-->
@3RU7AL
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REALProposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REALwhich do you accept and which do you reject ?
I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A.
Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
Posts
Total:
417
-->
@Double_R
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 your arguments challenged, then you have to stress-test them. And one manner in which you can stress test your argument is through reduction. I'm doing nothing more than interrogating your position. Are you capable of explaining your arguments?
If you want to continue this conversation you need to participate in it.
I am participating in it by asking you questions about your position. Again, are you capable of explaining your arguments?
I've had the presuppositional apologetics debate
Where's the presuppositional apologism?
but not when I'm talking to someone who just keeps asking "why" over and over again without offering anything.
If you have any questions about my position, or something I've stated, then feel free to ask.
You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.
That's the thing you haven't given me answers. See:
I:
How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?
You:
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.
I:
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?
And you didn't even follow up with a response.
I've already told you what I'm doing:
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.
That is to strip this discussion of all extraneous details until we reach your position's fundamental premise.
You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.
I'm addressing them by asking you questions.
-->
@Athias
I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A
That strikes me as odd. Default acceptance leads to outlandish and contradictory beliefs.
-->
@Athias
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REALProposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REALwhich do you accept and which do you reject ?I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A.
i don't know what exactly proposition A is
and i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A is
therefore
even though i don't "accept" proposition B
i will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"
which is exactly what i was already doing anyway
up to and until the hypothetical point in time when someone or something CONVINCES me that proposition A "is true"
-->
@SkepticalOne
That strikes me as odd. Default acceptance leads to outlandish and contradictory beliefs.
are all gods equally "true" ?
-->
@3RU7AL
are all gods equally "true" ?
Are all religions equally true?
-->
@SkepticalOne
@3RU7AL
All GODS and religions are seemingly, equally unnecessary.
But seemingly also equally necessary.
I would suggest that these are true statements.
GODS and religions represent something.
But not necessarily something external. Though most religions incorporate external interaction as a part of their narrative and ritualism..
So the effects of GODS and religion can be perceived and felt externally.
We are evolved blobs of organic matter incorporating an onboard, sophisticated, organic computer.
And GODS and religions have been an important part of the process of data development and associated material manipulation.
This has occurred so cannot be denied and cannot be altered.
Whether or not we do any of this for any other reason than this, can only be speculated upon.
True?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are all religions equally true?
equally unfalsifiable
-->
@zedvictor4
And GODS and religions have been an important part of the process of data development and associated material manipulation.
good point
-->
@Athias
If you want your arguments challenged, then you have to stress-test them. And one manner in which you can stress test your argument is through reduction. I'm doing nothing more than interrogating your position. Are you capable of explaining your arguments?
It has nothing to do with capability. You wouldn't be asking me these silly questions if you didn't see something wrong, all I'm asking is to start contributing to the conversation by pointing out what you see so that I know I'm not wasting my time with elaborate answers that are irrelevant.
We started off talking about the definition of Atheism and worked our way to flat earth examples to show the difference between a statement of one's mindset vs reality. You can convince yourself that I'm afraid to answer your questions all you want, I've entertained this far longer than most would have.
-->
@Athias
the contention here is that "atheism" is not the ONLYalternative to "theism"it's a false dichotomyrejecting a false dichotomy does not imply one accepts "the opposite" of the false dichotomynon-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.
Deists and pantheists are theists.
-->
@Athias
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REALProposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REALwhich do you accept and which do you reject ?I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly acceptclaims of truth to proposition A.
Why would you reject a proposition that something which was clearly made up does not exist?
What you're arguing here is that the default position is everything exists until you have evidence it doesn't exist.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are all religions equally true?equally unfalsifiable
I'm going to disagree with you. It is logically impossible for all religions and their competing claims to all be true. It follows from this - not all gods are true.
-->
@Double_R
Deists and pantheists are theists.
nope
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are all religions equally true?equally unfalsifiableI'm going to disagree with you. It is logically impossible for all religions and their competing claims to all be true. It follows from this - not all gods are true.
that means you agree with me
"unfalsifiable" does not equal "true"
"unfalsifiable" does not equal "false"
-->
@Double_R
theist
ˈθiːɪst
noun
a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
-->
@3RU7AL
If it can be shown not all religions are true, then the proposition is not unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible for all religions to be true. The proposition is logically falsifiable.
Unfalsifiable: not capable of being proved false
We agree in principle, yes.
-->
@SkepticalOne
If it can be shown not all religions are true, then the proposition is not unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible for all religions to be true. The proposition is logically falsifiable
the specific claim "not all religions can be equally true" is a pretty weird claim
and even if it is "accepted", it doesn't get anyone anywhere closer to detecting which specific religion might be "truer" than another
especially when not a single one of them can claim any quantifiable "truth value"
there are vanishingly few claims that are quantifiably true
there are vanishingly few claims that are quantifiably false
everything else is pure, uncut OPINION
-->
@3RU7AL
theistˈθiːɪstnouna person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
That's just one definition, I can pull ten others from credible dictionaries that define it otherwise.
