Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is not "lack of belief in God"

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:42:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

So, what you've done there is define atheism as the antynom to theism, then said "look, atheism is the antonym to theism, so you're wrong". That's a circular argument if I ever saw one.

Atheism is whatever people want to define it, and you don't get to tell other people what they are, just because you define it differently. It's called subjectivity.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:52:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How is that a circular argument? Do you disagree that A-theism is the antonym of theism?

I'm not saying you can't define words how you want, I'm just pointing out that it's incorrect.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:08:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:52:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How is that a circular argument? Do you disagree that A-theism is the antonym of theism?

I'm not saying you can't define words how you want, I'm just pointing out that it's incorrect.

It's a circular argument because you used a premise that is only true if the conclusion is, to assert the conclusion.

I don't disagree that it's the antonym to theism. I believe it's whatever someone wants it to be. Words have neither correct nor incorrect definitions out of context. Definitions are transient.

How is it incorrect?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:23:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:52:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How is that a circular argument? Do you disagree that A-theism is the antonym of theism?

I'm not saying you can't define words how you want, I'm just pointing out that it's incorrect.

It's a circular argument because you used a premise that is only true if the conclusion is, to assert the conclusion.

I don't disagree that it's the antonym to theism. I believe it's whatever someone wants it to be. Words have neither correct nor incorrect definitions out of context. Definitions are transient.

How is it incorrect?

I didn't base my argument on circular logic though. As an analogous example, I said "because the inverse [opposite] of '2' [theism] is '-2' [atheism] the inverse cannot hold a neutral value '0' [athiesm = -2 cannot simulatenously be 0]. It's a logical (law of excluded middle) argument.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Okay, let's go with these definitions (I am a theist).

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.

Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Not according to your own definition.
Atheism- Disbelief in God.
Disbelief literally means "no belief"
Your own definition of atheism would translate into "No belief in God", which is the same thing as "lack of belief in God".

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism.

Agnosticism, without knowledge. How is no belief best fall under something that deals with knowledge?

Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable.

Correct, it deals with knowledge, not belief.

NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God.

Not really, I know agnostic theists (I am not one of them). Agnosticism deals with what you know, not what you believe.

If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter.

Depends on how you define "reject".

Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions.

Not really.

You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time.

Logically, no. That is the equivalent of saying you do not believe and do not not believe in God. It is a flawed statement. It is saying ~A and ~(~A) at the same time.

"Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists.

Okay.

Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false.

No according to your own definition. Your own definition is that atheists do not believe in a God. That does not mean they say the truth statement about a god existing is false, many make no claim in regards to the knowledge of a god.

As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Not according to your own definition.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

You can define theism as "lack of disbelief in God" but that still makes it a positive position, meaning theism still has the BoP.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:37:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:25:26 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Okay, let's go with these definitions (I am a theist).

Your user name and RFD on one of my previous debates would lead me to believe otherwise...

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.

They are the same thing. Anti means to oppose, oppose means to contrast.

Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Not according to your own definition.
Atheism- Disbelief in God.
Disbelief literally means "no belief"
Your own definition of atheism would translate into "No belief in God", which is the same thing as "lack of belief in God".

Disbelief means to reject belief. Lacking belief means to be absent of belief.

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism.

Agnosticism, without knowledge. How is no belief best fall under something that deals with knowledge?

Agnosticism doesn't mean without knowledge. Ignorance means to be without knowledge.

Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable.

Correct, it deals with knowledge, not belief.

Belief is your own position regarding the truth of a statement or whether something exists so it does have to do with belief. Despite common misconception, "belief" isn't a term that only refers to the religious.

NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God.

Not really, I know agnostic theists (I am not one of them). Agnosticism deals with what you know, not what you believe.

If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter.

Depends on how you define "reject".

Well there's only three possible options: (1) accept, (2) neither accept or reject, or (3) reject. This refers to (3).

Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions.

Not really.

That was a convincing rebuttal...

You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time.

Logically, no. That is the equivalent of saying you do not believe and do not not believe in God. It is a flawed statement. It is saying ~A and ~(~A) at the same time.

No, it's like someone asking you if you want icecream and instead of saying "yes" or "no, because. . . " you just say "I don't know" which means the option of yes and no were both absent of his/her choice.

"Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists.

Okay.

Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false.

No according to your own definition. Your own definition is that atheists do not believe in a God. That does not mean they say the truth statement about a god existing is false, many make no claim in regards to the knowledge of a god.

They reject belief in God. Belief is that something is *true*. Reject means that they do not accept the statement as true. At this point, they are not lacking their consensus of the truth on this statement because they've rejected it.

As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Not according to your own definition.

How so?

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

You can define theism as "lack of disbelief in God" but that still makes it a positive position, meaning theism still has the BoP.

I could define it like that but it would be incorrect.. Just like "lacking belief in God" is an incorrect definition for atheism.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:51:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:23:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:52:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How is that a circular argument? Do you disagree that A-theism is the antonym of theism?

I'm not saying you can't define words how you want, I'm just pointing out that it's incorrect.

It's a circular argument because you used a premise that is only true if the conclusion is, to assert the conclusion.

I don't disagree that it's the antonym to theism. I believe it's whatever someone wants it to be. Words have neither correct nor incorrect definitions out of context. Definitions are transient.

How is it incorrect?

I didn't base my argument on circular logic though. As an analogous example, I said "because the inverse [opposite] of '2' [theism] is '-2' [atheism] the inverse cannot hold a neutral value '0' [athiesm = -2 cannot simulatenously be 0]. It's a logical (law of excluded middle) argument.

But your conclusion was not that -2 cannot = 0. It was that -2 must be the opposite of 2. And you argued this by asserting your conclusion, that is, that -2 is the opposite of 2. You defined Atheism, and Theism, then built off of that. And sure, your argument may be logically correct. But it's semantically incorrect, in that you started the argument by defining a word improperly in relation to the context.

You are correct, though, it isn't a circular argument. My bad on that, It's 6 in the morning, and I probably should have been asleep many hours ago.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:55:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:37:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:25:26 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Okay, let's go with these definitions (I am a theist).

