Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
#61
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
You have repeatedly argued to EXCLUDE "lack of belief" (from the definition of "atheism") specifically saying it is, "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs."

That's quite false.  I think if you go back and read my arguments you will find I never argued for any modification to the current definition and the problem is exclusively in your comprehension.

Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs"  Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?  


#62
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
Nobody has argued that words themselves should be removed.
Well, that's true.  I should correct myself by saying "doesn't make a good argument for removing one or more definitions from the word ATHEISM"

Only that confusing and incoherent DEFINITIONS should be removed.
Nobody has made that argument.  The only suggested definition that would prove confusing is yours:  simply "a lack of belief."

Double_R specifically argued against the coherence of the ideology and NEVER against the coherence of the definition.  In fact, Double_R failed to define ATHEISM at any point.

Double_R argued:  "Defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable.    In order for atheism to be the belief that no gods exist the atheist must therefore be in the position of having an active belief in the non-existence of every god concept imaginable."

Double_R explicitly argued for the removal of this definition: "Therefore this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position."

The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.

You yourself have made this argument.
That the current definition should change?  No- that is a lie.

The definition of "christian" as "one who professes belief in the teachings of jesus christ" is not a logically incoherent definition.
Nor is the definition of Atheist as "one who believes no deities exist."  That is semantically coherent but Double_R argued for its exclusion from the dictionary on ideological grounds: " this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position."

#63
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
Everyone on earth (except you apparently) understands this is vis-à-vis "theism".
I argue with the words people write, not the words people meant to write or the words some writers assume "everyone on Earth understands."  If your intent was to redefine the word ATHEIST 

From:
Noun
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
  • (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
  • (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
  • (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:

Noun
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
  1.  A lack of belief vis-à-vis theism
You should have said so at least once during the course of your voluminous, ever-shifting argument.
#64
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
A ridiculous red-herring which I chose not to pursue.
Sorry, but you folded.

You argued "if and only if we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible, then...."

But that's so obviously false a child could refute. 
Mom: "What do want you for dinner, Jimmy?" 
Jimmy: "Poopie-farts!"  (See what Jimmy did there?  He deliberately perverted clear communication between humans and inserted error and miscommunication for the purpose of humor or attention-getting).

If it was a red-herring type of logical fallacy, then my argument would not have relevantly and directly disproved your argument.  Is language sometimes absurd?  Does absurdity deliberately overthrow clear communication between humans?  Obviously.  The statement you used to justify rewriting the dictionary was obviously false on arrival.

#65
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I agreed with you, specifically I agreed with you that the dictionary sources I found ALREADY include "lack of belief".

That is not the same as "conceded".


-->@oromagi
  • Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.

#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
Let's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief. Google the damn word. I just did, here are the results:

1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Google (taken from Oxford)

2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Miriam-Webster

3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists."
Plato.Stanford.Edu

4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
- Britannica

5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Wikipedia

So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the  definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria. You claim lack of belief will increase confusion, but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.

I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
Your criteria was literally the same as his
#67
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagi
Let's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief.
That's false.


Google the damn word.  I just did, here are the results:

1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Google (taken from Oxford)
That's right. "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Miriam-Webster
That's right. "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any god" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism is
Plato.Stanford.
That's right.  "the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists." is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
- Britannica
That's right.  "the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Wikipedia
That's right.  "the absence of belief in the existence of deities" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.

So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.
Let's also note that all of the above have additional, valid definitions of Atheism.  Why do you want to change all of these valid definitions?

At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the  definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria.
I beg your pardon, but I have not advocated for any specific defintion except to argue to leave the current definitions alone as fine and functional.

You claim lack of belief will increase confusion,
False.  I claim that if you re-defined ATHEISM 

From:
Noun
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
  1. (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). 
  2. (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist). 
  3. (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities). 
  4. (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities). 
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
  • (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
  • (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
  • (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:

Noun
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
  1.  A lack of belief 
confusion would result and legitimate atheists excluded from your radical new definition.

but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.
I see.  So this is just a special new re-definition for the "critical thinkers."  Got it.  I think most lexicographers would agree that dictionary definitions should be written for the benefit of all readers.
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
Your criteria was literally the same as his
How is  "language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible" the same criteria as "obviously, language exists for more than one purpose."

I am beginning to think both of you don't understand the meaning of the words ONLY, SIMPLY, MERELY.  Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."   

Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ.  You've argued 

  • Y and Z are ideologically unsound and
  • Y and Z are sufficiently similar to X to just be redefined as X
Both of these notions are total non-starters as reasons to redefine A.  

Now you're coming back to me and saying, "Let's get something straight, X has always been part of A."  I never said it wasn't, I said ""why change A?"
3RU7AL's coming back to me saying "You argued that X was never a part of A!"  I never did.  I said, "why change A?"




Topic's author
#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs"  Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?  
When you say ["lack of belief"] "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" (AND) "lack of belief" is ALREADY part of the standard definition of "atheism" (THEN) you are arguing AGAINST the standard definition of "atheism".
Topic's author
#69
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.
There are many different types of "christians", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "christian" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "christian" by characteristics only held by SOME "christians" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith").

There are many different types of "theists", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "theist" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "theism" by characteristics only held by SOME "theists" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith", which would inarguably qualify you as a "theist").

There are many different types of "mammals", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "mammal" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.

It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "mammal" by characteristics only held by SOME "mammals" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith", which pretty much guarantees you are a "mammal", I mean, I don't know of any historical examples of a "non-mammal" that "professes a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith").
#70
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."   
Is this a joke?

It doesn't mean something radically different, it literally means the exact same fucking thing. The debate I just had and the discussion in this thread is talking about the idea of what atheism is, not the best sentence structure the dictionary should use to define the term.

Seriously dude?

Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ.
Sounds like you haven't paid attention to a word I've said here or in the debate.

A = Atheism
X= lack of belief in the existence of any dieties
Y = a belief in the non-existence of any dieties

To argue that "A = simply X" does not mean "Y is no longer part of A"

Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.

Thus the extra quality that Y adds into the equation is unnecessary and can be discarded.

To put it another way:

Y = X+

The + is the unnecessary part and therefore need not be included in the conceptual definition. This is where the term "simply" comes in. The definition only refers to X, which is part of both X and Y.

So no, we're not saying X has always been a part of A, we're saying X has always been the only necessary component to make one A
#71
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself

There's your conditional statement.
Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?


(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever,
Agreed.

especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?

and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
I'll reserve my response pending the distinction about which I inquired.


Topic's author
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?
not necessarily

a good example of a logically incoherent concept is "infinite"

another good example of a logically incoherent concept is "free-will"

people generally believe these are comprehensible ideas

and people use these terms and exchange information containing these terms that may or may not contain perceived "miscommunication"
Topic's author
#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?
it's the difference between "not adopting a belief" and "belief in the impossibility"

for example,

i do not have a "positive belief" in bigfoot (i am not a "bigfoot believer") but i cannot DISprove bigfoot (because the claim is unfalsifiable) so i do not say "there can be no bigfoot" (i am also not a "bigfoot denier")

this all has to do with the burden-of-proof that theists try to foist onto atheists

more precisely than "lack of belief" atheist should be understood as simply "not a theist"
#74
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
Is this a joke?
Nope.  

it literally means the exact same fucking thing. 
Don't know why even a kindergartener would argue that "lack of belief" does not mean something  different than "lack of belief in gods or deities"
but it is this kind of disconnect from the obvious that loses debates.


Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief, they actively believe that there can be no gods and actively believe that belief in gods is wrong.

I think we're just repeating ourselves here but let's try one more metaphor.

1. Strong flatist = I know the Earth is flat
2. Weak flatist = strongly believes the Earth is flat
3. Flatist agnostic = The Earth looks kind of flat.
4. Impartial agnostic = I don't know- I can't see the Earth
5.  Roundist agnostic =  The earth looks kind of  round
6. Weak Roundist =  I believe  the Earth is round
7. Strong Roundist = I know for a fact the Earth is round.

Your argument is that since all impartials and roundists are anti-flatists let's re-define all impartials and  roundists as simply anti-flatists.  Doesn't a strong roundist have the right to say "I know for a fact that the Earth is round and I don't wish to be lumped in with wishy-washy anti-flatists.  I don't wish to be redefined and you don't have the authority to make me?"  What is the value of re-defining Roundists as Anti-flatists beyond the imposition of one ideology over another?

A belief that no gods can exist is a much more affirmative assertion than "simply lack of belief" and cannot be re-categorized as mere lack of belief without giving insult to those believers.

