By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

VGPolyglot on 13 January 2018
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.

Yes, though you would either be for, undecided or against it, not just undecided or against it after having read it.



Around the Network
Nem on 13 January 2018
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

VGPolyglot on 13 January 2018
Nem said:
VGPolyglot said:

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.

I would first have to know about those things to be able to reject them. I can't live under the assumption they're true if I don't even know about them.



Nem on 13 January 2018
VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

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.

I would first have to know about those things to be able to reject them. I can't live under the assumption they're true if I don't even know about them.

But, you already do (that they are not true). You just don't realise it.

It's impossible for us to have knowledge on everything. You reject countless things you don't know about, because you don't know about them.

What you are talking about is you having awareness of that fact. That is simply not a requirement.

You don't believe countless things that even you are not aware of. The gaining of belief is the only thing that can change that state.

Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018

VGPolyglot on 13 January 2018
Nem said:
VGPolyglot said:

I would first have to know about those things to be able to reject them. I can't live under the assumption they're true if I don't even know about them.

But, you already do (that they are not true). You just don't realise it.

It's impossible for us to have knowledge on everything. You reject countless things you don't know about, because you don't know about them.

What you are talking about is you having awareness of that fact. That is simply not a requirement.

You don't believe countless things that even you are not aware of. The gaining of belief is the only thing that can change that state.

But that's ignoring the things we believe once we're aware of them. It's not like we instantly reject or disbelieve in things when we learn of them.



Around the Network
Nem on 13 January 2018
VGPolyglot said:
Nem said:

But, you already do (that they are not true). You just don't realise it.

It's impossible for us to have knowledge on everything. You reject countless things you don't know about, because you don't know about them.

What you are talking about is you having awareness of that fact. That is simply not a requirement.

You don't believe countless things that even you are not aware of. The gaining of belief is the only thing that can change that state.

But that's ignoring the things we believe once we're aware of them. It's not like we instantly reject or disbelieve in things when we learn of them.

When we learn about them, we go through the proposition. Do i have enough reason to believe this is real? Your mum says she has a tea pot in the kitchen. You don't know what it is. "What is this madness you think? Never heard of something like that existing!" Alas, you go in the kitchen and irrefuteable evidence. Your mum has a tea pot. This thing that until now didn't exist in your world, now does.

Everything in reality goes through this. This is how our knowledge of reality is built.

So, yes, whatever we don't know, we assume doesn't exist. Like i said before, if we didn't we would go mental at the possibility of anything and everything popping up outta nowhere at any time. It would be chaos.



VGPolyglot on 13 January 2018
RolStoppable said:
VGPolyglot said:

Yes, though you would either be for, undecided or against it, not just undecided or against it after having read it.

Sorry, I didn't sense your sarcasm



Nem on 13 January 2018
RolStoppable said:
Nem said:

But, you already do (that they are not true). You just don't realise it.

It's impossible for us to have knowledge on everything. You reject countless things you don't know about, because you don't know about them.

What you are talking about is you having awareness of that fact. That is simply not a requirement.

He and everyone else here rejects your four examples because everyone knows that they are not true.

Your claim of rejection as the default stance doesn't hold water. Here's why:

There are two groups of scientists. You have no knowledge of either of them.
Group A conducts research and writes a paper that states that global warming is a real thing.
Group B is sponsored by the Trump administration and writes a paper that states that global warming is not real.

If rejection is the default stance to everything unknown, then in this example you reject that global warming is real (group A) and at the same time you reject that global warming is not real (group B). This is why awareness has to exist before rejection can happen.

Maybe it's the word rejection. But what i'm saying is factually true. Maybe i am not being specific enough that this is how you determine what is real from what is not.

Both researches are real. In that situation you want to find out wich one is more accurate and thats a different can of worms.



JWeinCom on 13 January 2018
Nem said:
RolStoppable said:

He and everyone else here rejects your four examples because everyone knows that they are not true.

Your claim of rejection as the default stance doesn't hold water. Here's why:

There are two groups of scientists. You have no knowledge of either of them.
Group A conducts research and writes a paper that states that global warming is a real thing.
Group B is sponsored by the Trump administration and writes a paper that states that global warming is not real.

If rejection is the default stance to everything unknown, then in this example you reject that global warming is real (group A) and at the same time you reject that global warming is not real (group B). This is why awareness has to exist before rejection can happen.

Maybe it's the word rejection. But what i'm saying is factually true. Maybe i am not being specific enough that this is how you determine what is real from what is not.

Both researches are real. In that situation you want to find out wich one is more accurate and thats a different can of worms.

Perhaps the word doubt or skepticism is what you're looking for.



VGPolyglot on 13 January 2018
Nem said:
RolStoppable said:

He and everyone else here rejects your four examples because everyone knows that they are not true.

Your claim of rejection as the default stance doesn't hold water. Here's why:

There are two groups of scientists. You have no knowledge of either of them.
Group A conducts research and writes a paper that states that global warming is a real thing.
Group B is sponsored by the Trump administration and writes a paper that states that global warming is not real.

If rejection is the default stance to everything unknown, then in this example you reject that global warming is real (group A) and at the same time you reject that global warming is not real (group B). This is why awareness has to exist before rejection can happen.

Maybe it's the word rejection. But what i'm saying is factually true. Maybe i am not being specific enough that this is how you determine what is real from what is not.

Both researches are real. In that situation you want to find out wich one is more accurate and thats a different can of worms.

You still cannot reject something you are not aware of. I don't know how that is factually true.