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
    He has been told that many times, a composition fallacy.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

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

    when you say you are going left right those same dolts will tell you that you cant go left and right at the same time, which is a direct analogy to what those dolts have been telling you about your atheist lack of belief.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  3. 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.
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You missed out answering a lot of the stuff here. I have provided arguments for the gumball example, not b(A) ≠ b(not A), the double negation example and so on.

    I don't think what you've said means I have misapplied the law of the excluded middle. It applies to any negation, and I have only used for those. I agree, the statement says nothing about whether 33000 gods exist. It also doesn't say anything about the colours of bananas, the meaning of life, or indeed anything but the idea that a god exists, and I don't think that's a problem for the statement. Now, we have been a bit ambiguous, but it could easily be fixed. Without loss of generality, the same arguments I have made could be made about the statements "exactly one god exists" or "at least one god exists". I would say "a god exists" means "at least one god exists", but I'm not opposed to the idea that it means "exactly one god exists". My arguments will remain the same, either way.
    The law of the excluded middle applies to any negation. I have applied it to two different concepts (and their negation). First, I have said either "god exists" or not "god exists" (i.e. either "god exists" or "god does not exist").

    On the next step, people have beliefs. People can have the belief that a god exists. People can have the belief that god does not exist. It is also possible for people to hold neither of those beliefs. Belief that god exists and belief that god does not exist are not negations and do not follow the law of the excluded middle, so it is possible to hold neither.

    Now we can introduce a negation. In this case, look at believing in the existence of god. We can negate it by introducing a not (at the "outermost" level), and the negation becomes "not believing in the existence of god". Now this was constructed to be a negation, so it does follow the law of the excluded middle, you either do believe in the existence of god, or you do not believe in the existence of god.
    Well, according to the definition I have suggested, only some atheists subscribe to what you call option 2.

    That being said, since you don't seem to believe that "I don't believe X" is different to "I believe X is false", you've needlessly lost a distinction in the middle of the argument.

    According to the definition I have suggested, atheists "do not believe in the existence of god" (which is a negation of believing in the existence of god), but not necessarily "believe in the non-existence of god" (which is not a negation of theism, just the opposite of theism).
    Kokomojojo fits into "does not believe in the existence of God" but not into "believes god does not exist". The fact that that doesn't describe the entire situation, just like it also doesn't describe that 2+2=4, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

    The difference to your reptile example is that atheism is in this case defined to be exactly the negation of theism, whereas mammals and reptiles are not negations (I wouldn't even say opposites).

    The implication that you're still beating your wife is not a part of the statement, that's a assumption that a listener might make, but might make incorrectly. To stop beating one's wife is to not do it after having done it, if you have not gone through that change, you have not stopped. The implication is an error on the behalf of the listener, not of the stater.
    I'd say dark and light effectively work as a negation. If you say "we have classified our colours into bright and dark colours", that ought to do it. It is of course an artificial structure, but it serves the purpose.
    Again, those are implications, they don't follow from the logic or the words, they follow from the context. As you have pointed out, implications are not necessarily true. Polytheists would still be theists, assuming as I've said, that we're talking about the existence of at least one god (although I acknowledge that I have been sloppy with that wording for the sake of brevity). I don't know exactly what animists believe on what counts as a god, so there, I can't tell.

    It is correct that "I believe God does not exist" necessarily means that "I do not believe that God exists", but not the other way around.

    In this case, we've provided a definition which is only the "does not believe in the existence of god part", which is supported by a number of dictionaries. It's not just a failure to see the entire definition, it's an entirely different (although related) definition.

    Imagine the statements "I like tea" and "I like coffee". Consider the term not-coffee-drinker, defined as "not liking coffee". You are a not-coffee-drinker if you do not like coffee, it does not matter if you like or dislike tea. If you dislike coffee, you are a not-coffee-drinker, regardless of whether you drink tea or not. Similarly, according to the definition I have provided, you are an atheist if you do not believe that god exists, regardless of if you believe that he does not exist.

    Now, if you were to assume that a coffee drinker drinks tea, that's not necessarily true. It might be, but does not have to be. As you can see, whether lack of one implies the other depends on the statements. In the case of tea and coffee, the implication is possibly incorrect.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it is, it follows the law of the excluded middle (when paired with theism).
    Well, by what logic are those people not atheists if they fulfil the definition of atheists? That's the point of a definition, that the word applies to everything which fulfils the definition. If you use some other method of figuring out who is an atheist, then you are guilty of equivocation, which is a fallacy.
    No, the lack of the belief in the existence of god is a sufficient criterion to be an atheist (which is why it is the definition), whereas the same is not true for theists (go on, show me a dictionary that says theism is the lack of the belief in the non-existence of god).
    Ridicule won't help you.
    I have met all the contradictions and sorted them out.
    You'll have to take that up with them, I haven't read their posts.
     
  6. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So a person who believes that there are no gods is not a non-theist?

