XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:35:27 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 22-January-2015 8:27 AM, grabber wrote:   
   >> On 21/01/2015 14:16, August Rode wrote:   
   >>> On 21/01/2015 2:31 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>> On 21-January-2015 5:28 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>   felix_unger  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> it takes faith to believe that God does not   
   >>>>>> exist   
   >>>>> Perhaps it does may faith to disbelieve in what a person has once   
   >>>>> believed in, but it takes no such faith not to believe in something   
   >>>>> one   
   >>>>> never has believed in.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> when faced with the proposition 'God exists' if you choose not to   
   >>>> believe it you have faith that your belief is correct   
   >>>   
   >>> Tell me something, Felix. To you, do the statements "I don't believe God   
   >>> exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" mean the same thing?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> We've been here before. Felix is not very consistent in recognising   
   >> the distinction between "not believing X" and "believing not-X". Last   
   >> time I discussed this with him, his initial pitch was:   
   >>   
   >> Felix: "no belief that there is a God is the same as believing God   
   >> does not exist."   
   >>   
   >> On the other hand, not so very much later, he gave the following answers:   
   >>   
   >> Q: Do you believe the number of stars is odd? Why or why not?   
   >> A (Felix): no, and because there's no reason to   
   >>   
   >> Q: Do you believe the number of stars is not odd? Why or why not?   
   >> A (Felix): ie. even. no, and because there's no reason to   
   >>   
   >> He never managed (IMO) to satisfactorily resolve these positions.   
   >   
   >why didn't you tell the whole story. I did resolve it.   
      
       Admitting that would be more honesty than he's comfortable with. These   
   people appear to be comfortable with any level of dishonesty however stupidly   
   blatant it may be, but too much honesty is more than they can handle.   
      
   >your problem if   
   >you don't get it..   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>> Therefore I have no belief that the number of stars in the   
   >universe is odd. Must I therefore believe that the number of stars in   
   >the universe is not odd? Of course not.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> but assumedly you had not been presented with a proposition   
   >regarding the number of stars in the universe. had you been presented   
   >with a proposition that there is an odd number of stars in the universe,   
   >you could believe it or not.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> And my point is that it would be foolish to believe it, and just   
   >as foolish to believe its opposite. The only sensible option is to   
   >withhold belief from both.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> then you would be agnostic about it, which as you say is the   
   >sensible option, and always is in the absence of sufficient reason to   
   >form a belief one way or the other   
   > >>>>>>> likewise you may believe God (creator being) exists or not.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Or you can believe neither that it exists, nor that it doesn't.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> right. you're undecided   
   > >>>>>> Because "no belief that there is a God" is decidedly not the   
   >same thing as "believing God does not exist".   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Do you believe the number of stars is odd? Why or why not?   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> no, and because there's no reason to   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Do you believe the number of stars is not odd? Why or why not?   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> ie. even. no, and because there's no reason to   
   > >>>> Great.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> As I've said, one can be undecided, but I still have a belief about   
   >stars, don't I. I'm not trying to deny they exist.   
   > >>>> So we see that not believing X is not the same thing as believing   
   >not-X. Not believing there is a spoon in the drawer is not the same   
   >thing as believing there isn't a spoon in the drawer.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> I did start that thread to try to clarify the matter, but never   
   >managed to get back to it   
   > >>>> "No belief that there is a God" is not "the same as believing God   
   >does not exist". Good that we have got that straight.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> one cannot have no belief about any proposition. there are only the   
   >possibilities yes, no, maybe. if I don't believe the number of the stars   
   >are odd or even, I still believe they may be either   
   > >>   
   > >> OK, so it seems the only possible remaining bone of contention is   
   >what we choose to call it when someone neither believes X nor believes   
   >not-X. It seems that you want to call this "believes maybe-X" or "is   
   >undecided about X" whereas others want to call it "has no belief about   
   >X". This seems a mere question of language to me. If you think there is   
   >a material difference, what do you think that is?   
   > >   
   > > I think the distinction is one of acknowledgement of the concept.   
   >atheists claim to have 'no beliefs' about God, even adding 'none   
   >whatsoever', but how is that possible when they must have addressed the   
   >concept intellectually to be able to even say that?   
      
       From my pov it seems that again your tendency to think more highly of them   
   than they deserve is preventing you from fully grasping the situation. Surely   
   you've seen me accuse them of lying about their own beliefs...saying that   
   people   
   who have made it clear that they believe God does not exist also deny it and   
   try   
   to pretend they have no belief at all? I've been going around with them about   
   that off and on the entire time, and Chicken was the first one of them I recall   
   who was not ashamed to admit his own belief:   
      
   "Personally I say 'I believe there are no gods, but I don't claim to know   
   with certainty'." - Malte Runz   
      
   "I believe no gods exist" - Malte Runz   
      
   "How many times do I need to write: "I believe no gods exist" for you to   
   realize that nobody is ashamed of neither not believing in gods, nor   
   believing gods do not exist?" - Malte Runz   
      
   "the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there are no gods.   
   Anywhere, anywhen." - Malte Runz   
      
   However, still the vast majority of them clearly appear to be ashamed of their   
   belief.   
      
   >what they should say   
   >is they don't have 'a' (particular) belief about God. that's how I see it.   
      
       That's what they keep saying, but imo the majority of the time they are   
   lying blatantly and it seems you still want to believe they're somehow being   
   honest. Maybe because a small percentage of them have been honest enough to   
   admit their belief, so you mistakenly imo believe they are all honest about at   
   least that much? Thinking about it from another pov, could a high percentage of   
   them be stupid enough to honestly believe they have no belief even when they   
   do?   
   Again I believe bilgat could honestly be that stupid, but have serious doubts   
   about it regarding the rest of them. Some of them have very blatantly lied   
   about   
   it, it clearly seems to me:   
      
   "We REALLY have no belief about gods." - Smiler   
   "I know that gods are merely a figment of your deluded imagination" - Smiler   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)