The Patent Analogy and the "Nonbelief" Program
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- This is another attempt to squash the reification, misplaced concreteness, appeal to definition, and lexical fallacies that I continue to hear whenever I ask for evidence of a distinction between the "absence" of belief in a proposition and the presence of belief in its negation and to substantiate a distinct state of apisticism/nonbelief.
Become a Patron:
patreon.com/JustifiedNonetheless
Cash App Support: $justifiednonetheless
GoFundMe support: gofund.me/b7877d4c
Paypal support: paypal.me/justifiednonetheless
Venmo Support: justifiednonetheless
*****
Background Music:
Tonehinge, (2021). Above the sun
Re-uploaded to correct some captioning issues...
First of all, I really appreciate the way you're communicating on this subject, as oftentimes it gets very heated and irrational.
My thoughts on this is that you are claiming that one must have an opinion on the validity of p, either Bp or B¬p. While I agree that it's true that those are the only two positions you can take, I don't agree that non-belief is the same as B¬p, I would say non-belief is simply stating that you don't know which is correct.
If I tell you that I've broken my pinky finger before, you have no reason to either believe or not believe me, so it would be unfair of me to claim that because you lack information and therefore cannot make a choice that you don't believe me.
You mention that there's no difference in neural connectivity between non-belief and disbelief, I'm actually interested in this, do you have any studies where they measure this? Or did I misunderstand what you meant
"I don't agree that non-belief is the same as B¬p, I would say non- *_BELIEF_* is simply saying that you don't *_KNOW_* which is correct."
How can you say/write this and not recognize the rather obvious category error? You're falsely equating *_BELIEF_* with *_KNOWLEDGE._*
You even literally wrote two different words! How can you not see that you've conflating an epistemic position with a doxastic position?
@@JustifiedNonetheless I see what you're saying. I do agree now that you're logically correct, however I don't think that this is very useful as it's not how most people would use the word in conversation and doesn't really help improve communication between people.
If one person says they're a non-believer and one says they don't believe in god, even if they're logically the same thing they still have different meaning in language. You can reasonably assume that the "non-believer" will be more hesitant to state an opinion and even if they deep down don't believe in god they will be more willing and open to change their opinions, and won't actively state that out loud
@@farkler4785
The point I'm making is that atheists have simply traded one unsubstantiated proposition (that a deity exists) for _another,_ equally unsubstantiated proposition (that an "absence" of belief in a proposition is different from the presence of belief in its negation). There is no intellectual high ground to be found. This is inevitable. We can agree that one "ought" not believe claims without evidence, it's impossible to bridge the gap to the "is" of apisticism.
@@user-qm4ev6jb7d
"...the distinction between the absence of belief and belief in the negation is as straightforward as the distinction between a database that does not contain the word 'light and a database that does contain the word 'dark'."
You are literally committing one of the logical fallacies that I mention *_IN THIS VIDEO!_*
@@JustifiedNonetheless I don't think you understand the atheist position. I mean, positions. The soft atheist position is, "You claim a god or some gods exist, and I say I don't believe your claim if you can't produce evidence. On the other hand, I can't prove your claim untrue, so I have no grounds to say I believe gods don't exist." The hard atheist position is, "I don't believe your claim without evidence, and furthermore, I believe gods don't exist." I happen to be a hard atheist, and I have reasons to believe gods don't exist. That, however is not germane to the current argument.