    It seems to me non- also implies negation, and I would expect anyone who is not a theist, including those who believe in the non-existence of god, to be in that category.
    You should know by now that just writing it in bold font doesn't do anything to show that it is so. I have shown dictionaries which acknowledge the definition I have provided.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least stick with the same tense, which is still incorrect first because its semantic second because there is no evidence koko believes anything other than the existence or nonexistence of god cannot be known at this time, third because it qualifies under the associative rule P∧(Q∧R)≡(P∧Q)∧R, hence the rest is in your imagination.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    try reading the thread, I redacted that.
    so then if I write a dictionary tomorrow that says all lackers are pink then you are going to argue all lackers are pink because its in the dictionary not because you can prove the logic.

    well nah nah neener neener! I also have shown dictionaries which acknowledge the definition I have provided. so there! and my dictionary has a prettier cover and leather bound backing too! so there!

    Thats how much value the reality of your dictionary claim has. Try to stick with proving it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont blame you, I expect there are many people like you that dont read their posts.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    especially the nonexistent ones!


    1) You have no evidence what so ever to base your claim on that koko believes God does or does not exist.
    2) In fact the evidence you do have contradicts your claim, such that koko is an agnostic and abstained from a response to the proposition believe/not-believe god exists.
    3) Since you have no evidence your conclusion that koko or any agnostic believes God does not exist is irrational.
    4) Further what you posted is a semantic equivalent despite you disregarded proper sense..
    5) You should have written: "Kokomojojo fits into "does not believe God exists" but not into "believes god does not exist". At least the sense is the same though it does not help you for all the other reasons given.

    All you did was switch the subject and predicate around.

    Try this, kokos grammar school is in session:
    I see a turtle in the lake
    In the lake I see a turtle

    I believe there is no turtle in the lake
    In the lake I believe there is no turtle

    koko does not believe a turtle exists [in outer space]
    koko believes a turtle does not exist [in outer space]


    No difference in meaning!


    P∧(Q∧R)≡(P∧Q)∧R

    semantics!
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does not make the proposition/logic/proofs any less correct.

    and all gay [happy] people are fagots, by 'dictionary' definition. As you should be beginning to see that betting all your money on "the definition" 'especially' when there is more than one, is a one way ticket to failure and no different than saying your dad is bigger and stronger than my dad, nah nah nah. So now what you gonna do to solve your dictionary definition as God dilemma?
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

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

    BINGO!

    I dont think these people understand the associative principle in grammar or the purpose a conjunction plays in a sentence. They understand it when it comes to money though! 'I must be on time and work every day mon-fri., that they have no doubt or questions about. It was this same kind of **** with 'pull it' and second amendment arms debates. People today are largely illiterate, or obtuse, in denial or all the above.

    I think I said this before that he is committing a composition fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  13. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I may go back to it, I just wanted to address the excluded middle specifically.

    And here's where you run afoul of reality. The negation of a belief is not a logical necessity. Furthermore, since you cannot hold an absence of a thought, the negation of a belief necessarily implies the belief in the opposite. I do not believe Hillary Clinton is trustworthy. Therefore, I believe that Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy. Someone can be an agnostic on the subject, to say that he doesn't know whether or not HRC is trustworthy, but then you would not impute either belief to that person, that HRC is or is not trustworthy. You would not lump agnostics on HRC in with those who believe that HRC is trustworthy any more than you would lump them in with those who believe that HRC is not trustworthy. (Interesting statistics to consider side-by-side: 11% of the populace believed HRC to be trustworthy during the election. 14% of the populace believes Bigfoot exists. So Hillary Clinton is less believable than Bigfoot.) You can, along with the Red Queen, believe five contradictory things every morning before breakfast, but you can't disbelieve anything without believing the opposite. Why? Because you can't hold the lack of a thought in your head. It's like air in your tire. If you take the air out of the tire, the tire doesn't hold a lack of air, it's flat. If you put something else in the tire, then it has something else in it, it does not "lack air". So you can replace one belief in your head with another belief, but you can't have a "no belief" situation.


    They must subscribe to it if they subscribe to the first statement. And if you pin them down hard enough, they will cop to it, as ria and rea have.


    That is the argument.


    Ah, but it does make it incorrect. It makes it a half-truth, which, as I've already quoted the aphorism, is no better than a lie. Particularly in this case, because to leave out the other half of the statement, "Kokomojojo does not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God," paints him as an atheist and not an agnostic.


    But they are mutually exclusive. There are no mammalian reptiles or reptilian mammals. In a like manner, there are no atheistic theists or theistic atheists, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a third type of beast, birds or agnostics.


    Clarity is the responsibility of the speaker, not the listener. If the listener can draw an incorrect conclusion from what you say, that's on you, not the listener. If someone asks you if you've stopped beating your wife and you say, "no," it's not up to the listener to clarify that you are not a wife-beater. Likewise, if you are an atheist, and you make a statement that could label you as an agnostic, it's not up to the listener to ask for clarification. (I really need to stop using "likewise", or find another word to serve.)


