But to not believe is not the same activity as believing. Someone who fails to believe does not necessarily have "a" nonbelief. Often, they do not believe at all - they have an indefinite and potentially infinite number of nonbeliefs, if one insists on such language. So there is nothing in particular one can point to and say "that is what they nonbelieve" or "this is what they have a nonbelief in".
To not believe--is what exactly? Someone can say "I don't believe the earth goes round the sun". So what is not believed? They have a belief--that the heliocentric model isn't true. Or can you define this "non-belief" phenomenon? What's a "non-belief" supposed to be, or look like? I can't see what it might be, except a belief (so the "non-" bit looks a little silly). Not believing A is believing something else, and it's also believing that A is incorrect. This is only possible because A is understood. Failing to believe, is the result, I would say, of not understanding. Understanding is a necessary condition to form a belief. The belief can be affirmative (it seems believable), or otherwise (it isn't believable). Not understanding can lead to lack of belief, but that's because of a lack of evidence, not the possibility of believing something. IOW, someone who says "I have a non-belief in P", means "I don't believe P is the case". In science-lingo: belief has only one degree of freedom, or bidirectionality. Not believing is the same as believing (the same process of assignation of meaning). A thing (a concept supported by evidence) is believed (to be true), or it is not believed (believed to be false) Belief is a spin-0 interaction.
Not necessarily. They might be objecting to a different model, ignorant of any heliocentric model, etc. They might have no acquaintance at all with the heliocentric model you assert is the one they actively disbelieve - and only after forming a conception of it. You make too many assumptions without evidence, when you assign a conception you posit must be disbelieved in a case of non-belief. It does not have to be there. The world is more complicated than that, in most cases. So how does this model of yours handle my example of the "omnipotent being" concept of God? I classify it in the same category as a square circle. When I fail to believe in square circles or omnipotent beings, what concepts am forming to reject? Is there a square circle concept, for me to form before declaring it non-existent? Is there an omnipotent being concept, that I must first form before disbelieving in ?
Right... Here goes... I currently have a ball in my hand. Do you believe me? Yes or no? - or do you not have any evidence to be able to believe one way or the other? To believe I do have a ball in my hand without evidence (other than you know it is a possibility) is to do so on faith. These are akin to theists. To believe I do not, again without evidence, is to also do so on faith - and are akin to "strong" atheists. To not-believe that I do or don't is to say that there is insufficient evidence either way (i.e. zero for both). This position is ALSO atheism - and is brought about through their agnostic position on the subject of balls claimed to be held. (Remember, atheism is merely a position of belief / non-belief / belief in non, whereas agnosticism is your stance on knowledge. And it is possible to have agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, and non-agnostic varieties of each). Understand? Now, the main difference with the question of belief / non-belief in God is the level of evidence that atheists feel should be available. The more evidence that they feel should be available for observation, and the subsequent lack thereof, gives rise further and further toward a stronger version of atheism (the belief in non-existence kind).
There is a difference between "I don't believe P is the case" and "I believe P is NOT the case". Someone who says "I don't believe P is the case" can also say "but I don't believe P is NOT the case" - i.e. with regard to P he feels there is still a possibility for P, whether equally possible with non-P or merely a remote possibility. He does not discount P, but also can not state with absolute certainty non-P; without evidence either way - how could he? "NOT BELIEVED TO BE TRUE" IS NOT THE SAME AS "BELIEVED TO BE FALSE". See my previous post.
If someone says "I don't believe", they usually mean in a theory, an idea. "The earth goes round" implies a thing that's a centre, or a point to go "round", or around. So how would you not think someone wasn't talking about a centric model? Why do you appear to think this derails what I posted, or that I'm assuming something (you certainly appear to have assumed something). The conception does not have to be there? How can you "disbelieve" something without conceiving of it, or how does conceiving of it make it "not there"? How did you manage to write those words that are bolded? Did you ask your PC to generate them for you?
