O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jun 13, 2012 12:38pm
A "logical loophole" without defeaters still must be considered "logically accurate" by a person who rules his thoughts according to logic.sleeper;1198466 wrote:I just find it absolutely disingenuous that believers want to make atheism seem like a religion or a faith system. It isn't. It's a logical loophole built in for believers to justify their erroneous beliefs as being no different than an atheists position.
If we want to be fully accurate, we'd go back to Decartes, which would indeed only validate agnosticism.
And if a whale isn't a land mammal, then it isn't a mammal. Same logic.sleeper;1198466 wrote:Using this logic, we are all atheists because you do not believe in a invisible unicorn controlling everything, or the flying spaghetti monster. Is that a position of faith by NOT believing in those things? No it isn't.
Oh, and it's "Invisible PINK Unicorn." Get it right.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 12:42pm
Agnosticism has little to do with theistic claims. It simply is the thought that a certain claim is unknown or unknowable. Certainly that can apply to religious claims, but a agnostic is someone who is simply concerned with knowledge as the word "agnostic" stems from the Greek word "gnostos" which means "(to be) known".O-Trap;1198478 wrote:What you seem to be wanting isn't the case. Atheism is a belief system that asserts that a deity of any sort does not exist. Agnosticism, the term for a lack of belief in deities, is even a belief. It's a belief that one cannot know, which is the stem of its lack of belief either way.
Theism and atheism fit Aristotelian logical law that states either 'A' or not 'A' at the same time, and in the same respect. One asserts that a deity exists. The other asserts that a deity does not exist. The other option is that neither 'A' nor "not 'A'" can be known. It's a lack of belief in a deity.
Both atheism and theism pose fact claims ABOUT the existence of deity. As such, they are beliefs. Agnosticism refuses to make a fact claim about the existence of deity. As such, it is not a belief.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 12:42pm
Equating non-beliefs as a belief is simply asinine.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 12:45pm
O-trap. Logical loopholes are used by cults to keep their members involved despite logic dictating otherwise.
Also, I don't understand your analogy of land mammals not being mammals and how it relates to this discussion.
Also, I don't understand your analogy of land mammals not being mammals and how it relates to this discussion.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 12:48pm
His analogy of mammals is equal to your analogy that those that believe in only one god must be an atheist. Both are logical fallacies. He was trying to show you where you were wrong with something easier to understand.sleeper;1198499 wrote:O-trap. Logical loopholes are used by cults to keep their members involved despite logic dictating otherwise.
Also, I don't understand your analogy of land mammals not being mammals and how it relates to this discussion.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 12:51pm
Neither are logical fallacies. I thought the entire argument was about the definition of atheism/theism. I'm simply claiming that atheism CANNOT be, by defintion, a belief that there is no god. It has to be "a lack of belief in gods" because that encompasses all known options.jmog;1198502 wrote:His analogy of mammals is equal to your analogy that those that believe in only one god must be an atheist. Both are logical fallacies. He was trying to show you where you were wrong with something easier to understand.
The mammal analogy makes absolutely no sense in this discussion and is comparing apples and oranges at best.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
Jun 13, 2012 12:52pm
O-Trap;1198394 wrote:Hey, that might be the most eloquent thing Belly has ever posted.
mofo
/Belly'd
Reps .. bro
Thank you for your support I will be here Monday thur Friday bring a friend///
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 12:53pm
Let's put it this way. If you define atheism as "a belief there is no god", then someone who believes in multiple gods is by your definition an atheist.
I guess its okay to splice out "monothestic and polythestic" but its not okay to splice out "monoatheistc and polyathestic". Make the definition simple and accurate is all I'm trying to say.
I guess its okay to splice out "monothestic and polythestic" but its not okay to splice out "monoatheistc and polyathestic". Make the definition simple and accurate is all I'm trying to say.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jun 13, 2012 12:56pm
Logical loopholes that are inaccurate are not truly logical. They have logical defeaters that can be raised.sleeper;1198499 wrote:O-trap. Logical loopholes are used by cults to keep their members involved despite logic dictating otherwise.
If anything stands up to the laws of logic, then it is a logical construct. Whether that is convenient to one's worldview or not is irrelevant.
Your suggestion that if one doesn't fit every subcategory then one doesn't fit the umbrella category is fallacious. I was using a different example.sleeper;1198499 wrote:Also, I don't understand your analogy of land mammals not being mammals and how it relates to this discussion.
Just as theists have multiple sub-categorizations, so do mammals. Monotheists and polytheists both fit under the umbrella of theism. Whales and elephants both fit under the umbrella of mammal. A whale doesn't need to be an elephant in order to be a mammal, just as a polytheist doesn't need to be a monotheist in order to be a theist.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 12:58pm
Logical loophole example.
Atheist: There has never been proof of a global flood.
Theist: A global flood has never been disproven.
Atheist: An invisible unicorn has never been disproven.
Theist: An invisible unicorn has never been proven.
Do you not see the obvious problem with this logic? It's a loophole and its absolutely disgusting.
