• 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!

The Argument Againt Pseudo-Atheism

HonestJoe said:
That is still all semantics. Saying "I don't believe in gods" and "I lack belief in gods" mean the same thing. The different wording is only used to clarify in the face of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
The OP argument is precisely that, and the misrepresentation is on the part of Pseudo Atheists who deny that the two expressions mean the same thing, and if your "all semantics" is dismissive it is wrongheaded.
 
bongsaway said:
I'm sorry but I take your post as another jab at folks who don't believe in your god, not a post in good faith.

That to me makes you a christian in name only since your intent was to disrespect people claiming to be atheists. Like me.
Click to expand...
You can mistake the Original Post and me any way you like and that your conscience allows.
 
Angel said:
The OP argument is precisely that, and the misrepresentation is on the part of Pseudo Atheists who deny that the two expressions mean the same thing, and if your "all semantics" is dismissive it is wrongheaded.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I disagreed with the argument presented in your OP, explaining why I disagree. You've not addressed those reasons and so not challenged my disagreement.
 
HonestJoe said:
Essentially yes. The problem is the specific (mis)interpretation of those words which all of this is ultimately about preventing.

When someone says “I don’t believe in any gods”, some people will interpret that statement (or choose to misrepresent it) as “I deny the existence of God”. That is not the meaning of the initial statement and not the position of many of the people who make it. To address that issue, the original statement is reworded to “I lack a belief in any gods”. It means the same thing, certainly by intent of the speaker, but is worded to establish clear water between that and the misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Of course, some people then accuse the speaker of still denying the existence of God but lying about it. Sometimes you can’t win. Plenty of atheists do actively deny the possible existence of any gods or even actively deny the existence of specifically defined Gods of the religions they grew up around but that isn’t an implicit and automatic element of atheism. I don’t believe in any gods but I entirely disagree with their positions of denial.

Of course, the other element I’ve brushed over is the distinction between talking about any gods and God. Obviously if someone makes a statement about any gods, that includes whatever specific God you believing in but that doesn’t mean they’re specifically thinking about that God or indeed even know of the specifics about that God. Indeed, I doubt anybody has exactly the same image in their mind when they think of God, even if they follow the same faith or religion.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that for whatever reason many people do not accept the Bible's record of the Creator God who is in fact the only God there is. People can disagree with those who argue that the Creator God is the only God there is but those who do not believe the Creator God exists or is the only true God are wrong, whether they know it or not.
 
HonestJoe said:
Yes, and I disagreed with the argument presented in your OP, explaining why I disagree. You've not addressed those reasons and so not challenged my disagreement.
Click to expand...
Your post #74, which I presume you stand by, is in keeping with the OP thesis.
Your post #2, which I saw fit to "Like," is in keeping with the OP thesis.

Where is your disagreement, what is your disagreement? I can't "address" what is not posted.
 
Angel said:
Your post #74, which I presume you stand by, is in keeping with the OP thesis.
Your post #2, which I saw fit to "Like," is in keeping with the OP thesis.

Where is your disagreement, what is your disagreement? I can't "address" what is not posted.
Click to expand...
I'm saying the statements "I don't believe in gods" and "I lack belief in gods" mean the same thing. You're saying they're different, one rational and one irrational. That is our is our disagreement.
 
Angel said:
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.​
Click to expand...

Why the weird font?
 
HonestJoe said:
I'm saying the statements "I don't believe in gods" and "I lack belief in gods" mean the same thing. You're saying they're different, one rational and one irrational. That is our is our disagreement.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not saying what you here say I'm saying. The whole point of the semantic argument in the OP -- its conclusion -- is that the two expressions mean the same thing.
So where are you getting your mistaken view of my view?
 
Angel said:
No, I'm not saying what you here say I'm saying. The whole point of the semantic argument in the OP -- its conclusion -- is that the two expressions mean the same thing.
So where are you getting your mistaken view of my view?
Click to expand...
OK, so you're just claiming that other people say the two statements mean different things. I missed that because you presented absolutely zero evidence of anyone saying that at all.
 
HonestJoe said:
OK, so you're just claiming that other people say the two statements mean different things. I missed that because you presented absolutely zero evidence of anyone saying that at all.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for evidence that Dawkins who is somehow representative of this group made the statement attributed as an equivocating mantra of the group.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I'm still waiting for evidence that Dawkins who is somehow representative of this group made the statement attributed as an equivocating mantra of the group.
Click to expand...
Why are you waiting for that? I replied to you about this pages ago. This rationalization was invented by Anthony Flew. New Atheism has revived and adopted it.
As for Dawkins, you asked for a quote that illustrated his incoherence, and I provided a page of quotes.
Does your "somehow" suggest that you don't see Dawkins as representative of New Atheism?
 
