Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?

Brian-M said:
That only proves that you can pick an element, not that you can pick any element.

I'm pretty certain that there are many natural numbers which would require many googleplexes of digits to describe that you're not capable of picking because you lack the time and means to describe those selections.
Click to expand...

First, I think you conflate two distinct things: selecting an element from a set and describing an element from a set. In mathematical logic, the natural way to interpret the former has nothing to do with the latter.

Second, let us grant that (for any given encoding scheme) there are some elements of N that cannot be described in a natural human lifetime. I believe that is correct. So, this claim is not in dispute.

But what you said is this:
But it's impossible for a computer, or even a person, to pick any number out of an infinite set, due to practical limitations.​
This is, I suppose, ambiguous, but I think the natural interpretation of the statement is that there is no number which can be selected (read: described), rather than that there are numbers which cannot be selected (read: described).

I wasn't saying that you can't select some of them, my point was that you can only pick from a finite subset of the infinite set, and so therefore Lopro's argument about requiring infinite entropy to know that the computer actually is randomly picking from an infinite set was inapplicable because a computer can't pick from infinite options, but only from the finite subset of those options which it is capable of selecting from.
Click to expand...

Fine, so long as we interpret "picking" to involve "specifying" -- which is a reasonable interpretation if we're talking about computers picking numbers, but has nothing at all to do with what a mathematician would mean when he says, "Let x be an arbitrary element of R."

But, on re-reading the original post, it seems to me that all the nonsense about selecting an element from a set is beside the point anyway, making no real impact on the argument that he finally gives.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I think part of the problem is that when someone is asked their religion, theists don't use "theism" as their response. Atheists are just as diverse in their beliefs (even more so, since many reject dogma of any sort and are very much individual, or one could say in their own category alone), but somehow it's treated as a catch all category where the nuances don't matter.

The fact that it is by nature a completely non-organized belief (or lack thereof) system sort makes it even more insulting to be all thrown into one box categorically. That's good part of why I have issues with the term. I would much rather say that my "religion" is unique to me as an individual, and not properly describable by category. To me, that's a much more accurate way of describing my worldview. Although technically, you can use the term "atheist" and be relatively accurate, the category itself is not useful as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

This.
 
phiwum said:
But, on re-reading the original post, it seems to me that all the nonsense about selecting an element from a set is beside the point anyway, making no real impact on the argument that he finally gives.
Click to expand...

But you've got to admit, it's still infinitely more interesting than the argument he is giving :P
 
Do you have a citation for the proof of this statement:

Null Selection - The result of a selection if any of the following are true:
A set is empty.
A set is infinite.
More than one item had the best comparative value AND the number of items that can be selected is less than the number of items with the best comparative value.
No selection criteria is available for the set.
No decision has been made for the set.
 
A semantic problem is a semantic problem.

1. Problems of meaning are studied by semantics.
2. Semantics: The meaning of a word is the use of this word by a community of speakers or a single speaker.
3. The true meaning of a word doesn’t exist.
3.1. There are convenient or inconvenient uses.
3.1.1. An use is convenient if it fits well to the purposes of the speakers.
3.1.2. An use is inconvenient if it produces some confusion among the speakers.
4. Problems of confusion (ambiguity, vagueness…) can be solved if and only if all the speakers specify how are using the word.
4.1. Occasionally, a problem of confusion can be satisfactorily solved if all the speakers agree on a particular use of the word.
4.2. Occasionally, a problem of confusion can be satisfactorily solved if all the speakers know what are the different uses of the word in a particular context (debate, discussion, enquiry…).
4.3. A problem of meaning will be more and more unsolvable if all the parts maintain that the personal use is the only valid.
4.3.1. This is usually the case when the use of a word entails a persuasive/evaluative content (not explicit).
4.3.1.1. Because the parts introduce the evaluative dissent as a factual one.
4.3.2. On this ground, a verbal dissent can be only solved when the parts are able to eliminate the persuasive content.
4.3.2.1. And this is very difficult because there is usually a conflict of beliefs in the background.
5. Such is the case of concepts such as “atheism”, “agnosticism”, “theism”, etc.
6. There is an ideal way to solve this kind of problem: the speakers firstly determine what the categories in discussion are and then attribute to them a conventional and abstract sign.
6.1. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to achieve in theological and philosophical discussions.
6.2. Because the parts are attached to the persuasive meaning of the words and they don’t really want to solve or to analyse a problem but to disqualify the opponent.

Practical exercise:

This is my use of the words “agnosticism” and “atheism”.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist. On the other hand, atheism is the view that God does not exist. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/skept-th/).​

And yours?
 
RoboTimbo said:
I'll wait for a valid answer.
Click to expand...

God:
1.(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
(Oxford dictionary on line http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God ).​

In the Western tradition:
God (…) is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. (IEP. http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/ )​

Do you use the word in these senses?
Have you a different proposal?
 
David Mo said:
God:
1.(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
(Oxford dictionary on line http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God ).​

In the Western tradition:
God (…) is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. (IEP. http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/ )​

Do you use the word in these senses?
Have you a different proposal?
Click to expand...

I was wondering why you were limiting the term "atheist" to only disbelieving in one particular monotheistic god. Why are you?
 
David Mo said:
6. There is an ideal way to solve this kind of problem: the speakers firstly determine what the categories in discussion are and then attribute to them a conventional and abstract sign.
6.1. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to achieve in theological and philosophical discussions.
6.2. Because the parts are attached to the persuasive meaning of the words and they don’t really want to solve or to analyse a problem but to disqualify the opponent.
Click to expand...
6.54 Meine Sätze erläutern dadurch, dass sie der, welcher mich versteht, am Ende als unsinnig erkennt, wenn er durch sie - auf ihnen - über sie hinausgestiegen ist. (Er muss sozusagen die Leiter wegwerfen, nachdem er auf ihr hinaufgestiegen ist.)
Er muss diese Sätze überwinden, dann sieht er die Welt richtig.
7. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
 
wea said:
6.54 Meine Sätze erläutern dadurch, dass sie der, welcher mich versteht, am Ende als unsinnig erkennt, wenn er durch sie - auf ihnen - über sie hinausgestiegen ist. (Er muss sozusagen die Leiter wegwerfen, nachdem er auf ihr hinaufgestiegen ist.)
Er muss diese Sätze überwinden, dann sieht er die Welt richtig.
7. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Click to expand...

Have you a problem with Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
I was wondering why you were limiting the term "atheist" to only disbelieving in one particular monotheistic god. Why are you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don’t limit the concept of atheism to monotheism. See the second meaning of God in the Oxford dictionary. But if you find the definition of Justin P. McBrayer (Fort Lewis College) vague or ambiguous, I can precise more:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that gods exist nor affirms that gods do not exist. On the other hand, atheism is the view that gods do not exist.

I hope it will be clear now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom