>solves philosophy >solves physics >solves hard problem of consciousness Heh, nothing personnel kid.

File: 19 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:07:57 2019 No.13272963 [Reply] [Original]

>solves philosophy
>solves physics
>solves hard problem of consciousness

Heh, nothing personnel kid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:08:54 2019 No.13272969 >>13272963 >neutral monism cringe and boring pilled

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:08:57 2019 No.13272970 Sorry Langan is boring now. Go back to last week.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:10:16 2019 No.13272976 >>13272963 Chris "atheism means affirming the nonexistence of god" Langan is a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:10:48 2019 No.13272980 >>13272963 This retard literally think IQ measures absolute intelligence (obviously a cope because he has a high IQ but no academic respects him).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:12:15 2019 No.13272987 >>13272980 >no academic respects him you say that like it's a bad thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:17:17 2019 No.13273007 >>13272987 t. Sourgrapes drop out Kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:17:42 2019 No.13273009 File: 320 KB, 2060x1236, steven-pinker-009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13272963 >solves being solved

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:26:45 2019 No.13273049 >>13273007 It doesn't matter since it's incorrect either way. Langan's papers are among the most widely viewed in academia

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:28:02 2019 No.13273059

>>13272976
in common parlance it does, and the "atheist" community alienated me so much through their desperate resistance to deal with anything theological I started calling myself an agnostic (ironically for pretty much the same reason Langan says you should, although I had no idea of his work at the time, and don't subscribe to it). here's my attempt at a steelman of my position.

atheism is the lack of a belief in God.
some definitions of God (Einstein, Spinoza, ect.) equate God with the universe or substance or physical reality.
lack of belief in the universe or substance or physical reality is an absurd position for a materialist to hold.
as a materialist there are conceptions of God which I cannot reject.
therefore I am not without belief in all conceptions of God, only specific ones.
Since I cannot prove/disprove the various conceptions of God, I cannot rule out if my belief in a material reality is in itself belief in God, so I reserve judgement altogether, agnositicism, epoche.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:28:48 2019 No.13273062 >>13273049 Keep dreaming, bud. Let me know when you get your GED lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:31:27 2019 No.13273075 >>13273059 >so I reserve judgement altogether If you reserve judgement in something that means you don't believe in it. Not believing in something is not the same as believing that it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:32:44 2019 No.13273081 >>13273075 >Not believing in something is not the same as believing that it doesn't exist. yes it is

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:34:17 2019 No.13273088 >>13273075 so this is the power of skipping the Greeks... pick up Sextus Empericus anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:35:12 2019 No.13273092 >>13273081 No, it isn't. You may believe that being is not a valid thing to predicate in the first place.

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:35:19 2019 No.13273093

>>13272976
>atheism means affirming the nonexistence of god
That's what atheism is. If you don't affirm the inexistence of god, you can be either an agnostic or a theist. If you're a theist, you can be either a monotheist or polytheist. If you believe in deities, you can either worship them or not worship them.
Believing in spirits is polytheism too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:37:42 2019 No.13273104 File: 285 KB, 990x682, Terry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] And of course the thread is now a religious debate despite it playing no part in the OP.

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:40:52 2019 No.13273124

>>13273075
>If you reserve judgement in something that means you don't believe in it.
not true. I don't believe in fairies, this is different than reserving judgement on whether fairies exist or not. when atheists say there is no bearded man in the sky, do you really think they are reserving judgement for a big bearded dude in the sky?
>Not believing in something is not the same as believing that it doesn't exist.
I... yeah that was my point, did you contradict yourself in two sentences?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:45:22 2019 No.13273141 >>13273124 Knowledge is belief with certainty. Either you believe that, what there exists in the universe, does or does not include fairies or God, with a low or high degree of certainty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:48:01 2019 No.13273155 >>13273141 >Knowledge is belief with certainty in this case knowledge is impossible

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:50:05 2019 No.13273171 >>13273141 >certainty conviction, not certainty Saying "I do not know" is just as much of a conviction as saying "I believe that x exists".

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:50:21 2019 No.13273176

>>13273075
You sound like a clerical priest. Beliefs aren't a black and white light switch that you can flip back and forth, they're rather physiologically rooted and compatibly determined (you and the other can both determine them, so it's not as simple as saying "ok I've decided to abandon/adopt this belief" without substantial outside interaction of some form).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:51:35 2019 No.13273185 >>13273176 Shit wrong person, fuck it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 13:52:37 2019 No.13273190 >>13272970 >last week more like 10 years ago. Dude's a delusional crank, just get over it.

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 14:15:58 2019 No.13273292

>>13273124
What I said
>If you reserve judgement on something that means you don't believe it

What you said
>not true; if you don't believe in something that doesn't mean that you reserve judgement on it

Do I really need to explain how the two aren't the same thing?

Atheism is the statement that you do not believe in god, not that god doesn't exist.
Agnosticism is the view that you can't know nothing about god.
You can be agnostic atheist though that's basically a tautology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 14:16:02 2019 No.13273293 >>13272963 He didn’t solve shit. Theism and atheism both suffer from the same problem. People have known this for centuries. It can’t be resolved

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 14:17:06 2019 No.13273299 >>13273292 CAn know nothing*

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 14:24:43 2019 No.13273331

>>13273292
You can clarify that statement by saying atheism is the statement that you do not believe God exists, that's what people mean when they say they don't believe in God. agnosticism is not the position you position that knowledge is impossible, that claim is too strong, it's simply the position you are without knowledge. A Gnosis, without knowledge; A Theos, without God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 15:03:31 2019 No.13273464 >>13272969 reality is often disappointing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:25:06 2019 No.13274493 >>13273331 Agnosticism implies atheism but that does not mean atheism implies agnosticism. It's very simple.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:31:02 2019 No.13274528 File: 169 KB, 703x958, Chris Langan's answer to What important part of you was unlocked after becoming an atheist - Quora.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] DAMN....... Chris "Hang em" Langan BTFO's gaytheists eternally

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:42:31 2019 No.13274579 that's not a picture of me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:44:06 2019 No.13274591 >>13274528 yes but didn't everyone know this already

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:46:31 2019 No.13274611

>>13273093
>this bait for the 50 trillionth time
gnosticism concerns knowledge, theism concerns belief you unbelievable fucktard. thus you can be an agnostic atheist without confirming god doesn't exist, you stupid fucking nigger. you don't need to be absolutely certain god can't exist in order to not believe that god exists, which is the position that basically every atheist i've ever met has ever held

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:47:12 2019 No.13274613
File: 22 KB, 960x720, tetralemma2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13274493
No it doesn't, this is basic skepticism anon. We are dealing with three simple propositions:
>I believe God exists
>I do not believe God exists
>I neither believe nor disbelieve that God exists
Four cornered logic anon, again, this is why you don't skip the Greeks.

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 18:53:30 2019 No.13274654

>>13274613
"I do not believe god exists" does not mean "I believe god does not exist" any more than "I did not think Black Panther was great" means "I thought Black Panther was terrible". Not affirming the positive does not mean you affirm the antonym of the positive.

Also I don't think you know what the word disbelieve means.

>dis·be·lieve | \ ˌdis-bə-ˈlēv \
>Definition of disbelieve
>transitive verb
>: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
>intransitive verb
>: to withhold or reject belief

Again, it means lack of belief in x not belief in not x.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 19:17:20 2019 No.13274801 >>13273104 people continue their retarded ego debates too long and it ruins every thread. thats why this board sucks

Anonymous Mon Jun 10 19:17:40 2019 No.13274804

>>13274654
Anon are you feeling okay? We are talking about claims about the existence of God, that's what atheism is talking about. It's a theological position. 'How much you like a movie' isn't a binary in the same way, for instance, 'whether Morgan Freeman is playing black panther or not', is. If you say 'I don't believe Morgan Freeman is playing Black Panther', you are saying 'I believe Morgan Freeman isn't playing Black Panther'. They would be represented identically in formal logic, which is why the suspension of judgement involves never making the claim to "lack of belief" any more than it does belief in the positive sense. Read Sextus Empericus, or take a logic 100 course, preferably both.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 19:27:05 2019 No.13274852 >>13274801 This. Every fucking time

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 20:17:39 2019 No.13275131 File: 14 KB, 251x242, 1549091883823.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13272976 >calling Langan a brainlet Anon, I-

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 10 20:40:09 2019 No.13275254 195 iq spends all day on quora hahaa

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 00:18:37 2019 No.13276188 ctmu is stupid. bowed head metaphysics

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 00:20:51 2019 No.13276196 >>13276188 Care to elaborate? INB4 word salad

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 00:21:26 2019 No.13276197 >>13272963 I can't think of a more roundabout way of saying that reality is a fractal than this dude's theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 01:39:22 2019 No.13276493 Is Christopher Langan the most based and redpilled man alive?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 01:48:24 2019 No.13276522
File: 76 KB, 545x991, Screenshot_2019-04-28 Christopher Langan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13276493
Yes. Christopher Langan is obviously, indisputably, mathematically, the most basedest, epicest, redpilledest man alive. How could you tell?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 02:00:05 2019 No.13276564

His redefining of atheism, or refusal to acknowledge that there is a logically consistent distinction to be made between "not believing in the (non)/existence of god(s)" and "believing in the (non)existence of god(s)" and that they can be modulated by knowledge claims (ie: a/gnosticism) is either purely retarded, or intellectually dishonest. I have no problem submitting to definitions of people who can't let go of their pet words for reasons of autism as long as their (re)definitions do not deliberately exclude possible positions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 04:08:51 2019 No.13276877 >>13276522 This but unironically

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 04:13:04 2019 No.13276890 >>13276522 Literally Marx

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 04:14:36 2019 No.13276895 >>13276522 what precisely, being specific here lads, does he refer to, in the real world, as an actual group of people, to be clear and lacking in ambiguity, when he say '''oligarchs'''

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 07:16:16 2019 No.13277356 >>13276895 Pump your brakes Icarus

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 07:22:34 2019 No.13277371

>>13273093
I've seen atheists try to claim the opposite, that all agnostics are actually atheists because their hesitation as to whether or not their is a God implies an absence of belief that would suggest they are really atheists.

