Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[MartyTheDemonSlayer]

I guess I could agree with that to an extent. Religion is rarely the sole cause of conflicts, but it does greatly increase the damage done by conflicts. Religion is also not an issue when kept completely apolitical, but this is almost never the case.

As for the Uganda link to Christianity:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/0225/Uganda-s-anti-gay-bill-refocuses-attention-on-US-evangelical-influence-video

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

I also fail to see how love or mutual understanding comes into opposition to condoms.There is a complete lack of understanding towards women, who can have their lives fundamentally transformed by getting impregnated. Also, what kind of love entails ensuring that large swathes of the population are at a greater risk of contracting STDs? I'm not trying to argue that Christianity is necessarily bad, just that it has its fair share of atrocities like any other faith.

Haha this thread got derailed real fast...

Edited February 23, 2015 by MartyTheDemonSlayer

[dondon151]

It does not change the fact that communists killed people for professing their religion because they desired to uphold an atheist State. Atheism was also used as an excuse by communists to persecute people, much like christianity was used by its political heads to start wars and persecute people. In this aspect both cases were the same.

atheism is not a thing. atheism is the absence of a thing.

communists don't simply want an atheist state - they want a communist state. a communist state is incidentally godless because you can't profess allegiance to a communist ideology (rule of the proletariat, sacrifice for the good of society) without erasing a religious ideology that conflicts with it.

you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between a political ideology and a religious ideology, but this distinction doesn't really exist. a religious ideology is not by definition apolitical, and a political ideology is not by definition atheist. in the arena of ideologies, religion and politics either conflict or fit.

dictionary.com defines a religion as:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

a political ideology can encompass all aspects of this definition. the purpose of your existence is to serve and better your country and peoples (nationalism). your leader is superhuman or at least possesses qualities lacking in ordinary humans (personality cult). you have to participate in devotional and ritual observances (patriotism), and you have to follow a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs (law).

For the historical context, the Pope merely authorized it so to not lose their most important political ally in times where protestantism was growing and the catholic church was losing their influence, they had little choice but consent.

they could have taken the secular moral high ground, and, you know,

not consented

you're portraying the catholic church as guiltless accomplices to this particular historical event. are you aware that accomplices share guilt with criminals?

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

atheism is not a thing.

Don't tell me you subscribe to the "atheism is a lack of belief" tripe.

[Radiant head]

atheism is not a thing. atheism is the absence of a thing.

Maybe in theory, but that's not how militant atheists go about it.

[dondon151]

Don't tell me you subscribe to the "atheism is a lack of belief" tripe.

i do subscribe to that "tripe." it's the literal definition of the word, and i like to adhere to accepted definitions.

Maybe in theory, but that's not how militant atheists go about it.

do you even know what a militant atheist is

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[Radiant head]

Never mind, this is the last convo I'll be getting into.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Radiant head

[dondon151]

yes?

i have listened to the positions of "militant" atheists, and not only are they not even notably "militant" in the actual definition of the word - favoring extreme or violent means - but they agree with the definition of atheism, which is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

i do subscribe to that "tripe." it's the literal definition of the word

Depends on the dictionary.

The problem is not that some people define atheism as lack of belief; the problem is that "lack of belief" is muddled and conflates at least four distinct positions on the question of god. Those of us who value conceptual clarity don't use that definition.

[Radiant head]

yes?

i have listened to the positions of "militant" atheists, and not only are they not even notably "militant" in the actual definition of the word - favoring extreme or violent means - but they agree with the definition of atheism, which is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Whether they literally use militant methods or not (and some do), doesn't change that atheists don't get to be actively hostile to religous people while claiming they merely have a lack of belief.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Radiant head

[dondon151]

The problem is not that some people define atheism as lack of belief; the problem is that "lack of belief" is muddled and conflates at least four distinct positions on the question of god. Those of us who value conceptual clarity don't use that definition.

no, those of us who value conceptual clarity do use that definition. since there are at least 4 distinct positions on the question of god, that's why terms exist to define them. i'm assuming you're referring to the agnostic-gnostic and the atheist-theist axes.

the position that "militant" atheists take is also represented by the term antitheism, which is necessarily atheist, but only in the way that squares are necessarily quadrilaterals.

Whether they literally use militant methods or not (and some do), doesn't change that atheists don't get to be actively hostile to religous people while claiming they merely have a lack of belief.

most atheists are not actively hostile to religious people, and in fact, even the classically "militant" atheists like dawkins and harris don't have a problem with religious people as long as those religious people keep their beliefs to themselves and don't use them to guide public policies.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

Allow me to repeat myself: the lacking-belief definition of atheism is muddled and conflates at least four distinct positions on the question of God's existence. So what are these conflated positions? Well, in what ways can a person lack belief in god?

