Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

I'd say that if the incorrect information is not included in the statement itself, then it is not false. You saying "I are not a Republican" is not false, it is true. The fact that a third party might make the assumption that you are left leaning is a problem on their part. To a large extent, it may be your fault that they have made an incorrect conclusion, and thus, your statement may have been misleading, but in no way does that make "I am not a Republican" false. The only alternative to "I am not a Republican" being true is "I am a Republican" being true, and that's not right.

As for your concern "A half truth is no better than a lie", in this line of argument, I have not really considered what statements are good/bad (or "better"), just whether they are true. None of my arguments rely on the idea that falsehoods are bad and truths are good. Formal logic is pretty robust, it concerns only whether things are true, not whether they are bad (at least not in itself, nothing is keeping you from making logical statement about badness/goodness).

Well, just like you can use the word "orange" to mean both a fruit and a colour, that battle is already won, at least to the extent that it needs to be. If you provide a definition (as has been done in these examples) that definition is active, even if other definitions exist. If I say "I like oranges, I mean the colour", I have provided the active definition, "oranges are a colour" which makes the statement unambiguously about me liking the colour orange.

Just like the word orange, it is quite possible to use different definitions at different points, as long as you do not mix them up. In this case, the definition was provided from the get go, as being the lack of the belief in the existence of god, thus making it invalid to invoke "atheism IS a stance on the "the issue", and that stance is that God does not exist".

It is valid for someone to say "I like the taste of oranges" referring to the fruit. It is also valid for someone to say "oranges taste the same as reds" referring to paints (I assume different colours of paint taste the same). However, it is not valid for someone to produce an argument linking both of these, i.e. concluding that the first person likes the taste of red paint.

Similarly, it is valid for someone to produce an argument based on atheism being a lack of belief, and it is not invalid to acknowledge the existence of the definition of atheism as the belief that there are no gods, but it would be invalid to take a statement which is made with the first definition and evaluate it using the second definition.

It seems to me you're using the word lack of belief differently than I do. To lack the belief in a statement is to not have accepted it as true. If you are undecided, you have yet to accept it as true, if you are resolved to the opposite, then you have not accepted it as true, both are ways to lack belief in the statement. The fact that he has not taken a stance on the dichotomy "there is a god"/"there is not a god" does not mean that he cannot be said to fill the criteria for lacking belief.

Using the lack of belief understanding above, it is very easy to lack beliefs, for instance, Kokomojojo does it.

I would say the "half" of the meaning is the only part that they have meant to convey. It is not false, and I would say only misleading in certain contexts, and in particular, you have imposed a context on them which they did not intend. If the context is a response to religious claims, then whether god does not exist is not important (so why should they waste time on arguing that?) only the convincingness of the religious argument is.

As such, if they were to "win" the debate, "there is no god" would remain undefended.

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "their point". Even those who believe that there is no god are usually quite uninterested in whether there is a god, the point that they are trying to get across is more akin to secularism, the idea that religious claims should not be used to govern (at least to the extent that they cannot be proven), not that there is no god.

You seem stuck on the idea that this is all a matter of whether god exists, but most of the lacking atheists are not trying to answer that question, and their arguments are not aimed at those points.

 

I agree. There are those who argue that the story is definitely made up from scratch, and I would not agree with those. The point criticising the veracity of the Bible remains though. If we acknowledge that the Bible is made out of exaggerations and interpretations that aren't necessarily true, then the same can be said for a fair bit of the theology of the Bible as well. Again, this is not an argument for god not existing, so much as it is an argument that belief in god is not justified.

Well, the gumball example is created to make a specific point, and that point does not rely on the specifics of either argument. My point is about the nature of belief, and that point is illustrated well by the gumball example. The point I'm trying to make doesn't have anything to do with which positions is naturally favoured, so I picked an example where the natural favouredness doesn't have an impact.

I'd say that comes from an equivocation. It is ambiguous whether saying a group believes something means that everyone believes it or at least some. I think it'd be possible to make one of those arguments, and once you have convinced yourself of one of those choices, there is no longer an ambiguity.

I was referring to academic responses, as in the post I quoted.

Again, this comes down to what falseness is. I consider falseness to be something inconsistent with reality, not just anything which might inspire false beliefs in others. Yes, I would say "I lack belief in there being an even number of balls" and "I lack belief in there being an odd number of balls". Both of those statements are true, and they remain true if you look at them one at a time.

