milquetoast1 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 A lack of a belief that something exists is a belief that something doesn't exist. If I tell you that I'm 10 feet tall and you express disbelief, that means you believe that I'm not 10 feet tall. Again, it's a binary thing, there is no 3rd position for you to take. Disbelief in a thing existing, is belief in the thing not existing. We have some evidence about that statement, since we have no record of anybody being taller than 9 feet. Anybody that tall in the UK would be famous. To your claim to being 10 feet tall, not only would I disbelieve it, I would also believe that you were lying. However, if the claim was that there was somebody 10 feet tall in South America, then I would merely lack belief in this clam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 And I'm saying that lacking belief (disbelieving) means that you believe that there is no one that tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 And I'm saying that lacking belief (disbelieving) means that you believe that there is no one that tall. Would you mind answering the question in my last post to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 in that case, as per post #120... ...if asked that question you would (according to your logic) hold the belief that my hand is injured or hold the opposing belief that my hand is not injured, you would not be able to simply be without belief that my hand is injured. So I ask you, do you believe that my hand is injured? I can of course hold neither belief. But I can't hold some middle ground, where I don't believe you, but also don't believe the opposite. It's either injured or it's not, so if I form an opinion, it has to be a belief on one or the other, and a disbelieve in the opposite. If you told me that you were 10 feet tall I would express disbelief (lack of belief) because I have not been convinced you are telling the truth, with no evidence to support your claim. It would not mean that I hold the belief that you are not 10ft tall. If you didn't believe me, then you would indeed believe that I was not 10ft tall. For the sake of argument, if you tell me that it's injured I would believe you, if you actually wanted an answer (although I don't think that was the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) And I'm saying that lacking belief (disbelieving) means that you believe that there is no one that tall. And then you're telling me what I believe, despite me telling you that's not my position .... okay. To clarify ... My answer to the question "do you believe there is somebody 10 feet tall?" is no, despite the slight possibility that there is. My answer to the question "do you believe there is nobody 10 feet tall?" is no, although it does seem unlikely. Do I believe that Cyclone is 10 feet tall? No. Do I believe that Cyclone in not 10 feet tall? Yes. Edited July 23, 2015 by milquetoast1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I can of course hold neither belief. But I can't hold some middle ground, where I don't believe you, but also don't believe the opposite. It's either injured or it's not, so if I form an opinion, it has to be a belief on one or the other, and a disbelieve in the opposite. If you didn't believe me, then you would indeed believe that I was not 10ft tall. For the sake of argument, if you tell me that it's injured I would believe you, if you actually wanted an answer (although I don't think that was the point). Re bib. Surely that is the lack of belief that you claim doesn't exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 And then you're telling me what I believe, despite me telling you that's not my position .... okay. Because logically what you're claiming is impossible. ---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 13:22 ---------- Re bib. Surely that is the lack of belief that you claim doesn't exist? An absence of opinion does not describe atheism though, which is what is being claimed. (And that would make the absence of opinion different to disbelief, which would be the equivalent of belief of the opposite in the case of a binary issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Using a court analogy. Someone can be found guilty or not guilty For 'guilty' verdict the prosecution has to provide evidence to give the jury proof of guilt. If that proof is not given the jury return a 'Not guilty' verdict Giving a 'Not guilty' verdict doesn't automatically mean the jury thinks the defendant is innocent. So in an atheist example The case for the existance for gods is 'Not guilty'.......proof not provided. Edited July 23, 2015 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I can of course hold neither belief. But I can't hold some middle ground, where I don't believe you, but also don't believe the opposite. It's either injured or it's not, so if I form an opinion, it has to be a belief on one or the other, and a disbelieve in the opposite. If you didn't believe me, then you would indeed believe that I was not 10ft tall. Now who's the one playing word games with himself? You just said you hold neither belief and then claim you can't hold some middle ground! The question is 'do you believe that my hand is injured?' - that's a question about a single belief. The question is not 'do you believe that my hand is injured or do you believe that it is not injured?'. - that would be a question about two opposing beliefs. In answer to the question that I did ask, you would have to say no. This simply means that you would be without belief, it doesn't mean that you would have to believe the opposite, especially since there is no evidence to support one belief or its opposite. Belief is indeed a binary position, you either have it or you don't. What you're saying is that belief is a binary position, you either have it or you believe the opposite. Logic shows that you can; -believe or be without belief (binary) -believe, be without belief or have an opposing belief (certainly not binary) Edited July 24, 2015 by RootsBooster Tidied up spellings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Because logically what you're claiming is impossible. We are talking about a person's belief not truth. Snailyboy's "guilty v not guilty" rather than "guilty v innocent" explanation is very good. Just because I don't believe in gods doesn't mean to say I believe they don't exist. The Abrahamic God however ... total poppycock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now