Who has the burden of proof?

[raw_thought]

My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!


My definitions ( and the dictionary's) are more concise and precise.
1. Atheist= believes there are no Gods.
2. Theist= believes that there are at least one God.
3. Agnostic= is uncertain.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that's means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!

Seriously, do you even English?
Your "opposition's" point is theism and atheism are one category, agnosticism and gnosticism are another.

I'll type this slowly for you.
Theist: supports a position on the distance of a deity.
Atheist: lacks belief in existence of a deity.

Gnostic/agnostic: surety, our knowledge on the above stance.

Also, the fact you consider the people talking to you as opposition, how about...not trying that, and..silly me, I know I've only mentioned this about four times, but.. Try reading for comprehension?

My definitions ( and the dictionary's) are more concise and precise.
1. Atheist= believes there are no Gods.
2. Theist= believes that there are at least one God.
3. Agnostic= is uncertain.

And again, you're ignoring half the dictionary definition, scuttling it, then saying "see? The dictionary says I'm right, as long as I ignore...the dictionary!"

So, once more. I'm going to say this often repeated line.
Please tell me why this one line is so difficult.
"theistic/atheistic state, and gnostic/agnostic state, are not mutually exclusive... They compare similar but different aspects of a stance"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that's means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!

As if I needed any more proof that you've not been reading a thing we've written in this thread. You're done.

 

[McBell]

Let's see.....baseless?....as in non ONE was first?
Baseless...as in the singularity is 'self' starting?

Baseless? as in denial for the sake of denial?

Yes, baseless.
As in you have nothing to support it other than more baseless opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My definitions ( and the dictionary's) are more concise and precise.
1. Atheist= believes there are no Gods.
2. Theist= believes that there are at least one God.
3. Agnostic= is uncertain.

I really am starting to believe that you're a troll now. Nevertheless, here are those dictionary definitions you apparently never read, with added emphasis:

Atheism
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
SOURCE: atheism: definition of atheism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Atheist
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
adj
2. (Philosophy) of or relating to atheists or atheism
SOURCE: atheist - definition of atheist by The Free Dictionary

Atheist
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
SOURCE: Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

Atheism
noun
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2) a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
SOURCE: Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
SOURCE: Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you'll actually read them this time, but probably not...

 

[raw_thought]

"My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!"

That was a syllogism. Show me where it is invalid or the propositions are false.
Validity does not = truth.
For example, here is a valid syllogism that is not true.
1. All martians eat snakes.
2. Bob is a martian.
3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
The propositions 1 and 2 are not true, therefore the conclusion cannot be proven. It is a valid argument that is untrue.
Here is a truthful argument that is not valid.
1. Obama is president of the USA.
2. Nixon was president of the USA.
3. Therefore, Carter was president.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

"My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!"

That was a syllogism. Show me where it is invalid or the propositions are false.

That would be point 3.
If your curious why... Read the giant stack of posts addressed to you from multiple posters that you've apparently skipped so far.

Edit: but, mild kudos to you, for at least mentioning the most correct definition of atheism you've used all thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!"

That was a syllogism. Show me where it is invalid or the propositions are false.

You're moving from "wrong" to "outright dishonest" now. Nobody who has had this explained to them is as much depth as you have in this thread could possibly actually believe that those are an accurate representation of our definitions (except for 1 - although it apparently took 55 pages before we finally got there).

Therefore, there is only one explanation: you're a troll.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You're moving from "wrong" to "outright dishonest" now. Nobody who has had this explained to them is as much depth as you have in this thread could possibly actually believe that those are an accurate representation of our definitions.

Therefore, there is only one explanation: you're a troll.

To be fair, he did have me thinking he was honest at the start.

I fell for it. I can admit.
But I'm def. leaning to agreement with you now...

 

[raw_thought]

I really am starting to believe that you're a troll now. Nevertheless, here are those dictionary definitions you apparently never read, with added emphasis:

Atheism
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
SOURCE: atheism: definition of atheism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Atheist
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
adj
2. (Philosophy) of or relating to atheists or atheism
SOURCE: atheist - definition of atheist by The Free Dictionary

Atheist
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
SOURCE: Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

Atheism
noun
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2) a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
SOURCE: Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
SOURCE: Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you'll actually read them this time, but probably not...

UMMM. Ok , I will try to make the obvious simpler.
You said that an atheist is someone that lacks a belief in God, he does not believe that there is no God.
That is why I used YOUR description of what an atheist is.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree with you and the dictionaries. The dictionary makes us all have common definitions and makes life easier. Of course one can argue that definitions are conventions, but conventions are useful. For example here in the USA we drive on the right hand side. that is a convention ( there is no reason the rule could not say "ride on the left") However, I will continue to drive on the right and use dictionary definitions. It is safer and more useful for communication.

