Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is Faith-based

Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:30:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:22:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

First off, that it's a dialogue doesn't negate the possibility of it being a strawman.

Second: Well, yes.

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Hmm, depends on what you're using "disbelieve" to mean, but I'll say yes, based on the current arguments for his existence."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"No. I lack a belief in God, I disbelieve any of the claims that have been made."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"No. What I have is a lack of belief in the positive claim "God exists"."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

"No, I have simply rejected the positive claims that he exists. I have a strong belief that those who assert God's existence have failed to fulfill the burden of proof of showing that's a rational statement, however, I cannot deny that there could be some other option out there that could also be called "God" that we just haven't met yet. Lacking any reason to believe in god, while I cannot assert that "God does not exist", I see no reason to do anything but assume he does not, as I assume any other thing which has no reason for me to believe in its existence."

Disbelief means the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something. Belief means an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. You're turning this into a semantic argument. I highly suggest you find new words with different definitions to use.

So you refuse to accept that God is true or real, and instead accept that God in any way shape or form is not true or does not exist, then you disbelieve in the existence of God and believe in the non-existence of God.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:41:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:28:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:32:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:17:09 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Not seeing a God who is typically defined as transcendent, beyond the range of normal or merely physical human experience, and incorporeal, not composed of matter, having no material existence, is not definitive and empirical evidence that there is no God.

You're islamic, where's our miracles? Why'd god just suddenly stop the miracles? Why'd he stop telling huge groups of people, to murder other huge groups of people? What's up with your gods lack of action in the real world lately?

Don't you know? He only does things thousands of years ago, how convenient eh? Oh, and there is justice in the world but you just won't know until you die. How convenient eh?

Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Atheists refuse to accept that God in any way, shape or form is true or real (Disbelief).

Atheists accept that God in any way, shape or form is not true or does not exist (Belief).

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence to support their acceptance that God is not true or does not exist.

Therefore they have complete trust or confidence that their acceptance that God is not true or does not exist.

To have complete trust or confidence in something, especially without definitive and empirical evidence, is to have faith.

Therefore Atheists have faith that God is not true or does not exist.

You see something wrong with this logic?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:01:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:30:47 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


Disbelief means the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something. Belief means an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. You're turning this into a semantic argument. I highly suggest you find new words with different definitions to use.

So you refuse to accept that God is true or real, and instead accept that God in any way shape or form is not true or does not exist, then you disbelieve in the existence of God and believe in the non-existence of God.

If I'm turning it into a semantic argument, it's because you have trouble understanding the meaning of words.

I bolded the part that I can only assume you didn't read? At its semantical philosophical core, "atheism" is ONLY the "lack of belief in god". You're adding on the belief that "God in any way shape or form...does not exist". That's not right, and it's part of why you're having so much trouble here, and why you've been accused of strawmanning. Because simply saying "I do not believe your claim" does not necessarily imply "Therefore I have faith your claim is false".

For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:03:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:21:19 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:18:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

To disbelieve is to believe in the disbelief. Do believe without definitive and empirical evidence is to have complete trust or confidence in the belief. To have complete trust or confidence in the belief is to have faith in the belief.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

I don't think you know what the difference between an argument and a dialogue is.

Well, first off, you already presented it as an argument, so that is a pointless distinction right about now. But, I guess you don't know what a strawman is.
"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.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Everything is faith based.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:06:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

It's definitely a slippery semantical argument, becuase "faith" has many connotative meanings. But, even if we agree to the "everything is faith based" concept, there's different kinds of faith...there's a fundamental difference between "I have faith despite having no evidence" and "I have faith that when I step forward, I won't bounce to the moon".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.
"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.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:11:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:06:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

It's definitely a slippery semantical argument, becuase "faith" has many connotative meanings. But, even if we agree to the "everything is faith based" concept, there's different kinds of faith...there's a fundamental difference between "I have faith despite having no evidence" and "I have faith that when I step forward, I won't bounce to the moon".

