Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

@lightgigantic --

So, according to the logic in my post, religion doesn't provide motivation for good deeds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is the difference between holding something as true (an absolute position) with no implication of uncertainty, and holding something as true within its given framework that is far smaller than the absolute but not being certain it is true even within the framework (let alone in the whole) only that nothing has yet contradicted it.
The latter makes no judgement as to the absolute truth, only to what currently appears to work/hold within the specific framework in question.

Yep - which means that belief is not a requisite for being a practical atheist. If they hold such a belief then it is not part of their atheism but due to other philosophies that they might hold.

I see your position of "belief" allows for an implication of uncertainty - so I accept that you are uncertain about the existence of God, it's good to know.

However, to me "belief" implies no such thing:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ - and I draw your attention to: "Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage)."

Given you're allowing implications of uncertainty within your philosophical "belief", this is understandable.

Practically as "in practice" or as in "almost"?
And no they don't - as explained above.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No

According to your post you haven't been clear about what is the nature of good deeds in regards to religion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd have to double check, but it appears that he has just taken Wynn's list and turned it around. Wynn claims that you must "believe" these things to accept that religion motivates people to do evil... if so, then you must "believe" the same list to accept that religion motivates people to do good.

 

@lightgigantic --

That's irrelevant to whether or not religion can inspire them.

 

I can't find anything in the link that talks about beliefs being necessarily absolute.
Can you?

The problem is here is what they are holding as true ... "and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine".

Can you explain how philosophical naturalism is bereft on an ontological framework?
Or perhaps I should be asking can you understand how any sort of ontology requires belief in order to be workable .....

aka - justified true belief

I think you missed the part where usage of "beliefs" is distinct from "believing in"

Can you see how you are talking about "believe - in" here?

For instance the phrase "I don't believe Sarkus reads the links given to him" is different to "The beliefs Sarkus has about existence and its properties (ie the manner he answers ontological issues) doesn't permit him to grant cause to the divine"

To which the next sentence reads ... "Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. "
aka ontology

IOW the link you provided is talking about how belief frames ontological issues (as well as finding it's usage in existential "believe in" claims)
:shrug:

If you would answer the question given to you it would be clear how belief frames ontology

as in if not the first sentence then in the first few

 

The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines belief as Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

The wiki link goes on to provide several slight variations of its usage

How I see you err with the word belief is that you are using it purely in terms of existential claims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in

which then begs the question what other tools do they have to maintain their ontological position

we are born with a complete absence of ontological frameworks (apart from very base desires for sustenance and avoidance of pain I guess) - to equate that with atheism is complete bullshit

the belief that an absence of ontological frameworks translates as atheism stands out remarkably.

Hell at the very least you have beliefs about what the word atheist defines
:shrug:

Its not too hard to scratch the surface and find several more
:shrug:

What makes you think I haven't answered it already?

 

So far you are talking about inspiring mundane acts that can be carried out by anyone close to being a human being
:shrug:

 

And this is not atheism! It is philosophical naturalism!
Is one of the requirements of being an atheist to hold to philosophical naturalism? No.
No beliefs need to be held to be an atheist... but if an atheist wishes to adopt a philosophy, to hold other beliefs... bully for them.

No - because there is no requirement for it to be true, only for it to have demonstrably held so far.
There is a difference.

I read it and you're talking semantics to wriggle out of the issue - wanting to use casual language of "believe in" within a philosophical framework where there is a more prevalent usage of "belief".

And please explain how one can "believe in" without having a "belief that", without resorting to the casual parlance where belief operates in the presence of uncertainty?

And finally, we're not talking about ontology! We're talking about atheism.
Yes, you have wriggled the topic to ontology, taking an example of an atheist that has also taken an ontological position. And now you are trying to worm your way to a fallacy of generalisation, that all atheists have an ontological position thus have belief.

So, to get it back on track:
What is the belief that defines the atheist position... not just a specific atheist position but one that defines ALL of them? i.e. what is the fundamental belief, the core belief, that one requires to be considered an atheist, irrespective of anything else?

 

@lightgigantic --

Alright then, you want to go big, let's go big.

I posit that religion can not inspire altruistic acts of any kind. To believe that religion can you must accept all six of the assumptions I listed above.

 

yeah, but one of the ontological systems that makes atheism workable

if there are other alternatives to having explanations about how there is no need to invoke the divine when answering fundamental ontological questions feel free to list them ...

if that was the case they would have no means to contextualize theistic claims .... and if you agree that is the case then I guess we have a dire shortage of atheists on sciforums ...

