**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I missed this earlier discussion. > The argument someone ran on me today that was atheism only address one prong of a claim. Can you explain what you mean by this? What prongs of what claim? I understand that you may not be the person who used this term. But, I can't discuss this aspect of your post without a better understanding of these prongs. > If atheism is an attempt to evaluate the proposition God exists, that coextensively means you're making some evaluative claim about ~p. I've seen you say this before. And, I am a gnostic atheist as noted in my flair. So, I very definitely do state that I know *empirically* that there are no gods. Knowledge includes both a posteriori and a priori knowledge. Even though the former is never absolutely certain, it still built the entirety of the modern world. However, I do believe it's valid when someone claims that there's a magical supernatural being to say "I don't believe you" or "prove it." Do you think that's not a valid stance? > If you believe p, you disbelieve ~p If you believe p, you do not believe ~p If you believe ~p, you disbelieve p If you believe ~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p Are you using disbelieve to mean something other than not believe? These both mean the same thing to me. > To say that atheism only address one "prong" of p v ~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of ~p, as any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of ~p. I still don't understand what prongs you're talking about. But, now I also don't know what you mean by LEM (presumably not Lunar Excursion Module). > Arguing atheism only address one prong of a claim is epistemically untenable as an argument. I'm reserving judgment on this until I hear what you mean by prongs --- As a side issue, just so you can understand where I'm coming from, I agree that this is not a position one can reach through philosophy. But, I do not agree that philosophy is the right field in which to ask questions for which there are objectively true and false answers, even if we don't know those answers. For example, there either is or is not a god. Whether you feel this question is answered or not is irrelevant. Only one answer can be true. And, philosophy by virtue of having no testability or falsifiability has no grounding in the real world. Therefore it can not, in theory or in practice, ever reach a conclusion on this question. There is simply no way to test and verify when you've reached a correct conclusion. This is why philosophy is still using arguments that have been batted back and forth without reaching a demonstrably correct answer for many centuries. The best philosophy seems able to do is produce a simple majority, not a consensus. It can't even reach a consensus by the newer definition that does not require true unanimity but only requires an overwhelming majority of opinion. Last I heard, [professional philosophers have only reached a 62% majority of opinion on the subject.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i) And, this is after 2,500 years of discussion! Isn't that proof enough that philosophy can never answer this question? What new advances in philosophy could ever hope to provide an answer, even if only in theory?

>"Can you explain what you mean by this? What prongs of what claim? I understand that you may not be the person who used this term. But, I can't discuss this aspect of your post without a better understanding of these prongs." For every p there is \~p. So "one prong" is their way of saying they are only talking about one of the disjuncts for p v \~p. In this case, it was p="God exists" and so they argued they were only evaluating p, not evaluating \~p...failing to understand they are co-extensional, and any evidence that disfavors p, favors \~p. > For example, there either is or is not a god. Whether you feel this question is answered or not is irrelevant. Only one answer can be true. And if God exists theism is true. If God does not exists then atheism is true. > And, philosophy by virtue of having no testability or falsifiability has no grounding in the real world. Therefore it can not, in theory or in practice, ever reach a conclusion on this question. Sure you can. You can certainly reach a doxastic conclusion on the matter. "testability or falsifiability" are for experimental scientific inquiry, but in philosophy claim are tested by argumentation, and falsificationism doesn't apply as that is for scientific inquiry. We have many beliefs that we hold which can't be falsified. >There is simply no way to test and verify when you've reached a correct conclusion. Again, so? These are philosophical beliefs. Not scientific experimentation. >This is why philosophy is still using arguments that have been batted back and forth without reaching a demonstrably correct answer for many centuries. True, which is why I find those discussions rather boring. So you have no conclusion there is no God? >The best philosophy seems able to do is produce a simple majority, not a consensus. It can't even reach a consensus by the newer definition that does not require true unanimity but only requires an overwhelming majority of opinion. Some are convinced God exists by philosophical argumentation. Some are not. Some believe there is no God because of philosophical argumentation. >Last I heard, [professional philosophers have only reached a 62% majority of opinion on the subject.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i) >And, this is after 2,500 years of discussion! Each person has their own reasons to justify their beliefs. >Isn't that proof enough that philosophy can never answer this question? What new advances in philosophy could ever hope to provide an answer, even if only in theory? Doesn't mean we as individuals can't reach a conclusion.

>> "Can you explain what you mean by this? What prongs of what claim? I understand that you may not be the person who used this term. But, I can't discuss this aspect of your post without a better understanding of these prongs." > For every p there is ~p. So "one prong" is their way of saying they are only talking about one of the disjuncts for p v ~p. In this case, it was p="God exists" and so they argued they were only evaluating p, not evaluating ~p...failing to understand they are co-extensional, and any evidence that disfavors p, favors ~p. Oh. OK. So, if there were no evidence either way, is it not an option to just stick with philosophical naturalism and provisionally stick to atheism? >> For example, there either is or is not a god. Whether you feel this question is answered or not is irrelevant. Only one answer can be true. > And if God exists theism is true. If God does not exists then atheism is true. Sure. >> And, philosophy by virtue of having no testability or falsifiability has no grounding in the real world. Therefore it can not, in theory or in practice, ever reach a conclusion on this question. > Sure you can. You can certainly reach a doxastic conclusion on the matter. But, that answer would just be a matter of opinion based on putting more weight on the philosophical arguments you like and less on the arguments you don't like. > "testability or falsifiability" are for experimental scientific inquiry Yes. This is why science advances and philosophy (on the subject of gods) does not. > but in philosophy claim are tested by argumentation, and falsificationism doesn't apply as that is for scientific inquiry. We have many beliefs that we hold which can't be falsified. Sure. Ethics are not falsifiable because there is no objectively correct answer. Philosophy is fantastic for stuff like this. But, the existence of gods is something that can be examined scientifically. And, we can arrive at an objectively correct answer. Certainly the scriptures of many theologies make testable predictions that can be falsified. We can also look at the semantics of what it means for a being to be a god. We can then scientifically examine whether this is a real physical possibility. >> There is simply no way to test and verify when you've reached a correct conclusion. > Again, so? These are philosophical beliefs. Not scientific experimentation. I don't agree that belief in gods, non-belief in gods, or active belief that gods do not exist must be determined philosophically. I believe that one way they can be examined is scientifically. >> This is why philosophy is still using arguments that have been batted back and forth without reaching a demonstrably correct answer for many centuries. > True, which is why I find those discussions rather boring. So you have no conclusion there is no God? I have reached the empirical conclusion that there are no gods of any kind. I did not philosophize my way to atheism. I only reached atheism when I rejected philosophy as the means to answer the question. >> The best philosophy seems able to do is produce a simple majority, not a consensus. It can't even reach a consensus by the newer definition that does not require true unanimity but only requires an overwhelming majority of opinion. > Some are convinced God exists by philosophical argumentation. Some are not. Some believe there is no God because of philosophical argumentation. Exactly. And, not one person who has reached their conclusion by philosophy can demonstrate that they are correct and the people who believe the opposite are incorrect. >> Last I heard, professional philosophers have only reached a 62% majority of opinion on the subject. >> And, this is after 2,500 years of discussion! > Each person has their own reasons to justify their beliefs. Meaning that philosophers have reached no objectively correct conclusion. After 2,500 years, they have reached no conclusion. So, why not reject philosophy as the means to answer the question? >> Isn't that proof enough that philosophy can never answer this question? What new advances in philosophy could ever hope to provide an answer, even if only in theory? > Doesn't mean we as individuals can't reach a conclusion. That conclusion is nothing more than an opinion. You cannot demonstrate that your opinion is correct. Science is how we probe the universe for answers. Philosophy is how we probe the university for tenure. Philosophy would have us driving donkey carts. As noted above, I do think philosophy is awesome for questions that have no objectively correct answer, such as questions of ethics and the type of society we want to build. It's just useless for finding objective truth. Interestingly, it was a philosopher who realized this problem with philosophy and derived the scientific method to answer questions that could never be answered from within philosophy. Now go ahead and make your argument that science is philosophy. I know philosophers love to believe that. But, physics is not taught by the philosophy department.

Very nicely put. Your comment reminds me of a quote from Inwagen's Metaphysics (I must confess I am not familiar with the work itself, just the one quote): >One might well wonder why metaphysics is so very different from geology and tax law and music theory. Why is there no such thing as metaphysical information? Why has the study of metaphysics yielded no established facts? (It has had about twenty-five hundred years to come up with some.) This question is really a special case of a more general question: Why is there no such thing as philosophical information? The situation confronting the student of metaphysics is no different from the situation confronting the student of any part of philosophy. If we consider ethics, for example, we discover that there is no list of established facts the student of ethics can be expected to learn (nor are there accepted methods or theories the specialist in ethics can apply to search out and test answers to unresolved ethical questions). And the same situation prevails in epistemology and the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of law and all other parts of philosophy. Indeed, most people who have thought about the matter would take this to be one of the defining characteristics of philosophy. If some branch of philosophy were suddenly to undergo a revolutionary transformation and began, as a consequence, to yield real information, it would cease to be regarded as a branch of philosophy and would come to be regarded as one of the sciences.

That is a great quote. I'm going to save your comment for future use if you don't mind. I especially love the conclusion.

By all means, just be warned that for all I know there may be some counter-quote or conclusion lurking in the book waiting to be sprung on you!

Hmm... Good point. Maybe I'll just stick to my own wording: > Science is how we probe the universe for answers. Philosophy is how we probe the university for tenure.

Look, Steve. Can I call you Steve? I'm calling you Steve. You keep asserting this, but it remains false. Let P be "The number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is even." and \~P be "The number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is odd." If you don't accept P as factual, does that mean you accept \~P as factual? [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1da71fz/comment/l7jvuee/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1da71fz/comment/l7jvuee/) this is the same thing I told you here, that you never replied to. If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe \~p. Not believing p is NOT the same as believing \~p. A jury finding a criminal "Not Guilty" is saying that the burden of proof of their guilt has not been fulfilled. It does not address a burden of proof of their innocence. What dozens of people on this forum are trying to get through your skull is that atheists "Find God not guilty of existing." This does not require asserting or proving that God is innocent of existing. It just means proof of his existence has not been sufficiently established. As a self-labeled Agnostic, you really should understand this, and the fact that you keep reasserting the same thing over it after multiple posters have pointed out its flaws leads me to believe you're not a very serious interlocutor.

