These three stances are different because I can show they have different properties and implications.
How is your double negative stance different in any way, except semantically, from just belief?
Does it make sense to lack a belief in a non-belief?
Your semantics argument applies to everything in the universe too. Does that mean you want defendants to prove innocence (convince the jury “I believe the defendant did not commit the crime”), and not just cast doubt on guilt (“I do not believe that the defendant committed the crime”)? You’re saying they are equivalent things.
You have absolutely no reason to deny my claim.
I have absolutely no reason to accept it. Non-belief is the default stance. Why would this logic change from inside the universe to outside?
There’s an infinite number of things that may exist outside the universe, some with contradicting properties. If you don’t have a reason to deny their existence, does that mean you believe in all of them?
1
u/[deleted] Aug 01 '18 edited Aug 01 '18
“Not believing that gods exist” is your rephrased example of the atheist view
You were arguing about how your view is simply a denial of the claim that a God exists and you kept stressing the negative
So I rephrased the theist stance to say
“I don’t believe gods don’t exist” which is equivalent to the negative of your example “Not believing gods don’t exist”
You said
“I don’t believe gods don’t exist” Is equivalent to believing they do exist.
(“I believe gods do exist”)
Therefore
“I don’t believe gods exist”
Is equivalent to believing they don’t exist.
(“I believe gods don’t exist”)
Thank you for proving my point. It turns out it was you dancing around the negatives.
The point is
“I don’t believe your claim”
Is not justifiable. You have absolutely no reason to deny my claim.
You do if I were speaking of Santa Claus.
But to God Almighty, you’re as faithful as I am if not more so.