Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[lightgigantic]

Exactly, especially one without proof.

actually it doesn't mention that - feel free to browse the link

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

if you are trying to say that ontology is irrelevant to atheism you have just cut yourself a difficult task

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

you are still continuing to err - existential use of the word "belief" occupies but one small sub category on the link provided

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

For your sake you had better hope that they have a few unless you you wish to confer that atheism confers nothing meaningful to existence

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.

Much like we are not born with mathematical skills, or an opinion on the middle east.
We are not born with much of an ontological position on anything .. which is just another way of saying we are born ignorant
:shrug:

It really isn't rocket science.

I know - its quite straight forawrd

And there really is no need for philosophical BS

lol
Since you are trying to equate atheism with the state of ignorance of newborn babies I can see why you believe that

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.

I guess that places atheism in the same category as shitting one's pants, screaming fretfully over trivial occurrences and other constitutional behaviors of new born infants

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.

You still haven't got a clue what the distinction is between "believe in" and "believe that", do you?
Let's try the link once more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in

The phrase "I don't believe pavlosmarcos reads links directed at him" uses the "belief" in a different manner to "The beliefs of pavlosmarcos don't permit him to acknowledge the divine in his explanation of reality"

 

[Big Chiller]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Protestantism didn't represent mainstream Christianity at one point. Mormonism doesn't represent mainstream Christianity now. The Shia and Sunni don't agree on how Islam should be practiced.

Religious beliefs don't have to be useful or follow any institution or historical precedent.

In other words religious beliefs do not have any practical application in life except in the case of violence according to you which is the only time it can be recognized as religion.

 

[wynn]

Oh, and if you would please address the rest of the post you quoted that from, that would be wonderful.

You've graduated from pop psychology, so there's nothing I could reply to your post.

 

[wynn]

List the atheist beliefs, please.

Here you go:

"There (probably) is no God."

I think that's all of them.

Happy to have helped.

Fixed.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

So all you can do is evade huh? Man you're shit at this game, I think the cranks in the UFO section are better at this than you are.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Again, answer the question or I will take it that you concede my point.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Simple:

There is all that talk about how religion motivates people to be violent and abusive.

Show that the violence is indeed religiously motivated - and not perhaps politically, economically, a mistake etc.

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-sentenced-500-lashes-saudi-arabia-052845608.html

 

[Sarkus]

Fixed.

Unfortunately your attempt at fixing the response was unnecessary and also incorrect: there are atheist positions that hold God to be unknowable, and thus they do not place any level of probability on the existence thereof... such as agnostic atheists.

As such, your "There (probably) is no God." can not be said to be true of all atheists, and thus is not a belief of atheists per se, although might be a belief of a subset of atheists due to other philosophical positions that they might hold.


And please note that it is bad etiquette to "fix" someone else's post in a quote, even in jest, especially when you seek by doing so to invert the original meaning of the post, as you are effectively assigning things to that person that they didn't say.
And should someone look to rely on your "fixed" quote, they will assume those to be the person's words rather than yours.
Please refrain from doing such again.

 

[lightgigantic]

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

That's not logically possible unless you can hazard a definition of atheism that in no way touches on issues of existence
(at the very least, the wiki page on atheism fails in that regard)

Why do they need to address fundamental ontological questions to be an atheist??

Because one cannot escape issues of ontology when one is discussing the qualities of existence

And how about the simple answer to them of "I don't know"??

I don't know what?

Or do you insist that these questions have an answer, and that we all need to ask them, let alone answer them?

If they couldn't be answered there would be no way to distinguish the various grades of atheists (strong, weak, implicit, explicit, practical, theoretical, ontological, epistemological, metaphysical, logical, existential etc) ... or for that matter an atheist from a theist or an agnostic or some combination of them

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

Its got everything to do with it - if you take the explicit out of an explicit atheist you are certainly not left with an atheist

First, we're talking belief - not knowledge.

Actually firstly its a definition of knowledge that says belief plays a vital role

Second, you miss the rather vital requirement for the proposition to be TRUE before it can be considered knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
Better read the link quickly before you say something blasphemous against the scientific method

I hope you don't think that just because something holds so far that it is thus true?

You mean correspondence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth#Correspondence

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.

hence amended versions refine the issue of justification

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.

this is the existential use of the word belief ... as in "believe in"
You are totally missing the other philosophical use of the word

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.

Once again, this is all "believe -in" stuff.
Sheeesh

Its clear you don't have a clue what I am talking about or even the stuff you post in links
Seriously go back and read the wiki link.

If you can't understand how belief (and not the believe-in type) plays a role in all sorts of knowledge you haven't understood.

It might pay to go back to the fundamental ontology q's

Maybe this link will help you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_ontology

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

Not in the ontological sense, only in the existential sense
IOW belief that incorporates uncertainty is not the same sort of belief that supports ontology.
For instance you may have uncertainty whether god exists but you don't have uncertainty about Physicalism (since Physicalism is the language that you seem to pose the question of god)

IOW one posits issues of "believe-in" within an ontological system.
The ontological system is propped up by "believe-that"

Sure - but the question is relating to atheists, not to their ontological position.

