Quote:if you choose to disbelieve it,you are doing the same thing,i.e,you are disbelieving in something without evidence to support your action,which is equally irrational.

Not at all.  Opting to disbelieve in things for which there is no evidence (or very poor evidence) is perfectly rational.

I'm eight feet tall, have six arms, and my skin is a delightful shade of dark purple.  You can't see this, because I also have the psionic ability to cause people to see me as 6'4" tall with two arms and pale skin.  You have no evidence that any of this is true, and thus no reason to believe it.  By default, it is rational of you to disbelieve it.

Boru

(August 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm)pool Wrote: 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 it,you are doing the same thing,i.e,you are disbelieving in something without evidence to support your action,which is equally irrational.

I'm done, you are beyond help, it has been explained in every possible way.

(August 9, 2015 at 3:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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

Correct me if i'm wrong,but isn't disbelieving in something because there is no good reason not to as irrational as believing in something because there is no good reason not to?

For example,
A group of people disbelieve in asdfghjkl because there is no real reason not to.
A group of people believes in asdfghjkl because there is no real reason not to.

Both of the groups' actions aren't supported by evidence?

Quote:Correct me if i'm wrong,but isn't disbelieving in something because there is no good reason not to as irrational as believing in something because there is no good reason not to?

You're wrong. Here's why.

When I say 'disbelieve x because there's no good reason not to', I'm making the semantic equivalent of 'there is no good reason to believe x'.

If I say 'believe x because there's no good reason not to', I'm making the semantic equivalent of 'accept x even though there is no good reason to suppose it is true'.

What you seem to be shooting for is the ultimate 'middle ground' - you will decline to disbelieve a proposition until all the evidence is in. Nowt wrong with being skeptical, but there's such a thing as being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

I'll try one more example: Bigfoot.

There is no direct evidence for Bigfoot. All of the indirect evidence is either astoundingly poor or revealed as hoaxes. Primates do not live in temperate zones. Tens of thousands of people have been, for 50-odd years, scouring the USian northwest and other areas with cameras, microphones, IR scanners, and yet there's not one piece, one scrap of evidence for ANY 8 foot tall bipedal primates in these areas - no fur, no scat, no flesh, no blood, no bones, no videos, no still photos. Given the number of reported sightings, Americans should be running over a Bigfoot with a car every other day. Yet we haven't found a single Bigfoot corpse. Not one. People often like to compare Bigfoot with the skepticism of Europeans when they heard reports of gorillas in Africa. Why is this a lousy comparison? Because the first Europeans who actually went looking for gorillas found them.

At this point, it is non-rational to say, 'We, they could still be there.' The rational positions is, 'People have been looking for an type of animal in a habitat where that animal is known not to exist. They've been looking for this animal for a half-century of more, with all manner of sophisticated equipment and have come up with fuck all in the way of evidence. I do not believe that Bigfoot exists.'

Boru

(August 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm)pool Wrote: 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.

Withholding judgement with the default stance always being passive unbelief. That's what agnostic atheism is ._.

(August 9, 2015 at 4:21 pm)pool Wrote:

---

(August 9, 2015 at 3:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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

---

Correct me if i'm wrong,but isn't disbelieving in something because there is no good reason not to as irrational as believing in something because there is no good reason not to?

For example,
A group of people disbelieve in asdfghjkl because there is no real reason not to.
A group of people believes in asdfghjkl because there is no real reason not to.

Both of the groups' actions aren't supported by evidence?

I am suspicious that you are misunderstanding "disbelieve."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

When you disbelieve it, you are not thereby committed to believing its negation.  It just means you don't believe it.

In the case of the god question, saying that you do not believe in god does NOT commit you to the belief that there is no god.  You may have no opinion on the issue, and so you do not believe either way.  Which means, you disbelieve that there is a god, and you disbelieve that there is no god.

Of course, one can disbelieve one of those without disbelieving the other.  But you can disbelieve both.

A god would be an intelligent 'first cause'. It would not be poisoned with the wants, desires and emotions that are attributed to it by theists. It would not be 'good' or 'evil' and certainly would not be expecting worship or instituting the 'reward/punishment' scenario. The gods created by the theists are simply manifestations of their own wants, desires and emotions.