Your user name and RFD on one of my previous debates would lead me to believe otherwise...

I am a theist only because of anecdotal evidence, so I treat many situations the same as I would if I were an atheist. My name was also a parody of lifemeansgodisgood because of his hilariously flawed arguments.

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.

They are the same thing. Anti means to oppose, oppose means to contrast.

Anti=oppose, you are correct.
A/An=not.

They are not the same thing.

Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Not according to your own definition.
Atheism- Disbelief in God.
Disbelief literally means "no belief"
Your own definition of atheism would translate into "No belief in God", which is the same thing as "lack of belief in God".

Disbelief means to reject belief. Lacking belief means to be absent of belief.

Where do you get that as a definition of disbelief?
Dis=not, so disbelief means not believe.

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism.

Agnosticism, without knowledge. How is no belief best fall under something that deals with knowledge?

Agnosticism doesn't mean without knowledge. Ignorance means to be without knowledge.

Greek agn!3;stos unknown, unknowable

Un=not.

Not known, not knowable.
Without and not are synonyms in this context.

Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable.

Correct, it deals with knowledge, not belief.

Belief is your own position regarding the truth of a statement or whether something exists so it does have to do with belief. Despite common misconception, "belief" isn't a term that only refers to the religious.

I do not believe that unicorns exist but i do not believe in them. Belief and knowledge can be related, but just because you do not know something does not mean you cannot believe/disbelieve in it.

NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God.

Not really, I know agnostic theists (I am not one of them). Agnosticism deals with what you know, not what you believe.

If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter.

Depends on how you define "reject".

Well there's only three possible options: (1) accept, (2) neither accept or reject, or (3) reject. This refers to (3).

That does nothing to define what you mean by reject. Give an actual definition.

Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions.

Not really.

That was a convincing rebuttal...

I already addressed it, so I do not need to address it again.

You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time.

Logically, no. That is the equivalent of saying you do not believe and do not not believe in God. It is a flawed statement. It is saying ~A and ~(~A) at the same time.

No, it's like someone asking you if you want icecream and instead of saying "yes" or "no, because. . . " you just say "I don't know" which means the option of yes and no were both absent of his/her choice.

Disbelieve-not to believe.
So, can you not believe and not not believe at the same time? Yes or No.

"Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists.

Okay.

Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false.

No according to your own definition. Your own definition is that atheists do not believe in a God. That does not mean they say the truth statement about a god existing is false, many make no claim in regards to the knowledge of a god.

They reject belief in God. Belief is that something is *true*. Reject means that they do not accept the statement as true. At this point, they are not lacking their consensus of the truth on this statement because they've rejected it.

You have changed the definition of atheism now. It started as disbelief in God, now it is rejection of god. So, what is it?

As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Not according to your own definition.

How so?

Lacking belief=Not to believe.
I demonstrated how, with your own definitions, atheism is not believing in god. Which means that this statement you made was flawed.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

You can define theism as "lack of disbelief in God" but that still makes it a positive position, meaning theism still has the BoP.

I could define it like that but it would be incorrect.. Just like "lacking belief in God" is an incorrect definition for atheism.

Yet, it is a dictionary definition.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:46:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:55:49 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:37:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:25:26 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Okay, let's go with these definitions (I am a theist).

Your user name and RFD on one of my previous debates would lead me to believe otherwise...

I am a theist only because of anecdotal evidence, so I treat many situations the same as I would if I were an atheist. My name was also a parody of lifemeansgodisgood because of his hilariously flawed arguments.

My anecdotal evidence shows that you're an atheist but you're free to state that you aren't.

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.


They are the same thing. Anti means to oppose, oppose means to contrast.

Anti=oppose, you are correct.
A/An=not.

They are not the same thing.

"To oppose" and the "a-" prefix of "not [X]" are compatible with each other. The logical focus of my argument was on opposite meanings or antonyms. Disbelief is the antonym or opposite of belief. Since you've just stated that atheism is disbelief in God, how is lacking belief (neutral position regarding the truth of that statement) simultaneously compatible with disbelief (rejecting the truth of that statement)?

Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Not according to your own definition.
Atheism- Disbelief in God.
Disbelief literally means "no belief"
Your own definition of atheism would translate into "No belief in God", which is the same thing as "lack of belief in God".

It doesn't mean "no belief." The Merriam-Webster definition of disbelief ": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

Disbelief means to reject belief. Lacking belief means to be absent of belief.

Where do you get that as a definition of disbelief?
Dis=not, so disbelief means not believe.

See above

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism.

Agnosticism, without knowledge. How is no belief best fall under something that deals with knowledge?

Agnosticism doesn't mean without knowledge. Ignorance means to be without knowledge.

Greek agn!3;stos unknown, unknowable

Un=not.

Not known, not knowable.
Without and not are synonyms in this context.

To an agnostic whether God is real is not a known truth or its a truth that is unknowable but they hold a position that requires knowledge. Agnostics have a position regarding the truth of the statement "God exists" which is "I don't know/can't know" but they have the knowledge to decide that they don't know. An ignorant person has no knowledge about God at all. A brick for example has no knowledge at all about belief in God and is simply ignorant regarding the existence or truth to the statement "God exists".

Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable.

Correct, it deals with knowledge, not belief.

Belief is your own position regarding the truth of a statement or whether something exists so it does have to do with belief. Despite common misconception, "belief" isn't a term that only refers to the religious.

I do not believe that unicorns exist but i do not believe in them. Belief and knowledge can be related, but just because you do not know something does not mean you cannot believe/disbelieve in it.

Right, but you're ignorant if you're without knowledge not agnostic.

NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God.

Not really, I know agnostic theists (I am not one of them). Agnosticism deals with what you know, not what you believe.

If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter.

Depends on how you define "reject".

Well there's only three possible options: (1) accept, (2) neither accept or reject, or (3) reject. This refers to (3).

That does nothing to define what you mean by reject. Give an actual definition.

