Annoying Atheist Arguments

[genkaus]

I think the main problem is that we hold different concepts of belief.

Belief is a proposition one holds to be true - is that not the concept you hold regarding belief?

To know something is to have confirmed something personally, to have sensed it, to have experienced it first hand.

Nope. I don't need to personally experience jumping off the roof to know that it'll hurt when I land.

As to belief, belief in something that is determined by one's perception of knowledge, what one thinks that they know.

Its the other way around. Knowledge is the subset of belief.

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.

Clearly, you have it backwards. Knowledge means a justified, true belief. That is, a belief that you hold that is true and you can prove it. Beliefs as to its existence can be held even without the actual knowledge. Before being introduced to the concept, clearly, the person would not believe in the LNM's existence. After being introduced, if he remains unconvinced and his original position remains unchanged, then he believes that it does not exist. If he is convinced, then he believes that it does exist. Either way, belief-wise, he can no longer remain neutral - even if he remains at a zero knowledge-wise.

---

Why? Because you'd be a gullible person, if you believe any proposition presented to you, or, if you believe the opposite, you'd be an anti-social.

Then how about you believe it based on how well it fits your worldview.

What you seem to fail to notice is that I specify the absence of information regarding the truth value of the proposition.

What you fail to notice is that information is not necessary to form a belief.

We all have acquired some awareness of the world around us in our lifetimes and that has provided us with information on a broad range of themes. The proposition that my mum is blonde would be automatically judged by all the information you have available, at least about the global proportion of blondes vs non-blondes; or the previously established (by you) trustworthiness of your friend that proposes it.
Based on such (sometimes sparse) information, you make a judgement and that is why you state that if you do not believe something, that is because you have some information which hints the opposite of the proposition.

What you are missing is that which information is used to make the judgment and how much weight is attached to it is solely at my discretion.

Now, let's go to the ultimate example: belief in god's existence.
What sort of information do I have that proposes some god's existence? people's testimony, some of it written.
The trustworthiness of these persons, to me, is sketchy.
What information do I have of the opposite proposition (there is no god)? only the absence of any divine intervention (as testified by the proponents of the "god exists" proposition) within my life's experience.... compounded with other testimonies stating the same absence.

You've more to go on than that. Like how the being proposed is logically incoherent and all the other evidence undermining the arguments for existence.

This absence, to you, may be enough to claim your belief that there is no god.
To me, it just enforces the default position, which arises from the absence of the proposition itself.
If no one in my lifetime had ever mentioned any divine entities, how would I believe them not to exist? How would I believe them to exist?

Then you believe that they don't exist. Its that simple. The default position is not to believe that such a thing exists.

In the 1700's, people were unaware of the existence of black holes. Did they believe black holes not to exist? Did they believe black holes to exist?
Or they were in the default position: i don't know?
Then someone came up with the idea of a black hole, based on Einstein's space-time curvature due to gravity. To the people that understood Einsteins theory, black holes made sense, so they believed they could exist (even if no one had observed one yet). The common people had no such knowledge of the theory, so they didn't have enough information to form an educated opinion on the subject.... they did form opinions, none the less...
Some didn't believe they could exist (their experience of the world didn't accommodate that notion), some believed based only on the fact that the scientists were trustworthy (appeal to authority), some remained unaware, others unable to form an opinion...
Now that you know that black holes are real, you'd say the ones that believed the scientists were the smart lot.... but imagine no one had yet observed the effects of a black hole.

Which of those groups would have been smart? Is it smart to accept the saying of a group of people, just because you acknowledge them to be some authority? Is it smart to dismiss those people's proposition and promptly accept the opposite? Or is it smart to remain in doubt until some more information comes to light about said proposition?
As it turns out, the predicted signature x-ray radiation has been detected as coming from a few candidate black hole positions, so the notion that black holes exist has gained some evidence in its favor. This makes me believe that black holes exist.

It is only before you are aware of the concept that you can remain at a zero - i.e. hold no belief regarding it. Once you become aware of it, you really do have only two choices - to believe it or not to believe it. In case of absence of definitive evidence or information for either side, you may not know which position is correct and therefore hold a belief and remain in doubt - willing to change that belief if and when information is provided.

The smart thing would be to make the choice in line with your worldview and wait for more information. The smarter choice still is to have a coherent, logical and correct worldview so that the choice you make is likely to be the right one. The smart thing to do is to acknowledge that while you may not know, you can still believe one way or the other.

No such information exists about gods, so all I have available is other people's testimony and my lack of experience of whatever they testify.

Like I said, you have more than that.

---

Why would we need to find any new arguments? They would all fall into pretty similar categories as the one you mentioned... There's really only so much you can say when your 'debating' creationists.

Then it should be easy to avoid saying wrong things at wrong places.