Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
#301
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
You didn’t answer the question, that was the whole point of post 93. I went into painstaking detail to explain why.
I very much feel that I should not have to explain this to you.  You asked if Richard Dawkins believes in God and I explained his thoughtful, nuanced, clearly heartfelt response to that question as best as I was able including direct quotes.  You then picked apart Dawkins in a deeply unconvincing manner and demanded a yes or no reply from Dawkins.  Since I am not Dawkins and do not represent him in any way and Dawkins clearly refuses to answer that question with a simple yes or no I demurred and referred you back to Dawkins entirely sufficient and satisfactory reply multiple and will continue to do every time you demand it.

But that’s cool, you can tell yourself whatever you like.
What's not cool is thinking if you just keep reposting the same shit over and over people won't realize your argument was long since disproved.
#302
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
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]
And what was my reply the first time you made this point?


Topic's author
#303
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
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]
And what was my reply the first time you made this point?
a naked rush to declare victory
#304
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL


-->@oromagi
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]
And what was my reply the first time you made this point?
a naked rush to declare victory
No.  I carefully explained how none of those definition coincided with your definition that Atheism is "simply [merely, only, exclusively, etc]  a lack of belief." 

When you later agreed that Atheism means all of these definitions and more and definitely NOT that Atheism is "simply a lack of belief"  the argument was over whether you have figured that out or not.
Topic's author
#305
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
clearly the words "a lack of belief" are included

i was arguing the entire time for inclusion

you seemed to be adamantly arguing for exclusion

you and only you are pretending that the title of this thread is somehow magically "the (immutable) debate resolution"

when clearly your personal understanding of the term "merely" (and or "simply")  as a synonym for "exclusively" is something i've never encountered before

three of the four dictionary examples use "lack of belief" or "absence of belief" as the PRIMARY definition

which clearly refutes what you claim was your primary objection to "lack of belief"
#306
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I think the problem isn't clarifying a lack of belief or more than a lack of belief. The problem is clarifying the difference between atheist with no spiritual practice and atheist who have a spiritual practice. There is a very big difference between an atheist with no spiritual practice and say someone who is involved in witchcraft who is an atheist or animism and is an atheist. Or is Buddhist and is an atheist. There are traditions or spiritual practices that involve belief in an afterlife, spirit, magic, energy work and involve prayer or ritual. Those practices do not incorporate or require a belief in a deity. But certain atheists would not consider those people atheist and certain theists would not consider those people atheist. But they most certainly are. Those atheists are completely different than the atheist that often post here on this form and represent atheism. Most of the atheists who post on this forum believe in no afterlife, believe there is no spirit, believe there is no magic, believe there is no such thing as energy work. They are completely devoid of any spiritual practice at all other than maybe meditation, yoga or martial arts. This is where I think the argument is coming in from monotheists. If you don't believe in their one god then you're an atheist. Even if you're a theist. So they're certainly are qualifiers that come after the word atheist but at the core if someone says I'm atheist the only thing you should assume at that point is they have no belief in a deity or deities. If you want clarification then you need to ask them further do you believe in anything or practice anything spiritual. Then you'll find out if they're the hardcore atheist unaccepting of anything they haven't experienced themselves or if they're an atheist open to spiritual practices. There's a huge difference in the way you'll be treated.
#307
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
You asked if Richard Dawkins believes in God and I explained his thoughtful, nuanced, clearly heartfelt response to that question as best as I was able including direct quotes… Since I am not Dawkins and do not represent him in any way and Dawkins clearly refuses to answer that question with a simple yes or no I demurred and referred you back to Dawkins entirely sufficient and satisfactory reply multiple and will continue to do every time you demand it.
If I asked you whether Donald Trump believes in the principals of the constitution you would not hesitate to tell me “no, he does not”. You wouldn’t sit here quoting paragraphs of his statements and telling us you can’t speak for him.

But it’s so much worse then that because you know damn well that Richard Dawkins was not the point, at all. The only reason I was asking you about him was to use him as an example to illustrate why your stated position is complete bullshit. So your refusal to provide a yes or no has nothing to do with some principal you all of a sudden believe in that you can’t speak for others but rather a clear attempt to stop the conversation dead in its tracks because you know your position is logically untenable.

The obvious answer that I don’t need to prove to anyone because everyone knows this already is: No, he does not believe in a god.

And because he does not believe in a god, that means he does not hold a belief in any deities.

And because he does not hold a belief in any deities that means that when it comes to a belief in a deity… Dawkins lacks this belief.

Which means that Richard Dawkins lacks belief in any deities, the thing you claim is not true by trying to argue that he disbelieves which you tried to argue is different.

Except that as demonstrated above, lacking belief in a deity is not mutually exclusive to disbelieving in a deity.