I thought it was a dumb argument at the time, and still sort of do, just thought it was funny seeing you bring that up.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 07:44:12 2019 No.13277420

>>13273059
If everything is god, then nothing is. Just because some people believe god to be the universe doesn't make it true.
Atheism starts once you realize that god is a baseless hypothesis. One does not need to actively disprove any baseless claim to the contrary to arrive at a general position. The only position people demand that for seems to be Atheism. Why would anybody play that game?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 07:55:26 2019 No.13277466 >>13273059 Except your definition is not sufficient for theism. If you simply define your god as "what is", you're not a theist. Nor is it even sufficient for deism. For sure get a grip on thinking before clinging to either theism or atheism silly.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 08:58:15 2019 No.13277640

>>13272963
I really like the aesthetic of this picture. What seems like a modest interior, lit with a charming light with the windows pointing to space. A no-nonsense honest blue-collar guy who just also happens to be the most intelligent man in the world sits there with no presumptions. He pours you a cup of coffee, looks at you sternly and says "Upstairs son, thats where I have my telescope. We're gonna discuss this Universe thing".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:02:41 2019 No.13277651 File: 13 KB, 236x227, oldpepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw internet will never meme you into the Smartest Man on the Planet

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:16:46 2019 No.13277712 File: 64 KB, 800x894, Do2bRucXgAAdf3Z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Pfff, I'm LITERALLY dabbing on Chris Langan right now. He's not that smart, huh!?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:17:32 2019 No.13277716 >>13273155 >knowledge is impossible How can be you been certain of that, "knowledge is impossible" is itself a statement of knowledge?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:30:34 2019 No.13277761 Chris, "Objects don't really move from one point to another." Langan

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:32:33 2019 No.13277766 File: 674 KB, 1280x720, thumb1497.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the epic mustache man

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:46:26 2019 No.13277824

>>13274804
Not him, but maybe I can help. Are you suggesting that someone who does not believe either claim (ie: that god does/doesn't exist) does in fact believe that god doesn't exist? It is pretty clear that someone who believes neither claim, does in fact not believe in the non-existence of god. Same for Freeman playing Black Panther.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:51:24 2019 No.13277846 File: 8 KB, 295x171, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13277761 Parmenides and the Indians proved him right my dude, movement is illusory there is only one immutable thing

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 09:54:52 2019 No.13277875 >>13273009 ass

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 10:02:21 2019 No.13277905 >>13277846 k

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:33:53 2019 No.13278868

>>13277420
>>13277466
Spinoza is an incredibly influential element of rationalist theology, why no-true-scotsman him? Because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions of the judeo-christian God you want to reject? This is just the classic atheist cope that I was talking about, total disregard of the actual theology in favor of arguing out of ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:38:23 2019 No.13278895 >>13278868 Lel mate. State what you find logically inconsistent, or move along.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:40:56 2019 No.13278902 >>13278895 >atheist arguing from the hole in his heart demanding that others explain their reasons so that he will feel satisfied a tale as old as time

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:47:01 2019 No.13278920 >>13272963 >solved by Malcolm Gladwell Nothing personal Chapter 7

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:47:55 2019 No.13278925 >>13278868 >Spinoza is an incredibly influential element of rationalist theology Uh... no actually? Do you have any proof?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:49:25 2019 No.13278931

>>13278895
What do you mean? The burden of proof to prove the Ethics logically inconsistent is on you. You have asserted that his definition of God isn't a "real" definition of God, so prove it. Pick up the work, put in the effort, and present an argument against it. I know you won't, because the last thing an atheist would want to do is engage with the subject matter he is concerned with. Reminder what I'm feeling right now is the same feeling when theists refuse to engage with scientific studies because they already know the answer, the same level of willful ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:51:47 2019 No.13278940 >>13278925 Do I have proof Spinoza was an influential element of rationalist theology? Have you ever taken a course on rationalism? Do you have any education in philosophy or theology? This is like asking for proof that Hawkings was a physicist

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:54:59 2019 No.13278951

>>13278902
I provided you with definitions that you've claimed are logically inconsistent, but you've yet to produce a single argument.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). You claimed that "not believing in god(s)"="believing in the non-existence of god(s)". This is clearly false, as it the former allows for the position of "not believing in the existence of god(s), nor in the non-existence of god(s)", by which one would clearly still "not believe in god(s)", making your claim "believing in the non-existence of god(s)" incompatible. A/gnosticism are knowledge claims that can modulate belief claims in different ways.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:55:51 2019 No.13278955 >>13278951 careful with your (you)s anon, you missed

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 13:57:16 2019 No.13278961

>>13278931
>You have asserted that his definition of God isn't a "real" definition of God, so prove it
I stated that his definition of god does not line up with theism. "What is", or "the Universe" does not imply a conscious, interventionist creator. It doesn't even comply with deism. If that is how he defines god, then he is not a theist, so I have absolutely no issue with it. I find it a useless definition, but that's another story.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:00:00 2019 No.13278975 >>13278951 see >>13274613 (~x) = (~x) != (x • ~x) they figured this logic out like four millennia ago

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:00:11 2019 No.13278976 >>13278961 in other words you're using different words than langan is using to describe his definition and then rejecting that definition as described by your words. got it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:02:24 2019 No.13278985 >>13278976 Langan's claim was that not believing in god=believing god doesn't exist. This is false.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:03:35 2019 No.13278989
File: 963 KB, 876x1286, friedman-spinoza-chart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13278961
>I find it a useless definition
yikes, there is nothing utilitiarian about theology you mong, it doesn't care if you find it useful or not. you are doing the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:04:30 2019 No.13278991 >>13272980 I've never heard him boast about his IQ, despite being a genius. There's plenty of other retards to do that for him

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:07:30 2019 No.13278999 >>13273176 false, self analysis/soul searching is a thing

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:08:02 2019 No.13279002 >>13278989 Lel. That god doesn't comply with theism you fucking retard. Whether I find it useful, or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:09:41 2019 No.13279008

>>13278985
if you 'don't believe in god' without an equal claim that you do 'believe in God', then for all intents and purposes you believe God doesn't exist. When people say they don't believe in God, they are saying they believe God does not exist. Suspension of judgement doesn't just mean you don't believe in something, it means you suspend that belief altogether. Again, all figured out millennia ago. Read Sextus

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:12:59 2019 No.13279022 >>13279002 >n-no true scotsman! I think you actually don't understand the idea of atheism, it comes from the Greek a theos, meaning without God, not without "theism". Have you ever read a book on this topic anon?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:13:43 2019 No.13279025

>>13279008
>then for all intents and purposes you believe God doesn't exist
Nope. They're saying that they don't believe god exists. That leaves room for two possibilities: they either "believe that god doesn't exist", or they "don't believe that god exists, nor do they believe that god doesn't exist". The latter can't mean that they believe the former. Both are perfectly compatible with "not believing god exists".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:15:53 2019 No.13279036 >>13279022 If that's your definition, then yes. God can be anything. Mine, along with any dictionary definition, colloquial use and all atheists' and theists' definitions involves a negation of theism.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:17:02 2019 No.13279043
File: 58 KB, 739x494, Doggo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13273075
Belief and disbelief are two discrete categories of knowledge, to "reserve judgement" literally means to wait to decide in which camp you sit until you see evidence.

It is a very modern, very Jewish idea that active disbelief and the ideological rejection of an idea are synonymous with an agnostic view towards anything. Because you have not literally seen a burning bush, you do not merely reserve judgement, you actively reject the idea of God. Someone else has seen God, or seen a burning bush? Well that isn't good enough for you, you need to see them yourselves.

So do you apply this standard to everything? I've never personally seen a fucking tiger. I've never personally seen a dinosaur. We all rely almost exclusively on second-hand or third-hand accounts for most of our knowledge, or on recordings on film, or drawings. Is THAT insufficient? When le Chupacabra is reported by 50,000 spics, does that mean that it's true because enough people believe it? Obviously not. But I've seen "pictures" of bigfoot, and I don't believe in that either.

We all know what this is. You ideologically reject certain ideas while giving others the benefit of the doubt because it suits you. There is as much evidence for the exodus of Moses as there is for the life of Julius Caesar, but one has implications you don't like, so of course, THERE you apply your absurdly high standards of evidence. Imagine if I demanded proof, actual empirical proof that the shortest route between two points was a straight line. You could spend your entire life trying to prove it and you would fucking fail.

Rationality is distinct from Empiricism. Stop conflating the two.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:28:17 2019 No.13279091

>>13279043
>I've never personally seen a fucking tiger.
Not him, but it is up to you whether you decide that the sense of seeing is reliable evidence. I'd say that it is for objects corroborated by billions of eye witnesses and image recording devices that have proved consistently reliable in representing objects you are personally familiar with. Less so with transgender spirits, or other supernatural objects for which there is no proof that they are even possible - not to say they are impossible. That is beside the point. Belief doesn't have to be predicated on "absolute certainty", just sufficient evidence. It is up to the believer, or non believer what he deems as sufficient evidence. The null hypothesis is lack of belief. The burden of proof is on who makes the positive claim. So if you believe a theistic god exists, provide evidence. If you believe a theistic god doesn't exist, provide evidence. If you don't believe god exists, nor that he doesn't exist, you can chill and examine the evidence that is provided to you. But the latter category is still nested in "not believing god exists".

