I have succeeded every time, and have proven so. and that claim you keep making has been thoroughly disproven. Atheism is the lack of belief, which is the opposite of a belief. not playing baseball isn't a sport or hobby. just like lacking a belief in a god is not a religion or belief. and this is the lie you keep repeating, after being corrected on it. You do not get to determine what I believe or don't believe. I do. I lack belief in a god or gods. reported proven false
you keep trying to tell me that I have a belief, when I have clearly proven I lack belief. you keep trying to tell me that I can't lack belief if I'm exposed to an idea, when I have proven that I can and do lack belief, even though I've been exposed to something.
You have failed every time as has been repeatedly shown It's been repeatedly proven, every time We've proven that wrong as well, with 16 sources that proves you wrong. No one is arguing that a lack of belief is the opposite of a belief, so you can just quit that strawman. The point is that there is no lack of belief. The proper argument BTW is that you lack a belief therefore you are an atheist by definition. You keep putting the cart before the horse with the argument that the definition of an atheist is a lack of belief therefore you have a lack of belief. Using religion against my arguments is a strawman. I have repeatedly said that atheism is not a religion This is your own lie. I am not telling you what you believe or don't believe. I am only pointing out that it is a belief, regardless of what it is. Proven true repetedly.
You've not proven it. You've claimed it. You keep trying to use your singular definition as it it confers the lack of belief upon you. That's not how definitions work. If you meet the definition then the word applies. You are trying to say that I claim the word thus the definition applies. Basically you are saying "I am a dog, therefore I fit the definition of a dog." Absolutely false. the proper argument is "I fit the definition of a dog, therefore I am a dog." So definition disagreement aside, you first have to show how you lack a belief. Not just claim it so. Your beliefs are what you claim them. No one else can say what your beliefs are outside of repeating what you say, or by context of your words, the later which can be misinterpreted. The fact that it is a belief is not the same as what the belief itself it. So you are lying when you claim that I am telling you what you believe.
The way he states it, it forces a critical thinker to ask, 'how much' belief do you lack? 10% 50%? Simply stating he lacks belief does not express a meaning that he is not a theist. He may have 95% zero belief in God and 5% belief in God. He may be a theistic-atheist lack noun noun: lack; plural noun: lacks the state of being without or not having enough of something. verb be without or deficient in. This isnt rocket science though there are those here that would pretend it to be. They are reversing the logic, (they think they are gods), and claim nothing makes something. The pecking order is first you must have something to disbelieve before you can have a disbelief, as it is impossible to have any belief of something completely unrealized. Of course with lack of belief the whole universe, rocks, frogs, gnats well they all lack belief, therefore the whole universe is atheist with exception to someone who expresses a positive belief in theism, to express atheism on the other hand is not required as far as they are concerned. Such absurdity in thinking is unfathomable to any reasonable critical thinkers but these people pedal that sewage anyway, In rahls rendition, he is claiming that someone can be an atheist despite never having been exposed to any proposition regarding a G/god. Then the other one, claims that when I state a straight up fact that I am redefining theism. I am not, but if I were, that would be hypocritical since the lack of belief bunk was used to redefine atheism, which is of course a-ok jimmy dean dandy with him. That said, in agreement with you atheism has to be a rejection in the form of disbelief secondary to the proposition of God, not the other way around. Then to carry it a step further; The proofs are: disbelief in God is a direct negation of belief in God. (we know this person has zero belief in God.) negative- I do not believe God exists positive- I believe God exists There is 100% no question what so ever about the position either person holds no violation of the laws of excluded middle. Now: An atheist lacks belief in God a direct negation: A theist lacks disbelieve in God. Which is a complete violation of the laws of excluded middle since both parties can lay claim everything in the middle. Just another couple nails in the LoB neoatheist coffin.
I thought theists had to actually believe in god. So if one’s position is I don’t care one way or the other ( in other words lack both belief and disbelief) that makes you a theist.
sounds a lot like agnostic doesnt it. sounds a lot like agnostic doesnt it. and the rest of world thought atheists had to disbelieve in God, what a shock to both of us to discover there are 2 sides to that coin huh?.
all of this has been proven false. reported again for intentionally misrepresenting what my position is, as I have clarified it numerous times.
People who constantly yak about how they believe in God are basically full of crap, whether they intend to be or not. What they really believe in is the ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale version of a deity and all of the BS that goes with the creature. Millions of people have believed in all kinds of deities throughout the ages but most modern people instantly reject all of those deities as imaginary but they have a rabid fit when the biblical Gods or the Islamic Allah is kicked to the curb as imaginary. As the Bible says, if God is real he needs to get his butt down here and do something godly. So far, that has never happened.
