Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
#271
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Well, we created words that attempted to define stuff and we also developed semantics.

Whereby nothing quite means what it says and definition becomes imprecise and contradictory.


So: 

1. Is there an actually existent GOD......Externally perceivable.......No.

2. Is there an existent GOD......Relative to internal  process....Imagination......Yes.


And relative to inflection within a context , yes can mean no and no can mean yes.


It's win win, never win, as far as words go, especially where an outcome is unattainable.
#272
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
See above.


Nonetheless:


As far as this independently functioning, intellectual unit is concerned.

There is no actually existent, externally perceivable GOD.

I do not need to believe this, because I know this.


What anyone else cares to think is up to them.


Of course, show me one and I will  amend my database.
#273
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I'M QUOTING YOUR SOURCE

THIS IS YOUR SOURCE

WHICH SEEMS TO CLEARLY CONTRADICT YOUR POINT
First of all, it doesn’t contradict my point in the slightest. It said exactly what I’ve been saying for days. Let’s look at it once again, take note of the bold;

So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.
What part of this are you under the impression contradicts anything I’ve said?

But more to the point, what I asked for in my last post was for you to present an actual argument instead of just posting the same words I linked you too. Why are we having this conversation? What is your issue? Links are useful to support an argument, they are not themselves, an argument.
#274
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
did you have any plans of responding to post 93?
same answer as the first two times you asked that question.
You didn’t answer the question, that was the whole point of post 93. I went into painstaking detail to explain why.

But that’s cool, you can tell yourself whatever you like.
Topic's author
#275
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not need to believe this, because I know this.
the question is HOW

HOW do you "know this" ?
#276
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief.

Is simply a lack of definitive evidence.

If something is factual then belief is irrelevant.
Belief is a state of mind. Specifically, it’s the acceptance of something as true.

That is categorically different from the question of whether there is evidence to support a claim or whether something is considered a fact.
Topic's author
#277
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What part of this are you under the impression contradicts anything I’ve said?
[POST#169] (PAGE 7)

Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
this claim is not supported by your citation
Topic's author
#278
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Belief is a state of mind. Specifically, it’s the acceptance of something as true.

That is categorically different from the question of whether there is evidence to support a claim or whether something is considered a fact.
well stated
#279
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, we created words that attempted to define stuff and we also developed semantics.
It's not about semantics or particular word choices. It's about the consideration of that which you call, "fact," and your attempt to exclude it from "belief."

1. Is there an actually existent GOD......Externally perceivable.......No.
Prove it.

1. Is there an actually existent GOD......Externally perceivable.......No.

2. Is there an existent GOD......Relative to internal  process....Imagination......Yes.
Why does the externally perceivable speak to "fact" as opposed to the internal process?



#280
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,260
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@Double_R
Truth = what exists without empirical evidence.

Fact = confirmation of what exists via empirical evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Absolute truth = eternally true everywhere and everywhen

Relative truth = what exists in some locations and not others.

False narrative = combination of truth with lies to mislead/mis-direct.

The first, trinary sub-catagory of Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { i } is:

....1} absolute truths,

.....2) relative truths, and,

......3} false narratives
#281
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Belief is a state of mind. Specifically, it’s the acceptance of something as true.

That is categorically different from the question of whether there is evidence to support a claim or whether something is considered a fact.
The consideration of fact is not "categorically" different from the acceptance of something as true. You can argue that private gnosis neither qualifies nor modifies standards of logic, but that does not exclude belief from the consideration of fact.
#282
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
the question is HOW

HOW do you "know this" ?
Exactly.

Topic's author
#283
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Truth = what exists without empirical evidence.
truth is defined as "in accordance with facts"
Topic's author
#284
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
 that does not exclude belief from the consideration of fact
and at the same time, "belief" does not require "fact"
Topic's author
#285
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Fact = confirmation of what exists via empirical evidence.
and or logical-necessity
#286
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,260
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
truth is defined as "in accordance with facts"
Truth = what exists without empirical evidence.

Fact = confirmation of what exists via empirical evidence.

and or logical-necessity

Yes, 3Ru, we sometimes feel a neccessity to make a decision based on belief, and/or logic and common sense, however, as DR made clear, belief may or may not be truth, and same goes for our logic and common sense. Ex, we see auto rolling along and the hub-caps of wheels appear to be turning in the opposites direction and this defies common sense.

Yet, via empirical evidence or deeper thought we come to understand why we have the illusion of hub-cap turning in opposite direction of the wheels spin direction.
#287
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
At some point one has to conclude that there is such a thing as common sense.

Though common sense is obviously a variable concept in itself.

So perhaps it's best to accept then, that it is impossible to be even reasonably certain of anything.


As for belief....How you wish to interpret it, is your choice...Semantics.

My interpretation is simple.....Acceptance without fact.

