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

Because it is a dichotomy, God or not-God. Agnostics take no position. Atheists are taking a position, that of not-God. If they were not, then they would be agnostics. But they deny being agnostic. And since agnostics also deny being atheists, we have a second dichotomous situation wherein agnostics and atheists are two separate groups, not one.

Because they are making a claim whether they like it or not. I wish I could think of the name of the short story and author, because it is an interesting example of this situation, but the story went that a professor and his friend were talking about jumping to conclusions, and the professor claimed that he could draw all kinds of conclusions about the speaker which may or may not be true from just a nine or ten word sentence. The friend was standing outside the restaurant waiting for the professor when two men walked into the restaurant talking, and the friend overheard one of the men say something. As the professor walked out, the friend said, "Nine miles is a long walk, especially in the rain." The professor said, "What are you talking about?" and the friend said, "I want to hear what conclusions you can draw from that ten word sentence." So the professor went on to draw multiple conclusions from the statement, all of which added up to the case that the man who had spoken the sentence had killed a man on a train in the middle of the night. When they investigated, there had been a murder the previous night, so they called the police and reported the two men who had gone into the restaurant. All from a perfectly innocent statement. So then the question becomes, what can you conclude from this sentence: "I am an atheist, I lack belief"? 1) The person is not a theist. 2) The person is not an agnostic. 3) The person disbelieves in God. {I assume you don't have a problem with lack belief = disbelief, but even if you do, the fact that the person is 1) not a believer and 2) not an agnostic only leaves disbeliever.} 4) The person is saying God does not exist, or else s/he would believe in him. {You cannot simultaneously disbelieve in ghosts and believe they exist.} #4 is a statement of belief and a claim about reality, which are implied by the original statement, whether the atheist likes it or not. If s/he would prefer not to make a statement of belief and a claim about reality, s/he should not identify as an atheist in the first place.

Edit: I had forgotten earlier, and it would have complicated my original example, but just for the sake of accuracy, you can also get a chocolate/vanilla swirl cone at Checkers.

 

And yet, here I am, an atheist that lacks belief being told what my position is and is not, ad nauseum by a fundamentalist agnostic conspiracy theorist and an 'atheist' who is a cultural monotheist. The irony is not lost on me.

 

yes that is called 'being taken to school'

Stop whining, you have made no contribution in defense of the lacker theories and when you have it wrong you should expect people will give you correct answers regardless of your being dogmatically in denial.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

Yep the whole idea behind the lacking.
Since they cant dazzle us with their brilliance they try to baffle us with a mountain of bullshit and both approaches fail, precisely because of what you said, calling themselves an atheist is taking a position, the position that they believe '¬God', contrary to theists who believe 'God'.
You cant be an atheist without a belief God does not exist.
Now if they wanted to do it right, they would invent a new word, like lackeist, lackers are lackiests.

 

I wonder if two lacks make a hole.

 

no, they have a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. That isn't the same thing as believing no god exists.

 

113 pages now, and atheism still means.............lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Perhaps you might inform us ignant Atheists what this thread is actually about?

 

Sorry for the late post, Christmas and all.

Given the definition that has been suggested (and which the arguments have been constructed using), that's not necessarily true. Atheists don't have to deny being agnostics in that understanding (indeed, many call themselves agnostic atheists).

The problem is yet again that you insist on using another definition than the one used to construct the arguments which this is all a response to. That would be equivalent to switching definitions between orange the fruit and orange the colour. It does not matter how sound your logic is using one definition, if you change definition, it might not be sound any more. Proving that you like the taste of the fruit orange does not prove that you like the taste of orange paint.

Well, they have pointed out explicitly that the idea that they lack the belief in the existence of god is the only claim that they have presented (by saying they lack belief). It may be true that they also believe there is no god, but that is not included in the statement, it is not a part of the claim which they made. They may, if they want to, make additional statements to that effect, but it those do not follow necessarily from the statement "I don't believe in the existence of god".

I'm not following the example completely. Was the professor's logic undeniable, or probable, or just lucky? In this context, maybe it made sense to draw the conclusions that were drawn, but it's not like everyone who talks about walking long distances in rain are murderers.

Using the definition which was supplied, it is not necessarily true that "I am an atheist" means "I am not an agnostic", since agnostic atheists are possible. It may be true that the person believes no gods exist, but it is not a necessary truth, just like one can be not a republican without being left leaning.

The assumptions you are talking about are often reasonable, but they are not necessarily reasonable, and whether they are reasonable depends a lot on the context. If someone says "there is an even number of gumballs in the jar", but I think that person really has no way of knowing, I can distrust that person. That doesn't mean I have to commit to or accept/believe that there is an odd number of balls in the jar. This provides a clear example of a rejection of one claim does not mean you have to accept the other alternative, even if there is only two alternatives.

