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

You don't think the facts are in that Leprechauns or the Flying Sphaghetti Monster don't exist?

fact


NOUN

• 1A thing that is known or proved to be true.
  
  ‘the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas’
  
  ‘he ignores some historical and economic facts’
  mass noun ‘a body of fact’

 

do connects the negation of action think to the noun
think, verb, use one's mind actively to form connected ideas here
your examples conflate state verbs with action verbs

 

Like I told you no one has ever shown me any facts, got any?

 

Compound verbs don't act differently on state and action verbs. The example just shows that compound verbs do not inherit whether they are an action from the verbs they consist of (except the auxiliary verb).

"I'm thinking about running" does not mean that I run, "A rock doesn't think" does not mean that the rock thinks.

 

like I said you are conflating action and state verbs

Does not does not imply 'cannot under any circumstances' which is the proper description of a rock capabilities.

and once again it is expressed as a verb function therefore operates as a verb function.

and this crap you posted is gooblety gook:

"Usage seems to suggest that inanimate objects such as rocks are able to not think despite (or rather by virtue of) their inability to think."

while there are no grammar errors it expresses two contradictory senses at the same time.

 

Can you show why that would matter?

But sure, we can make an example with state verbs. "I like possessing" (I imagine the monopoly guy saying it) is not a way of possessing, it is a way liking. The point stays the same, non-auxiliary verbs in a compound verb do not dictate what type of verb the compound verb is, so "rocks don't think" does not imply that rocks do any kind of thinking.

You're right in that "does not" does not imply "cannot under any circumstances". That's not what I argue though.

No, it is enveloped in a compound verb. The auxiliary verb is what decides how the compound verb works. For instance, "think about running" can be done even if you're unable to run, but it cannot be done if you're unable to think (think is the auxiliary verb, which decides how the compound verb acts).

 

again because its not an accurate representation, that has been and continues to be my argument with neoatheist neatheology.

again it infers an action.

But that is what I have been arguing about for 10,000 pages, so you admit you are arguing a strawman apparently.

now you use a preposition to modify what is being thought about, however he can be running in his thoughts. either way it does nothing to support your position.

 

The example I gave is simply an example of the fact that a compound verb acts like the auxiliary verb, and not like any other verbs in that compound verb. You have argued the opposite, that compound verbs act as the principle verb.

This seems to me to be an accurate example of the problem here.

Well, if you can't justify why, I guess it's merely a preconception of yours.

No, I just don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand. "I don't believe" is analogous to "rocks don't think". Neither of those sentences says (or tries to say) anything about whether it is possible for either of them to think.

So you would point at a person who's lost both legs and say "you are not unable to run" because the are able to run in their minds?

On a tangential note, let's put aside the main issue here for a moment (although don't let that discourage you from answering the points I've made above and in previous posts). Do you agree that if it turned out that you were mistaken on this point, then a lot of the arguments which you have been complaining about start making more sense?

 

nope.

maybe it would be easier for you to understand if you took the modifier out, here is an exact comparative example;

take this: "I do drive."

"I do.aux drive.main."

it should be painfully crystal clear that drive is the main verb, then in the case of adding not it merely makes it negative.

Do
1) to perform
2) to execute
3) to accomplish

How about this: rocks do drive, sing, and dance.

 

Sure. The fact is that god and leprechauns are perfectly analagous. That is a fact you have been unable to dispute.

 

Instead of worrying about your leprechauns you should be paying attention to grammar since that is the root problem with most people that preach lacker atheology. Again you are confusing your blind denial with unable to dispute.

Since I have been dragged into teaching grammar 101, the next lesson for lackville will be independent and dependent compound sentences so lackers can grasp the meaning of agnostic since that is another one they never get correct. But just in case, here is a link for those who have the ability to learn without the typical 2x4 over the head teaching methods that seems to be the SOP out here. https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/sentences.htm

However as far as your leprechauns go, you are demanding that I accept your opinion of something that you never bothered to prove and I never bothered to confirm one way or the other, and that is patently unreasonable, and ridiculous.

 

I think the most accurate example are ones that include all the bits and pieces. I think the not modifier is the central part of this discussion.

We're considering the statement "I don't believe". You have suggested "drive" as a substitute, so let's consider the equivalent statement "I don't drive". Does "I don't drive" mean you do some kind of driving? Is the "don't drive" that applies to a car-less person a way of driving? I have given you this example before, in other forms, I think you merely avoided answering it.

