• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Athiests start religious wars, too!

Thank You Belz. I thought I was clear that is what I meant.
But my point was that atheism starts with the null hypothesis. A person who says he doesn't know is NOT a theist.

It seems RandFan is simply naysaying me, but I'm sure thats not the case.
No. And I resent that. I've been very careful to make myself clear and give you a chance to correct the record. You are the one gainsaying (naysayin) me. I stated that someone who doesn't know if there is a god is not a theist. That the person exists outside of the set of theism. YOU took issue with that.

The "a / not a" XOR is ONE TOOL for logic, and I believe it is being misused here.
How on earth could it possibly be misused? Seriously? It's simple, basic, fundamental propositional logic. Propositional logic is logic based on true or false statements (binary). You say binary is not reality and therefore propositional logic is not reality. Nearly every advancement in science and philosophy was predicated on propositional logic. Sure there are other tools for logic. That does NOT IN ANY WAY obviate or render my claim illogical.
 
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.
Complete nonsense. Everything not in the set of A is not A. Please to tell me how that does not reflect reality? A car that is not red exists outside of the set of red cars. True or false?

ETA: Propositional Logic gives examples that demonstrate you are, in fact, misusing it.
For crying in the dark, HOW? Please to tell me how I misused propositional logic and how those examples demonstrate that?
 
Last edited:
But my point was that atheism starts with the null hypothesis. A person who says he doesn't know is NOT a theist.

One STARTS before one has evaluated anything.

Randfan said:
No. And I resent that. I've been very careful to make myself clear and give you a chance to correct the record. You are the one gainsaying (naysayin) me. I stated that someone who doesn't know if there is a god is not a theist. That the person exists outside of the set of theism. YOU took issue with that.
Again, I said I feel you were, but I know you aren't. Geez, must you argue everything, even that, which I took responsibility for?

I take no issue with your binary theist / not theist division, other than I am looking at a more complete reality. I have made it clear that that all Not Theists are not the same (even basically). In a theist / not-theist binary view, you can only make statements about Theist (they believe in god(s), which you are extending to also them having attrocity authority from those god(s), which is not part of theism. You've granted this point, but I see you continuing to argue the opposite.

RandFan said:
How on earth could it possibly be misused? Seriously? It's simple, basic, fundamental propositional logic. Propositional logic is logic based on true or false statements (binary). You say binary is not reality and therefore propositional logic is not reality. Nearly every advancement in science and philosophy was predicated on propositional logic. Sure there are other tools for logic. That does NOT IN ANY WAY obviate or render my claim illogical.

Read the link: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic it has examples of how it is misused.

Obviously, I am not arguing that Theists are not theists. I am arguing that Theists have no charter from the god they believe in by virtue of their Theism, that it takes additional beliefs. You both concede this point, and argue it.

Logically, if all logic issues could be solved with a / not a, or If / Then, there wouldn't be innumerable other logical approaches. That a / not a does not result in an accurate view of reality, it is the wrong approach. With serial a / not a, it's possible. A single If / Then does not yield a result that reflects reality, serial if / then can, as with the flowchart.

A / Not A = Theist / Other than Theist, NOT Theist / Atheist.

Logically, if the two logic methods you've mentioned were all that were necessary, tools like VENN diagrams wouldn't be out there. They are. Are Venn diagrams binary? NO.

Now, if you would like to continue, let's say something new, fairly and courteously please.
 
Last edited:
Atheism and the Null Hypothesis



  • I don't know if there is a god = not theist.
  • Not theist = atheism.
 


  • I don't know if there is a god = not theist.
  • Not theist = atheism.
I don't do utube.

You realize those two statements are contradictory? ETA: I don't know if there is a god <> atheism.

You're stuck in binary thinking.

Definition of Theist (linked earlier) "belief that there are no god(s)"

Not all Not theists believe there is no god... Agnostics don't know are it is unknowable <> no belief about god). No knowledge of god(s) <> No belief in god(s).

Thus, your binary approach fails.
 
Last edited:
One STARTS before one has evaluated anything.
And one can continue to hold the null hypothesis even after an evaluation.

In a theist / not-theist binary view, you can only make statements about Theist (they believe in god(s), which you are extending to also them having attrocity authority from those god(s), which is not part of theism. You've granted this point, but I see you continuing to argue the opposite.
I don't know what you mean by "which is not part"? I think you are misstating the proposition. The proposition is that theism doesn't necessarily lead to atrocity, right?

Read the link: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic it has examples of how it is misused.
A.) This doesn't help anything. B.) I did not misuse propostional logic. C) You said, and I quote, " take no issue with your binary theist / not theist division".