It's not worth getting into the semantic debate here, define them however you want. The bottom line is that you either believe in a god or you do not believe in a god, and there is no functional difference between simply not believing in a god and believing there are no gods. So anyone who says I don't believe in a god but I believe (insert idea X here) is talking about something that is not relavant to this conversation.
-->
@Double_R
something that is not relavant to this conversation.
well, the topic is "atheism is simply a lack of belief"
so, "theism" and exactly how it is distinct from "deism" is clearly within scope
a theist believes in a god that writes books
a theist believes in a god who interferes in human affairs
a deist accepts a god that does not write books
a deist accepts a god that does not interfere in human affairs
a DEIST is functionally indistinguishable from an ATHEIST
and furthermore, obviously qualifies for a "technical atheism" if you understand "atheism" to mean "not-a-theist"
-->
@3RU7AL
a theist believes in a god that writes booksa theist believes in a god who interferes in human affairsa deist accepts a god that does not write booksa deist accepts a god that does not interfere in human affairs
Lies. This is why theists can't stand to engage in conversation with atheists. You listen to nothing, you don't believe anything theists say about their own thoughts and practice, and then you make up your own mind about what we believe and don't believe.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Lies. This is why theists can't stand to engage in conversation with atheists. You listen to nothing, you don't believe anything theists say about their own thoughts and practice, and then you make up your own mind about what we believe and don't believe.
please explain
-->
@3RU7AL
The distinction between what you are identifying as theism vs diesm is not relavant to the definition of atheism and specifically whether it's simply a lack of belief.
I find it bizarre that you sperate deism and theism when a deist is by definition, someone who believes in a god.
The difference you are highlighting here is not about beliefs vs non beliefs, you're talking about religion vs non religion. The discission over the definition of atheism is far more broad.
You are correct that deism and atheism are functionally indistinguishable in the sense of what is practically observable. But when it comes to their beliefs these are very different. Deists attribute existence and the everything we see to a god. Atheists do not. That is the central question our species has been contemplating since we developed the ability to contemplate it, and deists outlook on it is the complete opposite.
-->
@Double_R
someone who believes in a god
someone who believes in a god that does not have human emotions
and that does not write down rules for humans
is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist
it's basically an ontological argument
BIG BANG = GOD
like in star-wars when they refer to "the force"
-->
@Double_R
But when it comes to their beliefs these are very different.
no, they are exactly the same
they just use different words to describe the exact same thing
-->
@Double_R
an atheist says "stop praying to your god, it's a complete waste of time"
a deist says "stop praying to your god, it's a complete waste of time"
an atheist says "stop reading your holy books and look around you to figure out how things work"
a deist says "stop reading your holy books and look around you to figure out how things work"
-->
@3RU7AL
An atheist says "I don't know how the universe and all of existence came about, let's try to find out"
A diest says "agoddidit"
I would say that's a pretty big difference, but that's just my opinion.
-->
@3RU7AL
i don't know what exactly proposition A isand i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A isthereforeeven though i don't "accept" proposition Bi will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"which is exactly what i was already doing anywayup to and until the hypothetical point in time when someone or something CONVINCES me that proposition A "is true"
Define, "accept."
-->
@Double_R
It has nothing to do with capability. You wouldn't be asking me these silly questions
Why are they silly?
if you didn't see something wrong,
I don't necessarily see anything "wrong."
all I'm asking is to start contributing to the conversation by pointing out what you see so that I know I'm not wasting my time with elaborate answers that are irrelevant.
I'm "contributing" by asking you questions. Are you not confident in the consistency of your premises? Again, feel free to ask me anything on the subject. I've answered and address every question you've directed at me without complaint. Perhaps you can do the same.
We started off talking about the definition of Atheism and worked our way to flat earth examples to show the difference between a statement of one's mindset vs reality.
No, you worked your way to flat earth examples. That was all you. I asked you to elaborate and you didn't even acknowledge it in your following response.
You can convince yourself that I'm afraid to answer your questions all you want, I've entertained this far longer than most would have.
I am convinced that you have trouble explaining your arguments. And I suspect the reason is that your understanding of your position is not that extensive. You present your arguments as a given, because you likely take them as a given. There are no points to scrutinize, analyze, or reduce. Whether you're "afraid" is of no consequence. Hence, I asked whether you were "capable" not "afraid."
Everyone can engage and disengage discussions at their own leisure. Answer my questions or don't. It's up to you.
-->
@Double_R
An atheist says "I don't know how the universe and all of existence came about, let's try to find out"A diest says "agoddidit"
how many self-described deists have you met ?