Perhaps if one could use the word atheist in a manner that bears no connection to issues of existence that sentence would make sense

You're trying to describe what a Man is through the clothes they wear, not through what a Man actually is.

You're wearing 10 tracksuits and you are trying to tell me you are naked

What is the belief that all atheists have, regardless of their ontological position (or lack thereof)?

what are you talking about?
Its the very nature of an ontological system that it does sum up the beliefs of a group!

Irrelevant, as explained.

-groan-

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.

I'll say it again in summary

beliefs that aren't necessary - "believe in"

beliefs that are necessary - "believe that"

An Ontological system absolutely must in all circumstances 100% of the time without fail have a "believe that"

In order to posit a "believe in" one absolutely must in all circumstances 100% of the time without fail have an ontological system.

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

So all you can do is evade huh? Man you're shit at this game, I think the cranks in the UFO section are better at this than you are.

I don't think being unable to explain key terms in one's question is good cause to go around patting one's self on the back

 

[Arioch]

I'm not unable to, it's just absolutely irrelevant to do so. You don't need me to do so in order to answer my question, therefore it is just an evasion in order to get out of answering a question you know will doom your argument. Like I said, you're not nearly as good as you think you are.

 

[spidergoat]

In other words religious beliefs do not have any practical application in life except in the case of violence according to you which is the only time it can be recognized as religion.

Correction: They don't have to have any connection to any ideology that went before. Big time strawman, dude. For shame.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm not unable to, it's just absolutely irrelevant to do so. You don't need me to do so in order to answer my question, therefore it is just an evasion in order to get out of answering a question you know will doom your argument. Like I said, you're not nearly as good as you think you are.

Arioch :I bet you can't tell me what inspires a person to do a particular action
Me: well what is the action?
Arioch : Geez just answer it
Me : Perhaps I could if you would explain the nature of the action
Arioch: I could but I am not because I want you to answer the question
Me : I don't see how I can answer the question unless you explain the action
Arioch : That's because you are a pussy

And you wonder why people pull guns on you?
:shrug:

 

[Big Chiller]

Correction: They don't have to have any connection to any ideology that went before. Big time strawman, dude. For shame.

If religion according to your definition does not have to have any connection to any ideology let alone values then according to standard definition (the definitions I quoted earlier) how is it even remotely religion or even practical.

 

[wynn]

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.

The original six points were part of a twofold set, intended to be complimentary, contextualized by additional qualifiers:

Some ways to understand violence to be motivated by religion:

1. The violence is perpetrated by people who claim to be religious.

2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.

3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.

4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.

5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.

6. People make no mistakes.


- And therefore, any violence committed by a person who claims to be religious, is violence motivated by religion.

Some ways to understand how violence is not motivated by religion:


1. Simply claiming to be religious does not make a person religious.
Asserting religious identity does not necessarily equal genuine religious identity.
Every religion has as part of its doctrines warnings about asserting religious identity lightly.

2. There is a gradation of religious advancement within every religion.
From practitioners who are at the beginning levels and who still manifest mainly mundane acting and reasoning, to practitioners who are much less mundane.

3. Religion is what the topmost authorities within a religion claim religion to be.

4. Religious scriptures give various instructions. While any practitioner may attempt to carry them out, not every practitioner is equally competent to carry out those instructions adequately.

5. All people have political and economical interests. It is inevitable that in order to survive, they satisfy those interests somehow.

6. People make mistakes. Sometimes, they even repent for them.


- And therefore, any violence committed by a person who claims to be religious, is not necessarily violence motivated by religion.

If you disagree with the second set, then state your case.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

Straw man argument. I specified more than enough for the purposes of my question. I specified that religion can not be determined to cause people to act in an altruistic manner. In other words, it can't motivate people to act in ways which benefit others and not themselves.

You know damn well what altruism is. I'll take this exchange you conceding the point.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

None of that even begins to imply that religion doesn't act as a motivator for violent actions.

 

[wynn]

aSo, 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?

"God, whoever and whatever He may be, whether He exists or not, is not worth submitting to in any way."

 

[spidergoat]

If religion according to your definition does not have to have any connection to any ideology let alone values according to standard definition (the definitions I quoted earlier) how is it even remotely religion or even practical.

Correction: any ideology or institution that went before. In other words, one can create one's own religion simply by believing in it. Religion doesn't have to be practical.

 

[wynn]

@wynn --

None of that even begins to imply that religion doesn't act as a motivator for violent actions.

You and others keep making the point that there exists religiously motivated violence.
But so far, none of you has produced any argument that would show that violence can be religiously motivated.

(Other than, of course, the absurd "They call themselves Christians, therefore, they are Christians, and religious, and if they do something violent, it is because of their religousness.")