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
    Thats why I like tristate for a case like this, it relieves us of the confusion of his a's and b's etc. That and tristate electronic components are very popular because they are tristate! A tristate device can only produce an output when it is enabled, I dont know is the electrical equivalent of disabling the device, hence no output, while enabled it produces logic true/false. The device in this case cannot be enabled unless one side or the other has bonafide proof, therefore no output condition exists....the exclusive agnostic position swennson is ignoring.
    Thats a good point too, should the day come where either theists or atheists can prove their point agnostics will be found wrong, but until then, with no proof as I said before agnostics have the catbird seat.

    Furthermore he is doubling down on the premise.
    Its not a case of God exists versus God does not exist. That is 2 semantic premises.

    Its a case simply of:

    "Does God exist?"

    where the answer to that single proposition is either yes(theist-response) or no(atheist-response), or I dont know(agnostic-response).

    The answer, yes...no...I dont know, is the result of the respondents belief, in which the question targets, not the other way around in which swensson is trying to approach the issue.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont think Smith sees any of yours or willie rays posts which is understandable since the bulk of your contribution to this thread is and continues to be that you are atheist and lack belief ad nauseum in nearly every one of your posts. Capitalism most certainly is depicted in the bible though not using those words. It requires you to draw on your comprehension abilities to understand its actual meaning, and democracy and individual freedom are illusions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  3. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is correct. I said I would put them both on ignore, and I did.

    Why is individual freedom an illusion? I think it's possible that freedom is an illusion, but I would say that's because all of time has already been written. Everything you think you're going to do in the future you either already have or have not done, and what you think of free will is merely your inability to see in the 4th dimension. However, it's equally possible that what happens in the future is in fact the result of 7 billion people making free will choices. If the future is already written (and I think it is), then it becomes a predestination problem... will you make the choice you will make because of free will or because you are predestined to do so?
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't put you on ignore because you don't scare me but then, I haven't pretended to be what I am not so I have no reason to ignore people that would shatter that delusion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes an illusion, the most obvious supporting evidence is that we have a plethora and I mean thousands if not approaching millions of 'victimless' so called crimes, that is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination. Hell none of us were ever asked to vote on an amendment, the kleptocracy (which is not an illusion) is whos will is being done. I dont see time as a 'dimension', though it has many uses to aid in the understanding anything consisting of sequential events in relation to other things. The way time is presented as a dimension leads those of lower education to believe in time travel and even swensson thinks a single particle can be in 2 different places at once.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lackerism is nonsense if not rising to the level of delusion however. This thread has amply shown that to be the case.
     
  8. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

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

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Smith wants to put his fingers in his ears and shout "I cant hear you" it is his business. As usual you miss the point in order to keep to your political agenda! Is western civilisation from greco-roman ideas or the silly christian god?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  10. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly is, it is a made up word,(by a fool) as a petty childish insult to describe some people YOU disagree with because they screw up your silly political ideas about atheism. You desperately need atheism to be a religion, which it is not.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    William Rea and tecoyah like this.
  11. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At this point, it's not clear what you mean by A and B, whether they things like "there is a god" or "belief that there is a god". "There is a god" is the negation to "there is no god" (since it's impossible for neither to be true) but "belief that there is a god" is not a negation of "belief that there is no god" is not a negation (since it's possible for neither to be true, like for an agnostic).

    If you are talking about beliefs, they can be false at the same time (like an agnostic), so you can't just use A to describe both positions.
    So you're saying that the position of the agnostic is logically impossible? It seems to me that all the world's agnostics show that that's incorrect. It seems to me the gumball example, which is designed to make agnosticism the obvious answer, shows that that's incorrect.
    But "A and Not A" is not "not taking a position", it is taking both positions, which would be a contradiction.

    It seems to me all of the above could be resolved by making a distinction between a statement A and the belief in statement A. Given that A can be true when there is no belief in A, it seems to me necessary to consider them separately.
    I think you'll have problems convincing anyone of that. It is logically impossible as per the law of non-contradiction, and asserts that agnostics believe a bunch of stuff which they don't believe.
    It is perfectly reasonable to break out either part of an and-statement. The problem in your setup lies in assigning a bunch of beliefs to agnostics which they don't hold, including contradictory ones.

