I brake for a kid I believe will follow the ball. Reagrdless of the last n times no kid followed a ball.
Whats the problem?
lack belief vs evidence
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
I brake for a kid I believe will follow the ball. Reagrdless of the last n times no kid followed a ball.
Whats the problem?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Nice.. I'm being ignored.. :bugeye:
One last try then.
As I am but a dumb atheist, can you break it down for me why the following is wrong ?
<> Belief is to assume something despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.
<> Lack of belief is not to assume something because of lack of evidence for it or because of evidence to the contrary.
Pretty please.. ?
One last try then.
As I am but a dumb atheist, can you break it down for me why the following is wrong ?
<> Belief is to assume something despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.
<> Lack of belief is not to assume something because of lack of evidence for it or because of evidence to the contrary.
Pretty please.. ?
Yes, as we all do. But you are categorizing it as a fact that a kid (or something) will follow. You may assume that something is following, which is good, but it's not a fact that something is following. It's a guess at what might be. How do facts come into it?
I'm not ignoring you enmos. :wave:
Objectively I could do trial and error, if 3x no kid after ball, hence objectively no need to brake. Similarly I could calculate statistics to determine if I should brake or not.
However, I will dump all objectivity and simply brake.
What is the best option? What should my guess be?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, but SAM is.. :bawl:
What does this have to do with the nature of facts vs beliefs and assumptions??? :runaway:
I'm defining belief. :bugeye:
Now use the same example and define to me what lack of belief would be in the same situation.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I asked you to break it down, not state your own definitions.
I don't know how not to assume facts not in evidence.:shrug:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You don't know how not to assume facts that lack evidence ???? Why assume them ?
Lack of belief? Hmmm... Let's see.
I (like you) generally believe that there is a high likelyhood of a kid following a ball into the street. It's happened to me many a time. It's logical. A complete lack of belief in this situation would be akin to you telling me that an elephant might be following. I have no evidence that there are even elephants at large in my city, let alone that they chase balls into the street.
Yes?
Err... what? :wtf:
So you brake for every ball? You are sure there may be something following?
What if everytime you brake nothing follows.
Do you lack belief because facts are not in evidence?
Of course!
I'd still brake, because I'm an intelligent human being that has a grasp of the sequential nature of kids playing with balls and chasing them.
Are you asking what I'd do if I had never seen a child (god), or a ball (gods works), and had no idea how balls could get ito the street (no physical mechanisms for superstitious bullshit)? Then I'd have a complete lack of belief in the situation. Of course.
In part, of course. But more to the point is that there is zero compelling evidence that thing X exists. How can this be confusing?Do you lack belief because facts are not in evidence?
sam, you lack belief in the FSM why? Because there are no supporting facts in evidence?
Or do you believe in the FSM? :bugeye:
Or do you believe in the FSM? :bugeye:
Ah so you're saying if you had driven for 20 years and never seen a ball followed by a kid, you would not brake if you saw one?
No! READ FFS!
I've still seen kids playing with balls and can easily make the sequential connection.
I think you must be tired sam. I'll see ya tomorrow. 'nite.
- Status