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

Yes.

However, my statement is well within the meaning. You may remember that I've pointed to this problem of intensity in many of my posts on this thread.

We're dealing with language, and symbols do not fully embrace the range of meaning of our language.

One can't negate an arbitrary verb and then suggest the field is covered without overlap - like you can with symbolic logic.

That's also true for adjectives and nouns. What is "not white"? What is "not belief"? One can make up an opposite as long as you don't care whether the field is covered without overlap.

Within Christianity (and others, I would suggest), we see actions that indicate a broad range of commitment to the belief that life on earth both matters and is 0% of eternal existence as the religion specifies without ambiguity. (I certainly do not mean that to be critical.)

 

Is it unethical for atheists to celebrate religious holy days? Is it blasphemous? Is it disrespectful?

 

Here, you answered your own question. Since your B, "I believe there is no god," will yield on rewriting, "I do not believe there is a god," and B is now equivalent to not A, "I believe there is a god," and agnostics are still possible, it must not follow the law of the excluded middle. Why? Because the negation of a belief is not a logical necessity, i.e., it does not require there to be only two possible answers. The negations of "God exists" and "This is an apple" are logical necessities, there must be a true/false paradigm for the statements, so you can write, "God does not exist" and "This is not an apple" and get an excluded middle. Any other statement that you can write that leaves open the possibility of a third (or more) option means that the negation is not a logical necessity and there is no excluded middle. (Trying to think of another example...) "I am going to the ball game or the concert." "I am not going to the ball game or the concert." Are these the only two options? No, there's a third option not covered by either statement, that he goes to the ball game and the concert. So both of the above statements would be false and there is no excluded middle. Many personal preferences would tend to depend on circumstances, and so while one or the other would apply at any particular time, they would not apply in all circumstances. So, "I like sauerkraut" and "I do not like sauerkraut." True or false? Depends, if it's a side dish with kielbasa, I like sauerkraut, if it's a topping on a Reuben sandwich, I don't like sauerkraut. So is there an excluded middle? I would say not necessarily, there's a third option, i.e., it depends. So the negation of a personal preference is not a logical necessity because there's a third option, a third possibility.

 

"Like" also has a range of intensity, as does belief.

 

Well, I don't agree that "I believe there is no god" rewrites to "I do not believe there is a god", so the argument does not appear persuasive to me.

If the negation of an idea is not a logical necessity, then it is not a negation, and "not" is not the right word to use. If there is a third option, that means the concepts are not negations, since by the law of the excluded middle, there cannot be a third option if the concepts are negations.

Again, I find that your examples suffer from ambiguous wordings rather than the conclusion you give. By saying "I am going to the ball game or the concert", you imply that there is a dichotomy between those statements (not because of the logic your sentence has produced, but because you wouldn't bring it up if you were simply acknowledging the possibility of going to either). In other words, I suggest your example comes from a sloppy wording of "or" rather than an understanding of how negations work.

To highlight this, imagine if you replaced your word or with less ambiguous versions, I suggest "XOR" and "OR" ("OR" being the inclusive or). If you said "I am going to the ball game XOR the concert", then "not(I am going to the ball game XOR the concert)" is the negation. If you say "I am going to the ball game OR the concert", then "not(I am going to the ball game OR the concert) is the negation. See, if the ambiguity of the "or" goes away, then the

The difference here is really subtle, but another way of looking at it is that you're using an equivocation of the word or. I find one set of definitions as follows:

"1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representingalternatives):
books or magazines; to be or not to be.
...
6. Logic. the connective used in disjunction."
(source)
I find the problem is that you use the former in your first statement and the latter in your second statement.

Again, this comes from the ambiguity of the word "like", not from the negation. Do you by "like" mean "there is a situation in which you like this" or "I like this in every situation"? Chances are it is the former (although the logic would be consistent using the latter too), so the fact that you don't like sauerkraut on a Reuben sandwich says nothing about whether "I like sauerkraut" is true.

Most importantly, notice that if you do away with the ambiguity, for instance you say "I like sauerkraut with certain foods", then "not ( I like sauerkraut with certain foods)" is the negation.

To be fair, the same is true in the atheism example, I wouldn't be surprised if someone who said "I do not believe in god" also were to say "I believe there is no god". And indeed, if someone said "I don't believe in god", they are probably in a religious debate, or starting one, so it can often be inferred that they believe there is no god. However, that is an educated guess from the context, not a piece of information contained in the statement. For instance, if there is another context (like considering the convincingness of a religious argument), the same is not necessarily true.

 

I don't have a problem with it. I'm not discussing to convince them, but I'm really quite interested in the subtle fundamental disagreements we have which give rise to the differences we talk about.

At the moment, I have like twelve tabs of unanswered posts, so that's a bit annoying, but I'll live.

 

Travelled all over the world and been invited to all sorts of religious holy days, always followed the dress code and been respectful. That I have been invited back by most would indicate to me I was neither unethical or disrespectful.

It is only the fakers and real hardcore fundamentalists who seam to care.

 

I'm not going to read through 100 pages worth of thread.

No, if people used the word "lacker" to describe pink people, then I would. Dictionaries are a description of the real thing, but a pretty good one. If you make something up in the dictionary, then it just stops being a good dictionary.

I agree, and if you were making your own argument, that'd be dandy, but started out commenting on an argument that already used a particular definition. You can't change definitions partway through, that'd be like taking someone's argument that oranges taste nice, changing the definition to shades of paint and then concluding that orange paint tastes nice (which for the purposes of this example, I presume it does not).

 

Well, there is always a chance.

 

I have not made the claim that you believe this or that, I have only made claims about what you do not believe, beliefs you have not affirmed.

I disagree.

Isn't that effectively what I wrote?

Yes, and that changes the meaning.

