Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Counter-Argument
in which pseudo-atheism,
today's internet atheism,
the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP,
militant atheism,
polemical atheism,
is or are
decisively answered.
Atheist Apologetics
Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more."
Trigger Warning
The following is a rational argument.
The Argument
"To lack" means to be without or to be deficient in some respect.
To lack hope means to be without hope or to be deficient in hope.
To lack strength means to be without strength or to be deficient in strength.
To lack information means to be without information or to be deficient in information.
And so on.
"To lack" is a transitive verb -- it requires an object. The action of lacking is transfered to a particular object.
The object of "to lack" is that which is lacking, and that which is lacking gives content to the lack.
Otherwise, there would be no difference between lacking hope, lacking strength, lacking information, etc.,
and there would be a generic state of lack without content,
which is absurd.
Lack is a state, and that state has content, and that content is provided by the object of lack, by what is lacked.
To lack belief is a state, the content of which is the belief that is lacked.
To lack belief in God is a state, the content of which is the belief in God.
Belief in God is the content of a lack only when that belief is not held in the mind that lacks it.
And whatever in the way of belief is held in the mind, is mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not held in the mind, is not mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not mentally accepted, is not believed.
Therefore, to lack belief in God is not to believe in God.
QED
Disclaimer
No atheists were harmed in the making of this post.
in which pseudo-atheism,
today's internet atheism,
the new brand of loud loutish atheism inspired by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, RIP,
militant atheism,
polemical atheism,
is or are
decisively answered.
Atheist Apologetics
Says the Pseudo Atheist: "Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more."
Trigger Warning
The following is a rational argument.
The Argument
"To lack" means to be without or to be deficient in some respect.
To lack hope means to be without hope or to be deficient in hope.
To lack strength means to be without strength or to be deficient in strength.
To lack information means to be without information or to be deficient in information.
And so on.
"To lack" is a transitive verb -- it requires an object. The action of lacking is transfered to a particular object.
The object of "to lack" is that which is lacking, and that which is lacking gives content to the lack.
Otherwise, there would be no difference between lacking hope, lacking strength, lacking information, etc.,
and there would be a generic state of lack without content,
which is absurd.
Lack is a state, and that state has content, and that content is provided by the object of lack, by what is lacked.
To lack belief is a state, the content of which is the belief that is lacked.
To lack belief in God is a state, the content of which is the belief in God.
Belief in God is the content of a lack only when that belief is not held in the mind that lacks it.
And whatever in the way of belief is held in the mind, is mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not held in the mind, is not mentally accepted.
And whatever in the way of belief is not mentally accepted, is not believed.
Therefore, to lack belief in God is not to believe in God.
QED
Disclaimer
No atheists were harmed in the making of this post.