The dreaded "A" word

[MikeG]

And you could have noticed that tsig's argument is predicated on the premise that "not believing" and "believing not" are not the same type of statement insofar as the former indicates the lack of belief whereas the latter indicates the presences of belief. He merely asserted the premise and reasoned from there, without attempting a cursory justification of the idea that the negation of a belief is not a belief itself.....

Saying the same thing over and over and over again and hoping for a different result is often ascribed to Einstein as being the very definition of madness. Don't let me interrupt you though.......

 

[tsig]

What does quantum electrodynamics have to do with topic?

I ask because you obviously can't be using QED as an abbreviation for quod erat demonstradum, because stating that the assertion that atheism is either the negation of a belief in the existence of the supernatural or or a belief in the negation of the existence of the supernatural is still a belief is valid and exposes the unsoundness the argument that atheism is fundamentally different from theism due to its defining lack of belief. That is, of course, unless you are arguing that the negation of a belief is not also a belief.

If I told you I have no money would you argue that I must actually have money since I used the word have?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Saying the same thing over and over and over again and hoping for a different result is often ascribed to Einstein as being the very definition of madness. Don't let me interrupt you though.......

Do you have a proof (in the logical/mathematical sense) of the logical equivalence of the negation of a belief and the lack of a belief?

It seems that you don't understand difference between re-assigning truth values to a statement (e.g., negating a statement of belief) and not assigning truth values to a statement at all (e.g., lacking a belief to affirm or negate).

 

[tsig]

Do you have a proof (in the logical/mathematical sense) of the logical equivalence of the negation of a belief and the lack of a belief?

It seems that you don't understand difference between re-assigning truth values to a statement (e.g., negating a statement of belief) and not assigning truth values to a statement at all (e.g., lacking a belief to affirm or negate).

You say

I believe in god

I say

I don't


According to you these are equivalent statements.


Let's see

I believe in UFOs

I don't

do I now have to disprove UFOs?

 

[MikeG]

...First you need to define "God". That's the tough one.

Nope, that's your problem. You're the one making the claim, so you're the one needing to provide the case for the existence of a god. I make no claims at all about gods.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You say

I believe in god

I say

I don't


According to you these are equivalent statements.


Let's see

I believe in UFOs

I don't

do I now have to disprove UFOs?

*sigh*

I didn't say that a (first-order) predicate and its negation have the propositional value. I said that they are the same type of predicate insofar as they assign a propositional value to the assertor's statement of belief. The assertion of lack of belief, however, is an assertion of the non-existence of a belief and is therefore a fundamentally different type of predicate insofar as it assigns no truth value to the statement of belief.

I also said nothing about whether your being able to prove a premise make your conclusion valid. I did question the soundness of your argument due to the fact that it rests on a primes that has yet to be proven true.

What implies to you that asserting doubts about the soundness of an argument containing an assertion of unknown truth value is equivalent to declaring the argument in valid?

 

[TimCallahan]

You won't. Not on this forum, anyway.

So epix has been banned. In a way, that's sad. It really doesn't take that much effort to be civil, while at the same time disagreeing intensely with the person with whom one is holding a dialogue.

 

[tsig]

*sigh*

I didn't say that a (first-order) predicate and its negation have the propositional value. I said that they are the same type of predicate insofar as they assign a propositional value to the assertor's statement of belief. The assertion of lack of belief, however, is an assertion of the non-existence of a belief and is therefore a fundamentally different type of predicate insofar as it assigns no truth value to the statement of belief.

I also said nothing about whether your being able to prove a premise make your conclusion valid. I did question the soundness of your argument due to the fact that it rests on a primes that has yet to be proven true.

What implies to you that asserting doubts about the soundness of an argument containing an assertion of unknown truth value is equivalent to declaring the argument in valid?

"I believe in god" isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

 

[John Jones]

QED

Indeed.

 

[John Jones]

You worship the belief that Atheism is not a religion. If not, there wouldn't be as many post defending this belief.

The lack of belief in gods is not a religion, and patiently explaining that to dullards a dozen times is not a form of worship.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You worship the belief that Atheism is not a religion. If not, there wouldn't be as many post defending this belief.

