Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

Now thats funny, consider comprehending what you read before your keyboard runs away again or was it your intent to hang yourself? http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
From your website:

There have been many thinkers in history who have lacked a belief in God.
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.
Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist.

So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle.

Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.

they are simply pointing out (making fun of) the lackers argument, they finish by pointing out the lackers mistake making it perfectly clear how lackers hijacked 'agnostic'.

Lackers like anthony flew are attempting to claim agnositc under the atheist umbrella.
Agnostics claim they do not know and cannot know.
Agnostics give both sides of the argument thought and toss it out as unknowable.
Of course that requires one to be objective to comprehend what they are really saying, not hell bent for lacker.
Good find, noth that anyone needs help, but you should read things more carefully before you post torpedoes that further sink lacker theology.

 

the thread is about lackers and their long defunct theology, not atheists.
lackers are internet atheists because they are parrots and their rebuttal is the constant replay repeat of "i am atheist I lack belief". They have nothing....but they will argue till their dying breath to maintain their illusion.
Hey sounds a lot like their main bitch about theists LOL
xwsmithx, post:

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

It's funny how your arguments don't even work within your own feeble logical constructs. In order for your sentence to be true, there would have to be no one anywhere who believes in the non-existence of gods, a stance which completely contradicts everything you've been saying in this thread.

 

there is plenty of justification

Definition of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Once again for the obtuse who need everything repeated 50,000 times:

 

I think its hilarious that we have a bunch of internet keyboard commandos calling themselves atheists with the idea they do not have to justify their bullshit because they are lackers, despite they run totally contrary (irrational) to accepted philosophy and logic. You dont think thats sort of well funny? LOL

 

Lol nice deflection from the fact that you were refuted. Good job in realizing that your argument was too busted to defend, so it's time to change the subject.

 

Please read the thread before you post and correct your errors

.

 

I asked the lackers a question and it was not answered by the Dodger Debate Team. (DDT)

So how much belief do you have to lack before you are an atheist? A little? A lot? LMAO

 

Atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods. That hasn't changed for 81 pages. Lol

 

Correct your circular argument first, then we'll talk. Hint: restating your selfsame starting point and end point (i.e. repeating your preferred definition ad nauseum) doesn't help. It doesn't matter how "good" you think the definition is; talking up your definition doesn't make your argument any less circular.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

No, you can't claim lack of belief. Let me explain.

Lack of belief means you have no position about it, because you're not aware of it.
It's like an infant that has no awareness about fire and what fire can do. The infant has no awareness of fire until he's introduced to, and made aware of it.

Therein lies the problem with lack of belief.
Once you're introduced to a concept, you can't remain in the position of being unaware.
Once you're made aware of a concept, of course you'll form your own ideas about it. You can make a judgement of it, or may want to learn more about it......... or either accept or reject it.

But, you can NEVER go back to your previous position of being unaware about it!
You have no control over the change that happens from being unaware to being aware.
It comes NATURALLY.

Like that infant, once you're aware what fire is, you won't go sticking your finger to it not expecting to get burned. You now know what fire is, and what it can do.

You cannot keep saying "I lack belief." Unless, you still don't know what theism is.
Once the concept is given to you, and you're made aware of it.....it's a different ball game.

 

At no point have I been made aware of whether or not gods exist. That has never been known.

 

Actually...lack of belief means you lack belief in something. This implies you know of something but do not believe it.

 

81 pages of obtuse laymans internet atheism....died on the vine when philosophy, logic and reason were applied.

 

You disbelieve, since that is according to the definition, I'd argue you are correct, because that is a positive affirmation that God does not exist.

Still waiting for an answer from the lackers however:

 

"Kokomojojo said: ↑
I asked the lackers a question and it was not answered by the Dodger Debate Team. (DDT)

So how much belief do you have to lack before you are an atheist? A little? A lot? LMAO"

There is no level of "Belief"...you either do or don't.

 

I lack belief. I am an atheist.

 

You don't know what theism means?

 

nope. the definition of atheism is the same now, as it always has been. A lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

You have been shown countless times that is not true, so my question is why do you insist on spreading disinformation?

That definition is from around 1500 somehting

and here is a new definition of atheism from a 2017 etymology book, seems they are ignoring your spin.

