• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.
You missed the rhyme scheme. That's pretty much what's wrong with "I Lack Belief" Atheism -- no rhyme or reason.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.
I'm glad to have added a word to your vocabulary. Now you just have to learn to use it properly.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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."
One is direct and forthright; the other is ambiguous and equivocating.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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 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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

One is direct and forthright; the other is ambiguous and equivocating.
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
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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?

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.
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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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
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."
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Another post in frivolous blowhardism, "liked" by fans of frivolous blowhardism.

Pointing out that you made anotherr strawman which you did as the atheists on here keep telling you is not frivolous blowhardism (that would actually describe your posts) But you Angle the smartestest person in the whole universe who knows what others think better than they do claim it isnt a strawman because in your super duper smart brain know it is what they think

Sorry Anel you made a strawman and got caled out then think you can insult (btw your insiults are as bad as your logic) your way out of it
My statement stands you made a stramwan your OP is garbage like everything you post
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.

You made a strawam then threw a hissy fit when people called you out on it.
Dont want peopel to point out your logical fallacies, then dont make them
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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."
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
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.

And you feed into it by responding...:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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
"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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.

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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.
You've got to find the answer in your heart and mind. Happy Birthday, Sis!
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

"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.

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.

Capture1.JPG

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".
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You've got to find the answer in your heart and mind. Happy Birthday, Sis!

She shares that b-day with Nixon, lol.

This is clipped from an old Steppenwolf song:
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
 
Re: To Believe or Not To 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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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 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"?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'm glad to have added a word to your vocabulary. Now you just have to learn to use it properly.

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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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"?

Christianity literally has no better arguments than strawmen such as was posted. Their best arguments for the existence of their god are hundreds of years old, and have all been thoroughly debunked.

So this is what they're reduced to, sophistry.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.

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).
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

New Atheiest Wiggle Room
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'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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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 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.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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.
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?

If a person said "I lack belief" and then denied that "I don't believe" then he'd be incorrect by definition. Can you quote someone here that has said he lacks belief in god but backs down form saying "I don't believe in god"?

I think you are stepping around the issue a great deal. What you really are upset about, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that atheists won't come out and say "I believe there is no god" rather than "I don't believe in a god". Do I have that right? And id so, why do you think atheists should make a claim like "I believe there is no god" if that's not what they believe?

Thanks for your response.

Edit: I put "good" faith instead of "bad" faith on accident. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

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).

I'm fine with the Stanford entry, which begins thus:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).


What's new about the New Atheism is that the New Atheists try to get around what is bolded above.
 
Back
Top Bottom