Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
#91
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagi
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Would love a response to the entire post, but at the very least address this question.
You are only repeating yourself.  You don't have a rational expectation of repeated responses.

"Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"

That already explains that we're not just talking about some abstract concept of just "lacking belief". But I went on to explain it even further for those that needed their hand to be held:

"The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize."

Perhaps if you read the rules of the debate before judging it you would have known what the debate was about.
I did read the rules and explained my position in the first sentences of my vote.  Perhaps if you read my vote you could save the repetition.  

"As initiator and maker of extraordinary claims, PRO has the BURDEN of PROOF here.
PRO offers us three fairly different standards to apply:
1) Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
2) The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
3) [A lack of belief] should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.
PRO clearly states that #2 is the Full Resolution and so #2 will be used to establish PRO's burden. That is, this VOTER won't apply the much lower standard of "lack of belief is one simple definition for atheism" or the much lower standard of "most reasonable." #2 does appear to be PRO's intent. PRO must prove that atheism has only one acceptable definition. Given that PRO is contradicting the body of Western scholarship regarding this definition, PRO has set himself a nearly impossible task. PRO defines all kinds of terms except for the one relevant term, ATHEISM.
PRO argues that dictionaries should do away with the most strict , precise definition of atheism and only use the more broad definition mostly overlapping with agnosticism."

Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Answered in POST #80

First of all, no one cares to create terms for impartial flatists. This is a debate no one is seriously having, Second, I know of no one who takes the position that they simply lack belief in the shape of the earth, yet nearly every atheist takes the position that they lack belief in the existence of a god.  Third, there is only one earth, so whatever position you take on it is your position.  Fourth, "anti" means "against", so your term already assumes things that do not apply to the subset of people you are clumping together.
So...you don't understand how metaphors work.  That is a shame.

It's not a recategorization, it's broadening the definition to make it more inclusive.
That's a lie.  You keep shifting your goalposts.

Here was your own summary of your position:  

"Since defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of a god is both useless and logically untenable, the only sensible alternative is to recognize atheism as the lack of belief in a god."
That is not inclusive, that is explicitly exclusive.  Because Y and Z are useless and illogical, let's change A=XYZ to just A=X.  An active disbelief in the impossibility of gods is not fairly or inclusively or accurately defined as "simply a lack of belief in gods."

Someone who believes using contraception warrants the death penalty is pro life. That doesn't mean everyone who is pro life agrees with that position.
Oh, NOW you understand metaphors.  

Someone who believes using contraception warrants the death penalty is pro life.
OED records the earliest use of the word Pro-life in 1960 in this sentence:

"No pro-life parent or teacher would ever strike a child. No pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishment of homosexuals, our attitude toward bastardy."

When the word was coined, support for the death penalty was specifically disqualifying.  Over time, mis-use of the broad definition became so commonplace that the original intent of the word has been trampled. That's a shame and an essential semantic distinction lost.   Let's not do the same to ATHEISM.

Apparently, you think that means we should come up with a new term for that specific subset of pro lifers as to not lump them in with those who just don't think terminating a pregnancy should be legal.
Definitely, since to call a Pro-death penalty protestor PRO-LIFE is deliberately deceptive.  Likewise, to say that Richard Dawkins "simply lacks belief in gods" is deliberately deceptive.


Topic's author
#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Likewise, to say that Richard Dawkins "simply lacks belief in gods" is deliberately deceptive.
And also FACTUALLY ACCURATE.
#93
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
Answered in POST #80
Ok, let’s look at your answer in post 80 to see if you actually addressed it:

Question: “Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?

Answer: “Dawkins does not consider gods desirable or necessary.  He is not missing or wanting a belief in gods.  Dawkins believes that a belief in gods is  destructive to human progress.  Dawkins disbelief is active and affirmative.  To describe that as a lack of something is false.”

It seems the meaning of basic words and/or phrases has escaped you yet again. Let’s break this question down part by part to see if we can finally get this clarified. To start we’re going to break this up into 3 parts; hold, belief, deity or deities.

Hold: Used in this context is a metaphor to mean that the position described accurately reflects one’s worldview.

Example: Person A holds the position that abortion should be legal. Translation: “abortion should be legal” accurately describes Person A’s worldview on this subject.

Belief: refers to one’s psychological state towards a proposition, specifically, to believe a proposition is to accept that proposition as true.

Deity or deities: much more on this later. For now I presume I do not need to explain.

So let’s put all of this together by repeating the question, this time translated;

Is it an accurate description of Richard Dawkins worldview, that he accepts as true, the existence of a deity or deities?  

So does your answer address this question? Let’s look at it again:

“Dawkins disbelief is active and affirmative. To describe that as a lack of something is false.”

The answer is no, you did not address the question. I’m talking about belief and you’re talking about disbelief. So why the disconnect? Is it that you do not understand what the question was asking, or are you just being disingenuous? Clearly, the latter. Here’s why;

First, let me start by pointing out the distinction between two different concepts. I will label them stand alone propositions and clumping.

Stand alone postpositions: God either exists or he does not exist. That’s it, there are no other options. So when it comes to propositions we break this up into the following:

Proposition A: “A God exists”
Proposition B: “No gods exist”

The significance of stand alone propositions is that they are addressed separately. Invalidating an argument which seeks to affirm one of these propositions does not necessarily prove the other.

Example: “The defendant is guilty because he is shown on video robbing the liquor store”. Response: “the individual in the video is covered head to toe, there is no telling who this individual is”.

The response invalidating the claim that he is guilty does not prove his innocence.

Clumping: this is where we take two stand alone propositions and clump them together. This is done by rephrasing the subject from one of the two propositions (i.e. “A god exists” or “No gods exist”) and turn it into a question of whether a god exists.

The problem in this thread and in arguing with theists in general about this subject is that they pretend not to understand the difference between these two concepts when they do. Here’s the proof:

“I believe in god”

This sentence translated, means “I accept as true the proposition that a god exists”.

Mental illness aside, no theist on earth needs this sentence explained to them. No theist has ever heard someone say they believe in god and thought, “so what do you believe?”

Turns out the concept of stand alone propositions is very well understood. But what happens when an atheist comes along and says “I lack belief in a god”?

Suddenly, “a god” in this sentence no longer means “the proposition that a god exists” as it did before. Now, theists translate this into “I lack belief towards the question of whether a god exists”, and then pretend that no other translation is coherent.

So going back to the top, you understand that when we say “the existence of any deities” we’re talking about the proposition that a deity or deities exist. We’re not talking about the question of whether deities exist. So let’s try this one more time:

Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Topic's author
#94
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.
True.
#95
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,255
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
To hold an opinion, is just a pragmatists way of avoiding the somewhat delusory concept of belief.
#96
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Then what do you make of 3RU7AL's contention that:

3RU7AL Post #81:
lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
I see nothing here I disagree with.

Is it then your argument that "lack of [positive] belief" necessarily informs a [positive] belief in the object of concern being falsifiable?
If I’m understanding this question correctly, no.

Accepting a proposition as true and accepting a proposition as falsifiable are two different things and one has nothing to do with the other.

Didn't you just argue that the two were functionally indistinguishable?
Yes I did. Functionality is about one’s actions, the theism/atheism address one’s beliefs. Functionality has nothing to do with this particular point.

28 days later

#97
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Then what do you make of 3RU7AL's contention that:

3RU7AL Post #81:
lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
I see nothing here I disagree with.
But you stated,

The affirmation in this sentence is the thing we're talking about. When we say "lacks belief" that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties".
Does 3RU7AL's statement not conflict with yours?

If I’m understanding this question correctly, no.

Accepting a proposition as true and accepting a proposition as falsifiable are two different things and one has nothing to do with the other.
They actually have very much to do with the other. But I'll simplify it: does lacking a belief in God necessarily suggest that one maintains that God does not exist?

