[roelschroeven]

Hm, OK, that's a whole different approach then what I expected. If one calls the expectation that the law of physics work the same tomorrow as they did today and yesterday and all the days before a belief, then yes everyone believes in that. It's so obvious that it doesn't mean anything anymore, at least to me.

> perhaps we "know more" but we are certainly not "smarter" than religious people of the past

Oh, I never said that we are smarter than people of the past. I would leave religious out of it though, since I think being religious is independent from being smart.

> And a related but different angle: I think even secular/atheist/agnostic people who aren't even necessarily militant weirdos like Dawkins/Harris ... By Dawkins I guess you mean Richard Dawkins? I don't know that much about him, but he doesn't really seem like a weirdo to me? I don't know Harris so I can't comment on they being a weirdo or not at all.

> ... unconsciously must contextualize themselves and their life in a world of belief. Trivially, you not believing in god is not an absence of delusion or whatever, but necessarily a belief.

I don't think it's trivial at all to state that not believing in god is necessarily a belief. Maybe it's true, maybe not, but I don't think it's at all trivial. There are infinitely many things that I don't belief in. Surely we can't say that for each and every one of those I actively belief in their absence? Or is there a fundamental difference between god and other things I don't believe in? Or is the distinction between absence of belief and belief of absence a distinction without meaning, just a play with words, not much different from discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[beepbooptheory]

I just meant that my particular argument right there was trivial, not the belief itself. Ie:

Not believing in x === believing in not x.

Thats what we in the biz call "trivial".

If we lived in a world where the idea of god never crossed anybody's mind, then they would neither believe nor not believe. I dont believe in unicorns, but i neither believe nor disbelieve some random microorganism Ive never heard of.

Just consider yourself lucky you are not familiar with Dawson :).

[roelschroeven]

> I just meant that my particular argument right there was trivial, not the belief itself.

Yes, that's what I thought you meant, and I disagree.

> Not believing in x === believing in not x.

Ah, so indeed to you the two are the same. Again, I don't think that's trivial at all.

Let me mention Shigella roterei, a species of bacteria, to you. There, now you have heard of it. But does it exist? Do you believe in it? What if I state that it doesn't exist? Just because I now mentioned it to you, do you necessarily have to believe it doesn't exist. You can't just not believe in it anymore. Fine with me, but I don't think I work that way.

[beepbooptheory]

I do think we are just in a linguistic wrinkle here. Because "not believing in x" is ambiguous in that it could also obtain those who have never even heard of x. I apologize, that was not what I meant, I thought the context was enough to understand that, but I get your confusion. I really dont think we are disagreeing about anything really!

But if it isn't the ambiguity there tripping us up, very curious to hear your argument for why that formulation is incorrect. I would believe in the fungus if I trusted the authority of the person telling me about it. But before I heard about it, I neither believed nor disbelieved it.