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

No God of any kind as popularized in superstitious religious beliefs exists in this solar system. They are all imaginary. Not one of them has done anything godly in scope since the first con man created it.

Are you an atheist when it comes to belief in 24 foot tall liquid diamond dinosaurs that eat pancakes and popcorn and crap clear gold? If I wrote that fairy tale on flimsy paper and called it holy and had temples and priests dedicated to them would you believe it then?

 

As I've mentioned above, what I'm aiming to express is the notion of not doing something, as opposed to doing the opposite.

No, the Stanford article quite clearly allowed for the different interpretations, including the one I suggest. The supposed rejection of Flew's position was an addendum of yours, and it suffers from the same problems as the rest of your argument.

You have asserted without justification that the proposition at hand is "there is a God", whereas I argue that the proposition at hand is "this person believes that there is a god". I argue for the latter, because that is the definition of a theist (for instance, it may be true that someone is a theist without god existing). If you apply the LEM to that, Flew's definition follows neatly.

I have not argued that it does, I just think it is an answer to another question. Again, you fail to take into account the range of propositions that can be considered.

No, acceptance is belief. Accepting a proposition doesn't make it true, it just makes you believe it.

I have suggested a proposition, it is "this person believes in god". It is more directly linked to theism than "there is a god", in that it is the exact definition, rather than just a subclause. Yet when I suggest it, you merely reassert your partial version.

 

In simpler terms either you believe or you don’t. Since we are all born tabula rasa and religion has to be taught dogmatically the burden of percentages is left on the believer. In what degree do believers believe? Not the other way around.
No church needs to be attended week after week to be taught not to believe. Conversely, dogmatism is what needs reinforcement. I guess you could measure in degrees of belief by counting tithes or church services attended in a life time. Lol

 

Sure so what you are proposing is something in the middle, which of course violates LEM.

Yes they were discussing the binary interpretation and for the binary interpretation which is what you full well know we are talking about stanford rejected it.

I cant imagine what other possible interpretations there are, but you cant fit it into binary logic in compliance to LEM

 

No, that would require a series of atheistic/theistic yes/no questions to be honestly answered and evaluated, which of course gives us a ratio to work with.

The inescapable conundrum neoatheists have gotten themselves into, (ie the hole they dug for themselves), that has been demonstrated thus far in this thread is that as the amount or degree of lack begins to approach 100%, its now legitimately 'disbelief', in which case disqualifies the use of the word 'lack' entirely as a correctly applied definition, that and using lack in itself does not stand up to logical integrity, failing LEM also proven in this thread. Disbelief on the other hand does not fail logical integrity. See one of my stanford links I posted previously.

So we have near-zero lack which can be theist, near-total lack which is disbelief, therefore lack serves no logical purpose unless it is used to determine some level of belief/disbelief somewhere in the middle. Which takes us to the question in the title, "how much lack" is required to be considered an atheist?

 

There’s a degree of uncertainty that is considered fashionable in all things today. The lack of certainty in both philosophical as well as religious realms meshes nicely with the tolerant crowd. A society that cant decide about the basic facts of life like gender, sex or justice will never bend to the will of certainty in religious matters. We have declared war on knowledge and certainty. So the question is moot.

 

How do you plan on determining 'any' degree of uncertainly until you first answer the OP? As stated its irrational, well the fashionable part isnt

 

I’m not following your point.

 

why not?

 

What are you asking me to answer.

 

Im not a mind reader you know.

 

Yes there is.

Public education either ignores or bashes Christianity, and it teaches Big Bang, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Global Warming, etc. as if they were "science" rather than religions.

 

I answered that in a previous post. I say 100%. Sorry

 

Ok everything is 'fashionably' uncertain, thanks.
Stop back sometime if you manage to come up with an arguable on topic point.

 

I say that 100% certainty of no god is necessary to be an atheist. Something wrong with that?

 

Public education doesn't bash Christianity - that's just total BS.