On the related note, do you agree that if it turned out that you were mistaken on this point, then a lot of the arguments which you have been complaining about start making more sense?

 

Glad to see the only fault you find with " lacker atheology" is the grammar. I think perhaps you have just demonstrated succintly the degree of ignorance you so desperatly try to ascribe to others:

lacquer
or lack·er
[lak-er]
noun

1. a protective coating consisting of a resin, cellulose ester, or both, dissolved in a volatile solvent, sometimes with pigment added.
2. any of various resinous varnishes, especially a resinous varnish obtained froma Japanese tree, Rhus verniciflua, used to produce a highly polished, lustroussurface on wood or the like.
3. Also called lacquer ware, lac·quer·ware. ware, especially of wood, coatedwith such a varnish, and often inlaid:They collected fine Japanese lacquers.
4. Slang. any volatile solvent that produces euphoria when inhaled.

 

I think we should all accept your expertise on something. Just not communication or language or logic.

 

LOL
well the only reasonable argument you had with that statement when I said it was exact is that I substituted a pronoun for a noun in which case I could have used robots do drive instead. No you gave me examples with completely different structure, and now pretend that you correctly responded therefore have a legitimate argument, well you didnt and dont.

Now you pull the bait and switch from grammar which is why I gave you that phrase in the first place to demonstrate grammar, not meaning, and you switch back to meaning which it was never intended to cover. Make up your mind which horse you want to ride and get back to me when you figure it out.

To be crystal clear that phrase only applies to the grammar horse and now you switched the argument to the meaning horse, a strawman, again. The not inverts think to not think.

I corrected that mess of an explanation you made very simply with "I do drive" you have no reason to claim I was wrong about anything.

OOPS ya blew it again!


lacker
Noun
(plural lackers)

One who is lacking, or in want.

Origin
lack +‎ -er

http://www.yourdictionary.com/lacker#wiktionary?direct_search_result=yes



then again not so much

 

IS that an imaginary dictionary. Can you prove that it is a real dictionary.

 

The point I was making was that phrases of the form "X don't Y" (such as "I don't believe" and "rocks don't think") can be correct regardless of whether X can do Y and regardless of whether X decides or can decide to do Y.

Rocks don't think. Rocks cannot think and they don't have the capability to make a decision on whether to think. That doesn't make "Rocks don't think" incorrect (although it means that "rocks don't think" often goes without saying). Thus, not doing something doesn't require you to make the decision not to do it, or even to have the capability to make a decision on whether to do it.

That is how the argument I made, I think two posts back, works. I still don't agree that "I do drive" captures the issue at hand. The "rocks don't think" example highlights that things can be "not done" by things that are unable to think. The "I do drive" example doesn't capture that, since people saying "I do drive" have the capacity to make decisions (indeed, they might even fail to drive even when they decide to).

That being said, the argument above is quite theoretical, I'm happy to address an argument closer to the original phrase, like "I don't drive". It is very close to the phrase "I don't believe", which is effectively the phrase we're talking about (certainly closer than "I do drive"). This example doesn't address the issues regarding whether not doing things can be done without thinking or deciding them (as in practice, anything which can drive can also think, at least for the purposes of finding examples), but it's a valid enough example for "not X" not being the opposite of "X". It also runs the risk of mixing up "being in the habit of driving" and "currently be behind the wheel driving", but I hope that won't be an issue to us.

"I don't drive" is not a form of driving. To "not drive" is not the same as driving in reverse. When you meet someone who says that they don't drive, they don't mean that they drive, but in reverse.

Then again, we've been down that road before, so I don't particularly expect this line of argument to be very fruitful.

On another note, do you agree that if it turned out that you were mistaken on this point, then a lot of the arguments which you have been complaining about start making more sense?

 

Why should anyone be required to show your anything in the way of facts as you have never shown any yourself, just made false claim that you have.

 

Hmm... I thought they gave you a nice long vacation, apparently not long enough.

 

I never said it was grammatically incorrect, why do you insist on constantly switching senses?

I have no argument with that, had you said that up front, my argument is and will forever continue to be with the use of rocks dont think as a means of justifying the lack because it breeds this kind of absolute nonsense. "Usage seems to suggest that inanimate objects such as rocks are able to not think despite (or rather by virtue of) their inability to think."
But it seems it does, neoatheists make the decision not to believe in God.