Sounds tasty.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I'd like to get back to this. You seem to be using some form of equivocation of the word false. So, I would say "you are a Republican" is false. "You are not a Republican" is thus true (since they are proper negations, one has to be true, one has to be false).

I don't see why the buck doesn't stop there. You then go on about what conclusions people will draw about you, but I don't see why that matters. I mean, it may be in your interest to give more information, but I don't see why that makes "You are not a Republican" false.

 

The definition I have given, and more importantly, the definition which was used in the arguments which you address, does not agree with the bolded part.

If you use definition which you have bolded here when addressing an argument made with the definition which they provided, then you are guilty of equivocation.

You can't just go on making your argument, your repetitions of your argument does not address my main disagreement with you.

Eh, language is built alongside logic. Many will try to be logical when making languages, but nothing is keeping us from saying illogical things.

What's the problem with the word "gay"? It used to only mean happy, now it also means homosexual. If you flip between contexts were different definitions are active, you might make yourself guilty of equivocation. Not really a problem. There is no problem talking about homosexual people as gay, unless you get the one guy who insists on using the old version because he found it in a dictionary from the 1800s.

So if someone said "I will kill you in the name of my god", do you propose that your only way of avoiding his logic is to commit to the idea that there is no god? Or is it enough to say "your logic doesn't hold up, regardless of whether there actually is a god"?

No, given the definition I refer to, they fill the definition, so it would be irrational not to.

Ok, so let's say people can't lie, as in your example. Lacking belief in the existence of god would not be saying that there is no god, it would be to not say "there is a god". Note how staying silent fills that criteria. Staying silent doesn't provide a full explanation of what you believe, but it also doesn't claim to, so that doesn't matter. The point is that it is not incorrect. To stay silent does not confer any untrue information. Now, if you said "there is no god", then you have not uttered the words "there is a god", so you still fill the criteria.

What part of his statement did you extrapolate to him believing there is no god? The only thing he has said is that he has not accepted (or as you might say, affirmed) that there is a god. Whether he believes there is no god or he is unconvinced is not addressed by his statement.

That's not really "what lackers are doing", it's what you claim they're doing, but given that you don't seem to understand the argument, that's not much to go on.

Even here, you say it can "just as well" mean a percentage, so I don't see why simply lacking the belief on the whole is not enough to fill the criteria.

Look at your own post here, you say "what the guy said was true, but [something]...". You agree that the statement is true. You then go on to say, and I might agree, that his representation was incomplete and thus misleading, but the statements were true, that's all I'm arguing.

Not really, there is a 50% chance you will be right if you pick one. You don't know which one is right, but there is nothing in the example that stops you from picking a side on bad grounds and accidentally being right. Now, an agnostic tells the truth, in that they tell you something about their beliefs, rather than what's in the jar. Similarly, an "even-ist" might say "there is an even number of balls" which has a 50% chance of being false, or he might say "I believe there is an even number of balls" which is in itself true, but it's not directly a statement about the balls, but about his beliefs about the balls. It's true that they reflect the same state of mind of the even-ist, but they are not the same statement (since it's possible for one to be true when the other is false).

Well, ok, in that case, if he says the car runs well, and it is true that the car runs well, then his statement is true.

I agree, whether I would be angry or think about other propositions is not really important. Just like whether the car is rusted is not important for whether it runs well.

I don't see why it's 99% a lie. If his statement was "it runs well" and I get there and it runs well, I don't see how that's anything other than 100% true. Misleading perhaps, but not untrue.

 

What we have here is two pseudo intellectuals trying desperately to define Atheism in the terms they require for their political goals.One through another publication has shown a desperate lack of knowledge of the world let alone religion and the other seeks to provoke with ridicule, self aggrandisement and silly insults.

@Swensson has provided the argument with an excellent display of both formal logic and the ability to remain calm despite considerable provocation from at least one poster. He has shown "lack of belief" is a perfectly logical position to take.

I have no doubt that this thread could run until next Christmas and the two main antagonists will still be pushing their political agenda and refusing any other views.

Merry Christmas to all those who are still reading this thread from an atheist who lacks belief!

 

Understood.

But they do deny it when they call themselves "atheists" and not agnostic atheists, even if there were such a thing.