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:31:48 2019 No.13279114
File: 135 KB, 1080x734, Screenshot_20190611-112813__01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13279036
I just googled it, and the dictionaries and the philosophical encyclopedias agree with my definition. I did study this in university. But sure, your new rebranding of atheism works I suppose, and I guess in this case agnosticism just means your not a gnostic. good work anon, you solved the problem by ignoring 2500 years of philosophy and creating a private definition for a term you don't understand

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:37:36 2019 No.13279144

>>13279091
the moment you make the claim you don't believe God exists you step out of agnosticism, unless you specifically counter it with an equal belief in God as well. Read the skeptics. suspension of judgement involves (a and ~a), or, ~(a or ~a), it cannot be simply reduced to (~a)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:39:16 2019 No.13279151 >>13272969 >boring pilled >reason biased by excitement cringe

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:39:35 2019 No.13279153

>>13279114
That's fine then. I have no problem with non-theistic gods according to that definition. Let's see if all non-theists will bark as much at my non-atheist atheism. I concede that I was mistaken, if that Anon's intention wasn't to link his definition to theism. Although my impression/misunderstanding was transparent from the start as the first objection was that it's not a theist god, nor a deist one. Simply clarifying the matter from the start by saying that he is in fact not advocating for one at all would have cleared things up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:43:17 2019 No.13279174 Can we push Langan to become the new Peterson?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:43:43 2019 No.13279179

>>13279144
Once more. Tell me what's wrong with this line of reasoning. "Not believing god exists" allows for two possible claims: "believing god doesn't exist", or "not believing god exists, nor that he doesn't exist". You erroneously conflate belief and god's (non)/existence into one single statement.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:44:19 2019 No.13279183

>>13279153
But this is the problem I have with atheism today, if you don't even understand what the word means how can you feel confident to argue for it? This is exactly what theists do when they argue against evolution without putting in the effort to understand what the term means. Why reduce yourselves to this level? What is the point in strawmanning positions like crazy fundie southerners over people like Spinoza or Descartes or Aquinas?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:47:05 2019 No.13279199

>>13279179
There are actually four positions to consider here:
>a is true
>a is false
>a is both true and false
>a is neither true nor false
this is the four cornered logic, it is the basis of skepticism. you want to stop at the second position, but real skepticism doesn't come in till the bottom two.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:48:47 2019 No.13279207

>>13279183
Every single atheist defines his position. Most debates are with theists and start with the common agreement that atheism is to be viewed in opposition to theism. Theists don't argue for deist/pantheist, etc gods. If an atheist (in my sense of the word) felt he had objections against pantheist gods for instance, then he would indeed have to clarify his position. But I think you're seeing confusion where there isn't any.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:53:49 2019 No.13279229 >>13279199 You're conflating belief with the prop statement that god exists. They're not the same. What you listed are truth values for god's existence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:55:49 2019 No.13279244 >>13273009 Cringe

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:56:16 2019 No.13279248

>>13279207
Most debates are with people like Ken Ham so it literally doesn't matter. Again, why isn't there a significant atheist movement to disprove rationalist conceptions of God? Why don't Dawkins and Harris take on Aquinas? What is the point of having a dozen debates with the retard who runs that ark museum? If you just want to dunk on fundies, you don't need to be an atheist, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:57:42 2019 No.13279256 >>13279229 No, once again your ignorance is showing. The four cornered logic is totally formal, it has nothing to do with God or his existence. You can easily use this model to substitute in our argument though, which was my point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 14:59:08 2019 No.13279262 >>13273104 I can hear your image. Kek.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:01:14 2019 No.13279271

>>13279248
I have a feeling you're retarded. Plenty have taken on Aquinas. Whether you find objections to Aquinas' arguments valid is your business. Having said that, Aquinas was a theist. At the very least his arguments dealt with a deist god. The definition I was railing against did not comply with either you fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:03:26 2019 No.13279281 >>13279256 What is "a" in your example?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:04:13 2019 No.13279282

>>13279271
Please show me Dawkins or Harris taking on Aquinas, I would actually love to see it. I know
Aquinas was a theist, that comment had everything to do with Dawkins and Harris, and the state of atheism generally, not your position. You seem upset anon. Maybe a basic education in the topic at hand would help you deal with these feelings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:05:15 2019 No.13279291 >>13279281 It can be whatever you want, it's formal logic

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:11:03 2019 No.13279333

>>13279282
I am frustrated with your retardation and possible disingenuousness. You claim that anon's definition of god does not have to comply with theism as you don't accept atheism to be defined in opposition to it. Only to then complain about atheists not taking on serious theists. Well, theists, serious or not, would not accept anon's definition as one that complies with any conceptualisation of their god. As far as dealing with Aquinas' arguments, literally use the internet and type any of those celeb's names juxtaposed to his for results if you're genuinely interested.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:11:36 2019 No.13279336 Isn't reincarnation possible under his system or something?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:12:04 2019 No.13279341 >>13279291 No, no. Roll it out for me please.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:18:02 2019 No.13279387

>>13274804
Holy shit are you legitimately retarded? This is the last time I'm going to regurgitate this truism:

>'How much you like a movie' isn't a binary in the same way
Belief in god is not a fucking binary either. Your options aren't only 'believe god exists' or 'believe god does not exist'; you also have the option of not believing. This is your problem: you are acting like belief in x or not x is compulsory when you can also NOT believe.

Either way this is just a semantic trick done by theists to shift the burden on proof onto the atheist by making us appear as if we are making a positive claim. We aren't. We say we don't believe in god just like we don't believe in unicorns. We currently have no evidence for unicorns or god but this does not mean we make the positive claim that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:23:44 2019 No.13279417

>>13279333
okay, I don't know how you got so mixed up here, my claim is very basic Pyrrhonian skepticism. There are four positions in the tetralemma, let's plot them out now for this argument:
>it is true you believe in God (theism/deism/pantheism, ect.)
>it is false that you believe in a God (atheism)
>it is both true and false that you believe in a God (agnosticism)
>it is neither true nor false that you believe in a God (agnosticism)
My point is atheists want to assert that they do not believe in a god but that somehow they are still agnostic, which totally goes against the philosophical understanding of skepticism. This is the result of the poor understanding atheists tend to show towards both theology and philosophy. It comes off in the same way that fundies arguing against evolution does, it's not simply that they disagree, it's that they haven't even put in the basic effort to understand what they are trying to disagree with (hence me itt having to try and explain formal logic)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:24:53 2019 No.13279427 >>13279341 >>13279387 wow, you people. here, I did the logic 100 for you. Not a theist, by the way. >>13279417

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:26:05 2019 No.13279433 >>13279417 >>it is false that you believe in a God (atheism) AGAHGAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH Okay. I see now. You're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:27:16 2019 No.13279441 >>13279433 On a less douchey note, ¬(BG) is not the same as ¬BG. Completely different meanings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:33:53 2019 No.13279479 >>13279441 if BG is one claim, that being 'belief in God', then yes, when expanded, (~x) and ~(x) are exactly the same position.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:34:45 2019 No.13279485 >>13279417 Literal hogwash. If I do not assert the proposition P that does not mean I assert the proposition ~P.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:38:13 2019 No.13279500 >>13279485 Very true, but atheism is by definition an assertion of ~P

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:38:22 2019 No.13279501

>>13279485
Mate, I've been pinned down by my own autism against these people for the past hour. Due to numbers alone, I initially thought there might be a handicap in communication on my side, rather than comprehension on their's. It's obvious to me that they're completely retarded and I'm out of compassion. Theists, or atheists, the fedora is here to stay on 4chan. Good luck.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:42:06 2019 No.13279521

>>13279500

>Atheism = I do not believe that god exists

LETS SWAP OUT BELIEVE WITH ASSERT SINCE THEY ARE SYNONYMS IN THIS CONTEXT

>Atheism: I do not assert that god exists

NOW LETS SWAP OUT "GOD EXISTS" WITH THE PROPOSITION P. IE. P="GOD EXISTS"

ABSTRACTING FURTHER:

>Atheists: I do not assert P

"I do not assert P" IS NOT THE SAME AS "I assert ~P", AS YOU JUST AGREED.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:43:25 2019 No.13279528 >>13279500 >It is very true that "If I do not assert the proposition P that does not mean I assert the proposition ~P", but "atheism is by definition an assertion of ~P". THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF YOU

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:47:28 2019 No.13279547

>>13279521
atheism, as it has been historically and philosophically understood for thousands of years, is the assertion of ~P. If you want to suspend judgement, there is another position called agnosticism. They are, historically and philosophically, not the same position. You can easily see this in the tetralemma. I have to assume this is just massive cope around definitions because you have some emotional connection to atheism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:48:31 2019 No.13279553 >>13279528 "I don't believe in God" is shorthand for "I don't believe God exists", and existence is binary. This is literally Introduction to Logic 100

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:52:46 2019 No.13279576 >>13279547 Anon. If I do not assert proposition P, that leaves me room to either assert ~P, or not to assert ~P, neither P. Not all atheists assert ~P.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 15:56:23 2019 No.13279598 >>13279576 Again, there is a word for an "atheist who does not assert ~P" it's called an agnostic. Instead of trying to fuck up the philosophical definitions, just read a book and learn them.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:01:32 2019 No.13279624
File: 14 KB, 581x210, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13279547
Atheism comes from the words a(meaning without) and theism(meaning belief in god). I.e. without belief in god. You can trace the etymology back further to atheos meaning without god. As has been shown in the post you have just responded to, not believing P is not the same as believing ~P.
>there is another position called agnosticism
Agnosticism is the position that you can have no knowledge about god. It implies atheism but atheism does not imply agnosticism, hence the distinction. Some people call themselves agnostic atheists but this is just a tautology.

