The atheist gods of 'Lack', the only true religion?

Then perhaps you should take your own advice and stop defending the existance of god. You have just as much evidence for that assumption as I do for rocks being sentient.

 

Please look down and place your hand in front of you, palm up. There is not a purple unicorn shooting fire from its nose in your hand.

You have just proven it does not exists right now.

 

Nothing like unwittingly proving me correct!
to exist is to be, to be is a verb as well.
one function of transitive and intransitive verbs 'is' to connect nouns or adjectives for instance to an action. verbs are actions, to exist describes an action.
Believe describes an action of acceptance 'to hold' as true and disbelieve describes rejection, 'to hold' as false.
Nothing like proving you do not comprehend the language.

I've done no such thing, thats all in your imagination. Not true, rocks do not live, therefore cannot be sentient, which is a property of living things.

not if you cant prove it! Atheists brag about how they use facts and only facts in their decisions in what they accept as true, so the only way you can legitimately accept that God does not exist is to provide a 'fact' and I have been waiting for a long time to see you produce the fact, and have seen none.

to accept that something does not exist without proof is faith based belief and the foundations of all religions.

 

You seem to be answering to something I haven't been saying.

My line of argument is a response to your statement here:

I have suggested something which is a verb (exist). Rocks exist and existing is a verb.

 

But also, the more central line of discussion, which you allude to here, got lost when you posted videos from the children's show. Let's get back to that.

I don't agree that that means that the word disbelief needs to be as the result of a decision. What logic/rule/otherwise do you derive that from?

It is not clear to me why a definition "using" the verb believe would mean that the word itself is a belief.

 

maybre if you bothered to first learn how to understand context and second click on more than one definition. ability is used in terms of sentience, if you think not be my guest find any usage where belief or disbelief is something accomplished by an inanimate object such as a rock.


dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: secondarystressdis-bschwa-primarystresslemacronf
Function: noun
: the act or state of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
http://wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?disbelief

Disbelief

Dis*be*lief" (?), n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing.

Tillotson.

No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness that disbelief in great men.

Carlyle.

Syn. -- Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.
http://www.websters1913.com/words/Disbelief


disbelief Play dis·be·lief

Use disbelief in a sentence
noun

Disbelief is defined as an unwillingness to accept something as true.

If someone tells you that they saw a ghost and you doubt their story, this is an example of when you feel disbelief.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/disbelief



Definition of disbelief
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

Disbelief
See also Skepticism.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

dis·be·lief
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

2. disbelief - a rejection of belief

disbelieve (disbiˈliːv) verb
not to believe. He was inclined to disbelieve her story

ˌdisbeˈlief (-f) noun
the state of not believing.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Disbelief



dis·be·lief (dĭs′bĭ-lēf′)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.


disbelief (ˌdɪsbɪˈliːf)
n
refusal or reluctance to believe
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014

2.disbelief - a rejection of belief
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection.

disbelieve (disbiˈliːv) verb
not to believe. He was inclined to disbelieve her story.poner en duda
ˌdisbeˈlief (-f) noun
the state of not believing. She stared at him in disbelief.incredulidad
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary


disbelieve verb [ I or T ]
to not believe someone or something:
Do you disbelieve me?
They said that they disbelieved the evidence.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disbelieve


disbelieve
Word forms: disbelieves, disbelieving, disbelieved
transitive verb
If you disbelieve someone or disbelieve something that they say, you do not believe that what they say is true.
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary.

(ˌdɪsbəˈliv ; disˌbəlēvˈ; ˈdɪsbəˈliv ; disˈbəlēvˈ)
verb transitive
Word forms: ˌdisbeˈlieved or ˌdisbeˈlieving
1.
to refuse to believe; reject as untrue
verb intransitive
2.
to refuse to believe (in)
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition.


disbelieve in British
verb
1. (transitive)
to reject as false or lying; refuse to accept as true or truthful
2. (intransitive; usually foll by in)
to have no faith (in)
disbelieve in God
Collins English Dictionary.


disbelief

noun [uncountable]

the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected

This is the American English definition of disbelief. View British English definition of disbelief.

