Athiests start religious wars, too!

[RandFan]

I'm as big a Tim Minchin fan as the next guy (Storm is a fav), but you're really stretching the definition of theist and especially atheist, when compared to the dictionary (which is supposed to be the arbitor of meaning).

We should note that their are atheist religions with other unseen entities.

Please to enlighten me? That aside, it doesn't matter. Unseen entities and faith are not intrinsic to atheism.

I don't think your points are necessarily true. Both can start from null, with evidence weighed, and different conclusions reached. That may be a completely different derail.

Theism is not a null position.

At any rate, I think we understand each other, though we disagree.

Fair enough.

 

[AlBell]

But I've already agreed that for this discussion theism doesn't cause atrocity. So your question is pointless. My argument is that theism provides a convenient authority and justification for morality.

Not based on anything fundamental to atheism.

Yes I did. But atheism doesn't provide anything for them to win. I cannot rationally state that because I'm an atheist I am justified in killing or harming others. If I believe that god wants me to kill someone then I can rationally make that claim.

Theism does not provide you god's wants; you or some other human does that.

Religions are entirely different matters; they do mandate wants.

 

[RandFan]

Theism does not provide you god's wants; you or some other human does that.

Religions are entirely different matters; they do mandate wants.

Though I've been willing to separate theism and religion for the sake of this discussion it's very important to note that religion is inherently theistic. Yes, I know that not all cars are Fords, I get that. However, it is the inherent nature of theism that I'm focused on here. It is this inherent nature that provides religion with it's justification for moral claims and proscriptions.

• God + faith are necessary for religious proscription. And not just necessary BTW. It is by and large the claimed basis of morality for the vast majority of theists.
• No god + no faith are necessary for nothing beyond a lack of belief in god. To say more would be either tautological or factually wrong.

At the very least I would hope that people would agree that theism lends itself to moral proscription while atheism lends itself to nothing.

 

[The Greater Fool]

• Atheism starts with the null hypothesis.
• Theism starts with the faith hypothesis and the god hypothesis. From there the rest is easy.

Notice the movement of your goalposts...

Theism is not a null position.

I said I disagreed with the points, which were onn where Atheism and Theism START. They can both start at null, and with evaluation of evidence and experience, arrive at the different conclusions. Your second comment is on where you think Theism ends.

I also disagree that Atheism is a Null position. Atheism (the belief there are no god(s)) is an evidence based positon. A null position starts and null and stays there, no evidence, no consideration, nothing. I don't see any benefit to openning this up again.

As an example of atheist religions: Scientology, Buhddism, some Hinduism (IIRC), Ancestor Worship (in Africa, China, ancient Egypt, and many other cultures).

 

[angrysoba]

That's not Atheism, it's anti-theism. I'm sure that's been said already but Atheism in itself cannot motivate anything.

A better word for that is "Anti-Clericalism".

 

[RandFan]

Notice the movement of your goalposts...

No.

They can both start at null

No. A belief in god is NOT a null position. Once you are a theist, then, as to the existence of god, the position is not and cannot be null.

I also disagree that Atheism is a Null position.

No. Set theory. Exclusive disjunction. Set A = Theism. Set B = Not Set A, everything that is not theism. The null position for the existence of god can only exist in Set B. Atheism = Not theism.

Atheism (the belief there are no god(s))

While one can have a belief that there are no gods one can also lack a belief in gods which is by definition atheistic and null. BTW: Atheism need not be binary. One can hold a probabilistic belief. One can hold that god is very unlikely to exist but believe that there is a possibility that god exists.

 

[The Greater Fool]

No.

No. A belief in god is NOT a null position. Once you are a theist, as to go the existence of god, the position is not null.

Yes. START is the beginning, nothing known, believed. Then comes evaluation of experience, evidence. Then comes decission, belief or not.

No.

Yes.

Set theory. Exclusive disjunction. Set A = Theism. Set B = everything that is not theism. The null position for a belief in god only exists in Set B.

While one can have a belief that there are no gods one can also lack a belief in gods which is by definition atheistic and null. BTW: Atheism need not be binary. One can hold a probabilistic belief. One can hold that god is very unlikely to exist but believe that there is a possibility that god exists.

Set A = Theism
Set B = Atheism
Set C = Agnostic (not enough information)
Outside all sets is the null position.

