I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

What motivation can one get from "I don't believe there to be a God or Gods"?

Asked and answered, multiple times now. None; the same motivation that one can get from "I believe there is at least one god".

...
Wow. You got it.

Yup. I'm a little curious as to why you didn't explain yourself, instead of making me guess, but whatevs.

I was under the impression that people aren't capable of acting on things that they don't believe in.

Their action is motivated by the set of beliefs. If the set of beliefs were theistic, they would be motivated by theism; similarly, if the set of beliefs were atheistic, they would be motivated by atheism.

Now just keep doing what you always do: Abstract and abstract until all terms become mixed jumbles of useless dribble.
Theists are informed by a positive motivation.
Atheists cannot be motivated by anything based on their atheism; atheism is a lack of fucking belief in a God or Gods.

But atheistic motivating sets are based on atheism.

Let me explain (since you again didn't go into detail about what it means to be 'based on' something). Your intuition seems to be that a theistic motivating set is based on theism, since the theistic set necessarily includes the belief, "At least one god exists."

But, your intuition says, an atheistic motivating set doesn't necessarily contain any belief, since atheism requires only a lack of belief, not the existence of one like theism does. There isn't a belief there for it to be based on.


I'm guessing it's something like that--maybe not exactly that, but probably something around there.


My intuition is something like this:

A theistic motivating set is based on theism, because anyone who would be motivated by that set would have to be motivated by theism--that is, a person's actions are based on theism if and only if the motivating set is theistic. In order for someone to be motivated by that particular motivating set, they'd have to go over into Theism to get it.

Similarly, a person's actions are based on atheism if and only if the motivating set is atheistic. In order for someone to be motivated by that particular motivating set, they'd have to go over into Atheism to get it.

If A' was translated in the function A' B C', and the square root of q is S', then- Wait, what was q again?
Anyway, God exists, a positive claim, gives meaning to "God created the universe". I don't know what you were trying to say. Don't assign shit letters. Type it out. Unless it's short.

Okay.

So let's say S is a set containing a bunch of propositions, call them {s1, s2, s3, ..., sk}.

The closure of S, Cl(S), is defined to be the set of all propositions q such that q is entailed by a conjunction of elements in S.

In English, the closure of S is everything that is provable if you assume that everything in S is true. So, for example, if S = {"John is 6 feet tall", "Suzy is 5 feet tall"} then "John is taller than Suzy" would be in the closure of S.

Everything that you're talking about--necessary foundations for some belief--are provable from that belief. If you have to believe p in order to believe q, then belief in q implies belief in p.

What is motivating about "I don't believe in God"? Seriously.

Nothing. Same goes for "I believe in God."

The "cornerstone" approach is yours- whether or not you understand what you're typing is a different story.
For theism and atheism to both be sets, as you suggest, they must share the capacity to give meaning to the subsets that are informed by the larger set. For something to "motivate" other things (looky there, your approach), that something must be the cornerstone of what is being motivated. Well, not exactly; the former about necessarily being the cornerstone is simply because if what is being informed (i.e. Christianity) must be primarily given meaning by the set (theism) or else the set could be more meaningfully labeled.

That's all a bunch of bullshit, frankly. The sets are given all of their meaning by the propositions included in them.