Annoying Atheist Arguments

[Question Mark]

I don't think you grasped the concept of what I said in my previous post. By disbelieving the existence of the LNM, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't have a belief in regards to whether it exists or not, because I don't have sufficient evidence to form a belief upon.
If I went to Loch Ness, emptied it, and explored every nook and cranny and discovered there wasn't a LNM, then I would form a belief as to it not existing.

Until evidence is posited one way or another, I have no belief towards or against the existence of the monster. Therefore no belief.

I do understand what you are trying to say - I just don't see how you can rationally hold that position. Believing the LNM exists or that it doesn't are two mutually exclusive and exhaustive positions (unless you are proposing some sort of intermediate between existence and non-existence). I think you are confusing belief with knowledge. Evidence justifies beliefs, which then is regarded as knowledge. But beliefs can and frequently are held without evidence. However, simultaneously saying that you don't believe there is such a as LNM and that you don't believe there isn't is an example of doublethink.

---

I don't currently have a belief in the non-existence of the Lochness Monster and I still wouldn't if everyone else in the world believed in it. I see no good reason so far to have a belief in the Lochness Monster. But if some evidence were to turn up and this were verified I would then know of the Lochness Monsters existence. There isn't any belief of any kind involved at any stage of the process.

Do you believe there is such a thing as the LNM?

I don't see any option to the answer other than yes or no.

I think the main problem is that we hold different concepts of belief. To know something is to have confirmed something personally, to have sensed it, to have experienced it first hand.
As to belief, belief in something that is determined by one's perception of knowledge, what one thinks that they know. People who think they know the LNM exists for whatever reason, believes in it. Those who think they know it doesn't exist, believe it doesn't exist. Someone who is introduced to the subject, but isn't swayed either way, is the neutral party. Someone can have a position of "I don't know", and therefore can not hold a belief as to its existence or not. It's not an example of saying both, it's an example saying neither.
If you don't think that's possible then I really don't think there's anything else to say here.