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

I thought I showed pretty conclusively the angle in which the argument was perfectly valid. All along, it has been your unjustified insistence on a certain, non-standard definition that made it not work. If you use the other definition, which is totally valid, all the pieces fall into place.

Your arguments last time were that the definition was too broad (which is not actually a problem, why would it be?), use in philosophical circles (although most philosophical circles acknowledge the dichotomy), an argument about tristate logic (which relies on the definition, so it would be circular to use that argument to figure out which definition to use) and then just some repeating of your understanding (which also is based on the definition, so it would be circular to use it to support the argument).

 

I swear, the whole world is on acid. If I could make since out that sentence, I'd ask to be treated for schizophrenia. Is the cat really on the mat, or is the mat under the cat? Or is your definition of cat based on your ethnocentric up bringing. Maybe its not a cat, maybe its a mat? But what do you mean by mat? Maybe an Existentialist would use the term mat as the fabric of alternate universe. And what of the neo post modernist? To them is a cat a viable object or a subjective projection of neo liberalism, or a neo-conservative right wingnut conspiracy to force Hillary Clinton to pose nude while embracing her nude husband on a white album cover? And what about Neo? Was he Neo or Neal, or was he real or bi-real? And did his world really use human body chemistry as batteries, or did he just get a hold of some good Hawaiian gold. And what is is? Is is is or is it isn't but wasn't. Knowledge? We can't possibly be here for knowledge. Isn't knowledge just an illusion of earthlings so they can behave like gods? Have fun goof balls.

And there you have it, the argument for God or if you wish, non-god, or perhaps better still, Neo-God, or God Neo, of Neo Neal God. Take your pick, none of it means anything anyways, or does it?

 

Eh, what? None of that made sense or had anything to do with what I wrote.

 

Dense, or as Tull would say, "Thick as a brick". I can't believe I share the same world with minds like yours.

 

Well, with a name like Matt Slick, it sure would give one a cause to pause for this faux.

 

Still not sure what you're talking about. My post was a specific reference to a previous post by Kokomojojo.

 

There is no angle that the argument is valid, its been shown in this thread, WSmith did a great job writing out both proofs and syllogisms proving it, so I cant imagine what you could disagree with at this point. Yeh I'd say qualifying a rock to be an atheist is a bit too broad

 

No, you helpfully supplied the no position argument in another thread!

You took the position on Zeus that you had no position. You lacked a belief either way!

 

I dont understand why atheists keep posting that trash.

ag·nos·tic
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence

I told you I have plenty of beliefs, we are back to atheists pounding square pegs into round holes and calling it legitimate again.

 

Or we are back to you even considering any thought other than your own.

As shown in this thread, there are many people who disagree with your rants, more than agree with you.

Go along with your own beliefs and let others do the same. In other words, no one cares what you think.

 

This is what you wrote,

You mention nothing of knowledge in your quote above, when asked "Does Zeus exist?" you simply requested evidence, when none was forthcoming you took no position. Exactly as an Atheist would do, why take any position without evidence either way, it is the logical thing to do since the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim for Zeus as you showed!

Both your ideas busted in a simple example. Inspired!

 

All the complaints I have seen have been invalid, due to arbitrary definitions and circular reasoning.

The bits you quoted to me didn't include any arguments, it just effectively repeated your conclusion without any justification. I've discussed it further with WSmith, and the discussion took another turn.

Well, an atheist is a _person_ who encompasses atheism, so I'm not sure I'd call a rock a person. You could say that the rock encompasses atheism, or belongs to the set of atheism, and that would be about as weird as saying the same thing about a human.

Consider the word "virginity", the state of not having had sex. You could easily say this about a person, you could say it about an animal, and even some plants. Now, if someone asked whether a certain rock encompasses virginity, you might say that technically it does, given that it has not had sex, and you might consider that weird, but it's hardly a reason to assume that virginity is an unusable word.

Now, there is some wiggle room here, even dictionaries are vague in whether things like virginity requires the holder to be a person. I reckon this is because the word can be used in both contexts, and the difference isn't really important for the word.

 

But thats a very dishonest approach in a debate since I have said in several posts in several threads that I am agnostic, some of which you have quoted, only to claim I did not mention it in the post you quoted but instead gave its definition, which everyone here but you apparently recognizes as agnostic. Your problem is not with my posts its with yours.

Yes exactly what someone who believes in a deity would do as well, and just because you refuse to accept their evidence does not mean its not valid evidence.

People who accept

 

Arbitrary and circular? You sure you aint talking about atheists here?

which conclusions are those?

'encompasses' atheism? wth is that LOL

nope virginity is a pre-intercourse state. There is no verb sorry.

Atheists claim that they are atheists because they 'lack belief', there is nothing, no rules what so ever lack of belief is limited to a person. rocks lack belief, therefore rocks are atheist.

Every thought you accept as tru is a belief. Its not rocket science to understand that if you call yourselves atheists you came to a truth conclusion that you believe a deity does not exist, otherwise you would not call yourselves atheists. The only faulty logic in this thread is the internet atheists logic in this thread.