1. Affirm there is no god.

2. Maintain both theism and atheism are equally plausible.

3. Hold genuine uncertainty about God's existence.

4. Affirm the question is fundamentally unknowable.

When a person describes themselves as lacking belief, they are being nonspecific. They could be a (traditional) atheist, a soft agnostic, a hard agnostic, or ignorant. Accordingly, the definition you advance is vague and ought to be discarded in favor of more specific terms.

Most importantly, your definition is rejected by experts. I'd encourage you to gloss over the SEP and IEP pages on atheism.

Edited February 23, 2015 by feplus

[dondon151]

When a person describes themselves as lacking belief, they are being nonspecific. They could be a (traditional) atheist, a soft agnostic, a hard agnostic, or ignorant. Accordingly, the definition you advance is vague and ought to be discarded in favor of more specific terms.

i don't think it's vague at all, or at least not more vague than the label "christian" or "muslim" is vague. lack of belief in god elaborates nothing on the certainty or nature of the nonbelief. agnostic atheists are a subset of atheists; rhombi are a subset of quadrilaterals.

i mean, in what ways can a polygon have 4 sides? there are a lot of ways. when a person describes a polygon as having 4 sides, they are being nonspecific. they could be describing a rhombus, a square, a parallelogram, a kite, etc.

Most importantly, your definition is rejected by experts. I'd encourage you to gloss over the SEP and IEP pages on atheism.

i don't see anything in the SEP that directly contradicts what i say.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

This is the SEP's definition.

Atheism is the view that there is no God.

This is the IEP's definition. Both maintain atheism is a belief ("there is no god") rather than a lack of belief. I can call to mind no credible authority who feels your definition holds merit.

Agnosticism is not related to atheism in the same way squares are related to rhombuses. Imagine we defined theism not as a belief in god, but as a lack of rejection of belief in god. Suddenly agnostics are theists. If we throw your definition into the mix, agnostics are both theists and atheists.

Edited February 23, 2015 by feplus

[dondon151]

'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

This is the SEP's definition.

Atheism is the view that there is no God.

This is the IEP's definition. Both maintain atheism is a belief ("there is no god") rather than a lack of belief. I can call to mind no credible authority who feels your definition holds merit.

i don't see the difference. "there is no god" is a lack of belief in god. the negation of a belief in god is a lack of belief in god. the definition of negation is "the absence or opposite of something actual or positive."

do you intend to tell me that the set of infinite entities that i don't believe to exist is equivalent to an infinite set of affirmative beliefs? i can assure you that my mind is capable of holding only a finite number of states.

Agnosticism is not related to atheism in the same way squares are related to rhombuses. Imagine we defined theism not as a belief in god, but as a lack of rejection of belief in god. Suddenly agnostics are theists. If we throw your definition into the mix, agnostics are both theists and atheists.

there are two axes of belief: atheist-theist and agnostic-gnostic. there are both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

agnosticism is related to atheism in the same way that squares are related to quadrilaterals. suppose that the negation of a quadrilateral is a hexagon. if an agnostic quadrilateral is a square (i.e. , a regular quadrilateral), then an agnostic hexagon is a regular hexagon.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

No. Saying "there is no god" is a positive claim requiring justification, just as saying "there is a god" is a positive claim requiring justification.

I will repeat this since you did not address it: Imagine we defined theism not as a belief in god, but as a lack of rejection of belief in god. Suddenly agnostics are theists. From this we can conclude that

agnosticism is related to theism in the same way that squares are related to quadrilaterals. suppose that the negation of a quadrilateral is a hexagon. if an agnostic quadrilateral is a square (i.e. , a regular quadrilateral), then an agnostic hexagon is a regular hexagon.

[dondon151]

No. Saying "there is no god" is a positive claim requiring justification, just as saying "there is a god" is a positive claim requiring justification.

it's not philosophically possible to prove that there is no god. the nonexistence of gods is not a positive claim.

i hate to use such a trite example, but i'm fairly confident in the statement "there is no teapot in orbit around the earth" even though there is no way to prove that no such teapot exists.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

Snowy's Opinion on Israel/Gaza: Even if Israel is unjustifiably occupying the land (I'm not gonna touch that mess) that does not justify the acts of terrorism and lost lives that have come as a result. If you want Israel to leave Gaza, fine, but don't use civilians as your shields then claim the other side is the bad-guy.

Snowy's Opinion on Atheism: Anyone who can look at a universe as wonderful as ours and devolve it down to a question of if God exists or not is stupid. A rose by divine creation or spontaneous evolution is amazing just the same. There is much to learn about the universe still and we should focus on finding it all.

