Logical Examination of Atheist/Atheism, (atheology) A Logical Hipocrisy?

with atheist reality yeh, hypocrite is not my style, did you find your imaginary definition yet? lol bring it on!

 

not in this thread you didnt.
Too many socks to keep track of?

 

LOLOL

I am not going to look for it,

You can always see it again if you lost in in the quagmire of your crap.

Google Websters definition, Atheist.

 

You sound like a meth head, with nothing better to do.

 

Every post you made in this thread.

Proof atheists have great difficulty with the truth.

If anything you are going on ignore

you are not here to argue any points just to post your dishonest bullshit and call names.

All people have to do now is click on the little arrow to the right of your name to see the deceitful **** you are posting

I cant find any redeemable qualities in the neoatheists on this board.

They are setting a great example, proving what we do not want to be!

Logical Examination of Atheist/Atheism, (atheology) A Logical Hipocrisy?

Thanks for proving hypocrisy and bullshit is all the atheists have!

 

Mindless rant, Need I say more.

 

Handing atheists their butt hurt asses is an art, not a rant.

 

American Atheists envisions a world [world view] in which public policy is made using the best evidence we have rather than religious dogma and where religious beliefs are no longer seen as an excuse for bigotry [except bigotry against God believers] or cause to receive special treatment from the government. [Except to force Christiam cake bakers to bake get wedding cakes]

We fight for religious equality [yes you do!] for all Americans by protecting what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between state and church created by the First Amendment.

We strive to create an environment where atheism and atheists are accepted as members of our nation’s communities and where casual bigotry against our community is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable. [except bigotry against God believers] We promote understanding of atheists through education, outreach, and community building and work to end the stigma associated with being an atheist in America.

We aim to make the road to authenticity, openness, and honesty about the things we believe [I knew it this lack of belief crap was bullshit, at least they admit it] and don’t believe easier for the next person who travels it by being outspoken about our atheism and by ensuring that the [Evangelical] voices of atheists are always heard in communities throughout the nation, in politics, and in the media.

By working with coalition partners within the atheist movement and across the political spectrum where can find common ground, American Atheists fights to improve public policy for all Americans, protect real religious freedom by defending [atheism and forcing Christains to bake gay wedding cakes] the wall of separation between religion and government, and promote the acceptance and understanding of atheists. [to **** with everyone else]

By using every tool available to us, including our nation’s legal system, political advocacy, and outreach campaigns, American Atheists works to advance atheism in the United States and abroad.

https://www.atheists.org/about/our-vision/

what your hypothesis amounts to is they are doing everything any other religion does but they are not a religion.

 

Playing chess with a pigeon.

 

yeh their contradictions are hilarious.
they dont get it that they took a religious position to claim they are atheists! LOLOL

 

I lack belief. I am an atheist.

 

Is there a God?

I simply don't care.
It's existence/non-existance has absolutely no impact on my life.
Can not caring be classified as a religion?

 

LOLOL

Dude, Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, is laughing at you, and it just does not sink in.

 

NeoAtheism, the Anal-Retentive Defense of Etymological Purism, and Linguistic Relativism
December 18, 2011 by Jeffery Jay Lowder

Back when I was the moderator of the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism.moderated, I used to debate the definition of atheism and I used to defend the atheism as the lack of belief position. I’m persuaded, however, by Ted Drange that by default we should define our terms in a way which matches ordinary usage. Ordinary usage of the word “atheism” is that it means the belief that God does not exist. I see no benefit whatsoever to the proposal that nontheists should spend their limited time on trying to convince people both that (a) atheism is rational and (b) that they should use the word atheism in a different way, as opposed to merely focusing on (a).

Among professional philosophers, including self-identified atheist philosophers, probably the majority viewpoint is that atheism is the belief that there is no God and agnosticism is the lack of belief in God’s existence and God’s nonexistence. (Notable exceptions would be Michael Martin, Antony Flew, and Keith Parsons.) When professional philosophers want an umbrella term to group together people who believe God does not exist with the people who merely lack belief, probably the majority of them use the term “nontheist.”

For the record, I am fully aware of how condescending it can come across when person A says, “I’m an X,” and person B says, “No, you’re not. You’re a Y.” In other words, who am I to tell people how they should self-identify? In response, I would point out the following.

(1) I think people have the right to label themselves however they wish; I am not making a normative or ethical issue out of this. In other words, I’m not saying nontheists have an ethical requirement to use the word atheist consistently with ordinary usage.

