# Reductionism of my WASP (Weak Atheist Special Pleading) Argument in Python:

Reductionism of my WASP (Weak Atheist Special Pleading) argument in Python:

Legend:

A= Atheism
T= Theism
B = Believes
L = Lacks a belief

Agn= Agnostic

Lacktheism argues that:

1. ∀x(A(x) -> ¬B(x, God) v L(x, God))

2. ∀x(T(x) -> B(x, God)

Notice the obvious problem?

Atheists what two conditions for atheism (¬B(x, God) or L(x, God)), but only allow theist one condition!

That is intellectually dishonest, and is textbook special pleading if they don’t allow theists to make the same move.

LOGICALLY according to lacktheism:

1. ∀x(A(x) -> ¬B(x, God) v L(x, God))
“For all of x, x “does not believe in God” OR “lacks a belief God exists”
2. ∀x(T(x) -> B(x, God)

“For all of x, x “Believes in God”

So why do atheists get to say L(x, God)) is sufficient for atheism, but ~L(x, God)) is insufficient for theism?

Anyone??? WHY?

Theist’s can make the exact same move and say:

1. ∀x(A(x) -> ¬B(x, God) v L(x, God))
“For all of x, x “does not believe in God” OR “lacks a belief God exists”
2. ∀x(T(x) -> B(x, God) v L(x, ¬God))

“For all of x, x “Believes in God” OR “lacks a believe in the nonexistence of God)

For those who do not understand the logic…let me dumb it down:

According to lacktheism:

If condition A or B is met, then atheism.

If condition ~A is met, then theism.

Why does atheism get 2 conditions and theism only 1?

In Python:

If A or B:
belief_system = “Atheism”
elif T and not A:
belief_system = “Theism”
else:

belief_system = “Undetermined” # Not ever reached according to lacktheism!

Python with the simple and correct relationships:

if A:
belief_system = “Atheism”
elif not A:
belief_system = “Theism”
else:

belief_system = “Agnosticism”

I would argue is logically as:

1. ∀x(A(x) -> (¬B(x, God) -> L(x, God))
2. ∀x(T(x) -> (B(x, God) -> L(x, God))

3. ∀x(Agn(x) -> (L(x, God) ∧ L(x, ~God)) OR ∀x(Agn(x) -> (~B(x, God) ∧ ~B(x, ¬God))

CONCLUSION:

Lacktheism is asymmetrical and dishonest!