 

You simply showed how the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim and what a lack of belief is. Nothing dishonest in that, you acted quite logically when asked about Zeus.

You showed quite clearly how it is perfectly acceptable to have no position on the subject of a God.
In other words you lacked a belief on the subject of a god, exactly what atheists have been telling you they do!

Whether evidence is presented or not, I simply do not need to take a position just because another demands it, as you did with Zeus. Through out pages of your threads you have argued a position must be taken, then with Zeus you took no position! And what was good for the Zeus is good for the god/gods!

 

Yep. When discussing which definition to use, you bring up the argument that agnosticism is a rejection of atheism, but that relies on an understanding of atheism, which means it presupposes a definition even though the definition was the thing being questioned. That is circular logic.

In your post here, where you quoted xWSmithx at me, it merely proclaimed the arguments as true. By this point, you should understand which criticisms I have, and you would see that the post xWSmithx posted does not address those problems.

Weh, you know what I mean. For an atheist or a rock, atheism is true. That doesn't make a rock an atheist, for that would require them also to be a person, which rocks are not.

I'm not sure what the right word is there, I'll use "has" (as in 'an atheist is a person who "has" atheism') but if that sounds weird, feel free to replace it with whatever other word you think embodies that relationship.

I haven't said anything about a verb. A rock has not had sex, but calling it a virgin is still weird. Maybe you could say that a rock has virginity. Maybe you can't. Either way, the fact that it would be silly to talk about rocks with virginity does not mean the word is not valid.

Basically, your argument would work just as well for atheism and virginity, and since we know and use the word virginity without problem, so should we with atheism.

Why would lack of belief be limited to a person? Are you claiming that rocks believe things? I agree that it's pretty nonsensical to talk about rocks in terms of beliefs and so forth, but that's not a limitation of the definition (just as with "virginity").

You're back in assuming a definition. The definition I'm proposing does not equate atheism to "accept [something] as tru". The entire discussion boils down to whether the definition I propose is valid (just as I said for ages when you were interrupting my arguments with stuff about formal logic). And yet here, you revert to your old definition without meeting the meat of the matter.

 

I can be Atheist concerning "God" as defined by human kind and Agnostic concerning what I know I do not "Know". For instance I am absolutely sure the Christian God is fable and fabricated but have no clue what else might be out there (or in here).

 

dont say that to any shrink man, because that describes personality disorder.

 

Interestingly enough my own Mother is a psychologist and counselor with Multiple degrees in the field and I have had many discussions with her on these and other issues. The "Personality disorder" concept has never come up concerning me but I get the impression she does consider God worship to be somewhat defeating of the psychological growth people should strive for in life.

 

agnostic claims the question is unknowable, therefore chooses to abstain from voting.

internet atheists claim atheism which by definition is a belief deities do not exist then without missing a beat claim they lack belief, again this is a personanality disorder because they fail to recognize the contradiction.

Yes because he proved it sufficiently, I may have missed it, it may have fell between the cracks of all the troll posts?

Ok for the sake of an argument (it does not according to the atheist definition) but why do you want me to imagine it has to be a person? I expect atheists will have lots of problems with words on this one
I am not going to make your case for you, and I cant think of any words that fit so you are on your own.

I know you didnt 'I' did, 'having' is a verb not a condition. No it wouldnt because you didnt even frame the question in an arguable sense.

Rocks dont believe anything, which is why they lack belief. Sure its nonsense for the atheists claim lack of belief but they do it so why not rocks?

I combined the atheists position to the phrase they use, dont blame me atheists did it. Maybe, if you can explain why its valid. In order to claim atheist you must accept as true God does not exist, does not matter how you got to that point. Again WS explained extremely well.

 

Actually this "Internet Atheist" simply believes YOUR chosen deity does not exist outside your mind. Granted none of the other thousands of human inspired Godhead thingys are either. I probably know what an Atheist thinks better than you do, actually being one instead of imagining.

 

In answer to your signature: "Life is Pain...Pain is Knowledge...Knowledge is Life......rinse and repeat" See below:

Life is joy gained through knowledge, so keep thinking--its the easiest way to live a joyous life.

Ayn Rand: "Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose"--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html

Yaron Brook: Happiness In An Unfree World



Ah, the joy of life



by David Knowles: http://www.davidknowlesart.com/

 

Oh, so if its outside your mind how do atheists know it does not exist? Faith.....
you probably dont actually
well thats an error in your understanding of the definition, since the word atheist applies to all deities not just one LOL You arent an atheist if you believe there is no deities..... period. If you so much as believe one diety exists you are a thesit.

 

that would be a poor judgment on her part.

 

Again you revert to a definition of Atheism that very few subscribe to and ignore the more accepted version, you never engage with the arguments for any other widely accepted definition.

Appeals to authority, smileys and mild insults do not make your argument correct or your definition the widely accepted one.