Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[Shad]

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I never said that the subjects in question did not consider the concept of God's existence. I agree that, of course they must in order for the OP to apply to them. That being said, "rejecting the concept of God" includes those who are unconvinced, but still don't actively believe that God does not exist. Obviously, there aren't only two options.

There are many who "lack a belief in the existence of God" because they have heard the argument's for God's existence and are still unconvinced. They have considered the options, and they lack the belief due to insufficient evidence. And, along that same logic, they haven't seen enough evidence to convince them that God cannot exist either.

Being unconvinced is still a rejection of a proposal. Your lack of and rejection of stances are the same but divided for some reason. The only parameter which is used as separation is a counter proposal but this is an automatic rejection stance as well. So the separation is redundant.

 

[leibowde84]

Being unconvinced is still a rejection of a proposal. Your lack of and rejection of stances are the same but divided for some reason. The only parameter which is used as separation is a counter proposal but this is an automatic rejection stance as well. So the separation is redundant.

You are the one who pointed out the separation. Those who believe that God cannot exist are necessarily included in the "lack of belief in the existence of God category. That's why I didn't mention them initially in the OP. Rejection of the belief does not equal belief in the opposite. It just means being without the belief.

 

[Willamena]

You are the one who pointed out the separation.

To, hopefully, eliminate it.

Those who believe that God cannot exist are necessarily included in the "lack of belief in the existence of God category. That's why I didn't mention them initially in the OP. Rejection of the belief does not equal belief in the opposite. It just means being without the belief.

I cannot see how those who believe in something are necessarily included in the group of those who do not believe in anything.

And I doubt you'll ever convince me of it.

 

[leibowde84]

To, hopefully, eliminate it.


I cannot see how those who believe in something are necessarily included in the group of those who do not believe in anything.

And I doubt you'll ever convince me of it.

You are confused. I never claimed anything of the sort. That would be absurd. Obviousky, I meant that those who believe that God cannot exist are necessarily included in those that lack belief in God, as they also lack THAT belief. I didn't make any claim about those who lack belief in everything, although they would be included in the "lack of belief in God" category as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

To, hopefully, eliminate it.


I cannot see how those who believe in something are necessarily included in the group of those who do not believe in anything.

And I doubt you'll ever convince me of it.

Interestingly, that is not what he attempted to do.

 

[Willamena]

You are confused. I never claimed anything of the sort. That would be absurd.

Perhaps it was inadvertent, but you did.

Obviousky, I meant that those who believe that God cannot exist are necessarily included in those that lack belief in God, as they also lack THAT belief. I didn't make any claim about those who lack belief in everything, although they would be included in the "lack of belief in God" category as well.

You said the same thing again. Those who believe in something are necessarily included in those who lack "that" belief, but by lacking a particular belief in the sense of being ignorant of the thing they stand on the same ground as those who lack any belief. It's the principle of explosion: from a falsehood or contradiction, anything follows.

Do you deny there is a contradiction? Consider the following:

P = person
W = what they believe

A person who believes that there are no gods is an atheist. (P & W)
An atheist is a person who is incapable of believing in a thing, and therefore lacks belief in that thing. (P & -W)

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps it was inadvertent, but you did.


You said the same thing again. Those who believe in something are necessarily included in those who lack "that" belief, but by lacking a particular belief in the sense of being ignorant of the thing they stand on the same ground as those who lack any belief. It's the principle of explosion: from a falsehood or contradiction, anything follows.

Do you deny there is a contradiction? Consider the following:

P = person
W = what they believe

A person who believes that there are no gods is an atheist. (P & W)
An atheist is a person who is incapable of believing in a thing, and therefore lacks belief in that thing. (P & -W)

Your logic is flawed. Lacking a specific belief, in this case God, is being "without" belief, or "null", not -w.

Logically, my (past) argument (from another thread) is that "-w" and "null" both are included in "not w" ("not holding the belief that God exists" = atheism).

 

[Willamena]

Your logic is flawed. Lacking a specific belief, in this case God, is being "without" belief, or "null", not -w.

As is yours. Null is not true, nor does it actualize.

Logically, my (past) argument (from another thread) is that "-w" and "null" both are included in "not w" ("not holding the belief that God exists" = atheism).

"Not w" is specifically "w not true." So how does that work? (for you.)

 

[leibowde84]

As is yours. Null is not true, nor does it actualize.


"Not w" is specifically "w not true." So how does that work? (for you.)

Alright. Back up. "Not w" is NOT the same as "w not true" in this context. That would be absurd (see below for explanation).

W = belief that God or gods exist.
-W = belief that God or gods do not or cannot exist.
Null = the absence of both positions (which would apply to a multitude of "atheists" and are included in the definitions as they "lack" both beliefs).

Are you claiming that it is impossible to be in the "null" category? Because, most of the atheists I've spoken to wouldn't dare to make the claim that God cannot exist. They are merely unconvinced by the evidence and, thus, unable to accept "w" and "-w", and are, thus, in the "null" or "neither" category. Why would you deny this possibility.

 

[leibowde84]

As is yours. Null is not true, nor does it actualize.


"Not w" is specifically "w not true." So how does that work? (for you.)

Another example:

W = 5
-5 = -w
Any other number would be "null"

According to your logic:
4 is not 5 and it isn't -5 so it must be impossible.

