[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.