The reason why and demonstration of how these are two different things was laid out in post 93.
Topic's author
#308
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Those practices do not incorporate or require a belief in a deity.
who are you and what have you done with poly ?
#309
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
you and only you are pretending that the title of this thread is somehow magically "the (immutable) debate resolution"
  • I strongly believe that arguments on a debate site should closely adhere to the original proposition as expressed in the title and/or OP.  Shifting propositions is an easy way to never resolve the truth value of the original proposition or stand proved/disproved.  That's the way debates work and it seems obvious that we should always use basic debate standards when we argue points on this site.
  • Your OP stated:
    • (IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
      • Your premise was quickly disproved.
      • Your OP clearly refutes your later claim "i was arguing the entire time for inclusion" or " has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions."
      • Recall  Double's thesis statement in the debate that started all this:
        • "The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god.  The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods."
          • So even though there is more than one meaning of the word simply, you guys are clearly only defending the meaning that is synonymous with "merely"
            • merely, just, purely, solely, only
          • You are clearly deluded or deceptive when arguing months later, "Golly that's not what we trying to say at all"
      • You can keep moving the goalposts all you want.  The kick was nailed two months ago when you stopped standing by your OP.
when clearly your personal understanding of the term "merely" (and or "simply")  as a synonym for "exclusively" is something i've never encountered before
  • You certainly should know me well enough to know that I only rely on dictionary definitions of word, never personal understands.
three of the four dictionary examples use "lack of belief" or "absence of belief" as the PRIMARY definition
  • Two months ago, I explained to you that there's no such thing as primary definition.  There are strict definitions and broad definition and a broad definition must never replace the strictest (most semantically specific) meaning of any word.


#310
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I've certainly said this before but none of those atheist posts here. It's all those hardcore there's no afterlife, there's no deity, there's no magic, there's no such thing as energy work, you're retarded, you don't think properly, you're stupid, we're more advanced than you b*******. 
#311
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
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.
"Common sense" is a tool for those who exhibit no prospects of explaining their arguments. Do I have some conception of that which you're attempting to state? Yes. But that does not relieve you from providing an explanation. And if you can't provide an explanation, then perhaps you should consider the reason you're maintaining notions and concepts you can't fully explain. Because your incapacity to explain your arguments demonstrates to me, at least, the extent of your understanding. That's the reason I'm engaging you in this exchange: to gauge the extent of your understanding.




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

My interpretation is simple.....Acceptance without fact.
How does one engage or interact with fact absent of belief?

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.
Because the measures you apply are not satisfied unless a large six wheeled vehicle arrives in 10 minutes. Unless this criterion is met, you do not "BELIEVE" the bus is there. What are your metrics independent of you?

Same applies to the GOD bus.

Though, previous evidence for the GOD bus is hypothetical,
Prove it.

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

So show me GOD and I will add it to my list of certainties.
I know you have. This was in response to my asking you to prove your argument, "actually existent GODS are not facts." Upon this response, I asked you, "your proof that actually existent Gods aren't fact is that one has yet to be shown to you?" Because if the basis of your affirmation that "actually existent GODS are not facts" is that the inverse has yet to be demonstrated, then you'd be imputing an "argument from ignorance" which is logically fallacious reasoning which suggest that lack of evidence or proof that a premise/argument is true is proof-positive that it's false.

Until then, belief is worthless.
Again, how does one engage or interact with fact absent of belief?

Topic's author
#312
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Except that as demonstrated above, lacking belief in a deity is not mutually exclusive to disbelieving in a deity.
exactly
Topic's author
#313
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
  • Your OP stated:
    • (IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
      • Your premise was quickly disproved.
THIS IS A CONDITIONAL STATEMENT

IFF WE CAN'T AGREE ON THE FIRST STATEMENT

THEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T AGREE ON THE SECOND STATEMENT
Topic's author
#314
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
  • Two months ago, I explained to you that there's no such thing as primary definition.  There are strict definitions and broad definition and a broad definition must never replace the strictest (most semantically specific) meaning of any word.
most words have MORE THAN ONE definition listed (in dictionaries)

and the PRIMARY definition is the first one listed (in dictionaries)
Topic's author
#315
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
  • Your premise was quickly disproved.
it takes almost zero rhetorical skill to claim something has been "disproved"

it takes slightly more rhetorical skill to convince someone (other than yourself) that something has been "disproved"
#316
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
and the PRIMARY definition is the first one listed (in dictionaries)

I know this was said before in the debate comments but the order of listing in most dictionaries depends on frequency of use.

When WIKTIONARY defines ATHEISM as

atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
that means that your preference comes third in terms of common usage.

When LEXICO and WEBSTER combine the first and third meanings, that brings usage to the top

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

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


#317
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
  • Your OP stated:
    • (IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
      • Your premise was quickly disproved.
THIS IS A CONDITIONAL STATEMENT

IFF WE CAN'T AGREE ON THE FIRST STATEMENT

THEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T AGREE ON THE SECOND STATEMENT
true
#318
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
  • Your premise was quickly disproved.
it takes almost zero rhetorical skill to claim something has been "disproved"

it takes slightly more rhetorical skill to convince someone (other than yourself) that something has been "disproved"
true
Topic's author
#319
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
and the PRIMARY definition is the first one listed (in dictionaries)

I know this was said before in the debate comments but the order of listing in most dictionaries depends on frequency of use.