(2) I am suggesting as a matter of strategy and “resource management” that there are much better uses of our time than an anal-retentive defense of etymological purism, i.e., the “but the greek roots of atheism, a + theism, mean literally without theism” defense. The meaning of words can and do change over time. If the meaning of “atheism” has changed from its Greek roots, then so be it.

Instead of focusing on etymology, I suggest a more pragmatic approach. With respect to the definition of atheism, I think we have a situation where two people who speak English and use the same words (e.g., belief, God, atheism, etc.) are effectively speaking two different languages. A self-identified ‘atheist’ and theist may even think they have a disagreement because superficially it seems they are speaking the same language, but they’re not. Because they’re not speaking the same language, we must distinguish the labels we assign to various positions from the positions themselves.

Imagine the following conversation:

Self-Identified ‘Atheist’: I’m an atheist.

Theist: Oh, so you believe that God does not exist. What’s your evidence for the nonexistence of God?

Self-Identified ‘Atheist’: No, I lack the belief that God exists. The lack of belief that God exists does not require any justification unless we first are given some reason to hold that belief.

Theist: No, you’re re-defining words. Atheism is the belief God does not exist.

Rather than continue beating a dead horse, you then try this approach:
Self-Identified ‘Atheist’: We’re using the same words in different ways. Based on how you define the word atheist, then I’m not an atheist; I’m an agnostic. Based on how I define the word atheist, however, I am an atheist. If we’re going to have real dialogue rather than just the illusion of communication, we’re going to have to agree on a set of terminology for the discussion.

Theist: [at this point the theist will either insist on his terminology or be willing to adopt yours; either way, the difference in terminology will be explicitly acknowledged by both sides and real communication will be possible.]

The point is that there is rarely much value in debating definitions, but real dialogue is possible if one of the parties is willing to state their position in terms of the definitions the other party accepts. As Andrew Kirk pointed out, “This is no different to learning a new language, or even a local dialect, and then using it rather than your own native dialect, to aid communication between yourself and a speaker of that dialect.”

I think the main obstacle to taking this sort of pragmatic approach is an unstated (and probably unconscious) assumption of what I will call “linguistic objectivism,” the idea that the truth of definitions of words does not depend upon the subject states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of persons. I cannot even imagine how linguistic objectivism could be true. If it even makes sense to talk about something being the ‘correct’ definition of a word, it seems to me that could only be the case in a relative sense. In other words, to borrow terminology from ethics and apply it to linguistics, I’m suggesting we should drop the pretense of ‘linguistic objectivism’ and instead be ‘linguistic relativists’: we should recognize that linguistics are relative to different cultures and different times.

Indeed, to press Kirk’s analogy all the way, what etymological purists about the “atheism is the lack of belief that God exists” definition are doing is equivalent to an American going deep into Mexico to a city that is not a tourist town, and then being hellbent on the fact that the Mexican locals must speak English, despite the fact that he is, quite literally, on their turf. The point is that, everything else held equal, it seems odd, if not presumptuous, for a group representing a minority linguistic tradition or culture, to insist that the majority linguistic tradition or culture submit to the minority group’s linguistic norms. (Here I am assuming that “atheism,” regardless of how it is defined, is the minority position.)

Now if by some chance the Ox did change it from belief God does not exist to lack of belief and failed to record it as one of the 'options', then we are witnessing the Ox committing literary fraud!

Indefensible literary and linguistic fraud is all you got! Yes EVERYBODY is laughing!

 

it's sad when Christians bare false witness pretending not to believe while attacking those that do not believe

 

Sorry for the long response time, this last week has been hectic.

Not sure what you mean by lite edition. Either way, I don't have a problem with you using any particular definition, I have a problem with you thinking that you and WilliamRea (or whoever it was) were talking about the same thing when you were using different definitions.

Yes, atheism is being used to denote lack of belief in your pink quote, but used to mean the specific belief that there is no god in most of your other arguments.

It assigns it to lacking belief, neither more or less. I'm not sure I'd say a weak theist lacks belief, but I don't think that's a particularly important distinction for us to track down here.

It seems to me you have presented two arguments (although one was not your own), one that uses the definition of atheism as the belief that there is no god, and one that uses the definition of atheism as the lack of belief in a god. That's an ambiguous term which is used in more than one sense, making a misleading argument, so that seems to me to fit the definition of an equivocation.

It seems to me the difference between amphiboly and equivocation is that the former is a mixup of ambiguous definitions and the latter of ambiguous grammar. I don't see a problem with the grammar anyone is using here, whereas an equivocation would explain the entire situation perfectly.