    If you consider beliefs, an agnostic does not believe that there is a god, and they do not believe that there is no god. Those are not negations, so your contradictions disappear, and you don't say that agnostics believe anything which they don't believe.
    Again, you're sneaking in "taking a position". It is true that either "1 equala 2" is true or "1 does not equal 2" is true. However, it is not true that either "I take the position that 1 equals 2" or "I take the position that 1 does not equal 2" is true. When you talk about people taking positions on matters, the two are no longer negations (since it is possible to take neither position).

    Anyway, the point I was making was another. The example of "1 does not equal 2 and 1 does not equal 3" shows that if an and-statement is true, then all its operands are true. If it is true that "A and B" then A is true and B is true. Fully true, no half truths. If it is true that "I do not believe that there is a god and I do not believe that there is no god" is true, then it follows logically that "I do not believe that there is a god" is fully true, and "I do not believe that there is no god" is fully true.
    Not taking a stand is not the same as saying that both are false. An agnostic makes a statement that you cannot know about the existence of god (with reservation for exact wording) and that statement is true (at the time). If god turned up and said "Haha, I exist, you were wrong", and agnostic would say "I didn't say you didn't exist, only that it was impossible to know, which (until you told me otherwise) was correct". I don't see how that makes agnostics "wrong".

    Atheism is the state of mind of not having theism, so it seems to me directly contradictory for both to be true at the same time. The reason they can't exist at the same time is not that they're both beliefs/states of mind/whatever, but because the particular state of mind of a theist rules out atheism by definition.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, you can. If I say "I have a right arm and a left arm" is there any possible situation in which that is true where it is not also true that "I have a left arm"? I say the latter is a logical necessity, given the former, and so, splitting a conjunctive truth can create true phrases.
    So, how do you justify setting up the logic as such? I think the overlap follows directly from the definitions we have.

    If the overlap is possible, then agnostics are not wiped out by the fact that 0 corresponds to a subset of atheism (although I'm very suspicious of your setup, God is not a 1, nor are theists god. I understand what you mean, but the sloppy setup opens some gates for some very dodgy logic).
     
  13. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm parsing the premise because the definition of atheism depends on a very specific phrasing. A definition is a list of conditions which have to be true in order for a word to be applicable, so if we want to figure out whether a person can be called an atheist, they must satisfy the definition.

    The definition in question is (roughly) "a person who does not believe in god", which corresponds exactly to that part of the statement that I have extracted. The fact that the person does not believe that there is no god is referred to in the definition, and so, it is unimportant when it comes to assigning the word "atheist" to people.

    A lack is "the state of being without something or not having enough of something". It's an or-statement, so only one of the subclauses need to be true. Given that the first one is true, the second one does not matter.

    Belief is to accept something as true, which seems binary to me. If there is any percentage involved, then you haven't really accepted it (no matter what confidence you require to accept it).
    I have no problems properly constructing beliefs and evaluating them from the framework of an agnostic. A belief is accepting something as true. A theist accepts that god exists as true. If one is undecided on a proposition, it seems to me erroneous to accept it as true. You may accept it as possible, but for it to be called a belief, you would have to accept it as true. It seems to me, agnostics do not say "god is true", so they lack the acceptance of that statement, i.e. the belief. Being an atheist is not to have voted no, so much as it is not to have voted yes, a statement which is true both for those who vote no and for those who have not voted.
    It has happened to me many times that I have lacked milk, and I have talked about this with many reasonable people. Not once has someone asked how many percent of milk I lack. I don't know how I would answer that, I think the question seems nonsensical.
    No, I'm asking them a completely different question. The piece of information that I am interested in is whether they fulfil the definition of an atheist (to not believe/affirm that there is a god). It is you who then draw the line to those who believe that there is no god. That's a statement I'm not trying to make, yet it is the statement you mostly argue against.
    I'm not working with yays or nays, as you say, I have not received either from agnostics. I am working with the fact that no yays have been said, that is all I need for the logic I use.
    Not if "does not believe" is not the same as "believes the opposite".
    I don't see a wrong answer. It seems to me the criterion by which you assess its wrongness is the problem. I take out a very specific statement, and I make that statement, it is you who're trying to link it to a bunch of other statements which might not be true.
     