If an atheist didn't have a philosophy, they would have no scope for contextualizing theistic claims

Justified true belief is a definition for knowledge.
Its what happens when there is a justification for a proposition

On the contrary you are talking about "believe -in" as the all encompassing usage for the word "belief" (the latter of which the links, both the one you provided and the one I provided, goes to great pains to explain is the common philosophical usage of it ).

IOW the fall down of your arguments is that you have been using the definition of "believe-in" to try and wriggle out of (the greater philosophical implications of) "belief".

One can't because "believe that" is the language of all ontological underpinnings and hence all knowledge based claims (including "believe in"'s)

If atheism didn't have anything to say about existence and it's qualities it wouldn't be capable of contextualizing theistic claims

It's impossible to be an atheist and not take an ontological position - that's clear from reading the atheist wiki link

Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος "being; that which is", present participle of the verb εἰμί "be", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]
Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered various rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[9][10] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist


The atheist wiki link reads as one big huge treatise on the ontological position.

as far as ontology goes it would be that there are alternative explanations for existence and its qualities without a need to indicate the divine

look no further than the ontology ....
:shrug:

 

@lightgigantic --

Is "ontology" in this sentence another way of saying "fact", because what follows is definitely a fact.

 

Then I guess you had better explain what you mean by an altruistic act and its inherent relationship to religion so we can let the discussion begin .....

 

no and no

read the ontology link if you want to know why

 

@lightgigantic --

Humor is lost on some people. And yes, there are working models of the universe, reality if you will, that do not require divine anything.

 

yes, it is more commonly known as strong atheism but it tends not to be very popular amongst educated persons due to the enormous pitfalls within its form.

 

Exactly, especially one without proof.

Which are irrelevant to core atheism. What the atheist person may belief is irrelevant to basic core atheism.

Remember this is not a belief-in situation, it a lack of that Which is what atheism core position is.

Sorry wrong! can you provide any other tools, as I know of none.

it is not being equated, it is atheism at it's core position. we're not born with, and could not possibly be with, however as we are a blank slates we're without. We lack any belief whatsoever. Which is the basic core position of atheism.
It really isn't rocket science.
And there really is no need for philosophical BS

You're searching for more than is needed, whether a person remains or becomes again an atheist, because of the use of their sense reason and intellect, is irrelevant to their core atheistic position. I.E. what they believe other than holding a core position isn't relevant, to said position. atheist are merely individuals with a similar core position. there are no tenets, doctrines to atheism.

You may have tried, but I didn't ask you, and your answers are so haphazard, I don't read to many.
I just noticed that your had erred, and still err in you belief, in regard to atheism.

 

Irrelevant. We are discussing atheism, not what ontological systems one does or does not adhere to.

Why do they need to address fundamental ontological questions to be an atheist?? And how about the simple answer to them of "I don't know"??
Or do you insist that these questions have an answer, and that we all need to ask them, let alone answer them?

How they conceptualise it has nothing to do with them being atheist, but with whatever their additional philosophical position might be.

First, we're talking belief - not knowledge.
Second, you miss the rather vital requirement for the proposition to be TRUE before it can be considered knowledge.
I hope you don't think that just because something holds so far that it is thus true?
Further it is a definition, and one that has been discussed at length over the years and criticised for being too lenient on what it allows to pass as knowledge. But that is another issue.

First I have stated that my usage of the term "belief" implies no uncertainty!
Which is why when one merely holds an assumption as holding within the framework in question until something contrary arises - and there IS implication of uncertainty, it is thus NOT a belief.
You cannot seem to accept that one is able to hold an assumption as true while allowing for uncertainty. Thus you can not see the difference between this and a belief. Pity.

So finally you will admit that any position that allows for uncertainty can not be held as belief?

Sure - but the question is relating to atheists, not to their ontological position.
You're trying to describe what a Man is through the clothes they wear, not through what a Man actually is.
What is the belief that all atheists have, regardless of their ontological position (or lack thereof)?

Irrelevant, as explained.

And as explained, these are not necessarily beliefs - as they may allow for uncertainty... i.e. many atheists merely hold these positions in the absence of anything contrary, but it is not correct that they therefore believe them as true... only that it models a given framework to a required level of accuracy. But there is room for uncertainty.

 

@lightgigantic --

Wow, I didn't know that "physics" had so many pitfalls. Damn, and it's such a shame too because it works so damn well.

Oh well. Are you going to respond to my post at all, or are you just going to ignore it because you can't figure a way out of it....again....?

 

Not physics - strong atheism

Sure - just waiting for you to clarify key terms in your question