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

You're a ****ing parrot, on iggy you go.

 

Completely absurd and a total misrepresentation of what Swensson has advocated however, is anyone surprised at that?

If I say that, 'I am an atheist and I lack belief' what is the important thing to take away from that?

In this shoot out, the first person to reach for the dictionary and etymology lost the argument. It is dishonest in this context when a definition has already been provided and consistent application of it has already been requested.

 

Yup, but, I am an atheist parrot that lacks belief. It makes little difference to me but, I did have a huge laugh reading the opening parts of your (coughs) 'book'.

 

Webster--Merriam Dictionary:
1 : Agnostic : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Atheist : a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

So the two definitions according to Webster-Merriam, and my interpretation of them is: An agonistic is a coward who stands in the middle of road going maybe maybe not, and probably about everything, including contradictions such as the possibility of snow in the desert diuring 100 degree temps, while at the same being rain. (in logic, contradictions are logically impossible and point to an error in one of your premises). While an atheist calls it as it is and states I am without belief in God, or for that matter any supernatural nonsense, e.g., ghost, women who give birth to elephants, or dieties that can make a kangroo be a mack truch that is actually a giraffe that speaks 3 languages and eats humans for dinner.

In essence, the coward's stand of agnosticism: Maybe, Maybe not. Unknowable:
Now the heroic stand of staying true to reality: No, I have no belief in a supernatural deity called god. Why. No evidence to support such a supposition. Therefore it is illogical to have a belief in that which hasn't been proved. Therefore, I have no belief.

Point bland: Cowardly agnostic: Just might be, because it is unprovable
Heroic atheist:, N0! No belief! Because it hasn't been proven.

In imy estimation, the agnostic is one who hasn't the courage to say no to the existence of God, while an atheist does. As for the term agnostic-atheist, it is a contradiction, and is dead wrong, and an unnecessary concept. Your either are or aren't, to claim to be both is the worst kind of cowardice, the fear of offending by defending the truth. There is no God as there is no evidence to support his existence. God is all about faith, not reason, logic, or science.

God isn't dead, he never existed.

Ayn Rand: "[There is] a widespread approach to ideas which Objectivism repudiates altogether: agnosticism. I mean this term in a sense which applies to the question of God, but to many other issues also, such as extra-sensory perception or the claim that the stars influence man’s destiny. In regard to all such claims, the agnostic is the type who says, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other.

The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/agnosticism.html

Yaron Brook and Dave Rubin: Objectivism, Religion, and the Role of Government:


Man's only truth: Reason; Sense of Wonder by Byran Larsen @ http://cordair.com/artists/larsen/works/sense-of-wonder/index.html

 

I am an Agnostic in that I do not "Know" what is possible.

I am an Atheist in that I do "Know" any of the "Gods" human worship is a created and imagined entity.

Obviously you can be both because I AM.

 

Oh, I see, we are just going wipe out definitions and form unecessay concepts? You aren't a schizophrenic by any chance.

Best wishes and good luck.
Mr. Contradiction, party truth and partly fiction--paraphrasing Chris Kristofferson
As a last request and advice: Check your premises, one or more are wrong in your logical construct.

Remember, contradiction's can't exist, e.g., a leaf can not be all green and all black at the same time. Your statement above is one such example--stating you are a purple zebra, doesn't make you one.

Furthermore, what is possible is that which is possible, at all times in the universe, and therefore is knowable.--Geez, this is elementary logic. Something a first year high school student ought to be able to grasp

Start taking a stand that's logical and stays true to truth, you coward.

Have some frigging balls! Because what you write is gibberish.

 

Use your definitions and apply them to my commentary, you will note the accuracy.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. I have already explained my reasoning. How you decide to proceed is your choice, as is how I will decide to proceed. There is no more need for further discussion.

Best wishes and Good luck.
Starjet

 

I will not allow you to insult me so hatefully and then run away...THAT is the definition of the cowardice you accuse ME of. It is painfully clear you have been shown the inaccuracy found in your position and become upset enough to lash out in anger. This level of childish behavior is unworthy of attention and thus I agree you and I should no longer engage in debate.

Have A Nice Day

"
Start taking a stand that's logical and stays true to truth, you coward.

Have some frigging balls! Because what you write is gibberish."

 

I have no idea what this irrelevant word salad has to do with atheism not being a religion?

 

uh, it's reality.

ok? they are all religions.

believing in a god or gods is by definition, a religion.

irrelevant. atheism by definition is not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

This is very simple.

 

But if you say that, then it's no longer true that ¬T→A, since ¬T could also be an agnostic.

