Athiests start religious wars, too!

[The Greater Fool]

ETA: I believe my reply addresses your Addendum also.

I edited my previous post. From that:

I get your point. The war was prosecuted without religion. But a theistic war isn't simply one fought because those who prosecuted it were religious. It is prosecuted in part BECAUSE of religion.

Many wars have been fought by people who were religious that had nothing to do with religion. Just because those people were all religious doesn't make the war religious.

Your usage of the word atheism here is an amphibology. You are using the word in a way to hide the nature of what a religious motivated war is compared to an atheistic motivated war. The problem is the motivation for the war.

However,

Going back to the xor a / not a...

If Theistic Wars [Defined as wars fought by, for, or using Religious or Theist beliefs] is one set, then outside that set is ALL other wars fought for ALL other reasons, ie. Not Theist Wars, aka Atheist Wars.

amphibology? You couldn't say ambiguous?

It's your misuse of the XOR logic tool here that is amphiibology As I said to you, when xor is used re: Theist / Not Thest=Atheist was that you can only make factual statements about 'set Theist', that the 'not Theist' would contain contradictory groups. Well, you can make claims about the group 'Theist Wars', but the outside 'Atheist Wars' would contain many, even contradictory types of wars.

What you want are 3 groups, which you outlawed to me: Theist Wars, Atheist Wars, Other Wars.

 

[RandFan]

If Theistic Wars [Defined as wars fought by, for, or using Religious or Theist beliefs] is one set, then outside that set is ALL other wars fought for ALL other reasons, ie. Not Theist Wars, aka Atheist Wars.

Agreed. But calling that set atheist is incorrect for the reasons I stated.

amphibology? You couldn't say ambiguous?

No. Amphibology has a specific meaning that relays more information.

It's your misuse of the XOR logic tool here that is amphiibology As I said to you, when xor is used re: Theist / Not Thest=Atheist was that you can only make factual statements about 'set Theist', that the 'not Theist' would contain contradictory groups. Well, you can make claims about the group 'Theist Wars', but the outside 'Atheist Wars' would contain many, even contradictory types of wars.

The two are not comparable.

What you want are 3 groups, which you outlawed to me: Theist Wars, Atheist Wars, Other Wars.

No. I'm happy to have two groups.

A = Religious wars.
B = Not religious wars.

B = Not A.

Labeling B an atheistic wars is an amphibology as it conveys a meaning that is not justified by the word atheism.

Again, the term religious wars has a meaning (the war is motivated by religion). To call a war that is not motivated by religion atheist suggests that it was motivated by atheism. Can you see how that would be a misuse of the term?

However, the use of the word atheism to describe people who have no belief in god is correct by definition. The two do not compare. One is a sleight of hand.

 

[RandFan]

Again with my edits.

What you are missing is this. If a war is fought exclusively by religious people on both sides it does NOT by definition make that a religious war. If a person believes in god it by definition makes that person a theist.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Agreed. But calling that set atheist is incorrect for the reasons I stated.
No. Amphibology has a specific meaning that relays more information.

The two are not comparable.

No. I'm happy to have two groups.

A = Religious wars.
B = Not religious wars.

B = Not A.

Labeling B an atheistic wars is an amphibology as it conveys a meaning that is not justified by the word atheism.

Again, the term religious wars has a meaning (the war is motivated by religion). To call a war that is not motivated by religion atheist suggests that it was motivated by atheism. Can you see how that would be a misuse of the term?

However, the use of the word atheism to describe people who have no belief in god is correct by definition. The two do not compare. One is a sleight of hand.

You should publish your rule book, it's probably quite interesting. You make assertions, when I make the same assertion back, you balk.

If Theist War is "Gods War", then Atheist is fair for any War that is NOT "Gods War". I know you don't like it, but there it is.

You say Theists can claim Divine authority to wage war. Now you see how non-theist (atheist) wars gain authority... for ALL the other possible reasons.

The reality is, at least of atheists, that No war is for god, that is an excuse for greedy people who want more use. Well, when god is not available for greedy people, they find a myriad of other reasons to wage war.

A war for god is theist war, wars not involving belief in god are atheist wars. Thems your rules. You're just bending logic to avoid an answer you don't like, Just like I didn't like Atheist = everyone not theist.

 

[RandFan]

You should publish your rule book, it's probably quite interesting. You make assertions, when I make the same assertion back, you balk.

A.) It's NOT the same assertion. B.) I'm more than happy to divide wars into A and not A. Two groups. I'm happy to call those two groups "religious wars" and "Not Religious wars". So where's the problem?

I object to the use of the term for "atheistic war" for wars that are not motivated by atheism because it is an amphibology. I would also object to using the term "religious wars" to describe a war that is fought entirely by religious people that is NOT motivated by religion. Can you see the difference?

If Theist War is "Gods War", then Atheist is fair for any War that is NOT "Gods War". I know you don't like it, but there it is.

You say Theists can claim Divine authority to wage war. Now you see how non-theist (atheist) wars gain authority... for ALL the other possible reasons.

