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

To allow Christians another place to attempt debasement of Atheists by claiming they know better than we do what we think.

 

Agnostic in my view is simply accepting that I do not "Know" what may be out there.

I claim Atheism in regard to the Manmade "Gods" because I "KNOW" they are not real.

Every time I then ask a believer to prove me wrong they cannot and change the subject, proving to me I am correct.

 

You're a legend in your own mind....just like Trump.

 

Your attempts at insult are actually kind of amusing. It show the level of maturity that is to be found in you.

 

Because no one has shown any alternative.....

 

Alternative to what? If someone believes in the tooth fairy, he's wrong but he's not dishonest. See the difference?

 

How do you know there is no Tooth Fairy? How does one define the Tooth Fairy?

 

You continually dismiss any who provide any thoughts that run counter to your own. You are not looking for an alternative, you are looking for blind obedience to your views.

 

That's not really relevant to my point. The existence or nonexistence of God or the tooth fairy doesn't have any bearing on someone's honesty about their existence. So I'll ask again: Alternative to what?

 

Sure it does. I can see someone's point about believing in some small winged fairy flying around giving out coins for pulled teeth but then I am an adult. However I see nothing wrong with children believing it. If adults want to call the act of puting coins under pillows, the Tooth Fairy, I see nothing wrong with that either.

So, if one wants to call whatever caused human existence, God, then so be it. Even if human existence was caused accidentally I still see no problem.

 

So what if they want to call it natural phenomena?

 

I do not have a problem with that either.

 

What's funny is your level is the same as Trump's. Instead of fixing yourself, you try a lame attack to deflect your own immaturity. If either of you had the ability, you'd be embarrassed knowing how small the vast majority of people know you are. Even your second sentence "SHOWS" you're on the Trump level.

 

You know what they say about opinions, which is all you have. As it happens, you continue to insist on being wrong and try to reinforce it with further insults.

Poor debating practice, but that is all you have.

 

So is it not possible to think without God due the cultural significance it has played in our current world?

Funny to make a necessity out of something that has never been proven to exist in the first place.

 

You can think about it all you wish, just remember that it is a false concept you are thinking about.

 

Its mega lame to call people dishonest simply because they have better comprehension of your condition than you do.

temper temper, theists have no reason to share your atheist beliefs until you can prove them. How arrogant to think otherwise. In there defense, there is no reason for theists to belief in the void you call lack.

Well thats the rub isnt it? For someone like myself, I have not seen convincing evidence to sustain either side, hence I am agnostic, and contrary to 'lackers' neither believe not disbelieve in the context of abstain from a vote either way.
I would go on to point out its delusional to maintain that one maintains a binary position, 'atheist, which in philosophy means the denial of the existence of God, while attempting to simultaneously hold the agnostic position.

yes 118 ages and you still dont comprehend the thread is about atheists.

No one is out to get atheists, however if you want to get into disrespect anothers views atheists thop the charts, with flying spaghetti monster, sky pilot, man in the sky, then cry and whine when people disrespect them in return.

That is religion, cultures are created out of a common religion, similar beliefs, and if those similar beliefs are based in G/god that wraps it up.

Not quite, agnosticism is the natural default decision when there is no hard evidence for either position and in which case an agnostic 'believes' there is not enough evidence therefore neither believes the proposition nor disbelieves the proposition each a negate-able premise in which both conditions conform to the laws of excluded middle.

I suppose a negation of 'lack belief' would be 'sorta-kinda believe'.

Does G/god exist is a single proposition that merely requires a yes/no/abstension response, the 'degree of belief' behind your yes/no/abstension is irrelevant to the position held.

You are still trying to shift the proposition to that of a psychological condition rather than a direct answer to the full meaning of the premise, its not whether you believe, its 'what' you believe that is the premise. You either believe exists, or not exists. your whole approach is nonsequitur.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

You say it yourself, if they believe neither proposition, then they don't believe the one and they don't believe the other.

"the and of a set of operands is true if and only if all of its operands are true" (source)
It follows from these two statements that an agnostic does not believe that there is a god. They also don't believe there are no gods, but that's not important for the purposes of fulfilling the definition.