Topic's author
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief,
Richard Dawkins does not have a belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins lacks a belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins lacks worship and profession of belief in gods.

Richard Dawkins does not have a tomato for a head.

Richard Dawkins lacks a tomato for a head.

This is not "an insult".

These statements are consistent with Richard's public statements on the matter.

#76
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
even a kindergartener would argue that "lack of belief" does not mean something  different than "lack of belief in gods or deities"
That's because kindergarteners have yet to understand that in conversation, context matters.

Most kindergarteners would also not know to read the debate description, where the resolution was explained in detail:

"Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"

That already explains that we're not just talking about some abstract concept of just "lacking belief". But I went on to explain it even further for those that needed their hand to be held:

"The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize."

Perhaps if you read the rules of the debate before judging it you would have known what the debate was about.

False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief, they actively believe that there can be no gods and actively believe that belief in gods is wrong.
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?

Your argument is that since all impartials and roundists are anti-flatists let's re-define all impartials and  roundists as simply anti-flatists.
That's not even close to what I'm arguing.

First of all, no one cares to create terms for impartial flatists. This is a debate no one is seriously having, and has no real impact on anyone's life. Terms are created because there is a need for them. There is a serious need for theists and atheists to be understood within our society. There is absolutely no need for this conversation.

Second, I know of no one who takes the position that they simply lack belief in the shape of the earth, yet nearly every atheist takes the position that they lack belief in the existence of a god.

Third, there is only one earth, so whatever position you take on it is your position. Theism includes every god concept ever conceived, so there is no way to know what anyone's position is on any given subset of it until you ask them.

Fourth, "anti" means "against", so your term already assumes things that do not apply to the subset of people you are clumping together.

A belief that no gods can exist is a much more affirmative assertion than "simply lack of belief" and cannot be re-categorized as mere lack of belief without giving insult to those believers.
It's not a recategorization, it's broadening the definition to make it more inclusive. Someone who believes using contraception warrants the death penalty is pro life. That doesn't mean everyone who is pro life agrees with that position. Apparently, you think that means we should come up with a new term for that specific subset of pro lifers as to not lump them in with those who just don't think terminating a pregnancy should be legal.
#77
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?
One who merely lacks belief does not DISbelieve.

One who DISbelieves does lack belief.

Therefore DISbelievers are just going a step further.
#78
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
not necessarily

a good example of a logically incoherent concept is "infinite"

another good example of a logically incoherent concept is "free-will"

people generally believe these are comprehensible ideas

and people use these terms and exchange information containing these terms that may or may not contain perceived "miscommunication"
The point I'm driving at is reflected in this question: does communication require logically coherent concepts in order to establish communication? If I were to tell you that "my love for my family is infinite," despite the concept of infinity being logically incoherent, would that constitute as a miscommunication? You can ask me to define, "infinite." You may even propose, "what happens to your love after you perish?" But was the initial statement "miscommunicated"?

The influx of neologisms will have uprooted the necessity of strict measures, not to mention, we are discussing semantics. I believe that logically coherent concepts are important for argument, which is a form of communication.  For just communication however, no (e.g. Scat singing.)


it's the difference between "not adopting a belief" and "belief in the impossibility"

for example,

i do not have a "positive belief" in bigfoot (i am not a "bigfoot believer" but i cannot DISprove bigfoot (because the claim is unfalsifiable) so i do not say "there can be no bigfoot" (i am also not a "bigfoot denier")
Wouldn't that inversely suggest a negative belief of some sort, which doesn't necessarily implicate a "lack" of it? I understand oromagi's contention because the term "lack" suggests "absence." And in my opinion, the only thing that approximates a "lack of belief" is ignorance. Is it that an atheist "lacks belief" or is it that an atheist sustains a "negative" belief based on a "positive" belief in something else? And I'm not suggesting that for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures.

this all has to do with the burden-of-proof that theists try to foist onto atheists
Is it really "foisted"? Or created by (some) atheists who don't substantiate their affirmations?

more precisely than "lack of belief" atheist should be understood as simply "not a theist"
Then wouldn't "a lack of [positive] belief" in theism be more appropriate than simply a "lack of belief"?


#79
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
One who merely lacks belief does not DISbelieve.
What does one who merely lacks belief do?

One who DISbelieves does lack belief.
Lacks a belief which affirms, not one which negates.

Therefore DISbelievers are just going a step further.
How is that a "step further"?