Reject means to not accept the truth of something. By not accepting, that automatically rules out the possibility of being neutral. "Lacking" means absent and is a neutral term not associated with disbelief (antonym of belief, which means to reject the truth of something). For example, If I'm a democrat (atheist let's say) I wouldn't say that I'm a democrat because I lack a vote for the republican nominee. By subscribing myself as a democrat, I cannot hold a neutral position (absent of action like lacking a vote) while simultaneously opposing the Republican Party (rejecting action).

Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions.

Not really.

That was a convincing rebuttal...

I already addressed it, so I do not need to address it again.

You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time.

Logically, no. That is the equivalent of saying you do not believe and do not not believe in God. It is a flawed statement. It is saying ~A and ~(~A) at the same time.

No, it's like someone asking you if you want icecream and instead of saying "yes" or "no, because. . . " you just say "I don't know" which means the option of yes and no were both absent of his/her choice.

Disbelieve-not to believe.
So, can you not believe and not not believe at the same time? Yes or No.

Disbelieve means to reject the truth of some statement. So no, you can't hold a neutral position while simultaneously rejecting that belief.

"Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists.

Okay.

Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false.

No according to your own definition. Your own definition is that atheists do not believe in a God. That does not mean they say the truth statement about a god existing is false, many make no claim in regards to the knowledge of a god.

Atheism = disbelief (rejection).

They reject belief in God. Belief is that something is *true*. Reject means that they do not accept the statement as true. At this point, they are not lacking their consensus of the truth on this statement because they've rejected it.

You have changed the definition of atheism now. It started as disbelief in God, now it is rejection of god. So, what is it?

Same thing.

As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Not according to your own definition.

How so?

Lacking belief=Not to believe.

Lacking doesn't mean to reject or hold that anything regarding some truth is not true.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

You can define theism as "lack of disbelief in God" but that still makes it a positive position, meaning theism still has the BoP.

I could define it like that but it would be incorrect.. J
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:02:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Atheists who say that atheism is a "lack of belief in God" derive such a meaning from the Greek prefix "a" which means "without" or "not". Thus, it is unreasonable to argue that unless theism is a "lack of disbelief in God", the "lack of belief in God" definition is invalid, because atheism takes it's meaning from "a" and "theism".
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:24:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:02:51 AM, Aithlin wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Atheists who say that atheism is a "lack of belief in God" derive such a meaning from the Greek prefix "a" which means "without" or "not". Thus, it is unreasonable to argue that unless theism is a "lack of disbelief in God", the "lack of belief in God" definition is invalid, because atheism takes it's meaning from "a" and "theism".

Well belief and disbelief are antonyms or natural opposites just like atheism is opposite of theism. Theism = Belief God exists. Atheism = disbelief that God exists. Disbelief is the antonym of belief. Belief always regards the truth of some statement. Holding a neutral position such as "lacking belief in God" is not an atheist position because you can just as well "lack disbelief in God" simultaneously. It's called an agnostic.
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:46:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:24:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:02:51 AM, Aithlin wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Atheists who say that atheism is a "lack of belief in God" derive such a meaning from the Greek prefix "a" which means "without" or "not". Thus, it is unreasonable to argue that unless theism is a "lack of disbelief in God", the "lack of belief in God" definition is invalid, because atheism takes it's meaning from "a" and "theism".

Well belief and disbelief are antonyms or natural opposites just like atheism is opposite of theism. Theism = Belief God exists. Atheism = disbelief that God exists. Disbelief is the antonym of belief. Belief always regards the truth of some statement. Holding a neutral position such as "lacking belief in God" is not an atheist position because you can just as well "lack disbelief in God" simultaneously. It's called an agnostic.

Some atheistic philosophers eg. Martin would (I'm dangerously extrapolating) circumvent this by proposing that positive atheism is the opposite of theism, agnosticism being a form of negative atheism which in turn is a sort of mid-point between the two opposites. Thus, positive atheism and negative atheism would be both forms of the overlapping atheism, which in it's broadest form, is defined as "a lack of belief in God". But then again, negative atheism would be defined the same way as atheism, .... which is obviously unsatisfying.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:01:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:46:35 AM, Aithlin wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:24:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:02:51 AM, Aithlin wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Atheists who say that atheism is a "lack of belief in God" derive such a meaning from the Greek prefix "a" which means "without" or "not". Thus, it is unreasonable to argue that unless theism is a "lack of disbelief in God", the "lack of belief in God" definition is invalid, because atheism takes it's meaning from "a" and "theism".

Well belief and disbelief are antonyms or natural opposites just like atheism is opposite of theism. Theism = Belief God exists. Atheism = disbelief that God exists. Disbelief is the antonym of belief. Belief always regards the truth of some statement. Holding a neutral position such as "lacking belief in God" is not an atheist position because you can just as well "lack disbelief in God" simultaneously. It's called an agnostic.

Some atheistic philosophers eg. Martin would (I'm dangerously extrapolating) circumvent this by proposing that positive atheism is the opposite of theism, agnosticism being a form of negative atheism which in turn is a sort of mid-point between the two opposites. Thus, positive atheism and negative atheism would be both forms of the overlapping atheism, which in it's broadest form, is defined as "a lack of belief in God". But then again, negative atheism would be defined the same way as atheism, .... which is obviously unsatisfying.

That's the ambiguous meaning that makes no sense to me. If you're an "atheist" you hold the opposite position of a theist who holds the position that God exists is true. I'll use this example again. Assume that only the republican and Democratic Party exist as two options for for the voter, just like God exists or he doesn't for the believer/disbeliever. I could say that I'm a democrat (self-identified atheist) that "lacks a vote for the Republican Party" but does this mean I'm a democrat (atheist) by that definition? No. It could mean I'm a democrat (atheist), a non-voter (ignorant), or undecided (agnostic). By identifying myself as a lacking voter for the Republican Party doesn't mean I'm a democrat by that definition even though it's still compatible with my beliefs as a democrat. An undecided (agnostic) is better described as a lacking voter for the Republican Party, not one that rejects the Republican Party (atheist rejecting theism).
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:03:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.

They are ignorant - neither theist or atheist. I was using the "lacking disbelief in God" as a parody definition of atheism, not one that accurately reflects what theism should or does mean.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:11:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:03:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.

