Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You missed the rhyme scheme. That's pretty much what's wrong with "I Lack Belief" Atheism -- no rhyme or reason.Doubt thou the stars are fire,
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,
But never doubt I laugh and laugh.
I'm glad to have added a word to your vocabulary. Now you just have to learn to use it properly.Angel is a prime example of an equivocating theist. He knows that once he commits to a particular god he is open for criticism. So he sticks with the ambiguous god and is guilty of the very thing he falsely accuses atheists of.
One is direct and forthright; the other is ambiguous and equivocating.How is "I don't believe in X" a difference from "I lack a belief in X"?
If we were discussing ghosts I see no difference in:
1. I don't believe in ghosts.
2. I lack a belief in ghosts.
Can you specify what the atheist position is that you have a problem with? I'd be surprised to find an atheist that disagrees with the phrase "I don't believe in god."
What the theist believes is the theist's business; what the atheist believes or disbelieves is the atheist's business. Trying to hitch a ride on the theist's belief is a way for some atheists to shirk their commitment to a belief or disbelief.FFS you either believe in gods or you do not. For those who do not believe in gods; when a believer claims that gods exist and the non-believer rejects that belief: that is normal logic.
We get it: you believe in gods and do not understand how anyone can reject your beliefs.
But now lets talk about your god; where is it now?
What? How is that?One is direct and forthright; the other is ambiguous and equivocating.
Remember? Do you honestly think he has ever actually read Shakespeare?
Angel is a prime example of an equivocating theist. He knows that once he commits to a particular god he is open for criticism. So he sticks with the ambiguous god and is guilty of the very thing he falsely accuses atheists of.
It's because of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
We ought to follow Queasto's example and block him.
Christianity has been using the same tired, debunked, arguments for God's existence for hundreds of years. Maybe she's hoping for a miracle, and that a winner is going to emerge from all the fail?
You know you have "I Lack Belief" Atheists by the short hairs when all their posts are meta-posts: posts about the Original Poster or the legitimacy of the thread.An almost infinite number? I've already pointed out that it's the religious fanatics that make virtually every thread in this forum because they're looking for attention, then they complain when we respond, like our responding proves them right. I wish people would stop taking the bait.
No, I'm talking about the difference between "I don't believe in God" or "There is no God" and the equivocating ambiguity of "I lack a belief in God."What? How is that?
I dont have 5 bucks.
I lack 5 bucks.
These are same things.
Are you instead talking about the difference between " i dont believe in god" and "i beleive there is no god"?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Another post in frivolous blowhardism, "liked" by fans of frivolous blowhardism.
You know you have "I Lack Belief" Atheists by the short hairs when all their posts are meta-posts: posts about the Original Poster or the legitimacy of the thread.
Lacking and not having are synonyms. They mean literally the exact same thing. Im not sure why you are stuck on that.No, I'm talking about the difference between "I don't believe in God" or "There is no God" and the equivocating ambiguity of "I lack a belief in God."
An almost infinite number? I've already pointed out that it's the religious fanatics that make virtually every thread in this forum because they're looking for attention, then they complain when we respond, like our responding proves them right. I wish people would stop taking the bait.
"Being without a belief" is not exactly the same as "disbelieving." "I Lack Belief" Atheists want to avoid saying "I disbelieve." They are all in bad faith.Lacking and not having are synonyms. They mean literally the exact same thing. Im not sure why you are stuck on that.
Theism = beleif in god
Atheism = no beleif in god/without beleif in god/lacking beleif in god.
They are all the exact same thing. This is like arguing the difference between eleven hundred and one thousand one hundred. They are exactly the sams thing.
Can you tell me what you think the definition of atheism is to you?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The Equivocation of Ambiguity
Do you remember your Shakespeare?
To believe, or not to believe, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The fools and frauds of delusional godlessness,
Or to take manure fork to a pile of horse flops,
And by tossing clean out the barn:
--William Shakespeare, The Cockalorum of Chester
This thread was inspired by post exchanges with "I Lack Belief" Atheists in this forum.
Amphiboly
Logical Fallacy: Amphiboly
Thesis
To have a belief is to believe.
To lack a belief is not to believe.
To believe or not to believe. That is the question.
Think.
The "I Lack Belief" Atheist is merely equivocating with an ambiguity in order to avoid commitment
This is Bad Faith Atheism
Shun it.
You've got to find the answer in your heart and mind. Happy Birthday, Sis!My silly thought for the day after my younger sister's birthday : There is more wonder in continuing to admit I don't know the answer and pondering it than there would be in pretending I had found the ultimate answer in one old book.
"Being without a belief" is not exactly the same as "disbelieving." "I Lack Belief" Atheists want to avoid saying "I disbelieve." They are all in bad faith.
You've got to find the answer in your heart and mind. Happy Birthday, Sis!
I don't know where we come from
Don't know where we're goin' to
But if all this should have a reason
We would be the last to know
So let's just hope there is a promised land
Hang on 'til then
As best as you can
You are the genuine article as an atheist and I respect that. I don't respect the equivocating atheist who relies on the ambiguity of "I lack belief" in order to avoid committing to "I don't believe."I'm sorry, not trying to be troublesome, but can you point out the exact difference between lacking belief and disbelief? I believe the word disbelief is a somewhat loaded term because it construes a note of cynicism. But based on just the definition I don't think atheists would object to that word.
View attachment 67247721
To have no belief in. Atheists have no belief in god. I'd gladly agree that that definition. Can you find me an atheist that disagrees? Because I would gladly stand with you and argue that atheism is " to have no belief in a god".
You are the genuine article as an atheist and I respect that. I don't respect the equivocating atheist who relies on the ambiguity of "I lack belief" in order to avoid committing to "I don't believe."