Yes I did. Functionality is about one’s actions, the theism/atheism address one’s beliefs. Functionality has nothing to do with this particular point.
There are no "actions" here since the subject of our discussion is focused on their beliefs anyway. That is, what they "do" has nothing do with anything physical/material. So once again, is a lack of belief and disbelief functionally indistinguishable or not? If so, how?
#98
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Does 3RU7AL's statement not conflict with yours?
No, it doesn't.

When I say lacks belief in the existence of any dieties, I am saying the person does not believe a diety exists. That is very different from saying one lacks any belief with regards to the question of whether a god exists (explained in detail in post 93).

does lacking a belief in God necessarily suggest that one maintains that God does not exist?
No. One can very easily conclude (as I have) that the question of whether a God exists is irresolvable.

There are no "actions" here since the subject of our discussion is focused on their beliefs anyway. That is, what they "do" has nothing do with anything physical/material. So once again, is a lack of belief and disbelief functionally indistinguishable or not? If so, how?
I don't understand your question. Functionality has to do with actions or that which can be observed. If no difference can be observed, then they are indistinguishable. If they are indistinguishable, then they are functionally the same.

If we really want to dive deep however, on a philosophical level I would say there is a big difference because our beliefs do not live in a vacuum. If one accepts logically fallacious thinking towards one subject that will likely carry over to others. In my view, the assertion that there are no gods is misguided because I don't believe there is any way to support that statement.


#99
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
No, it doesn't.

When I say lacks belief in the existence of any dieties, I am saying the person does not believe a diety exists. That is very different from saying one lacks any belief with regards to the question of whether a god exists (explained in detail in post 93).
Actually it does. You stated, and I quote, "when we say  'lacks belief' that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any deities.'" And 3RU7AL stated that, "lacking a belief in [X] very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of [X] worship, a lack of [X,] a lack of membership in clubs that believe in [X]) and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that [X] certainly does NOT exist."

Is there a difference between what you state is shorthand for "lacks belief in the existence of any deities," and "does not imply a belief that deities certainly do NOT exist"?

No. One can very easily conclude (as I have) that the question of whether a God exists is irresolvable.
And what are your measures in determining that God's existence is without resolution? How do you resolve one's existence?

I don't understand your question. Functionality has to do with actions or that which can be observed. If no difference can be observed, then they are indistinguishable. If they are indistinguishable, then they are functionally the same.
When we first broach the comparison between "lacks belief" and "disbelieve," you stated that disbelievers took it a step further. You stated that one who lacks belief does not disbelieve, but one who disbelieves lacks belief. That one who lacks belief is "functionally" indistinguishable from one who disbelieves. You're now saying that this is about actions, which we have yet to attribute or sustain as exclusive to the subjects of our comparison. What we have done is attribute and sustained as (nearly) exclusive is "value," i.e. one who "lacks belief" does not "disbelieve" and one who "disbelieve" DOES "lack belief." If however these two are functionally indistinguishable, I'm asking you to explain how?

In my view, the assertion that there are no gods is misguided because I don't believe there is any way to support that statement.
What changed?



#100
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,255
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Imaginary GODS were created to fulfil a need.

Ongoing data transfer therefore dictates that Imaginary GODS exist within all data bases.

Though some are conditioned to accept  this as an irresolvable uncertainty, and therefore conclude that a GOD may/does actually exist in reality.
 
This is the basis of belief.

Lacking  deistic  belief,  indicates that some people were not so affected by the transfer of spurious archaic information.

Also, in some instances reassessment of old data can result in a new conclusion.

Though all relevant data will continue to persist for as long as the onboard  computer is still functioning adequately.


An imaginary conundrum that is "irresolvable", becomes what it becomes.


