The default position...

[Curious George]

I understand why YOU THINK that yours are better. I think you couldn't be more wrong. I believe the opposite. We might have to agree to disagree on this one. But, saying things like, "mine are better" makes you appear a bit pretentious. "I'm right ... you're wrong ... deal with it" <<< what you sound like.

I could understand why I sound pretentious. We disagree. Is it a surprise I think I am right? I certainly would not be surprised by the notion that you think you are right.

Given your earlier post I felt the need to explain this basic facet to you, because you "did not understand why [your definitions] caused [me] issue." You even articulated the definitions as though perhaps by some chance I had failed to understand. So, I explained what my position is.my intention is not to say I am right you are wrong deal with it. My intention is to say I am right, you are wrong, and I have explained why. But, if you truly do not understand why , I will gladly go over it again.

Now you are telling me you understand why I think I am right. That is great. My question to you is do you understand why I think I am right or do you understand THAT I think I am right. Because if you actually understand why, and do not agree with me then you should be able to point to some flaw in my reasoning. Or if you feel the arguments are equally as good or better for your definitions then you should be able to articulate these and explain why they are good or better. And then I will point to whatever I see as flaws in your reasoning.

However, simply restating your definitions and essentially saying that you don't understand what my problem is, progresses nothing.

If that is the case though, I don't mind starting again at square one.

 

[Curious George]

Is not a credible statement, as an atheist is a description of those who are NOT theist.

If a atheist is a not theist, this is true. I think I pointed that out in my post.

 

[leibowde84]

If a atheist is a not theist, this is true. I think I pointed that out in my post.

But, this has been our argument all along. An "atheist" is one who is "not theist". If under your definitions, an "atheist" can be a "theist", wouldn't that mean that your definitions are lacking?

 

[leibowde84]

I could understand why I sound pretentious. We disagree. Is it a surprise I think I am right? I certainly would not be surprised by the notion that you think you are right.

Given your earlier post I felt the need to explain this basic facet to you, because you "did not understand why [your definitions] caused [me] issue." You even articulated the definitions as though perhaps by some chance I had failed to understand. So, I explained what my position is.my intention is not to say I am right you are wrong deal with it. My intention is to say I am right, you are wrong, and I have explained why. But, if you truly do not understand why , I will gladly go over it again.

Now you are telling me you understand why I think I am right. That is great. My question to you is do you understand why I think I am right or do you understand THAT I think I am right. Because if you actually understand why, and do not agree with me then you should be able to point to some flaw in my reasoning. Or if you feel the arguments are equally as good or better for your definitions then you should be able to articulate these and explain why they are good or better. And then I will point to whatever I see as flaws in your reasoning.

However, simply restating your definitions and essentially saying that you don't understand what my problem is, progresses nothing.

If that is the case though, I don't mind starting again at square one.

I understand why you think you are right, but I disagree with the validity of your opinion. I think it is much simpler and accurate to say that "atheism" is "not theism". Either one is "with" theism, or they are "without" theism. Terms like "agnosticism" deal with knowledge, not belief, so I don't think there is another option. This makes sense, as one cannot be "with" and "without" theism simultaneously. Remember, "belief" is "acceptance that something IS true or real", not acceptance that something MIGHT be true. That would merely be belief in a possibility.

 

[Curious George]

But, this has been our argument all along. An "atheist" is one who is "not theist". If under your definitions, an "atheist" can be a "theist", wouldn't that mean that your definitions are lacking?

The post in which I was quoted was referring to logic, I put the statement in quotes because it was used by another member. This should not be hard to follow. Read my reply, to whom my reply was, and to whom his reply was. That should give an understanding.

 

[Curious George]

I understand why you think you are right, but I disagree with the validity of your opinion. I think it is much simpler and accurate to say that "atheism" is "not theism". Either one is "with" theism, or they are "without" theism. Terms like "agnosticism" deal with knowledge, not belief, so I don't think there is another option. This makes sense, as one cannot be "with" and "without" theism simultaneously. Remember, "belief" is "acceptance that something IS true or real", not acceptance that something MIGHT be true. That would merely be belief in a possibility.

Belief in a possibility is still belief.

 

[leibowde84]

The post in which I was quoted was referring to logic, I put the statement in quotes because it was used by another member. This should not be hard to follow. Read my reply, to whom my reply was, and to whom his reply was. That should give an understanding.

Are you kidding?! Can't you just explain what you meant. Is an "atheist" a "not theist", or not?

