@@mjfoster0825 I've asked Matt the exact same questions, and he doesn't have any evidence, either. Why would I call in to his show and give him the opportunity to talk over me or hang up when I reject his bullshit? th-cam.com/video/cRtPuP9YH_c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=k8iDbgHvGv3Jky1Q th-cam.com/video/JaJBLlnES7c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8CTIDpfWEDfHRCze th-cam.com/video/Egz4a18UDhc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=LhI9FYN7siULdApc
I thought thought non-belief and negative belief were definitions (with a substantive epistemic claim between them). This seems like a category error to ask for evidence of a definition.
@wp5875 Beliefs are brain activity. Words and definitions describe that brain activity. I don't want evidence of the difference in the _words,_ I want evidence of the difference in the brain activity. You can't _define_ that into existence.
I guess you have me since I haven't the foggiest idea how to find that evidence. Isn't everyone who believes the brain has at least some physical ability to capture thoughts in the same boat?
@wp5875 "...I haven't the foggiest idea how to find that evidence..." If you cannot demonstrate _how_ you know something is true, then you cannot show _that_ you know it's true, either; and that's my point. I'm asserting that it's objectively true that a "lack" belief definitely *is* the same as believing the contary (though I suspect this is the case). Rather, I am disputing the claim that they're different because as far as I can tell, it isn't possible to distinguish between them; and a distinction that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a distinction that does not exist.
@@JustifiedNonetheless I agree that everyone has beliefs that can't be proven that underpin their epistemology. Do you yourself not distinguish beliefs that you are not convinced of vice those you outright reject or accept? I do it every time I hear the news, theistic view notwithstanding.
I concede that I hold my views with varying _degrees_ of credence, but that still doesn't get us to genuine "lack" of belief. Belief is simply finding a proposition *more likely* to be true than untrue. That's an entirely different threshold of credence than certainty. *Truly* not believing either a claim or its negation requires a perfect equilibrium; and that is an unrealistic expectation based on the sheer complexity of human cognition. It is far more reasonable to presume that one finds either p or ¬p _more likely_ than the alternative than to presume that anyone has attained (much less maintained) the equipollence that is required for genuine "lack" of belief as distinct from belief to the contary.
Let me solve your dilemma for you. As an atheist, my argument is "I don't believe you." When you come to me with any god claims. I don't believe you, because you have admittedly no proof to the positive of the statement "at least one diety exists", and until that happens, I remain disbelieving.
@@redcookie100 Tell me you didn't watch the fucking video before commenting in a Pavlovian response without telling me you didn't watch the fucking video before commenting in a Pavlovian response. th-cam.com/users/shortsySk3RosrPvA?si=Ka4Xi9-avtW1YOjs
It's simple..if you tell me your clear jar of gumballs is even in number and I say" I don't believe you" that doesn't mean I think they are odd. Let's verify with objective verifiable evidence to determine if the claim is true
@@alucard2010 The Gumball Fallacy is objectively shit. th-cam.com/video/FTZxFskJZNo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=x5VxK1nawO4Bu1I8 th-cam.com/video/UIjMMUZnxeo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=RZsu8EGvU7ZwSUGn
Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike. Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all. -from the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (1794)
@JustifiedNonetheless some people believe I. God some people don't, we should allow people to have their own opinions and not get to worked up about it , the world would be a happier place
@Andrew-h8p I don't care whether they believe one exists or not because that's entirely irrelevant to my actual argument. And, you wonder why I'm angry.
Please please please call in to The Line podcast. Would be EPIC 😂
@@mjfoster0825
I've asked Matt the exact same questions, and he doesn't have any evidence, either. Why would I call in to his show and give him the opportunity to talk over me or hang up when I reject his bullshit?
th-cam.com/video/cRtPuP9YH_c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=k8iDbgHvGv3Jky1Q
th-cam.com/video/JaJBLlnES7c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8CTIDpfWEDfHRCze
th-cam.com/video/Egz4a18UDhc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=LhI9FYN7siULdApc
The camera is as shaky as the logic it captured
@flawedgenius
What is my actual argument? Steelman it for me.
I thought thought non-belief and negative belief were definitions (with a substantive epistemic claim between them). This seems like a category error to ask for evidence of a definition.
@wp5875
Beliefs are brain activity. Words and definitions describe that brain activity. I don't want evidence of the difference in the _words,_ I want evidence of the difference in the brain activity. You can't _define_ that into existence.
I guess you have me since I haven't the foggiest idea how to find that evidence. Isn't everyone who believes the brain has at least some physical ability to capture thoughts in the same boat?
@wp5875
"...I haven't the foggiest idea how to find that evidence..."
If you cannot demonstrate _how_ you know something is true, then you cannot show _that_ you know it's true, either; and that's my point.
I'm asserting that it's objectively true that a "lack" belief definitely *is* the same as believing the contary (though I suspect this is the case). Rather, I am disputing the claim that they're different because as far as I can tell, it isn't possible to distinguish between them; and a distinction that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a distinction that does not exist.
@@JustifiedNonetheless I agree that everyone has beliefs that can't be proven that underpin their epistemology. Do you yourself not distinguish beliefs that you are not convinced of vice those you outright reject or accept? I do it every time I hear the news, theistic view notwithstanding.
I concede that I hold my views with varying _degrees_ of credence, but that still doesn't get us to genuine "lack" of belief. Belief is simply finding a proposition *more likely* to be true than untrue. That's an entirely different threshold of credence than certainty. *Truly* not believing either a claim or its negation requires a perfect equilibrium; and that is an unrealistic expectation based on the sheer complexity of human cognition. It is far more reasonable to presume that one finds either p or ¬p _more likely_ than the alternative than to presume that anyone has attained (much less maintained) the equipollence that is required for genuine "lack" of belief as distinct from belief to the contary.
Let me solve your dilemma for you. As an atheist, my argument is "I don't believe you." When you come to me with any god claims. I don't believe you, because you have admittedly no proof to the positive of the statement "at least one diety exists", and until that happens, I remain disbelieving.
@@redcookie100
Tell me you didn't watch the fucking video before commenting in a Pavlovian response without telling me you didn't watch the fucking video before commenting in a Pavlovian response.
th-cam.com/users/shortsySk3RosrPvA?si=Ka4Xi9-avtW1YOjs
It's simple..if you tell me your clear jar of gumballs is even in number and I say" I don't believe you" that doesn't mean I think they are odd. Let's verify with objective verifiable evidence to determine if the claim is true
@@alucard2010
The Gumball Fallacy is objectively shit.
th-cam.com/video/FTZxFskJZNo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=x5VxK1nawO4Bu1I8
th-cam.com/video/UIjMMUZnxeo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=RZsu8EGvU7ZwSUGn
Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all. -from the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (1794)
@@vincentearthboy
In case you'd like to discuss something relevant.
th-cam.com/users/shortsySk3RosrPvA?si=oQ28NbzMeQTj471v
you're not Tyrone Biggums
You are one angry theist
@Andrew-h8p
I'd be a lot happier if people would address my actual argument.
@JustifiedNonetheless some people believe I. God some people don't, we should allow people to have their own opinions and not get to worked up about it , the world would be a happier place
@Andrew-h8p
I don't care whether they believe one exists or not because that's entirely irrelevant to my actual argument. And, you wonder why I'm angry.