(July 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm)Skepsis Wrote: 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.

I don't find this very convincing. People don't look to theism for a cornerstone either. Nobody's actions are informed by the mere proposition, "God exists".

My point is that people are informed by sets of beliefs, and that when those sets are theistic, we say that theism informed their actions; why isn't that when those sets are atheistic, we say that atheism informed their actions?


Here's the big question:

What's wrong with saying that if a person's set of motivating beliefs lacks the belief, "At least one god exists", then their motivating set is atheistic?

(July 6, 2012 at 2:15 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: The three statements are NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. When are you going to drop thid stupid semantic prestidigitation?

Okay, what is a belief system then? How do you know that the set I gave is not a belief system?

To my understanding, beliefs are essentially collections of propositions (things that are either true, or false). So we say things like, "I believe in God" to mean "I believe that I the sentence "God exists" is true." Or, "I believe that he is guilty" to mean "I believe that the sentence 'He is guilty' is true". And so on.

But it seems that you have a different idea of what a belief system is. Can you go into more detail about it?

I am not here to teach you how tp wipe your ass, boy. Random statements regurgitated on the forum floor do not constitute a belief system.

I am astonished at the depth of your disingenuousness.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I don't find this very convincing. People don't look to theism for a cornerstone either. Nobody's actions are informed by the mere proposition, "God exists".

WWJD?

(July 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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".

Oh, wow.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wow.


Nowhere was I talking about a statement being atheist because an atheist said it. That never happened anywhere.


We've gone over this. A set of beliefs is atheistic if it does not include the belief, "At least one god exists." So the belief system {"Dogs are nice"} is atheistic; so is {"Murder is wrong"}. So is {"Murder is good"}.

And the belief system {"God exists", "Dogs are nice"} is theistic, as is {"God exists", "Murder is good"}.

We've been over all that a million times. I already proved that the definition I used to arrive at these conclusions is equivalent to the definition I was given by you guys a few pages ago.

So unless there's a better definition for "atheist", then it's demonstrably true that if a motivating set of beliefs M lacks (and does not imply) the proposition "At least one god exists", then M is atheistic.

---

(July 6, 2012 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I don't find this very convincing. People don't look to theism for a cornerstone either. Nobody's actions are informed by the mere proposition, "God exists".

WWJD?

That's more than "Jesus exists". That's "Jesus exists, and did things, and you should live your life according to how he lived, according to a translation of the Bible that was sufficiently accurately copied/translated." That's waaaaaay more than "At least one god exists".

---

(July 6, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: I am not here to teach you how tp wipe your ass, boy. Random statements regurgitated on the forum floor do not constitute a belief system.

I am astonished at the depth of your disingenuousness.

Okay, done with your trolling. Ignored!

Quote:Man, it's like the atheists here are allergic to things like mathematical abstraction, logical formalism, methods of inference, and intellectual curiosity.

I love it! It's just so nakedly hypocritical in light of how fucking superior you act about Science and Reason and so on. I wonder how many of you even know the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

You don't need to be good at Maths or have a vast understanding of the intricacies of science to disbelieve in god. Your argument has just become a barrage of insults at their intelligence. Can't you have an actual discussion instead of just insulting people who disagree with your delusions?

And stop clumping Atheists together. We're much more varied and diverse than Theists (where the majority) eagerly spread their legs for god and try not to think why they should even bother.

(July 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I don't find this very convincing. People don't look to theism for a cornerstone either. Nobody's actions are informed by the mere proposition, "God exists".

Don't really see why you don't understand. Theism, the positive belief that God exists, informs the belief sets underneath that positive claim directly. They give meaning to an otherwise meaningless set of beliefs.
For example, "God created the universe", a Christian claim, wouldn't mean anything unless you believed in God.
I feel like I am explaining to you the definition of "of". It's hard as hell to do, but represents the most basic of ideas.

Quote:My point is that people are informed by sets of beliefs, and that when those sets are theistic, we say that theism informed their actions; why isn't that when those sets are atheistic, we say that atheism informed their actions?

Theistic sets make a positive claim that other ideas can use to be given meaning. Atheism is a lack of belief that cannot and does not mean anything to the positive beliefs that simply don't incorporate God.
You would have a single category for theism, and infinite categories for a-unicornism, a-Cthuluism, atheism, a-conspiracytheoryism- you get the point, I hope.
Atheism influences the beliefs of a Nihilist just as a-unicornism does, y'know?

Quote:Here's the big question:

What's wrong with saying that if a person's set of motivating beliefs lacks the belief, "At least one god exists", then their motivating set is atheistic?

Like I explained, it is silly to try to say that lack of belief is the cornerstone of affirmative belief.

(July 6, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Speak Silence Wrote: You don't need to be good at Maths or have a vast understanding of the intricacies of science to disbelieve in god. Your argument has just become a barrage of insults at their intelligence. Can't you have an actual discussion instead of just insulting people who disagree with your delusions?

I tried having an actual discussion. All they did was accuse me of being dishonest, "sneaky", lying, and calling be all kinds of names. I would love to just have a discussion. That's what I wanted. But people wanted to be super incredibly condescending toward me.

Which is a pretty fucking common occurrence on this forum, I'll say. Every thread has a couple raging alcoholic atheists screaming about "fucking fuckwit x-tards".

Quote:And stop clumping Atheists together. We're much more varied and diverse than Theists (where the majority) eagerly spread their legs for god and try not to think why they should even bother.

Yeah, you're so diverse. Sometimes you use sexual innuendo when you're telling theists they're fucking retards, and sometimes you don't.

Uh huh, again, if that's the entirety of their beliefs then that would make them atheists. That doesn't make the statements "atheistic", because without reference to a persons beliefs the qualifiers atheism and theism have no meaning, Mr Set Theory.

That's why any given motivation for something would have to stem from atheism to be called an "atheistic motivation" and not simply something that motivated an atheist.

Are we still having issues trying to imagine a motivation for an action for the set that contains only "I don't believe in god"?

(July 6, 2012 at 2:59 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm)Skepsis Wrote: 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.

I don't find this very convincing. People don't look to theism for a cornerstone either. Nobody's actions are informed by the mere proposition, "God exists".

My point is that people are informed by sets of beliefs, and that when those sets are theistic, we say that theism informed their actions; why isn't that when those sets are atheistic, we say that atheism informed their actions?


Here's the big question:

What's wrong with saying that if a person's set of motivating beliefs lacks the belief, "At least one god exists", then their motivating set is atheistic?

What's wrong is that you are equivocating-- playing fast and loose with the various meanings of the word "belief" and assigning "belief systems" where there are none.

I find your utter disingenuousness disturbing.

I disagree Taq, I find it endearing.