    All your analogies fail for the same reason, that you use A & B rather than A and not A. Green is not equivalent to not red, tea is not equivalent to not coffee, and orange paint is not equivalent to not orange fruit. However many times you want to say not B is not not A doesn't change the fact that not not A IS A.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I do not believe Trump is trustworthy.

    Therefore, I believe that Trump might not be trustworthy.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    reduces to:
    therefore trump is not trustworthy

    the second sentence is a duplicate of the first.

    when you think of logic think of a light switch on/off true/false
     
  16. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    These two statements are not equivalent. Taking, "I believe Trump might not be trustworthy," and going the other way would yield, "I am not sure Trump is trustworthy." That's a weaker statement than, "I do not believe Trump is trustworthy."
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thats another thing you may have noticed these guys have big problems with, which may not have been clear in my post. Weak or strong atheist is still atheist. I can only guess part their dogged insistence to label themselves agnostic-atheists is because they are weak atheists, but like beer, weak beer is still beer not koolaide.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pointless, as without merit. Not even close to clever.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I'm sure they wouldn't let a doubting theist off the hook as far as proving their point is concerned, so why should we let a doubting atheist off the hook? Not that any of these guys have any doubt, just a catchphrase that they think lets them off the hook. Starjet is more like a real life atheist, arrogant and condescending toward believers, but still not willing to support the point with actual arguments.
     
  21. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fair enough, it's getting kind of lengthy, I have twelve tabs with unanswered messages that I intend to get around to.
    What do you mean by logical necessity? Negations appear wherever we put them. Whenever we put a not somewhere, we have created a negation. We don't have to put nots everywhere, but we often (always?) can, and if we do, it follows the law of the excluded middle.

    Why does a flat tire not have a lack of air? It is in the state of being without air, or with not enough of it, so it fulfils the definition. Lacking is defined as not having (any or enough) of something, and in accordance with the law of the excluded middle, if you don't have it (like a tire which does not have air) then you lack it.

    Your HRC example is an implication and comes from the context, not the logic. There is a difference between merely making a statement which is true, and making a statement with the intent to bring attention to a certain issue. I remember being in a store with my mother and she'd say "I don't have coffee", and the implication would be that I should go and get coffee. At other times, we'd be at home when someone was visiting who might ask for coffee, and not "I don't have coffee" implies that they have to choose something else (just an example, my mother wouldn't be caught dead without coffee for visitors). Implications such as the one you have provided change with the context, and do not in themselves follow logically from the statements.

    You say you can't "hold" a lack, I'm not sure what that means. In order to have a lack, you simply not have it. It doesn't require you to allocate a space in which you would have it, it just means that you don't have it. I don't see why our heads couldn't hold that (not that it requires anything of a head to hold such a thing).

    Why must they? It is the definition that determines what they must, and the one I have suggested does not require that. Don't get me wrong, many will, but that's not to say that they have to.

    Well, then you should argue it, not just switch unnoticeably in the middle of an argument.
    "I like apples" leaves out the fact that I like oranges, does that make "I like apples" a half-truth and therefore incorrect?

    Half-truths are only half-truths if the listener expects a bunch of information which isn't included. If I'm discussing whether a person does not believe in god, then only that piece of information is necessary. If you want to figure out in addition whether they also believe that god does not exist, you're free to go and ask them, it is not logically included in the statement.

    True. But we're not questioning whether atheists and theists are mutually exclusive.

    The error is still on their part, going from "I have never gone from beating my wife to not beating her" to "I once beat my wife" does not hold up in logic. I would really say that it is the listeners' responsibility to not mess that up, but I agree that they might fail to meet that responsibility, and as such, it might be prudent of you to give further information.
    Well, that's where the beliefs come in. If A is "I believe there is a god" and B is "I believe there is no god", it is possible to be neither (like an agnostic), so in other words, the two are not negations (if it was, it would follow the law of the excluded middle and agnostics would be impossible, and that is clearly not the case). B = not A is false, since there are ways to be neither.
     
  22. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It does, since you make the assumption that "the lack of belief in the non-existence of god" is sufficient to be a theist, whereas the definitions say no such thing.
    No, you're doing equivocation again, using two definitions interchangeably.

    We put all our money on the definitions no matter what we do, we just don't always look this closely at it.
     
  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.

    Even after 100 pages you have nothing. In fact, you probably have less than when you started because you blew your own position apart while attempting to tell me what I believe or don't believe. Philosophistry that any extremist religionist would be happy to espouse is all you have.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  24. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Before we hit 100, I'll just say that I admire how you have patiently banged your head against the wall in order to educate these people but, I fear that you are not going to reason them out of a position that they have reached irrationally. I've learnt some things from you though so, thank you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  25. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An excellent critique of William Craig Liar and the fakers position.



    Some may recognise the alleged intransigence of Craig Lane, reflected by the fakers is this thread.
     

Share This Page