Dog
 

Here is a hypothetical question for Science/Math/Philosophy fans.

Lets say PersonX says "I never said that" when others claim PersonX stated previously he was an atheist.

Further, let's say PersonX expounded dozens of times encompassing thousands of words and hundreds of sentences on the subject of the likely non-existence of You-Know-Who.

What are the chances PersonX is actually some style of believer in You-Know-Who?

I say it's much better than 50-50. The likely reality is that those betting against PersonX believing in some way in You-Know-Who may actually be as much as an 8-to-1 dog.

Re: Dog
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a hypothetical question for Science/Math/Philosophy fans.

Lets say PersonX says "I never said that" when others claim PersonX stated previously he was an atheist.

Further, let's say PersonX expounded dozens of times encompassing thousands of words and hundreds of sentences on the subject of the likely non-existence of You-Know-Who.

What are the chances PersonX is actually some style of believer in You-Know-Who?

I say it's much better than 50-50. The likely reality is that those betting against PersonX believing in some way in You-Know-Who may actually be as much as an 8-to-1 dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to break this down into what I think is a simpler form.

1. Some guy expounds on the likely nonexistence of You-Know-Who.
2. Someone labels him an atheist.
3. The some guy says that never said that he was an atheist.

I wouldn't lay a bet on this situation unless I knew the some guy well or got extremely steep odds.
Obviously you're dealing with a person with some sophistication here so they could be all over the spectrum in believing and not believing and also being able to see reasons not to believe. They may just not like being labeled an atheist, like many agnostics (myself included).

Assuming I could trust in the fairness of such a bet (1-2 guys (could be the same guy) I don't know on the net doesn't remotely qualify), I'd take your 8:1 every time.

Your vague description "some style of believer" would have to be clarified because I regard it as so subjective as to be almost meaningless.

Re: Dog
 

I ran your post through my automated Succinct(TM) Brand PostCondenser, and got the following result:

[ QUOTE ]
I'll offer you 8 to 1 that Sklansky is actually a theist

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Dog
 

A highly entertaining retort.

PersonX might be David. Maybe not !!

The likleyhood of the hypothetical PersonX being a theist by the definition below is very remote. (Even if he occasionally capitalizes the G-word.)

Much more likely, PersonX could be a Deist with some cool new contemporary features added in light of recent advances in quant physics, and still qualify as a true "believer" in a (big C) Creator.

[ QUOTE ]
Theism: is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe. This secondary meaning is shown in context to other beliefs concerning the divine below

Deist: One who subscribes to or professes the belief in the existence of a personal God, based solely on the testimony of reason and rejecting any supernatural revelation; also believing that God created the world and set it into motion, subject to natural laws, but takes no interest in it.


[/ QUOTE ]