You are egregiously, consistently wrong in this claim.

If not,there would not be as many posts pointing out to you that you do not get to define atheism for atheists; you do not get to tell me what I "really" believe.

I find it interesting that you have avoided the point-by-point refutations of your silly pretense that your definition of "religion" applies to atheism.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So, there could be a "God"?

So, there could be a "teapot", orbiting just outside Neptune, dispensing advice to the lovelorn?

 

[John Jones]

Would that be for your belief there is not? First you need to define "God". That's the tough one.

Exactly what is this and how did you determine there is none? For me. "God" is in the details.

If you're claiming the existence of a god, you define it. The burden of proof is yours.

 

[Correa Neto]

Of course its some version of the Christian Abrahamic god. What else could it be? All other gods are false, because the Bible says so.

Its preposterous to think its about Allah, Brahman, Zeus, Coatlicue, the YHWH from Jews, etc. They are not real.

 

[mijopaalmc]

"I believe in god" isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

So is "I don't believe in God".

 

[smartcooky]

You might have to explain how the part in bold does not apply to Atheism?

So here is that bit

"Belonging to a group with a common belief is NOT a religion unless that belief involves the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Err, it is obvious that, despite having it explained to you time, and time, and time again, you still don't get it, so maybe I can try by quoting an example...

Jerry does not believe in God. In fact he couldn't care less whether others believe in God or not. Furthermore, Jerry doesn't really believe in much of anything. He doesn't care which party is in government, he doesn't even bother voting on polling day. He cares even less how the world was created. While he is aware that there is divided opinion on whether it was created by science or magic, it doesn't matter a fig to him who is right and who is wrong, and he's blissfully unaware that anything actually exists beyond the planet.

The only thing that Jerry is really interested in is getting down to the TAB (bookie) to gamble some more money along with the rest of the gambling addicts in society, who all hold the common belief that their luck has to change soon. That and getting to the local bar to have a few beers while he waits to see if he has wagered well.

By any definition you like to quote, Jerry is an atheist.

 

[tsig]

So is "I don't believe in God".

So

"I believe in god" and "I don't believe in god" stand on equal footing?

 

[smartcooky]

So is "I don't believe in God".

No it isn't, and that is where you have your failure of understanding

Stating that "I do not believe we have been visited by beings from another planet" is not the same as stating that "beings from other planets do not exist"

"I do not believe in God" is a statement of belief, and the position of the Atheist.

"God does not exist" is a statement that purports to be fact, and is the position of the anti-theist

atheists and anti-theists are NOT the same!

 

[mijopaalmc]

No it isn't, and that is where you have your failure of understanding

Stating that "I do not believe we have been visited by beings from another planet" is not the same as stating that "beings from other planets do not exist"

"I do not believe in God" is a statement of belief, and the position of the Atheist.

"God does not exist" is a statement that purports to be fact, and is the position of the anti-theist

atheists and anti-theists are NOT the same!

If you say "I don't believe in God" and nothing else, you have merely asserted that you don't believe.

Please learn the formal difference between a proposition (assertion) and a deduction (arguments).

 

[Pup]

Seems there still is a belief.

It seems you're not separating out the difference between strong and weak atheism, and that's pretty significant.

Strong atheism: the belief that there is no god.
Weak atheism: a lack of belief in a god.

Edited to add--weak atheism is the more typical kind, and that's what I self-identified as for years.

Personally, though, it seems to me that all the evidence points to gods being human-imagined constructs, and therefore I not only lack belief in a god, I believe that there is no god, based on currently available evidence.

But it's not the same meaning of "believe" as religious people use. The point that used to puzzle me about the definition of "strong atheist" and why I didn't used to self-identify as one is this: I thought it meant not only did you believe there was no god, you planned to maintain that belief regardless how much evidence might theoretically come forth in the future for a god. That would of course be silly and put strong atheism on a par with religion, where keeping the faith is more important than evidence.

But apparently, it doesn't mean that, and I learned that in fact the "belief" is understood to be only conditional, based on current evidence. That's when I switched to self-identifying as a strong atheist.