Nope. Beliefs are generally defined as the conviction that things held in the mind are true. Not believing that something is true is not a belief, is a disbelief. Since different areas of the brain respond to belief, disbelief and uncertainty, identity between belief, disbelief and uncertainty is, to say the least, unlikely. There are scientific studies about lack of religious belief (nonbelief). Seems there are several types of nonbelief. It's a real thing. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_quantitative_study_of_type_and_narrative (press download button to read the study) Lack of belief, as another study shows, is connected to cognitive flexibility, not to lack of knowledge. It's the exact opposite of what you claim. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00426-018-1034-3
I'm certainly not putting much stock in rahl's ability to convey his arguments, but he has for instance here quoted this: Definition of atheism 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism That seems to imply that he's talking specifically about the (positive) belief in the existence of a god (I have yet to see your response to my post on how a belief *in* something relates to "positive" belief). I agree that lacking a positive belief in gods is not a lack of all belief, but it is a lack of a specific belief. I think that can accurately be shorthanded as "a lack of belief" (although I think once it was clear his point wasn't coming across, he should explain it, not just repeat it). For practical purposes, I might agree that if you find some evidence to not be persuasive, then you *believe* the evidence to not be persuasive. However, given the definition above, that's not really a key point. For the purposes of defining atheism so, we're not interested in just any beliefs, only specifically (positive) ones in the existence of gods. If we define atheism as a lack of (positive) belief in (the existence of at least) a god, then there is no particular belief that is equal to that concept. One person who lacks that belief might believe there are no gods, another might believe evidence either way is unpersuasive, a third might never have come across the concept. Saying that atheism is a lack of a (specific) belief is not to say each atheist doesn't believe a bunch of stuff, it is that they are not identified by a particular belief.
A theist does indeed believe in at least one god, but they do not need to worship said god. A position of I don't care, doesn't necessarily reflect their belief. If it were to, it would be the position of believing there is not enough evidence to say true or false.
Yes, your claims have indeed been repeatedly proven false. Once again, you believe what you believe, and that is for you to say. But it is still a belief regardless of what it is. I'm not telling you what you believe. I am only pointing out that it is a belief, as repeatedly proven to you. I am fully aware that you haven't. However, if you are going to claim that I am telling you what you believe, then by telling me that I am fully aware of something you are telling me what I believe. Maybe you need to report yourself while you are at it.
The only explanation I have for your continued misrepresentation is that either English is your second language, or you are trolling. Atheism means the lack of belief. I fit that definition perfectly, as I lack belief in a god or gods. that is by definition, not a belief. you are fully aware that I have. You keep trying to tell me that my lack of belief, which is by definition the opposite of belief, is a belief. You are factually and grammatically incorrect.
Thus the conviction that "gods do not exist" being true would mean a belief. As would the conviction that "the evidence is insufficient to determine if gods exist or not" as true would constitute a belief.
I have no issue with defining atheism as a lack of belief, in and of itself. But no one would know they are an atheist, because as soon as the concept is presented to them, the belief forms, whatever that belief is. From the outside we could see they are atheists, or at least infer it based on lack of evidence that they have been exposed to the concept. I am also ok with the definition being a disbelief, which in simply a negative belief, or the belief that whatever is not true. Now for general conversation, I have no issue with dealing with the colloquial use of the words, because i know what is truly meant. But when dealing with topics like this the colloquial is too imprecise.
I could easily say that you are trolling me, by the way you are using the word. You have been repeatedly shown by multiple sources that your definition is wrong. A disbelief is not a lack of belief. Furthermore, if atheism is indeed a lack of belief, then you can't be one, because we all form a belief when presented with a concept, whatever that belief is. Your failure to recognize it is your problem not mine. Reality doesn't care that you can't see it for what it is. There you go telling me what I believe and know again. I am fully aware that you haven't. When I say that I am fully aware of whatever, that is me expressing my belief. When you tell me what I am supposedly aware of that is you trying to tell me what I believe. You are not telling me it is a belief, but what the contents of that belief is. You have made it clear that you do not possess a belief in gods, so I cannot be mistaken that such is your belief. Which only leaves two other positions in this case. You believe that gods don't exist, or you believe the evidence is insufficient to determine if gods exist or not. Again, I am not telling you what you actually believe, but that whatever it is, is a belief, factually and grammatically.
But you're missing out the definition that is actually being suggested. The suggested definition of atheism is "someone who lacks a positive belief in the existence of a god" (normally, I would have thought "positive" goes without saying, but I'm happy enough to include it). That includes a person who has the belief that there is no god, as well as the person who believes the evidence is insufficient, as well as the person who isn't aware of the concept. The first two of those two people can fall into the definition and simultaneously know that they fall inside it.
Not sure how you could say that, as I'm using it correctly, according to the rules of grammar and the English language. I have not, actually. I've repeatedly provided the definition, with citation showing it's correct. proven this false already. except you and I both know that you are fully aware that I have. I'm telling you that you are aware that I have proven your premise false, with the actual definition of the word atheism. I've made it clear that I lack belief in a god or gods, which is by definition not a belief. and then there is my actual position, which I have clarified a hundred times. I do not believe there are no gods. I lack belief in a god or gods. Fitting the definition of atheism perfectly, which is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is by definition not a belief, and will never be one no matter how many times you wish to troll me.
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ All the other atheists disagree with you, so you can't be an atheist if all the other atheists version of atheism doesn't match yours! LoL You posted the substantial working definition of an agnostic! agnostic noun Definition of agnostic 1 : 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 political agnostics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
you seem to think 2 other posters on a forum constitutes all other atheists. that's just stupid. I fit the definition of atheism perfectly, as I lack belief in a god or gods. Ive never posted the definition of agnostic. Ive posted numerous times, the definition ofd atheism.
do you even know what you said? I've never seen such twisted theories in my life. rahl already told us that he's an agnostic.