This seems to dodge the meat of the question, so sure, I'll rephrase it.

It is not an equivocation merely to use ambiguous language, the fallacy arises when you combine two statements which use different definitions. I.e. it is not an equivocation to make an ambiguous statement such as the one you've marked in pink, but it is a fallacy of equivocation to combine it with another definition (like the Webcite one you found) and expect them to be talking about the same thing. It is combining them, as you have, which is the fallacy.

And WilliamRea or whoever stipulated another meaning. Stipulative definitions are not a problem in themselves, but taking logic using one and applying it to the other is equivocation.

I agree, I'm not saying that you can't use a particular definition of a word, I'm saying using one definition to discuss a statement which was made with another definition is a fallacy. If you went off and said your own thing, then you can stipulate whatever you want, but to interpret a statement such as WilliamRea's using a definition other than that with which it was created would be equivocation.

I'm not saying you can't use a definition of a word, I'm saying you can't use two definitions of a word (at the same time).

Well, it's because by committing an equivocation, you're addressing an argument which whoeveritwas didn't actually make. Addressing an argument using an equivocation amounts to not addressing the argument at all. It'd be like meeting "Oranges are tasty" with "oranges are a type of paint and paint is never tasty". The second statement is not strictly incorrect in itself, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the first argument and a failure to address it.

Yes there is, he says "atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods", that is a stipulative definition (or a lexical one, but you've mostly contested that, so I imagine you wouldn't argue that).

It's an example of the same kind of situation as we're looking at here.

Person one says "oranges are tasty", this plays the same role as WilliamRea (or whoever) saying "atheists lack belief".

Person two says "oranges are a type of colours", this plays the same role as you saying "atheism is the belief that there is no god".

Neither orange sentence is incorrect, but putting the sentences next to one another and expecting them to be using the word "orange" to mean the same thing would be incorrect. Similarly, neither atheism quote is incorrect, but thinking that the word atheism is used to mean the same thing in both cases (and thereby attacking one of the statements as you have) is incorrect.

I mean old definition as in from before a stipulative definition was made. All of this is already in the semantics rabbit hole, you were in the semantics rabbit hole before I even commented on this or the other thread.

I find this quite interesting. In particular, it seems to me this presents several ideas which you have vehemently opposed.

Your idea that we should produce a definition and that definition then "should be used going forwards" seems to me effectively equivalent to the linguistic purism/objectivism he talks about. The approach he suggests instead seems very close to mine, the two people in the example agree on a definition without suggesting that it should hold outside of that discussion.

One of his points regards to resource management. I don't think that's relevant in this case, the reason I'm discussing with you is not that it's a particularly good use of my time.

He also specifically points out that words should be defined according to their usage, a point which you've specifically rejected and ridiculed.

I also enjoyed that the link he gave to Ted Drange was an argument for non-cognitivism (even if that's not what our discussion is about).

I doubt it. The OED has pretty solid standard rules, and are pretty good at not getting bogged down in this sort of situation. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some organisational change which led to using a different methodology (or maybe change of usage has been large enough to make a difference over half a decennium). I imagine if this was really important, we'd be able to find details in some foreword or statement of methodology somewhere.

Either way, I don't think it matters for our purposes. My point is not that there is a god-given answer out there, my point has more to do with the fact that there are different ways of dealing with it. Indeed, I think the fact that there are different approaches out there supports my point. If we followed your approach with some explicit authority on the definitions, then those edge cases become really quite important. If instead we follow my approach, then whenever there is a dubious edge case, we can resolve the issue for the purposes of one particular discussion and not have to worry about what impact that has on other contexts.

 

Koko, no matter how many threads you start on this topic, you will continue being just as wrong as you were with the first.

Atheism remains, by definition, not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

Atheism means, the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

I don't know, sometimes he is wrong, worse than others.

 

Pulease!
Thats total bullshit swensson!
atheist still does mean disbelief in God.

Its in your imagination that its being used in a stipulative manner, its not, just because the neo-atheists advertise that anyone less than absolute theist is an atheist including agnostics and would include weak theists as well that may have some doubt.

lack
1.
the state of being without or not having enough of something.

Lack can also 100% legitimately be understood as not enough belief, AMPHIBOLY fallacy, so please spare me the all or nothing crap, its simply NOT TRUE that its being used that way, and neither does willie stipulate that its being used that way, nor does any dictionary stipulate that its being used as 'no' belief.

Lack presents 2 arguments.