Do we really have evidence for the basis of our beliefs? I don't think so. By basis, I mean the very basis. In the end, all belief is based on intuition which we cannot justify without presupposing what we're trying to justify in the first place. There's no way to prove the basis of our beliefs. So everything is faith based, and I'm not talking about the latter type of faith you mentioned.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?
"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.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?
"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.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:55:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:01:07 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:30:47 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


Disbelief means the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something. Belief means an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. You're turning this into a semantic argument. I highly suggest you find new words with different definitions to use.

So you refuse to accept that God is true or real, and instead accept that God in any way shape or form is not true or does not exist, then you disbelieve in the existence of God and believe in the non-existence of God.

If I'm turning it into a semantic argument, it's because you have trouble understanding the meaning of words.

I bolded the part that I can only assume you didn't read? At its semantical philosophical core, "atheism" is ONLY the "lack of belief in god". You're adding on the belief that "God in any way shape or form...does not exist". That's not right, and it's part of why you're having so much trouble here, and why you've been accused of strawmanning. Because simply saying "I do not believe your claim" does not necessarily imply "Therefore I have faith your claim is false".

For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?

You're being intellectually dishonest when you say you lack belief in God but you don't disbelieve in God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:55:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:11:42 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:06:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

It's definitely a slippery semantical argument, becuase "faith" has many connotative meanings. But, even if we agree to the "everything is faith based" concept, there's different kinds of faith...there's a fundamental difference between "I have faith despite having no evidence" and "I have faith that when I step forward, I won't bounce to the moon".

Do we really have evidence for the basis of our beliefs? I don't think so. By basis, I mean the very basis. In the end, all belief is based on intuition which we cannot justify without presupposing what we're trying to justify in the first place. There's no way to prove the basis of our beliefs. So everything is faith based, and I'm not talking about the latter type of faith you mentioned.

I still think there's a qualitative experiential difference between the two I outlined, even though I can't refute solipsism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:58:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:55:10 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


You're being intellectually dishonest when you say you lack belief in God but you don't disbelieve in God.

Well, see, I put up with most of your insults...but now we're getting to the real meat of things. No, I'm not intellectually dishonest. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the parts of a response you don't like. It's intellectually dishonest to resort to ad hominem when you don't have a response. It's intellectually dishonest to strawman your opponent, and then pretend you weren't.

So answer my question about the vial, please, and try to refrain from ungrounded hypocritical assertions which have no merit.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:03:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:01:07 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:30:47 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:


Disbelief means the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something. Belief means an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. You're turning this into a semantic argument. I highly suggest you find new words with different definitions to use.

So you refuse to accept that God is true or real, and instead accept that God in any way shape or form is not true or does not exist, then you disbelieve in the existence of God and believe in the non-existence of God.

If I'm turning it into a semantic argument, it's because you have trouble understanding the meaning of words.

I bolded the part that I can only assume you didn't read? At its semantical philosophical core, "atheism" is ONLY the "lack of belief in god". You're adding on the belief that "God in any way shape or form...does not exist". That's not right, and it's part of why you're having so much trouble here, and why you've been accused of strawmanning. Because simply saying "I do not believe your claim" does not necessarily imply "Therefore I have faith your claim is false".


That's where you're wrong. I didn't strawman the argument, I presupposed the definition of Atheism. If you're not under that definition of Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form, then let me know where you differ, and what ways, shapes and forms of God you do believe in.

You're basically telling me that you lack belief in God, but you don't disbelieve in God. Yeah, makes sense.

For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?

This really makes little sense. Think of a better analogy.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:25:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:03:49 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

That's where you're wrong. I didn't strawman the argument, I presupposed the definition of Atheism.

You presented information, as though it were the side that you're opposing, even though that information is not correct. That is strawmanning, the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute. You "presupposed" a definition that is not the definition of the word, because you added on to it.

If you're not under that definition of Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form, then let me know where you differ, and what ways, shapes and forms of God you do believe in.

Ah, but disbelief is only lack of belief. You are the one who says it therefore also means an affirmative belief in the opposite, and you've done so repeatedly on no grounds other than bare assertion.


You're basically telling me that you lack belief in God, but you don't disbelieve in God. Yeah, makes sense.

