Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

do you believe this will lead to everyone speaking a single unified language that never changes ?

meaningful language appears cyclical

younger generations always want to create new words and phrases to distinguish themselves

meaningless language (mathematics) is much more stable, but still changes over time

even though i don't "consent to receive" proposition B

even though i don't "give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to" proposition B

even though i don't "receive as adequate, valid, or suitable" proposition B

even though i don't "regard favourably or with approval; welcome" proposition B

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

any and all of the above

What distinctions do you draw between accepting proposition A and not accepting proposition B, i.e. "receiving as valid"?

Read that sentence again. Out loud.

It wasn't a simple request.

Let's recap;

You have been asking me questions since post 79. Since then you have asked me to explain my position via multiple questions in posts 89, 97, 99, 104, 109, 111, and 117. I have responded by answering every single one of your questions in detail in posts 84, 96, 98, 102, 107, 110 and 112. At the end of post 112 I warned you that you needed to contribute to the conversation if you wanted this to continue. You completely ignored that warning in post 117 so I drew the line and let you know that you need to contribute if you wanted this to continue.

How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?

i'm illustrating that one can "not accept" BOTH proposition A and proposition B

and continue their life

as they were already

which is "without belief" in proposition A

which is also "de facto" "as-if" proposition B "is considered true"

without "accepting" proposition B

Wouldn't that inversely suggest a negative belief of some sort, which doesn't necessarily implicate a "lack" of it? I understand oromagi's contention because the term "lack" suggests "absence." And in my opinion, the only thing that approximates a "lack of belief" is ignorance. Is it that an atheist "lacks belief" or is it that an atheist sustains a "negative" belief based on a "positive" belief in something else? And I'm not suggesting that for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures

for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures

non-belief is the obvious default state of mind

failure to be convinced

does not constitute a "rejection" of  proposition A

and does not constitute an "acceptance" of proposition B

nope

i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that something that matches the description of "bigfoot" may possibly "exist"

nope

i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that something that matches the description of "bigfoot" may possibly "exist"

I know. I'm pointing out that the measures on which you based your positive beliefs "excludes," and thereby create an active "disbelief" in all which fall short of said measures.

imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers

-->@oromagi

You are conflating the term SEMANTICS with the term SEMANTIC ARGUMENT- not the same thing.

Rocket: "his people are completely literal, it's going to go over his head"

Drax: "nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast"

That's all I could think about as I read this post.

Language is using words to communicate ideas.  Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.

An example of this is someone claiming January 6th is a conspiracy theory while ignoring the fact that the connotations (aka ideas) behind the term "conspiracy theory" communicate something that is not present with regards to January 6th.

imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers

Imagine any text written without mathematical principles. It’s impossible, unless you’re ignorant.

that's the entire point of this thread

here's another example,

i once read that a "scientist" does NOT believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life

and the interviewer asked, "so, does that mean you DON'T believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life ?"

"no." the "scientist" responded

"I do NOT deny that intelligent extra-terrestrial life MAY exist" they explained

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?

Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.

I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:

imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers

Imagine any text written without mathematical principles. It’s impossible, unless you’re ignorant.

please explain

for example,

in another thread

someone demanded a "YES" or "NO" answer to the question,

"are all mexicans xenophobic ?"

and i tried to explain

that a simple "YES" is "not true"

and likewise, a simple "NO" is also "not true"

One simple example is geometry. 

I accept that Zeus exists

imagine a poem written without geometry

what poems include geometry ?

imagine a poem written without geometry

what poems include geometry ?

All written language is geometric regardless of format.

in the same way a child's finger-painting is "geometry"

Language conveys information regardless how little you squeeze out of it. Whether it’s finger-painting or learning to spell.

sure

but there is an important difference between hollow mathematical precision

and deep emotional meaningfulness

i accept that THE CONCEPT OF zeus "exists" (in an abstract and NOT in a concrete sense)

personally, i would never say "zeus exists" without some very explicit (non-standard) definitions

Those emotions aren’t coming from language.

For me, the "difference" is negligible. I'm all for maintaining standards consistently. With that said, experiencing existence is an epistemological hodgepodge, where "concept" provides meaning to that which one would consider "concrete," and the subject of ontology can be indexed to Merriam-Webster.