By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem on 13 January 2018
Edit Thread
VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

The rejection state is the default. The becoming a theist later in a different point in time that can come with knowledge, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that before the knowledge of it came, the default state was reining. You asked me about a baby who is essentially a tabula rasa. A tabula rasa will only believe what is in front of them and they naturally reject everything else that isn't until the knowledge of it changes. This event is not retroactive. It only takes place from the point in time where they decide to become theists (if they do).

How do you reject something that you're not aware of? If someone doesn't know that the Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1950, that doesn't mean that they're rejecting that they won it that year.

How do you not?

Are you not rejecting that a flying pig in gonna fall in your head? Are you not gonna reject that butter is gonna tell you you're getting fat? Are you not gonna reject that the cookie jar is eating your toilet? Monsters under your bed?

Do you live under the assumption that any of these can be true, you just don't know it? You would go mental!

That is why the default state is to not believe these things until proven.

Btw your example does not invoke what we know about reality. yes, anyone can believe that a note is written somewhere about who won X year. There is a degree of plausability that goes into this. The more outregeous the claim the more difficult to believe it. 

RolStoppable said:
VGPolyglot said:

Yes, though I don't know could be replaced with not being aware, though whether or not it is a state of mind is dubious because can something that you're not aware be a state of mind when it does not even exist in your mind? But yes, if you're completely unsure of something you can say that you don't know, as your knowledge isn't great enough for you to lean to belief or disbelief.

So basically you are saying that there is one more option than being for or against something. That's the middle ground that can be defined as undecided or unaware.

For example, if I am not aware of Nem's argument in this thread, you are claiming that I would be neither for or against it. But once I read it, I could be either undecided or against it.

Aww... :(

Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018