One can certainly reject the belief that God exists without actively believing that the existence of God is impossible, right?

 

[Willamena]

Alright. Back up. "Not w" is NOT the same as "w not true" in this context. That would be absurd (see below for explanation).

W = belief that God or gods exist.
-W = belief that God or gods do not or cannot exist.
Null = the absence of both positions (which would apply to a multitude of "atheists" and are included in the definitions as they "lack" both beliefs).

Are you claiming that it is impossible to be in the "null" category? Because, most of the atheists I've spoken to wouldn't dare to make the claim that God cannot exist. They are merely unconvinced by the evidence and, thus, unable to accept "w" and "-w", and are, thus, in the "null" or "neither" category. Why would you deny this possibility.

It's not possible to for a positive to be the category of null. Null is not known, and so nothing. Belief is something, the positive (able to be posited). Null is "nothing to posit."

Only null occupies its category.

I'm a hard atheist. I have no problem claiming that god does not exist, and it has nothing to do with nulls, which would make me agnostic. I am also agnostic, but that's beside the point. I'm agnostic where it comes to nulls, but where it comes to beliefs, I'm atheist.

Perhaps it's just a problem identifying what is the actual topic of a belief.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not possible to for a positive to be the category of null. Null is not known, and so nothing. Belief is something, the positive (able to be posited). Null is "nothing to posit."

Only null occupies its category.

I'm a hard atheist. I have no problem claiming that god does not exist, and it has nothing to do with nulls, which would make me agnostic. I am also agnostic, but that's beside the point. I'm agnostic where it comes to nulls, but where it comes to beliefs, I'm atheist.

Perhaps it's just a problem identifying what is the actual topic of a belief.

Gnosticism deals with capacity for knowledge, not belief. The topic of the belief is agreed on I think as the existence of God. But, the topic of the terms "theism" and "atheism" don't deal with that topic directly, but, instead, the presence or absence of that specific belief.

 

[Willamena]

Gnosticism deals with capacity for knowledge, not belief. The topic of the belief is agreed on I think as the existence of God. But, the topic of the terms "theism" and "atheism" don't deal with that topic directly, but, instead, the presence or absence of that specific belief.

Knowledge and belief rely on an object, something to know or believe. In some worldviews, that thing takes the image of a proposition. Let's take "god" as an existent as the proposition. Let's leave Gnosticism (a religion) to the side for now, and just talk epistemology.

Coming to terms, the topic or object or content of a belief in god is god (apart from distancing yourself from belief in god or state of god or any of that). Theism is "belief in god" and atheism its antithesis. It doesn't fail to take the object of belief into question, rather than the state of belief (which is another topic).

 

[leibowde84]

Knowledge and belief rely on an object, something to know or believe. In some worldviews, that thing takes the image of a proposition. Let's take "god" as an existent as the proposition. Let's leave Gnosticism (a religion) to the side for now, and just talk epistemology.

Coming to terms, the topic or object or content of a belief in god is god (apart from distancing yourself from belief in god or state of god or any of that). Theism is "belief in god" and atheism its antithesis. It doesn't fail to take the object of belief into question, rather than the state of belief (which is another topic).

Again, "null" does not mean that you failed to consider the question. It means you dont hold the belief that God exists nor do you hold the belief that God does not exist, due to lack of substantiation for both.

 

[Willamena]

Again, "null" does not mean that you failed to consider the question. It means you dont hold the belief that God exists nor do you hold the belief that God does not exist, due to lack of substantiation for both.

Then what of the people who failed to consider the question. Does "null" somehow apply to them?

 

[leibowde84]

Then what of the people who failed to consider the question. Does "null" somehow apply to them?

They certainly would be included in the group that "lacks belief in the existence of God". But, they would not be relevant to this thread, as those who are not familiar with theistic arguments could not blame their lack of belief on any failure of substantiation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why aren't they theists, they accept a God like figure?

Nope. I see no reason to use that as definition of 'theist'.
Was I a theist when I realised the power of the Sun?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, consistent with this logic, babies believe in a god or gods.

There is no reason to suppose that. You are merely equating the most powerful concept they are aware of with God, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Curious George]

They also can not understand immortality. You refuted your own argument



Babies get hungry and cry when wanting to be feed. The fact that this happens rather than the parent feeding the child before the crying starts is a flaw. That is the way the child points out a flaw at the current time. Although I doubt it would recognize it as a flaw from our understanding

The baby does not need to understand death for entities which it accepts to not be subject to it. Say I knew of an event of which you never conceived or heard, can entities from your perspective be subject to such an event? Certainly from an objective point of view entities could be subject to such an event, but we are not talking about an objective point of view, we are talking about one entities perception.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. I see no reason to use that as definition of 'theist'.
Was I a theist when I realised the power of the Sun?

Quite possibly. Many cultures have viewed the sun as a God. But eventually you learned categories to place the sun in and you did not place the sun in a "god" category. However, prior to your awareness of a God construct and depending on how you viewed the sun, it certainly is a possibility that you saw the sun as what we could consider a God.

I am not quite sure how you viewed the sun or when you became aware. This is partially why I chose mother, because we can prove awareness of mother before birth so birth or shortly after should be no sweat to say the baby believes in an entity that is their mother.