In other words, I can believe (theist), not believe (atheist), decide there is not enough information (agnostic), or not even be aware of the concept of god(s) (Null)

We disagree, do we have to rehash this again? Reread 5 pages back.

[/quote]

 

[RandFan]

Set A = Theism
Set B = Atheism
Outside both sets is the null position.

Sorry no. A and Not A.

In a world where A exists everything outside of the set A is Not A. My disjunction is logically correct. You are excluding the middle and admitting to excluding the middle.

The Null position on whether or not a god exists is by definition outside of the set of those who believe that a god exists. If you ask me if I believe in god and I say I honestly don't know then that's NOT theism. It resides outside of the set of theism.

To argue logically our premises need to be based on propositions. Statements that are binary. IOW: They are either true or false. One trap of binary statements is that they often exclude the middle (including the null hypothesis). So, instead of "Bob's car is either red or blue" we change the statement to "Bob's car is either red or not red" (blue being a car that exists in the set that is not red). Got it?

Your homework, give me a proposition (true or false statement) that dos not exclude the null hypothesis?

 

[ehcks]

In other words, I can believe (theist), not believe (atheist), decide there is not enough information (agnostic), or not even be aware of the concept of god(s) (Null)

That's wrong on very basic levels.

Agnosticism isn't a belief that you don't have enough information. It's a belief that you can never have information. It's the belief that you can't know about a god.

The null position is the lack of agreement with an unproven claim, for lack of better words. When someone makes a claim, in this case that god exists, the null position is to not believe in it. It continues to be the null position until enough evidence appears to make the claim become accepted.

The fact that you've heard of the claim doesn't make your disagreement not null anymore.

 

[RandFan]

Hitchen's challenge

...name me an action, a moral action, taken by a believer or a moral statement uttered by one, that could not have been made or uttered by an infidel, a non-believer

I have tried this everywhere on a large number of people, and I've not yet had even one reply. But if I was to ask you can you think of a wicked action that could only have been performed by someone who believed they were on an errand from God, there isn't one of you who would take 10 seconds to think of an example.

Worth repeating.

 

[angrysoba]

Worth repeating.

An exorcism.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Sorry no. A and Not A.

In a world where A exists everything outside of the set A is Not A. My disjunction is logically correct. You are excluding the middle and admitting to excluding the middle.

The Null position on whether or not a god exists is by definition outside of the set of those who believe that a god exists. If you ask me if I believe in god and I say I honestly don't know then that's NOT theism. It resides outside of the set of theism.

To argue logically our premises need to be based on propositions. Statements that are binary. IOW: They are either true or false. One trap of binary statements is that they often exclude the middle (including the null hypothesis). So, instead of "Bob's car is either red or blue" we change the statement to "Bob's care is either red or not red" (blue being a car that exists in the set that is not red). Got it?

Your homework, give me a proposition (true or false statement) that dos not exclude the null hypothesis?

Yeah, you missed and update that you wouldn't like still more (agnostic).

I choose not to follow your rules because they don't reflect reality, as they should. At least, not the reality I see. Like the car color, you want a binary propositon, but it is not a binary reality. Bob's car may be red, but all not reds are not equal. Bob's car is red or not red only tells you if Bob's car is red or not red, a very limited use choice. This is fine if you are only interested in red cars. If Bob's car model comes in 4 colors, his car is one of the 4, or a 5th self applied color, or a 6th where the color has been removed. Binary won't tell you the distribution of colors of the model.

You can live in a Belief / Not Belief world, if you choose. This means you will treat agnostics, atheists, and the unknown the same, and expect their choices that follow to be the same, which is not reality.

Reality says there is evidence on the existence of god, of people approaching the evidence, along will their experience:
1) Some will be convinced god(s) exist (Theist),
2) Some will be convinced god(s) don't exist (Atheist);
3) Some will conclude there is inaddequate evidence (Agnostic); and
4) Some will not show up, and not know the concept of god(s) exist (Null).

Isn't it amazing we have words describing each of these situations? Fortunately, the language is not confined to your binary approach. 2, 3, 4 are not equal.

 

[Belz...]

No.

No. A belief in god is NOT a null position.

I think he means that one can start from a null position and end up a theist.

 

[RandFan]

I choose not to follow your rules because they don't reflect reality, as they should.

They are NOT my rules. Look, if you want to go to the Moon or Mars, split the atom or unlock the mysteries of DNA you will have to follow the rules of logic.

