Theology and Religion of The New Pope Dawkins - The Devils Chaplin

the reality is a disbelief in the existence of a god. there is a difference.

 

The answer is in the first 3 words 'prefix of negation'. Unbelief means no belief

 

I give you enough credit by making the assumption that you arent one of those who think it means no belief at all.

Um do you think that?

{¬believe ⇔ believe not}

Do you disagree with that? Is that it?

I gave you the link where I proved the conjunctive error, If you think its anything else feel free to post your own math as I have (or anyone elses for all I care to demonstrate your point is even worth considering) : http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/455194-freedom-atheism-17.html

I suppose its always possible that you are not taking into account that belief requires an object to even be valid?

People sure do seem to be having problems out here with simple grammar.


Therefore:
{!belief ⊥ indeterminate}
{disbelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{unbelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{lackOfbelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{notbelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{zerobelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{sortOfbelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{belief ⊥ indeterminate}
{lotsOfbelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{nobelief ⊥ indeterminate}
{no(*)(*)(*)(*)ingwayhosebelief} ⊥ indeterminate}


if that is not clear enough:

{!belief ⇔ atheist}
{disbelief ⇔ atheist}
{unbelief ⇔ atheist}
{lackOfbelief ⇔ atheist}
{notbelief ⇔ atheist}
{zerobelief ⇔ atheist}
{belief ⇔ theist}
{lotsOfbelief ⇔ theist}
{no(*)(*)(*)(*)ingwayhosebelief} ⇔ atheist

{indeterminate ⇔ Agnostic}
{¬indeterminate ⇔ ¬Agnostic}

{atheist ⊥ indeterminate}
{theist ⊥ indeterminate}

{¬atheist ⇔ [COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B]theist[/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR]}
{¬theist [COLOR=#0000ff][B]⇔[/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B][COLOR=#0000ff][B]atheist[/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR]}


Like I said if you got the math post it. (If you think proving a negative is difficult try proving a proven error in logic is not an error.)

 

see above

 

I saw it. doesn't change the reality it is a disbelief in the existence of god. not a belief there is no god. there is a difference.

 

My belief is that your belief that colored letters ads any validity to your arguments is asinine ... does that
mean that my belief that your belief in colored letters is a religion?

 

if thats all people walk away with seeing is "colored letters" then this is light years beyond their comprehension.

 

we don't believe that gods do not exist, we see no evidence to believe they do exist. it's a significantly different thing.

it's "I have no idea if there are gods - but if there are, they're MIA, so there's no reason to actively believe they exist"

as opposed to:

"no gods exist"

Most atheists will say the former.

 

a significant difference. some theists seem very dependent on the idea that atheists 'believe there is no god'.

 

Ahhh - you missed it. Oh well. I tried.

 

and consequently you have no idea if there are NO gods, hence you are an agnostic not an atheist.

Like I said do th karnaugh map if you want to debate this with me not your opinion. I dont care about your opinion when it can easily be proven using logic notation.

 

understandable since that is after all the definition

 

I have no idea either way. Just like the rest of humanity.

And I'm an agnostic atheist. Thanks.

 

I've met maybe three atheists who asserted there were no gods and meant it. I dismissed them as readily as I dismiss theists who claim they know with certainty that gods exist. Both positions are untenable. The only honest position is "I don't know".

 

my opinion is based on half a century of life in a highly secular nation. born into a multi-generational atheist family, in an atheist community, with all atheist friends and colleagues etc. how much personal experience do you have of the modern lifelong atheist?

 

no you are only an agnostic. I cant help you if you do not take the time to learn formal logic and insist of simply spouting off opinion.

 

Someone who rationalizes his entire belief in God on the supposition that others cannot disprove that God exists should probably not claim to understand formal logic.

 

likewise for atheists who rationalize their entire lack of belief in God on the supposition that others cannot prove to their material satisfaction that God exists should probably not claim to understand formal logic.

Oh and then call themselves as agnostic-athiests no less.

and that got you exactly..................no where

 

you're welcome to call me anything you like. be my guest.

you're quite entertaining, it must be said. don't go changing

 

those idiots ... what were they thinking

so we can assume you believe in every god and supernatural entity ever proposed, right?

 

Mr. "My Secret Definitions Are the Only Valid Definitions" speaks.

 

Come down to earth. All the above means nothing to the man in the street. If you were to ask him what 'unbelief' means you will find by far the greater majority will
tell you it is the lack of religious belief - or words in similar terms. This is what counts in everyday life. That's what language is about. And over the generations language and meanings change.

 

Sorry but that is another red herring. Athiests base their lack of belief in God on the fact that there is no evidence that Any God exists, not on the fact that believers can't prove God's existence. Understand the difference?

 

Give us your definition of religion. Have asked you before and you never answer. You might also give your definition of "belief" while you are at it.

 

actually the definition is the lack of belief in a god or gods.