second addresses what George did - they do not cancel each other out, since saying "he didn't say he'd do X" doesn't negate "he didn't do X". They address two separate subjects.

but you are mistaken. We have discussed this before - the grains of sand analogy doesn't fit because there are three possibilities - whilst with belief in God there are only two.

Wrong. With grains of sand (or salt) there are only two possibilities: the quantity is either odd or even. So when you disbelieve the claim that the number is odd, you must - according to your logic - believe that the number of grains of sand is even. Correct?

 

[Bunyip]

A double negative is when you use two negatives in the same sentence; they don't necessarily have to cancel each other out. Multiple negation is when they cancel each other out. For example:

"George did not tell me that he wasn't coming here tonight".

"George isn't not coming here tonight".

Note that the first uses negatives in two separate clauses, and the second uses two negatives in the same clause, and note the difference in negation. One says "George is coming here tonight", the other says something completely different.


The years I spent studying English at University, probably. A single clause addresses a single subject, so multiple clauses addressing separate subjects don't always cancel each other out. As in the example above, the first clause "George did not tell me..." is addressing the subject "George" and whether or not they told the speaker something; while the second clauses "that he wasn't coming here tonight" changes the subject to "here" and whether or not George actually arrived. The first addresses what George said, the second addresses what George did - they do not cancel each other out, since saying "he didn't say he'd do X" doesn't negate "he didn't do X". They address two separate subjects.

I know how double negatives work. In THIS case both clauses refer to the same belief and form the same premis, thus they cancel out. Your example of George, was a valiant attempt at harmonisation - but unfortunately as transparent as it was useless. Unlike your example in this case BOTH clauses refer to exactly the same belief and form the same premis. So while it was clever of you to try to invent an example where George is referring to two very distinct things (what he SAID, and what he DID) - that is not the case with the clauses in hand. Both refer to the same belief (that God exists). Was I just not supposed to notice the trick there?

Wrong. With grains of sand (or salt) there are only two possibilities: the quantity is either odd or even. So when you disbelieve the claim that the number is odd, you must - according to your logic - believe that the number of grains of sand is even. Correct?

You are not thinking hard enough - sure there are two POSSIBLE OUTCOMES with your grain of sand analogy , but there are THREE possible positions. Three possible beliefs. You believe even, odd - or don't know.
Do you believe God exists?
If yes, then you are theist, if no - then you are atheist. If you don't know, then you don't believe God exists and are atheist. Unlike the grains of sand example there are only two possible positions on the belief in question - do you hold it? Or not? You either believe God exists, or don't. Unlike the grains of sand analogy, there is no third position.

This is about belief, a specific belief (that God exists) unless you believe god exists - atheism, remains the default.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I know how double negatives work. In THIS case both clauses refer to the same belief and form the same premis, thus they cancel out. Your example of George, was a valiant attempt at harmonisation - but unfortunately as transparent as it was useless. Unlike your example in this case BOTH clauses refer to exactly the same belief and form the same premis.

But they aren't cancelling each other out. The first clause deals with the acceptance of belief, the second clause addresses a specific belief. It is saying that subject of the sentence is the belief "God does not exist", and the prior clause is saying "The individual does not believe the following claim"; there is no cancellation. It is a simple statement "They don't believe the claim that God does not exist", in the same way that the example said "George didn't say he wasn't coming here tonight". It's the exact same usage. The fact that they both use two negatives doesn't mean the two negatives cancel each other out as in the example "George isn't not coming here tonight".

So while it was clever of you to try to invent an example where George is referring to two very distinct things (what he SAID, and what he DID) - that is not the case with the clauses in hand. Both refer to the same belief (that God exists).

No, the first clause deals with what is believed, the second deals with the subject "God does not exist". [I don't believe that] [God doesn't exist]. The first clauses is stating disbelief in the second clause.

Was I just not supposed to notice the trick there? You are not thinking hard enough - sure there are two POSSIBLE OUTCOMES with your grain of sand analogy , but there are THREE possible positions. Three possible beliefs. You believe even, odd - or don't know.

Not knowing is a different subject altogether from not believing. There are only two possible positions with regards to belief: belief or disbelief. Do you believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd?

Do you believe God exists?
If yes, then you are theist, if no - then you are atheist. If you don't know, then you don't believe God exists and are atheist.

Agreed, but "I don't know" isn't an answer to the question "Do you BELIEVE God exists". It is a yes/no proposition, and belief/disbelief are mutually exclusive positions. "I don't know" is not an answer to the question.

Unlike the grains of sand example there are only two possible positions on the belief in question - do you hold it? Or not? You either believe God exists, or don't. Unlike the grains of sand analogy, there is no third position.