American definition and synonyms of disbelief from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Education.

disbelief - definition and synonyms

Using the thesaurus

noun [uncountable] disbelief pronunciation in British English

the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected

This is the British English definition of disbelief. View American English definition of disbelief.
disbelief
Disbelief is not believing that something is true or real.
She looked at him in disbelief.

disbelief
distrust, doubt, dubiety, incredulity, mistrust, scepticism, unbelief

English Collins Dictionary - English synonyms & Thesaurus


disbelieve ( disbelieves 3rd person present) ( disbelieving present participle) ( disbelieved past tense & past participle ) If you disbelieve someone or disbelieve something that they say, you do not believe that what they say is true. verb
(Antonym: believe) There is no reason to disbelieve him... V n, Also V that


https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/disbelieve


definition of disbelief

noun; doubt, skepticism


Synonyms for disbelief
noun doubt, skepticism

distrust
incredulity
mistrust
atheism
dubiety
nihilism
rejection
repudiation
unbelief
spurning
unbelievingness
unfaith
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/disbelief

Disbelief

DISBELIEF, noun [dis and belief.] Refusal of credit or faith; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/disbelief

 

That doesn't seem correct to me. There is no problem with using able for things that are not sentient.
"The stadium is able to hold 25,636 people" (source)
"and the intense heat would be able to bake it in 1 or 2 minutes" (source)
"there are more surface molecules per unit of volume that are potentially able to escape" (source)
"Starlite is a material claimed to be able to withstand and insulate from extreme heat" (source)

I'm having problems finding that for practical reasons (regardless of whether it's the right way to think about it, I can't think of any context in which this would be discussed). So instead I went looking for a similar word, "think". I think they are equivalent, given that they both require a brain (which is the important distinction in this example).

I agree, of course, that "rocks believe" and/or "rocks think" is incorrect.

"Rocks don’t think! They don’t have a will!" (source)
"So although rocks don't think like humans (indeed, rocks don't think at all)" (source)
"The point being, of course, that rocks don’t think about anything at all" (source)
"The idea is silly; inanimate objects don't think" (source)

And that's just for rocks. Usage seems to suggest that inanimate objects such as rocks are able to not think despite (or rather by virtue of) their inability to think.

Translating that to beliefs, that would be equivalent to "rocks don't believe". Note that the writers do not imply not(think) = think(not). When someone says "rocks don't think about anything at all", they don't mean that rocks are deep in thought considering nothingness or some rejection/opposite of everything or anything. They refer to what a rock does when it is unable to think at all.

I have shown you a slew of examples of definitions which are perfectly usable. You are right in that there are other definitions too, but that isn't really a problem, since people are able to choose definitions when making an argument (like the person talking about tasty oranges having chosen the fruit definition rather than the colour).

 

Then you have to believe in Unicorns and the Flying Sphaghetti Monster, and ghosts and Leprechauns and every other fictitious creation of man. Your position fails on just pure stupidity.

And it is a fact that " there is no fact to show that god exists"

 

constant barrage of word salad from you! you should have been a political speech writer. you are the only person I have ever seen that can prove themselves 100% wrong then turn right around in the same sentence and double triple and quadruple down by inventing yet more piles of word salad bullshit to save face. This always winds up with people filling in your wacky rabbit holes due to the inability to comprehend proper gramattic usage and frankly gets pretty old after a while.

 

you have shown me that every source you provided agrees 100% with me and disagrees 100% when it comes to your diatribe. Your orange garbage doesnt even apply here on any level yet you throw it in for good measure.

your source 4:

Yahweh reacts to Jonah’s flight by hurling a “great wind” great storm” against the ship where Jonah is a ger. This is part of a rather unusual view of God in Yahweh is depicted as a real micromanager, personally J in every facet of the story. These are the second and es (in addition to the reference to Nineveh as a great :he word “great” in Jonah. There will be other “greats” in notably the famous "great fish.” The frequent use of s a mark of the book’s penchant for hyperbole. The ; so severe that the ship is on the verge of breaking up. brew literally says that the ship “thought about” breaking up. The idea is silly; inanimate objects don’t think. But like this one occur repeatedly in Jonah and are a sure it the book was not written as history, ner laughable image follows immediately. With the ship ; danger, everyone on board prays fervently. Everyone, sxcept Jonah. He is asleep in the hold, completely s to the weather and the peril of the ship. The Hebrew 111 nirdam) means to sleep soundly or deeply; the translation even adds the detail that he is snoring! humorous, the scene also suggests how far out of ith God’s activity Jonah has become.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NfLAbOy_vHkC&pg=PP15&lpg=PP15&dq="objects+don't+think"&source=bl&ots=jVbm_tfeNU&sig=lb1K_VmXNfvrwALxlT_ytU92Xp8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJ05vGhOXcAhXFCsAKHfnTAkUQ6AEwAXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q="objects don't think"&f=false

your source 1:
Bears obey God’s law prescribing winter hibernation. Eagles obey the laws of physics as they soar on mountain drafts. Planets remain patiently in their prescribed courses as they travel around the sun. Rocks obey the law of gravity, falling dutifully when they get loose, and yielding parts of themselves when commanded by the laws of erosion.

