...becuase it has none of the traits that we use to determine what is true and the traits that it does possess can just as easily lead to erroneous conclusions as correct ones. It has zero explanatory power. Its not even an actual reason to believe something, it is precisely the answer people give when they DO NOT have a reason. If they actually had a reason then they would answer with that reason instead of with “faith”.

It is the heart of many of these discussions, does faith exist, and if so, does it have any value, can it lead in any way to "knowing " — Rank Amateur

Ok, lets have that discussion then. Yes faith exists, yes it can of some value to people who have it. Its not value that we need to look at, it is its value in knowing if something is true thats important here.
Is faith a good way to know if some is true? No, it isnt.

You should finish the book first, as many of your and other peoples issues are addressed by the end.
It is not meant as hyperbole, he makes the case that religion poisons everything it touches, that even any good works it does is tainted and if the poison (religion) is removed we would be better off.

Mr S has pretty clearly addressed your post so I wont bother repeating. At this point I think its all been laid out for and as S has said, you might be stuck somehow if you cannot see it because you really are not accounting for what's been said.

Atheism is the claim: God doesn't exist. It's, to atheists, a justified claim and hence it is knowledge and knowledge is, most definitely, not ignorance. — TheMadFool

An obvious attempt at obfuscation. This is no different than the argument as it has already been put except some shifting semantics.
Here is the problem with using your standard: I could make something up, and make it up as I go in appropriately vague answers and you would be burdened to prove it does not exist. Worse, you will have burdened yourself with an endless amount of such proofs and your only other option is to refusal to address them. If you do, then this made up thing is equally justified as whatever anyone believes.
But wait, it gets worse yet. With your standards in place, no person can ever be justified in belief in one god until they have disproven every other god. After all, the burden of proof lies with all involved parties, each has a responsibility to the others claims, right? Right.
Now, you are certainly welcome to look at the burden of proof in this way but A) I would be very surprised if you thought of other claims this way and B) you shouldnt be at all surprised when someone tells you that you can keep you standard, for the workload alone.
No, atheism on its own is someone who hasnt been convinced, who simply lacks belief. Something else must be added, anti-theism, a closed mind, a grudge against religion or personal agenda etc etc, before it graduates to actually making a claim.

There's a difference, in the eyes of theists, between ignorance and atheism. This is not an idiosyncratic observation as it's just an instance of the difference between ignorance and knowledge which, I hope, we all can agree on. — TheMadFool

Still Irrelevant.

Hitchens was an anti-theist, and an atheist. Im actually not sure how that is relevent.
Ok, so what is unreasonable exactly? It doesnt matter that theists differentiate between the heretic and the ignorant...they do not get to impose their standards on anyone but themselves. We are talking about atheism and what it means.
You said you do not find “this reasonable at all” in reference to my post. What exactly do you think is unreasonable and why?

If the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is anything other than “yes”, then you are an atheist.

So one could be an atheist becuase one is ignorant of god, or a variety of reasons.
Likewise, atheism or atheists have no special claim of rationality or science...those are additional or seperate things about a persons view.
Like a theist, there are different kinds of atheists but that doesnt change the basic definitions of Theism=belief in god and Atheism=lack of belief in god.
The confusion comes from uninformed, anti theists (opposed to religion) who confuse their antitheism for atheism and then go around attacking theists and people listen to them self identify as atheists and walk away with the impression that atheists are assholes. Some are (probly many, as they are humans and humans are kinda assholes in general) but its not because they are atheists.

I think it shouldn't be considered as atheism because, to be fair, the 0 state isn't a claim while atheism is one - that God doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Atheism is not a belief, it is precisely the lack of a belief. Calling it a belief is just a cute argument theists like to make, an attempt to dodge the burden of thier own claims but it has no substance. An atheist MIGHT make the claim there is no god, an individual might make a case that way, but thats thier own claim, perhaps an anti theist claim, but it is not atheism.
The word atheism is only necessary in the first place becuase of the early aggression of the theist claims when they had much more power and pervasiveness. We do not have a similar term for any other lack of belief, its just in the case of the god question. The term came from the turmoil of theistic debate and its struggle to maintain its theistic claims in the face of a rapidly crumbling basis. As knowledge grew and theism was forced to concede more and more ground to science and reason and education it grew more desperate, redefining and reinterpreting as best it could to maintain its claims. Pretending atheism is a belief, or a belief system is just one of the latest such attempts. Its a false equivalence, so that a theist can say “you operate on faith too”. Nonsense.

