[SsEe]

(Original post by Facticity)
I don't want to sound rude here, because I am really not trying to be rude, however I am struggling to see what this has to do with the conversation
Why are we talking about for all X? And why is the inference Y being true? What do the two stand for?

You have actually reineforced my point. I was speaking simply in terms of thew logic and the relation between proposition and symbol, not to do with the semantics. "So sayign X is... and Y is .... therefore this does or does not work" is not my point, I was merely pointing out how the compound statement works. Which as you have shown, you can simply move the negation around and it will make the same thing. In logic saying " not X not, Y" is the same as " not not X, Y" which is what you illustrated above. That is all I was commenting on, the symbol relationship. Wherein the manipulation of the negation renders the statement degenerate (the same).

The reason I used the for all x, there exists y etc example is because I wanted to give a concrete example where moving not symbols around is not valid. I'm not reinforcing your point. I'm contradicting it.

When describing the prime number example, I'm putting it in the context of a particular model because that's what has to be done. I describe it in words because it's easier. A little more formally, I can take a first order language containing one unary predicate symbol P. Your claim is that the statement:

is universally valid. ie, true in all models. But I can give a model where it isn't true. Take the domain to be and let P be the "is prime" predicate. It's plain as day that the above statement fails. This doesn't require discussion! There do exist primes, but not every natural number is prime. This isn't down to oddities with the english language. This is just maths.

You can't move not symbols around as you please! If you could then the above statement would be universally valid. But it's not.

Even if we only stick to propositional calculus you can have something like
. If you can cancel that pair of not symbols then that thing must be equivalent to .
But set x to be true and y to be false. Then the first statement is "false implies true" which is true, but the second is "true implies false" which is false. So they're not equivalent. So once again, you can't move not symbols around like that.

I am quite aware of truth tables

I know you are. That's why I used them as a way of showing the equivalence of (X <-> Y) and (¬X <-> ¬Y)

Rather you should take X = I believe and Y = there is God. By saying "I don't believe there is no God" it comes as which inversly translates to "I believe there is a God".

This doesn't make any sense in logic. If x and y are sentences then can never be a sentence.

Also I have no qaulms about those two statements being distinct, so I am not sure why we are arguing.

I was sayign "I DON'T believe in NO God" is the same as "I BELIEVE in God". Not the two you present immediately above.

I know and fully accept that you have no qualms about these statements being distinct:
I believe there is no god.
I don't believe there is a god.

But this is where you get into a contradiction. If you think that the following:
I don't believe there is no god.
I believe there is a god.
are equivalent (this is what our argument is about) then you are forced to accept that their negations are equivalent (by what I did with the truth tables). So negate each one. Let's find out exactly which statements you are forced to accept as equivalent:

I believe there is no god.
I don't believe there is a god.

But these are exactly the statements you accept as being distinct. Contradiction! (I assume you've seen proof by contradiction so you understand the structure of my argument ).

[Facticity]

(Original post by SsEe)
The reason I used the for all x, there exists y etc example is because I wanted to give a concrete example where moving not symbols around is not valid. I'm not reinforcing your point. I'm contradicting it.

When describing the prime number example, I'm putting it in the context of a particular model because that's what has to be done. I describe it in words because it's easier. A little more formally, I can take a first order language containing one unary predicate symbol P. Your claim is that the statement:

is universally valid. ie, true in all models. But I can give a model where it isn't true. Take the domain to be and let P be the "is prime" predicate. It's plain as day that the above statement fails. This doesn't require discussion! There do exist primes, but not every natural number is prime. This isn't down to oddities with the english language. This is just maths.

You can't move not symbols around as you please! If you could then the above statement would be universally valid. But it's not.

I have no disagreements so far, I think this is perhaps a case of misunderstanding each other.

Even if we only stick to propositional calculus you can have something like
. If you can cancel that pair of not symbols then that thing must be equivalent to .
But set x to be true and y to be false. Then the first statement is "false implies true" which is true, but the second is "true implies false" which is false. So they're not equivalent. So once again, you can't move not symbols around like that.

I was not thinking of symbol manipulation in that sense, merely in the sense of manipulation of negation in a simple structure. If you introduce "then" or conjunctions/disjunctions, then no you canot simply move symbols around, they are much more complex. So I agree with you here.

This doesn't make any sense in logic. If x and y are sentences then can never be a sentence.

Sorry, fatigue is getting the better of me. I meant the inversion of
gives us

I know and fully accept that you have no qualms about these statements being distinct:
I believe there is no god.
I don't believe there is a god.

