(July 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: One could conceivably believe in god while simultaneously being a secular humanist, just as one example.

Hmm. I was under the impression that secular humanists specifically rejected the existence of God. But I'm not an expert and my memory's hazy.

Quote:A nihilist might believe in a god, while also maintaining that it doesn't actually matter if there is a god, or that the concept of god is itself just as real as the concept of self -which is to say not at all, though still on equal footing.

Nihilists can't have any beliefs; in particular, they can't have a belief in the existence of a god.

Quote:One could also be a naturalist and believe that in some far-flung universe unconnected to this one a god operates.

My understanding was that Naturalism holds that only material objects exist, which precludes the existence of god.

Quote:I think you might mean to say that some/most/all secular humanists, nihilists, and naturalists are also atheists. Of course, they don't have to be.

Again, I'd dispute your definitions of those systems if I cared to, but that's not really on topic.





What is on topic is when a set of motivating beliefs can be said to be atheistic. Care to go first on this issue?

---

(July 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: More shell game. You are trying to sneak your idea of atheism being a belief system in through the back door. When are you going to quit qith the dishonesty? That and all this fast-talking tomfuckery isn't supposed to be the domain of your devil-figure. Why the fuck are you wallowing in it?

I've said it like five times, I don't think atheism is a belief system. I think Atheism, like Theism, is a class of belief systems. I guess you don't understand what that means, or something.

If I wanted to argue that atheism is a belief system, I'd argue it. There's no need for 'sneaking'. It's an internet forum. Who would I be hiding from??

Nah, SH reject the use of gods, superstitions, etc as valid sources of morality or ethics.

Nihilists don't exist (hehehe, sorry, couldn't help myself)

Naturalists contend that nothing supernatural exists or interacts with this universe.

It's on topic because you brought it up, you were pigeonholing, it's alright. I just figured you might find it refreshing to know that I can imagine gods that fit in with systems which you seem to believe are "atheistic".

Ah, so were back to motivating beliefs. Hmn, lets see, I'm trying to imagine a motivation I would have for something that began with "I don't believe in god"-and I'm drawing a blank. I already told you this though.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:22 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: [quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='306767' dateline='1341598660']More fucking shell games. It's not an "entire CLASS of belief systems" either. That's even fucking stupider.

It's not shell games. Theism is a big umbrella; it includes Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Greek mythology, and so on and so forth. The common property is that every belief system in Theism includes the belief, "At least one god exists."

Now, it seems to me that Atheism is also a big umbrella; it includes secular humanism, nihilism, naturalism, etc. The common property is that every belief system in Atheism fails to include the belief, "At least one god exists".

Quote:That doesn't mean that everything breaks down into your little boxes of "everything is either theistic or atheistic". That's fucking stupid.

[quote]Which makes sense from a macro point of view, too; under this view, Atheism is the complement of Theism. It includes everything that isn't in theism--i.e., every belief system that lacks theistic belief.

No, it's not a "complement". And no, it doesn't include "everything that isn't in theism". Your theism just isn't that important, dumbass.

Quote:But again, it seems like you've got a different idea for how to think about it. Can you go into more detail?

I already did, asswipe. All of us have been calling you on your belligerent use of false dichotomy. Start there.

---

(July 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: [quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='306732' dateline='1341597279']I propose you go back to fucking grade school and ask the nice teachers to explain "Black/White distorted thinking" to you.

I propose you go open a book on predicate logic and bash it against your face for a few hours and see if anything sinks in.
[/quote]

It certainly didn't fucking work for you. I suggest you try avtually reading one instead.in

(July 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Skepsis Wrote: Really and seriously? I can't believe you are seriously arguing the most cliched anti-atheist argument on the books- that atheism is a belief system. Most people go from that to "So you must have as much faith as us" (as if that should be an insult coming from the faithful), or they say, "So, anyways, not that that's established, take my burden of proof".

But you...

No, I don't think any of that. In fact, I've specifically contradicted the claim that atheism is a belief system.

Quote:You're an odd one. You simply argue to argue, don't you? I think it's silly to argue that atheism is a class as theism is. Atheism, as you freely confess, is the lack of belief. You say that, then you contradict yourself, saying that atheism includes all beliefs that don't fall under the theistic umbrella- which is obviously wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief, or hell, you might even call it the rejection of theistic propositions- but it certainly isn't a belief, and I would happily shoot myself in the foot if you can show me that it's a "belief system".

What utter garbage. Do you even think before you post?
No- Sorry. I don't mean to get too snippy.

See, I don't think that Atheism "includes" beliefs, really. That's just kind of shorthand to express the idea of a belief system implementing atheism. It's defined by the lack of a belief.

So it isn't that atheism is itself a belief, it's that there are lots of belief systems that are atheistic.

That's kind of a fine distinction to make, but I think it'll make more sense if you look at Theism as a comparative example.

Now, Theism is a class of belief systems. It includes things like Christianity, Zoroastrianism (so far as I can tell, anyway), Hinduism, and so on.

But you can also think of Theism as a belief itself; namely, the belief "At least one God exists." Equivalently, you could think of it as the intersection of every theistic belief system.