There are only ever two possible positions with regards to belief in ANY question, whether it be about God, grains of sand, giraffes flying airplanes, or babies being made of dough. You either believe the proposition or you do not. You either accept the proposition as true, or you do not. In the exact same way, asking "Do you believe God exists?" only has two answers: yes or no. And "Do you believe the number of grains if salt in the ocean is odd?" has only two answers: yes or no. Each question is asking whether or not you accept a single prong of a two-pronged dilemma as true. Ergo, answering "no" the former doesn't say anything about your response to the question "Do you believe God doesn't exist?", and answering no to the latter doesn't say anything about your response to the question "Do you believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even?"

This is about belief, a specific belief (that God exists) unless you believe god exists - atheism, remains the default.

I agree. The problem here is that you seem to think that not accepting a proposition is the same as believing the mutually exclusive, negative position of that proposition. This is not true.

 

[Bunyip]

But they aren't cancelling each other out. The first clause deals with the acceptance of belief, the second clause addresses a specific belief.

Ok, this is the last time I repeat the same thing here - maybe start a thread on grammar? BOTH clauses address the SAME BELIEF.

It is saying that subject of the sentence is the belief "God does not exist", and the prior clause is saying "The individual does not believe the following claim"; there is no cancellation. It is a simple statement "They don't believe the claim that God does not exist", in the same way that the example said "George didn't say he wasn't coming here tonight". It's the exact same usage. The fact that they both use two negatives doesn't mean the two negatives cancel each other out as in the example "George isn't not coming here tonight".


No, the first clause deals with what is believed, the second deals with the subject "God does not exist". [I don't believe that] [God doesn't exist]. The first clauses is stating disbelief in the second clause.


Not knowing is a different subject altogether from not believing. There are only two possible positions with regards to belief: belief or disbelief. Do you believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd?


Agreed, but "I don't know" isn't an answer to the question "Do you BELIEVE God exists". It is a yes/no proposition, and belief/disbelief are mutually exclusive positions. "I don't know" is not an answer to the question.

Of course it is - if you do not know that you believe in God, then you don't. You can't believe in God but not know it.

There are only ever two possible positions with regards to belief in ANY question, whether it be about God, grains of sand, giraffes flying airplanes, or babies being made of dough. You either believe the proposition or you do not. You either accept the proposition as true, or you do not. In the exact same way, asking "Do you believe God exists?" only has two answers: yes or no. And "Do you believe the number of grains if salt in the ocean is odd?" has only two answers: yes or no. Each question is asking whether or not you accept a single prong of a two-pronged dilemma as true. Ergo, answering "no" the former doesn't say anything about your response to the question "Do you believe God doesn't exist?", and answering no to the latter doesn't say anything about your response to the question "Do you believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even?"


I agree. The problem here is that you seem to think that not accepting a proposition is the same as believing the mutually exclusive, negative position of that proposition. This is not true.

It is in this specific case. As I have explained several times. There is only one belief in question - belief in God, if you do not believe in God, that is exactly the same as believing the mutually exclusive, negative position.

What you are doing is thinking up a counter example where this is not the case, and then pretending that I denied that there could be any counter examples. I am referring to one specific belief - that God exists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, this is the last time I repeat the same thing here - maybe start a thread on grammar? BOTH clauses address the SAME BELIEF.

Actually, no they don't. The first clause is stating "a person doesn't believe" and the second clause states the belief. The sentence deals with a belief in a single subject, but both clauses do not state the same belief - one addresses the position, the other specifies the belief that they hold that position on. It's no different to saying [I believe that] [cake is delicious]. The first is saying [I don't believe], and the second specifies the subject of the disbelief, the position [God does not exist]. The two negatives DO NOT cancel each other out.

Of course it is - if you do not know that you believe in God, then you don't. You can't believe in God but not know it.

Which is exactly why it is a yes/no proposition with only two possible answers. "I don't know" is a "no" answer.

It is in this specific case. As I have explained several times. There is only one belief in question - belief in God, if you do not believe in God, that is exactly the same as believing the mutually exclusive, negative position.

So not believing the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd means you must believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even?

What you are doing is thinking up a counter example where this is not the case, and then pretending that I denied that there could be any counter examples. I am referring to one specific belief - that God exists.

