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

nope, it really is that simple, you either believe in a god or you do not

now one can stop believing, yet fear saying it for social reasons or whatever, but they still no longer believe, thus are a closet Atheist

or maybe they are in a state of confusion and believe one moment and disbelieve another, thus switching states often between Atheist and Theist.. thus the term Agnostic as it's easier to describe them

my guess is you were a Christian and have lost belief, but are not yet sure you want to commit to that

another option is to believe in a Deistic God, then you don't have to deal with the religion part of it, course you lose some of the social aspects of being religious

 

Now that is hilarious! Nice shot at trying to make it personal only to miss the whole planet.

I believe in God requires a brain, and is the result of a conclusion made by the believer
I disbelieve in God requires a brain, and is the result of a conclusion made by the disbeliever
I lack belief in God requires no brain, no conclusion, rocks lack belief

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

I lack disbelief, I am a theist.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I lack disbelief, I am a theist.

 

So TYPICAL of Christians lack of respect for women and their sick sexual obsession .

 

God is not Nothing ... God is the absence of Something.

 

Atheism is only rejecting the claim that there is a god.
For example:
You say "there's a god"
I say "can you prove that"?
You say "No"
I say "I don't believe you then"

 

an agnostic posted that lil cutie, and she bumps so well!

 

therefore you disbelieve God exists
Did you like have an epiphany or whats the point

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So TYPICAL of Christians lack of respect for women and their sick sexual obsession .

So Christians and some agnostics share a disrespect and 6th grade view of women.....I expected more from an agnostic, my mistake..

 

The point is atheists don't have to prove there is no god. Proving god exists is on those who say he does exist.

By the way....which god is it that you think exists? I believe there is about 3,000 to choose from. Just curious which one you believe in.

 

Sorry but whether your term is god or gods doesn't negate the need to define what is meant by " god". And why can't a theist believe in God x and y and z. Is your statement that a theist can only believe in one god? Your post seems to be confused as to if a theist must believe in only one god or can believe in many gods.

 

agnostic is NOT and has NOTHING to do with 50/50.

agnostic is obviously too complicated for the people on this board to comprehend, but I will state it again.

Agnostic abstains from a vote either way, NEITHER believes nor disbelieves EITHER WAY.

50/50 ridiculous!

 

Now this about voting? Like I said the only valid claim to being an Agnostic is a refusal to vote or as previously stated " I don't care". And if you don't care why are you posting?

 

Burden of proof is on the believer.

 

I'll save you some time with Kokomojojo here. He has a different understanding of what "not believe" means than you and I do. He considers it to mean to believe the opposite of something, rather than refraining from believing a certain thing. For instance, you and I might say that a rock does not believe (because the only alternative would be that a rock believes, and that would be ridiculous). He however understands "not believe" as believing the opposite, or some alternative (to him "I don't believe you" means you believe in some competing theory, rather than simply not engaging in the act of believing that particular thing).

 

Ah....that explains a lot. Thanks!

 

You rarely if ever explain my position correctly so why do you persist? You dont comprehend my position therefore its impossible for you to properly express it.

To correct you 'again', an unfortunate side effect of conversing with neo atheists, only a conscience or to say a thought process can believe or disbelieve, not disbelieve or not believe anything.

Neo atheists are illiterate. plain and simple.

Definition of not
1 —used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
2 —used as a function word to stand for the negative of a preceding group of words

Definition of believe
believed; believing
transitive verb
1 a : to consider to be true or honest

• believe the reports

• you wouldn't believe how long it took

b : to accept the word or evidence of

• I believe you

• couldn't believe my ears

2 : to hold as an opinion : suppose

• I believe it will rain soon

intransitive verb
1 a : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

• ideals we believe in

• believes in ghosts

b : to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact

• Do you believe?

—usually used with in

• believe in the Scriptures

2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

• believe in exercise

3 : to hold an opinion : think

• I believe so

Definition of state
1 a : mode or condition of being; a state of readiness
b (1) : condition of mind or temperament; in a highly nervous state
(2) : a condition of abnormal tension or excitement


to: not believe is an action, a rock can perform no action, a verb identifies an action, your not believe used the way you are trying to use is 10th degree bullshit.

I cant believe the garbage you people post out here.

 

The irony of course is the only way you can use a rock in this is by saying the rock lacks beliefs, since it has none, or is absent beliefs again because is has none and in 'ALL' cases is capable of exactly ZERO beliefs about anything!

 

Important thing in this meaningless argument is that in the sentence 'I do not believe' the 'not' applies to the word 'do'.

 

Therefore, it lacks belief .

 

For the purposes of what ECA needs to know, they seem similar enough to me. You can drill down the details with them if you feel like it. My point is that it seems to elude you that you're the one with the strange usage of the words. As you can see, you hadn't made clear to ECA that you weren't using the words as most people would expect. You might not see that you're using it incomprehensibly, but ignorance is not a defence.

Yes, but there is more than one set of words in the sentence "I believe there is a god" which you can apply it to.

I do not agree that not believing is an action. I agree that a rock can perform no action (I don't, actually, but for our purposes, the only relevant action is belief, and I agree that a rock cannot believe). Not believing, in the way I use it, is not an action, and so it is not a contradiction that a rock can [not believe].

It is impossible for a rock to believe, so by the law of the excluded middle, it must not believe. That is what we mean by the word not. As you have pointed out, not denotes a negation, and a negation is true when that which it is a negation of is false and vice versa. "The rock does believe" is false, so "The rock doesn't believe" is (by the definition of "not") true.

The state that atheists (and, well, most people) refer to when they say not believe is akin to that which a rock is in (that is, with respect to believing in a god, obviously they can believe in other things).

 

I should clarify that I don't mean to shut down your discussion. It took me quite a while to figure out where the disagreement lies. Since he doesn't seem to understand himself that his usage of words is odd, he's not very forthcoming with it and the misunderstandings it causes. I figured I'd bring you up to speed since you had found the same barrier as I had.