The only reason NOT to define it that way is to try and shift the burden of proof. If you do not endorse that meaning, what meaning DO you endorse?

It would help alot if religious people could see the distinction between the belief in god and the belief in religion. They wouldnt cling so steadfast to an obviously man made, fallible and grossly outdated book if it didnt so directly threaten their belief in god.

I read through all the relevent posts, Im sorry to say it seems like pretty clear dodging questions from the onset. It looks like an attempt to control the framing of the discussion to suit you rather than a real attempt at understanding, and to be honest I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I accept this might be the result of miscommunication but Im comfortable to let what i have said stand.
You helped me understand I need to expand my points more and lower my unfair expectations of others to puzzle out what I mean, so thanks for that at least.

I agree. Its a vexing limitation of the medium. I will go over the posts again and perhaps get back to you later if I find a better way to frame it.

Ive been struggling to come up with a response, I don’t see how most of that is relevent and I think you are still being evasive, and overcomplicating things and still working backwards from how you view ethics. That is the conclusion I said you were working backwards from, which if that wasnt clear why wouldnt you ask for clarification rather than just ignore what I said? In my view, this is the sort of thing you’ve mostly been doing in your responses. This is why I questioned your interest here, Im not keen to waste my time if what Im saying seems so trivial or lacking in substance that your only response is to ignore most of what I say and just go on an unnecessary explanatory tangent.
Im not trying to be antagonistic, i am perplexed and hoping being candid will at least move us out of a limbo where we talk past each other.

It depends on what proceeds “therefore”. What is the proceeding verse in which the “therefore” is premissed?

You mentioned using the particular relation (rather than general relation, which I'm specifying because remember that I think there are only particulars) of a thing being x (or having property F) and not being not x (or not lacking property F) at the same time as something to do with ethics, but I pointed out that that doesn't have anything to do with ethics (or rather it doesn't have anything more to do with ethics than it does the price of tea in China, or garbage collection schedules, or whatever). So I'm not sure what you're talking about. You could say that ethics has to be in accord with that particular relation as a fact, but everything has to be in accord with every fact in that same sense, so again, it's difficult to say what it particularly has to do with ethics. — Terrapin Station

I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be, and as I said you are working backwards from conclusions youve already come to. Maybe you aren’t interested, if so let me know, but Im talking about a starting “fact”, axiom or rule (if you are interested in proceeding, we might want to decide on a term) that you have stated is objective. This objective basis, as you alluded, applies to a great many things (garbage collections, price of chinese tea etc). All Im asking is why, amongst this great many things, ethics isnt one of them. Why can’t ethics have the same, simple basis of non-contradiction? Saying “it has nothing to do with ethics” doesnt answer that question, it evades it. Im already asking you to explain that, so I dont think your answer actually has any substance at all.

Maybe try being more verbose about what you have in mind. — Terrapin Station

Thats good advice, thanks. My fear is that then I will be accused of being condescending.

Obviously I didn't catch what was supposed to answer that question then. Whatever you took to answer it must not have seemed like an answer to it to me. Are you attempting to communicate with me so that I understand an idea I didn't previously or are you trying to just be disputatious and antagonistic? — Terrapin Station

Im not trying to be antagonistic, answering questions with more questions seems evasive. Especially when you do that instead of addressing the points I raised. Its not like im posting lengthy, obfuscating responses.
Now Im not sure how to respond, since trying to communicate towards understandung is what I am indeed attempting but you have found it offensive.