It doesn't matter. Answering "no" to the question "Does God exist?" doesn't mean you must answer "yes" to the question "Does God not exist?" They are two separate questions, and answering one in the negative tells you nothing about whether or not you would answer the other in the positive. You don't need to accept a mutually exclusive proposition in order to reject its negative. It is perfectly logically consistent to reject both claims.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, no they don't. The first clause is stating "a person doesn't believe" and the second clause states the belief. The sentence deals with a belief in a single subject, but both clauses do not state the same belief - one addresses the position, the other specifies the belief that they hold that position on. It's no different to saying [I believe that] [cake is delicious]. The first is saying [I don't believe], and the second specifies the subject of the disbelief, the position [God does not exist]. The two negatives DO NOT cancel each other out.


Which is exactly why it is a yes/no proposition with only two possible answers. "I don't know" is a "no" answer.

My point exactly.

So not believing the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd means you must believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even?


It doesn't matter. Answering "no" to the question "Does God exist?" doesn't mean you must answer "yes" to the question "Does God not exist?" They are two separate questions, and answering one in the negative tells you nothing about whether or not you would answer the other in the positive.

This is just ridiculous - they are the same question. One answers to the other. You are being either deliberately obtuse, or absurd.

You don't need to accept a mutually exclusive proposition in order to reject its negative. It is perfectly logically consistent to reject both claims.

Not in this case. It is as you said - either/or.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is just ridiculous - they are the same question.

No they are not. "God exists" and "God does not exist" are two separate propositions, and the question "Do you believe God exists" is asking whether or not you believe is that specific proposition - it is not asking you whether you accept the proposition "God does not exist".

I will ask again: Does not believing the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd means you must believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even?

It is as you said - either/or.

The existence of God is an either/or proposition. However, BELIEF in a proposition is a different matter entirely. Disbelief in proposition X does not entail belief in proposition Y. I refer you to the odd/even example above. If you can understand why saying "I don't believe the number is even" isn't the same as saying "I believe the number is odd", then you should be able to understand why saying "I don't believe God exists" isn't the same as saying "I believe God does not exist".

 

[Bunyip]

No they are not. "God exists" and "God does not exist" are two separate propositions,

That is absurd - they are the two different responses to THE VERY SAME PROPOSITION.

and the question "Do you believe God exists" is asking whether or not you believe is that specific proposition - it is not asking you whether you accept the proposition "God does not exist".

Again, the same proposition is being discussed - they are the two possible responses to the same proposition. (Does God exist?).

I will ask again: Does not believing the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd means you must believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even?

Not going to bother answering to that yet again. Re-read the thread please.

The existence of God is an either/or proposition. However, BELIEF in a proposition is a different matter entirely.

Belief in that matter IS THE TOPIC HERE.

Disbelief in proposition X does not entail belief in proposition Y.

Of course it does.

I refer you to the odd/even example above. If you can understand why saying "I don't believe the number is even" isn't the same as saying "I believe the number is odd", then you should be able to understand why saying "I don't believe God exists" isn't the same as saying "I believe God does not exist".

Of course it is the same. They are both responses TO THE SAME PROPOSITION.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is absurd - they are the two different responses to THE VERY SAME PROPOSITION.

No they are not. The only response you can have to a proposition of belief is yes or no. The question "Do you believe God exists?" asks you whether or not you accept the claim "God exists" - it says nothing about whether or not you accept the claim "God does not exist". Again, this is no different to specifying that there is a difference between accepting the claim "The number of balls is odd" and "The number of balls is even". Even though they are mutually exclusive, you don't have to accept one to disbelieve the other. You can disbelieve both.

Again, the same proposition is being discussed - they are the two possible responses to the same proposition. (Does God exist?).

"Does God exist?" is NOT the proposition. The proposition is whether or not you BELIEVE God exists, not whether or not God ACTUALLY exists. I've been very specific in only addressing the question of belief, not the question of actual existence.

Not going to bother answering to that yet again. Re-read the thread please.

So if you accept that saying "I don't believe the number is even" doesn't mean "I believe the number is odd", why can you not accept "I don't believe God exists" doesn't mean "I believe God doesn't exist"? It's the exact same logic.

Belief in that matter IS THE TOPIC HERE.

Exactly. So why did you suddenly change the proposition to "Does God exist"?

Of course it does.

So saying "I don't believe the number is even" must mean the same as "I believe the number is odd", correct?

Of course it is the same. They are both responses TO THE SAME PROPOSITION.

No they are not. They are specific responses to two different propositions.

 

[Curious George]

No they are not. The only response you can have to a proposition of belief is yes or no. The question "Do you believe God exists?" asks you whether or not you accept the claim "God exists" - it says nothing about whether or not you accept the claim "God does not exist". Again, this is no different to specifying that there is a difference between accepting the claim "The number of balls is odd" and "The number of balls is even". Even though they are mutually exclusive, you don't have to accept one to disbelieve the other. You can disbelieve both.