It should be:
Atheist: There has never been proof of a global flood.
Rational Person: Then the claim must be rejected!
Atheist: There has never been proof of an invisible unicorn.
Theist: Then the claim must be rejected!
It's too bad we still hold onto the erroneous logic that something that cannot be disproven is the same as something that hasn't been proven. I'm glad there are scientists out there solving real problems rather than sticking with broken methodologies and ignorance.
Atheist: There has never been proof of a global flood.
Theist: A global flood has never been disproven.
Atheist: An invisible unicorn has never been disproven.
Theist: An invisible unicorn has never been proven.
Do you not see the obvious problem with this logic? It's a loophole and its absolutely disgusting.
It should be:
Atheist: There has never been proof of a global flood.
Rational Person: Then the claim must be rejected!
Atheist: There has never been proof of an invisible unicorn.
Theist: Then the claim must be rejected!
It's too bad we still hold onto the erroneous logic that something that cannot be disproven is the same as something that hasn't been proven. I'm glad there are scientists out there solving real problems rather than sticking with broken methodologies and ignorance.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Jun 13, 2012 12:59pm
I'M BOTH!justincredible;1198372 wrote:Seriously, you're killing me. Luckily I am at work reading this and not high.
Well, not really. But still kinda zoned from last night, so kinda.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 1:05pm
Your mammal example is broken and is exactly why we need the definitions I have proposed. You are either a mammal or you are not. You either believe in gods or you lack a belief in gods. Defining theism as a belief in gods and defining atheism as a belief that there is/are no gods is incorrect. There is another option in not knowing either way. That not knowing can be summed up as "a lack of beliefs in gods". That covers both the people who believe no gods exist and the people who don't believe either way.
Atheism isn't a religion. It is not a belief system. It is the default position.
Atheism isn't a religion. It is not a belief system. It is the default position.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Jun 13, 2012 1:06pm
Actually, for a lot of people, I think they use religion as their "easy way and less resistance" path. They live their life however they want, but then go to church on Sunday and think that magically makes everything okay for their "afterlife". Have a co-worker like that. She's a gossipy bitch 24/7, but she's (in her words) been baptized and is saved and "tries" to be better while going to churchy deals. It's more hilarious than anything. Be a bitch, but go to church...so everything is good!Belly35;1198388 wrote:Like everything else that many people do ... they take the easy way and less resistance path ....so be it your life.
But don’t tell me that at some point in your existence you haven’t asked for that Spiritual Being that you so adamantly reject.
I can tell you if this has not happen yet it will and when that time comes you and your resistance is what you need to rethink.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jun 13, 2012 1:07pm
No, you're wanting it to be an "and" statement, but it isn't. Atheism is a belief in no deistic presence, whatsoever. Theism is a belief in deistic presence in some form. Regarding the latter, whether it's singular or plural is irrelevant, as both are constituted as theists.sleeper;1198508 wrote:Let's put it this way. If you define atheism as "a belief there is no god", then someone who believes in multiple gods is by your definition an atheist.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 1:10pm
Once again, this is why the definitions need to be edited. If I ask you "Do you believe in multiple gods" and you answer "No I do not believe in multiple gods" that does not make you an atheist. Much the same way as asking "Do you believe in gods?" and you answer "No, I lack belief in a higher power". Saying "No, I do not believe in god" and saying "I lack belief in gods" would both be atheistic statements but one is more accurate as there is more than 2 options.O-Trap;1198531 wrote:No, you're wanting it to be an "and" statement, but it isn't. Atheism is a belief in no deistic presence, whatsoever. Theism is a belief in deistic presence in some form. Regarding the latter, whether it's singular or plural is irrelevant, as both are constituted as theists.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 1:14pm
You should look up again the definition of atheism, but that said you are not confusing the plural forms of grammar.sleeper;1198504 wrote:Neither are logical fallacies. I thought the entire argument was about the definition of atheism/theism. I'm simply claiming that atheism CANNOT be, by defintion, a belief that there is no god. It has to be "a lack of belief in gods" because that encompasses all known options.
The mammal analogy makes absolutely no sense in this discussion and is comparing apples and oranges at best.
"Belief that there is no god" not only means a believe that there is not 'only one' god, but also a believe that there is not multiple gods. "No god" implies zero, zilch, niet not the possibility of multiple.
So, since monotheism and polytheism are both subsets of theism then a monotheist is a theist.
Just like a land mammal and marine mammal are both subsets of mammals, a whale is then a mammal.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 1:18pm
If this were how science works then we would absolutely have to reject the idea of gravitons.sleeper;1198513 wrote:Logical loophole example.
Atheist: There has never been proof of a global flood.
Theist: A global flood has never been disproven.
Atheist: An invisible unicorn has never been disproven.
Theist: An invisible unicorn has never been proven.
Do you not see the obvious problem with this logic? It's a loophole and its absolutely disgusting.
It should be:
Atheist: There has never been proof of a global flood.