 

[Curious George]

I understand why you think you are right, but I disagree with the validity of your opinion. I think it is much simpler and accurate to say that "atheism" is "not theism". Either one is "with" theism, or they are "without" theism. Terms like "agnosticism" deal with knowledge, not belief, so I don't think there is another option. This makes sense, as one cannot be "with" and "without" theism simultaneously. Remember, "belief" is "acceptance that something IS true or real", not acceptance that something MIGHT be true. That would merely be belief in a possibility.

Moreover, this deals with the weak explicit atheist, not the implicit atheist, for which we also must be account

But if you want to start with weak explicit atheism I am ok with that. As you indicated belief in a proposition can occur regardless of the amount of doubt. I disagree with this statement, but will use it because regardless of the amount of doubt would include the equally likely to the preponderance which I hold. So, if given the instance where one knows there is only a possibility, belief in that possibility, can still be termed belief. Thus belief in a possibility can equal belief.

 

[Curious George]

Are you kidding?! Can't you just explain what you meant. Is an "atheist" a "not theist", or not?

Lol, a member suggested that all theists were atheist. Another member suggested that this necessarily makes atheist = theist and therefore destroys the terms.

I pointed out that given our language use theists are atheist does not mean all atheist are theist. We then digressed into language usage in proofs of mathematics and resolved that one would speak differently given an actual proof. It was a issue with semantics. It was not a discussion regarding my belief about the definitions.

 

[Shad]

LOL, How hard is it for you to grasp that I am not even interested in arguing about definitions? Your desperation is palpable.

I understand you think you do not want to talk about definitions. However you are unaware how the sentences such as babies are atheists is using a specific definition, which have been used by you. You then decline any challenge to you definition by claims "Its not a definition" or "I am not talking about definitions" by your own ignorance of what the words you string together mean. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing is fitting for what you have been doing. The only desperation is from you when you deny an arguments that babies are atheists in includes a definition of atheist. Its not like you have posts like as follows all over this thread.

Yes, and until that time the baby is ignorant of God claims - and hence atheist.

Of course you are not talking about definitions right... You are a funny man

 

[Shad]

Well don't 'display yourself as a blatant liar' then. Think harder and try to raise an intelligent argument as opposed to the dishonest bleating and transparent misrepresentation.

Your own posts show how you use atheist which is a word which has a definition. You then link this with babies, ergo you are using a definition. I challenge this, you have declined it. Thus your definition has not been defended, is fallacious therefore false. Try to pay attention to the words you are using.... Your own posts show you to be a liar, I need not make up any argument to support this, you won words are good enough.

Also were you not also claiming that I was doing the same a few days ago. Pot meet Kettle

If name calling and misrepresentation are all you have, you should just stop. You accuse me of a contradiction that you have not even evidenced - sure, babies are implicit atheists. They lack the belief in God, and are hence atheist. Just throwing a rude tantrum and bleating does not actually constitute a counter argument.

Its was a conclusion based on your own posts. I provided evidence above and evidence is abounds in your posts in this thread. The only tantrum is your own in which you deny using a defination of a word in your arguments, the very definition which you provided above which also contradicts your previous claims about not using a definition.... I provided a counter argument but you dismissed it as absurd. However you do not understand that was the point of the argument. To show that the definition of "lack of" is absurd

 

[Shad]

Of course all theists are atheist - they are theist towards whatever God or Gods they believe in and atheist towards those that they don't. Of course you will pretend to be completely baffled by such a simple point. Atheism remains the absence or lack of a specific belief - however challenging such a simple fact may be for you.

Wrong. If a theist believes in one God they can not be an atheist. It does not matter if they reject other gods, as long as they believe in one they are still theists.

Again you are providing a definition which others and myself have challenged and you deny in providing. Hilarious.

 

[Curious George]

I understand why you think you are right, but I disagree with the validity of your opinion. I think it is much simpler and accurate to say that "atheism" is "not theism". Either one is "with" theism, or they are "without" theism. Terms like "agnosticism" deal with knowledge, not belief, so I don't think there is another option. This makes sense, as one cannot be "with" and "without" theism simultaneously. Remember, "belief" is "acceptance that something IS true or real", not acceptance that something MIGHT be true. That would merely be belief in a possibility.

I understand that you are pointing out that "might be true" is not equal to "is true" But might be true includes "is true" as a possibility. There is no logical reason why someone cannot accept "is true" if they believe something might be true. Just as there is no logical reason they can not reject "is true" if they believe something might be true.

Now given this, there is no logical reason someone cannot accept proposition a and accept proposition b.

there is no logical reason that one cannot accept proposition a and accept proposition b and accept proposition c which is that either proposition a or proposition b is not true.