You can live in a Belief / Not Belief world, if you choose. This means you will treat agnostics, atheists, and the unknown the same, and expect their choices that follow to be the same, which is not reality.

Utter nonsense. A logical disjunction does not force anyone to live in any kind of world. It's a means to understand the world. It's a means to disambiguate. Science and philosophy does not advance without following the rules of logic.

Isn't it amazing we have words describing each of these situations? Fortunately, the language is not confined to your binary approach. 2, 3, 4 are not equal.

Utter ignorance. Seriously TGF. I didn't make this stuff up. I'm simply telling you the means for understanding the world in a coherent fashion. Please to take a course in logic.

 

[The Greater Fool]

That's wrong on very basic levels.

Agnosticism isn't a belief that you don't have enough information. It's a belief that you can never have information. It's the belief that you can't know about a god.

I beleive my use fits at least one of the defitions below. On reviewing evidence, the agnostic may feel it is unkown or unnkowable (1); may doubt ultimate knowledge is impossible (2); is neither theist or atheist after evaluation (3).
ag·nos·tic

   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality

The null position is the lack of agreement with an unproven claim, for lack of better words. When someone makes a claim, in this case that god exists, the null position is to not believe in it. It continues to be the null position until enough evidence appears to make the claim become accepted.

The fact that you've heard of the claim doesn't make your disagreement not null anymore.

OK, I used Null Hypothesis wrong. What I called Null Hypothesis would better be called "Ignorant of any concept of god(s)".

 

[The Greater Fool]

They are NOT my rules. Look, if you want to go to the Moon or Mars, split the atom or unlock the mysteries of DNA you will have to follow the rules of logic.

Utter nonsense. A logical disjunction does not force anyone to live in any kind of world. It's a means to understand the world. It's a means to disambiguate. Science and philosophy does not advance without following the rules of logic.

Utter ignorance. Seriously TGF. I didn't make this stuff up. I'm simply telling you the means for understanding the world in a coherent fashion.

Please to take a course in logic. You are quite simply demonstrating your ignorance now.

Life is not math. If I had to flowchart it, it would look like

[examine evidence]
|
Are you now Theist Now?----Y--->[exit]
N
Are you now Atheist?--------Y--->[exit]
N
You now Agnostic
[Exit]

People that didn't go through this flowchart are ignorant to the concept of gods.


This could also be done with a CASE list.

There, 3 binary decision tree. But, in English, the sentences I've use above and before are the same.

I think based on your attitude, we have left reasonable discussion.

 

[RandFan]

I think he means that one can start from a null position and end up a theist.

I honestly don't think so. I'll let him clarify. But he is without doubt taking a stand that propositional logic is outside of reality

 

[RandFan]

Life is not math. If I had to flowchart it, it would look like

[examine evidence]
|
Are you now Theist Now?----Y--->[exit]
N
Are you now Atheist?--------Y--->[exit]
N
You now Agnostic
[Exit]

People that didn't go through this flowchart are ignorant to the concept of gods.

These people are outside of the set "theism".

This could also be done with a CASE list.

Wouldn't change the fact that my logic is correct. People who are not theists exist outside of the set "theist".

There, 3 binary decision tree. But, in English, the sentences I've use above and before are the same.

Doesn't obviate the fact that those who are not theist (agnostic, atheist, postive/strong atheist) are all outside of the set "theist".

I think based on your attitude, we have left reasonable discussion.

We left reasonable discussion when you rejected propositional logic because you say it is outside of reality.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I think he means that one can start from a null position and end up a theist.

Thank You Belz. I thought I was clear that is what I meant.

It seems RandFan is simply naysaying me, but I'm sure thats not the case.

The "a / not a" XOR is ONE TOOL for logic, and I believe it is being misused here.

 

[The Greater Fool]

These people are outside of the set "theism".

Wouldn't change the fact that my logic is correct. People who are not theists exist outside of the set "theist".

Doesn't obviate the fact that those who are not theist (agnostic, atheist, postive/strong atheist) are all outside of the set "theist".

We left reasonable discussion when you rejected propositional logic because you say it is outside of reality.

Propositional Logic is one tool in the Logic arsenal. I believe you are misusing it, as it doesn't yeild results that reflect reality (which is the point) IMHO.

ETA: Propositional Logic gives examples that demonstrate you are, in fact, misusing it.