 

I didn't choose the definition here, it was chosen by whoever it was who made the argument that Kokomojojo addressed. Probably several people.

How would you resolve the orange example if that was not allowed? Is it logically inconsistent to talk about orange the fruit just because orange the colour exists?

Well, Kokomojojo stated clearly in the OP that he was referring to arguments made using the "lack" definition. However, his criticism of it is made using the other definition, that's the switch that I'm objecting to.

Well, that's certainly one point where we disagree. It seems to me the two are different. For instance, Kokomojojo, being an agnostic, falls under one definition but not the other. How can they then be the same?

Consider the gumball example. There is a jar with a number of balls in it, and there's a game to say if there is an even or an odd number. Let's say the statement A is to believe that there is an odd number of balls. An agnostic (which should be most reasonable people without further knowledge) will commit to neither position, so he will not believe evens and he will not believe odds. Clearly, not believing evens does not mean that you have to believe odds.

Sure, but you'd have to make your own argument doing it. There is nothing linguistic keeping you from doing that, but it would be slightly weird, given that nobody talks about theism or agnosticism like that. Atheism is however often referred to in that form, as is indicted by many dictionaries.

I mean, I always defined theism as the belief in the existence of a god. If you point at a theist and say "that person believes there is a god", then you are correct. It's not like theists can't exist if there is no god (just if they know that there is no god).

I think the example misses the point of the definition I have provided. It relies more on the idea that to not believe is not the same as believing the opposite, which doesn't really have an equivalent on the theist side.

In this case, you produced arguments which I have not made. I'm not saying my definition is right because I say so (for which your mirroring to theism would be a good argument) but it is acceptable partially because it is an often used definition, and the arguments that Kokomojojo was addressing defined it for us, neither of which is true for "theism", so the mirroring doesn't work.

 

Not sure which negation you're talking about.
¬T → A
T → ¬A
are combined to be A = ¬T, if that's the negation you're talking about.

What you have provided is not a definition. It is true that theists lack belief in the non-existence of god, but it is not sufficient to lack the belief in the non-existence of god to be a theist. However, for atheism it is, and that's why there is a number of dictionaries that provide the definition I have suggested for atheism, but I daresay not a single one that provides your definition of theism.

Not really, as long as it is accepted (and known) that he refers to bananas, the statement is true.

If there was no god, it would be incorrect for a theist to believe there is a god, but it would be correct to say about that theist "he believes in god" even if there isn't a god.

 

96 pages and atheism still means..........lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Amen to that, brother. Amen.

 

Hallelujah people.

 

As already shown, if you believe the proposition(s) are unknowable, then you are implicitly assuming that god(s) do not exist (because if a god did exist, it could presumably make itself known if it so chose). Which leaves us with the other definition of agnostic you sometimes use when it suits you: "I don't know if the existence of god(s) is knowable", which clearly does not contain the belief that your quoted position (i.e. agnostic atheism) contains.

 

Religion:
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Idioms
9. get religion, Informal.

1. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
2. to resolve to mend one's errant ways:
   The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

theism:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theism

Please note that nowhere in the definition of religion does theism or God enter into it. Likewise, nowhere in the definition of theism does religion enter into it. So you're just full of **** that belief in God is a religion by definition. Meanwhile, many atheists (I am not one of them) do indeed practice a religion, whether it be Unitarianism, Buddhism, Jainism, or secular humanism. (Consider def. 3, a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.)

 

I disagree that he falls under the "lack belief" definition, because it's insufficient to describe where he stands. See below for new example.

I'm not fond of the gumball example because there's no way to be a believer or a disbeliever. Let's try a new example. Believers are inside the house, disbelievers are outside the house, and agnostics are standing in the doorway. It is wrong to say that agnostics are "not inside" the house because it implies that they are outside the house, but that, too, is incorrect. Your modern definition of atheism is to say, "I'm not inside," without explicitly saying, "I'm outside." And thereby, atheists hope to include agnostics in their definition and avoid having to support their position with logic and arguments.

"Indicated". We've already discussed how "many dictionaries" use a descriptivist methodology rather than a prescriptivist one, and that I disapprove of that approach, so I don't think rehashing that at this point is helpful. We can say that the dictionaries are wrong to redefine one term without redefining the other term because one is supposed to be the negation of the other.

So, if you point at an atheist and say, "That person believes there is no god," you'd be equally correct. That's why one is the negation of the other.

Which is why it doesn't work as a definition.