What we have going in this thread, right at this point, is the same argument over again as previously: that atheism isn't a belief system; it forms part of many other kinds of worldview: empiricism, relativism, determinism, lots of other -isms, but is based on observations (or lack of them) and not any belief per se. Atheism means "lack of belief". Atheists do not believe that it's important to have a "non-belief", in something they understand as "God", which is the theist perspective. So Theism is belief, and atheism is lack of belief: the standard argument. Except it's about meaning, uncertainty, probability and possibility. The meaning of observation: to determine, to objectively measure (i.e. without involving belief or meaning). There's a problem with the "standard" view, because it's actually impossible to arrange any sort of observation, without first assigning meaning, or while observing, or after. There is no "objective moment" to sit in, and see things happen, so sorry. Belief is, like I keep saying, a process of assignation. Meaning is involved, in order to classify, find order, file under "unexplained", or "anomalous"; we observers are bound to do this, or how else do we learn (anything)? It's about what an observation is, and what it isn't, and it's about what meaning is and isn't. An observation is a pattern, but it's also the representation of the pattern (a map of it). Patterns have labels and things in them that we "see", and assign meaning to (a valid result, a meaningful outcome in an experiment). We would not be able to use the technology we do--or build it--if we didn't assign meaning to it. Belief is the assignation of meaning (status) to any observation (pattern). Not seeing anything (meaningful) is discarding the observation, or believing it has no relevant meaning. We can believe or disbelieve our, or someone else's, explanation of why some pattern exists. Not believing something to be false is an expectation, so is believing it to be true (or the inverse). Something is possible, or it might be believed impossible (zero expectation). Something is believed because it explains an observation, possibility is due to expectation of further observation.
I'm not sure I follow much of what you're saying, and what I do understand I disagree with. The assignation of meaning is NOT belief - merely what is called "interpretation". However I concede that one's bias (based on upbringing, other or pre-existing beliefs, will have a massive impact on the interpretation - so might possibly "see God in the evidence merely because they are looking for God". Belief, however, takes the interpretation and assigns it factual status without the ability to rationally support that status. Scientific facts are intepretations of observations that CAN be supported rationally, and are so time and time again. "Beliefs" aren't. And we're not talking about "belief" in the "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow" sense - which is merely an assessment of probability based on plethora of information. We're talking about "belief" where the claim is unsupported by rationally-supportive evidence (i.e. evidence that can ONLY lead to one conclusion - such as "God" - without subjective interpretation). Theists take the available evidence, interpret it (assign meaning) and conclude the fact that God exists. Atheists take the available evidence and conclude that there is nothing as yet that can rationally only lead to the claim that God exists over any other claim. And so they rationally do not give that claim factual status, even to themselves. They conclude that "the jury is still out", so to speak. However, some go so far as to say that there is such a plethora of overall evidence that the fact that none can be solely attributed rationally to God is sufficient for them to reach the conclusion (and assign factual status to) that God therefore does not exist.
Honestly, it doesn't matter if it's a belief or not. There's not much point on debating something like this.
We've only been saying this to these savants for oh, say, a billion posts. Their inability to understand this means one of two things. They truly are dumb as a post, or, they are terrified of admitting such a simple bit of logic lest their house of god cards comes tumbling down, never to be resurrected.
The assignation of meaning is "interpretation"? OK, so what's "interpretation"? Uh huh. An observation is a pattern that "appears", out of a clear blue sky, then? Or magic is involved? So belief is inter-pre-tation. The "inter" of "pretation", What's a "pretation"? (Hint: it's a word that has a meaning) Do you think you know what "interpretation" actually is? What does "assignation" mean, how would meaning be assigned, or this never happens? We interpret, instead? Meaning is elusive. Unfortunately, describing meaning involves (revolves around) words. Words give meaning to other words. It's about memes, units, supposedly quanta of meaning (whatever meaning actually is, or means itself).