>I have to assume this is just massive cope around definitions because you have some emotional connection to atheism.
Colloquially I would be fine with saying god does not exist with reasonable certainty. However when I am speaking philosophically and arguing formally I will always take the position of lacking belief, just as I would if I were having a formal debate with someone who believes in unicorns. This is because I recognise that the onus is not on me to prove the nonexistence of god or unicorns, but rather on the theist and unicorn believer to prove that god and unicorns exist.
>>13279553
Existence is binary. Belief in existence or nonexistence is not compulsory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:01:41 2019 No.13279625 >>13273141 >i believe with certainty that every number greater than 1 is either prime or the product of primes

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:07:32 2019 No.13279647 why does wikipedia and elsewhere have agnosticism as reserving judgement _until confronted with scientific proof_; why can’t one just reserve judgement altogether

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:08:25 2019 No.13279652

>>13279624
>Agnosticism is the position that you can have no knowledge about god. It implies atheism
totally false, can be corrected through the most basic of research. Another example of you not understanding basic theological terminology.
>Existence is binary. Belief in existence or nonexistence is not compulsory.
Duh, and atheism is a claim about the existence of God. Saying "I do not believe God exists" is as strong as a claim as "I believe God doesn't exist". The agnostic claim is that "I neither believe nor disbelieve that God exists". If an atheist refuses to assert a belief claim around the existence of God, he is an agnostic, in the same way a married man is a bachelor if he gets a divorce.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:09:30 2019 No.13279660 >>13272963 Ctmu: god exists, therefore we are god, therefore god exists, kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:10:30 2019 No.13279666 >is redpilled Oy vey

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:13:09 2019 No.13279683 File: 104 KB, 200x276, UPPp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I would like to hear an argument against monism please.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:16:28 2019 No.13279703 >>13279683 tries to get in your face but is just a tiny little jew ITS ANUDDA SHOAH

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:20:31 2019 No.13279723

>>13279652
>totally false
Pic related
>"I do not believe God exists" is as strong as a claim as "I believe God doesn't exist"
Sigh... we literally went over this. I will refer you to this post: >>13279521
There's literally nothing more to say about this subject. I'm done talking about it. You are so adamant to hold onto your strawman of atheism and consequently agnosticism because you can't prove the proposition "God exists" and are trying to shift the onus on the non-believer to prove the nonexistence of god. It's pure chicanery.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:21:34 2019 No.13279728 File: 11 KB, 600x181, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13279723 forgot the pic

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:31:25 2019 No.13279775

>>13279723
I literally was an athiest for 90% of my life, and a theist for 0%. This has nothing to do with shifting the onus of anything. You are uneducated in theology (just like I was). If you read the definition you linked, btw, the very first part of the sentence disagrees with your assertion that
>Agnosticism is the position that you can have no knowledge about god.
Some agnostics hold this position, sure, but it's not the definition of agnosticism. Please, take a few logic classes and a couple on theology, you talk like the only theology you have engaged with is watching Dawkins lectures.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:37:59 2019 No.13279807 File: 74 KB, 500x756, fnord.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:45:30 2019 No.13279831

>>13279775
Not him. You've yet to prove why "not believing god exists" can't include both "believing god doesn;t exist" and "not believing god exists, neither that he doesn't exist". You seem to have changed your tune and conceded that not asserting P is not the same as asserting non P. Negating belief opens up more than one possibility. Deal with it. All atheists don''t believe that god exists, but not all atheists believe that god doesn't exist.

As far as agnosticism goes, it is useful to qualify belief according to knowledge claims, but if you want to call it different words that's fine by me. According to our definition an agnostic theist would believe in the existence of god, but not claim that it he knows, or can be known that he exists. A gnostic atheist can only subscribe to the positive statement that he 'believes that god doesn't exist' and claim to know, or that it can be known that god exists. If these don't align with your historical traditions, fine. Use other words for knowledge qualifiers. It gets fuzzy when it comes to gnosticism, so I can understand why you wouldn't accept that definition. Impossible to grant you the same charity for atheism though.

>I literally was an atheist for 90% of my life
No one gives a shit. Writing a blog using your own definitions isn't much of an argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:50:01 2019 No.13279856 >>13279775 Cringe and bluepilled >>13279831 Based and redpilled

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:52:21 2019 No.13279868 >>13279856 cringe and cringepilled

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:52:56 2019 No.13279872 >>13279868 seethe and seethepilled

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:54:05 2019 No.13279876
File: 46 KB, 310x383, agnostic-atheism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13279831
Atheism has a meaning, it has been used for thousands of years. It means you don't believe in God. Agnosticism has also been used for thousands of years, it means to withhold judgement regarding the existence of God. WE are talking about theological agnosticism, by the way (don't know why you need that clarified). Why is it so necessary to beat atheism into a new category? You are the ones trying to rework the definitions, I am using the definitions as they have been generally agreed upon (also means you obviously skipped the Greeks, dead giveaway). There have been more than one definition linked in this thread and they have all supported my position. It's your side who results to accusing me of being a theist, again, because of emotional attachment to the term atheism. This shit (pic related) is tumblr level pop-theology, no one but fedora level atheists support this reworking of theological categorization.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 16:58:24 2019 No.13279900

>>13279831
>"not believing god exists, neither that he doesn't exist"

because no sane person would claim "he doesn't believe god exists" while holding the belief of "not believing that he exists or doesn't exist". this is just dishonest linguistic gymnastics.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:06:23 2019 No.13279927

>>13279876
>It means you don't believe in God.
Yes. But that opens up two possibilities. Either the claim that you "believe god doesn't exist", or that you "don;t believe that god exists, neither that he doesn't exist" (ie: what you refer to as agnosticism). Since the latter is logically consistent with "not believing god exists", it is still part of what you call atheism. If you want to give that a different name, fine, but since it is logically consistent with what we both define as atheism, it can't NOT be atheism.

(In other words, since you have already agreed that not asserting P isn't the same as asserting non P: We've agreed that atheism is not asserting P. That branches out in two possible claims: "asserting non P", or not asserting either.)

Like I said, not as attached to a/gnosticism as historical definitions make things fuzzy. The reason I can't grant you the same charity with atheism is because what you define as agnosticism (not asserting P, neither non P) is logically consistent with OUR definition of atheism (not believing god exists/not asserting P/see your greentext).

> It's your side who results to accusing me of being a theist
I have not accused you of anything. I do not give a fuck what you believe. But since you said "I literally was an athiest for 90% of my life, and a theist for 0%" I can deduce you'd consider yourself an "agnostic" by your definition (reserve judgement/neither believe that god exists, nor that he doesn't exist). If that is the case, that is logically consistent with "not believing god exists", therefore you are an atheist. By my definition of agnosticism, if you reserve judgement because of the knowledge claim that "it cannot be known either way", then I would call you an agnostic atheist, but I am happy to grant you whatever label you want for knowledge qualifiers.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:11:30 2019 No.13279950

>>13279900
It's logic. Since I have a nice person bias, if you tell me you're retarded because you come from a long lineage of retards, I won't believe it. That doesn't mean I NECESSARILY believe that you DO come from a long lineage of retards. It may, but it also includes the claim that I do not believe either, until I find whatever it is that I find satisfactory for making a positive belief claim. To clarify, it also doesn't NECESSARILY mean that I exclusively don't believe either. Just that I may believe that you do come from retards, or that I don't believe that you do, or don't come from retards. If you want clarifications, ask. But not asserting X is not the same as asserting non X.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:14:06 2019 No.13279964 >>13277420 Positivism is self-refuting.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:15:19 2019 No.13279973

>>13279927
you are basically saying you can "not believe God exists" and "not believe God doesn't exist" and be an atheist at the same time, which is a logical absurdity. Again anon, this is four cornered logic, they figured this out like 4 thousands years ago. It's like saying a an agnostic is a atheist in the same way a married man is a bachelor because he can get a divorce. It's just piss poor logic at this point, in a desperate attempt to rewrite very well established philosophical terminology. Very weird flex anon.
>I can deduce you'd consider yourself an "agnostic"
Wow anon, big brain over here. It's almost like this whole comment chain began from my argument for agnosticism. Can you also guess what language I am typing in?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:15:30 2019 No.13279975 Why are Langan fans like shitty performance artists

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:16:44 2019 No.13279978 >>13279975 No game bitches

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:16:53 2019 No.13279980
File: 25 KB, 339x382, christopher-langan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>“Those who consider themselves ‘agnostic atheists’ follow the definition of Merriam-Webster which has the entry of atheism as sb. who either not believes in god (and may be open or denying) or as sb. who denies god. The dictionary is not precise.”
>Either that, or some “agnostic atheist” has wormed his way onto Merriam Webster’s editorial board to instantiate a little semantic entropy. “Not believing X” is not identical to “disbelieving in X”. The former is passive, and is compatible with “not disbelieving in X” on the condition that no decision has been made regarding belief in X. The latter is active, coming *after* such a decision. These two definitions of “atheism” can thus coincide – i.e., can be considered “cosynonymous” – only if the credential decision function has not been executed, a condition which characterizes the preexisting definition of “agnostic”. Therefore, by definition, an “agnostic atheist” is a mere agnostic who has not executed a decision function regarding belief or disbelief in God (as opposed to a true atheist who actively disbelieves in the existence of God). Obviously, one cannot rationally claim to be an atheist by simply denying any distinction between agnosticism and atheism, and then proceed to troll theists as though one has an actual position (atheism) to defend. Instead, “agnostic atheists” are reduced to claiming that theists should be agnostics just like them, ostensibly on the grounds that there is no proof of the existence of God, thus reducing an ontological claim of existence to an epistemological claim of “no proof”. But the latter claim requires a “metaproof” of its own … i.e., a proof that no proof of the existence of God is possible, or to switch back to ontological terminology, that no such proof *exists*. Unfortunately, “agnostic atheists” are as unable to provide such a proof as they are to prove that God does not exist, and this raises the question of why they make so very much noise, generating hundreds of thousands of google hits on “agnostic atheism / agnostic atheist”. This indicates true, basic, grass-roots irrationality on the parts of certain severely confused people who, to judge from the noise they make, number in (at least) the tens or hundreds of thousands. How much more stupid and boring can the so-called “New Atheism’ get? Enough of this idiocy already.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:18:38 2019 No.13279989 >>13279980 Tldr Probably some raging about the fact that agnosticism is clearly superior to theism

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:19:12 2019 No.13279995 Why do people even read or listen to this guy? His only shtick is his IQ. What a sad way to become famous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:20:37 2019 No.13280005 >>13279989 Langan's whole philosophical project is to prove the existence of God

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:20:54 2019 No.13280006

>>13279950
What you don't understand is that atheism historically speaking in any field isn't defined as "not believing God exists , neither that he doesn't exist". You try to shoehorn this definition very hard into atheism, but it's not what has ever been understood by the term etymologically.

What you're trying to do is to shoehorn people who have no position relative to God or might not even be aware of the possibility of God into the camp of "atheists". This is obviously very dishonest, as it's not at all a clearly accepted definition of atheism, not today and even less so historically.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:21:20 2019 No.13280009

>>13279973
>you are basically saying you can "not believe God exists" and "not believe God doesn't exist" and be an atheist at the same time
yes
>which is a logical absurdity
nope
I thought we already agreed that not asserting P, does not mean asserting non-P. Why? Because it leaves room for the statement above. Namely that not asserting P does not prevent you from not asserting non-P. So there's two kinds of (not asserting P)-ists: the ones who don't assert P, nor non-P and the ones who assert non P. They are distinct, but their common denominator is the fact that neither assert P.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:23:26 2019 No.13280022 >>13280009 Atheism is the assertion of ~P, that's it's definition. It is the assertion of A Theos. Holy shit anon, this can't be more simple. Why do you think the term agnosticism exists? Why did we need the category?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:23:29 2019 No.13280023

>>13278868
>judeo-christian god
I reject any human god. African nature spirits are as ridiculous to me as the sophisticated holy trinity.
If you postulate a god, you'll have to define that god. If you can't be more concrete than god being the underlying metaphysical blahblah of the universe or god being the universe, nobody needs to spare your god a single thought. It's as irrelevant as its baseless.
You need to explain what god actually does. If you can't point out anything he actively does, your god doesn't exist.

