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

[Tommy Jeppesen]

This thread is growing more useless all the time. And now I'm getting semantic arguments about the nature of my own thread. I guess it's time to start a new one.

I am sorry that we "don't behave" according to your standard of useful. It could signify that you might ought to consider your evidence for useful and useless?!

 

[David Mo]

It includes atheists who lack belief in gods. You've excluded them from your novel definition. You want "atheist" to mean only a narrow subset of all atheists.

YOu are in a mistake.

1.Atheists: People that don't affirm that gods exist but affirm that gods don't exist.
2. Agnostics: People that dont't afirm that gods exist but don't affirm that gods don't exist.

3. I have included "lack of belief in gods" into those categories.

4. My classification is inclusive.

 

[David Mo]

So you are a believer in so far as you have only stated that you believe. Now is it a rational or irrational belief?

I am tiring of the members of this forum that only ask and never answer.

Please, answer my question and then I will answer your question.

Fair play, caramba!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I am tiring of the members of this forum that only ask and never answer.

Please, answer my question and then I will answer your question.

Fair play, caramba!

Okay, I will answer according to your usage of the words:

Me: I am irrational. Either I am irrational or I claim without justification that I am irrational, so in both cases I am irrational.
See I have answer your question.

Now it is your turn:
Do you have justification for your belief that your senses work or is it an irrational belief?

 

[David Mo]

Okay, I will answer according to your usage of the words:

Me: I am irrational. Either I am irrational or I claim without justification that I am irrational, so in both cases I am irrational.
See I have answer your question.

Now it is your turn:
Do you have justification for your belief that your senses work or is it an irrational belief?

Excuse me, this is not an answer to my question:"Do you believe in some malign demons dedicated to cheat you?"

Try again, please.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Excuse me, this is not an answer to my question:"Do you believe in some malign demons dedicated to cheat you?"

Try again, please.

Let us suppose I answer yes and you then ask me for justification and I answer, that I have none.
Let us suppose I answer no and you then ask me for justification and I answer, that I have none.

Now I have answer both yes and no. Further I admit that I have no justification for either belief, what makes me irrational. It doesn't matter what I believe in this case, what matters is that I have no justification and thus that it is a fact that I am irrational.

Now it is your turn - provide justification please and no special pleading please. The rules for justification of beliefs apply to everybody including you and me.

 

[David Mo]

Let us suppose I answer yes and you then ask me for justification and I answer, that I have none.
Let us suppose I answer no and you then ask me for justification and I answer, that I have none.

Now I have answer both yes and no. Further I admit that I have no justification for either belief, what makes me irrational. It doesn't matter what I believe in this case, what matters is that I have no justification and thus that it is a fact that I am irrational.

Now it is your turn - provide justification please and no special pleading please. The rules for justification of beliefs apply to everybody including you and me.

1. I affirm “I believe that my experience informs me about an external world”.
2. “Let us suppose” that I cannot give any absolute refutation of the Cartesian hypothesis of a malign demon that would cheat me about the external existence of the world.
3. Then you say my belief in external world is irrational.
3.1. You are asking me for a refutation of an imaginary entity.
4. Then you are playing a contradictory (irrational) game.
4.1.You demand of me an absolutely rationalist way of thinking and you reserve for yourself the possibility of an absolute irrationality.
5. This game is not mine. I only play with players that respect the same rules of language than I use.
5.1. The first rule of my language is: “Our experience informs us about an external world”.
5.1.1. And we can continue arguing rationally on this basis.
6. If you don’t accept my first rule, you can go and play with other players prepared to accept the possibility of malign demons and other fantastic entities that can explain why you are not sure if your parents didn’t exist.
7. I repeat this is not my game. And I think my position is very justified by the supposition that you don’t really think that your parents didn’t exist.

 

[Pup]

YOu are in a mistake.

1.Atheists: People that don't affirm that gods exist but affirm that gods don't exist.
2. Agnostics: People that dont't afirm that gods exist but don't affirm that gods don't exist.

3. I have included "lack of belief in gods" into those categories.

4. My classification is inclusive.

That classification exludes the majority of peple who self-identify as atheists from the group "atheist" and classifies them as agnostics. Why? What is the usefulness of that?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That classification exludes the majority of peple who self-identify as atheists from the group "atheist" and classifies them as agnostics. Why? What is the usefulness of that?

It is useful to me. That is all that is needed. Further I allows me to classify people as irrational; that is also useful.


That seems to be it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

YOu are in a mistake.

1.Atheists: People that don't affirm that gods exist but affirm that gods don't exist.

No, you are in error here. Atheists, according to the most inclusive definition, simply lack belief in gods. Your exclusionary and novel redefinition specifically excludes them.

