That is what I have NOT, in fact, been saying. It's what I have been repeatedly misquoted as have been saying.
I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm saying that "Lack of belief" alone doesn't inform which is the case.
The onus of providing the proof is on the one making the assertion.
), or 50-50, or whatever. That's a clear question.
Argumentum ad populum. Are you claiming that disbelief in a god is a default?
I have never asserted they are the same thing. The "and" clearly separates the two . . .
I have not, as has been pointed out to you and others, ever claimed they are the same thing. However, nothing in your post relates to this post . . .
Not even remotely proof of your “it has been done” assertion. Merely more unfounded and false assertions.
You leap from "thinking X" to "knowing X" as if they are the same thing (see my hilites above).Which was precisely my point about the wording of the poll. It's not often that people get exactly my gist even when I'm not taking the piss, so this is a welcome change for me.
As I've said in your other poll, "believing X" is fully equivalent to "thinking X is true." There is no real difference from either a semantic or neuroscience point of view between believing X and knowig X.
Now what one could meaningfully ask is the degree of certainty, or the probability one assigns (if one is a Bayesian.) E.g., am I 100% certain allfather Odin exists, or only 99% (I try to keep an open mind
Or one could ask WHY one believes, e.g., whether there is some reasoning or evidence behind it, or just faith. E.g., I might choose to believe that Thor exists because, frankly, have you seen many frost giants lately?
But splitting hairs between knowing and believing is way too fuzzy for comfort, basically, because different people will split hairs differently. In fact personally I'm not even sure which of the two distinctions above are meant, or if it's a whole third. And people guessing differently will basically answer different questions, making the poll not very useful.
Which was precisely my point about the wording of the poll. It's not often that people get exactly my gist even when I'm not taking the piss, so this is a welcome change for me.
As I've said in your other poll, "believing X" is fully equivalent to "thinking X is true." There is no real difference from either a semantic or neuroscience point of view between believing X and knowig X.
Now what one could meaningfully ask is the degree of certainty, or the probability one assigns (if one is a Bayesian.) E.g., am I 100% certain allfather Odin exists, or only 99% (I try to keep an open mind
Or one could ask WHY one believes, e.g., whether there is some reasoning or evidence behind it, or just faith. E.g., I might choose to believe that Thor exists because, frankly, have you seen many frost giants lately?
But splitting hairs between knowing and believing is way too fuzzy for comfort, basically, because different people will split hairs differently. In fact personally I'm not even sure which of the two distinctions above are meant, or if it's a whole third. And people guessing differently will basically answer different questions, making the poll not very useful.
There's no error in saying “I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists” any more than there's an error in saying ”I neither accept nor reject your claim” or “I neither confirm nor deny something”. The error seems to be in your misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation of my words.
Don't think it's that he didn't understand what I said so much as he didn't like what I said. It seems to be an emotional issue.
How could I have been born without "no disbelief" in a concept of which I am not even aware?
Then you must agree that having no disbelief in a god is as much component of default atheism as not have a belief in a god is. Therefore, it's not an “error” to combine these components in a definition of default atheism (“I neither believe nor disbelieve a god actually exists”).
I included both atheism components in the same option as they are both neutral components that don't negatively affect each other. In fact “I dont have a belief in a god” is complimented by “nor do I have a disbelief in a god” as they both represent a neutral position.
The same way you were born with no belief in a concept of which you am not even aware. Atheism doesn't “kick-in” the instant you learn of theism. Atheism is no more a rejection of theism than being a non-smoker is a rejection of smoking. They are both things you don't do by default. You don't have to be aware of a choice not to do something you don't do by default.