Topic's author
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If however these two are functionally indistinguishable, I'm asking you to explain how?
BOTH "DISbelief in [X]" AND "lacking a belief in [X] very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of [X] worship, a lack of [X,] a lack of membership in clubs that believe in [X])"

the key feature of "belief in a specific god and or gods and or goddess and or goddesses" is that an individual who proclaims such a belief is presumed to modify their behavior in accordance with the teachings associated with the specific god and or gods and or goddess and or goddesses

BOTH "DISbelief" AND "lack of belief" does NOT imply that either those individuals act in accordance with such teachings AND does NOT imply that those individuals act CONTRARY to those teachings

in other words, a belief in gggg presumably informs your behavior

and a non-belief in gggg does NOT inform your behavior
#102
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Is there a difference between what you state is shorthand for "lacks belief in the existence of any deities," and "does not imply a belief that deities certainly do NOT exist"? 
One has nothing to do with the other.

Proposition A: "a god exists"

Proposition B: "no gods exist"

Per the law of excluded middle, one of these propositions must be true and the other must be false. But that is about what's actually true. We're talking about beliefs.

When it comes to one's beliefs the same cannot be said. Believing one is true does logically require the other to be false, but not accepting one of these propositions as true does not mean the other is accepted as true.

I reject proposition A on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence. I also reject proposition B on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence.

So back to your question, "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties" is a statement describing one's mindset towards proposition A. It has nothing to do with proposition B.

3RU7AL's statement at the end is talking about proposition B.

They're different propositions.

And what are your measures in determining that God's existence is without resolution? How do you resolve one's existence? 
I consider it irresolvable because the central claim is that there exists a being occupying a realm of reality that we have no access to. If we have no access to it then we could not possibly demonstrate whether anything is there.

You're now saying that this is about actions,
No, you asked me about functionality, which is about actions, so of course my answer would be as well.

Functionality and disbelief/lack of belief come together because the subject is the definition of atheism. When it comes to how the word should be thought of to mean, the distinction between disbelief/lack of belief and the functional differences are two different arguments supporting the same position. The functionality argument is that there is no distinguishable difference between disbelieving and lacking belief with regards to how one lives their life, therefore there is no need to categorize them differently.

What changed?
Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does. Neither of those conflict with the position I stated here.
#103
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
BOTH "DISbelief in [X]" AND "lacking a belief in [X] very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of [X] worship, a lack of [X,] a lack of membership in clubs that believe in [X])"

the key feature of "belief in a specific god and or gods and or goddess and or goddesses" is that an individual who proclaims such a belief is presumed to modify their behavior in accordance with the teachings associated with the specific god and or gods and or goddess and or goddesses

BOTH "DISbelief" AND "lack of belief" does NOT imply that either those individuals act in accordance with such teachings AND does NOT imply that those individuals act CONTRARY to those teachings

in other words, a belief in gggg presumably informs your behavior

and a non-belief in gggg does NOT inform your behavior
I understand your point, but Double_R stated that "lacks belief" was shorthand for lacking belief in the existence of deities, which he argued is a requirement for those who disbelieve. I'm trying to understand how this is the case if the two are functionally indistinguishable. Up until this point we haven't mentioned or discussed  any attributable behaviors of the "lack-believers" and the "disbelievers," much less how this nuance manifests in their subscriptions to particular teachings.
#104
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
One has nothing to do with the other.

Proposition A: "a god exists"

Proposition B: "no gods exist"

Per the law of excluded middle, one of these propositions must be true and the other must be false. But that is about what's actually true. We're talking about beliefs.

When it comes to one's beliefs the same cannot be said. Believing one is true does logically require the other to be false, but not accepting one of these propositions as true does not mean the other is accepted as true.

I reject proposition A on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence. I also reject proposition B on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence.

So back to your question, "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties" is a statement describing one's mindset towards proposition A. It has nothing to do with proposition B.

3RU7AL's statement at the end is talking about proposition B.

They're different propositions.
Epistemologically, rejecting proposition A is the same as accepting proposition B. Your arguments attempt to bypass this by sustaining some notion of "metaphysical objectivity"--i.e. "what is actually true"--while designating the existence of God(s) as "yet to be determined." The nonexistent provides no particular information, so how is it rational to bear any prospects of "evidence"?