Obviously, I am not arguing that Theists are not theists. I am arguing that Theists have no charter from the god they believe in by virtue of their Theism, that it takes additional beliefs. You both concede this point, and argue it.
No, I don't argue that there is a charter from god for atrocity. I argue that god and faith are a convenient moral justification for atrocity not available to atheists.

Logically, if all logic issues could be solved with a / not a, or If / Then, there wouldn't be innumerable other logical approaches. That a / not a does not result in an accurate view of reality, it is the wrong approach. With serial a / not a, it's possible. A single If / Then does not yield a result that reflects reality, serial if / then can, as with the flowchart.

A / Not A = Theist / Other than Theist, NOT Theist / Atheist.

Logically, if the two logic methods you've mentioned were all that were necessary, tools like VENN diagrams wouldn't be out there. They are. Are Venn diagrams binary? NO.

Now, if you would like to continue, let's say something new, fairly and courteously please.
You completely misunderstand my point. Propositional logic isn't always the most efficient means to solve problems. That some forms of logic are better than others given the circumstance does not render propositional logic wrong.

So, unless you can tell me how I misused propositional logic then I'm going to ignore that and simply accept your statement of "I take no issue with your binary theist / not theist division". Fair enough?
 
You realize those two statements are contradictory? ETA: I don't know if there is a god <> atheism.
No. They are not contradictory. Atheism literally means an absence of belief in god.

wiki said:
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Which is my point. The null hypothesis is an absence of belief that any deities exist.

You're stuck in binary thinking.
No. As I've said over and over, atheism includes both those who lack a belief in god and those who believe there is no god. Blue cars and green cars both are outside of the set of red cars, right?

Definition of Theist (linked earlier) "belief that there are no god(s)"

Not all Not theists believe there is no god... Agnostics don't know are it is unknowable <> no belief about god). No knowledge of god(s) <> No belief in god(s).

Thus, your binary approach fails.
My "binary" approach is simply to create a disjunction to avoid the exclusion of the middle. The set of non-theists (AKA atheists, see wiki) include those who don't know if there is a god and those who believe there is no god.
 
Last edited:
And one can continue to hold the null hypothesis even after an evaluation.

I don't know what you mean by "which is not part"? I think you are misstating the proposition. The proposition is that theism doesn't necessarily lead to atrocity, right?

A.) This doesn't help anything. B.) I did not misuse propostional logic. C) You said, and I quote, " take no issue with your binary theist / not theist division".

No, I don't argue that there is a charter from god for atrocity. I argue that god and faith are a convenient moral justification for atrocity not available to atheists.

You completely misunderstand my point. Propositional logic isn't always the most efficient means to solve problems. That some forms of logic are better than others given the circumstance does not render propositional logic wrong.

So, unless you can tell me how I misused propositional logic then I'm going to ignore that and simply accept your statement of "I take no issue with your binary theist / not theist division". Fair enough?

Wow, you've worn me out, it nearing past bedtime...

I have no issue with Theist / Not Theist as long as you are not making claims about Not Theist. It's fine if you are only interested in Theist. And the only thing you can say about Theist comes from the dictionary "Belief in god or god(s)". Anything beyond is not part of the definition.

Atheist, of course can't point at a divine authority they denounce as authority for anything. That is rather a pretty clear implication of the definition. It doesn't mean that they are immune to other bat crap crazy idea that would be fair analogies to god, and additional dogma that would grant authority for the same attrociteis in much the same way as theists.

Theism/Atheism is only a statement of belief about god(s). Nothing more. Nothing less. Again, yes Theists are manipulated by religion, and atheists likewise by religion, politics, channelling, or other bat crap crazy things.

Here's what I here when you say Atheists never appeal to Gods authority for attrocity:

Atheists feel superior because they don't believe in a sky daddy. You'll never find a theist feeling superior because they don't believe in a sky daddy. Based on the definitions involved, it's nonsensical.
 
We are at an impass. Wiki has one definition, the dictionary different. You use one, I use the other. Stalemate.

ETA: Wow, look what the next Wiki sentence says:

Wiki said:
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Seem wiki covered both definitions.

Wiki said:
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

So Wiki has a similar defintion as the Dictionary, the "narrower" definition. If anything has been obvious in our descussion, I have been addressing things from that perspective.
 
Last edited:
We are at an impass. Wiki has one definition, the dictionary different. You use one, I use the other. Stalemate.
The prefix "a" in "atheism" literal means without. From an epistemologicaly, agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Atheism is a statement about belief. One can be an agnostic atheist (absence of belief in god) or one can be a gnostic atheist (belief there is no god).

BTW: The word "atheism" originated as a pejorative term directed at Christians.

wiki said:
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. .
 