But this is where you get into a contradiction. If you think that the following:
I don't believe there is no god.
I believe there is a god.
are equivalent (this is what our argument is about) then you are forced to accept that their negations are equivalent (by what I did with the truth tables). So negate each one. Let's find out exactly which statements you are forced to accept as equivalent:

I believe there is no god.
I don't believe there is a god.

But these are exactly the statements you accept as being distinct. Contradiction! (I assume you've seen proof by contradiction so you understand the structure of my argument ).

I think this is the centre of our debate then seeing as we agree on most fronts. I think I see what you mean now, and as you said the proof by contradiction would have to lead me to admit being wrong here. They are definitely similar however there is a subtle difference. I have to concede to you then on this one.

[Ben Singleton]

(Original post by slawaccess23)
Eh, yes they do.

atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity. If anyone says "there is no god" thats fallicious as it would imply they know everything.

[Core]

A religion: Is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

I have spoken with christian atheists, and i know of many atheistic religions that include the worshiping of their ancestors, make no mistake atheism and science are not entwined, just as with theism.

a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"
A monotheist who says his or her conviction in the existence of God is based on faith can come into the category of agnostic, until a person admits that no proof can be ubtained or should be asked for they fall out of the category of agnostic.

Agnostic atheist or Agnostice theist, are th correct terms, you can not have absolute knowledge of God. If you claim there is a difference between agnostice atheist and atheist it implies that these atheists have abolute knowledge on this matter, which is incorrect, though i think this definition was coined by atheist to increase their global population which is currently around 3-5%, in some counts however where agnostic and non religious people are included it regardless of their stance on atheism and theism, the number goes up to 15% which i think is the count alot of atheists tend to use. Another thing i want to mention is the fact that even the Pope himself send on his visit to England that you dont need to be a monotheist to follow the word of catholicism, i already knew religion was a scam in itself but i wanted to share this with you on TSR. I am a monotheist but i am also secular, there are parts from some religions that i do practice mainly what food is clean or unclean, but these are from the four different main religions not one in paticular.

So religion isnt tied to theism nor is theism tied to religion. all people using this as a means of invalidating theism have got the wrong idea.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Core)
...

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

...

Wrong.

Firstly, atheism does not have a "doctrine". Even Deists do not have a doctrine, they are a strictly Theist phenomenon.

Atheism is the refutation of all theistic religions. No man/woman could dare know that no God exists, any that do claim this certain knowledge should be avoided just as much as anyone who claims the exact opposite.

[Core]

You dont just say wrong I will provide my source and you provide yours. There are atheistic religions ones that explicitly reject the belief in any Deity. Atheist still may believe in supenatural beings such as spirits and ghosts. Even werewolfs im siply establishing that atheism is not exclusively linked with science. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...2&ved=0CBkQkAE

[Core]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Wrong.

Firstly, atheism does not have a "doctrine". Even Deists do not have a doctrine, they are a strictly Theist phenomenon.

Atheism is the refutation of all theistic religions. No man/woman could dare know that no God exists, any that do claim this certain knowledge should be avoided just as much as anyone who claims the exact opposite.

I could also argue this with you from the point of my earlier post but i think we have gone off topic. I was only stating that the term agnostic atheist is only necessary if an atheist is someone who thinks they 100% correct in there disbeleif, so either the definition of atheist be changed, or this agnostic atheist term be abandoned you are either an atheist or you aren't. At any rate lets move on.

[Saichu]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Firstly, atheism does not have a "doctrine". Even Deists do not have a doctrine, they are a strictly Theist phenomenon.

Deism does actually have a very specific doctrine: the doctrine that there is a deity and the doctrine that the deity does not interfere. Depending on the type of deism, you may even get other doctrines such as omnipotence, etc.

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Nah, most atheist tend to lack belief in God.

I would disagree with this.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I would disagree with this.

Why?

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Why?

I think it's very unlikely for people who consider, or debate, the existence of god, to have no belief wrt to his existence. Unless you managed to attain some sort of philosophical coma where you were exactly 50-50 (nigh on impossible I would imagine). I think it's possible for someone who has not been exposed to the arguments or the concept of god to lack a belief, but that's hardly the case with most atheists.

[Saichu]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I think it's very unlikely for people who consider, or debate, the existence of god, to have no belief wrt to his existence. Unless you managed to attain some sort of philosophical coma where you were exactly 50-50 (nigh on impossible I would imagine). I think it's possible for someone who has not been exposed to the arguments or the concept of god to lack a belief, but that's hardly the case with most atheists.

Unknown does not imply "50-50", or else statistically half of our crazy ideas would exist.

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Saichu)
Unknown does not imply "50-50", or else statistically half of our crazy ideas would exist.

I didn't say it does?