Angel said:
Your question was unresponsive, showing once again that you don't read posts or engage in conversation.
Both the rational and irrational in that post refer to atheism.
Also, the conversation about Dawkins concerned incoherence, not rudeness or nastiness.

And now look what you went and did, devildavid! You misled your pal zyzygy, causing him to post a foolish post as well.
See what happens when you don't read and respond?
Click to expand...

My deepest apologies. I will try to pay more attention.
 
marke said:
The problem here is that for whatever reason many people do not accept the Bible's record of the Creator God who is in fact the only God there is. People can disagree with those who argue that the Creator God is the only God there is but those who do not believe the Creator God exists or is the only true God are wrong, whether they know it or not.
Click to expand...

In other words, "I'm right, you're wrong, so there!" Do you understand how childish and irrational that is?
 
marke said:
The problem here is that for whatever reason many people do not accept the Bible's record of the Creator God who is in fact the only God there is. People can disagree with those who argue that the Creator God is the only God there is but those who do not believe the Creator God exists or is the only true God are wrong, whether they know it or not.
Click to expand...

Prove that this god is the only god that exists. Merely saying it will not magic him into being.
 
Angel said:
Why are you waiting for that? I replied to you about this pages ago. This rationalization was invented by Anthony Flew. New Atheism has revived and adopted it.
As for Dawkins, you asked for a quote that illustrated his incoherence, and I provided a page of quotes.
Does your "somehow" suggest that you don't see Dawkins as representative of New Atheism?
Click to expand...

I missed the Dawkins quotes. I'll go look for them.

edit : That's a wiki quote page. Unless you are saying everything in there is what offends you (rather absurd) you'll need to ferret out something specific.
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
Pseudo Christians
Poetry by Lance Landall
Some say that they are a Christian, when in fact, such is hardly so,
They really just a Christian in name; it less substance and more show.
Thus within the Christian Bible, it warns how true Christians will act,
And therefore, going by that Bible, the following is a fact:

A genuine Christian person doesn’t hide behind politics,
Nor do they indulge in game-playing, or any underhand tricks.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t wilfully break the law,
Hates bigotry and prejudice, and gossip chooses to ignore.

A genuine Christian person won’t also hide behind the Church,
Misuse position or power, someone’s reputation besmirch.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t act promiscuously,
But firmly stands on principle and always act transparently.

No, a genuine Christian person won’t rape, maim, pillage or kill,
Nor indulge in backroom deals, or what cruelly fuels a rumour mill.
A genuine Christian person will not fiddle the books, or steal,
Nor indulge in lying, cheating, and shared secrets will not reveal.

A genuine Christian person keeps to promises that they’ve made,
Practicing what they preach, not acting vainly, and wealth won’t parade.
And a genuine Christian person always call a spade a spade,
Never forces another’s will, investigation won’t evade.

A genuine Christian person doesn’t violate human rights,
Never goes seeking attention or the limelight, and never skites.
A genuine Christian person defends freedom of expression,
Upholds civil-religious liberty and condemns oppression.

A genuine Christian person doesn’t spit, curse, blaspheme or swear,
But always acts impartially, and never cruelly or unfair.
A genuine Christian person — if they’re blessed with wealth — such will share,
Upholds biblical standards, shuns that extra-marital affair.

No, a genuine Christian person doesn’t verbally abuse,
Never tries to control, manipulate, or others wrongly use.
A genuine Christian person doesn’t damage our fragile Earth,
Nor tells jokes that show bad taste, never indulges in bawdy mirth.

A genuine Christian holds no grudge, seeks to reconcile, forgive,
Shows compassion, mercy, acts justly, and a moral life will live.
A genuine Christian person shows all an open-hearted love,
Honours and guards the Bible that’s entrusted to them from above.

Therefore, only those who act like Christ have the right to claim His name,
And not those who’re acting contrary, for such Christians bring God shame.
You see, either they’re a genuine Christian, or sadly, they’re not,
And those who aren't genuine are usually easy to spot.

So Christianity’s a package, not a case of take your pick,
And nor is it some Pick ‘n’ Mix, or make believe, rhetoric.
No, it’s something that must be lived, otherwise it’s just a sham,
Nothing but pure hypocrisy, which both God and the Bible slam.

Yes, Christians will make mistakes, because we’re all human, quite clearly,
But mistakes are hardly the same as one acting rebelliously.
However, the genuine Christian will try to avoid mistakes,
They knowing that it’s their behaviour that their witness makes or breaks.
Click to expand...