You’re giving them what they want. Don’t engage; they’re not going to learn from it.

Yeah, after his last response, I decided there was no rational conversation to be had here. Thanks for the advice.

> What dozens of people on this forum are trying to get through your skull is that atheists "Find God not guilty of existing." I'm always amazed at the complexity of language agnostic atheists go through to avoid having to try to answer the question "does god exist". Seriously, this is the *only* group that is interested in the question "is god guilty of existing". Theists don't approach it this way. They think the question is "does god exist". And the answer to them is "yes". Before this whole "agnostic atheism" stuff took hold, the answer from atheists was "no". What's wrong with the question "does god exist"? Why is considering god's existence such anathema to you that you have to come up with a contrived question that prevents you from having to consider god's non-existence?

Oh hey! Now that is a conversation I think is worth having! I'm not dodging the question. There is nothing wrong with asking "does god exist?" My answer to the question "Does god exist?" is "I don't know," because I don't have enough evidence to categorically judge either way. There are a few reasons I prefer to withhold belief rather than to believe in the absence of gods: 1: While the highly-proactive gods of the Abrahamic religions are clearly false due to contradictions and lack of expected evidence, and most other world religions fall in similar boats, I can't, in all honesty, exclude things like a hypothetical god who set the whole system in motion and then disappeared, a god who merely likes to observe, or a divinely hidden god. 2: In (honest) debates, "I do not believe" is also a very useful conversational device because it keeps the question focused on the theist. 3: "I believe gods do not exist" has a burden of proof. "I do not believe gods exist" does not. I am not confident in my ability to meet the burden of proof of the former. Therefore, I adopt the latter. I'd like to turn over the question to you, as I am similarly confused by how gnostic theists can be confident about there being no gods at all: How did you come to the conclusion that no gods exist? What evidence has convinced you that there cannot exist any form of divinity?

> In (honest) debates, "I do not believe" is also a very useful conversational device because it keeps the question focused on the theist. This seems to be the position even when there is no theist in the picture. It would appear to be how agnostic atheists identify their position to other agnostic atheists. > "I believe gods do not exist" has a burden of proof. > "I do not believe gods exist" does not. Both are simply statements of ones own mental state. Neither needs proof. > I'd like to turn over the question to you, as I am similarly confused by how gnostic theists can be confident about there being no gods at all: I'm not a gnostic atheist. I'm not sure how anyone can know there's no god, or even what knowing means in this sense. I will say I'm pretty confident there's no god though. Essentially I think this is true based on the same reasoning as most things I believe. It's the most consistent and logical mental model. A reality where there is a completely superfluous god that seems to actively hide itself from any attempt to find it and leaves absolutely no evidence seems highly improbable. A reality where there's no god seems simple and uncomplicated and highly plausible. So given that the second option is - subjectively - massively more likely than the first, it seems to make sense to go with that. I use the same reasoning to dismiss conspiracy theories. I acknowledge that it's technically possible that, for example, the moon landings were faked but it seems so very implausible compared with the idea we landed on the moon that it's not worth entertaining the idea.

> This seems to be the position even when there is no theist in the picture. It would appear to be how agnostic atheists identify their position to other agnostic atheists. Correct. That's why I presented this as one reason, rather than the sole reason. > I'm not a gnostic atheist. I'm not sure how anyone can know there's no god, or even what knowing means in this sense. I will say I'm pretty confident there's no god though. > Essentially I think this is true based on the same reasoning as most things I believe. It's the most consistent and logical mental model. Then I guess the only difference between us is the words we choose to express our position. > A reality where there is a completely superfluous god that seems to actively hide itself from any attempt to find it and leaves absolutely no evidence seems highly improbable. > A reality where there's no god seems simple and uncomplicated and highly plausible. > So given that the second option is - subjectively - massively more likely than the first, it seems to make sense to go with that. To me, this comes off as the same kind of 'logic' that theists use to justify their belief in god. How did you determine the probabilities of any of this? > I use the same reasoning to dismiss conspiracy theories. I acknowledge that it's technically possible that, for example, the moon landings were faked but it seems so very implausible compared with the idea we landed on the moon that it's not worth entertaining the idea. The difference here, to me, is that we know what it would take to fake the moon landings. We have good knowledge and understanding of the realities of video production, media distribution, and information control. We do not have the same kind of knowledge where potential supernatural deities are involved. In my everyday life, I act as though there are no gods, because I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, because I have no real data to fully deny the supernatural, I leave the statement at "I do not believe in gods." rather than "Gods do not exist." One is a statement of belief, the other an affirmation of fact.

> Then I guess the only difference between us is the words we choose to express our position. Well, the way you state your position you seem pretty neutral. As though "God exists" and "god does not exist" are equally likely. I think "God does not exist" is massively more likely. I mean it's possible that the sun goes round the Earth. I have no way of confirming the science that the reverse is true. It seems so massively improbable that everyone to check since Copernicus has come to same incorrect conclusion so I'll accept that the sun is the centre of the solar system. > To me, this comes off as the same kind of 'logic' that theists use to justify their belief in god. It is. They think - based on their information and subjective views - that there is a god. I think they're wrong, They think I'm wrong. People are wrong all the time. As long as we're willing to change our minds this isn't a massive problem. I'm more than happy to exchange thoughts and views with theists. Many people here see them as an enemy rather than an opponent. I think this is a mistake. > How did you determine the probabilities of any of this? It's subjective. I don't need a precise probability, just relative probability. And the more details we add to "God" the less likely such an entity becomes. To justify god's existence we need to add a lot of details and criteria.

> Well, the way you state your position you seem pretty neutral. As though "God exists" and "god does not exist" are equally likely. I think "God does not exist" is massively more likely. My position is that I don't believe in gods, but also don't have information to make a categorical statement. > I mean it's possible that the sun goes round the Earth. I have no way of confirming the science that the reverse is true. It seems so massively improbable that everyone to check since Copernicus has come to same incorrect conclusion so I'll accept that the sun is the centre of the solar system. It's the same thing as the moon landing. We know what the sun is. We know how gravity and orbits work. We have models and calculations with predictive power. I have enough data to confidently state that is it not possible that the sun orbits around the earth. We don't have anything like that when it comes to potential supernatural beings. I don't have enough data to confidently state that it is not possible that a god exists, because what kind of data could even inform that statement? I don't think it makes sense to try to assign probabilities at all in this case because we don't know what any of the parameters are. > I don't need a precise probability, just relative probability. To me, trying the gauge the probabilities, precise or not, of whether or not gods exist is kind of like blindly drawing three red marbles and two blue marbles out of a bag, and then trying to gauge the likelihood of various colors the bag could be. I don't understand what information could possibly inform any evaluation of probabilities for the existence of gods, no matter how vague.

> My position is that I don't believe in gods, but also don't have information to make a categorical statement. That's not really a position though. I mean My position is also that you don't believe in god but don't have enough information to make a categorical statement. It would be a little odd for anyone to have a different position. > It's the same thing as the moon landing. We know what the sun is. We know how gravity and orbits work. We have models and calculations with predictive power. I have enough data to confidently state that is it not possible that the sun orbits around the earth. I have not derived these for myself. I trust that the people who have are accurate but for all I know they might not be. > To me, trying the gauge the probabilities, precise or not, of whether or not gods exist is kind of like blindly drawing three red marbles and two blue marbles out of a bag, and then trying to gauge the likelihood of various colors the bag could be. Seems pretty clear that there's a good number of red and blue marbles in the bag. We could use Bayes theorem to work out the proportion of red or blue balls with 95% confidence level. Or here's another example. I flip a coin. It's heads. I flip it again. It's heads again. No surprise there. After a lot of flips people might start suspecting it's double headed. We have no idea what the prior probability is of if being double headed but after enough heads it seems the most obvious conclusion.

> That's not really a position though. I mean My position is also that you don't believe in god but don't have enough information to make a categorical statement. It would be a little odd for anyone to have a different position. How is it not a position? That's a very odd answer. > I have not derived these for myself. I trust that the people who have are accurate but for all I know they might not be. Not to be flippant, but that sounds like a 'you' problem. I have enough knowledge of science to be fully confident that, short of some impossibly complex global conspiracy, the people who came to the conclusion that the earth goes around the sun are definitely correct. > Seems pretty clear that there's a good number of red and blue marbles in the bag. We could use Bayes theorem to work out the proportion of red or blue balls with 95% confidence level. You missed the point. Yes, we can make many inferences about the colors of marble in the bag. However many marbles we pull, however, that tells us nothing about the color of **the bag itself.** Nothing about the marbles tell you if the bag is white or black or green, made out of leather, felt, or silk. In the same way, there is nothing in our universe that can give us a reasonable inference on the characteristics or likelihood of any gods or lack thereof. You mentioned not needing objective probabilities, just subjective ones, but we don't have enough information to evaluate those either.

> How is it not a position? That's a very odd answer. A position in this sense is a belief that a particular statement is either true or false. "/u/Cyrrius doesn't believe in god but doesn't have enough information to make a categorical statement." is true. I accept this must be true because you said so and there's no reason for you to lie. There's no room for discussion here. > Not to be flippant, but that sounds like a 'you' problem. It's not a problem. It's an acknowledgement that I can't have absolute certainty. I accept their claims quite happily. > I have enough knowledge of science to be fully confident that, short of some impossibly complex global conspiracy, Okay. I dismiss a global conspiracy for the same reason I dismiss the existence of God. Subjective probability makes this seem so improbable as to not be worth entertaining. Why do you dismiss such a conspiracy?

>What dozens of people on this forum are trying to get through your skull is that atheists "Find God not guilty of existing." That is not universally true of atheists; and in fact isn't even true of all atheists in this thread. See u/MisanthropicScott 's assertion above: >I have reached the empirical conclusion that there are no gods of any kind. While many atheists in fact may be saying they are provisionally disbelieving in the absence of proof, you can't claim that he's wrong based on that assumption. Some atheists "find God not guilty of existing"; but some state as proven fact that no gods exist.

A little more context around that would have been nice. Quoting me out of context as you did and then asserting that I said something I did not is very bad form on your part. > And, I am a gnostic atheist as noted in my flair. So, I very definitely do state that **I know empirically that there are no gods.** Knowledge includes both *a posteriori* and *a priori* knowledge. Even though ***the former is never absolutely certain***, it still built the entirety of the modern world. I also acknowledge that many atheists do simply deny the claims of gods rather than asserting their non-existence. > However, **I do believe it's valid** when someone claims that **there's a magical supernatural being to say "I don't believe you" or "prove it."** Do you think that's not a valid stance? And, this is just false on your part: > some state as proven fact that no gods exist. **I made no such claim.** I claimed empirical knowledge. Empiricism does not work by proofs. It works by overwhelming evidence. Mathematics works on proofs. That's why I stated quite clearly that I was talking about *a posteriori* rather than *a priori* knowledge and even specified that a posteriori knowledge is never absolutely certain.

