quisquose Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 nope! Its as stupid as saying "catholics lack belief in the flying spaghetti monster!" Its a ridiculous definition. So Catholics believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Weird, I never knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 So Catholics believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Weird, I never knew. is that how you define a catholic then? "lacks belief in FSM". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 atheism is not a "a lack in the belief of god". A "lack" suggests something is missing. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. They don't "lack" belief or "believe" there is no god. The "lack" of belief definition is used by religious people to belittle atheists by suggesting they are wrong. Or, an 'absence of'. 'lack' doesn't imply that you're missing out on something- in the context of atheists lacking a belief in God, it doesn't imply that they are somehow missing out. I've never encountered a religious person attempting to 'belittle' atheists by using the term 'lack of belief'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 atheism is not a "a lack in the belief of god". A "lack" suggests something is missing. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. They don't "lack" belief or "believe" there is no god. Surely if you don't believe in a god then you don't have a belief in god? Lack means don't have, doesn't it? I, for instance, don't believe that teeth dissolve in acid. I, therefore, lack that belief. Is this not so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 In a debate like this where the position itself is being discussed agreeing to disagree would have no benefit whatsoever! Very true but the fact that there is dictionary evidence to back up both points of view renders the debate pointless with regard to either house convincing the other that their position is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 That was my point. I don't "lack belief in a god" any more than I "lack belief that pigs fly". You're avoiding my point. You said the lack of belief angle was adopted by the religious (I presume by the context you specifically meant Theists) Out of all the people arguing the point not one is a Theist, don't change the game because you can't accept the wrong, merely say - ok, in that instance I accept I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 lack; something missing or needed A particular deficiency or absence it implies something missing, which is why the word is used by theists. An absence of belief in a god is fine but a lack is not. I have no lack of belief in a god. I do have an absence of belief in a god. In a definition the wording is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 How could anyone prove the Earth was round? How could anyone ever prove the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe? I have no idea, like those in tha past had no idea, but that doesn't mean it wont happen just because I can'r conceive it. There are actual methods that can establish the roundness (or otherwise) of the Earth. For example, a snapshot from a satelite. Prior to the invention of satalites, that couldn't be done of course, but even then, it was imaginable/conceivable that if an object could be put in orbit, it would be able to assess the shape of the Earth. What conceivable/imaginable experiment could ever prove that God exists to the standard that would satisfy scientists? IMO, there are none. If, for example, a ultra powerful being appeared who was able to perform 'miracles' like parting oceans, levitating, manifesting storms etc and claimed to be God: in that scenario it's equally possible that he/she would simply just be a very powerful being, or a technologicaly super-advanced alien entity. Can you think of a possible occurance, or experiment, that would establish beyond doubt that God exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Very true but the fact that there is dictionary evidence to back up both points of view renders the debate pointless with regard to either house convincing the other that their position is the correct one. Point taken. I do however feel that a philosophical debate to be had surround the meaning of the word, which is largely what's occurring. As it's created so much debate I would say the thread is actually quite a good question to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 You're avoiding my point. You said the lack of belief angle was adopted by the religious (I presume by the context you specifically meant Theists) Out of all the people arguing the point not one is a Theist, don't change the game because you can't accept the wrong, merely say - ok, in that instance I accept I was wrong. I completely disagree with your definition. I would say someone that does not know what they believe has a "lack of belief". Someone who definitely does not believe is not "lacking" belief they "do not believe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.