Already explained. Do you intend to actually answer any questions or just answer them with questions?

No, we are talking about a specific kind of “fact”.

The particular objective relation that a thing is itself, and can't be not itself at the same time, has nothing to do with ethics, though. Ethics is about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior. If there were objective relations that somehow amounted to whether any interpersonal behavior was acceptable or unacceptable (permissible, impermissible, obligatory, etc.) then sure, it could be similar, but there are no objective relations of that sort to base ethics on. — Terrapin Station

You are working backwards from your conclusions about ethics to dismiss the relevance of something thats foundational to almost any conclusions that can be drawn about almost anything. Starting with the simple, basic “fact” or rule or axiom (whatever you want to call it) that it doesnt make sense for something to be itself and not itself is the basis for a great many things. Im asking you to tell me why ethics must be excluded from the great many things that the “fact”, rule or axiom is applied to.
Its like you are using a rope to climb onto a rooftop. Ok, fair enough, but the versatility of a rope is such that you can also use it to swing from one rooftop to another, or tie someone up, or as a tightrope to get accross a pit...to which your response is “that doesnt make sense, ropes are for climbing onto rooftops” and im saying “yes they are but why couldnt they also be used to hang a tire swing from a tree branch?”

Ok.

Ok, but causality isnt the sort of thing that can be relative. Your question only makes sense if you offer some reason for us to treat causality as something that could be relative, otherwise the answer is just “no, because causality is not relative”.

What would it have to do with ethics at all? — Terrapin Station

...because it would be operating under the same “facts” (cannot be itself and not itself) that you yourself have called objective. Your turn.
Why couldnt an ethic based on that “fact” be considered objective in the same sense?

Why would it be relative? What makes you think it might be?

I just don’t have the patience for this kind of thing. You have been told clearly by like, 5 people. You have been retold by those same people in even greater clarity. All the data as to why you are wrong on multiple fronts has been provided, you just don’t get it. You want quotes that are examples self righteous, so you can argue with them. Self reflect. Look at your own posts, why should I do all the work for you? Ill try to point you in the right direction, but Im done here (again). Terrapin is your guy for the bludgeoning patience required to make you understand.
Ok, so parting attempt to get you to self reflect: look at the way you reacted to peoples reactions to your comparison of yourself to Martin Luthar King jr. Do not think about why you were correct in the comparison, think about why people reacted the way they did (I laughed out loud). Resist your urge to attribute those reactions to the limitations of others and try to attribute them to limitations you yourself might have.

Ok, I understand. Like I said, of course you should be skeptical of something as contradictory as the bible.

Indeed.
Why can’t you apply the same rule of non-contradiction to ethics to form similar basis? I understand this would not resemble conventional ethics, but it would be operating by an objective standard based on the same rule of non-contradiction you said is objective. (Not the Logic principal, but in the sense of something being and not being at the same time that you mentioned)

And I pointed out why your “apparent contradictions accross a much larger text” is an absurd argument, which you ignored. Just like you ignored your own special pleading and how your own standards arent being applied to your special book.

Terrapin believes he can call axioms 'objective facts' when it comes to logic. But when an axiom is held within ethics, he calls it preference. This is the core issue we had many posts ago, in which I told him he was contradicting himself. — chatterbears

He isnt contradicting himself, you just cannot recognise it as consistent becuase it is not framed to be consistent with YOUR views and/or axioms. This is the source of the problem you are having communicating in this thread, it is also the reason why people focus on your moralising and self righteousness. How many people will you have to engage with and have them telll you the same thing before you will seriously consider the possibility that you are entirely wrong here? Have you made an earnest effort to actually register everyones points? From your posts, its clear you arent really listening, you already firmly believe you are right and your questions posed are just poorly disguised rhetorical questions designed to establish your own moral authority. They are not designed to understand any other perspective and are not really meant for discussion. Another symptom of this problem is your tendency to try and establish consensus against your opponents, as you just tried to do with me against Terrapin. I don’t know for sure if this stems from a habit of virtue signalling instead of forming real arguments, but I recognise the smell and Im not the only one.
You need to recognise your limitations, because you arent winning any of the arguments you are having and thats why.