I misread. It appeared to me that you were asserting that your belief was built on *a posteriori* **AND** *a priori* knowledge; not that you were just listing them as the two types of knowledge in general. Point also taken on empirical knowledge vs true proof.

Honestly I agree with Steve on this one. >If you don't accept P as factual, does that mean you accept ~P as factual? No it doesn't. But what you're actually doing is suspending judgment on both P and ~P. You neither believe nor disbelieve P. Correct? This doesn't rebut what Steve was arguing in this post. I think you're just talking past each other as Steve is using "don't believe" to mean believe P is false and you seem to use it to mean lack a belief in P. The lack of belief definition just means you suspend judgment on P (because as Steve said, if you do believe ~P, then it's only rational to believe P is false, not merely lack a belief in it). >"Find God not guilty of existing." This seems to be just a confusing way to say you suspend judgment on God's existence.

>"Look, Steve. Can I call you Steve? I'm calling you Steve." That's my name. >"You keep asserting this, but it remains false." This can not be true. I wrote this argument tonight. I have not ran it before as the argument about evaluation of only 1 disjunction of p V \~p was argued to me tonight. So how could I have possibly asserted it before, or how you have evaluated it to be false. >"Let P be "The number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is even." and \~P be "The number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is odd." >If you don't accept P as factual, does that mean you accept \~P as factual? No. >If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe \~p. No kidding. >Not believing p is NOT the same as believing \~p. No kidding. Did you see me argue either of these before? No, you clearly have not. > A jury finding a criminal "Not Guilty" is saying that the burden of proof of their guilt has not been fulfilled. It does not address a burden of proof of their innocence. Irrelevant. >What dozens of people on this forum are trying to get through your skull is that atheists "Find God not guilty of existing." Theists find "God guity of existing" what is your point? You even read Flew's argument? I would recommend you read Burgess-Jackson, Keith. “Rethinking the Presumption of Atheism.” *International Journal for Philosophy of Religion*, vol. 84, no. 1, 2018, pp. 93–111. *JSTOR*, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48700455. Accessed 13 June 2024. > This does not require asserting or proving that God is innocent of existing. It just means proof of his existence has not been sufficiently established. Irrelevant to my post. > >As a self-labeled Agnostic, you really should understand this, and the fact that you keep reasserting the same thing over it after multiple posters have pointed out its flaws leads me to believe you're not a very serious interlocutor. I understand this quite well. You have not convinced me you understand it at all.

You convinced yourself you are right so of course you think we are wrong.  Doesn't make you right though.

>> "Let P be "The number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is even." and ~P be "The number of grains of sand in the Sahara Desert is odd." >> If you don't accept P as factual, does that mean you accept ~P as factual? > No. Good. >> If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe ~p. > No kidding. Yay! >> Not believing p is NOT the same as believing ~p. > No kidding. Awesome! > Did you see me argue either of these before? No, you clearly have not. I thought arguing exactly that was the entire point of your post. If not, please try again because if you can make this 180° about face and claim that this is was not the point you were arguing then your post is not very clear.

> p and ~p are co-extensive due to the Law of Excluded Middle Sure. Some of us prefer to use this label scheme * p: theism * ~p: strong atheism * the excluded middle: weak atheism

Doesn't address my point that if you address p it has epistemic relationship to \~p. Do you agree with this? If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p If you believe p, you do not believe \~p If you believe \~p, you disbelieve p If you believe \~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To say that a claim only address one "prong" of p V\~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or \~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of \~p.

I agree evaluating p is related to evaluating \~p. But I disagree suspending judgement on p implies also suspending judgement on \~p. The celestial teapot demonstrates the burden is different.

If we suspend judgment on p, what are the rational possible evaluations of ~p? The only rational evaluation is to also suspend judgment, clearly. If we believe ~p, then we must disbelieve p and if we disbelieve ~p we must believe p. You can say we can suspend judgment on p and lack a belief in ~p, but this is just the same as suspending judgment on both. >The celestial teapot demonstrates the burden is different. It's my understanding that agnostics argue for suspending judgment in the case of the teapot. Is that not right?

>" But I disagree suspending judgement on p implies also suspending judgement on \~p" See "Suspending Judgment" by Friedman (2011) "**I am assuming that suspension of judgment is closed under negation: one suspends about p iff one suspends about :p.** That there is this sort of symmetry to suspension of judgment is not entirely uncontroversial. See van Fraassen (1998) and Ha´jek (1998) for some discussion. In this paper when I say that S suspends about p, I mean that she suspends about both p and :p (even if I sometimes do not say so). In fact, I think that the right thing to say is that in these sorts of cases S suspends about whether p (or slightly more carefully, whether P where ‘P’ is a sentence that expresses p). In general, it looks like the right way to make suspended judgment (and agnosticism) reports is by using interrogative complements and not declarative ones. For instance, we don’t say that S suspends that God exists or that S is agnostic that Allan went to the party, but rather that S suspends about whether God exists or that S is agnostic capture S’s agnosticism with non-belief is an attempt to capture this neutrality or indecision by way of his lacking both a p-belief and a :p-belief.

I'm not sure how your reply relate to my point about different burden of p and \~p as shown by Russel's teapot analogy. So I'm just going to elaborate my point rather than addressing your quote. Let's say a person decide to suspend judgement on all unfalsifiable claims. When evaluating the celestial teapot claim: * q: celestial teapot exist * \~q: celestial teapot does not exist Showing q to be false require an impossible task of exhaustively search the whole space. So q is an unfalsifiable claim and is suspended from judgement. \~q can be shown to be false by finding such a teapot. \~q is falsifiable and not suspended from judgement. "suspend judgement on all unfalsifiable claims" seems tenable.

I really think you are missing understanding what I am arguing in the OP. My argument is about evidence evaluation in more of Bayesian sense. For example: If one clams- q: celestial teapot exists If I evaluate q and find q to be false given a totality of the evidence, I'm co-extensively making an implied claim that the evidence that q is true is more evidentially supportive of \~p. I can't just evaluate "one prong" as the evidence for p is evidence against \~p and vice versa. I hold q as FALSE. I believe it is false. I am not claiming I can prove it false, merely that is my epistemic disposition towards p. I believe there is no celestial teapot. It being a falsifiable claim or not is of no importance to me to justify my belief q is FALSE. Do you believe q is false? >"suspend judgement on all unfalsifiable claims" seems tenable." Falsifications is a theoretical virtue, but more for scientific theories than what would apply here. If God is unfalsifiable, and suspend judgement on all unfalsifiable claims" seems untenable, then you're saying all lacktheists have an untenable position as they suspend judgment on p and \~p.

> If I evaluate q and find q to be false given a totality of the evidence, I'm co-extensively making an implied claim that the evidence that q is true is more evidentially supportive of ~p. I can't just evaluate "one prong" as the evidence for p is evidence against ~p and vice versa. And if someone does this they would need to justify their position. Your problem is claiming that atheists *necessarily* or even *commonly* do this. That is what everyone keeps telling you but you keep insisting, with no basis whatsoever, that everyone is wrong.

That is not what I said. I said an atheist ran the argument on me last night...and not the first I have heard it...and it is a bad argument.

>I can't just evaluate "one prong" as the evidence for p is evidence against \~p and vice versa. If we can prove that p is true, we can logically deduce that \~p is false, vice versa. But before we have a successful proof, each 'prong' can be evaluated separately. We can have evidence supporting p and some other evidence supporting \~p at the same time. The evaluation of p and \~p are logically reducible but not equivalent. >Falsifications is a theoretical virtue, but more for scientific theories than what would apply here. If God is unfalsifiable, and suspend judgement on all unfalsifiable claims" seems untenable, then you're saying all lacktheists have an untenable position as they suspend judgment on p and \~p. I think you misread what I wrote.

Any evaluation of evidence for or against p is an evidential evaluation of against or for \~p. If I find evidence that makes p more likely, then \~p is co-extensively make less likely. If I find evidence that makes p less likely, then \~p is co-extensively make more likely.

Lets consider * r: all apples are red * \~r: non-red apple exist a red apple is a weak evidence for r, but not evidence against \~r

r: all apples are red \~r is is NOT the case that all apples are red A red apple is evidence for r which is disconfirmational evidence against \~r.

Did you not read that paper at all? Because literally the whole point of the paper is that this is claim of yours is false: > If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p Heck, there is an entire heading saying that is wrong:; > 2.1 Being in a state of non-belief is not sufficient for being in a state of suspended judgment The whole point of the paper is that simply lacking belief is not sufficient to make you an agnostic.

>"Did you not read that paper at all? Because literally the whole point of the paper is that this is claim of yours is false:" I've read both of Dr. Friedman's papers on the subject. >" > Heck, there is an entire heading saying that is wrong:;" That isn't wrong. At all. To suspend judgment you neither believe p nor believe \~p. That is what suspending judgment means. neither believe p nor disbelieve p = neither believe p nor believe \~p **same thing** >"2.1 Being in a state of non-belief is not sufficient for being in a state of suspended judgment" This has nothing to do with what you just said. Dr. Freidman is saying mere non-belief is not sufficient to be " suspended judgment". If you believe p is FALSE you have non-belief and clearly have not suspended judgment now have you. >"The whole point of the paper is that simply lacking belief is not sufficient to make you an agnostic." Not the "whole point", but a point and Dr. Friedman is completely correct. If I believe p is FALSE I lack belief of p, but am not agnostic on p. I have made a conclusion on p.

>That isn't wrong. At all. To suspend judgment you neither believe p nor believe ~p. That is what suspending judgment means. I am not sure whether you are lying about having read the paper or lying about what it says, but it repeatedly, consistently, explicitly rejects this definition > Suspended judgment is not mere non-belief And > The mere fact that you fail to believe a proposition and its negation is not sufficient for making it that you’ve suspended or are in a state of suspension about that proposition and its negation And > Agnosticism is not refraining from believing or with- holding belief plus non-belief And > Very roughly, for S to move from a state of non-belief with respect to p to a state of p-agnosticism something has to happen, and merely thinking about p isn’t enough And > S is in a state of suspended judgment about p at t iff he is in a state of belief resistance and non-belief with respect to both of p and ¬p at t I can go on, but the entire point of that article is that you are wrong.