Rational Person: Then the claim must be rejected!
Atheist: There has never been proof of an invisible unicorn.
Theist: Then the claim must be rejected!
It's too bad we still hold onto the erroneous logic that something that cannot be disproven is the same as something that hasn't been proven. I'm glad there are scientists out there solving real problems rather than sticking with broken methodologies and ignorance.
150 years ago scientists would have absolutely had to reject the idea of subatomic particles.
150 years ago scientists would have absolutely had to reject quantum mechanics.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 1:18pm
Once again, it's not a belief. You only want that to be true so you can justify your erroneous beliefs.
Much like string theory. There is a difference between "I do not believe in string theory" vs "I lack belief in string theory". The former implies that you have evidence contrary to string theory that allows you to reject string theory; the latter implies that you have insufficient evidence to move yourself to believe in string theory. It's really that simple.
Much like string theory. There is a difference between "I do not believe in string theory" vs "I lack belief in string theory". The former implies that you have evidence contrary to string theory that allows you to reject string theory; the latter implies that you have insufficient evidence to move yourself to believe in string theory. It's really that simple.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 1:19pm
Disagree. You would reject it 150 years ago because you lacked evidence that correlates highly with those theories. 150 years later and we have enough evidence that correlates well to reasonable accept the theory. That's how science works.jmog;1198562 wrote:If this were how science works then we would absolutely have to reject the idea of gravitons.
150 years ago scientists would have absolutely had to reject the idea of subatomic particles.
150 years ago scientists would have absolutely had to reject quantum mechanics.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 1:20pm
The bolded part is basically the definition of agnosticism, which we have explained to you half a dozen times now.sleeper;1198522 wrote:Your mammal example is broken and is exactly why we need the definitions I have proposed. You are either a mammal or you are not. You either believe in gods or you lack a belief in gods. Defining theism as a belief in gods and defining atheism as a belief that there is/are no gods is incorrect. There is another option in not knowing either way. That not knowing can be summed up as "a lack of beliefs in gods". That covers both the people who believe no gods exist and the people who don't believe either way.
Atheism isn't a religion. It is not a belief system. It is the default position.
You are correct, there are 3 major breakdowns (probably more, but I am not an expert) with multiple subsets each of world views.
Atheism, theism, and agnosticism...we have stated this over and over. What you keep misconstruing is the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 1:26pm
You need to really dig deeper into how science works. There most certainly is a '3rd' option when newer scientific theories come out. There are those that believe it to be true, those that believe it to be false, and those that are 'not sure either way'. All 3 of those sets of people are fluid, one might be convinced one way or another and move into a different set.sleeper;1198563 wrote:Once again, it's not a belief. You only want that to be true so you can justify your erroneous beliefs.
Much like string theory. There is a difference between "I do not believe in string theory" vs "I lack belief in string theory". The former implies that you have evidence contrary to string theory that allows you to reject string theory; the latter implies that you have insufficient evidence to move yourself to believe in string theory. It's really that simple.
Scientists should (most do) start out in the 'not sure either way' category and then weigh the evidence to believe it to be true or false. This would fit well into your one idea of children being born AGNOSTICS (you said atheists) and as one grows into adults they weigh all the evidence (we hope, but both sides, theists and atheists like to brain wash) and make their own decision.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 1:28pm
You said proof and now are changing to evidence. Make up your mind what "sleeper's logic" follows (your logic in post 110).sleeper;1198567 wrote:Disagree. You would reject it 150 years ago because you lacked evidence that correlates highly with those theories. 150 years later and we have enough evidence that correlates well to reasonable accept the theory. That's how science works.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Jun 13, 2012 1:30pm
I will try to make it more simple.
If your answer to the question "Do you believe that there is at least one god?"
Yes-then you are a theist
No-then you are an atheist
I'm not sure-then you are an agnostic.
Yes that is simplified but that is it in a nutshell.
If your answer to the question "Do you believe that there is at least one god?"
Yes-then you are a theist
No-then you are an atheist
I'm not sure-then you are an agnostic.
Yes that is simplified but that is it in a nutshell.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 1:30pm
Agnosticism is concerned with knowledge, not belief. I don't know why this has to be repeated to you multiple times. I think you are more upset that you can't use a logical loophole to define atheism as a belief. It isn't and it never will be.jmog;1198568 wrote:The bolded part is basically the definition of agnosticism, which we have explained to you half a dozen times now.
You are correct, there are 3 major breakdowns (probably more, but I am not an expert) with multiple subsets each of world views.
Atheism, theism, and agnosticism...we have stated this over and over. What you keep misconstruing is the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 13, 2012 1:32pm
Once again, there is a difference in believing that there is no god and lacking the belief in gods; which is why my definition is more accurate and should be the appropriate definition.jmog;1198582 wrote:I will try to make it more simple.
If your answer to the question "Do you believe that there is at least one god?"
Yes-then you are a theist
No-then you are an atheist
I'm not sure-then you are an agnostic.
Yes that is simplified but that is it in a nutshell.