Last edited:
Wow, you've worn me out, it nearing past bedtime...

I have no issue with Theist / Not Theist as long as you are not making claims about Not Theist. It's fine if you are only interested in Theist. And the only thing you can say about Theist comes from the dictionary "Belief in god or god(s)". Anything beyond is not part of the definition.

Atheist, of course can't point at a divine authority they denounce as authority for anything. That is rather a pretty clear implication of the definition. It doesn't mean that they are immune to other bat crap crazy idea that would be fair analogies to god, and additional dogma that would grant authority for the same attrociteis in much the same way as theists.

Theism/Atheism is only a statement of belief about god(s). Nothing more. Nothing less. Again, yes Theists are manipulated by religion, and atheists likewise by religion, politics, channelling, or other bat crap crazy things.

Here's what I here when you say Atheists never appeal to Gods authority for attrocity:

Atheists feel superior because they don't believe in a sky daddy. You'll never find a theist feeling superior because they don't believe in a sky daddy. Based on the definitions involved, it's nonsensical.

Let's back up. I have a list of intellectuals that I admire that includes, in part, Newton, Pascal, Mendel, Kant, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller among others. All are theists. I'm under no illusions that anyone is superior for simply being an atheist.

I only have one point. Theism consists of a faith based belief in an unseen entity that lends itself to moral proscription. Atheism doesn't.
 
Erm, you do know that Anglicans and Roman Catholics have fought, just not in the US, right?

Oh wow I never knew that until you informed me about it, perhaps in your mighty wisdom you could point out which times that was purely because of Religion, and which ones were because of political motivation?

I'd also note that while the poster I was responding to stated Theocracies since they for all practically don't exist, it's a bit like trying to determine if green unicorns are violent. However his post made it appear that theists are so terrible they are just itching for an excuse to attack each other over the littlest differences in doctrine. This clearly is not true, or instead of having to hunt for these fabled wars (I'd note that even asking for a list of pure religion based wars no one has yet come up with one) we'd be able to point out countries currently at war over religion.

Even if we look at countries that are close to theocracies around the world, both past and present, they don't have a history of attacking other countries because of religious reasons. Who has the Vatican City declared war on? Which Islamic "Theocracies" are warring with others? Again they don't really have them, but if we look at the closest, such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, or Oman, the only one that has been involved in a major war recently is Iran, and in that case the most secular government in the region at the time, Iraq, attacked them.

We see similar trends throughout history, very few of those groups that have come closest to theocracy have been expansive, and in general when they have become involved in wars, it is wars of defence against the larger territorial powers around them who decide to destroy them for political purposes. One of the few examples that oppose that was the Taiping Rebellion a short lived Theocracy/Communist rebellion based in China. But then others here have already noted that rebellions don't count right?

And that the only reason the JW's and various other fringe Christian sects are in the US is because other Christians were persecuting them in countries like Holland and Britain?

Ummm, you do realise that the JW sect was created in 1870 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, right? In fact they have never been persecuted in Holland or Britain. What persecution they did suffer was in countries such as communist states, Nazi Germany, and interestingly Canada where they were interred during WW2 due to their objections to being conscripted to fight. Similarly Mormonism was developed in the US.


I would further note that even if you consider all the sectarian violence during the Middles Ages, which was really political in nature as groups broke away from the control of the main central European power of the time, the Catholic Papacy, WWI and WWII, both secular wars, still killed more people, in fact as many people died in just those two wars as there were living in Europe at the height of its population during the Middle Ages!

ETA: Oh, and further to add, the root causes of 9/11 were political in nature, not Religious. Al Quada didn't attack the US because of Islam, or because the US is a "Christain" country anymore than they attacked the US "Because they hate our freedoms." They attacked the US because of the US foreign policy in Middle Eastern countries such as Saudia Arabia, Isreal, and Eygpt.
 
Last edited:
The prefix "a" in "atheism" literal means without. There is no stalemate. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Atheism is a statement about belief. One can be an agnostic atheist (absence of belief in god) or one can be a gnostic atheist (belief there is no god).

BTW: The word "atheism" originated as a pejorative term directed at Christians.

Well, since Wiki also agrees that the narrower view is the same as the dictionary, which is the definition I've been using, and continue to use, and you use the broader one, as I said (too many pages ago), we are talking past each other.

I understand agnostic is about knowledge, and A/Theist belief, but agnostic is commonly used also as "I'm in the middle, not decided, not knowable" which I thought was a reasonable descriptor for those that examined the evidence and couldn't/wouldn't make the leap to beleif.

I see agnostic and ignorant as two different positons.

Using the Broader Theist/Atheist, I'd have to reread your posts, but probably would [ETA: NOT] disagree much.
 