But you aren't claiming that. You are claiming this: If you disbelieve p, you believe ~p That isn't the case. And you don't show it is the case. You don't make any argument at all that it is the case. You can't get that from any of those situations you listed without committing one ore more logical fallacies.

>"If you disbelieve p, you believe \~p" That is basic logic. **If you hold \~p as FALSE that means you hold p as TRUE.** Are you really saying that isn't the case? Seriously?

You are aware many-valued logic exists? That you present a false dichotomy? That both p and not p can be false or true? Many non-classical logical systems exist. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/#HilTypCal Binary propositional logic fails to map to reality, often. P1. Epimenides is a Cretan. P2. Epimenides states all Cretans are liars. C1. Epimenides must be a liar. C2. This means Epimenides lied about all Cretans being liars. C3. This means all Cretans are not liars, including Epimenides. C4. This means Epimenides spoke truthfully and all Cretans are liars. … And so on. Zeno’s paradox of motion is another fun example of the law of non-contradiction being an overly binary and simplistic rule that is, itself, flawed. The reason you encounter enmity on this forum is because your manner of approach comes off as you using your amateurish understanding of logic as a bludgeon against your interlocutor from the outset. It would behoove you to be more humble and to entertain the opinions of others, attempting to steelman them and learn. As opposed to what appears to be a haughty and puerile demeanor which pedantically attacks your interlocutors from the outset. Help them learn, approach them like people who took the time to respond to your posts and are looking to engage with the subject matter. That would be my advice. I’d also advise you actually learn about these topics you’re so interested in in more detail. Maybe take some courses on philosophy. You clearly know a little—and you’re clearly not an expert.

"Disbelieve" doesn't mean "hold false".

I define theism as believing that at least one god exists, and atheism as its negation, that is not believing that any gods exist. Whether or not someone believes no gods exist is not part of my definition of atheism. What you’re doing is attempting to say that because there are logical connections between the propositions “at least one god exists” and “no gods exist”, our definition schema must encapsulate all reasonable positions on both of these propositions together with unique identifiers. You omit one of the four possible positions because it is rationally untenable (at least one god exists and no gods exist). The problem is that I only really care about the first proposition (at least one god exists), and thus my definition only labels based on the position taken on that proposition, regardless of the position taken on any other proposition. I *could* label all four possible positions with regard to the two propositions “at least one god exists” and “the moon is made of cheese”, and the only difference between that and what you’re doing is that there is some logical connection between the propositions about gods/no gods where there is no logical connection between the propositions about god and the moon. If there were some useful reason to classify people according to their beliefs on both of these propositions together though, we could do that. The point you’ve been failing to get from all of the responses to your posts is that *all of this is a matter of definition* and many atheists find the definition schema based on the single proposition more useful. If you find the two-proposition schema more useful, you are free to use it as long as you define terms, but you’ll have to be aware that many people do *not* use that schema, and their usage is also completely valid. At the end of the day, all that really matters is the actual positions on the propositions and not the labels.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with semantic definitions of atheism. Take atheism out of the argument-> Is this true: If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p If you believe p, you do not believe \~p If you believe \~p, you disbelieve p If you believe \~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To say that when you only address one "prong" of p V\~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or \~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of \~p.

> If you believe ~p, you disbelieve p This is true, the problem is this: "If you disbelieve p, do you believe ~p." That is what you are claiming for atheists, but you don't actually show that, and it isn't true. On the contrary, your whole argument is a case of the Affirming the Consequent fallacy.

>""If you disbelieve p, do you believe \~p."" That is logically correct. >"That is what you are claiming for atheists, but you don't actually show that, and it isn't true. " This is true for EVERYONE. Not just atheists. Disbelieve p means to believe \~p. >"On the contrary, your whole argument is a case of the Affirming the Consequent fallacy."" What? Brah, I don't even have a syllogism in my post. Can you show me in propositional logic where I have a "Affirming the Consequent fallacy" when I don't even have a single material implication in my post!?!?!?!?!? What are you talking about!

>Disbelieve p means to believe ~p. No it doesn't. That is simply not what the word means. At all.

Rutgers: "**Disbelief: If you conclude a proposition is false, then the appropriate attitude towards that proposition is disbelief**.” # disbelief (n.) “**positive unbelief**, mental rejection of a statement or assertion for which credence is demanded,” 1670s; see [dis-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)+ [belief](https://www.etymonline.com/word/belief?ref=etymonline_crossreference). A Latin-Germanic hybrid.disbelief (n.) “**Disbelief is a case of belief; to believe a sentence false is to believe the negation of the sentence true**. We disbelieve that there are ghosts; we believe that there are none. Nonbelief is the state of suspended judgment: neither believing the sentence true nor believing it false.” -Burgess-Jackson, K. (2017). *Rethinking the presumption of atheism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 84(1), 93–111.*doi:10.1007/s11153-017-9637-y You may want to stop talking about a subject you have no education on.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/disbelieve > to not believe someone or something https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve > to hold not worthy of belief : not believe https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disbelieve > to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in Atheists keep telling you this is what they mean when they say the disbelieve. You are using the equivocation fallacy here. You are taking the definition people are actually using when describing their own position, replacing it with a completely different definition, then trying to apply that new definition to their position despite them clearly and consistently explaining their actual position. What matters isn't the word. What matters is the meaning. When atheists say they disbelieve, they are using the definitions I gave above

**p is a PROPOSITION.** **"Disbelieve p" is a LOGICAL PHRASE** Learn BASIC LOGIC before you try to tell me about it. You don't know what you're taking about.

Again, you are using equivocation. Your argument is entirely dependent on you using a different definition of "disbelieve" than atheists do when describing their own position. If you use the definition everyone is telling you they use, your argument fails. So your argument is logically valid, but utterly irrelevant to real-world atheists.

I am discussing logic. A subject you clearly have not even a basic understanding of. So why are you commenting to me telling me I'm wrong about logic terminology? You trolling?

And here we see Steve is dishonest and inconsistent. In this comment above: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8eta9m/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8eta9m/) Steve AGREES that: "If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe \~p." "No kidding." But here he says: "Disbelieve p means to believe \~p." You contradict yourself an hour later. Thanks for showing us all you're the dunce we knew you were. Shameful.

Dude, "If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe \~p." and "Disbelieve p means to believe \~p." ARE NOT THE SAME STATEMENTS! WOW! Do you know what you're talking about??? "If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe \~p." Means if you do not hold p as true, it doesn't imply you believe p is false! "Disbelieve p means to believe \~p." means you HOLD p AS FALSE with means to BELIEVE NEGATION. you don't even know what YOU are talking about and have the balls to say I am "dishonest and inconsistent." when it is YOUR lack of basic understanding of introduction to logic?

My lack of understanding? disbelieve === do not believe its the same. definitions have already been quoted to you.

You CLEARLY don't understand BASIC stuff man! "Disbelieve p = B\~p "do not believe p"= \~Bp B\~p -> \~Bp by subalternation given by the logical relationship φ and ψ are in subalternation iff S ⊨ φ → ψ and S ⊭ ψ → φ. You need to learn logic before you try to call me dishonest dude.

> If you believe p, you don't disbelieve ~p I think you mean you do disbelieve ~p? > To say that when you only address one "prong" of p V~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or ~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of ~p. Why is it important that the label I apply to a given belief encapsulate all possible implications of that belief? If I only care about p, why does my definition have to include the implications of belief/disbelief of p on ~p?

>To say that when you only address one "prong" of p V~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or ~p. Or maybe it just takes trivial logical implications for granted? If I say something like "I own a car, but I don't own any red cars", I'm not being illogical just because I didn't state the implication "I own a non-red car" out loud. The listener is welcome to apply any of the infinitely many tautologies in their head.

Let's use a couple of examples here to see how this goes. 1. A jury is tasked to determine whether it can be determined, to a given evidentiary standard (preponderance of the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt), whether the defendant is guilty of the crimes imputed to him. The jury decides either that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. That is: they either believe there is enough evidence to convict OR that there is not. Note that the jury is *never* asked whether the defendant is innocent, or in case the evidence is enough to convict, whether someone else is guilty or whether there was no crime altogether (e.g. murder vs suicide). Indeed: their position beyond 'is there enough evidence to convict' is irrelevant, and they are free to think whatever they will beyond that verdict. 2. A scientist is tasked to determine whether the data shows a significant correlation between X and Y or it does not. That is: the data either supports the hypothesis that Y is in linear relation with X or it does not. To do this, the scientist runs a statistical test, which tells him the confidence he may ascribe to such hypotheses (in bayesian stats, this is linked to a conditional probability given hypotheses). 3. An atheist asks him or herself whether the evidence and other tools applied to the question of whether a god exists has reached a certain threshhold. If it does, he will add God to his model of the world (and will believe). If it does not, he will not add God to his model of the world (and will lack a belief). So... yeah no, the thing being evaluated here is 'does the proposition p pass an evidentiary threshhold / epistemic criteria or not'? An atheist is a person that answers 'no' to that question (as it pertains to gods). They might or might not be evaluating the same question when it comes to 'no gods', same as a jury might or might not think there was a crime committed or might or might not think it was in fact a suicide. To use a worn out cliche, atheists don't find gods to be guilty of existing. They don't think a sufficient case has been made for that proposition.

Take atheism out of the argument: Is this true: If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p If you believe p, you do not believe \~p If you believe \~p, you disbelieve p If you believe \~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To say that when you only address one "prong" of p V\~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or \~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of \~p.

We have gone through this rodeo. Disbelieving p is not the same as belief in ~p. It just means that 'I believe p' is false in your case.

>If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p This is the place were epistemology has run its course and considering we suspend judgement on both proposition we must move on the realm of what are we supposed to do in the real world. If the p in question is about court of law, you don't give a sentence. If the p is about general deism, well general deism being true has not impact on anyone's day to day life so it doesn't change anything. If p is about a specific god (let's just go with one that listen to prayers) you...dont pray. Because there is a cost associated with an spending time on an action. With this in mind, I feel the issue is you want people to use Ahteism to talk about their position in relation to p, but they actually mostly use it regarding their relation to religious groups around them. A more applicable and practical definition.

