Whats an Agnostic to do in a lackers world?

Both phrasings are fine. As you say, lacking belief does not require a brain.

Not believing something also does not require a brain. "Not believing" is to not do something (believing). Not doing something does not require you to be able to do that thing.

Believing requires a brain. The state of not believing does not require a brain.
Compare:
Tap dancing requires legs. The state of not tap dancing does not require legs.

 

excuse me, but believing is verb, and you know that the act of not believing is precisely semantic with believing not, you have said it yourself many times.

 

What makes that the "proper" slot? It seems to me it depends on what you're trying to say.

If someone is making a specific argument against religion, then it doesn't matter logically whether they believe there is no god or if they are agnostic (depending a bit on what that argument is). The proper thing in that situation seems to me to point out the relevant bits only. One could say "I'm an agnostic who wears jeans", that's more specific, but not necessarily more "proper".

 

Using our brains to evaluate situations is required to decide what is to be believed and not. It is also quite handy and useful when creating logical responses on an internet forum...you should try it.

 

Why? I don't have any problem making sense of it. The large amount of self-proclaimed atheists have no problem making sense of it.

 

Uhm, no, I have consistently argued the exact opposite. A rock succeeds in not believing (since it has no brain) but fails at believing not (since belief would require a brain). It is thus shown by counter example that those two are not the same thing and are differentiated by more than semantics.

 

Is there any particular bit that doesn't seem logical to you?

 

Believing and not believing something requires thought which occurs in the brain.

 

Do not believe, disbelieve, believe not, all convey without any doubt a negation of theism and confirmation of atheism, lack does not.

Lack can be anything less than 100% theist and in the larger scope requires no brain what so ever to 'lack'.

 

now you are talking about strictly limiting it to an argument and this conversation has thus far been directed at and within the scope of someones personal religious choice.

 

No, "not believing in God" means not doing the thing called "believing in God". A rock might succeed in not believing there is a god, but it will not succeed in believing there is no god.

It's true that people often say "I don't believe you" when they mean "I believe something other than what you believe", and perhaps "I believe the opposite to what you believe" (if there are only two options), but that is merely a euphemism, an indirect phrasing, one that doesn't explicitly say that you believe something else, but which clearly implies it in most contexts.

 

Well, not necessarily a specific argument. If you put together all the arguments self-proclaimed atheists are making, you'll find that they are more often aimed at discrediting religion and less at specifically arguing that there is no god. That is the context in which they have chosen which interpretation they think is proper.

 

agnostic is agnostic. Words have meanings. As an agnostic myself I just ignore dumb people. Ask the theist for proof god exists, and ask the atheist for proof it doesnt and watch them struggle.

 

Not believing doesn't. A rock can refrain from believing. Indeed, it sort of has to. So it succeeds in not believing, even though it does not have a brain.

 

Think about it for a sec.....likely the only time you ever note an Atheist talking about it will be when you see it here. The only time (generally) that an Atheist speaks up here is when a Christian either makes claims about Atheism, debases it or spews the Bible and their God as fact. I have never seen the "Militant Atheists" claimed by these people so I tell them that when they type it. I have also NEVER made a thread to attack Christianity but have often replied to one attacking Atheism out of defense and irritation.

 

I suppose if all context is removed then anything means anything and discussion has become pointless....Have A Nice Day

 

Theoretically yes, but we have languages, and they give sort of an entry point to what means what. It seems to me all I have said has had meaning. Have a nice Friday you too!

 

wow you are seriously confused.
yep it got out of bed one day and said I will refrain from believing today. I am shocked that you would think much less say something like that. I have to go to the hospital now because my jaw hit the floor so hard it broke

 

What I mean is that it is capable of not believing. It succeeds in not believing, none of the things it does amounts to believing (in a god).

 

So its [a rock] is 'capable' of not believing, then its also 'capable' of believing.
Does it fetch too?

A rock is neither capable of anything nor can it succeed in accomplishing anything.

 

Why would that follow? A fish is capable of not tap dancing, that doesn't mean it's capable of tap dancing.

It seems to me a rock can do a bunch of stuff. It can exist, it can succeed in existing, it can lay still, etc..

 

Dont you bother to understand the words you use before you post?

Definition of succeed
verb: succeed;
1.
achieve the desired aim or result.

Definition of can
1 a : know how to
b : be physically or mentally able to

A rock simply exists.

A fish is not capable of knowing how not to tap dance, that is patently ridiculous.

Its getting more difficult every day to take you seriously.

 

You seem to be dodging the point. It is capable of existing among other things.

I haven't said anything about *knowing* how not to tap dance (I'm not fully sure what that would entail, maybe it would apply, maybe not).

I saw a fish, it wasn't tap dancing, it was not tap dancing. Thus it must have been capable of not tap dancing.

Similarly, a rock is incapable of believing, so by the law of the excluded middle, it must be not believing.

 

So we are going to another round of dictionary 101?

adjective: capable
1.
having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing.

Dood, you are posting some of the wackiest **** I have ever seen.

A fish does not have the ability to not dance, it is INcapable of dancing under any circumstances regardless if it wants to or not.

believe
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

A rock cannot perform any action what so ever, it is incapable of any form of belief period.

To crayola this for you it means that if its impossible for it to believe its also impossible for it to not believe, or 'ing'

 

What you mean to say is, you are a theist, because you lack disbelief in gods. It doesn't come simply from a lack disbelief in anything.

An agnostic does not accept a belief in gods. If one defines atheist as not accepting a belief in gods, then that 'agnostic' is an agnostic atheist, with a gnostic atheist being one who "knows" God does not exist. If one defines atheists as only being those who "know" gods do not exist, then that 'agnostic' is just an agnostic.

It's just semantics, really. Your ridiculous tirade reflects more on you than it does on atheists.