"Being without" leaves the atheist WIGGLE ROOM. It is passive-aggressive. He doesn't have to commit to the proposition "I don't believe," which is aggressive and commitment-making.
It's like the difference between saying "I lack courage" and "I'm a coward."
It's like the difference between saying "I lack strength" and "I am weak."
It's like the difference between saying "I lack intelligence" and "I am unintelligent."
It's like the difference between saying "I lack money" and "I'm broke."
It's like the difference between saying "I lack happiness" and "I'm unhappy."
It's like the difference between saying "I lack interest" and "I am not interested."
These are "like" what we're talking about. Not exactly like. They all share the the possibility of wiggle room, of plausible deniability.
I'm glad to have added a word to your vocabulary. Now you just have to learn to use it properly.
I promise you that I'm trying but respectfully, I can't see why you are stuck on this. They mean the same thing. You are phrasing all of those things as "I lack this good X" followed by "I am bad X". I think your last example of "interested" is the best and least biased if you are ok with that one.
What is the difference if I tell someone I lack interest in a topic and if I tell them I am not interested in a topic? I see no real world actual difference. You say it leaves "wiggle room" but I don't see how. In what way can I wiggle out if I say "I lack belief in god" that I would not have if I'd said "I don't believe in god"? If someone was just scared to say they didn't believe I would think they'd say "I don't know if I believe" or "I'm not sure", which is still a perfectly valid stance as far as I can see.
Whats the wiggle room? What do you think I'm trying to wiggle out of if Id said "I lack belief"?
What the theist believes is the theist's business; what the atheist believes or disbelieves is the atheist's business. Trying to hitch a ride on the theist's belief is a way for some atheists to shirk their commitment to a belief or disbelief.
I'm glad you asked. In all those analogous cases, the person relying on the passive-agressive expression could always say if challenged:i promise you that i'm trying but respectfully, i can't see why you are stuck on this. They mean the same thing. You are phrasing all of those things as "i lack this good x" followed by "i am bad x". I think your last example of "interested" is the best and least biased if you are ok with that one.
What is the difference if i tell someone i lack interest in a topic and if i tell them i am not interested in a topic? I see no real world actual difference. You say it leaves "wiggle room" but i don't see how. In what way can i wiggle out if i say "i lack belief in god" that i would not have if i'd said "i don't believe in god"? If someone was just scared to say they didn't believe i would think they'd say "i don't know if i believe" or "i'm not sure", which is still a perfectly valid stance as far as i can see.
Whats the wiggle room? What do you think i'm trying to wiggle out of if id said "i lack belief"?
I Lack Belief" Atheists are not denying the existence of my generic God; they are rejecting the Christian concept of God (without rejecting it of course) and calling themselves atheists. They're not atheists. They're AINOs.So, what is the god you believe exists? Does it have any particular characteristics? If it does not, you are merely a theist with a belief that means nothing but that you think a thing you call god exists. And you cry about atheists who claim no such belief.
And of course once again you take the low road with insults. Your over inflated ego is showing. Your juvenile use of Shakespeare reveals it.
I can assure you that for myself and the atheists I know it has nothing to do with bad faith and everything to do with not wanting to make claims that we can't back up. For me it's very simple. I can't defend the position that there is no god, therefor I don't claim it. I would think someone as astute as yourself on these issues would agree wholeheartedly with me that if I can't defend a position I shouldn't hold it correct?New Atheiest Wiggle Room
I'm glad you asked. In all those analogous cases, the person relying on the passive-agressive expression could always say if challenged:
"I didn't say I'm a coward; I said I lacked courage,"
"I didn't say I'm not interested; I said I lacked interest.
"I didn't say I'm unhappy: I said I lacked happiness"
And so on.
Plausible deniability.
Wiggle Room.
The "I Lack Belief" Atheist can always say, and does always say, "I'm not the one making the belief claim; I just lack belief."
The equivocating atheist admits only to "being without" someone else's belief. The equivocating atheist refuses to commit to his own belief (that God does not exist) or his own disbelief (that God exists).
This strategy also allows him (he thinks) to claim that since infants are born "without belief," therefore infants are born atheists, and therefore atheism is the "default position" on the God Question.
It's all equivocation and bad faith.
So ah....
"If atheism is usually and best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist, then what, one might wonder, should philosophers do with the popular term, “New Atheism”? Philosophers write articles on and have devoted journal issues (French & Wettstein 2013) to the New Atheism, but there is nothing close to a consensus on how that term should be defined. Fortunately, there is no real need for one, because the term “New Atheism” does not pick out some distinctive philosophical position or phenomenon. Instead, it is a popular label for a movement prominently represented by four authors—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—whose work is uniformly critical of religion, but beyond that appears to be unified only by timing and popularity. Further, one might question what is new about the New Atheism. The specific criticisms of religion and of arguments used to defend religion are not new. For example, an arguably more sophisticated and convincing version of Dawkins’ central atheistic argument can be found in Hume’s Dialogues (Wielenberg 2009). Also, while Dennett (2006) makes a passionate call for the scientific study of religion as a natural phenomenon, such study existed long before this call. Indeed, even the cognitive science of religion was well established by the 1990s, and the anthropology of religion can be traced back at least to the nineteenth century. Shifting from content to style, many are surprised by the militancy of some New Atheists, but there were plenty of aggressive atheists who were quite disrespectful to religion long before Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. (Dennett is not especially militant.) Finally, the stereotype that New Atheism is religious or quasi-religious or ideological in some unprecedented way is clearly a false one and one that New Atheists reject. (For elaboration of these points, see Zenk 2013.)"
Ok go ahead and rebuke the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
New Atheism is not even a thing its just made up crap. You need a new argument (or a new sock).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?