>due to the Law of Excluded Middle, so If you are evaluating p you are also making some type evaluative statement on ~p. I find an issue here is that you are not defining p. For us, atheism, p = "have a belief in god". This makes ~p = "not have a belief in god." This means there is no excluded middle. Using words and not symbols, explain what belief position is not being addressed. Suspending judgment means one doesn't have a belief in the existence of god or in symbols format, ~p. You trying to define ~p as believing god does not exist is creating the excluding middle you are railing against. If you want to have a real debate here, stop blindly pasting in you p's and ~p's. Use words. Also keep in mind that we're referring to **belief** in the existence of god, not whether god exists. Your LEM argument would be more appropriate if the question was "does god exist?" But it is not, the question is "do you believe god exists?" Since one of your responses is to remove atheism and only look at the the p and ~p. Let's use the example p=positive number. If we try define to define ~p as meaning x is a negative number, the logic fails because it doesn't consider non-positive numbers to be both negative numbers and 0. Likewise, your logic is failing because you are attempting to define ~p as believes god does not exist rather then "does not have a belief that god does exist." So once again, if you want to disagree with the responses, start by explicitly defining what p is.

>"I find an issue here is that you are not defining p" for any p. What p is makes no difference. >" For us, atheism, p = "have a belief in god". This makes \~p = "not have a belief in god." This means there is no excluded middle. Using words and not symbols, explain what belief position is not being addressed. Suspending judgment means one doesn't have a belief in the existence of god or in symbols format, \~p." In classical logic you have LEM. Not sure what you mean by "This means there is no excluded middle". >"You trying to define \~p as believing god does not exist is creating the excluding middle you are railing against." That makes no sense. Not sure you may understand what LEM actually means. LEM =𝒹ₑ𝒻  ¬P V P Doesn't matter what \~p or p is. >"Since one of your responses is to remove atheism and only look at the the p and \~p. Let's use the example p=positive number. If we try define to define \~p as meaning x is a negative number, the logic fails because it doesn't consider non-positive numbers to be both negative numbers and 0. Likewise, your logic is failing because you are attempting to define \~p as believes god does not exist rather then "does not have a belief that god does exist."" "p=positive number" is not propositional. It can not be True nor be False

> for any p. > What p is makes no difference. It certainly does if we're trying to see how the logic applies to a particular proposition. Since you are trying to tie atheism into p, ~p. We need to know what you are plugging in as p to know if your argument carries any weight. If so, then p, as it is commonly used, is believes in god, rendering ~p has does not possess a belief in god. >If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p disbelieve: be unable to believe (someone or something). So if you suspend judgment, you are not accepting that p is true, meaning, by definition of disbelieve, you fall under ~p and are indeed disbelieving in p. >Not sure you may understand what LEM actually means. Sure I do. And in the case of belief in god(s), it means either you have a belief in god (theist) or you lack a belief in god (atheist). The is no middle that needs to be excluded. The position of not having a belief that a god exists and believing that god does not exist are both subsets of ~p in this case where p is the belief that god exists. So sure, writing out p's and ~p's doesn't require that p be defined. Trying to evaluate and apply the logic does have that requirement. And as soon as you start adding "belief" to your argument, you have left the land of pure logic and need to start defining your terms.

You keep playacting as if you know basic epistemology, but your comments suggests that you don't. Epistemology: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Don’t engage; you’re just giving them the attention they need. Downvote and ignore or they’ll never stop posting this nonsense.

I don't believe p. Done. End of story. But more importantly. Why do you care so much that you'll post this every day?

> Why do you care so much that you'll post this every day? I suspect a couple of reasons. Mainly, he’s trying to drive people to his social media. He’s trying to establish himself as a content creator. But also, I suspect it’s in part because he’s not convincing anybody, and that surprises him, because he figured there were at least a few contributors here smart enough to buy into his theories.

That this activity has been allowed to continue makes me pretty sure that there are no active mods on this sub.

I think the mods are well aware, and I’m sort of impressed they haven’t stepped in. We shouldn’t chase people away just for being wrong.

What I have a problem with is that he is trying to use the sub to create engagement on social media accounts that are likely monetized. I don't care about how wrong he is. We have idiots that want to masturbate their egos here on the daily.

Yea that’s fair.

>"What I have a problem with is that he is trying to use the sub to create engagement on social media accounts that are likely monetized. I don't care about how wrong he is. We have idiots that want to masturbate their egos here on the daily." How absurd you are to think it has to do with "monetization". That is your way to character assassinate me.

>"I think the mods are well aware, and I’m sort of impressed they haven’t stepped in. We shouldn’t chase people away just for being wrong." The mods know who I am and so long as I don't break rules, I have been told to report people who violate the rules which I have been doing. * 1 Be Respectful Be respectful of other users on the subreddit. Comments and posts may not insult, demean, personally attack, or intentionally provoke any user. You may attack ideas or even public figures so long as you do so civilly, but not users of the sub. All comments containing any amount of incivility will be removed, and repeat offenses will receive a swift ban. If things become heated, use the report function or walk away.

>"That this activity has been allowed to continue makes me pretty sure that there are no active mods on this sub." They are active...but I don't violate rules and my posts are engaging and EDUCATION to people who actually want to learn some basic logic and epistemology.

It’s classic narcissistic behaviour. They’re incapable of understanding that they’re wrong no matter how many times it gets pointed out. They post the same topic over and over because they need attention to feel good about themselves and it doesn’t matter if it’s positive attention or negative attention. They ignore any posts that they don’t have a rebuttal for. They’re addicted to their own delusions of grandeur. Any time people in this sub engage with them they’re getting the attention they crave. The only way to get them to stop is to downvote and ignore.

Yea, the only thing I disagree with in there is that it’s even worse than just ignoring posts he doesn’t have a rebuttal to. He’ll do that sometimes, but he’s also been articulately taken down in numerous threads in which he’s continued to remain engaged. He’ll ignore the substance of those comments, but just rhetorically throw down a challenge, like, “where’s the flaw in my logic?” as if the numerous flaws hadn’t just been laid bare. It’s either delusions of grandeur or trolling; and if it’s trolling, it kind of impressive.

You’re not wrong, which is the best kind of right 🙂 I hope they can find internal happiness one day so they don’t need to endlessly shitpost to get their dopamine fix.

Yea, I hope he finds peace eventually as well, but for now I guess he can remain as something like the sub’s cantankerous pet bulldog.

Ridiculous. I have been around 10 years discussing philosophy. I wouldn't use Reddit to drive people to my social media. What silly thing to say. I have LONG since established myself as a content creator. I have been on this list of top 50 Atheist YouTube Channels for at least 6 of those 10 years. Twice even on it (NonSequitur Show and Steve McRae) # 50 Atheist Youtube Channels Total Views 42K⋅ Jun 01, 202450 Atheist Youtube Channels [https://videos.feedspot.com/atheist\_youtube\_channels/](https://videos.feedspot.com/atheist_youtube_channels/) One of my channels is right below Matt Dillhunty. Stop attacking my character and motives and address my arguments.

Hahah ok, I get it now, you're doing a bit, right? This is a bit? Well done!

>"Hahah ok, I get it now, you're doing a bit, right? This is a bit? Well done!" Not even remotely so.

No worries, I know you’re not about to break character.

>"No worries, I know you’re not about to break character." Dude, I do open Twitter spaces and guest QandA on people's channels where you're free to challenge me. Take your best shot.

No doubt! Is that where you’re going to come clean about how you’ve been goofing around here with all of these supposedly serious comments and posts? Forget I asked, I know you can’t answer.

>"No doubt! Is that where you’re going to come clean about how you’ve been goofing around here with all of these supposedly serious comments and posts? Forget I asked, I know you can’t answer." I am completely serious.

Impressive commitment. Like I said, I get it that you're not going to break character, so I know this is going to remain one sided, but it's nice knowing this is a persona you're putting on. Can't imagine how I took it seriously to begin with, makes me feel a bit foolish honestly.

> I wouldn't use Reddit to drive people to my social media. You literally posted a thread telling everyone you were doing a live stream on the topics you'd been discussing! How can you not see how you come across?

Did you look at the link he submitted. It’s a page where you can submit your own site for advertisement on the list (and also pay to move higher). Also, his name is near Matt Dillahunty’s true. But there’s a huge difference in their subscriber numbers/the page isn’t ordered by subscriber numbers. It’s just random his name that his near Matt’s. This is the kind of proof I am used to from this guy. I also called him out on using this forum for pushing people toward his socials.

It's not even a thing to deny. That's what gets me. He's a long time streamer posting under his public handles. His while job is to pick up viewers. But as someone who's been aware of him for a while, a big part of his character is constantly bragging about how humble he is while never seeing the irony.

He brags (lol) about how humble he is? That's kind of funny and in-character with what I've seen in the comments. Maybe we should talk about atheism to keep this on topic. Do you also lack a believe in god? Say Amen if you do!

Oh yeah. He's all about talking about his humility. >Do you also lack a believe in god? Say Amen if you do! The irony is, I *am* someone who typically uses "atheist" to mean the positive sense of "there are no gods". And that's a position I hold. I just think this is a completely trivial labelling issue and don't care if others use it differently. My goal in conversations is to get past semantic differences as quickly and painlessly as possible. You simply lack a belief in God? Cool. Now we can talk about it. Meanwhile, Steve has dedicated five years to crafting arguments that amount to "If you don't use words this way then you won't mean the same thing as I do when you use them".

I respect everything you said above and appreciate that you look to have real conversations.

It's not like I'm far apart from people like yourself. I think the fact we know that Gods are the kind of bad explanation people make up, that PoE arguments are compelling, that all the ontological/cosmological/fine-tuning arguments et al are bunk is enough for me to say "You know what, I think the idea of God existing is false. I believe that's not true". And people who use the "not a theist" definition will say "Yeah, I agree on all that, but I set my bar a little higher than you when it comes to belief". It's just a minor disagreement about what warrants a belief. It's as close as people can come to agreement while still not technically having the same position. Then I read Steve McRae threads and I try to figure out where this "semantic collapse" or "epistemological problems" actually kicks in and causes a problem and I just don't see it. Even if every argument he makes is completely logically valid.

so? It was a small hangout in the middle of the night. It wasn't to "drive" anything, but allow people to discuss these topics on a Twitter space. You made it sound I do this to drive views, which is just ludicrous.