2. Agnostics: People that dont't afirm that gods exist but don't affirm that gods don't exist.

No, you are in error here too. Agnostics think that nothing can be known about gods. They still may either believe or disbelieve. Do you see how agnosticism/gnosticism are positions about knowledge as separate from belief? Into which quadrant do you fit? Agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist or gnostic theist?

3. I have included "lack of belief in gods" into those categories.

Erroneously, as has been shown. Do you see how atheism/theism refer to belief while agnosticism/gnosticism refer to knowledge? And you've also been adding a third category or "rational/irrational"? We were able to determine that you are an irrational atheist.

4. My classification is inclusive.

No, another error on your part. Your redefinitions are exclusive. Why do you wish to force others to accept your less inclusive redefinitions?

 

[RoboTimbo]

4. My classification is inclusive.

Oh, I see. You've redefined "inclusive" to mean "exclusive". I missed that at first.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

No, another error on your part. Your redefinitions are exclusive. Why do you wish to force others to accept your less inclusive redefinitions?

Because it is useful.

That is it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

1. I affirm “I believe that my experience informs me about an external world”.
2. “Let us suppose” that I cannot give any absolute refutation of the Cartesian hypothesis of a malign demon that would cheat me about the external existence of the world.
3. Then you say my belief in external world is irrational. 3.1. You are asking me for a refutation of an imaginary entity.
4. Then you are playing a contradictory (irrational) game.
4.1.You demand of me an absolutely rationalist way of thinking and you reserve for yourself the possibility of an absolute irrationality.
5. This game is not mine. I only play with players that respect the same rules of language than I use.
5.1. The first rule of my language is: “Our experience informs us about an external world”.
5.1.1. And we can continue arguing rationally on this basis.
6. If you don’t accept my first rule, you can go and play with other players prepared to accept the possibility of malign demons and other fantastic entities that can explain why you are not sure if your parents didn’t exist.
7. I repeat this is not my game. And I think my position is very justified by the supposition that you don’t really think that your parents didn’t exist.

You are aware that thinking itself has very limited causal effect and that you think that your senses are correct, don't mean that it is the case just because you think/believe that your senses are correct.

BTW - I believe you left out "das Ding an sich" and more generally that any claim of metaphysics is meaningless in terms of our ability to apply the scientific methodology to them, hence the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism.
And indeed this:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

My highlight

 

[David Mo]

That classification exludes the majority of peple who self-identify as atheists from the group "atheist" and classifies them as agnostics. Why? What is the usefulness of that?

I don't know how can you measure majorities and minorities.
My classification has a merit at least: it is more widely used in academic world.

 

[David Mo]

Oh, I see. You've redefined "inclusive" to mean "exclusive". I missed that at first.

I am afraid that it is you who use the words as you like.
You say that it is "exclusive", "irrational" and so on any classification that is not the yours.

All your arguments are "It is not inclusive because "atheist" means...[your personal definition]".

 

[David Mo]

(...) you think that your senses are correct(...))

I have not said that my senses are correct about anithing and in all circumstances.

I have said that when my senses said me that there is a thing I believe that there is actually a thing (in normal circumstances).

We were speaking about a particular problem: the belief in the objective existence of the world out of my mind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am afraid that it is you who use the words as you like.
You say that it is "exclusive", "irrational" and so on any classification that is not the yours.

All your arguments are "It is not inclusive because "atheist" means...[your personal definition]".

Actually, no. I've shown how your novel redefinition of atheist excludes large swathes of atheists. I've also shown how you have no justification for disbelieving in the god I've earlier described and therefore, according to your own classifications, your belief is irrational.

You've simply stamped your foot but have been unable to provide any rational rebuttals.

 

[David Mo]

Actually, no. I've shown how your novel redefinition of atheist excludes large swathes of atheists. I've also shown how you have no justification for disbelieving in the god I've earlier described and therefore, according to your own classifications, your belief is irrational.

You've simply stamped your foot but have been unable to provide any rational rebuttals.

Of course, because you have the "true" definition of "atheist".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course, because you have the "true" definition of "atheist".

As explained, we use the most inclusive definition of it. Do you see the difference?

 

[David Mo]

As explained, we use the most inclusive definition of it. Do you see the difference?

Yes, for you a definition is "inclusive" if it includes what you call "atheist". Vicious circle.

But according with the most widely used concepts your definition is ambiguous because it includes in the same category those that deny the existence of gods and those that dont' affirm nor deny. Atheists and agnostics.

Between the classification of "RoboTimbo" and the specialists of the matter I have no doubt. I have not found the "robotimbism" in my Encyclopedias of Philosophy.