I consider it irresolvable because the central claim is that there exists a being occupying a realm of reality that we have no access to. If we have no access to it then we could not possibly demonstrate whether anything is there.
What would you need to resolve this? How would you describe "access"?

No, you asked me about functionality, which is about actions, so of course my answer would be as well.
I asked you about functionality when you proffered that functionally, one who lacks belief is indistinguishable from one who disbelieves.

The functionality argument is that there is no distinguishable difference between disbelieving and lacking belief with regards to how one lives their life, therefore there is no need to categorize them differently.
Why would this matter if we're discussing definitions and the premise/construction of one's beliefs?

Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does. Neither of those conflict with the position I stated here.
Perhaps not, but by your own rationale, you would have provided a misguided argument.
Topic's author
#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What would you need to resolve this? How would you describe "access"?
explicit definitions of "god" and "exist"
#106
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
explicit definitions of "god" and "exist"
Good point.
#107
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Epistemologically, rejecting proposition A is the same as accepting proposition B.
False. To reject something is to not accept it. To not accept proposition A does not necessitate an acceptance of proposition B, I already gave you the example of this being done, i.e. I consider the question of whether a god exists to be unresolvable. That position rejects both propositions as unsupported by the evidence.

Your arguments attempt to bypass this by sustaining some notion of "metaphysical objectivity"--i.e. "what is actually true"--while designating the existence of God(s) as "yet to be determined."
I've argued nothing regarding some "metaphysical objectivity", you made that up.

I'm talking about the difference between what is vs. what we believe and how we talk about that difference. 

Once again, proposition A is either true or it is not true. That's it, those are the only two options. When it comes to what we believe however, there are three possibilities;

I believe A is true

I believe A is not true

I have not determined whether I believe A is true or not true

Theism/atheism are labels we put on people to tell us what their beliefs are, so the actual truth of the proposition is a seperate topic from how we determine what labels are appropriate.

What would you need to resolve this? How would you describe "access"?
That depends on how it's being defined. Pretty much every serious attempt to define god I've ever heard includes at minimum that he exists "outside of time and space". So as a physical being existing within time, the concept of verifying whether something even could let alone does exist outside of time is completely incoherent. And existing outside of space requires us to be able to verify that which exists outside the observable universe. The term "observable" is there for a reason, that's as far as we can see our know in any way is there.

So for starters, find me a way to explore what lies beyond the observable universe and coherently explain not only how something can possibly exist outside of time but also how we can demonstrate that it actually does.

Why would this matter if we're discussing definitions and the premise/construction of one's beliefs? 
It matters to the question of how we should define the term "atheist" because if what theists tend to recognize as atheists vs agnostics has no functional difference in our society then it is practically useless for us to bother distinguishing them.

Perhaps not, but by your own rationale, you would have provided a misguided argument. 
How so?

Topic's author
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Pretty much every serious attempt to define god I've ever heard includes at minimum that he exists "outside of time and space".
(IFF) god = omnipotent, omniscient, creator of all (THEN) everything must be pieces of god

acceptance of this does NOT make anyone a THEIST

PANTHEIST, DEIST, MONIST perhaps

but all of these qualify as "NOT-A-THEIST" (ATHEIST)
#109
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
False. To reject something is to not accept it.
No. To "reject" is to "deny" as the two are directly synonymous; not "lack" acceptance.

To not accept proposition A does not necessitate an acceptance of proposition B
To reject or deny proposition A is to tacitly accept proposition B.

already gave you the example of this being done, i.e. I consider the question of whether a god exists to be unresolvable.
But I have yet to learn the measures you applying in determining "resolvable" an "un-resolvable."

That position rejects both propositions as unsupported by the evidence.
The nonexistent provides no information on itself, thereby nullifying any prospect of rational evidence.