They are ignorant - neither theist or atheist. I was using the "lacking disbelief in God" as a parody definition of atheism, not one that accurately reflects what theism should or does mean.

Right.

You are aware the definition if atheist is a diametric opposition to theist, right?
Is/is not
Does/does not
Believes/believes not
Yes/no

There is no middle ground. That's what atheism is. Theists by definition believe in the existance of a God.

The diametric opposition to that, with no excluded middle is atheists do not believe in the existence of God.

That is not logically equivalent to atheists believes in the non-existance of God, and rightly if it was that definition, then there would be an option to believe neither. They mean two very different things.

Personally I fall into the latter category (strong atheist), but the former definition would also encompass babies and cattle, it's just an opposition if whether if not you believe.

So in summary, you generally conflate:
1. Whether of not you believe X

With

2. You believe X or Y

1. Is the definition most atheists use, and has no excluded middle, 2. Is the definition you are trying to use, which does have an excluded middle.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:24:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:11:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:03:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.

They are ignorant - neither theist or atheist. I was using the "lacking disbelief in God" as a parody definition of atheism, not one that accurately reflects what theism should or does mean.

Right.

You are aware the definition if atheist is a diametric opposition to theist, right?
Is/is not
Does/does not
Believes/believes not
Yes/no

There is no middle ground. That's what atheism is. Theists by definition believe in the existance of a God.

The diametric opposition to that, with no excluded middle is atheists do not believe in the existence of God.

That is not logically equivalent to atheists believes in the non-existance of God, and rightly if it was that definition, then there would be an option to believe neither. They mean two very different things.

Personally I fall into the latter category (strong atheist), but the former definition would also encompass babies and cattle, it's just an opposition if whether if not you believe.

So in summary, you generally conflate:
1. Whether of not you believe X

With

2. You believe X or Y

1. Is the definition most atheists use, and has no excluded middle, 2. Is the definition you are trying to use, which does have an excluded middle.

I understand the ambiguity because lacking belief in God is *compatible with* atheism, but it's incoherent to call still call it "atheism" as that definition is the antonym or opposite of theism (*rejecting* the truth that God exists, not *lacking* or simply remaining passive or neutral on the truth that God exists. It's like calling yourself democrat because you lack a vote for the Republican Party. You'd only be a "democrat" though if you *rejected* not simply *lacked* a vote for the Republican Party (assuming those two parties only existed).
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:34:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:24:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:11:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:03:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.

They are ignorant - neither theist or atheist. I was using the "lacking disbelief in God" as a parody definition of atheism, not one that accurately reflects what theism should or does mean.

Right.

You are aware the definition if atheist is a diametric opposition to theist, right?
Is/is not
Does/does not
Believes/believes not
Yes/no

There is no middle ground. That's what atheism is. Theists by definition believe in the existance of a God.

The diametric opposition to that, with no excluded middle is atheists do not believe in the existence of God.

That is not logically equivalent to atheists believes in the non-existance of God, and rightly if it was that definition, then there would be an option to believe neither. They mean two very different things.

Personally I fall into the latter category (strong atheist), but the former definition would also encompass babies and cattle, it's just an opposition if whether if not you believe.

So in summary, you generally conflate:
1. Whether of not you believe X

With

2. You believe X or Y

1. Is the definition most atheists use, and has no excluded middle, 2. Is the definition you are trying to use, which does have an excluded middle.

I understand the ambiguity because lacking belief in God is *compatible with* atheism, but it's incoherent to call still call it "atheism" as that definition is the antonym or opposite of theism (*rejecting* the truth that God exists, not *lacking* or simply remaining passive or neutral on the truth that God exists. It's like calling yourself democrat because you lack a vote for the Republican Party.

If you pass a neutral vote, then you do not believe in the Republican Party, and therefore are an a-republican by what I presented. You are trying to use oranges to describe apples. Philosophically a-theist addresses the yes/no question of belief, and does not address the yes question of WHAT you believe.

You can take almost any word and it's a- conjunction

Typical/atypical (Is typical/Is not typical)
Sexual/asexual (reproduces sexually/does not reproduce sexually)
Theist/atheist (believes in God/Does not believe in God)

You'd only be a "democrat" though if you *rejected* not simply *lacked* a vote for the Republican Party (assuming those two parties only existed).

You analogy is false, since atheists don't take the analogous position of democrat (although personally I do), they take the position directly with respect to Republican, therefore a-republican. There are subsets within a-republican, such as democrat, liberal, or no party at all, they are all part of the a-republican umbrella which is the position atheists take.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:18:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Do you accept the claim that there are exactly 100 planes at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean? I'm assuming you don't. Let's say those who accept the claim are called Planeists. Those who don't accept this the claim are called Aplaneists. I'm assuming you fall into the Aplaneist category.

Do you accept the claim that there are definitely not exactly 100 planes at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean? I'm assuming you don't(you shouldn't). Aplaneists can fall into this category, but they don't have to. I'm assuming you're an Aplaneists who doesn't assert that Planeist's claims are false. Aplaneists aren't necessarily making a claim; they simply don't accept one specific claim.

This is analogous to theism and atheism. You don't have to accept the definition of atheism as I'm arguing it is, but know that most people who describe themselves as atheists define it that way. That alone should be enough for you to accept that definition. If I say I'm a shmoosh and explain to you that a shmoosh is a person with 2 legs, then I'm a shmoosh. If almost everyone using the word define it that way, why try to change it? This is how words develop meaning. Anyway, Changing the definition of atheism won't change people's worldviews. The word is just a convenient way to express your worldview. The word is tied to the person'a view, not the other way around. The only thing you would accomplish by making the definition of atheism what you want it to be is making a lot of people find a new word to represent what they once represented with atheism. Oh, and agnosticism isn't about what you do or don't believe; it's about whether or not you're certain about something you believe.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:22:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:34:35 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:24:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:11:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:03:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.

They are ignorant - neither theist or atheist. I was using the "lacking disbelief in God" as a parody definition of atheism, not one that accurately reflects what theism should or does mean.

Right.

You are aware the definition if atheist is a diametric opposition to theist, right?
Is/is not
Does/does not
Believes/believes not
Yes/no

There is no middle ground. That's what atheism is. Theists by definition believe in the existance of a God.