My point is that their definition doesn't hold water because there isn't a three quarter point between god and not god. You insist that "I am not a Republican" is a true statement even though it's horribly misleading, but you fail to hold atheists to the same standard, that either they believe God exists or they believe God doesn't exist. They can refuse to take a stand, which would make them agnostics, or they can go with the one that makes them atheist, that they believe God doesn't exist, but there's no middle ground between them.

That's actually not true, that's not the only claim presented, they also claim to be atheists, which is a very different animal than someone saying, "I am an agnostic, I lack belief." Some theists will say, "I don't have enough faith to not believe in God." So then they are saying, "I am a theist, I lack faith." Those are two different claims.

It was definitely context-specific, but all his conclusions were reasonable, let's put it that way. They weren't necessarily true, but they were more likely than not. Some of the conclusions drawn: The speaker was no athlete, since golfers walk about 4 1/2 miles playing 18 holes; he was going towards town rather than away from it, since he specified nine miles rather than ten; he was walking late at night or in the early hours of the day or else he would have caught a bus; he didn't want to be seen, or else he would have taken a taxi; he had to wait for a telephone call, or else he would have gone earlier and avoided the rain; he was meeting up with someone specific at a particular time or else he would have waited until the next day; and then the rest of the conclusions had to do with where was a telephone nine miles from a town where he would most likely meet up with someone in the early hours of the day, and that turned out to be a railroad depot nine miles from a pay phone.

But no one says, "I am an atheist," while actually meaning, "I am an agnostic." If one says, "I am an atheist," that one is foreclosing the possibility of being either a theist or an agnostic, or else s/he would have identified him/herself differently.

On the other hand, if someone said to you, "There is not an even number of gumballs in the jar," you would be more likely to believe that person had some special reason to know that, and then you would draw the conclusion that there were an odd number of gumballs in the jar.

I think this is the problem here, koko and I are drawing the logical conclusions from the statement while you are accepting the statement without drawing the logical conclusions, or more likely, you are drawing the logical conclusions but then backing off of them. What makes a misleading statement false is the logical conclusions that people will draw based on the misleading statement. Saying, "I am not a ___," leads people to believe that you are the opposite thing, ___, it does not lead them to believe that you identify as neither.

 

I'm an atheist, I lack belief but, I'm more than ok with wishing people a Happy Christmas and I too will not be devoting much more to this absurd comedy.

 

I dont know how we could live without your constant "I'm an atheist, I lack belief" spamming, your lacking answer to every counterpoint made. Most people have all that devotion to denial on ignore anyway..lol

 

I'm an atheist, I lack belief.

 

There is no counterpoint to his statement. It’s the definition of atheism. And it hasn’t changed in 114 pages.

 

The thread is not about atheism.

He did not claim he was an ATHEISM, he claimed he is an ATHEIST which is not ISM its IST


Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist


atheist
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist


atheist noun [ C ] us /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/
someone who believes that God does not exist
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/atheist


What Is An Atheist

ANSWER:

Richard Watson states in his 1831 book, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: “Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.”

Robert Flint, in his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories states: “Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God.”
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-an-atheist-faq.htm

atheist
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
a·the·ism (ā′thē-ĭz′əm)
n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)
n (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
adj (Philosophy) of or relating to atheists or atheism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

a•the•ist (ˈeɪ θi ɪst)

n.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
[1565–75; < Greek áthe(os) godless (a- a-6 + -theos, adj. derivative of theós god) + -ist]
a`the•is′tic, a′the•is′ti•cal, adj.
a`the•is′ti•cal•ly, adv.
syn: atheist, agnostic, infidel refer to persons lacking religious belief or a particular religious faith. An atheist denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether there is a God without sufficient evidence. An infidel is an unbeliever, esp. one who does not accept Christianity or Islam; the word is usu. pejorative.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House,
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)

atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic
WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

atheism (ˈeiθiizəm) noun
the belief that there is no God. ateísmo
ˈatheist noun
a person who does not believe in God. ateo
ˌatheˈistic adjective
ateo
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2013 K Dictionaries Ltd.


How to Become an Atheist: 11 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow
https://www.wikihow.com/Become-an-Atheist
Rating: 81% - ‎243 votes
How to Become an Atheist. Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not....

Willie ray why are the neo lacker atheists telling us agnostics what to believe?


Is there a difference between atheists and agnostics?

Is there a difference between atheists and agnostics, or are they just two names for the same thing?

Answer
Many people confuse or equate the terms, but there is a definite difference between the two.
An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means "not, or no God." In the atheist camp you can have a wide variety of reasons for their denial as well as differing levels of certainty. Some will deny emphatically that there is a God and claim to have "proof" of God's non-existence. Other's will simply say they do not believe there is a God though they could not prove God does not exist. The common denominator is that they do not believe in God.

Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, "not, or no knowledge." An agnostic is someone who believes human beings simply cannot know anything metaphysical or beyond the physical realm; therefore, they cannot know whether things like spirit, angels or God exist at all.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-there-a-difference-between-atheists-and-agnostics

Even Catholics get that one right.

One thing about neo lacker atheists, better have a big box of crayolas handy.

Nope looks like you are wrong, it helps to understand atheism does not carry the same meaning as atheist. Hope the crayola explanation helps.

 

114 pages and still, I am an atheist and I lack belief.

 

I don't know how you do live with it.

Note that an agnostic is still someone who believes something, as highlighted above. Those who think that atheists and agnostics share a "lack of belief", take note.

 

Given that atheism is used to mean a lack of belief, that's not really true. It's like the difference between a "conservative" and a "constitutional conservative". Being one does not mean that the other is false, and which one is relevant depends on the context. If you were asked your opinion on a specific progressive idea, "I am a conservative" would be enough information. If you were asked whether you think the best option for president would be a particular Republican nominee, then "I am a conservative" would not be enough information (although, I wouldn't say false, just irrelevant).

I agree, I'm not suggesting that "I don't believe in god" is meant as a three quarter point between "I believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". "I do not believe there is a god" shouldn't be viewed as a middle ground between them as much as a platform which is fully true for both. Strawberry is not chocolate, vanilla is not chocolate. "Not chocolate" is not a mix of strawberry and vanilla, it's a concept which includes both (and which doesn't tell you everything about the actual taste of something which is "not chocolate", but is not a lie).

It doesn't seem to me that I'm holding them to a different standard.

If you say "I am not a Republican" , that might be misleading, but it is true, and that's the important bit. If someone assumes you are a Democrat , that's an error on their part (although maybe an understandable one).

Similarly
If an agnostic says "I do not believe in the existence of god", that might be misleading, but it is true, and that's the important bit. If someone assumes they believe there is no god, that's an error on their part (although maybe an understandable one).

It seems to me my logic is consistent.

In this case, they have specified that by atheism, they mean the lack of belief (in the existence of god). If that isn't enough to qualify as being an atheist, then you are using some other definition of atheist, and thus are guilty of equivocation.

Cool, yeah, then they are all assumptions which happen to be true. For instance, he might have wanted to avoid being seen for very different reasons. But if it turned out that he didn't kill someone, that does not mean that "Nine miles is a long walk, especially in the rain" is a false statement. The statement and any assumptions you can make about the statement are not the same thing. The assumptions being false does not mean that the statement is false. Especially since different people in different contexts will make different assumptions.

That doesn't seem right to me. There are plenty who consider religious claims, reject them and find themselves distancing themselves from religion, without thereby affirming the idea that no god can exist.

What? "There is not an even number of gumballs in the jar" means exactly "there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar" (assuming there is an integer number of balls). Why would "odds" be more persuasive than "evens"?

Am I right in saying you forgot to use the form "I do not believe there is an odd number" instead of "there is an odd number"?

I would say the conclusions you are drawing are not logical. They may be pretty reasonable, but logic require the result to be necessary, and indeed exactly the same. If Socrates is a man and men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal, that is a logical conclusion. A man said "9 miles is far to walk in the rain", therefore he murdered someone is not a logical necessity, even if its credible enough to warrant a closer look.

I think you will agree that someone not being a Republican is the negation of that someone being a Republican. You would say "I am a Republican" is a false statement, yet you also say "I am not a Republican" is false. By the law of the excluded middle:

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true.

(wikipedia)

So for any proposition, let's pick the proposition "I am a Republican", as said by you, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. Given that you are not a Republican, "I am a Republican" is not true, it is false. The law of excluded middle says that if either a proposition is true or its negation is true, in other words, given that a statement is false, its negation must be true.

"I am a Republican" is false, so its negation must be true. The negation is "I am not a Republican", so you saying "I am not a Republican" must be true. Yet you say it's false. This seems to me an irreconcilable problem with your logic.

 

I thought we agreed that an atheist holds the belief G/god does not exist or it is no longer a negation of theist. That being the case how can an atheist lack belief and hold a belief at the same time on the same proposition?

 

No, the entire point I'm making is that they have provided another definition, with which they have constructed their arguments. Just like you can talk about oranges as fruit or oranges as paint.

That being said, the belief lacked and the belief held are different beliefs. Even a person who believes there are no gods, holds the belief "there is no god" and does not hold the belief "there is a god". Holding the belief "there is a god" is not the same as holding any belief pertaining to the statement "there is a god".