Once again and please pay attention, I do drive was used to destroy that crazy auxiliary verb crap that you posted, it was intended for nothing more, I suppose I am going to have to repeat that to you 20,000 times before stop?

yep here we go, again and please pay attention, I do drive was used to destroy that crazy auxiliary verb crap that you posted, it was intended for nothing more, I suppose I am going to have to repeat that to you 20,000 times before stop?

neither is it the same as neutral
they dont mean they drive in neutral either lol
rocks dont think does not convey information thats any more accurate about a rock than lackeology does about atheism.

 

I don't think it succeeded in destroying that. My argument was the auxiliary verbs don't necessarily take on the action of the principal verb, not that they couldn't.

Oh yes, I presented "rocks cannot think" as a sentence I think we agree on, and on which we can then base our subsequent arguments. As I said, "rocks cannot think" doesn't make "rocks don't think" incorrect (although it means that "rocks don't think" often goes without saying).

Usage indicates that "rocks don't think" is a valid way of describing the relation between rocks and thought. Indeed, neither I nor the people I quoted seem to suggest that this is at odds with the idea that rocks cannot think. The idea that it needs to happen as the result of a decision seems simply wrong.

That's a different line of argument though. Those who argue for the "lack" definition of atheism might argue that such an understanding includes for instance agnostics, such as yourself, who have not made the decision to believe there is no god. So the statement you gave here seems incorrect.

Now, it's true that many atheists also do consciously make the decision to believe that there is no god, but that's not a distinction that the definition takes into account. Just like some vegetarians like eating peppers and some don't, whether one eats peppers is not captured in the concept of vegetarianism.

"Rocks don't think" seems perfectly accurate to me, and it most likely seemed perfectly accurate to the people making all those quotes I gave.

The phrases "rocks don't think" and "I don't believe" function in the same way. They describe something which isn't happening, not something which is happening but in some opposite way.

Oh, and just in case you missed it, do you agree that if it turned out that you were mistaken on this point, then a lot of the arguments which you have been complaining about start making more sense?

 

Not really. It's true that the ad populum angle exists. It is even stronger than a normal ad populum argument, since the population define how words are used (which is why for instance the french population will use words differently than an english speaking one).

However, that's not the argument I am trying to make above. I'm using the fact that we both are able to interpret their statements correctly. We know that "rocks don't think" means that rocks thinking is a thing that doesn't happen, nobody in their right mind would think that "rocks don't think" means that rocks have an opposing opinion on any particular subject. But somehow, you come to a different conclusion when we're talking about "I don't believe there is a god".

Not sure what you mean by 1/2 deck. I don't see why they would be "totally different" for our purposes. Belief can indeed go either way, but the phrase "don't believe" doesn't switch the "direction", it says that a certain belief isn't held as true, not that the opposite is held instead.

The rocks example is there only to show that decisions and intentions are not needed in order to not do something (even if doing that something would require a decision).

That's not what I was asking. Maybe I need to copy the question yet another time. I wasn't asking whether you think it will happen, I'm asking whether all your disagreements on this particular issue stem from this particular point.

Insofar that they can convince readers that "lacking disbelief" is the definition of theism, I would agree. However, that would be a uncommon usage, I daresay completely absent from common usage. Atheism as the lack of belief however, is fairly established. That's not to say it's the only way of thinking about it, but it's certainly isn't unreasonable.

"dont is artistic and inconclusive, cant is scientific and conclusive"? That doesn't sound right to me. "Don't" means that something isn't happening (or isn't being done), "can't" means that it cannot happen. "Don't" doesn't imply anything about whether it is possible for something to be happening, just whether it is happening. I can't fly, so I don't fly. I can sleep, but I don't (at the moment, at least). I can breathe, and I do breathe.

It doesn't have anything to do with an conclusive/inconclusive or artistic/scientific divide. Scientifically, we sometimes want to make points using "don't" and sometimes "can't", it depends on the point we're trying to make.

 

Yet you continually claim to be an agnostic. <Rule 3/4>

 

So lacking in disbelief is equivalent to having belief? Doesn't that only work in Boolean logic?

 

It is merely the latest example of his circular logic. By denying something it affirms your belief in it according to the losers who want us all to think like they do.