The diametric opposition to that, with no excluded middle is atheists do not believe in the existence of God.

That is not logically equivalent to atheists believes in the non-existance of God, and rightly if it was that definition, then there would be an option to believe neither. They mean two very different things.

Personally I fall into the latter category (strong atheist), but the former definition would also encompass babies and cattle, it's just an opposition if whether if not you believe.

So in summary, you generally conflate:
1. Whether of not you believe X

With

2. You believe X or Y

1. Is the definition most atheists use, and has no excluded middle, 2. Is the definition you are trying to use, which does have an excluded middle.

I understand the ambiguity because lacking belief in God is *compatible with* atheism, but it's incoherent to call still call it "atheism" as that definition is the antonym or opposite of theism (*rejecting* the truth that God exists, not *lacking* or simply remaining passive or neutral on the truth that God exists. It's like calling yourself democrat because you lack a vote for the Republican Party.

If you pass a neutral vote, then you do not believe in the Republican Party, and therefore are an a-republican by what I presented. You are trying to use oranges to describe apples. Philosophically a-theist addresses the yes/no question of belief, and does not address the yes question of WHAT you believe.

You can take almost any word and it's a- conjunction

Typical/atypical (Is typical/Is not typical)
Sexual/asexual (reproduces sexually/does not reproduce sexually)
Theist/atheist (believes in God/Does not believe in God

Right, but if I am self-describing myself as "atypical" because I am lacking typical, this is an erroneous usage of this word to describe myself because I do not mean to say that I am "not typical" as the word explicitly means (as antonym of typical) but rather "absent of typical" meaning either (1) not typical or (2) neither typical nor atypical. Since "lack" means absence of, without actually rejecting or opposing "typical" hence "atypical" then my self-description logically fits definition (2) and not (1) as my use of the word explicitly means opposite of typical when I mean to say I am neither typical nor atypical. Providing an ambiguous selection of possible meanings with a term with a specific meaning is the erroneous part. Explained in logical form detail below.

You'd only be a "democrat" though if you *rejected* not simply *lacked* a vote for the Republican Party (assuming those two parties only existed).

You analogy is false, since atheists don't take the analogous position of democrat (although personally I do), they take the position directly with respect to Republican, therefore a-republican. There are subsets within a-republican, such as democrat, liberal, or no party at all, they are all part of the a-republican umbrella which is the position atheists take.

Although my analogy was weak and probably wrong, there's only four possible options regarding belief in God: (1) yes, (2) no, (3) Undecided (4) ignorant.

Even in respect to a republican, as an a-republican, that means rejecting republican ideology not lacking republican ideology. You can lack republican ideology while not rejecting it. Because only an "a-republican" can be such it he rejects (opposing), not lacking

Let me see if I can form this logically.

Position A (atheist) means B (disbelieving in God), OR
Position Y (lacking belief) means either B or Z (lacking belief because I disbelieve in God OR lacking belief because I lack either belief or disbelief in God)

I self-describe as A, but use definition Y to describe myself. Definition Y has two meanings, one of which accurately describes my belief (1) rejecting belief in God and in turn lacking belief, or (2) lacking both belief and disbelief in God. Due to the law of excluded middle I cannot mean both B and Z taking position Y at the same time.

By using Y to describe my position A, I haven't established whether my position is B or Z and therefore can't use Y to describe my position A.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:30:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:22:36 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:34:35 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:24:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:11:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:03:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:57:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:37:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Theism: belief in God

[antonym] A-theism: disbelief in God

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief. Define weak/strong atheism however you want but it's incoherent to use the term "atheism" synonymously with "lack of belief in God."

Lack of belief in God, by default, best falls under agnosticism. Agnosticism is the position that whether God exists or not is unknown or unknowable. NOT the antonym of 'theism' or *rejection* of any belief for whatever the reason may be for rejecting that belief. Lacking means to be absent of. Agnostics are absent of holding a belief in God. If you disbelieve in God due to lack of evidence, you *reject* that God exists and the reason for rejecting that belief doesn't matter. Lacking belief in God (neutral position) and not believing in God due to lack of evidence (rejecting position) are two entirely different positions. You can lack belief in God while lacking disbelief in God at the same time. "Belief" is just your own consensus on the truth of a statement or on an idea that something exists. Atheists "believe" that the statement that God is true, is false. As I've said before, agnosticism = holding the belief that whether God exists is unknown/unknowable = neutral position = compatable with lacking belief in God whereas atheism is not.

Unless theism can be defined as "lack of disbelief in God" the atheist or anti-theism definition being defined as "lack of belief in God" is incoherent.

Let's assume your two definitions.

Theis: lacks disbelief in a God
Atheist: lacks belief in a God

Then tell me, what are babies? What are wheels? Goats? Monkeys?

By your definition they are both atheists and theists.

They are ignorant - neither theist or atheist. I was using the "lacking disbelief in God" as a parody definition of atheism, not one that accurately reflects what theism should or does mean.

Right.

You are aware the definition if atheist is a diametric opposition to theist, right?
Is/is not
Does/does not
Believes/believes not
Yes/no

There is no middle ground. That's what atheism is. Theists by definition believe in the existance of a God.

The diametric opposition to that, with no excluded middle is atheists do not believe in the existence of God.

That is not logically equivalent to atheists believes in the non-existance of God, and rightly if it was that definition, then there would be an option to believe neither. They mean two very different things.

Personally I fall into the latter category (strong atheist), but the former definition would also encompass babies and cattle, it's just an opposition if whether if not you believe.

So in summary, you generally conflate:
1. Whether of not you believe X

With

2. You believe X or Y

1. Is the definition most atheists use, and has no excluded middle, 2. Is the definition you are trying to use, which does have an excluded middle.

I understand the ambiguity because lacking belief in God is *compatible with* atheism, but it's incoherent to call still call it "atheism" as that definition is the antonym or opposite of theism (*rejecting* the truth that God exists, not *lacking* or simply remaining passive or neutral on the truth that God exists. It's like calling yourself democrat because you lack a vote for the Republican Party.