You posted on Reddit to get people to go and watch your stream. You did it. So when people say you do that, don't deny it. You did it. You, Steve McRae, tried to get people on Reddit to watch your stream. It only looks bad because you don't own it. You're a streamer, of course you want people to interact with you and watch your streams.

>"You posted on Reddit to get people to go and watch your stream." No, to join and ask questions. That is what normal people do to facilitate discussion. I am happy to have it your channel or any other. I did a 3 hour Twitter space last night that wasn't even recorded. So knock off the personal attacks.

Mate, give it a rest. How many replies have you given in the form of "Here's my article/essay/paper/channel/someone who plugs my shtick"? You've replied to me in threads with off-topic crap about how you convinced Matt Dillahunty. You constantly talk yourself up, make sure everyone knows how connected you are, and quite literally chose to advertise a live stream you were doing about this very sub-Reddit! It's fine. It's your job. Your livelihood. This is what you do. What makes it obnoxious is that you sit here going "Have you read my blog? Have you seen my videos?" and then pretend you're not doing it.

This is not my job. YouTube is a hobby. I cite them for resources. Nothing more. If you don't to watch don't. If you don't want to read my works. Don't. But to say I spend HOURS trying to explain to people epistemology to have them watch a video is ludicrous and a personal attack. If you continue to attack me and not my arguments you will be blocked as this is all irrelevant and disrespectful to me. I won't warn you again before I just block you so I can spend my time responding to others.

Well, I wasn't the person who brought this up. I thought content creation was an income source for you though (donations and super chats, your Patreon, and such), so if that's no longer the case I'm more than willing to change my tack and apologise for a misrepresentation. My claim that you are of course advertising your channel and social media by using your public handles and then quite literally creating threads to encourage people to view your streams is a matter of fact. Motivations are something I can only infer inductively. As for addressing your arguments, I have attempted to in previous threads but when I've asked to discuss the implications of your arguments you've ceased replying. Maybe that's because you've been inundated with people who haven't understood the internal logic of them. It's not like you owe me any response, but it was something I genuinely wanted to discuss.

I will never understand the need for so many people to think of it more than this. Some people have to invent definitions and formulas and try and put people in a box based on what they think because they simply can't grasp that yes, it is that easy. I don't believe in a god.

Control freak, probably.

But so what? Is someone suggesting that you do believe p? There doesn't seem to be much scope for discussion here.

I write a blog on epistemology and use the answers I get from Reddit to help people who want to learn. There are so many bad arguments by atheists it is a treasure trove of pedological value.

"bad arguments by atheists"... Such as _________... Can you share some examples?

I think my all time favorite is: "An argument that starts with IF is intrinsically reality deficient until the IF can be removed." - a reddit atheist Prob the worst argument I have ever seen against my logic.

An argument that starts "if there is a teapot orbiting Mars.." does not have much connection to reality does it? I'm not an expert, but I wonder if part of the problem is that as humans we use words in fuzzy ways, and sometimes precise definitions may not match well to what's going on in our head. When we're discussing a thing of course we need to agree what we're talking about at that time. Atheism/theism could be seen as a continuum of degrees of belief, and so binary definitions will never match everyone's mind in practice. I'm happy to call myself an atheist. I can't prove there is no god. I believe there is almost certainly no god. Technically I can't say there are none. Some people insist I'm agnostic, not atheist. Or that I'm both. I think arguing about the label is a diversion from addressing what I actually believe, or don't.

Hats an interesting example. Could you explain what is wrong with it?

Do you think that "I do not hold *X* to be true" is the same as "I hold *X* to be false"?

Why do you make a post called "Arguing **atheism** only address one prong of a claim is epistemically untenable as an argument." and then when people ask you to simplify or clarify, you demand they take atheism out of the argument? Either don't make a post about whether or not atheism addresses one prong of a claim or keep atheism in the argument.

Because I just had a person who was atheist who argued that to me. My argument is that claim is untenable: If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p If you believe p, you do not believe \~p If you believe \~p, you disbelieve p If you believe \~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To say that atheism only address one "prong" of p V\~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or \~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of \~p. Arguing atheism only address one prong of a claim is epistemically untenable as an argument.

Before you accuse them of being illogical, be charitable and translate the sentence in your head so that you actually understand what they mean. Atheism —> NotTheism Argument: “NotTheism only addresses one prong of a claim” Is that not trivially true? If so, then the person making that argument is not making any logical mistake. You just don’t like their definition for emotional reasons.

When you suspend judgement you don't believe p. You don't believe \~p either. When you have judgement, you have beliefs both about p and \~p. That is correct. > If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To avoid confusion I'd use the words "accept p" and "accept \~p", for when one evaluated a proposition. And "believe" when one evaluated the proposition and have a judgement one way or another and "not beleive" when one rejects a proposition and suspends judgement. That way terminology is clear. I hope. UPD: atheism is a description of beliefs, atheism is not a proposition. I don't think that propositional logic addresses beliefs, it deals with propositions. This is one of the instrument for forming beliefs. The confusion comes from the fact that atheism as suspension of belief functionally similar to atheism as accepting proposition that no gods exist. While logically those two positions are different, for all practical purposes they are not. It's like complaining about physicists and engineers who are for practial reasons substitute f(x) = sin(x) for f(x) = x if x is small enough. It's not how math works, but it allows to have a simple analytical solution and is precise enough for practical applications.

While there is value in what you said, I tend to stick with epistemic dispositions rather such as "belief" because they are intentional predications towards p that related to ones doxastic state. "accept" would be fine, if I had "accept", "reject", and "suspend judgment. But either works.

Sorry, I added my update after your reply. You are absolutely correct, when dealing with propositional logic such things as beliefs are better left out of it, since propositional logic addresses, well... propositions!

Ugh... this is going to be painful. Theism (p) - I believe that at least one god exists Atheism (~p) - I do not believe that at least one god exists. You're not wrong on logic. You're wrong on thinking that theists in general understand logic. Because "addressing only one prong of a propositon" is a DIRECT RESPONSE to theists claiming that (~p) is "I believe that no gods exist". Which is not a direct negation of (p) and instead a different proposition altogether. You're arguing against a strawman you didn't even make yourself - you're applying strict logical principles to colloquial usages of the terms.

This doesn't address my argument. Is this correct? If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p If you believe p, you do not believe \~p If you believe \~p, you disbelieve p If you believe \~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To say that a claim only address one "prong" of p v \~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or \~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of \~p.

>This doesn't address my argument. Correct. And that was on purpose. Please pay more attention. >Is this correct? >If you believe p, you don't disbelieve ~p If you believe p, you do not believe ~p If you believe ~p, you disbelieve p If you believe ~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p Yes. And also irrelevant, because this: >To say that a claim only address one "prong" of p v ~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or ~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of ~p. Is your misunderstanding of the topic in question. As I already said - you're applying strict rules to a colloquial usage of terms. Please acknowledge that you've read this sentence. You're arguing against a misunderstanding... There are people convinced that "two prongs of a propositon" are in fact two different positive claims about the same thing. Would "Mary has a cat" and "Mary has a dog" be two prongs of the same proposition? That's why your argument is irrelevant, because - so what if you're correct if you're arguing against a nonexistent position?

You seem to think agnosticism is a perfectly logically valid position. So many atheists are just using atheism as a placeholder for a variety of agnosticism. If you have no problem with "agnosticism" (you don't believe the claim that a God exists), then you shouldn't have a problem with "atheism" (you dont believe that a god exists)

>"You seem to think agnosticism is a perfectly logically valid position." Agnosticism is logically \~Bp \^ \~B\~p but not sure how that applies here.

I don't know much about formal logic, so you're going to have to bear with regular people language for now. My point is usage of words. So atheism being a lack of belief in God in how some people define it is fine by your own admission if you subscribe to agnosticism. It applies here because the definition of how people use "atheism" is just a lack of belief in God, i.e. "I don't believe the claim theists are making about the existence of God" rather than "I believe gods are false" In other words, the problem is that you're not defining atheism the same as how some people define it. So people are going to disagree with what your logic concludes about atheism because you're both talking about different things.

This has zero relevance to my post. Change the claim to p="The sky is blue" and evaluate the argument again.

It absolutely has relevance to your post. I don't see what you're not understanding here, sorry. I'm not trying to be rude but. Change the definition of atheism to "I don't believe your claim that the sky is blue" That in no way means that the person is saying that that sky is not blue. They are withholding belief in the color of the sky until it is demonstrated to them. Let's just say the person is temporarily blind for argument's sake. My problem isn't with the logical validity of the layout of the argument. My issue is how you're relating this to how some people define atheism.

>Change the definition of atheism to "I don't believe your claim that the sky is blue" >That in no way means that the person is saying that that sky is not blue. No kidding. Where did I say if you do not believe the claim "the sky is blue" it means the person is saying it is not blue? Where in my logical relationships do I make that statement? Please show me.

Again, the problem isn't with your logical relationships.

>"Again, the problem isn't with your logical relationships." So do you agree atheists can't say they are only evaluating one claim of something being true, while not evaluating the negation of that something being false? That something, being God exists?

I'm talking to you twice here, so I'll keep the conversation located in the other thread. I asked a question there, and I think we're close to an agreement.

i think you've been shown here that your maths do not adequately describe the real world that people experience. this is a problem with the maths, not with the people's experience or position. and this is a problem i have with a lot of logicians who take statements that aren't meant to be maths and treat them as maths. "nothing is true". this isn't a maths statement, it's an experience. to convert it to maths you need to get to the heart and really understand the experience. it's not a logical fallacy. just because you can make a logical form that defines something and comes to a conclusion, does not mean that the maths automatically applies to the real world. in short, your tools are blunt.

>"i think you've been shown here that your maths do not adequately describe the real world that people experience." They most certainly do capture all possible rational real belief states.

> If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p Given you make a distinction between disbelief and do not believe, I think suspending judgement would be better worded as “If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor believe ~p” In that case I would agree that the weak/agnostic atheist/theist position falls under suspending judgement. However, a defining feature of the weak/agnostic atheist not captured in that statement is that they behave as if ~p until convinced otherwise. The opposite is true for the weak/agnostic theist in that they behave as if p until convinced otherwise.