[Saichu]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I didn't say it does?

You said that "no belief" implies attaining "some sort of philosophical coma where you were exactly 50-50 (nigh on impossible I would imagine)". No belief means unknown. Unknown does not imply 50-50.


Edit: An additional observation; your position implies that people who do manage to live in such a philosophical vacuum believe that half of their crazy ideas statistically exist. How likely do you think that is? How much more likely is the alternative, that they simply don't know what proportion of their crazy ideas exist?

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Saichu)
You said that "no belief" implies attaining "some sort of philosophical coma where you were exactly 50-50 (nigh on impossible I would imagine)". No belief means unknown. Unknown does not imply 50-50.

No I didn't.

I was making the point that someone who is exposed to the arguments of god's existence would have a belief either way. i.e. that he doesn't have 'no belief' because he has a belief, that is, he is leaning one way or another. It goes without saying that someone for whom the question of god's existence hasn't even shaped his thoughts, someone who has no belief whatsoever wrt to that particular idea has... well, no belief. I was saying that the only way I think someone who has formed ideas about god could perhaps be said to have no belief wrt to whether god actually exists, was if he wasn't leaning one way or the other at all. As in, he doesn't hold the position that god exists or doesn't exist. There is no question that those who haven't formed an opinion about the existence of god can be said to have no belief, I didn't think that needs saying.

The point is that the people who usually identify themselves as atheists DO have a belief, and that the phrase 'lack of belief' should probably be reserved for a term like 'non-theist'. The usual counter-argument I come across is 'ah, but what if you are 50-50', I was nipping it in the bud, by saying it would be nigh on impossible, not that that is what a lack of belief has to be.

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Saichu)

Edit: An additional observation; your position implies that people who do manage to live in such a philosophical vacuum believe that half of their crazy ideas statistically exist. How likely do you think that is? How much more likely is the alternative, that they simply don't know what proportion of their crazy ideas exist?

I have literally no idea how you extracted that from my post. You seem to be hung up on the use of 'philosophical coma', which I was using in the manner of Will Durant in his 'mansions of philosophy', that is, the state where you aren't actually leaning one way or another on a particular issue. His point was that we tend to actually form beliefs/opinions on a subject in our minds, even if you would formally argue that both options are equally likely.

[Saichu]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I was saying that the only way I think someone who has formed ideas about god could perhaps be said to have no belief wrt to whether god actually exists, was if he wasn't leaning one way or the other at all...that is, the state where you aren't actually leaning one way or another on a particular issue.

This is true. And, just as I keep pointing out, it does not imply "50-50". The person who has no belief whatsoever, does not believe in a 50% chance that it is true. That would not only lead to such ridiculous examples as those I pointed out earlier, but also to a self-contradiction.

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Saichu)
This is true. And, just as I keep pointing out, it does not imply "50-50". The person who has no belief whatsoever, does not believe in a 50% chance that it is true. That would not only lead to such ridiculous examples as those I pointed out earlier, but also to a self-contradiction.

I didn't mean 50-50 as in, you believe there is an equally strong chance of either premise being true, I mean 50-50 as in - you are exactly halfway between believing something is true and believing it is not true. I don't know whether alien life exists. I believe it does, I could be firmer in my beliefs but I am definitely not at the point where my inclinations for believing alien life exists and those for not believing, are of equal magnitude. I am not 50-50.

[Saichu]

(Original post by Whatsinaname)
I didn't mean 50-50 as in, you believe there is an equally strong chance of either premise being true, I mean 50-50 as in - you are exactly halfway between believing something is true and believing it is not true.

This is less ridiculous (if still misleading). Nevertheless, I don't think this clarification is true either; as a simple example, you could be strongly committed to not accepting anything evidence against, while willing to accept evidence for, in which case, despite lacking belief either way, you can't really be called "halfway" between either extreme.

An example more indicative of implicit atheism may be an unwillingless to accept evidence For the premise being true, while a willingness to accept evidence Against as counting only toward the current "lack of belief" proposition, rather than toward the premise being false. You are, once again, not quite halfway; if anything, you are probably skewed toward the atheistic side. Nevertheless, you still have no beliefs.

[Whatsinaname]

(Original post by Saichu)
This is less ridiculous (if still misleading). Nevertheless, I don't think this clarification is true either; as a simple example, you could be strongly committed to not accepting anything evidence against, while willing to accept evidence for, in which case, despite lacking belief either way, you can't really be called "halfway" between either extreme.

You could very easily call that 'halfway between'. You could simply say that 'halfway between' is a description merely of your state of belief, and not indicative of the method by which you attained that state. But what does it matter? It's nit-picking at most.