When WIKTIONARY defines ATHEISM as

atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
that means that your preference comes third in terms of common usage.

When LEXICO and WEBSTER combine the first and third meanings, that brings usage to the top

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

Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]
we seem to be making some headway here
Topic's author
#320
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you want clarification then you need to ask them further do you believe in anything or practice anything spiritual.
bingo
#321
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Belief and fact are antonyms.

Fact is verified data, belief is unverified data.

A fact is not dependant upon belief.


All within the limits of certainty relative to our own physiological limitations of understanding.

Notwithstanding the variability of language and interpretation thereof.


So in my opinion only. 
#322
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,298
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
"common sense" is rarely if ever a benchmark for "good decision making"
Intelligence vs common sense is not addressed here below

Common sense is not rare, and is commonly used on daily basis by most humans via in complement to intelligent/smart choices/decissions, so as not make a jack-ass of themselves  See Jack-ass movies. LINK 

..." Common sense crucial to AI programs....

... Common sense is the knowledge that all humans have. Such knowledge is unspoken and unwritten – we take it for granted. We acquire it imperceptibly from the day we are born. For example, “animals don’t drive cars” or “my mother is older than me”. This knowledge is often used by human experts even when solving very narrow, domain-specific tasks. This common-sense knowledge is something that we learn through experience and curiosity without even being aware of it. We also acquire a great deal of it in our lifetimes. "...

....AI systems do not have common sense knowledge and acquiring it has been seen as important since their beginning. Furthermore, from all the efforts made over many years, it’s become evident that building common sense reasoning systems is a work-intensive and sometimes costly task. In this paper, I show why common sense reasoning is so important, and describe some approaches that have been used to build these systems. These approaches have enabled common sense reasoning tasks to be used as add-ons to AI client programs – such as Chatbots.....

...One of the founding fathers of AI, John McCarthy, was amongst the first to realize its importance. He wrote a paper that was the first to propose common sense reasoning through a hypothetical program called Advice Taker in 1959. This paper only described a specification for what a common-sense program should do. However, it soon became apparent that there was a need for working common sense knowledge programs to assist decision making in AI expert systems. These systems represented the first commercial boom period for AI, so common sense knowledge became seen as an essential adjunct for their success.

....The reason why common sense reasoning was seen as important was that many of these systems were very competent at problem-solving, but they were also brittle, because, they often gave meaningless answers when trying to reason with unusual problem data. For instance, as I show later, a medical diagnostic expert system didn’t realize that it was given car data when it diagnosed a car with measles ".....etc

So most of the latter above is in regards to AI and not intelligence.

1} common sense, ---basis for smart decission making ---

2} intelligence, ---combination of common sense and intelligent/smart decission making---

3} AI --smart/intelligent programming---
Topic's author
#323
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
AI systems do not have common sense knowledge
this is demonstrably false
#324
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief and fact are antonyms.

Fact is verified data, belief is unverified data.

A fact is not dependant upon belief.
Verified by what? By whom? And how does verification exclude belief?

All within the limits of certainty relative to our own physiological limitations of understanding.

Notwithstanding the variability of language and interpretation thereof.
So why are you referencing lexicon?


#325
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
So why are you referencing lexicon.

Because we all do, all of the time.

It's the basis of a system of communication.


Verified by what? By whom? And how does verification exclude belief?
Verified by a collective agreement in relation to factual knowledge.

Belief is an imaginative hypothesis not founded on the basis of factual knowledge.


Nonetheless, it is a fact that theistic hypotheses are.

Such is lexicon.
Topic's author
#326
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is an imaginative hypothesis not founded on the basis of factual knowledge.
i believe you are human

i do not know you are human

but i believe it is reasonable to infer you are human
#327
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Because we all do, all of the time.

It's the basis of a system of communication.
Which you claimed is irrelevant as it concerned the "limits of certainty relative to our own physiological limitations of understanding."

That's the reason I asked.

Verified by a collective agreement in relation to factual knowledge.
So consensus?


Belief is an imaginative hypothesis not founded on the basis of factual knowledge.
You have to go deeper (that's what she said.) Why does factual knowledge exclude belief? What separates the "imaginative" hypothesis from (presumably) a fact-based hypothesis when the medium through which we interact with claims of fact is the mind?

Nonetheless, it is a fact that theistic hypotheses are.
Whenever you affirm, I'm going to ask for proof.

#328
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
But you don't know for sure.

Therefore it is not a fact.


Though as I suggested a certain amount of common sense can be applied in certain circumstances.

If I was to say that I was in fact GOD, would you believe me?......Probably not.

The odds on me being human are pretty high.


I would therefore further suggest that actually and without consideration, you accept that I am human, rather than actually invoking the necessity of belief.
#329
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
See above.

Are you an echo?
#330
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,310
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
You are proof that theistic hypotheses are.

Proof enough for me any way.