#80
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief,
Richard Dawkins does not have a belief in gods.
And also Dawkins does not simply "lack belief"

Richard Dawkins lacks a belief in gods.
This is false.

LACK is "A deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want."

Dawkins does not consider gods desirable or necessary.  He is not missing or wanting a belief in gods.  Dawkins believes that a belief in gods is  destructive to human progress.  Dawkins disbelief is active and affirmative.  To describe that as a lack of something is false.

Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.
True.
Richard Dawkins lacks worship and profession of belief in gods.
This is false.  Dawkins does not consider worship or profession of gods desirable or necessary.  He is not missing or wanting to worship or profess belief in gods.  Dawkins' disbelief is active and affirmative and to describe that belief as a lack of theism is false and demeaning.

Richard Dawkins does not have a tomato for a head.
I am not observing Dawkins so I am agnostic regarding this assertion.

Richard Dawkins lacks a tomato for a head.
To prove this true, you must first establish that Dawkins considers tomatoes a desirable or necessary cephalic substitution. Dawkins can only LACK a tomato for a head if he needed or wanted a tomato head and did not get it.

This is not "an insult".
Look, if I defined a Roman Catholic as a person who "lacked belief in Mohammed as God's messenger" that would be true but exclusionary.   If I said a Roman Catholic "simply lacked belief in Mohammed as God's messenger" I would imply that all of Roman Catholicism is accurately described by its absence of Mohammedism.  Would that be an accurate description of Roman Catholicism or a re-definition from a Muslim perspective.  If I believe the Earth is round, is it fair or accurate to say I am simply anti-Flatist?

Dawkins identifies as a De facto atheist- very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."  Dawkins calls any and all religions scientific theories without much supporting evidence.  Dawkins is not LACKING those theories, he is dismissing known theists' theories as unproven and asserting scientific theories of his own.  

Topic's author
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Lacks a belief which affirms,
lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
#82
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
I know. I suggested as much here:

Athias Post #78:
And I'm not suggesting that for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable.

#83
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
lacking a belief in bigfoot....does not imply a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist

Agreed.  Therefore, it would be unfair to categorize those people who believe with certainty that bigfoot does not exist as a subset of the people who simply lack belief in bigfoot.  A lack of belief in bigfoot does not accurately describe a belief that bigfoot is impossible.  A disbelief in bigfoot is not simply a lack of belief in bigfoot, more than that- it is a theory actively proposed and demanding evidence.
#84
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
What does one who merely lacks belief do?
All of the same things everyone else does, they just don't do the things that those who believe do.

Functionally, one who merely lacks belief is indistinguishable from one who disbelives

Lacks a belief which affirms, not one which negates. 
The affirmation in this sentence is the thing we're talking about. When we say "lacks belief" that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties".

How is that a "step further"?
Because one must lack belief in the existence in any dieties in order to believe that no dieties exist, the same way one must be Pro life in order to believe no exceptions should be made for rape or incest. The former can be the case without the latter, the latter cannot be the case without the former.
#85
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Would love a response to the entire post, but at the very least address this question.
Topic's author
#86
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Therefore, it would be unfair to categorize those people who believe with certainty that bigfoot does not exist as a subset of the people who simply lack belief in bigfoot.
a non-believer is not necessarily an anti-believer

an anti-believer is always also a non-believer

THEIST = T

ATHEIST != T
Topic's author
#87
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
lack
/lak/

noun

the state of being without (or) not having enough of something. 

verb

be without (or) deficient in. 

Source: Oxford Languages
Topic's author
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Is it really "foisted"? Or created by (some) atheists who don't substantiate their affirmations?
theists tend to project the claims made by SOME atheists onto ALL atheists
#89
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
All of the same things everyone else does, they just don't do the things that those who believe do.

Functionally, one who merely lacks belief is indistinguishable from one who disbelives
Then what do you make of 3RU7AL's contention that:

3RU7AL Post #81:
lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
You continue with:

The affirmation in this sentence is the thing we're talking about. When we say "lacks belief" that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties".
Is it then your argument that "lack of [positive] belief" necessarily informs a [positive] belief in the object of concern being falsifiable?

The former can be the case without the latter, the latter cannot be the case without the former.
Didn't you just argue that the two were functionally indistinguishable?
#90
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
theists tend to project the claims made by SOME atheists onto ALL atheists
I won't deny that I've experience some theists do this.