Last edited:
Let's back up. I have a list of intellectuals that I admire that includes, in part, Newton, Pascal, Mendel, Kant, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller among others. All are theists. I'm under no illusions that anyone is superior for simply being an atheist.

I only have one point. Theism consists of a faith based belief in an unseen entity that lends itself to moral proscription. Atheism doesn't.

I feared you would focus on the "superior", when the point was "Theists would not feel ......... because they don't believe in god(s)." Theists would not anything because they don't believe in god(s) because, by definition, they believe in gods. Atheists cannot appeal to God because by definition they don't believe in it/them. It seems a nonsensical statement.

It is like "can an all powerful god create a rock he can't lift" It's nonsensical.

No insult intended to Theists or Atheists, many of whom I number as smart, sharp, and friends.
 
Atheists cannot appeal to God because by definition they don't believe in it/them. It seems a nonsensical statement.
I've really endeavored to make clear the point that there is nothing akin to god for the atheist. And that's the entire point.

Assuming for the sake of argument that belief in god is a negative thing (assuming), the fact that atheists are without that belief shouldn't obviate the fact that belief in god is a negative thing, right? IOW: You seem to think it unfair that I claim that an atheist is at an advantage simply because the atheist doesn't have a belief in god.

It's as if I argued that planes have an advantage over cars in that they can reach their destination faster than cars and you respond that the comparison is unfair because cars can't fly. Yeah, that's the point. To argue that it's non-nonsensical to say that cars cannot fly because they by definition are not planes doesn't advance the discussion.
 
Well, since Wiki also agrees that the narrower view is the same as the dictionary, which is the definition I've been using, and continue to use, and you use the broader one, as I said (too many pages ago), we are talking past each other.

I understand agnostic is about knowledge, and A/Theist belief, but agnostic is commonly used also as "I'm in the middle, not decided, not knowable" which I thought was a reasonable descriptor for those that examined the evidence and couldn't/wouldn't make the leap to beleif.

I see agnostic and ignorant as two different positons.

Using the Broader Theist/Atheist, I'd have to reread your posts, but probably would [ETA: NOT] disagree much.
Fair enough.
 
I've really endeavored to make clear the point that there is nothing akin to god for the atheist. And that's the entire point.

While Atheists may have no god, they certainly have things that would, and have been, used to to convice them to go to war and kill others.

Politicians are very good at figuring out what motivates people and using that to their own advantage.

While for Theists the invoking of God might help, things such as patriotism, xenophobia, and scapegoating work just as well on the athiest as they do on the theist.

Arguements such as...

- If we don't strike first, those foreigners will come here and take away the freedoms you have.

- You're not a really "insert country or origin in here" unless you are willing to fight again "add local enemy in here."

- Those "add in hated group here" are secretly trying to take over the government and kill us all unless we stop them first.

Variations of these have been successfully used by politicians since before Emperor Nero to start wars with or without the need to throw in Religion as well.

The only common factor is how and who starts wars is that they have all been started by politicians.
 
While Atheists may have no god, they certainly have things that would, and have been, used to to convice them to go to war and kill others.

Politicians are very good at figuring out what motivates people and using that to their own advantage.

While for Theists the invoking of God might help, things such as patriotism, xenophobia, and scapegoating work just as well on the athiest as they do on the theist.

Arguements such as...

- If we don't strike first, those foreigners will come here and take away the freedoms you have.

- You're not a really "insert country or origin in here" unless you are willing to fight again "add local enemy in here."

- Those "add in hated group here" are secretly trying to take over the government and kill us all unless we stop them first.

Variations of these have been successfully used by politicians since before Emperor Nero to start wars with or without the need to throw in Religion as well.

The only common factor is how and who starts wars is that they have all been started by politicians.
Agreed. But none of those things are intrinsic and/or exclusive to atheism.
 
Agreed. But none of those things are intrinsic and/or exclusive to atheism.

Agreed. However I'd also note that they are also far stronger motivations than the idea of "Go and kill because your god demands it." That might have worked back in 2 or 3 millennia BC, but is going to get a raised eyebrow and a "what the heck are you smoking look" today.

The more likely motivation used is "If you don't fight then they'll take over and force you to either convert to {enter appropriate horrible religion here} or they'll kill you" which again is just as much of a motivation for the atheist as the theist.

Even looking at war and killing in the desire to spread an ideology, theist really has to take back seat to more secular violence such as communism, and yes even there atheism has had a go (check the link I gave to the French Revolution) and for the most part, pretty much all of that violence has been targeted at theists, be it from other theists, communists or in a few examples, atheist.
 

Back
Top Bottom