Again, god is the only thing some people accept wild conjecture as evidence.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:23:41 2019 No.13280026

>>13280006
The dictionary and universal definition is a lack of belief in god. That is logically consistent with this >>13279927. Claiming that not believing in the existence of god=believing in the non-existence of god is a logical error, for the reason stated numerous times and any definition that does not take that into account is logically inconsistent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:23:43 2019 No.13280027 >>13280005 Yeah. It’s also wrong. And tautological for added comedic effect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:25:02 2019 No.13280030 >>13279980 How does he keep getting away with it?!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:26:02 2019 No.13280039 >>13280027 What's wrong about it? Did you read it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:26:08 2019 No.13280040 >>13280023 >heh, if you define God only in the way my feelings determine to be I will always be correct too bad that's not the way definitions work. read Spinoza, pleb

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:26:16 2019 No.13280042 >>13280022 >Atheism is the assertion of ~P, that's it's definition Nope, atheism is NOT ASSERTING P. Look it up in any dictionary. As you agreed here >>13279876 ( It means you don't believe in God). That opens up two possible belief claims.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:26:53 2019 No.13280045

>>13280026
Again, what you don't understand is that this:
>believing in the non-existence of god

is what is historically understood by the term atheism. the idea that absence of belief is also atheism is only a recent innovation and hardly settled upon as definitive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:27:50 2019 No.13280050 >>13280026 >universal definition Are you drunk? Look anon, if you are not going to engage with theology past a googled dictionary definition, you are not worth arguing with. Try engaging with the literature, it's actually very worthwhile.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:29:01 2019 No.13280056 >>13280039 It’s loaded with presuppositions and wishful thinking. It’s not stupid per se. It could even be right. But it makes no verifiable claims and offers no proof. Circular reasoning isn’t enough, despite it being elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:30:14 2019 No.13280063 >>13280045 Please drop the strawman sideline arguments. This isn’t an etymology board.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:31:13 2019 No.13280069

>>13280042
Yes, and saying "I don't believe in God" is shorthand for "I don't believe God exists", because atheism is a position on the existence of God, and existence is binary. This is why there is 4 positions in the tetralemma. I think we've gone around this circle at least 3 times anon. You aren't getting it. Read a book on the topic then get back to me (and not Dawkins or Harris)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:31:26 2019 No.13280070 >>13280063 You are making logic claims about a term whose definition you are obviously confused about. This renders are your logic claims irrelevant.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:32:47 2019 No.13280077
File: 111 KB, 693x717, Chris Langan's answer to Why do people assume that the CTMU contains assumptions when, in fact, it do[...].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13280056
So all you can manage against it is a few buzzwords, just like anyone else.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:33:23 2019 No.13280082

>>13280056
>But it makes no verifiable claims and offers no proof

Just like current cutting-edge physics. When you understand why that is the case (and in fact always will be the case at the boundary of any scientific inquiry, a whole new horizon will open for you).

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:34:42 2019 No.13280095

>>13280045
Okay, my quarrel isn't with autists like you who can't let go of pet labels. By your definition I am not an atheist. Fine. Couldn't care less. I told you what I am. Someone who does not believe in the existence of god(s). My quarrel was with those that said not asserting P is the same as asserting non-P. And with those that claim that not asserting either P, or non P, isn't nested in asserting P and requires a completely distinct label. Absurd. Requires a qualifier, but it is consistent with not asserting P. I don;t care for your pet labels. If I ever talk to retarded autists like you, I am happy to go by whatever labels you like as long as they are logically consistent. My problem is with inconsistent definitions, not labels. Fucking mong.
>>13280050
Sure luv. Have a good one yeah

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:35:44 2019 No.13280102 >>13280069 >existence is binary yes BELIEF ISN'T THOUGH. THAT'S THE POINT YOU FUCKING AMOEBA.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:36:49 2019 No.13280107 >>13280077 Yawn. If it’s so great, why hasn’t it caught on? Is everyone too stupid? Or is it because it’s impossible to work with?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:37:09 2019 No.13280109 >>13280095 >And with those that claim that not asserting either P, or non P, isn't nested in asserting P isn't nested in not* asserting P

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:38:05 2019 No.13280114 >>13280077 Nice buzzwords, bro. Here’s one assumption: god exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:39:02 2019 No.13280117 >>13280095 If atheism is not asserting P, what is agnosticism?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:41:06 2019 No.13280129

>>13280102
So if you don't believe in unicorns, you can also believe in unicorns because belief isn't binary? No beliefs should even be expected to be logically consistent? You aren't just ruining theology, you are basically killing epistemology as a whole. Why don't you just curl up and die if nothing you believe matters or has any logical standard?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:41:33 2019 No.13280131 >>13280114 Where is that assumption made within the CTMU?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:43:28 2019 No.13280144 >>13280131 All over the place.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:43:32 2019 No.13280146

>>13280117
It's not asserting P because you don't know, or it can't be known whether P is true, or false. I view it as a knowledge qualifier. Some people here say it's not asserting either P, or non-P. Which is fine by me as long as you grant that it is a subset of "not asserting P".

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:44:54 2019 No.13280160

>>13280107
if it's true it would revolutionize and for a short time destroy academia. it would cause earthquakes in religion and politics. there is too much money involved for a theory like CTMU to be ever taken seriously. if this is reality, what will academics do from then onwards? what will politicians do? obviously we would need to completely re-formulate our understanding, this would likely cause the fall of some very rich and powerful people. there is simply no motivation to ever give CTMU a honest appraisal. and even if nobody can find a fault with it, why talk about it? there's simply no political, financial or academic interest in such a theory even if its correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:45:56 2019 No.13280170 >>13280144 point out one instance

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:46:13 2019 No.13280174 >>13280160 You’re such a romantic. Has anyone ever told you that?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:46:46 2019 No.13280182

>>13280129
>So if you don't believe in unicorns, you can also believe in unicorns because belief isn't binary?
No. If you don't believe in unicorns, you can either believe that they don't exist, or NOT BELIEVE that they either exist, or not exist. Not asserting P=/=asserting non P, because it does not NECESSARILY mean asserting non P since there is another logically consistent claim that can branch off it.

I won't be replying to you anymore. You're by far the dumbest out of the bunch. "So if you don't believe in unicorns, you can also believe in unicorns because belief isn't binary?" Fucking idiot.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:46:52 2019 No.13280183

>>13280146
So atheism is not asserting P for any reason, while agnosticism is not asserting P because of the lack of knowledge. What is the assertion of not P then? Since you beat atheism out of its working and useful definition, I guess you need a new term.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:47:54 2019 No.13280190 >>13280182 >JUST BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IN UNICORNS DOESN'T MEAN I CAN'T BELIEVE I UNICORNS You are literally retarded lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:50:48 2019 No.13280208 >>13280182 >If you don't believe in unicorns I don't believe in x only makes sense if some category is inherent in x. When that x is God or unicorns, we are obviously talking about x's existence.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:51:01 2019 No.13280209

>>13279091
The point I was attempting to make is that naive empiricism in and of itself is a preposterous hill to die on.

If you can make a RATIONAL argument against the existence of God, I am open to it, I've been having that discussion probably since before you were born. But the constant return to materialistic evidence-based proofs, the standard of evidence that is NEVER applied to anything else, leads me to believe that the opposition to the idea of God is not rational but ideological.

If we applied the same evidence, for example, for the existence of Jesus Christ to Julius Caesar, we would fail both. We do not have Caesar's body. Our accounts of Caesar are all on paper, nobody alive today saw him. He could be as fictional as Aeneas, or Ulysses. Similarly Jesus's life was chronicled by some random kike a hundred years after he died, excluding his apostles. Josephus, was HE telling the truth? Well, maybe or maybe not, but then, was Tacitus telling the truth?

Do we actually know? No! We don't, but the burden of proof seems to change depending on what Jews and Leftists decide should be fictional from day to day. The people who actually built our civilization, and who had centuries to think about it, were satisfied by existing accounts. I'm not saying that you should accept everything at face value, but if you're going to demand unreasonable levels of proof for one thing, demand it for another.

And do not give me that fucking nonsense about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," because that is fucking bullshit. It's literal nonsense. A rhetorical trick to allow anyone who feels like it to ignore any claim they disapprove of by arbitrarily raising the burden of proof to absurd levels.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:51:13 2019 No.13280210 >>13280170 Telic agents, sensor controllers

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:53:03 2019 No.13280221

>>13280183
>So atheism is not asserting P for any reason
Yes
>while agnosticism is not asserting P because of the lack of knowledge
yes. The way I see it, but I'm open to other terms as I'm aware gnosticism isn't a confusing term for non-agnosticism
>What is the assertion of not P then?
Also atheism. Because it is logically consistent with not asserting P. As is not asserting either P, or non P.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:54:22 2019 No.13280225 >>13280190 The one thing you can't do if you don't believe in unicorns is believe in unicorns. Study up on this >>13280182. You'll feel a warm rush of well-being once you get it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:57:05 2019 No.13280240

>>13280221
Oh okay, well why don't we clear that up by using the agreed upon definitions then? Agnosticism is not asserting P (and not asserting not P, obviously); atheism is asserting not P. They already cleared this up anon, no point in muddying the water by expanding atheism's definition, we already have a much more straightforward definition of that form of "atheism".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:57:08 2019 No.13280242 >>13280182 >NOT BELIEVE that they either exist, or not exist. The term you're looking for is "NOT KNOW". One doesn't apply belief to binary categories in the way you are using it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:57:35 2019 No.13280246

>>13280209
>f you can make a RATIONAL argument against the existence of God
I am not the one making the positive claim. If I had made the claim that I believed god didn't exist, then yes. The burden of proof would have been with me.