I believe god is a concept, perhaps math or nothingness in general.

Not tangible or "real" though.

(August 9, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 9, 2015 at 4:21 pm)pool Wrote:

---

---

Correct me if i'm wrong,but isn't disbelieving in something because there is no good reason not to as irrational as believing in something because there is no good reason not to?

For example,
A group of people disbelieve in asdfghjkl because there is no real reason not to.
A group of people believes in asdfghjkl because there is no real reason not to.

Both of the groups' actions aren't supported by evidence?

I am suspicious that you are misunderstanding "disbelieve."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

When you disbelieve it, you are not thereby committed to believing its negation.  It just means you don't believe it.

In the case of the god question, saying that you do not believe in god does NOT commit you to the belief that there is no god.  You may have no opinion on the issue, and so you do not believe either way.  Which means, you disbelieve that there is a god, and you disbelieve that there is no god.

Of course, one can disbelieve one of those without disbelieving the other.  But you can disbelieve both.

So,disbelieving in the switch being on doesn't necessarily mean a commitment to believing in the switch being off.That's cool.

I think a lot of theists go "But do you have any proof there is no God?" because a lot of atheists go "There is no God." instead of "I lack any belief in God.".
In the first case,when an atheist goes "There is no God",he and the theist in question are making a same irrational assertion and in that case the atheist in question is making a commitment to the negation.

I think nobody is a Atheist or a Theist.I think it's virtually impossible for a Theist or an Atheist to even exist,in the rational sense.That is why i said there is no Theist or Atheist in my last thread and everybody thought i was a troll...
I believe everyone is a Personal Atheist or a Personal Theist.Since God is a subjective term and the attributes of a God depends upon ones personal beliefs,it only makes sense to be a Personal Atheist or a Personal Theist.
But an Atheist or a Theist?....Doesn't make much sense..at least for me.

Also,is there an ism for people that doesn't believe in theism or atheism? Or can i make something up like Poolism or Confusism and be a Poolist? or a Confusist? xP

(August 9, 2015 at 4:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Correct me if i'm wrong,but isn't disbelieving in something because there is no good reason not to as irrational as believing in something because there is no good reason not to?

You're wrong.  Here's why.

When I say 'disbelieve x because there's no good reason not to', I'm making the semantic equivalent of 'there is no good reason to believe x'.

If I say 'believe x because there's no good reason not to', I'm making the semantic equivalent of 'accept x even though there is no good reason to suppose it is true'.

What you seem to be shooting for is the ultimate 'middle ground' - you will decline to disbelieve a proposition until all the evidence is in.  Nowt wrong with being skeptical, but there's such a thing as being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

I'll try one more example:  Bigfoot.

There is no direct evidence for Bigfoot.  All of the indirect evidence is either astoundingly poor or revealed as hoaxes.  Primates do not live in temperate zones.  Tens of thousands of people have been, for 50-odd years, scouring the USian northwest and other areas with cameras, microphones, IR scanners, and yet there's not one piece, one scrap of evidence for ANY 8 foot tall bipedal primates in these areas - no fur, no scat, no flesh, no blood, no bones, no videos, no still photos.  Given the number of reported sightings, Americans should be running over a Bigfoot with a car every other day.  Yet we haven't found a single Bigfoot corpse.  Not one.  People often like to compare Bigfoot with the skepticism of Europeans when they heard reports of gorillas in Africa.  Why is this a lousy comparison?  Because the first Europeans who actually went looking for gorillas found them.

At this point, it is non-rational to say, 'We, they could still be there.'  The rational positions is, 'People have been looking for an type of animal in a habitat where that animal is known not to exist. They've been looking for this animal for a half-century of more, with all manner of sophisticated equipment and have come up with fuck all in the way of evidence.  I do not believe that Bigfoot exists.'

Boru

(Guilty of not reading the whole example)
The problem with examples is that there cannot be any examples.Unless the subject in the example is something that is as Personal and as ill-defined as God.
You couldn't give an example with the subject being Bigfoot,because most people know what it is and agree unanimously which is not the case when it comes to God.
For example,you could give an example with the subject being something as meaningless as God,like asdfghjkl,but not Bigfoot.
That's what i think.