I prefer the 'simpler' terminology as it doesn't need 'explanations' to have meaning for each term. People are over complicating an inherently basic system of 'belief' labeling, and these boards show it.

 

[McBell]

I agree with you and the dictionaries. The dictionary makes us all have common definitions and makes life easier. Of course one can argue that definitions are conventions, but conventions are useful. For example here in the USA we drive on the right hand side. that is a convention ( there is no reason the rule could not say "ride on the left") However, I will continue to drive on the right and use dictionary definitions. It is safer and more useful for communication.

Funny.
You have been flat out ignoring the dictionary definitions of atheism you dislike...

with such a proud public display of blatant dishonesty, how do you expect others to take you seriously?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

UMMM. Ok , I will try to make the obvious simpler.
You said that an atheist is someone that lacks a belief in God, he does not believe that there is no God.

Yes to the former, no to the latter. Someone who believes there is no God is also an atheist. All people who disbelieve in the existence of God are atheists, including people who go so far as believing that there is no God - because those people ALSO disbelieve that there IS a God.

That is why I used YOUR description of what an atheist is.

No you didn't:

My definitions ( and the dictionary's) are more concise and precise.
1. Atheist= believes there are no Gods.
2. Theist= believes that there are at least one God.
3. Agnostic= is uncertain.

 

[Desert Snake]

'not-knowing' is already implied through logic, we don't need someone to redundantly state that they not only don't believe in god(s), but they are not sure about it, well duh, that's why it employs the term BELIEF in the definition. If someone claims to KNOW whether a deity exists, WE ARE OUT OF THE AREA OF BELIEF, we have terms that aren't relateable, it's basically nonsense.


I KNOW THAT WONDERLAND EXISTS.(aLICE).

 

[Awkward Fingers]

'not-knowing' is already implied through logic, we don't need someone to redundantly state that they not only don't believe in god(s), but they are not sure about it, well duh, that's why it employs the term BELIEF in the definition. If someone claims to KNOW whether a deity exists, WE ARE OUT OF THE AREA OF BELIEF, we have terms that aren't relateable, it's basically nonsense.


I KNOW THAT WONDERLAND EXISTS.(aLICE).

I'm curious what would happen if you put that thought to the test with a poll in the Christian section..

"Yes/no poll, I KNOW there is absolutely a God."
You're saying there would be very few, if any yesses, correct?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

'not-knowing' is already implied through logic, we don't need someone to redundantly state that they not only don't believe in god(s), but they are not sure about it, well duh, that's why it employs the term BELIEF in the definition. If someone claims to KNOW whether a deity exists, WE ARE OUT OF THE AREA OF BELIEF, we have terms that aren't relateable, it's basically nonsense.

Not quite. Knowledge isn't a graduation of belief. The two can be linked, but are not mutually exclusive. I can BELIEVE a claim regardless of whether or not I would claim that I KNOW it. An important distinction has to be made between claiming knowledge and claiming belief/lack of belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

@ Raw

No one has stated that an atheist HAS to simply lack a belief and CANNOT believe that gods do not exist. But saying that they don't HAVE to believe god doesn't exist. Either your being dishonest in trying to twist the words or your confused and you need to re-evaluate the posts

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm curious what would happen if you put that thought to the test with a poll in the Christian section..

"Yes/no poll, I KNOW there is absolutely a God."
You're saying there would be very few, if any yesses, correct?

You missed the point of my comments.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not quite. Knowledge isn't a graduation of belief. The two can be linked, but are not mutually exclusive. I can BELIEVE a claim regardless of whether or not I would claim that I KNOW it. An important distinction has to be made between claiming knowledge and claiming belief/lack of belief.

That's true, hence the 'gnostic' or agnostic' designations. The only issue is that with two definitions of 'atheist' (one a declarative denial of deity, the other simply a lack of belief), it would always need a descriptor.
'Agnostic' always needs a descriptor if one chooses to fall on the side of either 'belief' or 'disbelief'. i.e. ag/atheism or ag/theism. Notice ag/theism is a tad vague as well, because traditionally theism is a matter of belief instead of 'knowing', that's sort of it's own thing with groups of 'Gnostics etc.
'Theism' is not a claim of knowing.
Neither is one definition of 'atheism' provided, which describes it as simply a "non-belief" as opposed to a declaration "there are no deities"

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You missed the point of my comments.

Fair enough! I'll reread. (but probably not post again too soon, shift is almost over)