If you pass a neutral vote, then you do not believe in the Republican Party, and therefore are an a-republican by what I presented. You are trying to use oranges to describe apples. Philosophically a-theist addresses the yes/no question of belief, and does not address the yes question of WHAT you believe.

You can take almost any word and it's a- conjunction

Typical/atypical (Is typical/Is not typical)
Sexual/asexual (reproduces sexually/does not reproduce sexually)
Theist/atheist (believes in God/Does not believe in God

Right, but if I am self-describing myself as "atypical" because I am lacking typical, this is an erroneous usage of this word to describe myself because I do not mean to say that I am "not typical" as the word explicitly means (as antonym of typical) but rather "absent of typical" meaning either (1) not typical or (2) neither typical nor atypical. Since "lack" means absence of, without actually rejecting or opposing "typical" hence "atypical" then my self-description logically fits definition (2) and not (1) as my use of the word explicitly means opposite of typical when I mean to say I am neither typical nor atypical. Providing an ambiguous selection of possible meanings with a term with a specific meaning is the erroneous part. Explained in logical form detail below.

You'd only be a "democrat" though if you *rejected* not simply *lacked* a vote for the Republican Party (assuming those two parties only existed).

You analogy is false, since atheists don't take the analogous position of democrat (although personally I do), they take the position directly with respect to Republican, therefore a-republican. There are subsets within a-republican, such as democrat, liberal, or no party at all, they are all part of the a-republican umbrella which is the position atheists take.

Although my analogy was weak and probably wrong, there's only four possible options regarding belief in God: (1) yes, (2) no, (3) Undecided (4) ignorant.

You need to read the three laws of logic.
Law of identity
Law of non contradiction
Law of the excluded middle

If you understood the latter you would realize there is NO middle ground between Yes & No. It's either yes or no. You don't 'decide' to believe, you either believe or you don't.

It really is that simple. You are either a theist, or you are not a theist (which by definition is an atheist).

Even in respect to a republican, as an a-republican, that means rejecting republican ideology not lacking republican ideology. You can lack republican ideology while not rejecting it. Because only an "a-republican" can be such it he rejects (opposing), not lacking

Let me see if I can form this logically.

Position A (atheist) means B (disbelieving in God), OR
Position Y (lacking belief) means either B or Z (lacking belief because I disbelieve in God OR lacking belief because I lack either belief or disbelief in God)

I self-describe as A, but use definition Y to describe myself. Definition Y has two meanings, one of which accurately describes my belief (1) rejecting belief in God and in turn lacking belief, or (2) lacking both belief and disbelief in God. Due to the law of excluded middle I cannot mean both B and Z taking position Y at the same time.

By using Y to describe my position A, I haven't established whether my position is B or Z and therefore can't use Y to describe my position A.

Drop the 'lacking' part, it's either 'believe' or 'does not believe', it's an is/or tautology.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:40:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The law of excluded middle is exactly my point.

"Lacking belief in God" is not a valid description of atheism because lacking belief entails two ambiguous usages that don't specify an "atheist" postion: (1) lacking belief is due to rejecting that God exists or (2) lacking belief is followed by equal lack of disbelief in God.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:46:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:40:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The law of excluded middle is exactly my point.

"Lacking belief in God" is not a valid description of atheism because lacking belief entails two ambiguous usages that don't specify an "atheist" postion: (1) lacking belief is due to rejecting that God exists or (2) lacking belief is followed by equal lack of disbelief in God.

Good, we agree then.

You are either an theist or you are atheist. I'm going to go play with my atheist dog and my atheist cat now, and eat some atheist cereal.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 8:14:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 1:46:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
My anecdotal evidence shows that you're an atheist but you're free to state that you aren't.

How can you have anecdotal evidence about someone else's belief? You can say I am an atheist if you want, though that doesn't make it true.

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.


"To oppose" and the "a-" prefix of "not [X]" are compatible with each other. The logical focus of my argument was on opposite meanings or antonyms. Disbelief is the antonym or opposite of belief. Since you've just stated that atheism is disbelief in God, how is lacking belief (neutral position regarding the truth of that statement) simultaneously compatible with disbelief (rejecting the truth of that statement)?

Lacking belief is to not believe, the definition of disbelieve is to not believe, so if lacking belief is a neutral position, somehow atheism is as well. Lacking belief then follows to not be a neutral position.

It doesn't mean "no belief." The Merriam-Webster definition of disbelief ": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

Okay, time for some very simple education.
What does the prefix "dis" mean? It means "not". So, disbelief means? Right, not belief.

Also, thefreedictionary.com puts forth TWO definitions.
1) To refuse to believe in; reject.
2) To withhold or reject belief.

Now, reject means:
1) To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.

Withhold means:
1) to hold back; restrain

Refusing to believe/hold back belief. This is equivalent to not believing.

See above

Cherry picking definitions can be done by anyone. When you want to actually have a rational discussion you have to actually look at the definitions the people you are talking about (atheists) use, and then look at dictionaries to determine if that is a proper definition.

To an agnostic whether God is real is not a known truth or its a truth that is unknowable but they hold a position that requires knowledge. Agnostics have a position regarding the truth of the statement "God exists" which is "I don't know/can't know" but they have the knowledge to decide that they don't know. An ignorant person has no knowledge about God at all. A brick for example has no knowledge at all about belief in God and is simply ignorant regarding the existence or truth to the statement "God exists".

You keep mistaking knowledge with belief... You also are rejecting dictionary definitions.

Right, but you're ignorant if you're without knowledge not agnostic.

Oh, so an agnostic has knowledge about god? So they know if god is real or not? Of course not, otherwise the definition of agnostic would be wrong.

Reject means to not accept the truth of something. By not accepting, that automatically rules out the possibility of being neutral.

How does it rule out the possibility of being neutral?
~A=/=B

"Lacking" means absent and is a neutral term not associated with disbelief (antonym of belief, which means to reject the truth of something).

Lacking means without, so lacking belief means without belief. Without belief and to not believe mean the same thing.