Well, it doesn't make sense because it's not what I said. I lack a belief in god. This does not mean I "believe it to be true that no god exists", but only that no god has been presented which meets the burden of proof necessary for belief.


For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?

This really makes little sense. Think of a better analogy.

Reread it. It's a perfectly good analogy. If something is unclear, ask for clarification. Just sayign "It doesn't make sense" isn't sufficient, nor is "think of a better analogy". Better how? Because it seems pretty darn on point to me. If I simply DO NOT believe your claim, because you have presented it with insufficient information, that DOES NOT mean I therefore definitively believe in the opposite of your claim.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:38:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:25:13 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:03:49 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

That's where you're wrong. I didn't strawman the argument, I presupposed the definition of Atheism.

You presented information, as though it were the side that you're opposing, even though that information is not correct. That is strawmanning, the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute. You "presupposed" a definition that is not the definition of the word, because you added on to it.


So the lack of belief does not mean disbelief?

If you're not under that definition of Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form, then let me know where you differ, and what ways, shapes and forms of God you do believe in.

Ah, but disbelief is only lack of belief. You are the one who says it therefore also means an affirmative belief in the opposite, and you've done so repeatedly on no grounds other than bare assertion.


We have went over this. If there is good, there is evil. If there is a lack of belief, there is disbelief. You haven't exactly defended your position that you can lack belief in God while at the same time not disbelieve in God.



You're basically telling me that you lack belief in God, but you don't disbelieve in God. Yeah, makes sense.

Well, it doesn't make sense because it's not what I said. I lack a belief in god. This does not mean I "believe it to be true that no god exists", but only that no god has been presented which meets the burden of proof necessary for belief.


So if you lack belief in the God of Abraham because you feel that He doesn't meet the burden of proof, then you disbelieve in the God of Abraham. This applies to every other concept of God which you lack belief in.


For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?

This really makes little sense. Think of a better analogy.

Reread it. It's a perfectly good analogy. If something is unclear, ask for clarification. Just sayign "It doesn't make sense" isn't sufficient, nor is "think of a better analogy". Better how? Because it seems pretty darn on point to me. If I simply DO NOT believe your claim, because you have presented it with insufficient information, that DOES NOT mean I therefore definitively believe in the opposite of your claim.

Yeah, but that's the thing. You are making a claim as well. In fact your claim is newer than mine. You're claiming that there is no God, I am claiming that there is a God.

So I guess I don't disbelieve in the non-existence of God, I lack a belief in your claim of the non-existence of God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:43:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:38:05 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:25:13 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:03:49 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

That's where you're wrong. I didn't strawman the argument, I presupposed the definition of Atheism.

You presented information, as though it were the side that you're opposing, even though that information is not correct. That is strawmanning, the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute. You "presupposed" a definition that is not the definition of the word, because you added on to it.


So the lack of belief does not mean disbelief?

No. Disbelief does not mean "belief in the opposite".


If you're not under that definition of Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form, then let me know where you differ, and what ways, shapes and forms of God you do believe in.

Ah, but disbelief is only lack of belief. You are the one who says it therefore also means an affirmative belief in the opposite, and you've done so repeatedly on no grounds other than bare assertion.


We have went over this. If there is good, there is evil. If there is a lack of belief, there is disbelief. You haven't exactly defended your position that you can lack belief in God while at the same time not disbelieve in God.

But an action can be morally neutral, as well. So something which is not "good" is not necessarily "evil".

I disbelieve the claims of God. This does not mean that I have "faith" there's no such thing, this means that none of those making the claim have fulfilled their BoP.




You're basically telling me that you lack belief in God, but you don't disbelieve in God. Yeah, makes sense.

Well, it doesn't make sense because it's not what I said. I lack a belief in god. This does not mean I "believe it to be true that no god exists", but only that no god has been presented which meets the burden of proof necessary for belief.


So if you lack belief in the God of Abraham because you feel that He doesn't meet the burden of proof, then you disbelieve in the God of Abraham. This applies to every other concept of God which you lack belief in.

Correct. But it doesn't mean that I definitively believe there is definitely no god of any kind. It is impossible to prove a negative, while it should be trivially true to prove the positive.



For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?

This really makes little sense. Think of a better analogy.

Reread it. It's a perfectly good analogy. If something is unclear, ask for clarification. Just sayign "It doesn't make sense" isn't sufficient, nor is "think of a better analogy". Better how? Because it seems pretty darn on point to me. If I simply DO NOT believe your claim, because you have presented it with insufficient information, that DOES NOT mean I therefore definitively believe in the opposite of your claim.

Yeah, but that's the thing. You are making a claim as well. In fact your claim is newer than mine. You're claiming that there is no God, I am claiming that there is a God.

The relative newness of the claim doesn't matter whatsoever. I'm not claiming there's no God. I'm saying "Your reasoning for believing in God is faulty".

So I guess I don't disbelieve in the non-existence of God, I lack a belief in your claim of the non-existence of God.

No, you affirmatively believe in the opposite. There's a pretty clear difference.

And I note you still haven't answered the question in the analogy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:04:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:43:16 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:38:05 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:25:13 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:03:49 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

That's where you're wrong. I didn't strawman the argument, I presupposed the definition of Atheism.

You presented information, as though it were the side that you're opposing, even though that information is not correct. That is strawmanning, the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute. You "presupposed" a definition that is not the definition of the word, because you added on to it.


So the lack of belief does not mean disbelief?

No. Disbelief does not mean "belief in the opposite".


If you're not under that definition of Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form, then let me know where you differ, and what ways, shapes and forms of God you do believe in.

Ah, but disbelief is only lack of belief. You are the one who says it therefore also means an affirmative belief in the opposite, and you've done so repeatedly on no grounds other than bare assertion.


We have went over this. If there is good, there is evil. If there is a lack of belief, there is disbelief. You haven't exactly defended your position that you can lack belief in God while at the same time not disbelieve in God.

But an action can be morally neutral, as well. So something which is not "good" is not necessarily "evil".

I disbelieve the claims of God. This does not mean that I have "faith" there's no such thing, this means that none of those making the claim have fulfilled their BoP.




You're basically telling me that you lack belief in God, but you don't disbelieve in God. Yeah, makes sense.

Well, it doesn't make sense because it's not what I said. I lack a belief in god. This does not mean I "believe it to be true that no god exists", but only that no god has been presented which meets the burden of proof necessary for belief.


So if you lack belief in the God of Abraham because you feel that He doesn't meet the burden of proof, then you disbelieve in the God of Abraham. This applies to every other concept of God which you lack belief in.

Correct. But it doesn't mean that I definitively believe there is definitely no god of any kind. It is impossible to prove a negative, while it should be trivially true to prove the positive.



For example, let's say there's a miracle cancer cure. It cures cancer. However, when someone holds up the vial, he says "It cures cancer because it works with the power of the sun! Since the sun can't cause cancer, this vial cures it". Now, the vial actually cures cancer. But that is a TERRIBLE ARGUMENT, and would be rejected immediately. Now, if he came back with a better argument, then they would accept it (after all, in this hypothetical, it actually works). Now, would anyone really say that the people who rejected his terrible argument had "faith" that the vial didn't cure cancer?

This really makes little sense. Think of a better analogy.

Reread it. It's a perfectly good analogy. If something is unclear, ask for clarification. Just sayign "It doesn't make sense" isn't sufficient, nor is "think of a better analogy". Better how? Because it seems pretty darn on point to me. If I simply DO NOT believe your claim, because you have presented it with insufficient information, that DOES NOT mean I therefore definitively believe in the opposite of your claim.

Yeah, but that's the thing. You are making a claim as well. In fact your claim is newer than mine. You're claiming that there is no God, I am claiming that there is a God.

The relative newness of the claim doesn't matter whatsoever. I'm not claiming there's no God. I'm saying "Your reasoning for believing in God is faulty".

So I guess I don't disbelieve in the non-existence of God, I lack a belief in your claim of the non-existence of God.

No, you affirmatively believe in the opposite. There's a pretty clear difference.

And I note you still haven't answered the question in the analogy.