Really...? ?believed? (to be true) is not equivalent to: ?believed? (to be false). not ?believed? (to be true) is not: not equivalent to ?believed? (to be false). "not ?believed? (to be true) is not: equivalent to ?believed? (to be false)." I see.
Again... If I put a pea under one upturned cup and have another identical upturned cup next to it and then switch them around without you knowing under which cup the pea is situated, and then label the cups arbitrarily A and B ... do you "believe" (as fact, e.g. religious belief) that the pea is under cup A? If not then, according to you, you must believe, as fact, that the pea is NOT under cup A. So you must believe (as fact) that it is under cup B. No? Well, if not, then you must believe that it is NOT under cup B? But then you're in the odd position of believing (as fact) that the pea is neither under cup A or cup B. According to your method of thinking there is no room for: "I don't know". You either believe it to be under A or B - but you do not seem to grasp the third option of just not having the belief. Okay - let's use another example instead of "believe" to reiterate the point (that I am sure you do understand and accept but are merely being argumentative... for the sake of it): Instead of... "To not believe X is true", let's use "To not eat the cake on the table". According to your flawed logic and/or use of English, "To not eat the cake on the table" is equivalent to "To eat the cake not on the table" (i.e. to eat the one on the floor, the chair, in the fridge etc) You seem to see no option for merely "not eating".
Yes!! Corollary: "If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice." "Free Will" Rush. Sorry, Enmos, You're wrong on this. NOT crazy.
No!!! CHOICE is not a corollary for BELIEF (although I assume by corollary you mean 'analogy'?) In your example, it is DECIDE that is the analogy to BELIEF. Atheists certainly CHOOSE not to BELIEVE. So Atheism is a CHOICE - but NOT a BELIEF. You can choose to run to A, run to B, or NOT TO RUN. You can choose to eat A, eat B, or NOT TO EAT. You can choose to believe in A, believe in B, or NOT TO BELIEVE. What is so difficult for you lot to understand about this? Do you believe I'm wearing shoes, or do you believe I'm not wearing shoes? As an incentive, let's say that if you place a belief in the wrong one you die. As a third option, however, you can choose not to actually believe either option, but to say that you lack sufficient information on which to determine any "belief". So which is it? In which option do you place a belief? Or do you choose not to place a belief?
So eating something, or not, is the same kind of thing as believing, or not? If I believe I can eat the cake on the table (or hidden somewhere in a cupboard), this is only true if a cake in fact exists...? If there's no cake (on the table), why would I form any belief about eating it or not? I guess I could imagine eating the cake that isn't on the table, would this mean I can have my imaginary cake and imagine eating it, too? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There's supposed to be a pea under one of the cups? Or you're just saying there is? If there's a pea under a cup, because I saw you put one there, then there's a pea under a cup. Nothing odd about seeing you put a pea under a cup, then producing a second cup. This makes the probability exactly 50/50, that it's under cup A, and the same probability that it's under B. The pea hasn't disappeared, unless the whole thing is a trick of some kind. I'm supposed to believe that there's a 100% probability that this pea still exists (under one of two cups)? I don't know that this pea under two cups is for real, or some kind of trick that you think you're playing. You do not seem to grasp this part of the trick, either. There isn't much room for deception in scientific thinking. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What about believing I can (choose to) run to A B or anywhere? What if I lost my legs in some accident, and now I'm in a motorised wheelchair? I would then need to believe I can (choose to) drive my battery-powered vehicle to some destination. The third choice is also a belief, right? Choosing to believe that you can disbelieve, for whatever reason you so choose. Choice and belief are the same thing, or choice is made because you believe (something). What is so difficult for you to understand about this?
No. You assert this, but you cannot specify what it is a belief in. Neither, for completely different reasons, is disbelief in a square circle or an omnipotent being specifiable as a belief in anything in particular. That's two different ways a person can not believe in something without believing in something else.
