Is atheism just a "true for me" thing.

[BeRational]

"I do not believe that there is an even number of blades of grass" does indeed mean "I believe that there is an odd number of blades of grass", because you're mis-using the word "believe". What you mean is "I do not know whether the number is even or odd". In the case of God, you should ssy "I do not know whether God exists or not". "Believe" puts you definitely on one side of the question, even if you acknowledge, as you should, that you might be wrong.

NO.

I do not believe, I do not accept the claim that the number is odd. If I did accept it I would believe.
When you know something you just really really really believe it. If you know it you must also believe it.

I do not believe X DOES NOT MEAN I believe X is false.

If you cannot move past this, you need to STOP and go and read up some more.

[SteveH]

Oh ffs. This is ridiculous. I'm out of here, because you're doing my head in. Have you ever admitted you are wrong about anything?
Also, the verb is "read", not "read up".

[BeRational]

Oh ffs. This is ridiculous. I'm out of here, because you're doing my head in. Have you ever admitted you are wrong about anything?
Also, the verb is "read", not "read up".

I am wrong about lots of stuff, been wrong 10 minutes ago in something I am doing for work. Changed it, tested it, found I was wrong, then corrected it.

I am not wrong about this. Perhaps because my job is programming some bits of logic come more easily?

I will find a link to the blades of grass or not believing is means I believe X is false, and Matt Dillahunty explains it far better than I can.

Logic really is his thing!

[SteveH]

And another thing: knowledge is not just a stronger form of belief; they are two different things. I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, but I don't merely believe that London is the capital of the UK; I know it is. You are terminally confused, but too pig-headed to admit it.
I came across a reference to this Dilahunty character in googling in relation to this thread. He's an idiot, as well.

[BeRational]

And another thing: knowledge is not just a stronger form of belief; they are two different things. I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, but I don't merely believe that London is the capital of the UK; I know it is. You are terminally confused, but too pig-headed to admit it.
I came across a reference to this Dilahunty character in googling in relation to this thread. He's an idiot, as well.

Watch this 5 minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHbE3-4p30

You think Matt Dillahunty is an idiot. wow.

[Nearly Sane]

"I do not believe that there is an even number of blades of grass" does indeed mean "I believe that there is an odd number of blades of grass", because you're mis-using the word "believe". What you mean is "I do not know whether the number is even or odd". In the case of God, you should ssy "I do not know whether God exists or not". "Believe" puts you definitely on one side of the question, even if you acknowledge, as you should, that you might be wrong.

But the actual position is 'I do not believe your claim that there is an even number blades of grass.' BeRational does not believe the claims made that god exists. This does not mean that he believes that no gods exist. Just that the claim has not met the burden of proof. This isn't saying that you believe there to be no gods. 

[SteveH]

This is all just a polysyllabic cop-out.

[Nearly Sane]

This is all just a polysyllabic cop-out.

In what way? If I find someone not guilty, I don't need to believe they are innocent.

[Nearly Sane]

And another thing: knowledge is not just a stronger form of belief; they are two different things. I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, but I don't merely believe that London is the capital of the UK; I know it is. You are terminally confused, but too pig-headed to admit it.
I came across a reference to this Dilahunty character in googling in relation to this thread. He's an idiot, as well.

Belief is effectively a subset of knowledge. You seem to be thinking that you have absolute knowledge of things but given hard solipsism that's untrue.

[BeRational]

Belief is effectively a subset of knowledge. You seem to be thinking that you have absolute knowledge of things but given hard solipsism that's untrue.

Not being funny but I thought knowledge was a subset of believe?

You do not need to know something to believe it, but anything you know you must also believe?

Is that right?

[SteveH]

Not being funny but I thought knowledge was a subset of believe?

You do not need to know something to believe it, but anything you know you must also believe?

Is that right?

No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.

[Nearly Sane]

Not being funny but I thought knowledge was a subset of believe?

You do not need to know something to believe it, but anything you know you must also believe?

Is that right?

Yep, you're right. I miswrote.

[Nearly Sane]

No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.

Surely the OP sets it up about use of words?

[BeRational]

Yep, you're right. I miswrote.

That's okay I just watched the vid from Matt Dillahunty and he just explained it, so that even I could understand it.

[jeremyp]

Give me a quotation from any Christian using that fallacy to defend God. assertion.

Assuming you mean "you can't disprove God", several Christians have argued that on this very message board.

[jeremyp]

Would you say that logically I do not believe X, means I believe X is not true.

That depends on how you you are using the word "believe". Is it fair to say "I do not believe in God, therefore everything I do is predicated on the assumption that there is no god". Functionally, in every day life, there is no difference between that and "I believe there is no god". The distinction only becomes important in discussions like this.

I'm quite comfortable, by the way, to say "I believe there is no god" and I would justify that belief on the grounds that it is the most parsimonious explanation for the fact that theists have never produced any credible evidence that there is a god.

[SusanDoris]

Watch this 5 minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHbE3-4p30

You think Matt Dillahunty is an idiot. wow.

That was a very interesting video.  I've added it to favorites.

[BeRational]

That was a very interesting video.  I've added it to favorites.

Thanks, I find him easy to understand.

He can use fruity language when he gets frustrated

[Owlswing]

[
quote author=Genial Harry Grout link=topic=16437.msg761107#msg761107 date=1547639553]

No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.

[/quote]

One of the reasons I post so rarely on this Forum these days is NR's pedantry, he takes nit-picking to a degree that is beyond the ken of most normal folk, and YES YES YES it frequently does come down to I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS and he can deny it all he likes but that will not change my view on the subject, hence my lack of posts.

[BeRational]

[
quote author=Genial Harry Grout link=topic=16437.msg761107#msg761107 date=1547639553]

No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.



One of the reasons I post so rarely on this Forum these days is NR's pedantry, he takes nit-picking to a degree that is beyond the ken of most normal folk, and YES YES YES it frequently does come down to I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS and he can deny it all he likes but that will not change my view on the subject, hence my lack of posts.

NR?

[Nearly Sane]

NR?

Nearly Rational 

[BeRational]

Nearly Rational 

I do no think I am being pedantic, it is logic 101.

Is it pedantic to say that 2+5 <> 5?

[Owlswing]

I do no think I am being pedantic, it is logic 101.

Is it pedantic to say that 2+5 <> 5?

Whatever! What you do is take "dotting the I's and crossing the T's to the farthest strectch of the imagination.

Apologies to NR, obviously I meant NS - YOU obviously knew what I meant but you just had to make the point didn't you - hence pedantry!

[BeRational]

Whatever! What you do is take "dotting the I's and crossing the T's to the farthest strectch of the imagination.

Apologies to NR, obviously I meant NS - YOU obviously knew what I meant but you just had to make the point didn't you - hence pedantry!

I am still a bit lost, as you replied to my post, but then mention NS.

Is it NS or me that you think is pedantic.

Sorry for the confusion

[Nearly Sane]

I do no think I am being pedantic, it is logic 101.

Is it pedantic to say that 2+5 <> 5?

I think quite often it's a case of different perspectives. I think that some post in an 'ordinary discussion', and jeremyp's point is that in day to day conversation, saying that you don't believe in god or whatever reads in that you think no god exists. If you are then looking at the more abstruse idea of logic then your replies won't make much sense to somehow insisting on the 'ordinary' approach.

It's similar to the idea that  Dr Johnson refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone as they were effectively taking part in 2 different conversations. It was one of the few things I agreed with Hope, once of this parish, in that a lot of conversations on here are just talking past each other.