The reality is, at least of atheists, that No war is for god, that is an excuse for greedy people who want more use. Well, when god is not available for greedy people, they find a myriad of other reasons to wage war.

A war for god is theist war, wars not involving belief in god are atheist wars. Thems your rules. You're just bending logic to avoid an answer you don't like, Just like I didn't like Atheist = everyone not theist.

If religious people fight a war that is not motivated by religion then that is outside of the set religious wars. Got it? You are making way more of this than is warranted.

TGF, you are not being responsive to what I'm writing now. Have you left the discussion?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Again with my edits.

What you are missing is this. If a war is fought exclusively by religious people on both sides it does NOT by definition make that a religious war. If a person believes in god it by definition makes that person a theist.

Not missing that at all. I never said a war fought by theists, I said a theist war was defined as a war for, by, or using religion or theism). If it is a war using theistic belief to motivate, it is (in language and math) a Theistic War. That is a set. So, everything outside that set is Atheistic War. The key difference being the ware didn't claim war on behalf of, or using godly belief).

To be blunt... Theistic War would mean war waged on behalf of theism. That IS how english (and math) work. The group outside that would be "Not theistic war" aka "Atheistic war".

You just aren't liking the result you gave me.

 

[RandFan]

You say Theists can claim Divine authority to wage war. Now you see how non-theist (atheist) wars gain authority... for ALL the other possible reasons.

But if theists DON'T claim divine authority for their war then I don't call the war "religious".

You are comparing things that cannot be compared.

 

[Belz...]

Atheism+

The what ?

 

[RandFan]

To be blunt... Theistic War would mean war waged on behalf of theism. That IS how english (and math) work. The group outside that would be "Not theistic war" aka "Atheistic war".

Amphibology.

If a religious war is one that is fought BECAUSE of religion then calling a war that is not caused by religion atheistic implies that it was fought because of atheism.

TGF, I get your point but you are not making your case. Here is your chance, state for me my claim about atheism and theism when it comes to beliefs in the way I did above (the text in red).

 

[The Greater Fool]

But if theists DON'T claim divine authority for their war then I don't call the war "religious".

You are comparing things that cannot be compared.

We're sorta leapfrogging our responses, and get a tad tangled.

For the 3rd time: I defined Theistic War [Defined as wars fought by, for, or using Religious or Theist beliefs]. Ok, they by may have been slightly ambigous, as I meant by Religious theists. OK, better definition: Theist War = War in which God's authority is invoked. That tweek doesn't change much.

Not Theistic War = Atheistic War = war for all other non-theistic reasons.

 

[RandFan]

We're sorta leapfrogging our responses, and get a tad tangled.

For the 3rd time: I defined Theistic War [Defined as wars fought by, for, or using Religious or Theist beliefs]. Ok, they by may have been slightly ambigous, as I meant by Religious theists. OK, better definition: Theist War = War in which God's authority is invoked. That tweek doesn't change much.

Not Theistic War = Atheistic War = war for all other non-theistic reasons.

This is an amphibology (see previous post). Your mistake is to generalize the word "atheistic". Demonstrate my amphibology. Show me how I misuse the word atheism the way you misuse the word atheism?

 

[RandFan]

The what ?

Belz, where on earth have you been hiding?

Elevator gate -> fracturing of atheist community -> 1 year of recriminations -> a new movement to separate the good little atheists from the evil ones, voilà Atheism+

 

[The Greater Fool]

Amphibology.

If a religious war is one that is fought BECAUSE then calling a war that is not caused by religion atheistic implies that it was fought because of atheism.

TGF, I get your point but you are not making your case. Here is your chance, state for me my claim about atheism and theism when it comes to beliefs in the way I did above (the text in red).

OK... although I think there is a typo up there, it's a little muddled.

If a religion causes a War, it is a Religious War. Wars outside that set would be AReligious Wars.

I though you would be ok with that, and so would I... Because... I've been saying all along it was the additional religious dogma that creates gods authority, not mere belief in god(s). I've never heard of "Theistic War" because no one cares about the individuals fighting, only about the big causes (religion, power, territory, etc.)

So, if you're now hanging god's authority on Religion, let me hold out my hand. Theists can be manipulated on their belief, just as atheiists can be manipulated on other beliefs as all the 'non-religious' wars demonstrate.

Oddly, theists and atheists in the past would fight on the side of their leige, no matter if they agreed with the stated purposes or not.

Also, I never liked the xor a/not a thing when you tried to grant common attributes to the not-a group. That is mususe of xor, all the not group tells you is they are not the group we are interested in.

 

[The Greater Fool]

This is an amphibology (see previous post). Your mistake is to generalize the word "atheistic". Demonstrate my amphibology. Show me how I misuse the word atheism the way you misuse the word atheism?

Perhaps if you explain how Not Theism <> Atheism, I would understand my error?