The corresponding property for Atheism as a 'belief itself' is...nothing. It's the empty set. So it doesn't take anything to 'believe' atheism, because you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist.

Quote:But I still think your argument is absolute trash.

That's too bad, I really like it. I think it incorporates interesting things from computer science--the idea of implementing a class, for instance--as well as basic logic and set theory. It might not be a very good model for how people actually think and talk about belief systems, though--especially judging by Taq's reaction.

I really don't get that guy, and why he hates me.

Quote:We're allergic to arguments that have been covered in detail thousands of times before, on the internet, in real life, and on these very forums. This argument might very well be the oldest and stalest in the "theists' shitty arguments" list.

...uh, really? People have talked about belief systems in terms of set theory in that much detail? I could understand it being incredibly common in, say, a philosophy of religion department, but I kinda doubt that you guys have gone over this particular formulation very much before.

---

(July 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: It certainly didn't fucking work for you. I suggest you try avtually reading one instead.in

Where is my logic flawed? What's a better way to think about this? Why aren't you contributing instead of trolling?

Imagine, for a moment, that you aren't half as clever as you reckon, and that we aren't even a quarter as dense. That might help to grease the wheels of conversation Clive.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ah, so were back to motivating beliefs. Hmn, lets see, I'm trying to imagine a motivation I would have for something that began with "I don't believe in god"-and I'm drawing a blank. I already told you this though.

But why would it have to start there? That doesn't make it any more atheist. Atheism is defined by a lack of theism; "That guy's looking at me funny" is just as atheist as "That which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I spent some time trying to get into Clive's head, and I think I understand the point he is trying to make.

He is trying to say that atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods like theism, and so any thought process that necessarily lacks a God should be included under "atheism".

However, the fatal flaws here are glaring-
1. It over complicates the issues, because
2. No belief system puts atheism as its cornerstone, that is, no belief system looks to a lack of belief to inform the actions of an individual. In fact, I don't even think it's possible to look to a position of nonbelief as the primary informant of your actions.
I guess it could be, maybe... But I sure as Jehova's nonexistence don't see it happening.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:04 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ah I see, you were trying to suggest that the statements given were the sum total of every belief a person might hold, well, that does change things, sure. Still doesnt mean that the statements themselves have anything to do with a god, even if the person making them is an atheist. IOW, you could characterize the person as an atheist, but the statements...not so much.

So let me take a crack at drawing a distinction then:

Everyone who uses a theistic justification must be a theist. That is, if B is the motivating set of beliefs for some action, and B is Theistic (includes or implies "At least one god exists"), then anyone who is motivated by B must be a theist.

On the other hand, merely because a justification is atheist doesn't mean that everyone who uses it must be an atheist. That is, if B is the motivating set of beliefs for some action, and B is Atheistic (does not include or imply "At least one god exists"), then merely because a person is motivated by B doesn't mean that the person must be an atheist.

For example: "I robbed him because I wanted his money." This is an atheistic justification, in the sense that "I wanted his money" and the implicit claim "I am entitled to take what I want" do not include or imply "At least one god exists." But that doesn't mean the robber was an atheist; the robber might very well be a theist, but could have used an atheistic justification. Like if a Christian looks both ways before he crosses the road, it's not because of his faith; it's because of (atheistic) common sense.

---

(July 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Nope, just you and the complete nonsense you spout mainly.

Well, if logic is nonsense to you, then I guess atheism isn't the Bastion of Reason it's cracked up to be.

Common sense is "Mu", which means neither this nor that". Are you ever going to fucking grow up and ditch this black/white bullshit?

(July 6, 2012 at 2:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Imagine, for a moment, that you aren't half as clever as you reckon, and that we aren't even a quarter as dense. That might help to grease the wheels of conversation Clive.

I'm just trying to be nice. You guys got really, really slow when I was going faster--Taq's still in molasses--so now I'm going slow and making sure that we're all on the same page.

---

Quote:Common sense is "Mu", which means neither this nor that". Are you ever going to fucking grow up and ditch this black/white bullshit?

What black/white bullshit? Can you give me a better way of looking at it that doesn't have this 'black/white bullshit'?

(July 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: But why would it have to start there? That doesn't make it any more atheist. Atheism is defined by a lack of theism; "That guy's looking at me funny" is just as atheist as "That which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

No, Clive, the statements themselves aren't "just as atheist" as anything. Didn't we discuss this not but two or three posts ago? If those statements comprised the entirety of someones "beliefs" then that person would be an atheist, but that doesn't make the statements in and of themselves "atheistic" statements, nor does an atheist making a statement cause it to be "atheistic" anymore than a theist making a statement causes it to be "theistic".

For us to imagine an "atheistic motivation" it would have to begin with "I dont believe in god" because if it didn't, if it began somewhere else, it isn't atheism that's being invoked.

"I don't like chocolate ice cream, so I had vanilla." Do you imagine I had the vanilla ice cream because I was an atheist, or because I don't like chocolate? Is this an example of an "atheistic belief" or "atheistic motivation"? If so, I think you've created a pretty useless term to argue over.