Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution

On Oct 2, 3:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
> >> >> More lies. You're projecting. =20
>
> >> > Answer this question:
>
> >> > When a baby is born does it already believe in your god?
>
> >> Nope and it doesn't disbelieve either.
>
> >If it doesn't believe then it doesn't believe.
>
> It doesn't disbelieve (reject the belief) either.

So? Dave claimed I had "chosen to unbelieve". Belief in his god is
not the default position, as he would claim. How many times do I have
to explain this?

> >It had no "choice" in the matter.
>
> Correct. When it learns about the concept, it will then have the
> possibility to choose.

As you pointed out, some people chose to believe because they are just
going along with their parents wishes. I doubt if most of these
people have a clear idea what "God" means to them. Do they really
believe in a man floating in the sky? If not then what does "God"
mean to them? It's virtually a meaningless concept and yet we are
asked to believe in it.

> >> > If not, then what is the default position?
>
> >> Ignorance. Which is not a bad thing, just a blank slate,
>
> >Ignorance is not simply the lack of knowledge. A hundred years ago,
> >nobody knew anything about relativity or quantum mechanics. Did that
> >make them ignorant?
>
> Yes, at least of those concepts. They neither believed in quantum
> mechanics nor disbelieved in quantum mechanics.

You are twisting the meaning of ignorance. It would be more accurate
to say that they are agnostic about quantum mechanics because they
wouldn't have had the information necessary to decide if they believed
in it or not. A lot of people chose to similarly be agnostic about
God because they consider the concept meaningless. I certainly don't
believe in a man floating in the sky and I have no reason to believe
in an "intelligent designer" either.

> Later Einstein learned about the concept of quantum mechanics. He is
> widely reported to have chosen to disbelieve that this concept
> applied.

Yes and he was wrong, in general. His specific points attacking
quantum mechanics were very astute, however, and they did contribute
to our understanding of quantum mechanics.

> >> > And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
> >> > claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and that
> >> > nobody "chooses to unbelieve".
>
> >> I never made such a claim. YOU put YOUR wrds in my mouth. Again.
>
> >You're a liar. Again. What you said still appears above. You said
> >"you have decided to be an unbeliever". We've just established that
> >not believing in your god is the default position.
>
> An ignorance of the concept of God is not considered "unbelief".

Ridiculous. If it isn't belief then it is unbelief. If I simply
don't believe then I passively disbelieve. If I actively doubt that
something is true then I actively disbelieve. Please get the
definitions straight. If you are "not sure" if something is true then
you don't believe it.

>

> <1 : one that does not believe in a particular religious faith
> <2 : one that does not believe : an incredulous person : DOUBTER,
> < SKEPTIC
>
> The first definition isn't applicable though it mentions religious
> faith, but is used to apply generically to members of the group that
> is outside that particular faith. That kind of "unbeliever" might
> believe in God, and even in Jesus Christ, but doesn't believe the
> "right things" about them to be members of the faith in question.
>
> The definition of "unbelief" confirms this:
>
> >Main Entry: un=B7be=B7lief
> >: incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith
>
> There is no definition of "unbelief" corresponding to the 1st
> definition under "unbeliever"
>
> It is thus the second meaning that we refer to. We can look up
> "incredulous".
>
>

> <1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not
> < credulous : SKEPTICAL
> <... [other definitions, not applicable]
>
> The concept must have been offered or conceived of, in order for
> "incredulous" to apply. Someone with a tabula rasa is not
> "incredulous".

Under definition 1 of "unbelief" someone who doesn't know about a
religion can not be said to believe in it and is therefore an
unbeliever. It's quite simple.

> >Therefore, it is
> >not that I "chose to unbelieve" but that you, for whatever reason,
> >chose to believe.
>
> If one never chooses, then one is neither a believer, nor an
> unbeliever (in the 2nd sense).

If you don't believe then you don't believe. It's very simple.

Martin

alt.education