You still fail to grasp my quibble with logically inconsistent definitions. THis is not a debate about the existence of god, or beliefs around it. It's a debate about logically consistent definitions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 17:59:11 2019 No.13280257 >>13280246 Who needs logical consistency when you can have sex? Also my god exists, she told me so. I'm an atheist by the way.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:07:52 2019 No.13280300

>>13280246
you can't have a belief about a binary position of existence/non-existence without taking a stance. if you are in a state of absence of belief about existence then you are not "not-believing" but are not in the necessary logical relation to express any proposition attached to belief including the lack of it. absence of belief is not "not-believing", not-believing is only a possibilty when one has taken an active position (in this case negative) relative to the category the position applies to.

what you are doing is merely a gross rape of language to conjure up a logical system that relies on faulty initial conditions and definitions. nobody is buying it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:08:26 2019 No.13280303

>>13280240
> Agnosticism is not asserting P (and not asserting not P, obviously)
As long as you erase the brackets and make it an "and" statement. They both have to be true at the same time, otherwise we're back at my quibble with how not asserting P contain both asserting non P and not asserting either.

Like I said, not married to labels as long as the new ones have logically consistent definitions. So sure, I can agree to your terms, but then you'd need knowledge qualifiers in place of my former a/gnosticism for those beliefs. So how knowledge claims modulate belief, or lack of belief (what I would have previously called a/gnostic atheists, or a/gnostic theists). Just so you know anon. Most atheists I know go by my definitions. And most theists, including clergy, I've talked to accepted that atheism is not asserting P. But regardless. I'm fine with your labels on these terms.

Why wouldn't you like a term for negating belief though? So one for "not asserting P" that contains your "agnosticism"? Is it a tactical choice? The only reason I mention it is because I find the logical negation of "asserting P" (theism) "not asserting P"....

>>13280242
So fucking dumb. Literally braindead.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:12:31 2019 No.13280323

>>13280300
>binary position of existence/non-existenc
nope. wrong. 3 possible positions there. believing existence, believing non-existence and believing neither existence, nor non-existence; the last two being summed up as/nested in "not believing existence", but this would require further clarifying.

You're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:14:26 2019 No.13280335 >>13280208 Stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:20:02 2019 No.13280362 >>13280257 >Also my god exists, she told me so. >she told me so >my god >she Your goddess is a fucking liar.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:22:24 2019 No.13280379

Always irks me when somebody thinks that non-belief in something is distinct from a belief in said something's non-existence.

Put strictly, there is no such a thing as a "non-belief". Put loosely, they are the same. Belief is a psychological act. Non-believing is, in fact, believing [...in the non-existence of something].

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:22:35 2019 No.13280380

>>13280323
>believing neither existence, nor non-existence

I just explained why this is wrong but you keep repeating it.

One cannot make belief-claims about a binary category of existence/non-existence without taking a stance for one of those positions. That's not how language works. If you believe neither existence nor not-existence, then you have an absence of belief-claims about existence. We can't speak about belief in a logical relation where (non)beliefs are not present. The sentence "believing neither existence nor non-existence" is incoherent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:23:24 2019 No.13280386 >>13280242 One can believe, or not believe because, or despite knowing, or not knowing. How dumb are you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:25:19 2019 No.13280393 File: 65 KB, 640x420, 7LIEjds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13280030 it must be his high IQ, lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:25:21 2019 No.13280394 >>13280386 Again, you don't understand how language works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:25:59 2019 No.13280397 >>13280386 wat

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:34:45 2019 No.13280439

>>13280380
>One cannot make belief-claims about a binary category of existence/non-existence without taking a stance for one of those positions. That's not how language works.
I don't believe god exists. That is to say I don't believe either existence, or non-existence. There. I did it.
> If you believe neither existence nor not-existence, then you have an absence of belief-claims about existence.
Well done
>We can't speak about belief in a logical relation where (non)beliefs are not present.
That's cute. Any arguments?
>The sentence "believing neither existence nor non-existence" is incoherent.
Hmm. You're being slightly redundant sweaty. Rephrasing the same premise ad-nauseam doesn't make for proof.

Here's one. Do I believe there's a stray cat in the vicinity of my building? No. Do I believe there isn't one? No. Why? Not that it's of any relevance, or any of your business, but maybe one of the infinite possible reasons might put this into perspective for you. I've seen cats in the neighbourhood before fairly regularly, but not with enough consistency to know whether there'd be one nearby at a given time; nor have I observed time periods in which they'd be more likely to be out, so I cannot mount what I consider to be sufficient evidence for a positive belief claim with regards to the cat's presence or absence in my vicinity. And I'm relaxed about this. I can actually live with this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:36:03 2019 No.13280444 >>13280394 >>13280397 Lel. One can believe/not believe because of knowing, or despite not knowing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:37:57 2019 No.13280455 >>13280380 >>13280439 >> If you believe neither existence nor not-existence, then you have an absence of belief-claims about existence. An absence of positive belief claims* The claim is that I don't believe. Or that I believe neither.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:39:57 2019 No.13280467 >>13274528 err, so his conclusion is that atheism is wrong because it's blasphemy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:41:39 2019 No.13280473 >>13280467 It’s wrong because he said so, yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:44:51 2019 No.13280484 >>13280467 >>13280473 produces strawman and demolishes it DAMN..... how can Langan compete?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:46:10 2019 No.13280493 >>13280484 He close to god, by his own admission. He will get over it.

>>	Motoko Tue Jun 11 18:57:54 2019 No.13280530 This is what philosophers of language were afraid of. Scary indeed...........

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 18:59:27 2019 No.13280538 >>13280530 books for that fear

>>	Motoko Tue Jun 11 19:01:33 2019 No.13280547 >>13280538 Philosophische Untersuchungen of course!

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:04:55 2019 No.13280558

>>13280439
Since we are talking about a binary category of existence/non-existence. A belief must relate to one of these two statements inside the binary model. It cannot apply to both since they are mutually exclusive. For example if we believe that something exists, we can't believe that it also doesn't exist. If we don't believe that something exists, we also can't believe that it doesn't not-exist. Since believing that something doesn't not-exist, merely means that we believe it exists due to the fact that existence is binary. When we are expressing beliefs about existence there are no other options between 1 and 0 (as far as I know, you can't partially exist). Thus belief in something doesn't not-exist, necessarily implies belief of it's existence. Where the case is that we "believe neither existence nor non-existence" (an obvious logical impossibility in a binary model, but let us roll with it for now), then we are really talking about no belief-claims ie there is no belief claim about existence nor non-existence. If there is no belief claim made in the relation to the model, then it is incoherent to talk about us having a belief of no beliefs relative to the model. Instead what we have to state is simply that we do not have beliefs relative to the model. We are not in the logical relation to express beliefs between us and the model. Anything else is an obvious manipulation and equally obviously premised on faulty logic.

>Do I believe there's a stray cat in the vicinity of my building? No. Do I believe there isn't one? No.

Again this is a poor usage of the term "belief". If you don't believe that there is a stray cat there but also that it isn't, you do not have a belief-relation towards the cat's location and should not talk about having a belief in your statements because it is a deeply flawed usage of the term.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:05:34 2019 No.13280564 >>13280547 Sure. Anything else? Necessarily analytic and as current as possible?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:06:49 2019 No.13280569 >>13280558 Not reading that, I'm done with you sweaty. Boring and I'm already convinced there's absolutely nothing to gain on either side.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:07:23 2019 No.13280572 >>13280335 There were hundreds of years of philosophical speculation to come to that conclusion anon, do you have a better argument against the western tradition of logic than "stupid"?

Motoko Tue Jun 11 19:10:12 2019 No.13280586

>>13280564
I don't know much about anything current that dwells much on how philosophy can sabotage itself by not getting a clear picture of its own language, but for this purpose I'd generally recommend Ernst Tugendhats Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie. I don't know if there's an English translation.

Alternatively you could take a look into Stanford's entries on Ordinary Language Philosophy or Logical Atomism/Logical Positivism. I don't find Logical Positivism to be of any value but Russel's King of France example might give you an introductionary sense of what philosophers of language find appealing about their project.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:12:07 2019 No.13280598 >>13280572 You've said nothing. Haven't even addressed my unicorn belief claims and decided to go off on a tangent that doesn't contradict anything and I;m not in disagreement with. You said nothing is all, but used words. Like stupid people do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:13:02 2019 No.13280603 >>13280558 >Thus belief in something that

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:13:13 2019 No.13280604 >>13280586 Cheers

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:14:08 2019 No.13280607 >>13280569 I had a feeling the argument would stop here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:15:00 2019 No.13280611 >>13280607 Oof. Here we go. I'll read it then. Just cause you're that delusional.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:15:03 2019 No.13280613 >>13280598 I don't think you are replying to who you think you are replying

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:18:16 2019 No.13280631 >>13280558 I should also add that we are talking about the fundamental property of existing in God or unicorns, not cat's contingent location.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:39:54 2019 No.13280744

>>13280607
>>13280611
>It cannot apply to both since they are mutually exclusive
Not positive belief statements. Negative ones can. Not believing existence and not believing non-existence at the same time.
> For example if we believe that something exists, we can't believe that it also doesn't exist.
Bravo
>If we don't believe that something exists, we also can't believe that it doesn't not-exist.
I mean that's a cretinous way of putting it, but yeah. It's like saying If we don't believe that something exists, we can't believe that it also exists.
>Since believing that something doesn't not-exist, merely means that we believe it exists due to the fact that existence is binary.
Well done. I already acknowledged above.
>When we are expressing beliefs about existence there are no other options between 1 and 0 (as far as I know, you can't partially exist).
Looking forward to the demonstration. So far you're conflating belief claims with existence claims but maybe you'll prove this by the end
> Thus belief in something doesn't not-exist, necessarily implies belief of it's existence.
Sure. Not believing in the non-existence of something, doesn't require believing in its existence though.
>Where the case is that we "believe neither existence nor non-existence" (an obvious logical impossibility in a binary model, but let us roll with it for now), then we are really talking about no belief-claims ie there is no belief claim about existence nor non-existence.
Yup, that's the claim
> If there is no belief claim made in the relation to the model, then it is incoherent to talk about us having a belief of no beliefs relative to the model.
It is modelled precisely on the possible truth values of existence. The reason you're confused is because once again you're conflating belief with existence, but failing to prove the equivalence.
>Since believing that something doesn't not-exist, merely means that we believe it exists due to the fact that existence is binary.
Sure. Wew. Wonder how this related to negative beliefs
>When we are expressing beliefs about existence there are no other options between 1 and 0 (as far as I know, you can't partially exist).
Sure
>Thus belief in something doesn't not-exist, necessarily implies belief of it's existence.
THus, lel.That's not how logic works. The only conclusion you can derive from that is that there are two possible truth values for existence. Belief is a psychological feature. You can believe in P(1). You can believe in non P(2). You can disbelieve in P, either by (2), or by not believing in either P, or non P(3). You're still equating them without any evidence.
>Where the case is that we"believe neither existence nor non-existence" (an obvious logical impossibility in a binary model, but let us roll with it for now), then we are really talking about no belief-claims ie there is no belief claim about existence nor non-existence.
There is a negative belief claim for both P and non P.There are no positive claims.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:47:46 2019 No.13280793

