(August 9, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 9, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: WRONG! Not believing your claim that there is a cat in the box is not the same as believing there is not a cat in the box. I would not assert I believe there is no cat in the box, only that you haven't proven there is a cat in the box.

That is exactly the mistake you are making in the god example when you state:

(August 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: ... Also believing god dosent exist is the default position when asking whether or not a god exists...

The default position should be to not believe either way.  Believing one way or the other without evidence is irrational.  And that means that believing god doesn't exist, without evidence, is irrational.

The rational default position is to neither affirm nor deny something, until one has evidence one way or another.  Denying the existence of god without evidence is as irrational as affirming the existence of god without evidence.  Both are making claims without evidence.

First let me apologize, your are 100% right, I completely misread your post. Also I was wrong on the default position, the default position is not to believe the claim until the evidence dictates.

(August 9, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 9, 2015 at 5:56 am)pool Wrote: I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.

Similarly,
I don't understand what a God is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it.

See,when someone is presented with an idea that they cannot understand and is asked whether they believe in it or not,it is extremely difficult to decide how to respond.
Can you tell me the appropriate response in that situation?

I get what you're saying.

You don't know what a god is, so you don't know whether you believe in it or not.

But that means you do not have active belief in god, so you lack that belief. That's implicit atheism. The same an infant is an atheist.

Just say what you mean, that you don't know what a god is.

How does telling someone that doesn't understand what god is that they lack a belief in god(which they don't understand in the first place) and is therefore an implicit atheist,work?
Isn't that like saying,
If someone doesn't understand what Theory of relativity is then they lack an active belief in it,and therefore doesn't have a belief in it?

To have a belief or a lack of belief i'd first have to analyze what Theory of relativity is saying,understand them,look at its proofs and then decide my stance according to the evidence?

How come this procedure doesn't apply for God.How come i don't have to analyze what God is,what it is saying,understand it,and then decide my stance?
Seeing how it is virtually impossible to analyze,understand etc what a God is,it just makes things more complicated than the Theory of relativity instance.

(August 9, 2015 at 3:38 pm)pool Wrote:

(August 9, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: I get what you're saying.

You don't know what a god is, so you don't know whether you believe in it or not.

But that means you do not have active belief in god, so you lack that belief. That's implicit atheism. The same an infant is an atheist.

Just say what you mean, that you don't know what a god is.

How does telling someone that doesn't understand what god is that they lack a belief in god(which they don't understand in the first place) and is therefore an implicit atheist,work?
Isn't that like saying,
If someone doesn't understand what Theory of relativity is then they lack an active belief in it,and therefore doesn't have a belief in it?

To have a belief or a lack of belief i'd first have to analyze what Theory of relativity is saying,understand them,look at its proofs and then decide my stance according to the evidence?

How come this procedure doesn't apply for God.How come i don't have to analyze what God is,what it is saying,understand it,and then decide my stance?
Seeing how it is virtually impossible to analyze,understand etc what a God is,it just makes things more complicated than the Theory of relativity instance.

If you don't believe in god, you lack a belief in god and are therefore an atheist.

You don't understand.

If a person know what the Theory of Relativity is,then,he/she can decide whether
a)He/She Believe in it.
b)He/She Disbelieve in it.

But what about a person that doesn't understand the Theory of Relativity?That is what i want to know.
What options does he/she have?
He/She cannot simple choose to disbelieve the Theory of Relativity just because he/she doesn't understand it.Neither can he/she believe the Theory of Relativity.
Although it is resonable to say since he/she lack an active belief it imply a disbelief.But it can also go both ways,i.e,it is also resonable to say that since he/she lack a disbelief it imply a belief.
(Replace the Theory of Relativity with God)

pool, the way it generally works for me is the Asimovian Parameter:

*****

'Brian, do you believe in God?'

'I'm not sure what you mean when you say "God". Can you be clearer?'

'Oh, come one. You know - God. Everyone knows what God is.'

'Well, if you can't define it, how can you expect me to believe in it?'

*****

The difference between this and your Einstein example is that there are people who can tell you (often in great and boring detail) EXACTLY what the theories of relativity are. At this point, you can look at the theories and the evidence for them and make a determination as to whether or not you believe them to be true.

When an atheist tells you, 'I don't believe in gods', s/he is doing so because 1) no one can explicitly define the concept the way they can with relativity and 2) there's no evidence or argument that would compel someone to accept godism as a valid hypothesis.

But suppose someone does indeed come to me with a coherent, non-self refuting definition of 'God'. I'm still not going to believe without either the compelling evidence or arguments I alluded to before. It's as if some told me, 'A unicorn is a beast with the body of a horse, the feet of a goat, the tail of a lion and a single spiral horn growing from its forehead. This beast can only be captured by virgins.' Dandy! We have a definition. But my next questions are going to be, 'Can you show me one? Can you point to them in the fossil record? Is there an ecological niche that is filled by this particular animal?'

Atheists don't disbelieve because 'God' isn't properly defined. We disbelieve because there is no good reason not to.

Boru

(August 9, 2015 at 3:48 pm)pool Wrote: You don't understand.

If a person know what the Theory of Relativity is,then,he/she can decide whether
a)He/She Believe in it.
b)He/She Disbelieve in it.

But what about a person that doesn't understand the Theory of Relativity?That is what i want to know.
What options does he/she have?
He/She cannot simple choose to disbelieve the Theory of Relativity just because he/she doesn't understand it.Neither can he/she believe the Theory of Relativity.
(Replace the Theory of Relativity with God)

Either they will be convinced its true and believe it or they wont be convinced and not believe it.

(August 9, 2015 at 3:38 pm)pool Wrote:

(August 9, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: I get what you're saying.

You don't know what a god is, so you don't know whether you believe in it or not.

But that means you do not have active belief in god, so you lack that belief. That's implicit atheism. The same an infant is an atheist.

Just say what you mean, that you don't know what a god is.

How does telling someone that doesn't understand what god is that they lack a belief in god(which they don't understand in the first place) and is therefore an implicit atheist,work?
Isn't that like saying,
If someone doesn't understand what Theory of relativity is then they lack an active belief in it,and therefore doesn't have a belief in it?

To have a belief or a lack of belief i'd first have to analyze what Theory of relativity is saying,understand them,look at its proofs and then decide my stance according to the evidence?

How come this procedure doesn't apply for God.How come i don't have to analyze what God is,what it is saying,understand it,and then decide my stance?
Seeing how it is virtually impossible to analyze,understand etc what a God is,it just makes things more complicated than the Theory of relativity instance.

Do you believe in the existence of Leshaks?

You don't know what a leshak is. Therefore you don't believe in them. When you find out, you will either believe they exist, or continue to not believe they exist.

Unbelief is the default position.

Similarly, if you ask an infant if they believe in santa claus, you will not get an answer, because the infant does not understand the concept of santa claus. Ergo, they do not believe in santa claus.

Unbelief is passive.

Please. We're going through this for the umpteenth fucking time ._.

You don't believe in anything when you don't understand the concept of it. It is the default state.

If I wanted to convince you I'm a shnorghleblazzer, and you don't know what that is, you are not actively convinced that I'm a shnorghleblazzer. You withhold judgement with the implication of default unbelief. That is what agnostic atheism is.

Ok? ._.

Quote:He/She cannot simple choose to disbelieve the Theory of Relativity just because he/she doesn't understand it.Neither can he/she believe the Theory of Relativity.

Again, it isn't a case of not understanding what God is, it is a case of the godists not being able to define it.

Try it this way: Neef gloorp dnxc quadul zhloo.

Do you believe that or not? Don't ask me to define it, just decide whether you believe it.

Boru

My point is,until a time comes when God can be defined consistently and coherently we are not equipped to take any stance on the matter.

The question "Do you believe in God?" appears to me as "Do you believe in fldsmdsfre?" .That is what the word God means to me,literally a group of senseless letters.So it like throws an exception(speaking in terms of programming) and i am stuck,literally stuck and i do not know how to respond.I just sit there blinking at the person that asked me the question.

Do you believe in orange? Leaves you with two possible outcomes,yes or no.
Do you believe in asflkajdfoij? Leaves you with a bland face expression.

But i find it strange because to most of the others it appears as "Do you believe in something i have no evidence of?" The answer is obviously no.How can someone believe in something he/she have no evidence to believe in? But when you think about it,if you choose to disbelieve in it,you are doing the same thing,i.e,you are disbelieving in something without evidence to support your action,which is equally irrational.

(August 9, 2015 at 4:10 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:He/She cannot simple choose to disbelieve the Theory of Relativity just because he/she doesn't understand it.Neither can he/she believe the Theory of Relativity.

Again, it isn't a case of not understanding what God is, it is a case of the godists not being able to define it.

Try it this way:  Neef gloorp dnxc quadul zhloo.

Do you believe that or not?  Don't ask me to define it, just decide whether you believe it.

Boru

That is the problem.
I get stuck.
The only answer would be "I have no fucking clue"