The argument is only meant to show that the lack of belief in, for instance, there being an even number of balls is a possible position. There is no knowledge of how the brain works or how beliefs are formed which makes it impossible to lack belief in the sense that I have described in this example.

While the boundaries are not super clear, ignostics tend to conclude that the idea of god is meaningless and therefore abstain from making statements, whereas theological non-cognitivists are happy to consider specific god concepts, as long as it is clear that any conclusions depend on the definition in use. For instance, an ignostic might say "well, even the sun could be a god, so the question is meaningless", whereas I might say "even the sun could be a god, and if we consider it to be, then I believe in god".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism#Distinction_from_theological_noncognitivism

So do you think the word "you" should not be used to refer to singular people (except maybe nobility)?

I don't have a problem with redefining words, but just as with the example of oranges or atheism, if you change the definition, you have invalidated previous arguments that rely on the definition. "Don we now our gay apparel" is a statement (or is it a request?) which was made using the word gay to mean happy. That means you can't expect it to have the same meaning if you change the meaning of the word gay. However, if you stick to one definition, talking about gay people is not a problem.

 

Suresure, but do you by that statement exclude the idea that you believe that god does not exist?

Basically, xwsmithx seems very keen to draw extra conclusions from any statements made, would I be right in saying that by the statement you have given, you specifically intend not to convey any other information, and that assuming that you believe that there is no god, or assuming that you are an agnostic, while maybe true, can not be derived from the statement you have given here?

 

Try philosophical argument where lacker positions are found to be based in ignorance.

 

not in lackerville! lackers are inventing and applying some really twisted logic to the matter.

 

if your position is merely skeptical that would be an agnositc lean, and agnostics do not lack anything.

You are looking at what goes on in someone elses head and telling them they are nuts, inferring that what they believe is crazy and by that same inference telling them what to believe, that your belief is the correct belief. That is called a claim. Claims require accountable affirmative defense to be valid. You have given us nothing valid thus far.

Contrare, this thread is about the lacker theory which has been proven by several different methods to be based primarily in the lackers failure to recognize their fallacy of 'reductio ad absurdum'. which the exception of lackers, is glaringly in your face obvious since they include rocks, 4 legged animals, dirt, rocks which all 'lack belief'.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

Not if your previous post quoted above is correct. Prima facia you have shown that you dont know what you are. n It would be more accurate however if I had stated pigheaded refusal, rather than failure.

I have no issue with anyone whose propositions stand to reason and logic.

As you can see above WSmith said he is an atheist and worships math as his G/god, whatever you use to form your beliefs to determine your choice of religion is your G/god, the G/god that you worship.

Which is part of the purpose of cross examination in court. To determine the real underlying principles. We have found that lacker theory includes not only rocks but newborns who are wholly incapable of even considering anything about the proposition G/god. Lackers believe newborns are atheists, atheist requires a conscious determination there is no G/god, when agnostic means no knowledge, I dont know, or not knowable to an adult. If there is such a thing as a default position for a newborn it would be 'agnostic' as they have no knowledge and are incapable of concluding no G/gods exist, a calculation adults make to conclude they are atheist. [empahsis added for the lackers since they awlays manage to miss the point]

They are back to their composition fallacy. Agnostic is a 2 part proposition. They refuse to handle it as a 2 part proposition and demand that the only part of the argument, the atheist part is the valid side, despite their same antics can be used by theists to express their lack of belief in atheism which lackers simply handwave away and ignore or jump out of the philosophical boundaries and claim the dictionary doesnt precisely make statement xyz after realizing their argument has failed.

It is hence the primary reason for the creation of this thread.
Lackers do exactly that, and claim their politics is principle despite the fact is has been shown to reduce to the absurd from every conceivable angle.

I would argue that is not the case, for it is false that koko lacks belief as has been told to you many times. koko has belief that the God does/doesnt exist proposition is unknowable. (at least at this time, and therefore it is unreasonable and irrational from a philosophical perspective to choose either side.)
While they may fit your construction examined singularly they both reduce to the absurd and are therefore invalid due to your composition error.

If on the other hand if lackers wish to argue kokos position is incorrect the very first thing lackers need to do is prove the exist no exist proposition is even provable.