The first two examples seem right, but the last one not. Consider what a rock would say. It does not believe anything, so "a rock believes a turtle exists" would be false. However "a rock does not believe a turtle exists" must be true, because the option would be that it does believe a turtle exists, and rocks are unable to believe things.

This example, while being a bit silly in itself, shows that the two statements are not the same (since there are cases, such as a rock, for which one is true and the other is not).

Negations are not conjunctions. P∧(Q∧R)≡(P∧Q)∧R is true, but !(Q∧R)=(!Q)∧R is not (exchanging P for !).

 

thats not the point being made

Did you take a poll of everyone in the world to determine what 'all' people use?
No you took whats in the dictionary and assumed its what all people use.
So we can say all dictionaries are bad dictionaries since they are all opinion based.

again you disregard context and counter with another apple versus car proposition.
try keeping it somewhere in the same universe as what we are arguing speaking of silly.

The term rock was applied to was/is lack NOT believe and disbelieve, specifically when lackers used lack to mean absence or without.

a rock lacks belief that a turtle exists
a rock also lacks belief that a turtle does not exist.

This explains why everything turns to mud using lacker propositional theory.

making the claim that I do not believe is making a belief claim regardless.

You are claiming I own some status that I do not own.

I told you that your claim is firstly vacuous, and does not reflect reality.

You disagree? I guess that settles it then?

No you are inconsistent and interchange sense between propositions which may and has been construed to change context, I would view it as semantically the same, however you made this all about understanding the english language so try to keep the sense of the words you use in context instead of all over the map.

Making an incorrect comparison using rocks does nothing to address the semantics of the 2 statements, in fact it does an endrun around them instead.

So show how those 2 propositions are different

 

QUOTE="Swensson, post: 1068312846, member: 30924"]

The first two examples seem right, but the last one not.[/QUOTE]


They are all correct, but since the first esample seems correct to you and the last 2 examples seem wrong, so lets use the first example and see what you come up with.

koko believes a turtle is in the lake
koko does not believe a turtle is in the lake
koko believes there is no turtle in the lake
koko disbelieves there is a turtle in the lake

a turtle koko believes is in the lake
a turtle koko does not believe is in the lake
a turtle koko believes is not in the lake
a turtle koko disbelieves is in the lake
a turtle is in the lake koko disbelieves
a turtle is in the lake koko believes

in the lake koko disbelieves is a turtle
in the lake koko believes is a turtle
in the lake koko believes there is no turtle
in the lake koko does not believe is a turtle

there is no turtle in the lake koko believes
there is turtle in the lake koko believes

koko believes turtle in lake
koko believes turtle not in lake
koko not believes turtle in lake


all and their negations mean the same thing, if you disagree show what you think s different with more than 'I disagree".
there is no turtle in the lake koko believes

 

Well, I have no time for it but, I appreciate that you have patiently debunked every single point you have come up against. Good job.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

typical lacker BS
feel free to prove it.

All you have shown as fact is that you have no clue how to set up logic statements, which is no surprise to me since you call yourself a lacker!

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

Swenssons error is pointed out.

They are all correct, but since the first example seems correct to you and the last 2 examples seem wrong, so lets use the first example and see what you come up with.

koko believes a turtle is in the lake
koko does not believe a turtle is in the lake
koko believes there is no turtle in the lake
koko disbelieves there is a turtle in the lake

a turtle koko believes is in the lake
a turtle koko does not believe is in the lake
a turtle koko believes is not in the lake
a turtle koko disbelieves is in the lake
a turtle is in the lake koko disbelieves
a turtle is in the lake koko believes

in the lake koko disbelieves is a turtle
in the lake koko believes is a turtle
in the lake koko believes there is no turtle
in the lake koko does not believe is a turtle

there is no turtle in the lake koko believes
there is turtle in the lake koko believes

koko believes turtle in lake
koko believes turtle not in lake
koko not believes turtle in lake


all and their negations mean the same thing, if you disagree show what you think s different with more than 'I disagree".
there is no turtle in the lake koko believes[/QUOTE]

You and the lacker team failed to show it and willie ray agrees that if you cant show it you dont know it.

So you dont know it, and simply continue to repeat the opinion of a dictionary writer, which proves and debunks nothing. Opinions like *******s everyone has one.

 

Oh which rule is that?
I did not attack it either, your mistake, fact is I agree with it, at least the part after the lack.....not my problem it turns out to prove hypocrisy. Maybe you should tell willie to stop posting his signature in a debate ya think?

 

You and the lacker team failed to show it and willie ray agrees that if you cant show it you dont know it.

So you dont know it, and simply continue to repeat the opinion of a dictionary writer, which proves and debunks nothing. Opinions like *******s everyone has one.[/QUOTE]

Fakers claim fake victory again!

 

Stop making **** up, if its not obvious enough to readers that you cant show it therefore you dont know it.

 

Stop making **** up, if its not obvious enough to readers that you cant show it therefore you dont know it.[/QUOTE]
Fakers going to fake, you do not know it. Full Stop. Nothing in over 100 pages and an atheist is still

Someone who lacks belief in gods!​

 

I have shown on numerous occasions where you simply faked it. That is in the thread text.

 

Fakers going to fake, you do not know it. Full Stop. Nothing in over 100 pages and an atheist is still

Someone who lacks belief in gods!​

[/QUOTE]

thats been proven incorrect several times, repeating it doesnt make it any more correct than the first time.

you have 'shown' no such thing, if I said quote it you wont because you cant because it never happened.

oh and calm down, I am growing tired of editing your inability to properly use the quote function, unless of course you want to claim making my statements LOL

 

Here you are faker, http://www.politicalforum.com/index...deities-theory.516057/page-83#post-1068275658

Falsification, then complete denial.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.