[feplus]

It is certainly possible to demonstrate theism is unjustified, and this is in fact the central question of philosophy of religion.

Teapots are empirical. Gods are metaphysical. You are making the same category mistake Russell did.

You again did not address my new theism definition. What's wrong with it? Why don't you like it?

Edited February 23, 2015 by feplus

[dondon151]

It is certainly possible to demonstrate theism is unjustified, and this is in fact the central question of philosophy of religion.

yes, i agree; however, theism can never be disproven. we can only reach a point where we're reasonably certain that god doesn't exist.

it is certainly possible to demonstrate that belief in leprechauns is unjustified, but we can never prove that they don't exist.

You again did not address my new theism definition. What's wrong with it? Why don't you like it?

because theism is a positive claim? existence is positive, nonexistence is negative.

Teapots are empirical. Gods are metaphysical. You are making the same category mistake Russell did.

why aren't gods empirical? there is no category mistake. you're implying that certain subjects don't obey logic.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

Our new definition of theism is not a positive claim.

Let's be more specific. The Abrahamic god is not empirical because he is not a part of physical reality. You are indeed making a well-known category mistake.

[dondon151]

Our new definition of theism is not a positive claim.

doesn't matter. things either exist or don't exist; the nonexistence of nonexistence is not existence.

Let's be more specific. The Abrahamic god is not empirical because he is not a part of physical reality. You are indeed making a well-known category mistake.

empirical is defined as "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." it says nothing about being a part of physical reality. the abrahamic god is claimed to exert influence on physical reality that can be observed. i'm not making a category mistake.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

It does matter. Our new definition of theism is not a positive claim. Your definition of atheism is not a positive claim. Your definition grandfathers agnostics into atheism. Why doesn't my definition grandfather agnostics into theism?

Are you unironically using a dictionary definition of "empirical"? Try this instead: insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, empirical knowledge is a posteriori, dependent upon sense experience.

Knowledge of god is not dependent on sense experience, as god is not a being approachable through sense experience. Determining whether theism is justified or unjustified means using metaphysical reasoning.

[dondon151]

It does matter. Our new definition of theism is not a positive claim. Your definition of atheism is not a positive claim. Your definition grandfathers agnostics into atheism. Why doesn't my definition grandfather agnostics into theism?

my definition doesn't grandfather agnosticism into atheism. what makes you think it does? you can be anywhere on a spectrum of gnosticism about a negative claim - just because the claim is negative doesn't mean that there aren't varying degrees to which you can reasonably think it's true.

Are you unironically using a dictionary definition of "empirical"? Try this instead: insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, empirical knowledge is a posteriori, dependent upon sense experience.

Knowledge of god is not dependent on sense experience, as god is not a being approachable through sense experience. Determining whether theism is justified or unjustified means using metaphysical reasoning.

what? god is approachable through sense experience. you cited the example of the abrahamic god, and i know for a fact that the bible makes empirical claims about the abrahamic god.

what i'm getting from this is that you're granting god a special exception in the realm of logic, and so rules and definitions that pertain to empirical observation don't apply. this is the second time that you've mocked me for using a dictionary to look up the definitions of words. if you're going to continue to affirm this, then obviously we're not going to get anywhere.

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

Your definition makes agnostics a kind of atheist, as both "lack belief." My definition makes agnostics a kind of theist, as both "lack rejection of belief." You inconceivably favor one definition over the other despite them being structurally identical.

Nowhere in the Bible, Torah, or Quran is god approachable through sense experience. This is unsurprising, as metaphysical beings are not approachable through sense experience.

I am granting metaphysical objects exemption from empirical scrutiny in the same way I would grant empirical objects exemption from metaphysical scrutiny. Doing otherwise would involve a category mistake. This is basic philosophy.

[dondon151]

Your definition makes agnostics a kind of atheist, as both "lack belief." My definition makes agnostics a kind of theist, as both "lack rejection of belief." You inconceivably favor one definition over the other despite them being structurally identical.

my definition does not make agnosticism a kind of atheism. as i've said for the third time, atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism are on orthogonal axes.

Nowhere in the Bible, Torah, or Quran is god approachable through sense experience. This is unsurprising, as metaphysical beings are not approachable through sense experience.

in the old testament, joshua commands god to make the sun stand still. that's an empirical claim. the roman catholic church claims that miracles; i.e. empirical events, are evidence of god's existence. the qu'ran is a dictation of god's will from the archangel gabriel received by the prophet muhammed. how are these not empirical claims?

Edited February 23, 2015 by dondon151