So based upon previous knowledge, one might suggest that they believe the 47 bus will arrive in approximately 10 minutes. But one has no way of knowing the 47 bus will actually arrive, until the bus arrives.

Same applies to the GOD bus.

Though, previous evidence for the GOD bus is hypothetical, whereas the 47  bus that one caught at the same time yesterday was as reasonably factual as it was possible to get.


Oh...And I keeping asking you to show me GOD.

So show me GOD and I will add it to my list of certainties.

Until then, belief is worthless.
Topic's author
#288
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
and this defies common sense.
"common sense" is rarely if ever a benchmark for "good decision making"
#289
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Imagine thinking you actually are a more advanced human being than the number of people on the planet simply because their personal experience has led them to believe there is something after this life whether it's God or an afterlife. Imagine not trusting yourself so much that you think you have the right to say to other people they should not trust what they feel and experience because it's not your experience and that makes you wrong and beneath them. Now imagine that person trying to say they're more moral, more intelligent and more accepting of other people than you because of that belief. It's hypocrisy and it's self-loathing and it's bigotry. 
Topic's author
#290
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So show me GOD and I will add it to my list of certainties.
what we need is an explicit definition of "god"

and an explicit definition of "exist"
Topic's author
#291
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Imagine thinking you actually are a more advanced human being than the number of people on the planet simply because their personal experience has led them to believe there is something after this life whether it's God or an afterlife. Imagine not trusting yourself so much that you think you have the right to say to other people they should not trust what they feel and experience because it's not your experience and that makes you wrong and beneath them. Now imagine that person trying to say they're more moral, more intelligent and more accepting of other people than you because of that belief. It's hypocrisy and it's self-loathing and it's bigotry. 
some atheists are good

some atheists are bad

some theists are good

some theists are bad
#292
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Notwithstanding that it is very difficult to pin a singular word down. (Belief)

Once we start compounding words or suffixing and prefixing or both or all three, we stand no chance.

Logical necessity.....Logic clearly varies between individuals, so individually logic is necessary but collectively logic is unnecessary as it cannot be pinned down.

Though everything including variable logic might be an evolutionary necessity, therefore logical.

We create sounds and symbols and apply them to variable data sequences....Never in quite the same way.


Explicit definitions are thin on the ground.
#293
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,260
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
what we need is an explicit definition of "god"

Done that countless times in last 30 years

Universe/God are synonyms, i.e. finite, occupied space God/Universe

and an explicit definition of "exist"
Three primary kinds of existence and all that exists falls into one of these three catagories { simple }:

1}  eternally existent, Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts are concepts of Space, Time, God, Dogs etc

--------------------conceptual line-of-demarcation----------------------------------------

2} eternally existent, macro infinite, and truly non-occupied space, that, emmbraces/surrounds, the following,

3} eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe/God,

....3a} Spirit-2, physical reality aka observed { quantised and quantified } time that, has sine-wave /\/\/ patterning associated with most if not all fermionic matter and bosonic force particles of Universe/God,

...3b} eternally existent, Spirit-3, metaphysical Gravity [ mass-attraction aka space contraction  },

...3c} eternally existent, Spirit-4, meta-physical Dark Energy { cosmological constant of accelerating space expansion  }


Topic's author
#294
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Logical necessity.....Logic clearly varies between individuals, so individually logic is necessary but collectively logic is unnecessary as it cannot be pinned down.
logic is the only thing that can be "pinned down"
Topic's author
#295
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
My primary objection is that your suggested re-definition, "a lack of belief" is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. [WIKI]

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]

Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [OXFORD]

Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]

This is "the present state of affairs".
Topic's author
#296
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?
#297
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
this claim is not supported by your citation
It actually is. That’s where the “now we’re just arguing any the meaning of words” part comes in.

The proceeding example I provided in the post you quoted was about the usage of the term “conspiracy theory” to talk about something that does not fit with any of the major ideas the term conveys. That’s not a debate over substance, that’s a debate over terminology. My point was that by using that term you are distorting the conversation, and then when I point out why, you point to a dictionary to claim the word is not defined that way. But that’s the whole problem I’ve been talking about out for weeks now; dictionary definitions do not always represent popular usage, and popular usage accounts for a significant portion of the ideas conveyed in most conversations.

Again, language is about using words to communicate ideas, and the overwhelming majority of words we use every day are learned through conversation with other people, so to downplay the significance of popular usage of words is a mistake.
#298
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Imagine not trusting yourself so much that you think you have the right to say to other people they should not trust what they feel and experience because it's not your experience
No atheist I know of tells theists they should not trust what they feel. It’s the idea that their feelings inform them of what exists beyond the observable universe that atheists are telling theists they should reject.
Topic's author
#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
do you remember saying this ?

do you stand by this specific claim ?
#300
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Yes you do. Meanwhile you expect us to accept when you convey belief based on emotion and experience like you loving your kids, parents or spouse.