Nope, to lack is to not have, so the negation of lacking a belief is to having a belief.

A single proposition is a "primary bearer of truth-value" (source) (which is further explained to mean "an entity that is said to be either true or false and nothing else" in (source)). Does god exist is a single proposition which in itself only has one truth value, be it yes or no.

That being said, us humans are not the arbiters of what is true, we only believe things. Maybe we believe things correctly, maybe we don't, maybe we acknowledge our fallibility and don't take a stance. That all has no bearing on the proposition itself, only on our beliefs in the proposition. Therefore, it is possible to have answers other than yes/no, even though the proposition in itself can only have a yes/no answer.

I would agree, I'm not the one who keeps asking about "what percentage of belief".

Theism is the *belief* that god exists, and that belief is a psychological condition.

The definition of atheism provided asks only whether one believes. That's the bit that is important for whether the word "atheism" is correctly used. It is true that there are many other things that may or may not be true, many other questions that will have answers, but only whether one believes is what makes the word atheism apply.

 

Atheists are people who........lack belief in a god or gods

 

But when I initially asked the unicorn question you came out saying that its not true and just a fairy tale which just shows that when something doesn't have any evidence we often dismiss it as false. You might find that you have been doing this a lot more than you think. But now, would you say that unicorns exist is just as likely as them not existing? Or is it more likely they don't exist? Or do you not know either way? If I start pulling out a bunch of ridiculous ideas like elves, trolls, garden gnomes, illuminati, magic cancer curing water, etc don't you think its more likely that these are not true even if you can't disprove them?

 

These are not intended to be an insult to you or your beliefs, they are instead humorous and somewhat accurate terms roughly equal to the descriptions those that champion said Gods use. That you find them distasteful should give you insight into why they are used.

 

Ah pot calling kettle black. Sure some people think calling others an ******* is the funniest thing they ever heard too, but that is distasteful and 'properly' interpreted as an insult as well.

 

Huh and I have said that since the beginning over 1000 posts ago and as I suspected you knew it all along so why then do you insist on parsing the premise and distorting the truth of th epremise?

False, to lack is not to have 'enough', the range such that [ 0<lack<100% ]. There is not rule that says lack is a complete void but the one lackers imagine in their heads.

Agnostic abstains from a vote because there is insufficient evidence to be 'truthful' and cannot take either side, like the gumball problem.

You conveniently omit the fact that since an agnostic cannot be 'properly' construed to either believe or disbelieve, in other words the opinion of an agnostic is not on the table and i s suspended until such time there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion that yeilds some assurance the requirement of 'truth' is maintained. Lackers claim they are atheist, a premise they cannot rationally defend since there is insufficient evidence to do so. Thei whole position is based upon supposition and presumptions.

If you say you have no milk a reasonably literate person knows that means you have zero milk. If you say you lack milk a reasonable person would say how 'much' (which would be calculated as a percentage), milk do you lack?

well thats not quite accurate. accurately stated a theist 'affirms' and answers the question does God exist as true and an atheist 'denies' answers the question does God exist as false.

an atheist believes that God does not exist, which you agreed earlier with WS was semantic.

You continue to try to force a yes/no response from someone who 'does not know' which forces them to lie to conform with your excluded middle which only holds if it accurately represents the truth.

The fact that an agnostic abstains means you have no verdict yay or nay from which to work with, yet you force your verdict upon the agnostic by insisting that an agnostic does not believe, despite an agnostic never said or admitted to any such position.

That said you can draw the conclusion that an agnostic does not believe and therefore is an atheist, but then you are compounding your errors, in that you have no evidence that is what an agnostic in 'fact' is. Like atheists who based on presumptions claim God does not exist without sufficient evidence to make such a claim.

The purpose of logic/reason is to garner truth, not force someone to lie to meet a set of inapplicable rules which under these conditions yield the wrong answer since you continue to insist on making a composition error that everyone has told you about.

 

If I recall someone admitted it was a fairy tale which is why I said that, if its not then I claim agnostic because I dont know, therefore can not with absolute certainty assure you one does not exist.

Oh but you need to play this by swensons rules of absolute excluded middle its yes or no, not more than likely....