    William Rea likes this.
  14. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Regardless of your nifty made up words and inability to comprehend basic concepts, I will again try to clarify:

    Just think of it this way...just as you consider Allah to be a false God, I consider YOUR God as false. It does not even matter which one you are defending...it is false. Every Single version we humans have created, believe in, worship or fight over is quite simply NOT GOD.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not so, lackers are the ones who demand we go with popular usage, well here you have it, popular usage at its finest!

    lacker
    A wanna-be hacker, but lacks the technical skills and talents required to be a real hacker. Lackers use code or programs created by others (real hackers), convinces himself that he has somehow reached a level of technical ability simply on the fact that he was able to run or compile the code. Yet, he does not have the capacity to create anything original to solve real problems.
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lacker

    The comparison is uncanny,

    Now I suppose you want to switch hats and claim we should not use 'popular' understanding of a word!
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atheism means lack of belief. That hasn’t changed in 122 pages.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    once again your belief in the sense you use it is 100% irrelevant, atheism is denial of the existence of any G/god, that hasnt changed. No one gives a **** how you structure your beliefs, your end game is denial and that has not changed since the creation of the word. :roll: Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion that has not been fully debunked?
     
  18. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I argue in my book that a victimless crime law is pretty much the only kind of law that you can be sure isn't designed by the government to repress people. Since the government gains no benefit from the law itself, and actually incurs costs to itself in enforcing the law, a victimless crime law could only be motivated by issues of morality rather than the need to sustain itself. What you're referring to is "license". Here's the difference: Freedom is the right to do whatever you want, as long as it is moral. License is the right to do whatever you want, as long as it is immoral. The acts of speaking, worshipping, assembling, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, engaging in whatever occupation you desire, etc., are moral. The acts of engaging in drugs, prostitution, or self-destruction are immoral. Generally speaking, Republicans favor as much of the former as possible while repressing the latter. Democrats favor as much of the latter as possible while repressing the former. That's not freedom, that's the illusion of freedom. Prostitution is legal in Mexico but Mexico is rated as much less free than most Western nations.

    Scott Adams, writer of Dilbert, has an interesting take on the "kleptocracy", the "patriarchy", etc. He used to be poor and now he's rich. He said he used to be on the poor side, where society is very much a matriarchal society, with women having all of the power and the state bringing all its power to bear on behalf of women. Now that he's one of the 1%, he's part of the patriarchy, where white men very much have all of the power and everyone else has to cater to them. But he notes that anyone can be part of that 1%, and many women and minorities now belong to the "patriarchy" even though it's predominantly white and male. So, do we have a kleptocracy? Meh, kind of, but anyone can make himself part of it. It's not an exclusionary club. 80% of America's billionaires earned their money, they didn't start out with it. And as George Soros manages to prove every 8 years, even billions won't buy you an election.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    However if you do the truth table the consequent has a completely different meaning, simply put 1/2 the story, creates a lie by omission when applied to an agnostic. so 'actually you cant'. (and you have 2 distinct objects, the proposition God exists is 1 object) Nice try though.

    In electricity there is no question if there is overlap because it blows up! lol there is no overlap. 1 is not 0, 0 is not 1, 1 is not -1, and -1 is not 1, 0 is not -1 and -1 is not 0, can be much more simple than that. Not at all, though I would agree that it opens the door for more vacuous truths, as they are understood in logic, which is why this would only be used situations like agnostic to insure continuity between reality and logic.
    Then according to your rules the condition of denial 'must' accompany the claim or there is no distinction between them and agnostic, in effect you have agreed with me once again.
    Again the psychological condition is irrelevant, what is relevant is the denial of existence of God. No one cares how an atheist became an atheist, no reason to care since you cannot be an atheist if you do not say by whatever construction you wish to use, that God does not exist. Very simple really.
    No its an or 'condition' for our purposes in which the reader can choose either which means once again that its vague and useless since not enough equally applies regardless if its 1%, 10%, 60%, or 99.9999% lack.
    The proposition is binary, by accepting God exists it goes without saying you believe God exists, by accepting God does not exist it goes without saying you believe God does not exist, how much you lack is irrelevant.
    Again Smith made a HUGE effort to explain in great detail that you can believe anything, flase, tru, maybe, and so forth, belief is not restricted to that which is true but it reflects what you think is true. Agnostics accept as true that the proposition God exists cannot be known, therefore abstain from a vote.
    Again and again atheist is part of the binary response to the proposition God exists. Again you cannot be an atheist without denying the proposition God exists. Does God exist? Yes = theist, no = atheist, I dont know = agnostic, seriously it does not get more simple than that.
    Yeh same here, so I called up a neighbor and told them I lack the 3 cups of milk needed to make pudding, so I borrowed 1 cup of milk to make the pudding.
    Calling themselves atheist fulfills the definition, an attestation of denial that God exists hence they are atheist.
    Once again I and Smith have explained the flaws in your logic. You cannot use logic to change the meaning or outcome of a proposition and call it legitimate.
    Irrelevant! How and what you use to draw your conclusion that you are an atheist matters not. Claiming you are atheist is the binary confimation of the denial of the proposition God exists.
    Does not matter what you see. What matters is what it is. Smith and I have shown you what it is, but you can only lead a horse to water.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you are arguing government as 'religion'.