In this particular case, because you were clearly trying to generate an obvious counterexample in an effort to disparage my purported approach. If I came across that same sentence within a poem, I would be inclined to evaluate it differently. Would you like to suggest some other circumstances in which it would make sense? — aletheist

You are missing the point. Do you think that if I MADE UP a bunch of other stuff to accompany that it would make a difference? I could fabricate more such nonsense to accompany the blue sky/grey sky nonsense and you and I will both know its made up nonsense and its still on the same footing as the bible. Made up.
Also, you are dodging here. You said charitable reading is your default...but its not, you just showed it isnt. Your default is skepticism of contradiction, you just dont apply it to the bible because doing so threatens your cherished belief.

Perhaps you have multiple personalities with different subjective preferences. More seriously, that is an obvious contradiction within the same sentence; I was talking about apparent contradictions across a much larger text, especially one that has been carefully scrutinized by scholars for centuries. — aletheist

Why wouldnt you assume that my sentence would not be contradictory once you understood its broader context? You said that is the defualt position. You arent being consistent, you are making an exception for the bible. Special pleading I believe its called.

I'm talking about relations that obtain in the extramental world. — Terrapin Station

I know, that doesnt answer the question.
The relations you are talking about are logical, the axioms of logic. Why call them facts? Im not asking on behalf of a counter-argument, or Chatterbears. Im just asking because I don’t see the utility.
I understand you are framing arguments so that Chatterbears can understand, I just don’t know why you are framing it with “facts” that are logical axioms. It seems like it would be easier and clearer to just refer to logic. Im assuming that using the term “facts” gets more work done for you in the argument somewhere or somehow, but I do not see how. I understand that they arent mutually exclusive per say, but I do not understand why you are using “facts” and then referring specifically to (to use your vernacular, not sure I would call rules of logic a “fact”) a specific kind of “fact”, logical Axioms. Why not just reference logic?

Again, when we encounter an apparent contradiction in any piece of writing, I advocate being a charitable reader, treating consistency as the default interpretation and attributing actual contradictions only as a last resort. — aletheist

Why would your default position be to assume, even if you have to really struggle to justify the assumption, that the text is consistent?
So if I write “i like blue skies rather than grey skies, but I like grey skies much more than blue skies”, you would default to the assumption that I easnt being contradicting? Thats just not sensible at all.

Why do you call those facts rather than logic?

Im not sure who you think you are talking to here. Was that supposed to address something I said? Im the one that agreed with you.
The bible has a great many contradictions, and you should reject it on that basis. The reason you are getting resistance to your idea is because it threatens peoples own ideas about the bible, i think the term is “apologetics”.
What perplexes me is why you would be disheartened by a conversation you invited by starting a thread about it. You didnt think anyone would disagree? You didnt think you would trigger people irrational defenses? This is religion we are talking about.

If you cannot work that out why should I waste any more words? — Andrew4Handel

Im just wondering why you are depressed and disheartened, and thought I would ask you rather than guess. Why the attitude? What words have you wasted on me?

I have found the responses on this thread very disheartening and depressing. — Andrew4Handel

Why?

Magic.

Very lucid post, thanks.

Agreed, but it works the other way as well. Person A may assume Person B is on their high horse, when in fact Person B is justified in doing so. Person A may not fully understand a moral position, and therefore should abstain from judgement on Person B's character. — chatterbears

Yes, it depends on whether person is actually right or not and we tell that by the merits of how they reached thier conclusion.

Well it depends on whether or not the person actually has a better moral system or not, which for me at least depends in whether or not it is rational and justified. If I had to guess, people tell you that because they dont think you are justified in your morality. People notice when other people are much more confident in their positions than they should be even if they cannot articulate exactly why. This is the high horse, FEELING you are morally superior when you are NOT. The measure of this depends on what peoples standards are for a moral or ethical
system.