In XOR logic, A / Not A, A = the defined group, Not A = everthing outside (or not) that group. If the group is Theist War, then Not Theist War can also be stated atheist war. Atheist in contest is A (without) theist (belief in god(s).

 

[RandFan]

If a religion causes a War, it is a Religious War. Wars outside that set would be AReligious Wars.

I don't mind the use of the term to mean wars that are not motivated by religion.

I though you would be ok with that, and so would I... Because... I've been saying all along it was the additional religious dogma that creates gods authority, not mere belief in god(s). I've never heard of "Theistic War" because no one cares about the individuals fighting, only about the big causes (religion, power, territory, etc.)

I've conceded over and over and over and over that there is a requirement of additional dogma. And?

So, if you're now hanging god's authority on Religion, let me hold out my hand. Theists can be manipulated on their belief, just as atheiists can be manipulated on other beliefs as all the 'non-religious' wars demonstrate.

I've NEVER said that atheists cannot be manipulated. I've said that atheism has no faith and nodivine authority to be manipulated.

Also, I never liked the xor a/not a thing when you tried to grant common attributes to the not-a group. That is mususe of xor, all the not group tells you is they are not the group we are interested in.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to state it otherwise but this is complete nonsense. You have not explained how my use of the word "atheism" is an amphibology in the way you use it.

• In our discussion of war the point is the motivation for the war. The beliefs of those who fight the war is not at issue.
• In our discussion of those who have a belief in god and those who do not have a belief in god the beliefs of those people IS AT ISSUE.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps if you explain how Not Theism <> Atheism, I would understand my error?

1. The term "religious war" goes to the motivation of the war and NOT the beliefs of those who prosecute the war.
2. The terms theists and atheist go to the beliefs of people.

So, in premise 1 we are talking about the motivation for war. To call a war that is not motivated by non-belief "atheistic" is to mislead. In premise 2, to call all people who lack a belief in god "atheistic" is NOT misleading as it is correct by definition.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I don't mind the use of the term to mean wars that are not motivated by religion.

I've conceded over and over and over and over that there is a requirement of additional dogma. And?

I've NEVER said that atheists cannot be manipulated. I've said that atheism has no faith and nodivine authority to be manipulated.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to state it otherwise but this is complete nonsense. You have not explained how my use of the word "atheism" is an amphibology in the way you use it.

• In our discussion of war the point is the motivation for the war. The beliefs of those who fight the war is not at issue.
• In our discussion of those who have a belief in god and those who do not have a belief in god the beliefs of those people IS AT ISSUE.

I've finally put my finger on our argument.

You have said again and again that Theists have faith in an unseen god(s) while atheists don't. This is true and unargued.

You then go on to make statements about this, that I have been responding incorrectly to:

• Theists have faith in god(s) that can be exploited, atheists Don't. Duh! That's part of the definition.
• Theists join religions that add god dogma, atheists don't. Duh! That's part of the definition.
• Atheists don't do anything in the name of god. Duh! That's part of the definition.

Now, there is also an implied "Because atheists can't be manipulated on the basis of their belief in god(s), something...." What?

It's the implied answer to the "What?" that is the crux of the arguement.

Wars have been fought for purportedly religous reasons (NOT theist reasons), but more have been fouight for non-religious reasons (NOT atheist reasons). So, why are we tangled up in Theist/Atheist and not Religion/Areligion? It's obvious theists and atheists alike fight wars. So atheists don't have god as an arrow in their quiver... so what?

 

[The Greater Fool]

1. The term "religious war" goes to the motivation of the war and NOT the beliefs of those who prosecute the war.
2. The terms theists and atheist go to the beliefs of people.

So, in premise 1 we are talking about the motivation for war. To call a war that is not motivated by non-belief "atheistic" is to mislead. In premise 2, to call all people who lack a belief in god "atheistic" is NOT misleading as it is correct by definition.

And, by the same token, calling anyone not theistic atheist is misleading, at least by the narrower definition quoted earlier. That you don't like it, and fail to understand the words use in context is not my issue.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, where on earth have you been hiding?

Elevator gate -> fracturing of atheist community -> 1 year of recriminations -> a new movement to separate the good little atheists from the evil ones, voilà Atheism+

I see. What does any of that have to do with atheism ? Skepticism+, maybe.

 

[RandFan]

And, by the same token, calling anyone not theistic atheist is misleading, at least by the narrower definition quoted earlier.

If someone is under the impression that atheism can only mean a positive belief that there is no god then you are right. It would be misleading to that person. But you now understand that the word does also mean an absence of belief in god. So your continued insistence that I misused the word won't advance the discussion. At the end of the day what is important is the ideas in our heads and not the words. We both now understand two things.

• Atheism is defined, in part, to mean an absence of a belief in god.
• Religious wars is defined to mean a war motivated, in part, by religion.

That you don't like it, and fail to understand the words use in context is not my issue.

This isn't helpful at all. Now that we understand our terms we don't need personal attacks. FWIW: It has nothing at all with what I like and there is nothing to suggest I don't understand something as we have a working understanding of the terms we are using.