Paul Grace Adam: "if you do not accept a claim as true, you probably deny it as false" Maybe so,

bot not in all cases, such as the ignorant, the disabled, the underdeveloped. One of which is the case I am referring to, babies, as being unable. And lest you think it idea is silly, consider the deathbed of a baby, and who (if anyone) should perform a "last rites" ceremony. It happens. 25 minutes ago Edited Unlike 2

Paul Walker Atheism is to religion what bald is to a haircut, or OFF for a TV channel. It is absence, not a belief, not a dogma. 26 minutes ago via mobile Edited Like 2

Vin Rohm C. blank slate. 24 minutes ago Like 2

Ian Chapman "your" definition is not "the" definition you stated earlier 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. that apparently applies to all athiests. it is the second definition you used but it is the one you used to ban someone who apposed your view, so I assume it is accurate enough for you. and I also believe you are real ban happy, so ban away 22 minutes ago via mobile Unlike 1

Adam Santee Paul Grace It is incoherent, Paul, and here's why: "Lack belief in the existence of God" is a psychological state, not a meaningful position. There are many things which "lack belief in the existence of God". Trees lack belief in the existence of God (probably because they lack the ability to have any beliefs at all), so do stones, water, cities, etc. As an airtight definition, "lack belief in the existence of a god" is pretty weak. Theism entails that one believes the proposition, "At least one god exists." is true. If you think the above proposition is false, then you are affirming the proposition's negation is true, namely (literally), "Not at least one god exists." This is why atheism is defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." If you don't believe god(s) exist(s), but it is not the case that you deny they do [which is perfectly acceptable since there all are propositions to which we do this. For me it would be, "At least one extraterrestrial exists." I neither affirm as true nor deny as false that proposition. I'm in the middle awaiting evidence], then you're not affirming the proposition's negation, and you therefore are not an atheist. This is a simple point of definition.

So I'd counter: P1. A necessary condition for theism is that one believes the proposition, "At least one god exists." is true. P2. The negation of the proposition in P1 is ~"At least one god exists." P3. If one believes the negation of P1's proposition is true, then one affirms that no gods exist. P4. Given P1 and P4, therefore the negation of theism is the denial of the existence of gods. C1. Therefore, atheism is the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of god(s). 22 minutes ago Like

Martin Crisp I do not believe P is not congruent with I believe P is false/non-existent. get a bloody grip 17 minutes ago Like

Juan Ramos A bloody grip of what lol 15 minutes ago via mobile Like

Adam Santee Martin Crisp I didn't say it was, Martin. Note how the premisses are worded. I explicitly said, "If one believes _the negation_ of P1's proposition _is true_..." Try understanding the argument before you criticize it, Martin. 15 minutes ago Like

Martin Crisp Adam has been corrected almost non stop since he got here, but still thinks he can tell atheists what atheists think. 14 minutes ago Like

Martin Crisp //Try understanding the argument before you criticize it, Martin.// Irony overload.

14 minutes ago Like

Adam Santee Martin Crisp Knock it off. I've shared with you your misuse of the word. I'm not telling "atheists what atheists think". If anything I'm telling agnostics what atheists think. 13 minutes ago Like

Paul Grace Adam: >"Lack belief in the existence of God" is a psychological state, not a meaningful position." Wrong, it has meaning. Specifically, that the person has no belief. It means something to me, even if it doesn't to you. Fail #1. >"Trees lack belief in the existence of God (probably because they lack the ability to have any beliefs at all), so do stones, water, cities, etc. As an airtight definition, "lack belief in the existence of a god" is pretty weak." Atheist only applies to people. See the definition. Fail #2. >"Theism entails that one believes the proposition, "At least one god exists." is true. If you think the above proposition is false, then you are affirming the proposition's negation is true, namely (literally), "Not at least one god exists." "If you think it is false" is not the same as "You don't think it is true." This is English. I might think neither thing, I might not think about it at all, the very question may have no meaning to me. Fail #3. >"atheism is defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Good for them. That is a specialist reference. OED catalogs definitions as they are used in English, not for arcane purposes. Fail #4. >"If you don't believe god(s) exist(s), but it is not the case that you deny they do [which is perfectly acceptable since there all are propositions to which we do this. then you're not affirming the proposition's negation, and you therefore are not an atheist. This is a simple point of definition." An arcane definition that they made for their own arcane purposes. We don't use arcane definitions here. Fail #5 (or #4b perhaps) So, I don't care about syllogisms based on arcane definitions. it is sophistry, and I ban people for it. 10 minutes ago Edited Like

Martin Crisp // If anything I'm telling agnostics what atheists think.// Which, again, you've been corrected on since day 1. 12 minutes ago Edited Like

Adam Santee Paul Grace Your reply is disappointing. 9 minutes ago Like

Paul Grace Adam Santee and yours was pathetic. 8 minutes ago Edited Like

Adam Santee Martin Crisp You're an agnostic. Get over it. If you don't believe me, go to a major university and ask a professor in philosophy, philosophy of religion, theology, etc. That's just what the word means. Sorry to disband you from the bandwagon. 8 minutes ago Like

Adam Santee Paul Grace Wow! Great reply! I'm guessing you just copied that original syllogism. Why am I not surprised... 7 minutes ago Like

Paul Grace Adam Santee "Martin Crisp You're an agnostic." 1st warning for trolling. Don't tell people what they believe, ask them. 7 minutes ago Like

Adam Santee Paul Grace That isn't trolling. If you're going to act like that, you might as well ban me now. 6 minutes ago Like

Paul Grace Adam Santee "Paul Grace Wow! Great reply! I'm guessing you just copied that original syllogism" I did. From my earlier post above. Pathetic #2. 6 minutes ago Like


Adam Santee I meant copy from somewhere else on the internet. It's becoming clear you didn't think it up yourself. 6 minutes ago Like

Adam Santee If you did, you would've defended it better. Unable to post comment. Try Again

Martin Crisp //You're an agnostic. Get over it. // I am ignostic until someone tells me what they mean when _they_ use the term 'god'. Then, depending on what they claim I remain ignostic (e.g. if their defintion is (seemingly) incoherent), gnostic (if their concept violates something known to be true), or agnostic if it is simply unfalsifiable/unknown but (seemingly) coherent). But until I believe the god they mean is real, I am also _atheist_. Please, don't try to tell me what I am, when I've known my stance for a good deal longer than you have. 5 minutes ago Like