I've argued nothing regarding some "metaphysical objectivity", you made that up.
I didn't make it up; this is what I've gleaned from your distinction between beliefs and "what is actually true." If I've gotten it wrong, then explain to me what you meant when you stated, "what's actually true" in comparison to "beliefs."

I'm talking about the difference between what is vs. what we believe
What is the difference between "what is" and "what we believe"?

Once again, proposition A is either true or it is not true. That's it, those are the only two options. When it comes to what we believe however, there are three possibilities;

I believe A is true

I believe A is not true

I have not determined whether I believe A is true or not true

Theism/atheism are labels we put on people to tell us what their beliefs are, so the actual truth of the proposition is a seperate topic from how we determine what labels are appropriate.
Proposition A is either true or not true by what measure? Does it exclude belief?

That depends on how it's being defined. Pretty much every serious attempt to define god I've ever heard includes at minimum that he exists "outside of time and space". So as a physical being existing within time, the concept of verifying whether something even could let alone does exist outside of time is completely incoherent. And existing outside of space requires us to be able to verify that which exists outside the observable universe. The term "observable" is there for a reason, that's as far as we can see our know in any way is there.

So for starters, find me a way to explore what lies beyond the observable universe and coherently explain not only how something can possibly exist outside of time but also how we can demonstrate that it actually does.
So in order for you to resolve the existence of God(s,) you'd first have to "observe" God(s) outside of time and space. Can I take it that the your tools of observation are strictly determined by the scientific method?

It matters to the question of how we should define the term "atheist" because if what theists tend to recognize as atheists vs agnostics has no functional difference in our society then it is practically useless for us to bother distinguishing them.
But why does that necessitate a distinction in "actions" which aren't necessarily excluded to any particular value system, as opposed to philosophy?
How so?
Premising an argument based on what you believe is insufficient or absent evidence.
#110
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
No. To "reject" is to "deny" as the two are directly synonymous; not "lack" acceptance.
To reject is to not accept.

I propose a new idea to my boss and he rejects it. All that means is he does not accept my proposal.

I ask a girl on a date, she rejects me. All that means is she does not accept my offer.

I try to give someone advice and they reject it. All that means is they do not accept what I've said to them.

There is nothing about any of these examples which necessitates that the person rejecting what was offered accepted the opposite. My boss did not necessarily go about by doing the opposite of what I proposed. The girl I asked out did not necessarily date someone else. The person rejecting my advice did not go out and do the exact opposite.

To reject simply means to not accept. Not accepting something does not = accepting the opposite.

But I have yet to learn the measures you applying in determining "resolvable" an "un-resolvable." 
Because that's not relavant to our conversation.

What is the difference between "what is" and "what we believe"?
One is a description of reality, the other is a description of one's mindset.

Proposition A is either true or not true by what measure?
The law of excluded middle

Can I take it that the your tools of observation are strictly determined by the scientific method? 
Yes.

If you have another method by which we can determine what is real vs. not real please share.

But why does that necessitate a distinction in "actions" which aren't necessarily excluded to any particular value system, as opposed to philosophy?
It has nothing to do with value systems. It's about what we observe within our daily lives. If we can't tell the difference between two things, there is functionally no difference.

Premising an argument based on what you believe is insufficient or absent evidence.
Explain where I did what you're describing.
#111
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
To reject is to not accept.

I propose a new idea to my boss and he rejects it. All that means is he does not accept my proposal.

I ask a girl on a date, she rejects me. All that means is she does not accept my offer.

I try to give someone advice and they reject it. All that means is they do not accept what I've said to them.

There is nothing about any of these examples which necessitates that the person rejecting what was offered accepted the opposite. My boss did not necessarily go about by doing the opposite of what I proposed. The girl I asked out did not necessarily date someone else. The person rejecting my advice did not go out and do the exact opposite.

To reject simply means to not accept. Not accepting something does not = accepting the opposite.
Again, reject is directly synonymous with deny.