You should because a word has a definition, for the dictionary to print every dickheads lean on a word without proper context has turned into a linguistic abortion. Even worse asshelmets misuse and/or using the word without regard to application and printed solely with the reason of common usage rather than splitting up dictionaries into slang and authoritatively agreed upon usage *wth full context. So far lackers have insisted their change in definition by literally throwing **** at the wall with the use a fallacious arguments hoping something will sneak past and stick.

Then you maintain that the proposition that G/god(s) exist is false.
All atheists maintain that no G/god exists.
Atheists have no material proof that no G/god exists.
Therefore atheists have 'faith' no G/god exists.

Its proper in that the human brain receiving information draw both positive and negative inferences simultaneously while determining how to process and draw conclusions from the given information. One thing logic does is teach a person how to draw reasonable conclusions from information input. koko is agnostic and has dismissed the case as unknowable.

It should go without saying that if a person says its dark they are simultaneously conveying that there is no light.

Everything said has an intended meaning often carrying unintended meaning regardless of the ability and awareness of the fact by the person speaking.

yes willie ray, ad nauseum, we are well aware that you are an atheist and lack belief.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

Correct,it is a answer only to that specific statement, nothing else should be conveyed by it.

 

112 pages and atheism still means..............lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

112 pages and you continue to demonstrate that you have no clue what the thread is about.

 

This thread is about your claim that "atheism" does not mean lack of belief. That claim was thoroughly disproven, on the first page. Now 112 pages later, atheism still means........lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

As I said 112 pages and you still fail to comprehend what the thread is about. Only in your imagination, the same imagination that continues to fail to comprehend what the thread is about after 112 pages.

 

I have a car, I tell you it runs great and its for sale! (You stop by the lot to buy it because its a excellent deal.)

Once at the lot you notice its rusted, you can put your foot through and touch the ground, the wheels and brakes have been stripped off, missing a fender, no tranny and you say WTF??

I'm shocked and dismayed at your response so.....jump in turn the key start it up and prove it runs great, whats your problem?

It started up and ran great!

Using your version of formal logic, the proposition that 'it runs great' was that the truth or a lie?

 

Given that I don't subscribe to the idea that believing that god does not exist is the same as not believing that god exists, the fact that you do not subscribe to either "god does exist" or "god does not exist" does not necessarily mean that you don't lack belief.

I don't think they reduce to anything absurd, and I have yet to see at what point you think it breaks down.

Why? Almost the entire point of the argument is to be able to address points like "we should have a government run by god" without having to defend positions that they don't care about. The opposition to religious claims is defendable even if god not existing is not. Given that the opposition to religious claims is the important bit in modern politics, that seems to be the part of that dichotomy that we would be interested in looking at.

Language is in itself not the way that logic works. A sound piece of logic will remain a sound piece of logic no matter how you present it (as long as you present it accurately). The natural drift of definitions doesn't change any logic, it merely changes how we might present that logic.

I'm not saying they wouldn't draw conclusions, I'm just saying that none of those conclusions are stated by the statement that they don't believe. That statement only points out conclusions which have not been drawn.

Imagine you wanted ice cream, and there were three choices, chocolate, vanilla, strawberry. You could say "my ice cream of choice is not vanilla". By that statement, you should not conclude what my ice cream of choice is (it could be chocolate, it could be strawberry), only what it is not. To not have vanilla as your ice cream of choice is not in itself a statement of which your preferred ice cream is.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I just told you what it was about.

Nope, right here in reality, and available for everyone to see.

 

There you have it, xwsmithx. By saying that they lack belief, they have left the question of whether they believe there is no god unanswered, or uncommented on. Their statement is that they do not hold the belief that there is no god. Whether they they in addition to that believe that god does not exist has not been stated. It may be true that they hold the belief that there is no god, but the statement they have made has not made a statement in that regard, and is thus not in contradiction to it.

 

That doesn't seem right to me. Either "there is an odd number" or "there is an even number" is true, we just don't know which one. Agnosticism doesn't say anything about the reality of the number of balls in the jar, only about our beliefs about the balls in the jar.

I disagree, in this line of argument, I have not made or opposed any argument which says that either side is true or false. I have only argued about what we might call those positions.

I have seen academics choose particular definitions for particular arguments, I have yet to see them argue that it is wrong to use either definition. Most respectable linguists I have seen have been descriptivists (including the dictionary editors I have linked you to).

I don't know what it would mean to believe in something to 10% for instance. Describe to me a situation in which you would say that someone believes something to 10%.