Ah, you protest. These are inanimate! Rocks don’t think! They don’t have a will!

But then why does Scripture say the day will come when the mountains and hills shall break forth into singing, and the trees of the field shall clap their hands (Is. 55.12)?

met·a·phor
noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

And that the stars in the heavens fought against the wicked general Sisera (Judges 5.20)?
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/01/the-only-creatures-who-disobey-god

And again you turn to theists to support your neoatheist wackadoodle word salad.

your source 3:
Up with Pan-Experientialism!

Pan-experientialism is the idea that all things in the world experience ‘being’ over time. Forces and events in the world ingress into things in a way that is experienced by those things.

Few things have the same qualitative types of experience. Rock-being-ness isn't human-being-ness (and human-being-ness isn't what it used to be). Alfred North Whitehead puts it like this: experience is the base of all being; consciousness is the apex of all being. So although rocks don't think like humans (indeed, rocks don't think at all), at some base level of being, humans and rocks both experience.

Furthermore, humans don't consciously ‘think’ everything that we ‘experience’. We affectively and bodily experience all sorts of things we don't ever think at all. Only a fraction of our human experiences ingress into our conscious (or even subconscious) awareness.

Pan-experientialism means that humans are a little more like things than we thought, and that things are a little more like humans than we thought. It doesn't mean that humans are mere rocks, or that rocks have consciousness.
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/manifesto-theory-‘new-aesthetic’

This one reduces humans to things as the above idiot thinks something that is not conscious can have experience.

your source 2:
Krauss may "suspect that, at the times of Plato and Aquinas, when they pondered why there was something rather than nothing, empty space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about,"[38] but these suspicions are informed by his own anti-philosophical prejudice rather than by the historical facts. Aristotle wittily defined nothing as "what rocks think about."[39] The point being, of course, that rocks don’t think about anything at all. Robert J. Spitzer notes that:
Parmenides and Plato … use the term ‘nothing’ to mean ‘nothing’ (i.e. ‘that which there is no such thing as’).
https://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss

Its becoming increasingly clear that you need to take some classes in grammar and usage since on one hand you argue that everything is just dandy in the world of dictionaries that people would be able to comprehend the senses used and on the other hand you never seem to get it right.

 

a·ble
adjective
adjective: able; comparative adjective: abler; superlative adjective: ablest

1. 1.
   having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something.
   "he was able to read Greek at the age of eight"
   synonyms: capable of, competent to, equal to, up to, fit to, prepared to, qualified to; More
   allowed to, free to, in a position to
   "he will soon be able to resume his duties"
   antonyms: incapable
2. 2.
   having considerable skill, proficiency, or intelligence.

again a description intended to convey properties of something living, regardless of the plethora of metaphors you try to use as our proof otherwise

think

verb
verb: think; 3rd person present: thinks; past tense: thought; past participle: thought; gerund or present participle: thinking
1.
have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.

round and round you go, being proven wrong on every conceivable level means nothing to you, perpetual disingenuous academic pretense!

 

If you want quantum stupid its the neo atheists inability to comprehend abstention from taking a position before the facts are in.

 

That definition doesn't exclusively apply to living things. Inanimate things can have opportunities ("a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something" (source)). Either way, I have suggested several phrases which would be impossible if "able" referred only to living things (like "the stadium is able to hold [howevermany] people").

How is this proving me wrong? I said I used one in the place of the other because I think them similar enough. The fact that one can be defined as the other seems to me to support my argument.

 

Again, you seem to comment on an argument I'm not making.

The point I was making, on your request, was that when people talk about rocks' inability to think, "rocks don't think" is a suitable phrase. They don't say "rocks neither think nor not think". I'm not suggesting that we take any of the arguments from those sources (if I did, I would have quoted them in full), I'm just pointing out that "rocks don't think" is a suitable way to describe the relation between rocks and thought (given that rocks have no brain and thought requires brains). That's also why I chose sources from different sides of the religious debate.

Similarly, they would say "rocks do not believe" rather than "rocks neither believe or not believe". As we both have shown, disbelief can be defined in terms of not belief, so "rocks do not believe" can be phrased as "rocks disbelieve".