For example, If I'm a democrat (atheist let's say) I wouldn't say that I'm a democrat because I lack a vote for the republican nominee. By subscribing myself as a democrat, I cannot hold a neutral position (absent of action like lacking a vote) while simultaneously opposing the Republican Party (rejecting action).

False analogy. When we look at the definitions of theism and atheism there are only TWO positions a person can be, a theist or an atheist.

If there are only 2 positions you can easily describe your position by saying you are not the other position.

Disbelieve means to reject the truth of some statement. So no, you can't hold a neutral position while simultaneously rejecting that belief.

I asked for a YES or NO, not a rambling of other words.

Disbelieve-not to believe (As I have pointed out MANY times)
So, can you not believe and not not believe at the same time? Yes or No. I am not talking about "neutral positions", I am asking a yes or no here.

Atheism = disbelief (rejection).

Same thing.

Okay, let's put it this way.
Your definition of rejection is " not accept the truth of something"
The definition of belief is "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists"

So, when if we use your definitions, disbelief is STILL the same as to not believe.

How so?

Lacking belief=Not to believe.

Lacking doesn't mean to reject or hold that anything regarding some truth is not true.

Lacking literally means "missing or absent:". An absence of belief means that you do not believe.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:03:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 8:14:01 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/6/2014 1:46:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
My anecdotal evidence shows that you're an atheist but you're free to state that you aren't.

How can you have anecdotal evidence about someone else's belief? You can say I am an atheist if you want, though that doesn't make it true.

Defending atheism and criticizing religion

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.


"To oppose" and the "a-" prefix of "not [X]" are compatible with each other. The logical focus of my argument was on opposite meanings or antonyms. Disbelief is the antonym or opposite of belief. Since you've just stated that atheism is disbelief in God, how is lacking belief (neutral position regarding the truth of that statement) simultaneously compatible with disbelief (rejecting the truth of that statement)?

Lacking belief is to not believe, the definition of disbelieve is to not believe, so if lacking belief is a neutral position, somehow atheism is as well. Lacking belief then follows to not be a neutral position.

It doesn't mean "no belief." The Merriam-Webster definition of disbelief ": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

Okay, time for some very simple education.
What does the prefix "dis" mean? It means "not". So, disbelief means? Right, not belief.

Also, thefreedictionary.com puts forth TWO definitions.
1) To refuse to believe in; reject.
2) To withhold or reject belief.

Now, reject means:
1) To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.

Withhold means:
1) to hold back; restrain

Refusing to believe/hold back belief. This is equivalent to not believing.

And nowhere is this equivalent to lacking belief. Lacking means absent. Any action associated with rejecting/withholding/declining/denying a belief is an action of unacceptance not absence of action like lacking belief is. That's why "Lacking belief in God" is an erroneous description of an "atheist."

See above

Cherry picking definitions can be done by anyone. When you want to actually have a rational discussion you have to actually look at the definitions the people you are talking about (atheists) use, and then look at dictionaries to determine if that is a proper definition.

Both definitions use an active action of unacceptance not absence of action.

To an agnostic whether God is real is not a known truth or its a truth that is unknowable but they hold a position that requires knowledge. Agnostics have a position regarding the truth of the statement "God exists" which is "I don't know/can't know" but they have the knowledge to decide that they don't know. An ignorant person has no knowledge about God at all. A brick for example has no knowledge at all about belief in God and is simply ignorant regarding the existence or truth to the statement "God exists".

You keep mistaking knowledge with belief... You also are rejecting dictionary definitions.

No I'm not rejecting them but they don't prove your point.

Right, but you're ignorant if you're without knowledge not agnostic.

Oh, so an agnostic has knowledge about god? So they know if god is real or not? Of course not, otherwise the definition of agnostic would be wrong.

Having knowledge about God isn't the same thing as arriving to a conclusion about God's existence. They are simply aware of the question of God's existence and using their best knowledge they decide that they are undecided.

Reject means to not accept the truth of something. By not accepting, that automatically rules out the possibility of being neutral.

How does it rule out the possibility of being neutral?
~A=/=B

If X is not 2, then X can't be a 2 value. If X is absent of 2, then X isn't 2 but can be.

"Lacking" means absent and is a neutral term not associated with disbelief (antonym of belief, which means to reject the truth of something).

Lacking means without, so lacking belief means without belief. Without belief and to not believe mean the same thing.

No they aren't. Without belief is lacking belief. To not believe is to disbelieve.

For example, If I'm a democrat (atheist let's say) I wouldn't say that I'm a democrat because I lack a vote for the republican nominee. By subscribing myself as a democrat, I cannot hold a neutral position (absent of action like lacking a vote) while simultaneously opposing the Republican Party (rejecting action).

False analogy. When we look at the definitions of theism and atheism there are only TWO positions a person can be, a theist or an atheist.

If there are only 2 positions you can easily describe your position by saying you are not the other position.

No, you can be an agnostic. An agnostic "lacks belief in God" at the same time they "lack disbelief in God." By describing yourself as an atheist because you lack belief in God then you're describing an agnostic.

Disbelieve means to reject the truth of some statement. So no, you can't hold a neutral position while simultaneously rejecting that belief.

I asked for a YES or NO, not a rambling of other words.


Disbelieve-not to believe (As I have pointed out MANY times)
So, can you not believe and not not believe at the same time? Yes or No. I am not talking about "neutral positions", I am asking a yes or no here.

No because that's a contradiction. I don't believe "X" but I don't not believe "X".

Atheism = disbelief (rejection).

Same thing.

Okay, let's put it this way.
Your definition of rejection is " not accept the truth of something"
The definition of belief is "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists"

So, when if we use your definitions, disbelief is STILL the same as to not believe.

I agree and I never argued that point. Disbelief is not the same as *lacking* belief

How so?

Lacking belief=Not to believe.

Lacking doesn't mean to reject or hold that anything regarding some truth is not true.

Lacking literally means "missing or absent:". An absence of belief means that you do not believe.

No, lacking belief means that you are absent of belief. "Do not believe" is disbelief.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:12:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:03:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/6/2014 8:14:01 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/6/2014 1:46:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
My anecdotal evidence shows that you're an atheist but you're free to state that you aren't.

