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

well I am sure to some people that sounds good at first blush, however when we examine it just below the surface as I said its nonsequitur

agnostic = not atheist and not theist

you are saying [something] = not atheist and atheist

a contradiction, agnostic cant be not atheist and atheist at the same time.

 

Bi-sexual= not gay but not straight.

Think of me as a bi-religious individual.

 

The need to feel superior to atheists is overwhelming, kind of the hallmark of a fundamentalist extremist.

 

162 pages and atheism still means...................lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

There are some very simple people that still believe that being an agnostic is some kind of middle way and makes you a superior person; these are the fundamentalist agnostics, the new alt-Agnostics, who can only think one way. Everyone else has moved on and realised that agnosticism addresses a different question to that of theism/atheism wherein, atheism and theism address what you believe and agnosticism addresses what you can know. In fact, many agnostics make the mistake of forming beliefs about what you can know and make themselves the reverse of the same coin as theism, an agnostic who claims that we cannot know about gods is doing such a thing. Nuance is your friend alt-Agnostics slackers.

 

Indeed, I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

Defeating their own intended purpose.

 

Puleez! Try to tell us that Atheists don't look down their noses at all other religions. That's what they have in common with evangelicals.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

nt

 

You are what you think, which is your belief.

 

Sure you could classify bisexual similar to agnostic, not straight not gay, but it sounds equaly as foolish to say bisexual-gay or bisexual-straight as it does to say agnostic atheist, its logically a contradiction.

Lackers yeh big time defeat their purpose.

agnostic is not a middle way, however the reasoning is superior because agnostic addresses the same identical question 'does G/god exist' same question theists and atheist address, where theists accept existence on faith/without proof and atheist accept nonexistence on faith/without proof and both sides bet on 'probability'. The agnostic simply says no proof offerred by either side, no reason to accept either side.

Agnostics address the same identical question and has nothing to do with 'addressing knowledge' and everything to do with insufficient evidence to support either position so agnostics choose neither. So you bought another wooden nickel, and lack understanding of what an agnostic really is.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

163 pages now and atheism still means.................lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

As WSmith painstakingly and eloquently explained over 100 pages ago the fallacy of lack of belief philosophy.

 

I lack belief, I am an atheist.

 

"Lack of belief" analysis

1. What does "lack belief in God" mean?
   1. "Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.
      1. Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable.
         Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack belief in screaming blue ants. What about it?
   2. If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it.
      1. This would mean that it is not a purposeful, chosen neutrality about something since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing--even if the category is called neutrality.
         
         
      2. We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of.
   3. If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.
      
      1. However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual.
         
         
      2. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as:
         1. True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.
      3. We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as:
         
         
      4. True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.
         
         
      5. To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it.
         1. If True, then positive belief is applied.
         2. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
         3. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
         4. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome.
            
            1. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection)--depending on further information and analysis.
               
               
            2. Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief.
2. Actions reflect belief
   1. We act based upon what we do believe--not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something--not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out.
      1. In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us but belief.
   2. I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them.
      
      
   3. I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of.
      1. If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist.
         
         
      2. If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so any more than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.
         
         
      3. If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous; but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist.
      4. If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence.
   4. If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.
      1. Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent. [Delusional]
   5. Atheists, who say they lack belief in God or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs--not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God but attacks theistic evidences must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.
3. To say you believe there is no God has problems
   1. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
      1. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
         
         
      2. If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence, and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist; and the person is really an agnostic concerning God, so his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
         
         
      3. If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
         1. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
            
            
         2. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
            
            
         3. If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known, or it doesn't exist. If it were known, then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
      4. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
         
         
      5. If by a combination of evidence, logic and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
      For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism, and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. ~Matt Slick
      
      
      I am not convinced.
      
      I say it has no foundation what so ever. The above article does a good job pointing out the plethora foibles of the atheist lack of belief unsupported opinions

 

Agnostic is a neutral position, 'neither'.

Agnostics abstain from voting or agreeing with either theism or atheism.

The agnostic simply acknowledges the fact there is insufficient evidence to choose either side, but has an open mind and leaves the gate open that should the day ever come where enough evidence would surface on either side the agnostic will revise their position and default to the side of evidence.

Agnosticism addresses the fact both sides have insufficient evidence therefore its illogical to choose either so the so called alt-agnostic chooses neither.

Insufficient evidence results in insufficient knowledge. It goes or should go without saying that agnostics claim insufficient knowledge because there is insufficient evidence.

A real atheist makes their choice to be an atheist because they have enough evidence as far as they are concerned that they are convinced no G/god(s) have ever and never will exist.

Atheists make the choice of atheist because they believe they have sufficient evidence which is the same as sufficient knowledge which is the result of sufficient evidence.

Agnostic atheists is a false paradigm that cant exist as it is contrary to logic and reason because no one can be atheist and neither at that same.

Its impossible and a contradiction to have sufficient evidence to be an atheist and insufficient evidence to be an atheist at the same time.

 

Fortunately your opinion does not in any way change my reality. YOU can say whatever turns your crank but considering everything else you "Say" it is barely even irrelevant and borders on worthless it is easily and immediately dismissed as the ramblings of an unstable mind. In essence sir, you have presented to this forum an object to be ignored as anything but fading entertainment value on a rainy day.

 

actually its not, at least not in the philosophical world.

its impossible to logically or reasonably fathom how one can be either and neither at the same time.

Do you have an explanation for that?

 

Okay....what is a Liger?

Is it a Lion, a Tiger, both or neither?

Is it either?

What is a Mutt...is it mostly the father, the mother, both or neither?

What are you?

 

This is not baking a cake however.
Each position is specific.

Theist accepts God exists to be 'true'
Agnostic accepts Neither to be 'true'
Atheist accepts God does not exist to be 'true'

3 unique and contradictory positions.

Your liger example contains no contradictory conditions as does agnositc-atheist.

If you want to use the label you are forced to limit yourself to one choice, identical to +1, 0, -1, you cannot be any 2 choices at the same time, in a situation where each choice has a unique specific value.

This is not a cake where you can blend ingredients.

 

No we know what a tiger is, we know what a lion is, there are thousand of gods non of which are defined enough for us to know what you mean when you write gods or God. It is interesting to note that some educated Christians are now saying that whether Jesus was a god or whether a god exists is irrelevant.