 

when you say "able to not" as you did previously with the rock it does.

rocks cant do anything, they certainly cant think or become a negative verb

now you are back to your improper grammar.

They dont need to, we know or should know that any inanimate object has no thought therefore its impossible for a rock to do.

"Usage seems to suggest that inanimate objects such as rocks are able to not think despite (or rather by virtue of) their inability to think."

you continually switch the senses around and pretend they are the same.

As I have said, you continually switch the senses around and pretend they mean the same in attempts to slip past your previous mis-usage. So while its possible to define many things in many ways it does not mean they are interchangeable and purposely ambiguous grammar as the neoatheists have an continue to use is disingenuous deceitful grammar, like the word lack which is where this all started before the grammar lesson.

as I pointed out:

dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: secondarystressdis-bschwa-primarystresslemacronf
Function: noun
: the act or state of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
http://wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?disbelief

Disbelief

Dis*be*lief" (?), n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing.

Tillotson.

No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness that disbelief in great men.

Carlyle.

Syn. -- Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.
http://www.websters1913.com/words/Disbelief


disbelief Play dis·be·lief

Use disbelief in a sentence
noun

Disbelief is defined as an unwillingness to accept something as true.

If someone tells you that they saw a ghost and you doubt their story, this is an example of when you feel disbelief.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/disbelief



Definition of disbelief
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

Disbelief
See also Skepticism.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

dis·be·lief
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

2. disbelief - a rejection of belief

disbelieve (disbiˈliːv) verb
not to believe. He was inclined to disbelieve her story

ˌdisbeˈlief (-f) noun
the state of not believing.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Disbelief



dis·be·lief (dĭs′bĭ-lēf′)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.


disbelief (ˌdɪsbɪˈliːf)
n
refusal or reluctance to believe
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014

2.disbelief - a rejection of belief
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection.

disbelieve (disbiˈliːv) verb
not to believe. He was inclined to disbelieve her story.poner en duda
ˌdisbeˈlief (-f) noun
the state of not believing. She stared at him in disbelief.incredulidad
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary


disbelieve verb [ I or T ]
to not believe someone or something:
Do you disbelieve me?
They said that they disbelieved the evidence.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disbelieve


disbelieve
Word forms: disbelieves, disbelieving, disbelieved
transitive verb
If you disbelieve someone or disbelieve something that they say, you do not believe that what they say is true.
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary.

(ˌdɪsbəˈliv ; disˌbəlēvˈ; ˈdɪsbəˈliv ; disˈbəlēvˈ)
verb transitive
Word forms: ˌdisbeˈlieved or ˌdisbeˈlieving
1.
to refuse to believe; reject as untrue
verb intransitive
2.
to refuse to believe (in)
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition.


disbelieve in British
verb
1. (transitive)
to reject as false or lying; refuse to accept as true or truthful
2. (intransitive; usually foll by in)
to have no faith (in)
disbelieve in God
Collins English Dictionary.


disbelief

noun [uncountable]

the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected

This is the American English definition of disbelief. View British English definition of disbelief.

American definition and synonyms of disbelief from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Education.

disbelief - definition and synonyms

Using the thesaurus

noun [uncountable] disbelief pronunciation in British English

the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected

This is the British English definition of disbelief. View American English definition of disbelief.
disbelief
Disbelief is not believing that something is true or real.
She looked at him in disbelief.

disbelief
distrust, doubt, dubiety, incredulity, mistrust, scepticism, unbelief

English Collins Dictionary - English synonyms & Thesaurus


disbelieve ( disbelieves 3rd person present) ( disbelieving present participle) ( disbelieved past tense & past participle ) If you disbelieve someone or disbelieve something that they say, you do not believe that what they say is true. verb
(Antonym: believe) There is no reason to disbelieve him... V n, Also V that


https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/disbelieve


definition of disbelief

noun; doubt, skepticism


Synonyms for disbelief
noun doubt, skepticism

distrust
incredulity
mistrust
atheism
dubiety
nihilism
rejection
repudiation
unbelief
spurning
unbelievingness
unfaith
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/disbelief

Disbelief

DISBELIEF, noun [dis and belief.] Refusal of credit or faith; denial of belief.

Our belief or disbelief of a thing does not alter the nature of the thing.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/disbelief

 

https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/sentence-structure.html

 

Says who? It was my sentence, why do you get to decide what I meant by the words? I think it's pretty obvious from the context that I don't mean that a rock has a brain which in turn possesses the mental capacity to choose to refrain from thinking, just like "the stadium is able to hold 26000 people" doesn't mean that the stadium possesses an active skill to contain people.