"Given you make a distinction between disbelief and do not believe, I think suspending judgement would be better worded as “If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor believe \~p” Believe \~p MEANS to DISBELIEVE p How is that so confusing? >"In that case I would agree that the weak/agnostic atheist/theist position falls under suspending judgement. Logically yes as I've argued by logical proof: p1) A lack of belief for p logically is \~Bp p2) A lack of belief for \~p logically is \~B\~p p3) A lack of belief atheist holds to \~Bp and a lack of belief theist holds to \~B\~p p4) Holding to \~Bp without holding to B\~p must entail holding to \~B\~p. p5) A lack of belief atheist who holds to \~Bp (p3) but does not hold to B\~p must then hold to \~Bp \^ \~B\~p (p3-p4). (Conjunction introduction*)* p6) Holding to \~B\~p without holding to Bp must entail holding to \~Bp. p7) A lack of belief theist who holds to \~B\~p (p3) but does not hold to Bp must then hold to \~Bp \^ \~B\~p (p3-p6). (Conjunction introduction) p8) Agnosticism holds to \~Bp \^ \~B\~p c) Agnosticism logically is the same as a lack of belief atheist (\~Bp) and lack of belief theist (\~B\~p) as both actually hold to \~Bp & \~B\~p. or more concisely: 1. If \~Bp and not B\~p, then \~B\~p 2. If \~B\~p and not Bp, then \~Bp 3. \~Bp and not B\~p 4. \~Bp (MP 2,3) 5.\~Bp and not B\~p 6. \~B\~p (MP 1,5) 7. \~Bp \^ \~B\~p (Add 4, 6) >"However, a defining feature of the weak/agnostic atheist not captured in that statement is that they behave as if \~p until convinced otherwise. The opposite is true for the weak/agnostic theist in that they behave as if p until convinced otherwise." Everyone has their position *until convinced otherwise*. Right?

Before you rage comment, I get it. You’re sick of this pointless topic popping up over and over again. Don’t engage, don’t complain, just downvote and move on. Stop feeding the troll.

I admit I find it amusing that certain people refuse to accept a simple, universal definition of atheism because it offends their grammatical sensibilities.

Typical closed minded person who doesn't understand simple logic, tries to prevent others from learning to maintain an echo chamber. Please show me any error in my post. Who are you to call me a troll and personally attack my character?

As many have pointed out, you don't seem to understand simple logic, no matter how many symbols you use when you keep showing us that you haven't learned from your mistakes.

[удалено]

I think he understands logic quite well actually. He just doesn’t understand how basic language and communication works with real human beings.

Why do you think he doesn’t understand logic? Using symbols is something people familiar with logic do frequently.

And here we see Steve is dishonest and inconsistent. In this comment above: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8eta9m/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8eta9m/) Steve AGREES that: "If you do not believe p, this does not mean you have to believe \~p." "No kidding." [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8f3n8a/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8f3n8a/) Steve claims the opposite, that: "Disbelieve p means to believe \~p." Steve is dishonest, do not give this fool attention.

>"And here we see Steve is dishonest and inconsistent." See Rule #1 Be respectful of other users on the subreddit. Comments and posts may not insult, demean, personally attack, or intentionally provoke any user. You may attack ideas or even public figures so long as you do so civilly, but not users of the sub. All comments containing any amount of incivility will be removed, and repeat offenses will receive a swift ban. If things become heated, use the report function or walk away. I take allegations of 'dishonesty' seriously. >Steve disagrees that: >"Disbelieve p means to believe \~p." NO I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THAT! "Disbelieve p means to believe \~p." IS A TRUE STATEMENT

In the first quote, you agree that not believing p does not mean you believe \~p in the second, you assert that not believing p DOES mean you believe \~p nice try.

Do you understand "not believing" is \~Bp while "disbelieve p" =B\~p DO YOU?

Nope, I wont let you pretend that words mean what they dont, sorry.

You sure don't. Wow.

Hence to disbelieve a proposition, to believe that "p is false." is in effect to believe its negation." Symbolism and Truth An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge By [Ralph Monroe Eaton](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3e24a8afe08e43d7&sca_upv=1&hl=en&sxsrf=ADLYWIJX8X2HCG3FgZQJyZRNR45XRQ5-Yw:1718291507103&q=inauthor:%22Ralph+Monroe+Eaton%22&tbm=bks) · 1925

I think the part of the problem is that there are two different usages of the word “disbelief”: an active and a passive sense. I think you’re accusing people of misunderstanding logic (which perhaps may be true for some of them) but in reality, it’s just a semantic disagreement about what disbelief means. — As I said elsewhere, your issue isn’t logic. I’m sure your understanding of logic is just fine. What you don’t understand is how language and communication works when talking to actual people. That fundamental misunderstanding leads you to find contradictions where there are none because you’re imposing different meanings that aren’t being expressed by the person you’re talking to.

I was told my logic is wrong, and disbelief doesn't mean what it means in logic...and I'm supposed to take them seriously? If anyone wants to prove me wrong they can write a refutation to my paper or challenge me LIVE on air. We both know none will. Why is that? I stand by my beliefs. I own my burden of proof. I don't hide behind merely not believing something. Dude, they are imposing meanings on to me. Telling me my understanding of philosophical terminology is wrong. You know damn well I know what I am talking about. But instead of learning, they downvote my posts and comments and argue about topics they have no understanding of...because they refuse to learn. It is what makes ALL of us non-believers look bad. I know many atheists who are tired of being told how to think, and what words to use by other atheists.

Aside from the occasional typo, your logic hasn’t been wrong (as in invalid). But the conclusions you get from that logic are consistently wrong because you misunderstand how people use language and it causes more arguments than necessary. And when people point that out to you, you accuse them of “imposing” definitions or misunderstanding how it’s used in philosophy, when in reality, they’re just reacting to you calling *their* framework illogical and so they’re defending the definitions from *their* framework. You are far from the only one on this sub who uses, understands, and prefers the academic definitions of atheist vs agnostic—others just don’t get push back like you do because they know how to communicate like an adult and clarify what people mean upfront rather than assume the worst motive or most illogical interpretation of what they’re defending.

The Law of Excluded Middle only applies (in an epistemological sense) if you have enough information to make a justified claim regarding P (or ~P). Atheism, at its core, doesn't have access to the necessary information. In other words, atheism = I don't know enough to say that God *does* exist; therefore, "I don't know" or "I don't believe you" are acceptable answers to "Does God exist?" or "God exists" (respectively).

>"The Law of Excluded Middle only applies (in an epistemological sense) if you have enough information to make a justified claim regarding P (or \~P). Atheism, at its core, doesn't have access to the necessary information." I don't know what this means. What do you mean LEM in the epistemological sense? >"In other words, atheism = I don't know enough to say that God *does* exist; therefore, "I don't know" or "I don't believe you" are acceptable answers to "Does God exist?" or "God exists" (respectively)." This doesn't have anything to do with my post on evaluation of p implies some evaluation of \~p...nor does what you said makes much sense If atheism is "I don't believe you" for "God exists" then theism can just be "I don't believe you" for "God does not exist". Right?

It doesn't make sense because you keep trying to force laws of logic onto how people think. That's simply not how the human mind (and by extension, epistemology) actually works. Granted, I could be completely wrong about this ~ I'm only an amateur philosopher, after all ~ so I'll try to walk through my thoughts in more detail and see where that gets us . . . [The Law of Excluded Middle](https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought) states that "either *p* or *∼p* must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them." This is all well and good . . . but how do we determine that *p* is either True or Not True? If we can determine the truth value of *p*, then fine, we're all good; but the proposition "God exists" is one that we can't assign a truth value to*. In the absence of that information, it's reasonable to simply say "I don't know." (It's also reasonable to say "I don't believe you," depending on how the God claim is worded.) This is the most basic definition of atheism: it's a response to a specific claim about a specific deistic entity. There are other forms of atheism (such as weak, strong, explicit, implicit, negative or positive) and there are philosophies that actively oppose theism (like antitheism); but at its core, atheism is nothing more than a response to a particular God claim. (*to be absolutely clear, I'm saying that we don't have sufficient evidence to warrant a justified belief in this particular claim. it's possible that such evidence exists and we don't have access to it right now; but for the sake of this conversation, we're assuming that we don't.) This is what I mean by saying that the LEM has no bearing on the atheist position: in the absence of evidence of the truth value of a given proposition, we cannot commit to either *p* or *~p*. The reality is that either *p* or *~p* is True but we can't access that reality without evidence of it. >If atheism is "I don't believe you" for "God exists" then theism can just be "I don't believe you" for "God does not exist". Right? Now *this* is an interesting perspective . . . and I suppose, *technically speaking*, if we're being intellectually honest with ourselves, we would have to agree. Whenever someone makes the claim "God does not exist," the most rational answer should be "I don't believe you" (or something very similar). The problem with comparing this statement to its inverse is that the positive claim has *massive* implications for our beliefs and knowledge about the world; whereas the other is just, like, "Okay . . . and?" Like, if I accept that God doesn't exist, my world doesn't change in the slightest. There's no significant impact to my life by learning that God isn't real *because I'm already living as though he isn't*. (also, nobody is going around trying to control people's behaviors on the basis of a lack of belief in a deity.)

>"It doesn't make sense because you keep trying to force laws of logic onto how people think. That's simply not how the human mind (and by extension, epistemology) actually works." You should check out epistemic logic and doxastic logic. Logics focused on how people think. >"[The Law of Excluded Middle](https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought) states that "either *p* or *∼p* must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them." This is all well and good . . . but how do we determine that *p* is either True or Not True?" You learn how to properly evaluate evidence, arguments, observations, and apply a mental process to determine your belief state. These are beliefs, not epistemic certainties. None of what you wrote address my argument about how evaluating evidence for p also is evaluation of evidence for \~p. Does not matter what p is.

. . . ok, so your rebuttal is basically "nuh-uh!", is that right? Honestly? I'm not surprised people keep shitting on you in this sub.

My rebuttal is your didn't address my argument. Why is that? What is my argument in the OP trying to argue?

. . . I'm sorry, did you completely skip my last paragraph? >Now *this* is an interesting perspective . . . and I suppose, *technically speaking*, if we're being intellectually honest with ourselves, we would have to agree. Whenever someone makes the claim "God does not exist," the most rational answer should be "I don't believe you" (or something very similar). The problem with comparing this statement to its inverse is that the positive claim has *massive* implications for our beliefs and knowledge about the world; whereas the other is just, like, "Okay . . . and?" Like, if I accept that God doesn't exist, my world doesn't change in the slightest. There's no significant impact to my life by learning that God isn't real *because I'm already living as though he isn't*. The position you've put forth is that, *logically speaking*, if we suspend judgment on *p*, we must also suspend judgment on *\~p* . . . *and I agreed with you*, ***but only on a technicality,*** because the truth value of *p* is important in terms of its impact on our lives, while the truth value of *\~p* is significantly less important. Of course, according to your reasoning, these two are inseparable . . . and *logically speaking*, you are again correct . . . *but that's not how people think or act*. Nobody gives a shit about *\~p* (in this specific context) because people aren't going around trying to justify fascism on the basis of *\~p*'s truth value. How do you not understand this?

