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.

[pocaracas]

You may believe it, but with nothing to guide you either way, it is not a clever position... Unless you're betting on it...then you'd want it to be true.
What if you don't believe that she's blonde? Does that mean that you automatically believe that she's not blonde?

Yes, it does.

Belief is a funny thing...has to start with some proposition, and then you may believe it or not.
Let's say some friend of yours comes to you and says "pocaracas' mum is blonde".you have no way of knowing if he knows my mum or not, so you either believe him, or you don't.
If you believe him, you believe that my mum is blonde. If you don't believe him, it simply means you realize he has no way of knowing that and he's probably messing with you... You don't believe the proposition that my mum is blonde and this says nothing about your belief in the proposition that she's not blonde.
You simply do not believe, period.

Its simpler than that actually. If I don't believe my friend, then I don't believe your mum is blonde. I am capable of accepting that I don't have a way of knowing and that my belief regarding it can be easily changed by the slightest amount of evidence presented, all the while realizing that even without evidence, whether I believe my friend or not, I am professing a belief.

If no one proposes to you that my mum is blonde, you may still come up with that idea by yourself... But what would prompt you into coming up with such an idea? Most likely, some information like you knowing that I'm blonde...which you could get from some photo. Then you'd plug in your knowledge of genetics (even if just empirical) and determine how likely it is for my mum to be as blonde as I am...if you find it likely, then it makes sense for you to believe that she's blonde.if you find it unlikely, it makes sense that you'd believe that she's not blonde. If you find that the likelihood of her being blonde is the same or very close to the likelihood of her not being blonde, then you're back at the no info either way position... And one where belief either way is not very smart.

You seem to be of the opinion that in absence of any evidence professing any belief is not "smart" - why is that?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

[iameatingjam]

That's all I have for now. Comments? Additions?

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.

[Gilgamesh]

If you don't think that's possible then I really don't think there's anything else to say here.

I don't think that's possible. I think when someone introduces a claim, you don't need to know anything about it before you either believe or disbelieve it.

[Question Mark]

If you don't think that's possible then I really don't think there's anything else to say here.

I don't think that's possible. I think when someone introduces a claim, you don't need to know anything about it before you either believe or disbelieve it.

Hang on, are we talking about the position where I believe I know whether such-and-such a thing exists, or are we talking about an opinion as to whether or not something exists?

[Violet]

Is there a difference between the two?

Everything exists And is out to get you 0.o

Welcome to the forum, by the way. A new member already aware of the difference between solipsism and materialism? There's hope for the forum yet

Sure you're not an old member come back to haunt us? ^_^

[Question Mark]

Is there a difference between the two?

Everything exists And is out to get you 0.o

Welcome to the forum, by the way. A new member already aware of the difference between solipsism and materialism? There's hope for the forum yet

Sure you're not an old member come back to haunt us? ^_^

No, I've never been here before I created this account. I did take a number of classes on the history of intellectual thought though, so I'd be rather embarrassed if I didn't know the difference between those two XD
Thanks for the welcome by the way

As to the difference between believing I know, or having an opinion about something, I believe there is such a distinction. Once someone is introduced to something, then whether we consciously do it or not, we do form a belief as to the existence of that thing. That's plain I should think, and the default position is to disbelieve everything until it is proven correct.

As to what my opinion of it existing or not is, that can still be neutral, as I can say that I don't know for sure if it exists or not until I see more evidence. At this point I neither assert that it definitely exists, or that it definitely doesn't exist.

For instance, I've heard about what a god is, and I don't have an opinion as to whether it exists or not. I don't claim that it exists, and I don't claim that it doesn't exist.
Since I can't assert either way, I have to assume until proven otherwise that it doesn't exist, since that's the default position. I do hope that other fellow comes back and reads this, since I think I might have misunderstood what they meant, and this might clear it up.

[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.

[Question Mark]

No, you don't KNOW that jumping off a building and hitting a ground will hurt you. You've either done it before and know from past experience, or you've taken into consideration mountains of evidence and knowledge of how physics and the human anatomy works, and now have a belief that it will hurt you. A well founded belief, to be sure, but you don't KNOW.

[genkaus]

No, you don't KNOW that jumping off a building and hitting a ground will hurt you. You've either done it before and know from past experience, or you've taken into consideration mountains of evidence and knowledge of how physics and the human anatomy works, and now have a belief that it will hurt you. A well founded belief, to be sure, but you don't KNOW.

Is there an argument in there somewhere? Because I don't see it.

I do KNOW that it'll hurt me. It is a belief which is true and justified by evidence - by definition, it is knowledge.