You keep repeating that, but you can't seem to back it up, and you can't seem to meet the arguments I have against it. I can think of things that rocks do and don't do. A rock exists. Another rock doesn't exist. I see nothing grammatically problematic about a rock existing or not existing.

It's not even me, it's the sources that I've been referring to, and they use it the same way as I would.

Again, doing something doesn't imply that it is done as the result of a decision. Rocks exist, that is something they do, yet they don't require a brain or a decision to do so.

I'm not pretending they are the same or interchangeable, both just happen to be true for rocks.

 

In a sad sort of way Im glad its come down to this, since if not for you its a great opportunity to show how ****ed up your grammar games get.

A human because a human is alive and sentient can 'choose' and therefore is able to 'not think' by blanking their mind for instance, a rock however, its impossible for a rock to do anything much less be 'able' to choose to not think. negating a verb simply reverses the action of the verb. incapable, unable, inability correctly conveys that a rock cannot think. if a rock is able to not think (the negative verb) then it is equally able to think, (the positive verb), since both denote the same action. think of it like moving in a positive (right) or negative (left) direction, in either case you are moving. you keep making the same damn mistake repeatedly. Its not me that decides, its your sentence structure that decides what you mean. I gave you a link in my last post to help you with your grammar they cover this indirectly but they do cover it so please use it.

 

Even when I ask you to justify this, you repeat it instead of actually pointing out why this would be any more believable than what I suggest and support with examples.

No it doesn't. "Not moving forwards" is not the same as "moving backwards". Standing still is not moving forwards. If you point at a car which is standing still, it would be correct to say "this car is not moving forwards".

Of course, a lot of the time, negation and reversal happen to overlap perfectly, but not in all cases, and not in the case we talk about here.

For a sentient being, the negation of an action means not performing that action (for a non-sentient being, it'd be the same but replace "action" and maybe "perform" with non-intentional equivalents).

(I know I already basically responded to this further up, but I'll make a response which addresses this particular example. I think it says basically the same thing, so I don't think it requires a separate response, I just included it for completeness).

"if a rock is able to not think (the negative verb) then it is equally able to think, (the positive verb), since both denote the same action."

This seems to me incorrect. I say "not thinking" does not denote the same action as thinking (you keep saying it and not justifying it). "Not thinking" is what would be called failing to think in someone sentient (I would phrase it in terms of what it would be called in an inanimate object, but the phrasing I would use then is "not thinking" and clearly we don't agree on what that means).

In your example, a person might move left, he might move right or do something else, like stand still or move backwards. You can move left. If you fail to do so, then you have not moved left. It doesn't matter whether you stood still or moved right, if you did not move left, then you did not move left. "Not moving left" includes the idea of standing still, which is not included by the "moving" you underlined in your presentation of the example.

I've read through it, and nothing in it seems to support your view or even discuss the issues we're talking about here. Could you point out the specific lines that you think applies please?

 

I dont give a **** how many ways you want to coin it, the sentence

"Usage seems to suggest that inanimate objects such as rocks are able to not think despite (or rather by virtue of) their inability to think."


references a logical verb-action either way. not thinking is the opposite action of thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_and_negation your just ****ing around with word salad as usual, now adding the word fail, that was not said, any damn thing to be obtuse and like last time I am about to pull the plug on this circle jerk of conversation with you because like last time others went in great depths to explain this to you from every possible perspective and this is an identical problem to last time which leaves me no choice to believe you are simply too ****ing lazy to do your home work and expect others to do it for you or simply too obtuse or in denial.

Yes left right was merely an allegory sorry for trying to help you put things into perspective, clearly you are simply arguing just to argue since you cannot offer any authoritive explanation why a verb negation denotes no action.

the negation of an action is still an action regardless if you agree or disagree. If you think not CITE IT.

 

Again, nothing in the link seems to support what you're saying.

Actually, there is an interesting link in the wikipage you suggested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes

'For example, "He's not bad looking" could express that someone is gorgeous—or could convey that he's neither particularly ugly nor attractive'

Now, what we're discussing isn't quite a litote (since it's not an understatement) but it uses the word "not" in the same way.

It's not a matter of laziness, I have happily searched the internet for various quotes and definitions. I suspect you are misinterpreting some of the statements you see, however, I think it would be rude of me to assume that you're misinterpreting things without knowing exactly which statements you're referring to, so I'm asking you to point out the bits in question, and how you think they apply to our discussion.