Yes, I know, on purpose. I'm taking things to their logical conclusion, that if you redefine one term to remove its truth value, then you must necessarily redefine the other two terms to remove their truth value. So then no one has to support his/her contention. The logic koko used for the switch to say that theists lack belief that God does not exist works just fine. Try proving that this is in any way, shape, or form different from the atheist argument. Prove that theists don't lack belief, and explain how that's different from how atheists lack belief. Using your notation, this would be not b(not A). And agnostics like koko would fit this definition just as well as your definition of atheists, not b(A). So then koko is a theist and an atheist.

 

The word atheism in this case does not attempt to describe everything about his stance, it only attempts to describe whether he lacks belief, and it does so well.

I like oranges and I like apples. It is not incorrect for me to say "I like apples" just because it doesn't capture the fact that I also like oranges. The fact that the word apple-liker fails to describe my stance towards all kinds of fruit does not make it incorrect.

What do you mean no way to be a believer or a disbeliever? You can believe "there is an even number of gumballs in the jar". You can also believe the opposite, or refrain from believing either. I think it provides a good example of a situation where not b(A) and b(not A) are clearly separated, which is the point I'm using it to make.

Why would "not inside" imply "outside"? If there is a third way of being, then it would be incorrect to assume that "not inside" implies "outside".

Why would that be wrong? The definition of atheism that I have suggested captures an interesting interpretation, which many are interested in talking about. I struggle to see that the same would be true for a redefinition of theism. I see no reason why they would have to be completely mirrorable opposites, and I don't understand by what authority they are "supposed" to be.

You say that one term is supposed to be the negation of the other. I imagine that's not really the argument you want to make, given that negations follow the law of the excluded middle, forcing anyone who is not a theist to be an atheist (including agnostics).

Not really, or rather, it depends on which atheist you point at. Given the "lack" definition, atheists can also include, for instance agnostics, who would not hold that belief.

Why would that make it not work as a definition?

Why would I have to redefine the others? We have added the other definition of atheism because the word atheism is being used in that way. The same is not true for theism, and there is no law forcing us to "necessarily" keep the symmetry between the concepts.

Of course, theists also lack belief in the non-existence of god, but that's not the part of the definition. It is true that for an agnostic as Kokomojojo it would be correct that "not b(not A)". However, that doesn't make him a theist.

Your mirroring attempts will all boil down to the fact that the "lack" definition of atheism exists, is common, even, but the theist one has more or less never been heard, and is not a part of the english language.

 

we have gone down the logic road before and it turned out to be a giant effort of futility. WS has given you several proofs earlier in the thread and its like you and the internet atheist crowd never saw them.never saw them. So lets try a picture.

Since rara and willie ra believe and a few others claim they are agnostic atheists show us how they can possibly blend since they each have completely different qualities and meaning.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. I'm not failing to understand the view you hold, it just fails to convince me. As for xws, it's the same, it's a decent job in telling me what it is, it just doesn't tell me why I should believe it.

You have provided a picture, but you have provided no reason for me or anyone else to believe that and more than for instance this picture:

In this picture, it is not very hard to pick out where an agnostic atheist goes. It is even written in.

In what sense was the logic futile? I showed how your setup lead to contradictions and therefore cannot be a good representation. Of course any argument will become futile if you jump ship as soon as I isolate the point where I think you're wrong.

 

The diagram I posted is the way its been since nearly the beginning of time.
I dont have a problem with it being changed.
I want to see the proofs how the 3 independent meanings which have contrary positions can contain that blurry middle.

It looks like you pictorial has some problems right out of the gate. Claiming proof and claiming inability to solve the problem are to entirely different things.

gno·sis
noun: gnosis

1. knowledge of spiritual mysteries.

Both theists, atheists, and agnostics all have knowledge of spiritual mysteries.
Theists accept them, atheists reject them and agnostics sit on the bench with I dont know.
So I want to know how they can legitimately blend as shown in your diagram.
Why do these people think they are both?

...and we still have the problem of how much does one need to lack before the scale tips from theist to atheist, or vice versa?

 

thats not true, first off as I have told you before I have my own belief, that BOTH propositions are unknowable, now you and willie ray and the other internet atheists are trying to tell me what I believe.

I belong smak in the middle of agnostic, nowhere else and if you cant understand that I frankly dont see how the internet atheists can understand any of this well enough to debate it.

You continually try to use vacuous meaningless logic to substitute as a bonafide truth statement, its not, no matter how you try to package it. That should be intuitively obvious, first because you cant properly negate it.

Truth statements have to be negatable and belief already has a negation called disbelief.

and you still have not given us a percentage of lack one must possess before they are an atheist.......which should be painfully obvious why lack doesnt work either in terms of absence or insufficient.