So if your boss rejects your proposal, he denies it.
If you ask a girl on a date, and she reject your proposal, then she's denying it.
If you give some advice, and someone rejects your advice, they are denying it.

I'm not arguing that not accepting something = accepting the opposite. I'm suggesting that rejecting the truth of proposition A means accepting the truth of its inverse, proposition B.

Because that's not relavant to our conversation.
Okay.

One is a description of reality, the other is a description of one's mindset.
What's the difference? (Yes, I'm being serious.)

The law of excluded middle
So logic? This is independent from or mutually exclusive to belief?

Yes.

If you have another method by which we can determine what is real vs. not real please share.
How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?

It has nothing to do with value systems. It's about what we observe within our daily lives. If we can't tell the difference between two things, there is functionally no difference.
So what actions are attributable to theists, atheists, agnostics, etc. in context to their respective philosophies? Can an atheist not go to Church?

Explain where I did what you're describing.
You stated:

Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does.

#112
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I'm not arguing that not accepting something = accepting the opposite. I'm suggesting that rejecting the truth of proposition A means accepting the truth of its inverse, proposition B. 
These two sentences directly contradict each other.

Proposition A is "a god exists". The opposite of that is "no gods exist", which is proposition B. So if one's rejection of proposition A = acceptance of proposition B, then ones rejection of proposition A = acceptance of its opposite.

One is a description of reality, the other is a description of one's mindset.
What's the difference?
I don't know why you would ask me this. Let's try this another way.

A) The earth is flat
B) John believes the earth is flat

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

The law of excluded middle
So logic? This is independent from or mutually exclusive to belief?
Logic is how we determine what we believe, and logic has rules.

Do you believe in the laws of logic? Yes or No?

So what actions are attributable to theists, atheists, agnostics, etc. in context to their respective philosophies? Can an atheist not go to Church? 
There are certain things theists do which result from their beliefs (i.e. go to church, pray, make decisions based on what they think their god wants, etc.). Yes of course atheists can do these things. We're not talking in terms of absolutes, were talking in practical terms. Practically speaking, anyone can tell whether someone is a theist or an atheist with enough exposure to that person. This isn't complicated.

Explain where I did what you're describing.
You stated:

Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does.
That's where the term "on balance" comes in. That doesn't mean I accept that there are no gods or consider that conclusion reasonable, it means that I consider the claim to be more reasonable by comparison to the alternative.

These are different things.

How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?
Ok, I'm really starting to wonder what the point of this conversation is. The questions you are asking me are basic stuff, and when I answer them you just keep asking more basic questions like a five year old asking why over and over again.

If there is a point to all this please make it. I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real. You either understand that already or we have much bigger issues here.
Topic's author
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I'm not arguing that not accepting something = accepting the opposite. I'm suggesting that rejecting the truth of proposition A means accepting the truth of its inverse, proposition B.
the contention here is that "atheism" is not the ONLY alternative to "theism"

it's a false dichotomy

rejecting a false dichotomy does not imply one accepts "the opposite" of the false dichotomy

non-theism could be DEISM or PANTHEISM or MONISM or GNOSTICISM or even APATHEIST ("i don't care if a theistic god exists or not")

many of these people do not self-identify as "atheist"

but probably could still qualify for technical "atheism" if one understands "atheism" to be "not-a-theist"
Topic's author
#114
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Proposition A is "a god exists". The opposite of that is "no gods exist", which is proposition B. So if one's rejection of proposition A = acceptance of proposition B, then ones rejection of proposition A = acceptance of its opposite.
one could very easily reject BOTH A & B
Topic's author
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real.
in the same way we don't believe in the existence of bigfoot

unless and until we are presented with empirically demonstrable evidence of the existence of bigfoot
Topic's author
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real.
#117
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
These two sentences directly contradict each other.

Proposition A is "a god exists". The opposite of that is "no gods exist", which is proposition B. So if one's rejection of proposition A = acceptance of proposition B, then ones rejection of proposition A = acceptance of its opposite.
No they don't. Because the argument within the argument is a contest over the meaning of the term, "reject," which you have claimed means to simply, "not accept"; whereas I have claimed that the term, "reject," means to "deny."

I don't know why you would ask me this. Let's try this another way.

A) The earth is flat
B) John believes the earth is flat

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
I understand the difference you're attempting to validate, but I'd like you to elaborate.

Logic is how we determine what we believe, and logic has rules.

Do you believe in the laws of logic? Yes or No?
I subscribe to the principles and methodology of logic, yes. But that has not answered my question. Logic may determine/rationalize what we believe, but is it independent of what we believe?

There are certain things theists do which result from their beliefs (i.e. go to church, pray, make decisions based on what they think their god wants, etc.). Yes of course atheists can do these things. We're not talking in terms of absolutes, were talking in practical terms. Practically speaking, anyone can tell whether someone is a theist or an atheist with enough exposure to that person. This isn't complicated.
Yes, but you made it a point to argue a functional distinction manifest in one's actions. So I'm trying to understand what actions are theist, atheist, agnostic, etc. Case in point: could I not just argue that a functional distinction between one who "lacks belief" and one who "disbelieves" is that the former would sit in the pews of a church "bored" while the latter would attend a Richard Dawkins "lecture"? Could I not just as well argue that one who lacks belief would be just as bored at a Richard Dawkins lecture? Your argument that there's no functional distinction between one who "lack belief" and one who "disbelieves" is a quantitative one, correct? Especially since we're discussing actions?

That's where the term "on balance" comes in. That doesn't mean I accept that there are no gods or consider that conclusion reasonable, it means that I consider the claim to be more reasonable by comparison to the alternative.

These are different things.
Not really.

Ok, I'm really starting to wonder what the point of this conversation is. The questions you are asking me are basic stuff, and when I answer them you just keep asking more basic questions like a five year old asking why over and over again.
Good idea. How would you explain it to a five year-old?

If there is a point to all this please make it. I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real.
To understand your position, I'm engaging you in reduction--that is, to reduce your argument to its barest and fundamental premise. I assume that you understand the argument that the scientific method helps us determine what's real, so why not explain it? If it helps, pretend you're writing a paper on it. Who knows? Maybe explaining it can help you have a better understanding of it as well.

You either understand that already or we have much bigger issues here.
I understand what you're attempting to claim. However, my point is much better served if you come to the conclusion I intend.
#118
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
the contention here is that "atheism" is not the ONLY alternative to "theism"

it's a false dichotomy

rejecting a false dichotomy does not imply one accepts "the opposite" of the false dichotomy

non-theism could be DEISM or PANTHEISM or MONISM or GNOSTICISM or even APATHEIST ("i don't care if a theistic god exists or not")

many of these people do not self-identify as "atheist"

but probably could still qualify for technical "atheism" if one understands "atheism" to be "not-a-theist"
Except Double_R alluded to the Law of Excluded Middle which he believes determines the truth values of proposition A and B independent of belief. My contention is contingent on the language being used. So, for example, if you're an "apatheist" the concept of "acceptance" or "rejection,"  is irrelevant since one does not care to either accept or reject. However, if one does rejects the truth of proposition A they necessarily accept the truth of its inverse, proposition B, the dichotomy's being true or false notwithstanding. 

I agree that the dichotomy is false (remember I argue that nonexistence is irrational.) My contention is with the formal reasoning and semantics.

Topic's author
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?
#120
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,236
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Good idea. How would you explain it to a five year-old?
I'm not here to explain things to five year olds, I'm here to discuss issues with people who can challenge my arguments. I'm fine with answering questions, but we've gotten to the point where you've asked me to explain the difference between describing one's bmindset vs describing reality, how the scientific method tells us what's true, and what makes A and not A the only two options.

If you want to continue this conversation you need to participate in it. I've had the presuppositional apologetics debate many times and I find it interesting, but not when I'm talking to someone who just keeps asking "why" over and over again without offering anything.

You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.