>>13280744
>If there is no belief claim made in the relation to the model, then it is incoherent to talk about us having a belief of no beliefs relative to the model.
But you literally posited two negative belief claims one greentext above Anyway, that's not how reductio ad absurdum works. The denial of your premise does not result in any logical contradiction.
>Instead what we have to state is simply that we do not have beliefs relative to the model.
Positive beliefs*
>We are not in the logical relation to express beliefs between us and the model. Anything else is an obvious manipulation and equally obviously premised on faulty logic.
I mean, this whole thing was a stew of circular reasoning and begging the question.

Will you allow me to both not believe that your grandmother is alive AND not believe that she is dead either please? Why is that logically inconsistent?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:48:41 2019 No.13280797 File: 59 KB, 587x423, adi-shankara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13272963 >does it first

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 19:49:20 2019 No.13280802 >>13280558 >>13280607 just answer the last grandma question here >>13280793 please.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:29:26 2019 No.13281016

>>13280744

>Not positive belief statements. Negative ones can. Not believing existence and not believing non-existence at the same time.
You repeat this all the time as if its a fact even though I've shown through the entire paragraph why it doesn't make sense when applying it to existence.

>Looking forward to the demonstration
A thing either exists or it does not. I think we can all agree that's what existence and non-existence refers to? It's tautological.

>So far you're conflating belief claims with existence claims but maybe you'll prove this by the end
I'm not conflating anything, it is necessary to define what we mean when we use the term existence in order to make claims about it.

>Not believing in the non-existence of something, doesn't require believing in its existence though.
If you believe that something doesn't not-exist, then you believe it exists precisely because existence is binary. Again I've developed this through the entire text and you offer no refutations of it. If x can only take values 1 (a thing exists) and 0 (a thing does not exist) and we agree on this (which we should assuming we agree on definition of existence) then your belief that it does not take 0 (belief that it does not not-exist) means you believe it takes 1, again provided we have agreed upon the definition of x. You can only escape this conclusion by "playing dumb", that is suspending judgement to the point that you do not know that the term existence refers to a thing existing or not existing. Of course there is the possbility that you are talking with someone who has schizophrenia or someone who does not interpret existence as a term that denotes a thing existing or not existing, but I'll let the readers decide how valid of an explanation that is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:31:09 2019 No.13281027 >>13281016 > then your belief that it does not take 0 (belief that it does not not-exist) means you believe it takes 1, no asnwer the grandma question you fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:32:24 2019 No.13281032 >>13281027 I take that back. I was in the mindset of a negative. Your lack of belief/ not believing it takes 0 does NOT mean it takes 1

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:33:57 2019 No.13281043

>>13280793
>Will you allow me to both not believe that your grandmother is alive AND not believe that she is dead either please? Why is that logically inconsistent?

You are raping the language, kidnapping and misusing the terms and then deriving logic from false starting conditions. I've already explained this to you in length, repeating it 3 more times won't help.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:35:18 2019 No.13281048

>>13281032
it does when we are talking about existence unless you are feigning ignorance about what existence means which in that case, why would you even talk about existence or how do you have a point of reference to talk about existence? you are right, this is becoming boring.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:38:45 2019 No.13281080

>>13281043
So you don't think it's possible to not believe that your grandmother is alive and not believe that she is dead either. You think I'm being disingenuous saying I believe neither about your grandma? Or that it's logically inconsistent? Okay. Not only do you not grant that as an option nested in atheism, but you also deny the possibility of "traditional" agnosticism, understood as a belief claim. Wew lad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:41:27 2019 No.13281089 >>13281048 grandmother. Why is it logically inconsistent?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:41:27 2019 No.13281090

>>13281027
Look I'll make it real simple for you. Do you define existence as a term that denotes whether a thing exists or does not exist. If you do, then I'm right about everything.

If you do not, I'm also right about everything. Because your only two ways out are whining about people with schizophrenia or mystical extrapolations about muh psychology and we can't understand anything bro nobody knows what is existence, we don't understand eachother woah. I'm not interested in that, but if someone else wants to purse that route, feel free to do so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:43:10 2019 No.13281101 >>13281089 there are multiple posts dealing with it. read them again. maybe you'll get it the next time. i already answered your stupid cat example displaying the logic behind my argument. you offered no real refutations to any of the posts.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:48:55 2019 No.13281127

>>13281090
>Do you define existence as a term that denotes whether a thing exists or does not exist.
Yes
> If you do, then I'm right about everything.
Nope. Just because we agree existence is binary, doesn't mean belief is as well. I've already provided 3 possible claims in relation to it and you've yet to produce any arguments against them, other than it doesn't map onto the binary, which is akin to saying it "doesn;t prove my hypothesis".

>>13281101
>If you don't believe that there is a stray cat there but also that it isn't, you do not have a belief-relation towards the cat's location and should not talk about having a belief in your statements because it is a deeply flawed usage of the term.
Nope. You're the one redefining words. Absence of belief is not belief of absence. You mong. It's the psychological state of acceptance.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:56:46 2019 No.13281168

>>13281016
I'll let you know that there is NO way out of this argument that would pass any real judgement test.

The possible ways out, both of which are ridiculous, are the following:

- either the person making belief claims about existence is completely mistaken or unaware of what existence is conceptually (a thing existing or not existing).

- assuming a person actually does think of existence in terms of a thing existing or not existing, he, after expressing one belief (for example believing that a thing does not not-exist) suddenly FORGETS or suffers a mental breakdown that makes him forget what the term "existence" denotes immediately after his selection and can thus also claim belief that he doesn't believe it exists either

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:58:54 2019 No.13281177
File: 1.99 MB, 340x340, 1534546762722.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13279043
You've never seen a tiger? Ok, I mean possible, but you need to get out more. But you've never seen a dinosaur? Impossible, are you blind?! I guarantee there is a dinosaur within a hundred meters of you right now. Go look at it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 20:59:28 2019 No.13281180

>>13281127
We have two different lines of thought here. One repeats definitions and conceptions which I have shown to be faulty.

The other developed logic step-by-step behind its argumentation and has yet to be proven false.

Because I am nice, I even pointed out the only possible objections to my own argument (although, unfortunately or fortunately, they are not very convincing).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:05:39 2019 No.13281205 File: 220 KB, 500x374, uv86pdovnec11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13281180 I saw this thread yesterday I think, 200 posts ago, and this argument is still going on?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:06:52 2019 No.13281208

>>13281180
We have two different lines of thought here. One keeps conflating the binary expression of truth values with possible belief claims and uses circular reasoning to prove it.

The other presents the actual belief claims and is yet to be presented with evidence for logical inconsistency.

Mate, you're the one telling me that it is logically inconsistent to not believe your grandmother is alive, nor that she is dead. You are out of your mind.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:12:52 2019 No.13281231

>>13281208
>Mate, you're the one telling me that it is logically inconsistent to not believe your grandmother is alive, nor that she is dead.

Again, I've gone to great lengths to explain to you why you can't make double negative belief claims about existence (assuming we denote existence as a thing existing or not existing), but you choose to ignore it. I can't really help you beyond that. Where you're trying to shoehorn belief in the grandma example, you can only talk about (lack of) knowledge claims. If you don't see that after everything I wrote, I'm not really sure we'll ever see eye to eye.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:17:43 2019 No.13281255

>>13280069
The theist believes IN god, the atheists believes THAT god does not exists.
Two kinds of beliefs, Anon. The atheists belief is the same belief somebody has who is sure it's raining.

To claim atheism, the rejection of a religious position equals religious faith, is disingenious. It's only made by religious people that can not conceive of somebody who truly has no god. It's an inability to understand that not having faith is not a detriment to these atheist people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:27:14 2019 No.13281312 How is called someone who KNOWS there's no god?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:28:21 2019 No.13281314 >>13281312 deluded

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:28:40 2019 No.13281316 >>13281312 a brainlet

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:29:29 2019 No.13281321 >>13281314 >>13281316 How it is called someone who KNOWS there's is a god?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:30:24 2019 No.13281327 >>13281208 To allow for all the belief claims you want to include in relation to existence, one needs to feign ignorance about what existence denotes. Do you think that has not been proven?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:30:25 2019 No.13281328 >>13281321 Correct

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:30:54 2019 No.13281335 >>13281321 Wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:31:26 2019 No.13281339 >>13281321 Enlightened

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:31:26 2019 No.13281340 >>13281335 cringe

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:32:15 2019 No.13281344 >>13281340 I was joking. Everybody knows Zeus is real.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:32:31 2019 No.13281346

>>13281231
The gap between the estimation of yourself and your utterances is mind boggling. You keep going on about the truth value of existence. Belief does not map onto it like that. I've already listed possible belief claims.

Knowledge claims have nothing to do with it. Beliefd, or their absence are modulated by knowledge claims in different ways.And you make the same mistake when it comes to knowledge. You (rightfully) assume that the reason I do not believe your grandma is neither dead, nor alive is because of knowledge. In this case I don't have any at all (not that this is the only case in which I'd hold this belief). But to say I don't know IS a knowledge related claim, not the absence of one like you claim. So is to say that it is/isn't possible to know.

