Atheism is not a default position

[atanu]

Strong atheism is far more meaningful.

Agree. But why atheists abandon that position?

 

[leibowde84]

Agreed. We are progressing.

So how would you distinguish a sentence involving a 'lack of belief in deity' when applied in respect of a stone and when applied in respect of you.

I woudnt. There is no need to.

 

[Willamena]

The fact that rocks don't have minds and they are unable to hold beliefs means that, by definition, they lack all beliefs, as they lack the ability to believe period.

They are defined by their essence, not by everything else.

 

[leibowde84]

Agree. But why atheists abandon that position?

They dont. Some atheists are weak atheists, in that they merely lack a belief, and some are strong atheists, in that they actively believe that God cannot exist.

 

[atanu]

The fact that rocks don't have minds and they are unable to hold beliefs means that, by definition, they lack all beliefs, as they lack the ability to believe period.

What is the difficulty in accepting the fact that the word 'belief' is meaningless in respect of a rock? Please ponder a bit

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is the difficulty in accepting the fact that the word 'belief' is meaningless in respect of a rock? Please ponder a bit

You're the one who keeps talking about rocks. We've all repeatedly said that, while it is technically true to say a rock lacks a belief, it isn't meaningful. You are the one hung up on whether or not rocks believe things; we've all unanimously stated that rocks don't really even factor into this discussion. Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

 

[atanu]

I woudnt. There is no need to.

So there.

A stone cannot hold a belief. Yet you say "stone lacks a belief'

A barren mother cannot have a son. Yet some may parade barren mother's son as an evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So there.

A stone cannot hold a belief. Yet you say "stone lacks a belief'

If you cannot hold a belief, then you lack a belief.

A barren mother cannot have a son. Yet some may parade barren mother's son as an evidence.

I think you're extremely confused. Saying "a rock cannot hold a belief, therefore it does not have a belief" is no different to saying "a barren mother cannot have a son, therefore a barren mother doesn't have a son".

 

[atanu]

You're the one who keeps talking about rocks. We've all repeatedly said that, while it is technically true to say a rock lacks a belief, it isn't meaningful. You are the one hung up on whether or not rocks believe things; we've all unanimously stated that rocks don't really even factor into this discussion. Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

Correct. You can check that some other stands ( possibly including your earlier stand) have been different from your present stand. So, you accept that a statement "rock lacks a belief" isn't meaningful. It is a progress. Let us proceed.

And in case of humans, what is the real meaning of 'lacks a belief in existence of deity'?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Correct. You can check that some other stands ( possibly including your earlier stand) have been different from your present stand. So, you accept that a statement "rock lacks a belief" isn't meaningful.

Not meaningful to discussion, but I've NEVER said anything to contradict that, and you are being dishonest in accusing me of so doing. I clearly stated that it is still TECHNICALLY TRUE to say that rocks are atheists, but it isn't MEANINGFUL to the discussion - so why do YOU keep brining it up?

And in case of humans, what is the real meaning of 'lacks a belief in existence of deity'?

How many times can I explain the same thing? Lacking a belief means not accepting a given proposition as true. It is self-explanatory. Do you not read a single post I've written?

 

[atanu]

You're the one who keeps talking about rocks. We've all repeatedly said that, while it is technically true to say a rock lacks a belief, it isn't meaningful. You are the one hung up on whether or not rocks believe things; we've all unanimously stated that rocks don't really even factor into this discussion. Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

If you cannot hold a belief, then you lack a belief.
I think you're extremely confused.

Well. Madhouse.

What else, I am telling other than "to say a rock lacks a belief, isn't meaningful".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well. Madhouse.

What else, I am telling other than "to say a rock lacks a belief, isn't meaningful".

Your dishonesty is noted. Perhaps now you can deal with my actual argument rather than deliberately misrepresenting me and lying about my position?

 

[atanu]

How many times can I explain the same thing? Lacking a belief means not accepting a given proposition as true. It is self-explanatory.

'not accepting a given proposition as true' is simply 'to reject the proposition'. Simple. Just as I do not accept your statement "Lacking a belief means not accepting a given proposition as true".

I do not say that I lack a belief in your proposition.

Why one has to interpolate a new word?

Do you not read a single post I've written?

Mostly no. I find them full of confusion and contradiction and yet condescending.

 

[atanu]

Your dishonesty is noted. Perhaps now you can deal with my actual argument rather than deliberately misrepresenting me and lying about my position?

What dishonesty? Post 551 shows both of your statements.

Atheism is not a default position | Page 28 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[ImmortalFlame]

'not accepting a given proposition as true' is simply 'to reject the proposition'. Simple. Just as I do not accept your statement "Lacking a belief means not accepting a given proposition as true".

I do not say that I lack a belief in your proposition.

Why one has to interpolate a new word?

You don't have to SAY you lack a belief in order to lack a belief. A lack of belief is still a lack of belief. No words are being made. You're not even making sense at this point.

Mostly no. I find them full of confusion and contradiction and yet condescending and or insulting.

I've been nothing but respectful and patient with you, and yet you see fit to insult and lie about me. Why resort to such base tactics?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What dishonesty? Post 551 shows both of your statements.

Atheism is not a default position | Page 28 | ReligiousForums.com

And where did I change my position?

 

[atanu]

To proceed with something meaningful, I repeat my query:

How would one distinguish a sentence ' There is a lack of belief in deity' when applied in respect of a stone and when applied in respect of a person?

 

[leibowde84]

What is the difficulty in accepting the fact that the word 'belief' is meaningless in respect of a rock? Please ponder a bit

I agree that it is meaningless, which is why rocks do not hold any beliefs. Thus, they "lack" all beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To proceed with something meaningful, I repeat my query:

How would one distinguish a sentence ' There is a lack of belief in deity' when applied in respect of a stone and when applied in respect of a person?

One has cognitive function, the other doesn't. It is therefore more meaningful to say it in relation to a human, since they can actually enter into the debate, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still an accurate description of a rock, and both a rock and a human can lack a belief in exactly the same way. The exact same is true of "They don't have a degree" or "They don't eat cake" or "They didn't vote Liberal Democrat". All of these statements are true of a rock, but pointing that out doesn't really mean anything. Which is why I'm still curious as to why it is you think bringing it up all the time is meaningful. Why does it matter if rocks can be described as lacking a belief?

 

[leibowde84]

To proceed with something meaningful, I repeat my query:

How would one distinguish a sentence ' There is a lack of belief in deity' when applied in respect of a stone and when applied in respect of a person?

Both "lack belief" in the same exact way, as "lack" merely means "without".