Here is atheist from a dictionary of words with greek etymology; the long (a-) meaning.

atheist (s) (noun), atheists (pl)
1. Someone who does not believe in a God or gods or who denies the existence of Divine Beings, or Deities.
2. A person who denies, or disbelieves, that there is any such thing as a Supreme Being or beings.
3. A disbeliever, an unbeliever, a nonbeliever, a denier of God's existence, a godless person.
4. Etymology: from French athéiste, from ancient Greek atheos, "godless, denying the gods"; from a-, "without, no" + theos, "god".

I dont see any 'lack belief' in there. LOL

All I see is: denies, disbelieves, unbeliever, a nonbeliever, a denier, not even a passing thought about a lacker.

I guess they lacked the ink to print the word 'lack' in your definition?

and you have not responded to the problems you created:

1) Theist: "lack of belief in nonexistence of God" now everything in the universe is a theist.

2) How much lack is required to be an atheist? a little? a lot? 50/50?

Are all internet atheists really such hypocrites?

So many questions and so few answers!

 

What's absurd is when your definition of people is so broad that it includes the kitchen sink.

No, no atheists are agnostic and no agnostics are atheist. This is a clear case of trying to muddle definitions that are clear-cut and well delineated.

What you mean by the word includes koko in its definition, and he doesn't wish to be included in the definition of atheist. So your definition needs to be more specific.

We're trying to show you that it's equivocation from the outset, a half truth that's no better than a lie.

I generally prefer the vox populi to the opinions of experts, but when it comes to definitions of words, I'll take the expert opinion over the popular opinion almost any day. See below about imply/infer.

But that's not what you're doing here, what you're doing is redefining "orange" to mean all citrus fruits, and a variety of things that aren't even remotely related to citrus fruits, and then insisting on the correctness of your definition. We're insisting on the ancient and reliable meaning of the word orange to refer to one specific citrus fruit and nothing else.

Irrelevant aside: Sure you can, you can own a Lexus and still lack a Lexus, if for instance it's in the shop. I'm not denying the meaning and consequence of logic, just pointing out the flaw in this particular example. The ancient meaning of a-theist, not theist, has never included agnostics. But this "lack belief" definition definitely would, and agnostics don't agree to the change. You want us to accept the atheists' redefinition of the word, but then you refuse to accept the agnostics' insistence on their definition. Why do the atheists get to define the word rather than the agnostics? (This is assuming, of course, that "lack belief" holds any meaning different from, "I don't believe," which it doesn't.)

It does, though, because it does imply that one believes that God does not exist. It's error to think otherwise. Only if one is unwilling to say whether or not God exists does the ignorance fallacy not pertain, and that makes one an agnostic rather than an atheist.

This is incorrect. The "slippery slope" fallacy is making specific allegations about the negative ramifications of a change in policy that are not necessarily true. For example, when legalizing abortion was being discussed in the 1960s and early 70s, the fearmongers said that we'd have a million abortions a year. That is a slippery slope fallacy. Turned out they were right, of course. Or when the immigration standards were changed in 1965, the fearmongers said that we'd have half a million immigrants pouring in every year. That is a slippery slope fallacy. Turned out they were half right, we have a million immigrants pouring in every year. Just saying that someone is using a slippery slope argument is not in itself a fallacy.

Yeah, I disagree with the linguistic descriptivists, too. People have been using the term "imply" to mean "infer" and vice-versa for centuries and they're still wrong. People spell "cemetery" "cemetary", pronounce "February" "Febuary", and write and say "are" when they mean "our", and they're still wrong. Millions of people can be, and frequently are, WRONG.

Nope and nope. It is up to us who know better to prevent the falling into error and misuse the words with specific definitions, like imply, infer, and atheist. And that's not what a slippery slope error is, as I outlined above. And the "slippery slope" tends to be more accurate than not, in my view. The opposers of homosexual marriage used the slippery slope argument to ask why not close relative marriages and polygamy if homosexuals can get married, and hardly were the words out of their mouths before people started pushing for exactly those cases. There's a thread here on PF pushing the case for polygamy.

 

Very good, you're half-way there... If you do not believe it, then you believe it not, yes? Good luck getting rea, ria, or 5th to agree with what you have already.

 

From Wiki