[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

That last line is the most profound one. It is why these discussions continue on here in the west, because other religions do not seem to have caught on to that fact.

 

I dont know there is a single answer to that.
theology tends to deal more with postulates and philosophy tends to deal with the nature of postulates.

 

I gave you a perfectly usable the formula complete with an example, you claimed a percentage was unacceptable, for the condition lack = zero belief, 0 = 0 percent, hence you shot yourself in the foot and LoB claims are bunk as there is no way to quantify it under the conditions you impose. without the ability to assign an amount like you think you so skillfully argued you lose the word lack completely because it fails by your own definition iow requirements because neither can you assign any unit of measure to it. Good luck reviving that dead horse. You cant have it both ways, at least not in the real world.

 

Agnosticism is not a subset of Atheism. Agnosticism also has the same type of similarity with Theism in that it, like Theism, lacks belief in the non-existence of god/s. Does that now make Agnosticism a subset of Theism??

Additionally, isn't "not believing in God" (atheist) a position on God's existence as well? How can Agnosticism ("not having a position on God's existence") be a subset of Atheism (the position that God does not exist)??

You're stretching quite far to lump Agnostics in with Atheists, and committing numerous fallacies and paradoxes while doing so. It's not working.

Nope. That's just two ways of expressing the same belief.

There is plenty of evidence for both. Remember, evidence is not a proof.

Irrational reasoning due to your paradoxes.

No such thing.

Yes it is. It is an initial circular argument (as it uses the conclusion "god/s do not exist" as the predicate "god/s do not exist") that has other arguments stemming from it (such as "the Bible contradicts itself", "religious texts are the creation of mankind, not god/s", etc. etc. etc). That's precisely what a religion is, logically speaking. That is the logical framework behind any and every religion.

ALL atheists don't believe in ANY god/s. That is the very definition of atheism.

ALL atheists are religious, by definition.

This part is correct though. Belief in god/s is but a very narrow spectrum of what religion as a whole is. I have already provided the logical framework that all religions make use of.

Absolutely correct! God/s are not a necessary component of religion. All that is needed is an initial circular argument and additional argumentation that stems from it.

Not at all, as I have already explained.

 

Well, I'd rather stick to the traditional definition given by psychologists and neuroscientists.

I don't want to quantify beliefs. I didn't think it possible the moment I read the OP. However, being wary of kneejerk rejections, I forced myself to consider such a possibility.

 

It never fails, they always take rationalization over the deep end. Has nothing to do with debate for the purposes of sorting out the truth, its all about saving face when they have been debunked at any cost.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy. No new argumentation presented.

 

Why are you trying to tell atheists what they believe? Who do you think knows better about the beliefs of atheists? You or actual atheists? I'm going to provide you a quote form the American Atheists association:

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. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

 

Simply, a belief defines an idea or principle which we judge to be true.

No. Belief by definition defines something which we judge to be true. If we judge something to be false, that's not a belief, that's a disbelief. Since different areas of the brain respond to belief and disbelief, the latter can't be defined as a belief.

No. Rejection of a proposition is disbelief.

Relevant to its use though.

Science contradicts your assertion. I'd rather stick with science.

 

How much horns do you have on your head:
1. 100%
2. Some level of horns
3. Some, just not enough

How much hump do you have on your back:
1. 100%
2. Some level of hump
3. Some, just not enough

There's more where that came from, feel free to use your imagination...

 

Theism isn't lacking belief in the non-existence of God. Theism is a belief in God. Agnosticism is obviously not theism.

Not believing can be a position depending on the reason for non-belief. For example, I might not believe because I'm confused. That is not a position. Or I might not believe because I see evidence against it. Then, that is a position.

Not believing something is the same as lacking belief in it. Just because someone lacks belief in God doesn't mean they have a belief that God doesn't exist.

There is little evidence for God, and you are free to debate me on that if you like. My point it that many atheists percieve a lack of evidence for God, whether or not that is actually true.

Atheists lack belief in God. Not all believe God doesn't exist. You obviously have never been an atheist.

That is the narrow definition of atheism. The broad definition of atheism is a lack of belief in God.

 

... so Atheism isn't lacking belief in the existence of God. Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. Agnosticism is obviously not atheism.


You can't have it both ways, dude...

 

No, there are two definitions of atheism:
Broad definition: Doesn't believe in God or lacks belief in God.
Narrow definition: Believes God doesn't exist.

I don't actually hear atheists use the narrow definition. I only hear it from religious people who attack atheism and old dictionaries written by them.

 

2 horns
20degrees
keep em comin, I do truly enjoy indignant denial.

Here is a hint, rahl demands a unit of measure, like gallons or pounds and he threw out a ratio, zero, and 100% LoB as invalid, which goes without saying invalidates the use of any quantitative numerical assignment based on data, hence neither zero nor 100% lack of belief can exist under his definition. I love it!

Hence he rationalized the issue to absurdity which led to him to debunking himself, as lack no longer has any functional meaning, and can no longer be a definition of LoB, well anything at all for that matter.

The price of undisciplined desperation.

 

No, there are two definitions of theism:
Broad definition: Doesn't believe in no God or lacks belief in no God.
Narrow definition: Believes God exists.

I don't actually hear theists use the narrow definition. I only hear it from atheists who attack theism and old dictionaries written by them.



Two can play this game...

 

All theists believe in God. Can you provide a source to your claim that theism includes agnostics?

 

The formula is:

2×26^3[LoB]/X*(G*D)-B=A/na

That decides whether or not you are an atheist.

 

All atheists believe in no God.

The presence of a source doesn't magickally transform an argument into a truth.

 

If you don't have a source, you don't have a basis for making up definitions. You have no basis for saying all atheist believe God doesn't exist, when many atheists themselves will tell you they only lack belief in God. What gives you the authority to tell atheists that you know their beliefs better than they do?

 

define the variables or I write it off as garbage sarcasm with no value to the thread.

 

Grow up and read the rules. Reported. Point out any fascist policies I support. You are supporting a petty tyrant, on the left.

 

Thanks! I just plugged my values in and it looks like I am an atheist. I also plugged in Kokomojojo's as well, and his value comes out to 10.4243 which is in the atheistic range.

 

There is no possible way you could have done that without making a ton of **** up, since the variables have no definitions. My example gave definitions and example calculations.

what is the 'atheist range'?

 

NM, RH just invalidated the use of 'lack' in reference to belief entirely, not only for belief as used in atheism but anything without preexisting units of measurement, so I suppose there is no point.

 

The atheist range is from 5.5 to 50.4. Your value is on the lower end of the spectrum, but it is definitely in the atheist range.

2×26^3[LoB]/X*(G*D)-B=A/na

LoB stands for your level of burden of proof.
X is your personal feelings towards God.
G stands for your belief in the amount of evidence God exists.
D stands for your denial of religious arguments.
B stands for your belief in religious ideas.
A stands for your identification with atheism.
n stands for your negativity toward theism.
a stands for your self-identification of agnosticism.