How can you have anecdotal evidence about someone else's belief? You can say I am an atheist if you want, though that doesn't make it true.

Defending atheism and criticizing religion

I defend atheism because it is a rational conclusion unless you have anecdotal evidence. I also am not criticizing religion, I am criticizing irrationality that people have.

Atheism is literally anti-theism or the antonym of said belief.

No, anti-theism is against theism, atheism is a disbelief in God.


"To oppose" and the "a-" prefix of "not [X]" are compatible with each other. The logical focus of my argument was on opposite meanings or antonyms. Disbelief is the antonym or opposite of belief. Since you've just stated that atheism is disbelief in God, how is lacking belief (neutral position regarding the truth of that statement) simultaneously compatible with disbelief (rejecting the truth of that statement)?

Lacking belief is to not believe, the definition of disbelieve is to not believe, so if lacking belief is a neutral position, somehow atheism is as well. Lacking belief then follows to not be a neutral position.

It doesn't mean "no belief." The Merriam-Webster definition of disbelief ": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

Okay, time for some very simple education.
What does the prefix "dis" mean? It means "not". So, disbelief means? Right, not belief.

Also, thefreedictionary.com puts forth TWO definitions.
1) To refuse to believe in; reject.
2) To withhold or reject belief.

Now, reject means:
1) To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.

Withhold means:
1) to hold back; restrain

Refusing to believe/hold back belief. This is equivalent to not believing.

And nowhere is this equivalent to lacking belief. Lacking means absent. Any action associated with rejecting/withholding/declining/denying a belief is an action of unacceptance not absence of action like lacking belief is. That's why "Lacking belief in God" is an erroneous description of an "atheist."

Evinsage has done a good job explaining this, but lacking belief is the same thing as not believing.

See above

Cherry picking definitions can be done by anyone. When you want to actually have a rational discussion you have to actually look at the definitions the people you are talking about (atheists) use, and then look at dictionaries to determine if that is a proper definition.

Both definitions use an active action of unacceptance not absence of action.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you?

To an agnostic whether God is real is not a known truth or its a truth that is unknowable but they hold a position that requires knowledge. Agnostics have a position regarding the truth of the statement "God exists" which is "I don't know/can't know" but they have the knowledge to decide that they don't know. An ignorant person has no knowledge about God at all. A brick for example has no knowledge at all about belief in God and is simply ignorant regarding the existence or truth to the statement "God exists".

You keep mistaking knowledge with belief... You also are rejecting dictionary definitions.

No I'm not rejecting them but they don't prove your point.

They kinda do. You cherry pick definitions and reject ones that don't fit with your argument.

Right, but you're ignorant if you're without knowledge not agnostic.

Oh, so an agnostic has knowledge about god? So they know if god is real or not? Of course not, otherwise the definition of agnostic would be wrong.

Having knowledge about God isn't the same thing as arriving to a conclusion about God's existence. They are simply aware of the question of God's existence and using their best knowledge they decide that they are undecided.

You know that stretching out what you are saying doesn't make you right.

Reject means to not accept the truth of something. By not accepting, that automatically rules out the possibility of being neutral.

How does it rule out the possibility of being neutral?
~A=/=B

If X is not 2, then X can't be a 2 value. If X is absent of 2, then X isn't 2 but can be.

If X is absent of 2, how can X be 2? It does not logically follow.

"Lacking" means absent and is a neutral term not associated with disbelief (antonym of belief, which means to reject the truth of something).

Lacking means without, so lacking belief means without belief. Without belief and to not believe mean the same thing.

No they aren't. Without belief is lacking belief. To not believe is to disbelieve.

To not believe is to be without belief, which means to not believe is to lack belief.

For example, If I'm a democrat (atheist let's say) I wouldn't say that I'm a democrat because I lack a vote for the republican nominee. By subscribing myself as a democrat, I cannot hold a neutral position (absent of action like lacking a vote) while simultaneously opposing the Republican Party (rejecting action).

False analogy. When we look at the definitions of theism and atheism there are only TWO positions a person can be, a theist or an atheist.

If there are only 2 positions you can easily describe your position by saying you are not the other position.

No, you can be an agnostic. An agnostic "lacks belief in God" at the same time they "lack disbelief in God." By describing yourself as an atheist because you lack belief in God then you're describing an agnostic.

So, someone can not believe and not not believe at the same time?

Disbelieve means to reject the truth of some statement. So no, you can't hold a neutral position while simultaneously rejecting that belief.

I asked for a YES or NO, not a rambling of other words.


Disbelieve-not to believe (As I have pointed out MANY times)
So, can you not believe and not not believe at the same time? Yes or No. I am not talking about "neutral positions", I am asking a yes or no here.

No because that's a contradiction. I don't believe "X" but I don't not believe "X".

Which means that you either believe in a god or you disbelieve in a god. That means you are either a theist or an atheist.

Atheism = disbelief (rejection).

Same thing.

Okay, let's put it this way.
Your definition of rejection is " not accept the truth of something"
The definition of belief is "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists"

So, when if we use your definitions, disbelief is STILL the same as to not believe.

I agree and I never argued that point. Disbelief is not the same as *lacking* belief

Yes, it is. If you lack belief in something that means you do not believe in it.

How so?

Lacking belief=Not to believe.

Lacking doesn't mean to reject or hold that anything regarding some truth is not true.

Lacking literally means "missing or absent:". An absence of belief means that you do not believe.

No, lacking belief means that you are absent of belief. "Do not believe" is disbelief.

Lacking belief in something is the same thing as not believing. The only reason you do not see this is because you are trying to be right, even if you have to ignore any logical point.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is gettin hairy. Let me explain briefly as possible why atheism does not mean lack of belief in God.

Theism: I believe God exists
[Antonym]
Atheism: I disbelieve that God exists.

Agnostic: I don't know if God exists. I lack belief in God and lack disbelief in God. I am undecided.

If you describe yourself as an "atheist" and say because you're "lacking belief in God" you still haven't established whether your lack of belief is due to disbelief or whether your lack of belief is because you lack disbelief as well and are an agnostic. That's why it's erroneous to attach that description as atheist.