[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
if you know
Sort:
I did bold my words, didn't I?
Jun 15, 2010
0
#925
well, I'm off, I have to study (and not I'm not being defensive nor hurry up, I should being studying)
DukeOfNature wrote:
[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
A statement that is completely untrue
Jun 15, 2010
0
#927
DukeOfNature wrote:
[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
Phobetrix wrote: A statement that is completely untrue
Not entirely. e.g.
Chess pieces move on my chess board. I believe that fairies are not responsible for it. Therefore, I must believe that something else is.
What happened to Tonydal? He'd set you armchair philosophers straight!
Stop insulting my armchair! 
Phobetrix wrote:
DukeOfNature wrote:
[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
A statement that is completely untrue
You've said this a couple of times now -- and perhaps it's a matter of semantics, as "not believing in something" is meant in the literal sense of "not believing something exists", not in the colloquial sense of "not believing in using aftershave", but assuming we're both referring to the former, can you provide an example please?
TheGrobe wrote:
Phobetrix wrote:
DukeOfNature wrote:
[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
A statement that is completely untrue
You've said this a couple of times now -- and perhaps it's a matter of semantics, as "not believing in something" is meant in the literal sense of "not believing something exists", not in the colloquial sense of "not believing in using aftershave", but assuming we're both referring to the former, can you provide an example please?
It's all semantics, and I hate semantics. Anyways, by "not believing something exists" you form a belief that that thing does not exist. Understand? I hope so, because I am tired of rephrasing myself.
And @artfizz: Thank you for understanding. I'm glad to see someone else can see the sense in what I am saying. (That is, if there is any sense at all.
)
I agree -- the semantic issue seems to be one of not acknowledging the equivalency between "not believing in something" and "believing in not something".
Phobetrix wrote:
DukeOfNature wrote:
[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
A statement that is completely untrue
Oh, and don't make claims that you will not back up with information. If I'm wrong, I would like to be logically informed. Just saying. 
TheGrobe wrote:
I agree -- the semantic issue seems to be one of not acknowledging the equivalency between "not believing in something" and "believing in not something".
I am confused now. What does "not believing in something" mean? Is this referring to existence or truth? It matters, as much as we wish it doesn't. You can't confuse the two.
In terms of the equivalency between those two statements it doesn't matter whether it's truth or existence, but I believe we've primarily been discussing existence.
If I do not believe something is true, it means that I believe it is not true.
If I do not believe something exists, it means that I believe it does not exist.
TheGrobe wrote:
Phobetrix wrote:
DukeOfNature wrote:
[EDIT] Like I said, "I was stating that when you choose not to believe in something, you form beliefs in something else."
A statement that is completely untrue
You've said this a couple of times now -- and perhaps it's a matter of semantics, as "not believing in something" is meant in the literal sense of "not believing something exists", not in the colloquial sense of "not believing in using aftershave", but assuming we're both referring to the former, can you provide an example please?
I think you are right that the disagreement may be a matter of semantics. When I choose not to "believe" in something - say angels for example - it does not mean that I form belief in something else (like the reverse: "there are no angel"s). It only means - exactly what it says - that I lack one kind of belief, and that it is not (necessarily) substituted by some other belief. More specifically, it does not (necessarily) mean that I believe there are no angels. Not believing can hence be a kind of an agnostic attitude and does not (in itself) mean belief in something else.
Phobetrix has it. I can not hold a believe and also not hold its transversal if I just don't know which is more likely to be true.
.....on a chess site 
@Phobetrix: So what if I said, 'I believe you're wrong'?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Abelief
Belief in something is accepting it as truth. Same for the opposite, if you don't believe something, you accept that it is untrue. Existence or truth, it does not matter.
If you believe I am wrong that is your belief and your truth . I agree that belief in something is accepting it as truth. However, I don't accept the reciprocal. Of course, if you SAY that you DO NOT belive in something - then that is the same as saying that you believe in the reverse of the "something".
However, the issue here is (as I understood it) that when one fails to believe in something it does not automatically mean that one believes in its reciprocal.
I was not being defensive, I write the easiest way possible