Atheism the Belief

[Phanerothyme]

Of course you can't, what you can do is experience reality in a way you were conditioned to experience it by a 3rd party.

 

If that were true, it wouldn't be limited to:

a) a single 3rd party.

b) religious organisations.

[Cyclone]

That's fine enough but it's not what Cyclone is saying, he's saying that if you are without a belief in something you must have an opposing belief. This is not true and is a misrepresentation of the term "binary choice".

 

Not exactly.

 

Atheism doesn't mean you haven't reached a conclusion on belief in deities. It means you have rejected the postulation that they exist. That IS a position of believing that they don't exist.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 12:46 ----------

 

If that were true, it wouldn't be limited to:

a) a single 3rd party.

b) religious organisations.

 

It isn't.

The government constantly try to alter the way people perceive reality.

 

Since we exist with a limited view of the world and limited information, you can affect how people perceive the world by manipulating what they see and hear.

[RootsBooster]

I can believe or not believe your statement. I can't disbelieve your statement without believing that your statement isn't true.

If I ignore the statement and consider just the dog. I can believe it's there. I can believe it's not there. If I don't believe it is there, I believe it is not there.

I can also not express an opinion due to a lack of evidence either way.

I can't however, disbelieve that it's there, without believing that it must be somewhere else, since those are mutually exclusive, binary states.

 

That's a long way to avoid answering the simple question. The question (not a statement, a question) was "Do you believe that my dog is sat next to me?"

 

Belief is a binary state, that means you have 2 choices for your answer. You keep saying that you have to either believe or have the opposing belief and that there is no in between choice, yet you also keep saying you can have neither.

 

Do you believe that my dog is sat next to me?

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 12:48 ----------

 

If that were true, it wouldn't be limited to:

a) a single 3rd party.

b) religious organisations.

 

I never said it was, it isn't.

[Cyclone]

That's a long way to avoid answering the simple question. The question (not a statement, a question) was "Do you believe that my dog is sat next to me?"

It was an explanation of the possible answers, which demonstrated my point.

An actual answer adds nothing.

 

Belief is a binary state, that means you have 2 choices for your answer. You keep saying that you have to either believe or have the opposing belief and that there is no in between choice, yet you also keep saying you can have neither.

You're the one who tries to present it as a trinary answer. Believe, disbelieve, Believe otherwise.

 

Do you believe that my dog is sat next to me?

If you say so, yes, I have no reason to disbelieve you.

[unbeliever]

That's fine enough but it's not what Cyclone is saying, he's saying that if you are without a belief in something you must have an opposing belief. This is not true and is a misrepresentation of the term "binary choice".

 

That's a good point, which has not been lost on me; one has exactly 3 choices on the matter of theism, or indeed any binary question.

A theist is of the opinion that there is at least one deity

An atheist is of the opinion that there are zero deities

As with anything, the third choice is to be undecided. The word agnostic has been co-opted for this, but that word also has other meanings. An undecided may be so because they've not considered the matter, but more likely because they have considered it but have yet to form an opinion on it.

 

There may be some value for a literalist in defining the undecideds as atheists, but I think that's misleading and I wouldn't want anybody to think that I, as an atheist, was in any way undecided on the matter or hadn't considered it.

 

There is a second binary option which has come up, applying only to atheists, of whether one is a anti-theist. This I understand to mean that one is of the opinion that theism is bad enough to pursue its extinction. Myself I'm actually undecided on this one, but with leanings toward anti-theism held back by my libertarianism.

[RootsBooster]

That's a good point, which has not been lost on me; one has exactly 3 choices on the matter of theism, or indeed any binary question.

A theist is of the opinion that there is at least one deity

An atheist is of the opinion that there are zero deities

As with anything, the third choice is to be undecided. The word agnostic has been co-opted for this, but that word also has other meanings. An undecided may be so because they've not considered the matter, but more likely because they have considered it but have yet to form an opinion on it.

 

There may be some value for a literalist in defining the undecideds as atheists, but I think that's misleading and I wouldn't want anybody to think that I, as an atheist, was in any way undecided on the matter or hadn't considered it.

 

There is a second binary option which has come up, applying only to atheists, of whether one is a anti-theist. This I understand to mean that one is of the opinion that theism is bad enough to pursue its extinction. Myself I'm actually undecided on this one, but with leanings toward anti-theism held back by my libertarianism.

 

Sorry to cut this one short, did you just say that any binary question has 3 options?

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 13:02 ----------

 

It was an explanation of the possible answers, which demonstrated my point.

An actual answer adds nothing.

You're the one who tries to present it as a trinary answer. Believe, disbelieve, Believe otherwise.

No, I present it as binary, you hold a specific belief or you do not. If you do not hold that belief you are free to remain so or hold an opposing (other) belief.

 

You're the one who keeps switching between saying there is no other position and then saying there is.

If you say so, yes, I have no reason to disbelieve you.

 

I didn't say so, I didn't give any indication or make any implication at all.

 

I asked you if you believe he is there. Do you?

Edited September 29, 2015 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

Sorry to cut this one short, did you just say that any binary question has 3 options?

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 13:02 ----------

 

No, I present it as binary, you hold a specific belief or you do not. If you do not hold that belief you are free to remain so or hold an opposing (other) belief.

 

You're the one who keeps switching between saying there is no other position and then saying there is.

 

 

I didn't say so, I didn't give any indication or make any implication at all.

 

I asked you if you believe he is there. Do you?

 

I am unable to form an opinion on the location of your dog (or indeed if you even have a dog). I suppose you could say that I don't believe it is in any particular location, since I have no data.

Atheism of course does not mean a lack of belief, an inability to form an opinion. That's more akin to agnosticism. Atheism is a disbelief in a god, which obviously also means a lack of belief in god. Disbelief always encompasses lack of belief.

[Obelix]

Sorry to cut this one short, did you just say that any binary question has 3 options?

 

It presumes you can give an answer. For a binary question you can always answer, Yes, No or Don't know....

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 13:35 ----------

 

I asked you if you believe he is there. Do you?

 

What if you were unsure? I personally would answer that one as "no I don't believe" as if I was unsure I couldn't say with all certainty I believed, ergo I don't.

 

A lapsed Christian who used to believe and is having doubts would probably prefer to answer "yes" until they were certain they didn't believe. It is all subject to human foibles in the end.

[unbeliever]

It presumes you can give an answer. For a binary question you can always answer, Yes, No or Don't know....

 

Quite so. .

[Cyclone]

The problem is with equating a passive lack of believe with an active lack of believe (or disbelief). It's just semantics though.