Okay. So lets just make this clear. Lets clarify what you are claiming.

You lack the acceptance of the statement of God being true or exists. However you're not inable or refusing to accept that God is true or real, or lacking faith in God?

Lets put it this way. You lack belief in the existence of God, but you don't disbelieve in in the existence of God. This makes no sense.

And again, your analogy does not make a lot of sense. I'm not going to answer something that doesn't make sense. I understand it. But the problem is that it doesn't completely fit the context of this discussion.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:09:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I lack the belief in the non-existence of God. However this doesn't mean that I disbelieve in the non-existence of God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:36:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:04:13 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

Lets put it this way. You lack belief in the existence of God, but you don't disbelieve in in the existence of God. This makes no sense.

No, the definition you posted of disbelief is a lack of belief. The end. The additional stuff you keep trying to put on it is what's not valid or fair.

Not believing X doesn't mean that are asserting Not-X.


And again, your analogy does not make a lot of sense. I'm not going to answer something that doesn't make sense. I understand it. But the problem is that it doesn't completely fit the context of this discussion.

What is confusing, or doesn't fit? It's a pretty simple concept, and directly correlative.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:44:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:36:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:04:13 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

Lets put it this way. You lack belief in the existence of God, but you don't disbelieve in in the existence of God. This makes no sense.

No, the definition you posted of disbelief is a lack of belief. The end. The additional stuff you keep trying to put on it is what's not valid or fair.

Not believing X doesn't mean that are asserting Not-X.


And again, your analogy does not make a lot of sense. I'm not going to answer something that doesn't make sense. I understand it. But the problem is that it doesn't completely fit the context of this discussion.

What is confusing, or doesn't fit? It's a pretty simple concept, and directly correlative.

You're trying to tell me that you can not believe in God while at the same time not disbelieve in God, that's the point.

Do you believe in the God of Abraham to be real? Yes (Belief), No (Disbelief). If you say no, then you by default take the position that the God of Abraham is not real. You can't say you lack the belief that the God of Abraham is real, and then at the same time say that you don't disbelieve in the God of Abraham.

Do you believe the God of Abraham is real? Yes or no? If no, then you by default make the claim that the God of Abraham is not real.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:04:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Talib, "lack of belief" is synonymous with "disbelieve". Not only are the two not contradictory, but they're semantically identical.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:06:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Also 'atheist' doesn't just mean "doesn't believe in the Abrahamic god", either. You are nearly as much as an atheist as I, in fact, since you lack belief in all the other gods.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:10:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

Ok. And?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:20:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
One uses faith based on reason, the other doesn't.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:46:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:55:53 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:11:42 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:06:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

It's definitely a slippery semantical argument, becuase "faith" has many connotative meanings. But, even if we agree to the "everything is faith based" concept, there's different kinds of faith...there's a fundamental difference between "I have faith despite having no evidence" and "I have faith that when I step forward, I won't bounce to the moon".

Do we really have evidence for the basis of our beliefs? I don't think so. By basis, I mean the very basis. In the end, all belief is based on intuition which we cannot justify without presupposing what we're trying to justify in the first place. There's no way to prove the basis of our beliefs. So everything is faith based, and I'm not talking about the latter type of faith you mentioned.

I still think there's a qualitative experiential difference between the two I outlined, even though I can't refute solipsism.

I 'know' there's a difference, but I thought you were pointing out the difference to say that I was right in one sense, but not the other. My reply was to say I was right in both senses.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:50:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:45:56 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:25:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:23:38 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:13:28 AM, phantom wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:08:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:03:52 AM, phantom wrote:
Everything is faith based.

I said it to Freedo, and I'll say it to you: I prefer to say I have axiomatic beliefs, it sounds cooler.

I used to call myself an epistemological nihilist, just because it sounded cool.

That does sound cool. What do you call yourself now?

Well it still fits the bill, but "skeptic" is the traditional term, so I call myself that...not that there isn't necessarily a difference between the two.

So you believe knowledge is impossible?

I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but whether I believe we have it or not, depends on how you define it.

I define knowledge as justified true belief.
"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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.