Just like with a Lexus, beliefs seem to come in units. If took a Lexus and split it in two, by some logic, you would have 50% of a Lexus. However, I would say that the object that you then have is not a Lexus, it is merely some car parts (which perhaps could be turned into a Lexus given some other parts).

Not that it is false, just that it does not warrant belief.

Do you believe that is convincing?

 

If you say it runs great and it runs great, then that much is true. There are certainly other propositions which I would want answered, and I may be angry at you for not disclosing that it is rusted and doesn't have a transmission, but concerning the statement "the car runs well", it is true if the car runs well.

 

yes you could also say your conclusion of choice is no[t]-God
They do choose however, again as has been told to you countless times, they choose atheist, atheist is a choice. Atheist is the choice to believe no God exists.

language is built on logic, though not as rigid as formal logic in 'some' senses.
Explain what happened to the word gay? How about 420? Hey man need some 420! Explain that for us.

Sure negation is legitimate, lack is not. I hope you realize that disbelief is equally as much a religion as belief.

You dont think its absurd to label an embryo an atheist? I do, well more like irrational if not insane.

Back to your composition fallacy, the phrase has a single meaning. You tried to explain that earlier but it fails. you cant say god exists and not have a belief that god exists, and you cant say that god does not exist without having a belief that god does not exist. Thats like major out there to claim otherwise. The usage is support for the lackers to claim atheist. They dont say I am a theist I lack belief, no they say I am an 'atheist' I lack belief.

Its a denial, denial is atheist, atheist is a choice, a choice requires a conclusion which requires a choice of belief among several other possibilties.

rara said:

To which I replied:

The above is integral logical consequences for what he said!!!
He is not a lacker but a 'believer not', disbeliever, deniar, a believer that G/god does not exist.

It is false as the car example was false.

I dont know either, but thats what lackers are doing, agnostic-atheist case in point. Lackers cant explain what they are doing. It does not make sense so its understandable why they cant explain.

Of course its a lexus remember lack can just as well mean a percentage. Therefore you have a 'percentage' of a lexus but you lack a whole lexus.

Here....johnny had a percentage of a Cadillac:

Which is my point about what percentage of lack is required. The like running car, it creates the picture in your mind that its a great car at a great price so you quickly inconvenience yourself and drive over to buy only to discover its scrap metal. Oh yeh what the guy said was true but it gave you completely bogus picture in your mind what you would expect to see when you got there, the same way lacker theory operates, because in a formal world it fails even the sniff test.

Like it or not you say even you are wrong, you say odd you are wrong, you say you dont know you are correct. Why because you cant answer the question and you are not allowed to count them. Agnosticism demonstrates reality since it is impossible to know. Agnostic is the only one telling the truth, unless of course you want to cheat and claim what if someone counted them, which no longer applies to this line of debate.

Stop trying to impass the issue by injecting 'other propositions' as they are not part of the problem given. Sure you could have demanded he drive it to you too! You dont hear me saying well if we counted the marbles then we would know if they were odd or even and prove someone right, because that would be cheating.

So sure 1% is true and 99% is a lie, and it caused you to drop everything you were doing and drive over to the lot for nothing. Hence the problem with lacker, when in fact the truth is disbeliever using flim flam to duck the necessity to argue the position.

 

Better example: You go to Checkers (they have ONLY chocolate and vanilla), and you order a cone, and they ask, "chocolate or vanilla," and you say, "NOT vanilla," what are they going to put on your cone? Are you then justified in saying, "I didn't want chocolate, either!" No, you are not. Clarity is up to YOU, not the listener.

You left out the part where I said that's contrary to reality, that they do indeed have a belief, and that belief is that god does not exist.

 

G1!
It conveys no useful information.

 

Again, you impose a context by placing this example in the context of a person who will give you either vanilla or chocolate ice cream. If the context is, as I have suggested, a response to religious claims, it'd be more like someone walking out of Checkers with a cone of vanilla ice cream and offering it to you. You might respond "I don't like vanilla ice cream" because in the context, even though there were only the options of chocolate and vanilla, the question is whether you want the vanilla ice cream, not which ice cream you might prefer. That statement in itself neither confirms nor denies you liking chocolate ice cream.

How is what they said contrary to reality? They explicitly said that they intended to convey no information about whether they believe there is no god. How can something be contrary to reality if it does not make a claim?