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

You have 3 choices, you believe its;

1) a boy
2) a girl
3) cant/dont know.

If you lack belief its a boy, the only choice left is that you belief its a girl, or if you dont know if its a boy neither can you know its a girl.

The whole lack of belief gig fails.

 

If you lack a belief in 1, your choices are 2 or 3. If you don't know, you don't hold a belief in 1 or a belief in 2.

 

If you had boy girl cat you would have 3 choices.

you only have 2 choices for belief or lack thereof, not 3 because the third is not a belief choice, its cant know, I dont know. competely different and expresses abstention.

 

Then you are back to denying "I don't know" as an option. Make up your mind. You keep jumping all over the place. You just listed 3 options. Not 2. Now you go back to 2. What gender is my sister's kid? Don't say you don't know because you just said there are only 2 options.

 

agnostic is abstention from 'both', you cant include agnostic as a choice as you are nto abstaining from both.

 

You included it as a choice three posts ago. Sorry, but I can only assume you're trolling at this point.

 

sure it is a choice IF it includes both sides, your lack of belief is one sided in every case, in when your belief is one sided agnostic is not a choice sorry.

 

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I do not believe in any of the "Gods" mankind has created over the centuries. Yet I know that I do not know if there is something else. Basically I am an atheist just like you are....you simply have one less God you disbelieve.

 

Let me know when you make up your mind. Conversation is impossible until then.

 

Let me know when you understand the distinction.

too late just proved for the 3rd time that is impossible. may want to read the last few pages

 

Let me know when you understand conjunction elimination. If you reject both sides, you reject each. If you aren't a Scorpio or a Taurus, you aren't a Scorpio. Elementary logic.

 

I suppose then that I am an impossibility. You actually think you know me better than I do?

 

let me know when you understand dialetheism

 

yeh since i am after all an agnostic, I know one when I see one.

 

Since you are on this thread and have got this far, you must love philosophical debates and the meaning of language. This thread is also about religion and the lack of religion. If any of you care to watch a debate between some one using reason against someone using logic and language, try watching any debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig. Bart is a former devout Christian who became an athiest and also a scholar of the Middle East during the period of Christ. The latter is a favorite among Christians when they need a heavyweight debater. He is good but he cannot beat Bart. One debates using the scientific method or the true historians version of it, the other uses complex logic and reasoning. What comes out of it is that logic can lead to the wrong conclusion if your starting points and truths are wrong. Here is a good example of the kind of interesting debates they have done over the years.

 

kinda but not so much, this one is more geared to 'lack of belief' theory which has now been flushed down the toilet. There is a religion and morality thread I will get back to one of these days, I dont know how many times over and how many more different ways we have to prove lack of belief is a red herring and meaningless, in fact down right sily thing to say.

 

You tried hard, no one can lack belief in that.

 

In your incorrect opinion.

 

Yep the thread proved quite conclusively from every possible angle that your metaphor lack of belief doesnt work, and a simultaneous bonus round that filtered out in the wash, that people can only have one of the 3, that its a logical fallacy for people to combine label. In other words its legal to say 'I'm an atheist because there is insufficient evidence for God' which is 100% legal, however its now proven that combining atheist with agnostic is a failure to comprehend what an agnostic really means. Its also proven that the metaphor 'lack of belief' that atheists use is word salad, which is why the universities have labeled those who claim they are atheists 'internet atheists' since there is no substantive support for their argumentative theory.

 

Boy, you really want to make an atheist into some follower of religion it seems. The religion you want to create for atheists is based upon non-belief in religion. Your last sentence is an appeal to authority without reference to the specific authority by mentioning "universities" as if it is a monolithic term where all have the same outlook. When you say universities do you mean the philosophy chair or one professor or the dean or a graduate student? Do the universities you use as proof all have professors who share a common understanding? If anyone here thinks a group of philosophy PHDs agree on much of anything then you have never met a PHD in Philosophy.

 

Proof of the Lack of belief argument,

 

Huh? proves no such thing, I have plenty of beliefs.

 

OP is in over his head. Why is he so obsessed with this?

 

But in the question of Zeus you showed how it is possible to take no position, A lack of belief in Zeus, well done proved your own BS wrong.

 

so you lack belief as you do not believe in God(s)

what your saying is, I do not believe in God(s), but maybe someday in the future I will, correct?