Many do a good bit of that, and support Trump as he embodies the seven deadly sins almost daily. It's both amusing and sickening, and it certainly doesn't lead anyone to follow the faith they claim. In fact, it naturally leads one to think that they don't take the religious values they claim seriously.

It seems that the more power you have, the less you are held to any "values".
 
zyzygy said:
Prove that this god is the only god that exists. Merely saying it will not magic him into being.
Click to expand...

First, he'd have to prove that God exists in the first place. Baby steps. They're nowhere remotely close to doing the first part.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I missed the Dawkins quotes. I'll go look for them.

edit : That's a wiki quote page. Unless you are saying everything in there is what offends you (rather absurd) you'll need to ferret out something specific.
Click to expand...

I read the page. There was no incoherence.
 
Cephus said:
First, he'd have to prove that God exists in the first place. Baby steps. They're nowhere remotely close to doing the first part.
Click to expand...

That isn't possible. What is usually attempted is to argue that god is a necessary precondition for some observable phenomenon. It isn't. So the next step is usually to argue that god is the most likely explanation.

Edit : Change 3rd sentence to, "I don't believe that works".
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
"Atheism is simply lack of belief. Nothing more."
Click to expand...
I think it is an excellent opportunity to view this through the psychological introspective lens.

When I deny the "giant white reptilian aliens who live in a hollow earth" I know exactly what I am denying and what I am not. Even with the unseen, ghost, I know I would expect them to have memories of a relative or friend. With a psychic, I know the level of detail and accuracy required. In all cases, I need to know very little of the actual claim to make clear the criteria of my disbelief. In all cases I would defer expertise to the claimant and simply focus on making clear the test and threshold of my required evidence/proof.

This question extends to rational-Atheism & irrational-atheism to me than would be in the degree one could articulate what it is they deny. Can they outline a test or methdology of proof. Most atheists view the conventional words as meaningless and non-sensical: supernatural, miraculous, all-powerful, ultimate creator, God… so traditional definitions and proofs be damned.

In this vein I suppose the best framing of the most general found form of disbelief is they disbelieve the non-sensical, the non-rational.

I think this revisits the question of open-mindedness verses close-mindness. A distinction associated with a claimant not a skeptic and generally a smear the other way. This is because a skeptic should be assumed to know less and be negative about the theory than a claimant(burden of proof). Thus close-mindness refering to when a skeptic gives an alternative explanation and this is simply denied out of hand rather than contrasted or refuted.

The only reason that distinction applies in this particular case of skpeical atheism is only in so much as in order for their position to be true, X theistic position, needs to be non-sensical. That is acceptable to some, in that they view their 'religion' or 'faith' as irrational. To others, their religion or their X theistic position is rational. It is here we find this clash. It is here it matters both parties are open-minded (at the same time) and that is almost never the case.

So assuming we have open-minded / open-minded discussion there should be a quick shift: what is a sensical definition/model of God, supernatural, miraculous, all-powerful, ultimate creator….even then though, a relatively open-minded atheist generally will with time having seen no sense be added by the theist often become more more close minded as they interpret the suggestions as just more and more nonsense.

Sensibility, of course, is the responsibility of the interpreter not the source. A reader is the one with an upside. So to the theist, who attempts to explain themselves again and again, the skeptic appears dumb where as to the atheist the theistic claimant loony toons, with either of course being able to some degree to correct for their natural bias based on their degree of 'patience with others' / 'comfort with disagreement'. The less they correct the more this is solidified with a persecution complex based in seeing the other coloured in bad faith and projection of their part in the personalization preventing any good faith dicussion from continuing.

This is the problem with a negative identification in general. Left without the affirmative, you will inevitably get defensive and close-minded (dismissive of alternative explanations). You can fight yourself seeing the opposition as bad faith actors but it dissolves in the face of challenge.

When the same position is phrased in the affirmative: "religion is always the result of a collective delusion of control based in an identity crisis always producing irrational dogma that prevents rational decision making" one is faced to with the confrontational nature of their position. Absent this there is self-denial of emotional arguments at play. Justification that this lively disagreement and insults are just becuase we are "not like them" feeding the trap of our own persecution complexs. Not so unlike the religious who in the face of challenge also so often paint themselves innocent well making claims which condemn their fellow man to Hell. None among us are so innocent. Emotional arguments expected.
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
That isn't possible. What is usually attempted is to argue that god is a necessary precondition for some observable phenomenon. It isn't. So the next step is usually to argue that god is the most likely explanation.
Click to expand...

And of course, it is the least likely explanation. Like seeing a conjuring trick and believing that it is caused by magic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom