Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Taking a position 'I don't believe there is a God or gods' is very different to taking the position 'I believe there is no God or gods'.
I continually see this assertion, but never any explanation for it.
"I don't believe this desktop monitor before me exists."
"I believe there is no desktop monitor before me."
What's the difference?
A better analogy is:
If you flip a coin and claim it has come up heads, me saying "I don't believe your claim" does not require me to make a counter claim that the result is tails.
Hope that helps.
My mistake. It's still there in your OP: "atheism is a negative claim".
My mistake. It's still there in your OP: "atheism is a negative claim".
At any rate I moved on from wondering which claim you were referring to and posted my general thoughts on your question.
Okay, let's go with that.
"I dont believe your claim a desktop monitor exists"
"I believe there is no desktop monitor before you."
What's the difference? You didn't explain any distinction between the two statements.
It is when there's only two options.
Who on earth made up this imaginary "rule" you people continually spout?
Creating more questions than you can answer is never helping.
A better analogy is:
"I dont believe your claim a desktop monitor exists"
"I believe there is no desktop monitor before you"
Atheism is a response to a claim. As such it doesn’t necessarily involve a counter claim.
Oh no I believe there's many different negative claims under the umbrella of atheism, including my own weak claim that I already mentioned.If you don't believe atheism is a negative claim, then you're essentially denying the "a" in atheism.
In statement A, I am not making a positive claim. I am only making a statement of disbelief of your claim about the existence of a computer monitor.
In statement B, I am making a positive claim. I'm am making a statement that I believe there is no monitor, in direct contradiction to your claim.
With statement A, I remain open to the possibility of there actually being a computer monitor. I can still be convinced, either way, that a monitor exits or it does not exist.
Even when dealing with a binary choice, its not an A or B option. Its an ['A' or 'Not-A'] and a ['B' or 'Not-B'] set of options. Each set deals with a separate horn of the binary choice dilemma - at least when responding to a claim.
There is a similarity with a criminal suit in a court of law. A person is either innocent or guilty of a crime. That's the binary. A or B.
If you're referring to the basic laws of logic, I think Aristotle is generally credited with formally writing them down (although I suspect others preceded him, we just don't have their writings).
Oh no I believe there's many different negative claims under the umbrella of atheism, including my own weak claim that I already mentioned.
The drivers license in my wallet is either expired or valid. If I claim that its valid, and you say you don't believe me, are you arguing that it is expired?
You know what you mean. I know what you mean. I think it's safe to say that most everyone around here with the notable exception of Paulomycin knows what you mean. It's a semantics issue. But I think it's an understandable one.
If someone asks me if I believe in the Theory of Evolution, I don't want to say "no, I don't believe in it". It just comes off the wrong way, even if it's technically correct. I accept the Theory of Evolution as by far the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. But, skeptic that I am, I'm not convinced.
Yes.
Problem?
Yeah. It's a totally unjustified assertion to make.
What evidence are you basing your non-acceptance of my claim on?
Sorry, but that just looks so. . .non-committal. If you accept ToE as "by far the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth," but you're still not convinced. It really looks like a flip-flop. A contradiction.
Why would you think I'd be the only one to notice this--outside of the "everyone around here" gang of consensus?
There's nothing wrong with being non-committal. One can see something as likely without being convinced. It's a normal human thing that just about everybody does with a wide variety of topics.
You have a very stubborn hangup on the semantics that I haven't seen from... anybody else here. Granted, I have seen a person on another forum with the same issue, and also a similar issue with the term "agnostic".
Sorry, but that just looks so. . .non-committal. If you accept ToE as "by far the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth," but you're still not convinced. It really looks like a flip-flop. A contradiction.
You have a very stubborn hangup on the semantics that I haven't seen from... anybody else here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?