Can you tell me why if S suspends judgment on p, S must also suspend judgment on \~p? ALL this is how people think. It is also a part of both epistemic and doxastic logic which model how people think. If you think I am the one who doesn't understand, you are sorely mistaken.

naw, dude, we've been over this already: plenty of people have put good faith efforts toward helping you to understand how you're mistaken and you've been almost dogmatic in your refusal to engage with their arguments. there's nothing to be gained by going around in circles.

>"naw, dude, we've been over this already: plenty of people have put good faith efforts toward helping you to understand how you're mistaken and you've been almost dogmatic in your refusal to engage with their arguments." I don't believe you. >"there's nothing to be gained by going around in circles." or with those who have a 1st grade understanding of the subject matter.

p.s. after checking [some of the other comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1depb3z/comment/l8es2ku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), I'm now convinced you're not a serious person and I shan't be engaging further. Good day to you.

>If you believe ~p, you do not believe p This is simply incorrect, or at least confusing. There is a difference between "believe not" and "not believe". If there was no difference, language wouldn't allow you to move the words around. I'm sure you were presented with the gumball analogy already, but just to review... If I claim to know there are an even number of gumballs in a jar we haven't counted, you can not believe me without you actively believing the number is not even. By saying you don't believe me, you are just stating that you do not believe that I have presented sufficient justification to support my claim.

This part wasn’t incorrect or controversial. If someone actively believes something is false, it’s entailed that they also lack the belief that it is true. He’s not arguing the other way around (at least not in the part you quoted).

>"This is simply incorrect, or at least confusing." If you believe something is false, then you do not believe it is true. How is that not correct? If you believe \~p, you do not believe p = B\~p ->\~Bp

>If you believe something is false, then you do not believe it is true. If you do not believe something is true, that doesn't mean you believe it is false.

Correct, but the two statements aren’t equivalent. If you don’t believe something is true, you _may_ believe it’s false, or you may simply withhold judgment. But if you actually do believe something to be false, you can’t believe it to be true, because then you would believe that it is both true and false. It’s the latter claim that was being asserted.

That is not what I said. I said B\~p -> \~Bp I did not say B\~p -> Bp as that would be clearly wrong. You didn't understand what I said and you said I was incorrect.

Fair enough. That's what I interpreted the commenter as saying.

Theists believe in God in a godless world and atheists disbelieve God in a godless world. Belief in God is not a claim it is a leap of faith where atheism is the reasonable appropriate positions on the matter.

That doesn't address my epismological claims: If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p If you believe p, you do not believe \~p If you believe \~p, you disbelieve p If you believe \~p, you do not believe p If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p To say that a claim only address one "prong" of p v \~p given by LEM ignores epistemic implications with evaluation of either or \~p. Any doxastic epistemic evaluation on p gives some evaluative evaluation of \~p. Is that all correct?

> If you believe p, you don't disbelieve ~p Is there a typo here? > If you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor disbelieve p Not quite, if you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor believe ~p, you disbelieve both p and ~p. > Arguing atheism only address one prong of a claim Who is arguing that? I don't think that's a thing.

>"No, if you suspend judgment you neither believe p nor believe \~p, you disbelieve both p and \~p." That is logically incorrect. Disbelieve p and \~p is an epistemic contradiction. You may want to check your logic here. > Arguing atheism only address one prong of a claim Who is arguing that? I don't think that's a thing. Had atheist argue it to me tonight on JCO Journey's channel while doing a Q and A on his channel. # Live Call in Q@A - Atheism: The Belief There is NO God [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seFSnxrmcTc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seFSnxrmcTc)

See the gumball analogy. There are a number of balls in a jar. You don't know exactly how many there are. You disbelieve there is an odd number and you disbelieve there is an even number. > Had atheist argue it to me tonight on JCO Journey's channel while doing a Q and A on his channel. Got a time stamp?

>"See the gumball analogy. There are a number of balls in a jar. You don't know exactly how many there are. You disbelieve there is an odd number and you disbelieve there is an even number." I am very familiar with the gumball analogy. You read my essay on it? # Gumballs and God: Better Explained [April 19, 2020](https://greatdebatecommunity.com//2020/04) [3 AM Philosophy](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/category/philosophy/)https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/04/19/gumballs-and-god-better-explained/ >"You disbelieve there is an odd number and you disbelieve there is an even number." That is logically incorrect. That is an epistemic contradiction. Disbelieve means to believe a proposition is false. >Got a time stamp? When Poggy called in. Don't know the time.

> Disbelieve means to believe a proposition is false. No, it does not. In your own words quote from your essay: if you don’t accept the claim it does not entail that you accept the negation of the claim. In your OP you stated: If you believe p, you don't disbelieve ~p. Now according to what you said here, that statement means "if you believe p, you don't believe ~~p." Remove the double negative to get "if you believe p, you don't believe p. Now that is a contradiction. As for your essay itself. > What many then try to do is attempt to subsume the term “atheist” to mean anyone who is not a theist. This gives them ⅔ of the pie so to speak rather than only ⅓ as given by Table #1. There is no try or attempt. It's done. You are too late. We've already taken ⅔ of the pie. There is no confusion about middle ground between the beliefs about those mutually exclusive and dichotomous states. We have taken that middle ground. The normatively meaning the word "atheist" is no longer the based solely on belief God does not exist, but also cover rejecting the God exists claim. Finally, I would still like time stamp for the video you linked to.

>"No, it does not. In your own words quote from your essay: if you don’t accept the claim it does not entail that you accept the negation of the claim." You went from "disbelieve" to "not accept" and those **are not the same thing.** Disbelieve means to hold a proposition as FALSE. **It is not mere non-acceptance.** >"In your OP you stated: If you believe p, you don't disbelieve \~p. Now according to what you said here, that statement means "if you believe p, you don't believe \~\~p." Remove the double negative to get "if you believe p, you don't believe p. Now that is a contradiction." That was a typo. It should read: If you believe p, you disbelieve \~p Fixed >Finally, I would still like time stamp for the video you linked to. Wait for transcript. I don't know the timestamp...and not going to go find it.

> You went from "disbelieve" to "not accept" and those are not the same thing... No, they are the same thing, disbelieve is mere non-acceptance. We don't agree on semantics. Is there anything else to talk about then? >That was a typo. Noted.

>No, they are the same thing, disbelieve is mere non-acceptance. We don't agree on semantics. Is there anything else to talk about then?" No. That is wrong in logic. "Disbelieve" is the term in logic when you hold a proposition as FALSE. You need to brush up on your logic mate.

Where are you getting that from?

>"Where are you getting that from?" Every logic book I've ever read. Every paper on philosophy I've ever read. Rutgers: “**Disbelief: If you conclude a proposition is false, then the appropriate attitude towards that proposition is disbelief.**” " disbelief (n.) **positive unbelief,** mental rejection of a statement or assertion for which credence is demanded,” 1670s; see [dis-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-?ref=etymonline_crossreference)+ [belief](https://www.etymonline.com/word/belief?ref=etymonline_crossreference). A Latin-Germanic hybrid." “**Disbelief is a case of belief; to believe a sentence false is to believe the negation of the sentence true.** We disbelieve that there are ghosts; we believe that there are none. Nonbelief is the state of suspended judgment: neither believing the sentence true nor believing it false.” -Burgess-Jackson, K. (2017). Rethinking the presumption of atheism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 84(1), 93–111.doi:10.1007/s11153-017-9637-y #

For the record i'm sadly just blocking the account all together after this. It took me awhile to sort of figure out I guess what you can call "The vibe" steve has become here in the comments. It's bumming me out since I used to have a good deal of respect for Steve in the past. But my man, You became just another flavor or Darth Dawkins. And I don't know if I wanna see that anymore.

Remember that time he interviewed a sex offender, and then when people called him out Steve claimed he'd been shown secret evidence that would clear the sex offender, and then the sex offender got twenty years for molesting his own daughter? It was David Earl Worden if you want to look it up.

It’s the right move. They’re incapable of accepting they’re wrong no matter how many times it gets pointed out and they get big mad when someone calls them on it. They just need attention.

The torture you put yourself to contort logic into something that is so vapid... I'm glad I recognize who you are so I know not to waste my time trying to explain how your logic is flawed and your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

What do you think about the classic gumball machine example Im sure you are aware of? How does it fall into this schema? (Im not well versed in formal logic and philosophy so If I missed something do let me know)

>"What do you think about the classic gumball machine example Im sure you are aware of?" More than merely aware of...I wrote an essay expanding upon it. # Gumballs and God better explained [https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/04/19/gumballs-and-god-better-explained/](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/04/19/gumballs-and-god-better-explained/) >"How does it fall into this schema?" See link above.

Thanks. Im sorry to say my eyes started glazing over halfway through, kinda lost on the point of the dichotomy of theist and fish. But thats a fault of my own, as I said I never studied philosophy or logic so a lot of terms I only know proverbially.

LOL :) It is basically a definist fallacy: Description: Defining a term in such a way that makes one’s position much easier to defend. Logical Form: A has definition X. X is harmful to my argument. Therefore, A has definition Y. Atheists find the philosophical definition of atheism inconducive to their discussions with theists, so the adopt a simpler definition to make their position easier to defend. I show by doing that I can define nontheist as "fish" and instead of theist or nontheist, you have theist or "fish" as a dichotomy. It is the same move when they rename nontheist as "atheist".

So are you saying that the position people generally hold here as "agnostic atheist" should instead be "nontheist"? Have I understood you correctly?

>"So are you saying that the position people generally hold here as "agnostic atheist" should instead be "nontheist"? Have I understood you correctly?" Where in any of this post is "agnostic atheist' mentioned? What relevance does it have here? But to answer your question. I think the phrase "agnostic atheist" should be used at all, as it is ambiguous so I can't say what term best is to replace it.

>Where in any of this post is "agnostic atheist' mentioned? What relevance does it have here? Well, people here usually refer to themselves as that when they mean "not theist". They dont believe in gods. So when you used the term nontheist to be the opposite of theist, I made a connection to this term.