For instance in the case of the link you gave above, I would guess that you've misinterpreted the phrase

"Simple grammatical negation of a clause in principle has the effect of converting a proposition to its logical negation – replacing an assertion that something is the case by an assertion that it is not the case."​

in your favour. However, since it's a long article, I can't really be sure that that's the sentence you're referring to, so I have to ask.

Edit: About the word "fail", I added it because it highlights the issue quite well (failing to move forward can mean move backwards, but also stand still). I'd be quite happy to use it as is, metaphorically applying it to objects which don't have a specific purpose, but since you've been picky about that sort of thing in the past, I figured I'd be clear about that the function for our purposes is the same, without implying that rocks have an intention which they can fail at fulfilling.

Nono, examples are great. I think the example you gave was a good one, and I showed you how my reasoning applied.

Here are citations.
"Rocks don’t think! They don’t have a will!" (source)
"So although rocks don't think like humans (indeed, rocks don't think at all)" (source)
"The point being, of course, that rocks don’t think about anything at all" (source)
"The idea is silly; inanimate objects don't think" (source)

Unless you suggest that these authors claim that rocks can think, clearly the negation of think is not in itself an instance of thinking. (To be fair, I think one of the authors goes on to suggest that rocks do think or some such thing, but only after the example I quoted).

Again, you seem simply to repeat that the negation of an action is an action. You haven't provided any good reason for believing that it is so.

 

Rocks dont think is simply a figure of speech, the reality is that its impossible for rocks to think.

Sure because you think that a verb no longer acts as a verb in the sentence simply because of negation.

1) A person is given a hypothesis.
2) A person thinks about the hypothesis.
3) A person decides to believe (positive)
4) A person decides to disbelieve (negative)

an action is clearly associated in each case, so what else is there to do but repeat the obvious conclusion that verbs are operate as verbs are supposed to operate regardless if its positive or negative as the above example proves.

yep nothing you say is conclusive on its face

 

Not a figure of speech in the sense that it is figurative (although it can be a figure of speech in that it is can be a particularly distinctive use of words if used in some ways).

I think the difference becomes particularly clear when we have alternatives which aren't strict opposites. Take for instance the three fruit example (a person has to choose exactly one fruit to hold). I would be quite happy to say "I do not hold an orange" if I hold the banana or the apple. It's not a full explanation of the situation, but I don't think it's false. However, on your view, this breaks down. "I do not hold the orange" would mean "I hold the opposite of the orange", but since neither the apple not the banana is the opposite of the orange, "I do not hold the orange" becomes meaningless, or something which breaks the "game" (holding exactly one of the three choices).

It can still be a verb, but negating an action doesn't necessarily result in an action.

Of course, the action is still an action, and acts as one (regardless of whatever fluff you put around it), but the negation of an action isn't necessarily an action.

In this case, yes, each case is associated with an action, but that is because you introduces the word "decides", which is an action. Leave that out, and you would have to show that number 4 is an action.

 

When a person is given a hypothesis his brain automatically thinks about the hypothesis and will typically make one of 2 choices presuming he is fully knowledgeable:

1) believe.v (positive)
2) disbelieve.v (negative)

what I wrote only added an action verb to another action verb ffs, didnt materially change anything. Your crazy assed ****ing around starts out with sentences, then fragments and now you are down to a single verb word, think you can handle it?

A person.n decides.v to disbelieve.v (negative)
A person.n disbelieves.v (negative)

theres no material difference with what I originally wrote

and you should have known that since its still expressed as a (verb) action, therefore it is an action regardless if it does not jump up and down and regardless if you disagree with the way the english language functions, feel free to make a new one.

 

Again, this is just you restating what you believe, there is nothing here which actually shows that it is so. I could just as easily (and have) simply write down my understanding without arguing it.

However, in addition, I have shown numerous examples of people correctly and naturally using "not" to an action verb and the result is not an action ("rocks do not think").

Unless you can resolve all of the examples of rocks and other inanimate objects not doing actions, then you are wrong, regardless of how many times you state what you have stated here.

This seems simply wrong. In the phrase "Rocks don't think", "think" is an action and a verb, "do" is the auxiliary verb, "don't think" is the compound verb.

Compound verbs do not necessarily inherit any properties of other verbs inside it (with the exception of the auxiliary verb). For instance, "I'm thinking about running" is not in itself a way of running (if it was, I'd be in much better shape), it's a way of thinking. "I don't know" doesn't mean you know the opposite, it simply means that knowing [something] is not among the things you do.