    A moral assessment is with regard to quality factors, a determination of what is best for the person making that determination. The government was never given the authority to determine 'what' is moral, hence the 1st amendment which incontrovertibly expresses government's agreement to stay the hell out of the religion/moral business and contrare, they made a huge kleptocratic monopolicized business out of morals and religion. Case in point the use of marywanne, hell they even have laws against suicide, you have no right to your body under the state. The maxim for freedom is not limited by morals, it is limited only by trespass, hence 'thou shalt not injure/damage another' while exercising their free will.

    Our good friend marshal single handedly by/with the composite of decisions he played a crucial role, undermined literally everything the so called founders fought for in the revolution.

    All remedy is subject to our kleptocratic 'law', as I said earlier which has a profit based court and legal system to maintain which they have done quite well.

    Law is big business, nothing to do with 'freedom'.

    They call it a 'democracy' despite it operates no different in 'substance' than the kleptocratic monarchy it presumably replaced.

    Freedom requires rights without rights freedom is an illusion.



    Contrary to popular belief based upon disinformation, the people not in government have standing above government for 'religion', 'speech', 'arms', 'privacy' etc. Government (who like a monarchy) is not the 'people' but a corporation under the sovereign-king-state just so happened to hijack and claim our rights for themselves.

    The only 'legitimate' boundary for government is when an injury in fact takes place to enforce the determination of a jury of peers. That is not how government operates in substance however, they simply create victimless crimes and make lots of money in the process.

    Here is more government at its finest! :)

     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  21. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, you haven't been following the thread. I'm an atheist. I know that what I believe is just that, what I believe. Other atheists seem to believe they know the TRUTH, but when pressed for facts or evidence, they have none. All they can do is claim theists have no facts or evidence, which is not proof of anything. When asked for logical arguments on behalf of atheism, atheists deny needing any, claiming only theists have to prove their case. That's not a logical argument, it's a cop-out. My thesis is that atheists are believers, just like theists. So far, I haven't found one atheist who could convince me otherwise. You fail, just like all the rest.
     
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except it means the lack of belief in a god or gods.


    .
    Atheism, by definition, is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.


    The only thing that has not been debunked, in 122 pages, is that atheism means lack of belief in a god or,gods.
     
    William Rea likes this.
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You being convinced is entirely irrelevant. Atheism means what it means. And it means lack of belief in a god or gods. If theists present their god as an assertion (god exists) the burden of proof is on them, not on the atheist.

    This is very basic stuff.
     
    William Rea, Arjay51 and tecoyah like this.
  24. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, all laws have to do with morality. Things that are factual need no government law to enforce. Even taxation can be said to be motivated by moral decisions, that is, who will be taxed, how much will they be taxed, and what kinds of exemptions will there be, are all moral decisions, not factual ones. About the only law I can think of that is completely arbitrary is called the mailbox rule, in contract law. An offer is made or accepted when it is dropped in the mailbox, not when it arrives to the person addressed to. In the UK, it's the opposite. An offer or acceptance is not made until it reaches the recipient. Neither solution has any more moral force than the other. All other laws regard morality, not facts.

    As much as I enjoy George Carlin's comedy, his rank as a political philosopher is pretty low in my estimation. If you want a comedian whose political philosophy I can get behind, try Evan Sayet.

     
  25. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really are a theist in spite of all y our denials. You provide zero evidence of your claims yet demand that other supply evidence for their lack of "faith".

    Speaking of not being logical, that is what you continue to do, while denying that this is exactly what you are doing. A true theist, ignoring all evidence and facts presented to you. Another act of a true theist. Your claims mean nothing to anyone with a functioning thought process, but since it give you a warm fuzzy feeling, it does no actual harm. Most just ignore what you say as being false.

    Talk about failing, you are the definition of it.
     

Share This Page