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

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Oct 8, 2017.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here I will give you a reason. I am a pure agnostic, where the hell is it on your diagram?

    Futher more you talk about leading to contradictions when you talk about everyone else but fail to acknowledge the contradictions (more like chaos) the lacker crowd is presenting. They cant even get the propositions categorically correct.

    its been shown countless times by myself and others, that absence does not work, insufficient does not work, that little problem with negation again.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as you can see lack is neither a synonym nor an antonym of belief.

    Synonyms and Antonyms of belief

    1
    mental conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon

    a belief in UFO's led him to relentlessly scan the nighttime skies

    Synonyms of belief
    credence, credit, faith

    Words Related to belief
    axiom, law, precept, principle, tenet assurance, certainty, certitude, conviction, positiveness, sureness
    confidence, dependence (also dependance), reliance, trust
    hope
    doctrine, dogma, philosophy

    dogmatism, fanaticism, insistence Phrases article of faith

    Near Antonyms of belief
    distrust, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty

    Antonyms of belief

    disbelief, discredit, doubt, nonbelief, unbelief

    2
    an idea that is believed to be true or valid without positive knowledge
    it's my belief that the sky is blue because our eyes perceive the color blue easily

    Synonyms of belief
    opinion, conviction, eye, feeling, judgment (or judgement), mind, notion, persuasion, sentiment, verdict, view

    Near Antonyms of belief
    fact, truth


    https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/belief

    Looks to me like belief is already covered and has a direct antonym, disbelief.

    Definition of atheist

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


    Synonyms and Antonyms of disbelief

    refusal to accept something as true
    their story explaining their absence was met with frank disbelief

    Synonyms of disbelief
    incredulity, nonbelief, unbelief

    Words Related to disbelief
    discredit, distrust, doubt, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty, denial, rejection, repudiation, unfaith

    Near Antonyms of disbelief
    acceptance, conviction, faith trust

    Antonyms of disbelief
    belief, credence, credit


    I dont see lack in there anywhere.

    That said it since lackers claim to lack believe it appears from the definition that lackers have no mental conviction of the truth.


    So since internet atheists want to rewrite the dictionaries tell us where your 'lack' would fit in since it looks to me like lack does not even so much as indirectly apply to either a synonym or antonym of belief.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  3. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Because it doesn't make any sense in the gumball example to be a "disbeliever". In fact, anyone claiming any knowledge in your gumball example would rightly be considered completely irrational unless he put the gumballs in the jar in the first place. "I don't know" is the only rational position in your example.


    Because LOGIC, dammit. Atheist means not theist. They must mirror each other. So I still want to know, based on pure logic, how you disprove the claim that theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God. Because if you can, you also disprove the claim that atheists lack belief in the existence of God. I have proven it several times now, but I want to see you do it now.

    If you're willing to admit that, then you're admitting that not b(not A) = b(A); in like fashion, not b(A) = b(not A).

    So why do you keep trying to sweep him up in the definition of "atheist"?

    That's hardly relevant to the logic of the situation.
     
  4. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since when does "gnosis" refer to proof rather than knowledge?

    Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (γνῶσις, gnôsis, f.). The term is used in various Hellenistic religions and philosophies. from Wikipedia
     
  5. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Falsification again, it is not the way it has been since the beginning of time, definitions have changed over the years, and proofs of this have been posted. You and Smith simply ignore them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
    William Rea likes this.
  6. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually over and over again you have shown yourself to be a Theist pretending to be agnostic in order to scream against the imaginary atheist government you hate. Do you really think you are fooling anyone?
     
    William Rea likes this.
  7. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The wiggle/evasion word in the prior diagram is 'presently'.
     
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How can that not be true? If you have a word which is defined as the lack of a belief in the existence of god, how is it not true that it describes whether you lack (or have) the belief in the existence of god? Unknowable doesn't mean you believe it, so by the law of the excluded middle, the negation must be true. And again, I'm not telling you what you believe, I'm telling you what that which you believe is called.
    The definition I have provided makes agnostics compatible with atheism, so I am in no way trying to pry you away from the middle of agnosticism.
    I just use the logic notation because you insist on bringing it in. I prefer to use normal language, but I have no problem representing my position or refuting yours using formal logic.

    I have shown you that your setup leads to agnostics not existing, which sounds more vacuous to me. My logic seems perfectly consistent to me.

    Negations work perfectly in my version. A negation follows the law of the excluded middle, so if atheism is the negation of theism and you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.
    What you call disbelief is not a negation (since it does not follow the law of the excluded middle). That being said, the word disbelief is also sometimes used to describe the actual negation, but that would be more akin to my atheist definition.
    You still haven't said what a percentage of a belief or lack thereof means. If I think there is a 50% chance of something being true, then I do not accept it (since I acknowledge the chance that the opposite might be true), so I have 0% belief. I don't really know what it would mean for someone to have 0.001% belief.
     