That they accepted one of the two propositions is not true does not disturb the acceptance of these propositions because it is unknown which proposition is false. Therefore, they have created no contradiction.

 

[Shad]

There's the post. Where do I attribute to you the position that "atheists are rocks"?

I argued that he must accept this if the definition of atheism includes a lack of belief.

 

[atanu]

You must come to realise someday that this "Implicit" thingy is a theory, a philosophical position, and not the reality.

You cannot substantiate that at all.

Implicit is the definition of one branch of atheism, there is no theory about it in context.

So. What is there to substantiate? Your assertion that implicitly all babies and stones are atheists is your own understanding of what atheism is. Is there any proof required other than your posts asserting that again and again?

 

[atanu]

You asked me if they were the same. I said, "no, one is merely included in the other", which is 100% accurate. Here's why (and this should be pretty obvious):

Belief = acceptance that something is true or real without sufficient evidence.

If one is "unable to accept that anything is true or real", how would they be able to "accept that something is true or real" without sufficient evidence. If you are unable to accept that something is true or real, you are also unable to believe in it, by definition. This is because "belief" requires the "ability to accept that something is true".

Where are you getting confused?

Very typical of you. Now, you change 'something' to 'anything'.

My original objection to your replacing words in definition is reproduced again, as reminder.

Your claim, shown in red in the top quote "..... who are incapable of belief" is not same as the actual definition in green "inability to accept that something is true or real."

I am able to judge that you are wrong and thus I am not unable to ACCEPT your proposition as true or real.

A stone or a child has no such ability to judge and reject.

I am unable to accept the specific claim of yours that babies are atheists, based on use of my intellect.

That is not equal to or that does not even suggest that I am 'incapable of belief (and disbelief also) like a stone or like a baby, who are devoid of intellect.

But, if you really insist that stones or babies are implicitly atheists just as you are, I may really agree that intellect levels of stones, babies, and implicit atheists are same or at least similar.

 

[leibowde84]

Belief in a possibility is still belief.

Yes, I just said that same exact thing, but "belief in possibilities" is irrelevant to this discussion, as we are discussing b It is "belief in a possibility". Theism is not "belief in the possibility that God might exist". Theism is "belief in the existence of God or gods". It is the acceptance that this is true without sufficient evidence.

Belief in a possibility is still belief.

Can you at least admit that belief in the possibility that God MIGHT exist is not the same as belief that God does exist and is real?

 

[leibowde84]

Very typical of you. Now, you change 'something' to 'anything'.

My original objection to your replacing words in definition is reproduced again, as reminder.



I am unable to accept the specific claim of yours that babies are atheists, based on use of my intellect.

That is not equal to or that does not even suggest that I am 'incapable of belief (and disbelief also) like a stone or like a baby, who are devoid of intellect.

But, if you really insist that stones or babies are implicitly atheists just as you are, I may really agree that intellect levels of stones, babies, and implicit atheists are same or at least similar.

I am not an atheist. I believe in god, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. My only argument is that "implicit atheism" is real. You keep on saying that it isn't. But you haven't supported your argument in any way.

 

[atanu]

I am not an atheist. I believe in god, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. My only argument is that "implicit atheism" is real. You keep on saying that it isn't. But you haven't supported your argument in any way.

Implicit atheism is a subjective view of what atheism is. There is nothing wrong in a subjective view, as long as the view is not imposed as an objective truth on some others who have different view.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, I just said that same exact thing, but "belief in possibilities" is irrelevant to this discussion, as we are discussing b It is "belief in a possibility". Theism is not "belief in the possibility that God might exist". Theism is "belief in the existence of God or gods". It is the acceptance that this is true without sufficient evidence.
Can you at least admit that belief in the possibility that God MIGHT exist is not the same as belief that God does exist and is real?

Yes, I think that I covered this in the post after the one you are quoting right now. However might exist is a statement that is described by two propositions. Might exist is not a meaningful proposition in classical logic. You need to employ modal logic in order to use this as a proposition. Once you do this, you open open the door to contingency which we can then believe both a proposition and its m.e. proposition.

Which then proves my point in a different manner.

legion spoke of this early on in the thread when he explained that you cannot use belief with classical logic.

If we use modal logic we say:

There exists a world wherein God exists.

There exists a world wherein God does not exist.

One of these worlds represents our actual world.

If you want to try to show that believing in a proposition a entails not believing in a proposition a. Please do so. But as I have already articulated, this is not evidence of non contradiction. People actually believe a proposition and its mutual exclusive proposition. Therefore, doing so will be either extraordinary or a futile endeavor.

I await your proof.