"Does God exist?" is NOT the proposition. The proposition is whether or not you BELIEVE God exists, not whether or not God ACTUALLY exists. I've been very specific in only addressing the question of belief, not the question of actual existence.


So if you accept that saying "I don't believe the number is even" doesn't mean "I believe the number is odd", why can you not accept "I don't believe God exists" doesn't mean "I believe God doesn't exist"? It's the exact same logic.


Exactly. So why did you suddenly change the proposition to "Does God exist"?


So saying "I don't believe the number is even" must mean the same as "I believe the number is odd", correct?


No they are not. They are specific responses to two different propositions.

Hmm, perhaps the definition of proposition is being misused. A propositions is an assertion. The question does God exist? Is not a proposition but an inquiry.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmm, perhaps the definition of proposition is being misused. A propositions is an assertion. The question does God exist? Is not a proposition but an inquiry.

Ah, you're right. This conversation is already getting pretty complicated as it is, though, so I guess we're just using proposition to mean "the subject being dealt with" which could include a question being addressed. Perhaps using "subject" would be better.

 

[Curious George]

Ah, you're right. This conversation is already getting pretty complicated as it is, though, so I guess we're just using proposition to mean "the subject being dealt with" which could include a question being addressed. Perhaps using "subject" would be better.

Just thought it might help, because while there is only one inquiry, two possible propositions seek to answer that inquiry.

This is why "God does not exist" is a different proposition than "God exists."

And more to the point

This is why believing or not believing in one proposition does not entail a believing or not believing in the other.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just thought it might help, because while there is only one inquiry, two possible propositions seek to answer that inquiry.

That's actually a very good way of putting it.

This is why "God does not exist" is a different proposition than "God exists."

And more to the point

This is why believing or not believing in one proposition does not entail a believing or not believing in the other.

Agreed, even if they are both addressing the same inquiry (or, at least can be said to be).

 

[ArtieE]

"Do you believe God exists?"
"No."
"Do you believe God doesn't exist?"
"No. I haven’t made up my mind what to believe."

According to Bunyip this conversation is illogical. According to Bunyip by answering no to the first question the answer to the second must automatically be yes.

 

[atanu]

No, that is impossible - if the baby does not hold the belief in question (that there is a God), they are thus absent of that belief. So they are absent of that belief. Atheism is simply the absence of the belief in question.

"they are thus absent of that belief"? What is that english? Who is absent of what?

The baby is atheist.

Well. Yes. As per your dubious thought and definition and from your point of reference. A baby has not even thought in terms of belief or disbelief.

If you want to impose your will on me, that is okay. Ha.

It is unbelievable. Suppose I meet Bunyip and he calls me an atheist. I tell him "See, I have not even given a thought on the matter and I am neither an atheist nor a theist."

But Bunyip says " No. You are absent of that belief so you are Atheist." I do not know what is my position but Bunyip has decided for me.

Bravo. Is there any use of this thread?

 

[atanu]

It remains a double negative - and the convention in English is that they cancel each other out - whatever gave you the impression that being separate 'clauses' of the same sentence/claim and thus don't cancel each other out I can only imagine - but you are mistaken. We have discussed this before - the grains of sand analogy doesn't fit because there are three possibilities - whilst with belief in God there are only two.

Who told you this?

"Neither is Bunyip an atheist nor is he a theist".

Has there been any cancellation?

 

[ArtieE]

It is unbelievable. Suppose I meet Bunyip and he calls me an atheist. I tell him "See, I have not even given a thought on the matter and I am neither an atheist nor a theist."

If you are neither a theist nor a person who is not a theist what then do you think you are?

 

[jonathan180iq]

It is unbelievable. Suppose I meet Bunyip and he calls me an atheist. I tell him "See, I have not even given a thought on the matter and I am neither an atheist nor a theist."

But Bunyip says " No. You are absent of that belief so you are Atheist." I do not know what is my position but Bunyip has decided for me.

Bravo. Is there any use of this thread?

Bunyip would be right.
Your confusion stems from your very limited understanding and use of the term "atheist".
You see it as actively rejecting the notion of god(s). It's not so confined.

 

[atanu]

If you are neither a theist nor a person who is not a theist what then do you think you are?

If you are neither a theist nor a person who is not a theist what then do you think you are?

Is it necessary to label? Do you exist without label or not?

 

[atanu]

Bunyip would be right.
Your confusion stems from your very limited understanding and use of the term "atheist".
You see it as actively rejecting the notion of god(s). It's not so confined.

Yes. I do not disagree that that is your belief and point of reference.