The sciences you mention ARE sciences. They are required parts of a science education - if high school students want to enroll in a serious college of science they may be required to have taken classes in topics such as big bang and evoluion.

Regardless of personal belief, the topics need to be understood.

 

There is a type of Christian that needs to feel persecuted, so they try to make out science is a religion and then they can claim that it should not be taught in schools.

 

There are a lot more atheists that feel persecuted, so they try to make the atheist views the only religion taught in schools.

 

Sorry Kokomo - there just aren't that many atheists.

The fact of the matter is that most scientists ARE NOT atheists.

Humans have found huge interest and advantage in knowing how this universe works.

Religion has NO tools for addressing that. It has tools for addressing a very different set of issues.

Let's remember that progress in the methods of science and the division of those methods from the methods of religion has come from those who are religious.

 

strawman bullshit

when it comes to major league bullshit neoatheists have it by the truckloads!

more of the same argumentum ad lapidem fallacy


The way I see it no one can be wrong as much as you are unless they are trolling.

strawman, more of the same argumentum ad lapidem fallacy

strawman, more of the same argumentum ad lapidem fallacy

strawman, more of the same argumentum ad lapidem fallacy

apparently you came into this thread to disrupt it by more of the usual bullshitslinging.

 

LOL!! Not citing data doesn't make ones argument fallacious. Almost NO conversations, including on this board, provide citations for all their claims.

In fact, YOU don't either. Even in this case you don't cite where you found your numbers, by what method they were derived, whether there is any pattern of such results, etc.

AND YOUR "data" points out that over half of scientists believe in god or a higher power.

Yet YOU claimed that science was dominated by atheists!!!

 

More of your same goalpost moving bullshit!
You said: "The fact of the matter is that most scientists ARE NOT atheists."

That was the usual course of bullshit you dish out, 59% do not believe in God, which means if asked the question "do you believe in God" their answer would be no.

I dont for one simply reason, you were shown countless citations from resistance proving the point and you simply ignored it, I dont waste my time on people who post 99% bullshit.

You never responded to the legal questions I posted either, because you know whats going to happen if you do.

 

Also, I'd point out that there is a cause/effect issue that is iherent in this question.

You seem to want to suggest that those who are atheist are trying to screw science to downplay the possibiilty of the existence of god.

But, it could be the other way around.

It could be that those who are serious about understanding how this physical universe works, those who seriously examine evidence and create and run tests designed to verify how things work, become slightly less likely to accept ideas for which there is no evidence or which depend on untestable supernatural phenomena.

Remaining skeptical and rejecting preconceived ideas are rock bottome requirements in science. But, they are certainly NOT rock bottom requirements in religion or in everyday life where they are awkward and only somewhat necessary. These are difficult characteristics to learn - it would be shocking if they were natural to any significant percent of the population without that population doing real work to acquire these characteristics.

In fact, religion requires just the opposite - total and ironclad acceptance by faith alone - as it states in the Bible.

 

the only thing you posted that might be applicable and its another argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

99% of neoatheists live in a world of pretense and selfdelusive arrogance that they have something more than believers despite the fact that believers have a rich history, theology and philosophy, compared to neoatheists who cant even logically pull their belief system out of dung heap.

Neoathe4ists have absolutely nothing to bring to the table and they prove it every time they cry that they cant find evidence to support their broken down claims, which of course any critical thinker immediately conclude that just because they cant find it doesnt meant its not out there.

 

Your chart says 41% are atheists.

Differentiating between "god" and "higher power" when the issue is science is ridiculous. Many people would see god as more likely referring to the mainline view of Christianity. In the context of science, the issue has to do with whether one believes that there is an unseen higher power - not whether that unseen higher power is the specific one desribed in the Bible.

You want to suggest that atheists are screwing things up with science. But, an atheist isn't going to be able to enlist the help of someone who believes in a higher power in order to do that.