No you dont understand the distinctions and functional meaning of equivocation well enough to draw the proper lines between equivication and amphiboly.

Verbal fallacies

These fallacies, called fallacies of ambiguity, arise when the conclusion is achieved through an improper use of words. The principal instances are as follows:

(1) Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in some other needed premise or in the conclusion [ie: Strawman fallacy]

The figure-of-speech fallacy is the special case arising from confusion between the ordinary sense of a word and its metaphorical, figurative, or technical employment [your OED and others commit that fallacy in their religion definition since one entry can be used either figuratively or not, despite they chose to classify as figuratively with no options which is wrong if not deceitful]

(2) Amphiboly occurs when the grammar of a statement is such that several distinct meanings can be obtained. (example: “The governor says, ‘Save soap and waste paper.’ So soap is more valuable than paper.”).

I pointed this out in several arguments with you past, the way lack is being used is an amphiboly fallacy not equivocation fallacy again since lack can also mean not enough, once again:

lack
1.
the state of being without or 'not having enough' of something.

In which its perfectly valid to ask how much is not enough as I have done countless times in the past, lack of belief is a bullshit term clearly intended as a deception since there is NO stipulation made either in a dictionary nor in anyones statements to date, and again the fact that neoatheists are claiming anything not nailed to absolute theist to be an atheist.

You continue to inappropriately make the assumption lack means all or nothing, when no such thing has been stipulated.

Actually you can, it depends on the grammar, and in the case of lack, which has 2 completely different and meanings unless its spelled out I most certainly can pick and choose. Its done on here all the time in arguments proffered by neoatheists when they feign ignorance to demand grandiose assumptions on the part of the reader to avoid proving up their claims.

If it were in fact an equivotation but its not, you should be able to see that now.

and there is not stipulation what so ever that what he said means 100% zero belief. You are imagining anything was stipulated and it still requires the question HOW MUCH lack of belief?.

It should be clear it has nothing to do with that example.

No stipulative definition has been made either by him or in any dictionary.

Not all, its purely for clarification since so many people are functionally illiterate today, the proof is in the use of lack to mean noting, and even dictionary writers for that matter for even considering it but that may be more politic and subterfuge based.

Well I think it does matter since that is the purpose, and your approach has been proven not to work very well.

 

rahl, no matter how many times you post that rubbish you will continue being just as wrong as you were with the first.

since I am demonstrably correct, it wouldn't make sense to post a different refutation of your claim. Which is why we keep pointing out that atheism, by definition, is not a religion, just like water is not wet.

atheism, by definition, is a religion and is the belief no Gods exist.

Atheism Definition Quoted from the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words the Oxford Dictionary:

Atheism

• the belief that God does not exist.
http://www.webcitation.org/6Lm3Z4SP7

Purchase your copy of the greatest dictionary in the world
HERE, Source: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/th...MItoqj-KOz3AIVQrXACh1DEQ7UEAQYASABEgJr9fD_BwE

More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary—the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.

 

Koko, no matter how many threads you start on this topic, you will continue being just as wrong as you were with the first.

Atheism remains, by definition, not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

Atheism means, the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Agnostics are just honest and maintain that they do not know. They don't lean one way or the other. They simply admit that they do not know. Unless you want to change the root word that the english word is based on.

Stop trying to turn honest people into dishonest people.

No one knows if god exists or does not exist. There can be no certainty, at least to date. Claiming to know, or certainty is just dishonesty created by emotion driven beings.

And not being emotionally invested in either atheism or theism. Like you are, perhaps?

 

Well, as I previously stated, we DO know that there still isn't even a speck of credible or compelling evidence to support the fantastical hypothesis that some creator god exists.

Which (in my book and in the books of many really really smart dudes like Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan, to name just a few) means there's a pretty good chance that believers have been massively DUPED...

 

I think the believers have you out number close to 10:1.

Christian philosophers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_philosophers

So riddle me this batman, why is it that atheists demand 100% certainty with incontrovertible proof from theists regarding the existence of a God, and in the same sentence dodge the bullet when it comes to proving the nonexistence of God? Seems a bit odd to me to have 2 standards and the less strict for atheists, whats up with that?

 

Hell, at this point, I'll settle for a single crumb of credible evidence from believers to support their wild hypothesis that some creator god exists.

All the hot air that bloviated from your collection of philosophers over the centuries … and still not even a speck of credible or compelling evidence to back their fantastical beliefs.

But feel free to run with the dummies and dreamers, Koko

I'll side with the brilliant, facts-and-evidence-driven dudes every time...