alt.education

On Oct 3, 4:07 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
> >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.
>
> Neither is disbelief in his god.

Of course it is.

> A newborn neither believes in God
> nor disbelieves.

A newborn passively disbelieves. Active disbelief is not the default
but passive disbelief IS.

> At some later point they may choose one or the
> other. You have made a choice in reaction to the concept of God, and
> that makes your position different from the default.

The only choice one makes is the choice to believe. And often people
don't even make that choice by themselves as they just go ahead and
believe what their parents tell them to believe.

> >> >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.
>
> Some are willing to believe in meaningless concepts.

Why? Clearly you have to choose to believe in something like that.
Either that or you just SAY you believe to make your parents happy.

> Others merely go
> along, and say they believe for social reasons,

Exactly.

> but never actually
> consider the question. So far as I can tell, every one in this
> discussion has made an explicit choice to believe or to disbelieve.

You're ignoring the objective fact that disbelief is the default.
Belief in supernatural beings is a mental illness. A delusion. It
doesn't matter how common it is: it a deviation from the default
position that we begin with when we are born.

> >> >> > 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.
>
> If you prefer a different word for the relationship between a medieval
> person and the concept of quantum mechanics, I will consider using it.

"Ignorance" with its connotations of stupidity and stubbornness
obviously doesn't apply.

> >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.
>
> People labeled as "agnostic" are generally aware of the concept which
> they are agnostic about. Some would require them to have actually
> considered the concept and positively decided that they don't know
> enough, in order to qualify for the label "agnostic". =20

That's not how Huxley coined the term. He considered a person
agnostic if they didn't know the truth one way or another. That is
not the same thing as ignorance. There are probably significant
scientific concepts to be developed in the future that we simply are
not aware of yet. That doesn't mean mankind is "ignorant". I would
consider myself, agnostic, for example, as to whether or not it will
ever be possible to send messages back in time. I honestly don't know
if the physics prevents such a thing, although I suspect that any
message sent back in time would end up being unreadable. Until
technology advances to a point where such an experiment could be
performed we can only guess, however. Note, however, that I am not
suggesting anything supernatural: common sense tells us that
everything has a scientific explanation and that everything is
therefore natural and nothing, therefore, is supernatural. Accepting
common sense is not about making a "choice" but rather simply seeing
the universe the way it really is.

> >A lot of people chose to similarly be agnostic about
> >God because they consider the concept meaningless.
>
> That is an active choice.

Again, you have to choose to believe to believe in something which
doesn't even make sense to you. Perhaps you do it simply to appease
your parents.

> An infant on the other hand has made no
> choice and lacks the abstraction capability to process the concept.
> That is the default state (and Oldridge has said something similar;
> neither of us has claimed that belief in God is a default).

Yes. And this default state lacks belief in your god. QED.

> >I certainly don't
> >believe in a man floating in the sky and I have no reason to believe
> >in an "intelligent designer" either.
>
> Whoopie for you. You have chosen to deal with the concepts by not
> believing.

I have simply NOT chosen to believe. The default state is unbelief
and I have maintained this default state. I've never believed in
either of these things. I used to consider myself agnostic but as
most people's concept of god falls under one of these two categories
there is little reason to pretend that I have any doubts. I may have
chosen to label myself atheist but I never "chose to unbelieve". That
is an important distinction.

> >> >> > And, if you answer this question correctly, will you admit that
> >> >> > claiming your religion to be the default is, in fact, a lie and t=
hat
> >> >> > 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.
>
> The dictionary disagrees with you.

No, it doesn't. The dictionary has multiple definitions. You chose
ONE definition and claimed that this was THE definition. That is
dishonest.

> >If I simply don't believe then I passively disbelieve.
>
> I recognize no such concept as passive disbelief.

Which doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.

dis=B7be=B7lief
-noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as
true.
2=2E amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, =A9 Random House, Inc.
2006.

Disbelief is the inability OR refusal to believe. This defines
passive and active disbelief, respectively.

> >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.
>
> You also don't disbelieve it.

The dictionary disagrees with you.



Martin