  9. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I mean, the example is set up to highlight the position of the agnostic, so that the reader will identify with the agnostic and easily understand his reasoning. However, the example is by no means incapable of dealing with active beliefs, for instance, as you point out, you might have put the beans in, or the person who did might have told you how many beans there are. Or he might have told you but you think he's trying to trick you. There is nothing keeping you from considering a person who has justifications for belief.
    How do we determine what a word means? We look them up in dictionaries (not because dictionaries decide, but because they mimic usage, which decides), that's what they're for.

    Now, this is making it sound like I'm rejecting logic, but that is of course not true. In this case, mostly by accident, I think, you make my argument. You say "Atheist means not theist", and given that you use the word not, the two should follow the law of the excluded middle, and it should not be possible to not be at least one of them (as you claim that agnostics are).

    I have yet to see a reason, logical or otherwise, as to why they should mirror one another. Existence is the negation of non-existence, yet they act very differently, they do not mirror. Clearly, mirroring does not follow from negation.

    What do you mean? Theists lack the belief in the non-existence of god (just ask a theist, they will not tell you that they believe there is no god). However, not all who lack the belief in the non-existence of god are theists.
    No, I'm admitting b(A) → not b(not A). If you believe there is a god, then you necessarily have to not believe that there is no god. However, it does not go both ways, not believing there is no god (just as Kokomojojo might) does not mean that he believes that there is a god. Just like saying that "if an apple is red, then it must not be green" does not mean "if an apple is not green, it must be red".
    The definition of an atheist is "one who does not believe in god", which is the negation of "one who believes in god". They are negations and follow the law of the excluded middle. Since he is not in the "one who believes in god" category, he must, by the law of the excluded middle, be in the other.
    I think it's very relevant to the situation. Many of your arguments rely on the mirroring of my arguments, but given that the definitions, as defined by usage and described by dictionaries, do not easily allow that (or at least not in the way you're doing it). You keep trying to find different angles, redefine theism, presuppose mirroring in definitions, and so on, but it will always fall on the same point, when the original argument was made, atheism was well defined to work the way I have provided, and the same is not true for theism.
     
  10. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the blue or green, I'd say. To be fair, I'm not convinced by that picture either (there are some issues with wordings too), I'm just making the point that you showing a picture does nothing to further your cause.
    It has seemed to me that every contradiction you have managed to bring up goes away if one stops secretly assuming different definitions at the same time.
    None of these have been problems to the way I view it.
     
  11. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Source on that statement?
    Well, the point is that using the definition I have provided, the positions are not contrary. Once that point gets across, the rest is trivial.
    I think this is an interpretation issue, an agnostic will know about the mystery of whether there is a god, but does not know the answer to the mystery of whether there is a god.
    I am still unconvinced it comes in any other amounts than 1 or 0. You either have it or you don't. What would it mean for someone to accept something to 1%? If you're not convinced by it, then by what definition have you accepted it?
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the whole of the lacker religion is based on the opinion of some dictionary writer and their parrots despite being a philosophical failure.

     
  13. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not "a" dictionary maker, it's a whole slew of them. And they don't just sit and dream things up, they do their research. It's not like dictionaries are always perfect, but to dismiss it because you don't like it seems hasty.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you think an atheist knows whether there is a God? Explain.
    Well if its a one and a zero then the appropriate word is disbelieve, not lack. believe/disbelieve is true false, believe/lack is not because lack could mean insufficient which is not a 1 or a zero.
    that same definition works equally well for theists and gobbles up everyone as a theist. I would be equally disturbed if theists tried to gobble up agnostics.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they are like newspapers, and web pages they copy each other, want to sell a new dictionary add new words and remind everyone to stay up to date. DIctionaries as I have said repeatedly and as she pointed out most often print in accordance with their religion, atheism included. Philosophy sorts it all out and you reject philosophical reasoning and wound up with a totally unusable definition, as stated earlier because theists can use it as well to classify everyone as theists trampling all other well known and understood options like pure agnostic which no longer exists in your world..
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Its impossible since there is no agnostic in your diagram at all! ....and doesnt claim proof is not a definition for agnostic.

    By definition an agnostic takes no position what so ever and here are the atheists trying to force not one but both positions on agnostics, against our will, why?


    yep good point! Gnosticism is a freakin religion! So now they [internet atheists] are combining a religion into the definition of atheist and theist. May just as well say judaic atheism, or catholic atheism, or [insert choice of religion]+atheism.

    Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jewish milieus in the first and second century AD. Based on their readings of the Torah and other Biblical writings,[specify] these systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the Divine spark within the human body. This Divine spark could be liberated by gnosis of this Divine spark.

    and to use it as 'having knowledge' it goes without saying that both atheists and theists by default, of their positions alone are claiming knowledge, the only one not claiming knowledge is the one not taking a position and that is the agnostic.

    Then again I suppose they could argue that they took their position purely out of whimsical ignorance!
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1
    lack

    "Lack" Waterford, Ireland Slang for Girlfriend.
    Went out with the Lack last night, Then gave her a seeing to afterwards!

    2
    lack

    reffering to the vehicle known as the Caddilac.
    "Damn that lack is pimpin on dem dubs"

    3
    lack

    v. the absense of an object or ability
    "this chick looks good as hell but she lacks a nice ass"
    "he's tryna play me in a one on one but lacks basketball skills"

    4
    lack

    A small amount. Or someone being tight, stingy or cheap.

    (Heard in south east London)
    "He gave me lack"

    "Quit giving me lack"

    5
    LACK

    something that is Lame and W A C K
    Well thats pretty much LACK!!


    6
    Lack

    A big strip of fat across one's face
    "Omg that part of your face is fat! You have a serious lack"


    7
    lack

    The state of being negative. Void.
    This chocolate lacks sugar; it isn't sweet!


    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lack

    and just for the record since you want to run with 'popular usage' there is what popular usage buys you.

    Now what the hell you gonna do? Just like you they come up with their own definitions without consideration for anything else.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  18. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am an Atheist, I lack belief.
     
    William Rea likes this.
  19. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have 96 pages of you and smith (who are clearly theists trying to shift the burden of proof) trying to tell others what we believe. We know you have done this because you wish for the good ole days of wife beating(as you described).

    Swennson has shown you failed at logic, try understanding that.
     
    William Rea likes this.
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nice spin, swensson showed well more like proved he does not understand logic
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    translation: koko and xws gotcha by the balls 'again'! :winner:
     
  22. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am also an atheist and I also lack belief. Philosophistry hasn't changed that so far.
     
  23. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am an atheist, I lack belief.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am an agnostic and lackers havent changed that.
     
  25. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Make up your mind, which is it? Do we look up words in dictionaries or do dictionaries take their definitions from popular usage? To my mind, most people use words in their popular usage meaning without ever looking them up. And many times they use words incorrectly. Benjamin Franklin recorded that during his day, people were misusing the term "improve" to mean "utilize". He noted that in one instance, the author of an ad for a building for sale had written that it had "recently been improved as a tavern". The descriptivists would have written this down as a perfectly legitimate usage, while the prescriptivists would have written it down as "nonstandard", i.e., wrong. Fortunately for English, the usage didn't last.

    I don't see the problem with having an excluded middle AND having someone who says, "I don't know." Someone who says I don't know is not an atheist and is not a theist, but if you are one, you're not the other, you can't be in the middle. The agnostic is taking a third or neutral stance, he is not saying God half exists and half doesn't exist. You can be pregnant or not pregnant, you can't be sort of pregnant, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of being male and not capable of being pregnant.


    Since we don't know what non-existence would look like, I don't think you can assume that. When we say someone is not alive, we mean he is dead. Alive and dead don't look alike, but the terms do mirror each other in their meaning.


    Again, you are splitting definitions and thereby making them false. One more example: the word "fetch" means to go and get and bring back. You cannot split out the definitions and say that fetch means to go and get. That's not what fetch means, and splitting the definition in such a way makes your definition wrong.

    You're mixing your colors here. You have to use red on both sides. If an apple is red, then it must be not not red. If an apple is not not red, then it must be red. It cannot be any other color if it is not not red. That is the nature of negation. That is the nature of identity. Kokomojojo does not "not believe there is no god" because he does not take a stand on the question. Only atheists and theists do. So if you do not believe not A, you must believe A.

    Good luck getting the other atheists on this thread to agree to that.

    Again, false, the excluded middle doesn't exclude the possibility of other stances, such as "I don't know." "Have you stopped beating your wife?" only allows for two answers, yes or no, but the excluded middle does not exclude the possibility of another stance, such as, "I never did beat my wife."

    I've spent my entire life rejecting the opinion of the populace, for the simple reason that most people are ****ing idiots. Just because a group of people get together and "decide" that X means such and such doesn't make it so. Just because some dictionary writers include the usage in their dictionary doesn't make it right. (Websters Third International included "infer" in its definition of "imply", but it's still wrong.) If you can't mirror the arguments, then "atheist" no longer means "not theist", but becomes lost at sea in a fog of meaningless nonsense.
     

Share This Page