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

Just purely from logic. In fact the exercise gives you some interesting paradoxes, like infinities tend to do. If a god created everything, it would have to have at some point created wanting which it would never want to do since it hadn't created wanting.

 

But I agree with the stranger that the house is haunted

care to rephrase that so its not so ambiguous

 

Then why would you investigate?

It's just a logical loop. In fact, it also wouldn't create anything because it hadn't created creating.

 

I already told you that I investigate ALL noises.

dont see a point with the loop

 

Why do you investigate all noises?

What part don't you see?

 

Not really, given that the evidence may never be available.

I don't think that's true. It is a possible motivation, but not the only possible one. Other possibilities:

1. A logical person does not want their laws/morals to be based upon things that aren't demonstrated. It's not that we can definitively know there is no god, but to base your conduct or your laws on something with no evidence behind it is illogical even if it did turn out to be correct in the end.

2. One could believe that all truths should hold up under scrutiny. So one could try to disprove them because he/she is unconvinced but wants to be convinced, and so wants to come to a point where he cannot disprove what is being said, and so will be able to logically arrive at belief in that way.

Another possibility, in addition to the two I mentioned earlier, is that this person doesn't believe in your god, or your type of god. I mean, I may simply "lack belief" in gods in general. I have a hope but doubt sort of feeling about it but don't use feelings to determine reality. But when it comes to the god described in the bible, I know that god cannot exist because the description of that god lacks internal logical consistency, and is totally contrary to what I understand about morality and logic.

And given that we cannot know about any real god or gods, and any moral god would not punish us for a lack of belief, it is better to live our lives according to what we can know and so we should discourage people from oppressing others, or limiting themselves, according to a theistic paradigm.

Not really. It's more like taking all of the evidence of how the universe works together, and seeing that there is no place for a god in our experience. One cannot prove that something doesn't exist, but it's not faith to lack belief and not want other people to run our society based upon something without evidence behind it.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion that something exists, and until that assertion is demonstrated, it is not something we should lend credence to. It doesn't really matter whether you semantically prefer to only call people who positively disbelieve in gods atheists or if you think agnostics are a type of atheist.

 

This is obviously false, since you can reverse the situation, say that "I do not not believe" is the negation of "I do not believe," that Koko does not subscribe to "I do not believe," and therefore Koko is a theist. It's complete nonsense. Why do you insist on trying to label Koko an atheist when he rejects the label? Argentina insists the Falkland Islands belong to them, but the residents call themselves British subjects. Argentina's labeling holds no force on them.

Perhaps not, but when discussing the contents of one's mind, self-definitions are mostly what we have to go on. Without looking up your voter registration, I cannot really tell whether you are a Democrat or a Republican except that you tell me. I can draw conclusions based on other statements and a few behavioral cues (did you cry when Hillary lost?), but I really won't know until I hear your self-definition.

Actually, you haven't, or you would give up. There's no such thing as a "lack of belief". There are only things you believe are true and things you believe are false. If you truly understood that, you would stop trying to use "lack of belief" as a definition.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

A logical person would quickly realize ALL laws and morality are based on things that cannot be demonstrated. Murder, theft, abuse, and any other activity prohibited by law you'd care to mention, all benefit the person engaging in them, so it's a societal decision that those things will be prohibited. But whether that society is better off for the prohibition cannot be demonstrated.

 

Nonsense. That an objective morality does not exist does not preclude us from objectively deriving a morality and hence a legal framework that can be demonstrated to benefit a society.

 

It is quite possible to demonstrate the effects of laws on society by measuring against the aims of that society. Take something like the drink driving laws in the UK we can demonstrate their effectiveness quite easily by using a scientific method.

 

Take two societies. One thieves and murders each other, the other gets along and works together. Pretty quick, one is left.

 

why do you knowingly post things you know to be false?

 

Lol, 135 pages and atheism still means..............lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

No, because "not subscribing to 'I do not believe'" is not the condition that makes you a theist ("subscribing to 'I believe'" is) whereas the definition of atheism described means "not subscribing to 'I believe'" is the condition.

As for why, this is because Kokomojojo presented arguments that I don't find persuasive, so I challenge them. Is there more of a why needed on a discussion forum?

The difference is that I'm not questioning what Kokomojojo claims about his own beliefs. I am questioning whether that idea is considered a subset of atheism or not according to the english language. I have not made any statement about what Kokomojojo believes, I have taken his word for every bit of it (I could question it if I wanted to, maybe Kokomojojo is really a Sikh or a Mormon, what do I know?).

My argument is about language and valid representations, not about what Kokomojojo actually believes.

If I said "I believe that 1+1=2, therefore I am an orange", you would rightly say "it seems reasonable that you would believe that 1+1=2, but that does not make you an orange". Similarly, I understand the position Kokomojojo has described, but I disagree with the representation of it (or, more specifically, the necessity of that particular representation). I would agree that you have every reason to believe that I believe "1+1=2", but that in no way disqualifies you from arguing that "that doesn't make you an orange".

I don't see how that follows. An agnostic wouldn't say "I believe the existence of god is true" nor "I believe the existence of god is false", so it seems incorrect to claim that there are no things that don't fall into categories of things you believe are true or believe are false.

 

back to the chinese context drill I see.
You just wiped out negation again.
In the real world regardless of what you find persuasive atheist is the negation of theist and vice versa.
The "I believe"/"I do not believe" is used only to answer the question does G/god exist which is binary. yes or no.
Very simple:
Yes = I believe
No = I dont believe.
But its good to see you back in your context juggling form.

 

yep!
Takes first prize!

Theists believe G/god(s) exist.
Atheists believe G/god(s) do not exist.

Seems odd lackers would have so much difficulty with something so straight forward!

Theists believe G/god(s) exist.

Not if you are here defending the lackers, then you are helping to destroy language, like agnostic that you continue to claim are really atheists.

I wont make the presumption you are persuadable under any circumstances.

 

at which point its then classified as a 'religion', and when it reaches the level of society then its a culture.

 

Only by one such as you with a predetermination towards religion being just and true.

 

Eyes crossed again? Im agnostic LOL

 

Just a reminder for those lacking knowledge of the subject, theist responds to belief in an entire religion. Atheist limit their lack of belief in only god, All aother qualities assigned to atheist are false.

 

No, as has been repeatedly shown in your posts you are a theist, pure and simple. You just lack the courage to admit that you are a theist or an atheist.

By the way, all are LOL at y our claims.

 

not at all, I BELIEVE both sides fail the sniff test.
Lackers be lackn, not me,

Really? whered you dig that nonsense up?

 

Why do you investigate all noises?

What part don't you see?

 

it makes no point. because I can.