Not believing your grandmother is dead, nor that she is alive is a valid belief claim. The fact that your grandma can either be alive, or dead does nothing to contradict the psychological state of not accepting either state. What you're saying if I understand correctly is that if I make a claim about my absence of belief, I'm not making a belief claim. Maybe that's what your little brain can't grasp. Not believing being a belief claim. Think about it as a belief related claim, maybe that'll help.

>>13281255
What? You're even dumber than the retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:36:04 2019 No.13281362 >>13281328 >>13281335 >>13281339 Soo who's a better christian? The who knows or someone who believes Wheres "faith" here?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:39:17 2019 No.13281379

>>13281346
>I believe in god
>I believe it's raining outside
Those are two different concepts of belief. An atheist believes in the non-existence of god the same way he would believe that it's raining outside.

Just use "think" instead of "belief" whenever somebody claims atheists have the belief that god does not exist.

That clears up the whole argument, but means christains can't strawman atheists into believers anymore to get rid of that pesky burden of proof.

Not a difficult concept, honestly. If you have trouble understanding, then your brain is rotten.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:42:11 2019 No.13281397

>>13281362
The one who knows is a retard. The one who thinks the evidence is sufficient and bases his belief on that is slightly less of a retard, or in cope mode and dishonest in his belief. The one Who doesn't think the evidence meets his standard of sufficiency, yet still believes... Things get interesting there. It can be the stuff of retards as well, but also saints and people who have religious temperament in such a way that believing becomes a heuristic for living well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:42:27 2019 No.13281401 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw just watched this for the first time, never heard of this guy before. What a fucking pseud lmfao

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:44:06 2019 No.13281408 >>13281401 yeah? how so, liberal?

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:49:41 2019 No.13281425

>>13281379
>I believe in god
>I believe it's raining outside
>Those are two different concepts of belief. An atheist believes in the non-existence of god the same way he would believe that it's raining outside.
You mean NOT raining you leaking brainclot. Also, depends on the arainist. All arainists do is NOT believe that it's raining outside. Some of these believe that it ISN'T raining outside. Some don't believe that is is raining, nor that it isn't raining (which is what many would call agnosticism, but it is still logically consistent with NOT believing it is raining, so as long as you define atheism as that, this position is part of it). But all DON'T believe that it's raining.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 21:55:48 2019 No.13281454

>>13281425
No, I mean belief that it is raining outside.

Theist: I believe god exists. -> I do not believe that god does not exist.
Atheist: I do not believe that god exists. -> I don't think that god exists.

The atheist lacks the religious type of belief in his position.

>rest of your wordsalat
I agree with you, which is why I'm telling you all that there is more than one type of belief. Just one of many situations where language got messy and muddled.

Anonymous Tue Jun 11 22:17:35 2019 No.13281527

>>13281454
>Theist: I believe god exists. -> I do not believe that god does not exist.
These are not equivalent. Because the latter is not sufficient as it doesn't rule out not believing god exists.
>Atheist: I do not believe that god exists. -> I don't think that god exists.
Depends on what you mean by thinking? Is it whatever the result of you employing reasoning? Then no because you can base your belief, or lack of on things other than thinking in that sense. Authority for instance. This is knit-picking, but what I'm getting at is it doesn't help. But I get what you mean. A LACK of belief ALONE never requires faith unless it manifests itself as a belief of a lack.

So. Labels aside. There are following possible belief claims:

(1)Believing god exists
(2)Not believing god exists - (2a)Not believing god exists, nor that he doesn't exist
(2b)Believing god doesn't exist

While distinct, 2a and 2b are subcategories with 2 as they are logically consistent with it. 2a, whatever people want to call it, never requires faith, which is why you mentioned it 'lacking the religious faith type of belief'.

And then there are knowledge claims about the existence, or non-existence of god that modulate each of these belief claims.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 22:26:52 2019 No.13281579 >>13278991 That is literally what he is famous for.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 22:37:32 2019 No.13281621 >human intelligence exists therfore the universe was cater made so human intelligence could exist nah

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 22:46:25 2019 No.13281665 >nobody in the thread has refuted CTMU oh NONONONO atheists

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 22:49:30 2019 No.13281678 File: 36 KB, 702x360, Doesn’t it go against rational ethics to unequivocally presume that anything is indisputably a fact —[...].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13281665 It is literally impossible to refute

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 11 23:25:01 2019 No.13281839 File: 28 KB, 648x432, 1sjl6y8i5u521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13281678 langan is so dumb the extent of his math is x = x, and x is what he wants it to be

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 01:11:22 2019 No.13282307 Ever wondered why no one of scientific or philosophical importance cares about Lagan? cringe me up scotty (yikes'd)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 01:32:52 2019 No.13282383 just use parentheses you fucking faggots

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 01:45:35 2019 No.13282428 >>13281327 Wow no answer and you repeated once more how youre really making belief claims. Surprising.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 03:18:30 2019 No.13282731

>>13281678
Either I'm a complete brainlet or there is nothing in it to make sense of. The question he poses has been made up by himself to give an answer tailored to the question. It's got a nice philosophical pedigree that goes all the way back to Plato, but if you're trying to be scientific (and I have no doubt that he's making an honest attempt), you gotta work a little more rigurously and not like Plato.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 03:31:09 2019 No.13282778 >>13281327 No

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 03:41:31 2019 No.13282806 I don't care about what Langan thinks because he's illiterate.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 05:56:42 2019 No.13283104

>>13281527
> it doesn't rule out not believing god exists.
In what world does "I don't believe..." not rule that out?

>2a
Is an answer functionally identical to 2 and therefore wholly irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether one believes in god or not. Because as soon as part 1 is true, the question is answered, unless part 2 means part 1 is untrue.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 07:19:48 2019 No.13283315 >>13273059 Yet you will act as if you believed in something, even if what you act towards might shift, in each choice you turn your inner gaze to some transcendent principle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 07:34:51 2019 No.13283355 >>13283104 Correction: I get what you mean now. You are right that the sentence itself does not negate that, but it's meant to be a continuation of the theist position, which does clear up that point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 07:44:10 2019 No.13283372 >>13272963 Is he gonna give me the ol tappa tappa of cayenne?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 08:24:48 2019 No.13283513 >>13273049 this is also true of ayn rand

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 09:38:10 2019 No.13283751

>>13283355
>You are right that the sentence itself does not negate that
>the sentence itself
>itself
I like how even after conceding, there's still a tiny bit of resistance manifested in positing that there is something much greater, outside the statement that constitutes its meaning. Wew. No.
>but it's meant to be a continuation of the theist position
No, it is an incorrect rephrasing of the theist position as it isn't congruent with "believing god exists". You could call it an implication of the theist position at best. But if you want to deduce the actual position from its implications you should state them all. In that you should say that 'believing in god'->'not believing god doesn't exist' AND 'not believing god doesn't exist'. It's as simple as I'm afraid.

Much like position 2 in my post(atheism), where 2a and 2b are valid, but distinct implications. However, unlike your example, the singular assertion of either 2a, or 2b does not leave room for a position that would contradict 2.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 10:38:13 2019 No.13283964

>>13283751
You're a smart idiot. It's an if then statement. As in, if that is true, then this is also true.
Somebody who believes in god also does not believe god does not exist. That means the sentence: "I do not believe that god does not exist." also includes the refutation of whatever it is that you think is so hugely important, because it's coming from a theist.

>I like how even after conceding, there's still a tiny bit of resistance manifested in positing that there is something much greater, outside the statement that constitutes its meaning. Wew. No.
This is just you pseuding it up. Stop confusing the discussion with irrelevancies. If I ask you if you want a kick in the nuts and you say no, nobody seriously believes that you also do not want no kick in the nuts. Leave your world of forms. Once you apply your pedantry to any other question but gods existence, you sound like an idiot.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 10:50:43 2019 No.13284024

>>13283964
Sure, it's an implication, like I already stated. I thought you were suggesting equivalence, didn;t realise you used the symbol for what it is.
>That means the sentence: "I do not believe that god does not exist." also includes the refutation of whatever it is that you think is so hugely important, because it's coming from a theist.
Sure, as long as it's coming from a theist. My point was that it's not sufficient on its own.
>If I ask you if you want a kick in the nuts and you say no, nobody seriously believes that you also do not want no kick in the nuts.
False equivalence. Belief does not map out like that.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 10:54:28 2019 No.13284047

>>13284024
>My point was that it's not sufficient on its own.
You mean the "Theist:" wasn't enough to make that clear?

>False equivalence. Belief does not map out like that.
Once you apply your pedantry to any other question but gods existence, you sound like an idiot. I mean, at least you agree with me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 11:03:28 2019 No.13284095 >>13282806 This. CTMU is gibberish. With some monads sprinkled on top called telic agents.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 11:07:55 2019 No.13284116 File: 88 KB, 750x478, pWd5Dcy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] day 3 of trying to define atheism

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 11:09:14 2019 No.13284123

>>13284047
>You mean the "Theist:" wasn't enough to make that clear?
I already said I took it as equivalence rather than implication.
>pedantry
It's logic. Not believing x, doesn't necessarily mean not believing non x as it could mean believing non x. In your example, not wanting x (where x is defined as 'a kick'), non x gets fuzzy. But yes. It doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want 'not a kick' either, whatever the fuck that means. Discussing kicks however, doesn't require the same surgical precision of articulation as discussing philosophy. Colloquial use isn't an argument for what is true though. But yeah. Atheists of the "I don't believe in the existence god" position should be asked to clarify it by saying whether they subscribe to believing non x, or not believing either x, or non x.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 11:21:59 2019 No.13284173

>>13284123
>Atheists of the "I don't believe in the existence god" position should be asked to clarify it by saying whether they subscribe to believing non x, or not believing either x, or non x.
wouldn't it be easier to just call those who don't believe in x non-theists, and those who believe in non-x atheists?

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 11:28:16 2019 No.13284201

>>13284173
You can call them whatever you like, I really really don't care. The reason atheism seems like a reasonable label for the 'not believing x' (which includes 2 positions: believing non-x and not believing either x, or non-x) is because it is a direct negation of theism which is 'believing in x' and one variant of its etymology (a+theism) is consistent with the negation of that belief. But you can call them whatever you like as long as you don't insist that people who tell you 'I don't believe in the existence of god' that they necessarily 'believe in the non-existence of god'.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature