An "empty set" adjust for the existence of the rest of reality. — SonOfAGun

I don’t understand this. I’m not making any claims about the rest of reality. There’s only two options: a box with at least one God in it, or a box with no Gods in it. A box with no Gods in it is an empty box because it contains nothing. There’s no need to try to make claims about what other things could be in the box, if that’s what you’re trying to say.

What is the difference between emptiness and nothingness?

I view it as a lack of belief as well. If Theists believe that a God exists, “God” is the object that their belief refers to. If Atheists believe that no Gods exist, then “no Gods” would have to be the object that their belief refers to. But “no Gods” isn’t an object. It is empty (or “nothing” as I referred to it earlier).

Not sure how you can say that. On this particular issue...a "belief" is just a disguise word for a blind guess. How more particular can one get? — Frank Apisa

Perhaps, but I’m not just talking about a belief in this particular instance. I mean belief in general; all beliefs. I want to know if the statement “all beliefs require objects” is true or false. For example, if you were to try to make the case that there are different types of beliefs; some that require objects, and some that do not, that would be a valid argument to make opposing my position, and we could discuss that. Are you wanting to say that all beliefs are blind guesses? If not, that point is irrelevant to what I’m trying to find out.

Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe there are no gods" is anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa

Possibly, but that is an entirely different can of worms.

You seem to be saying that a person asserting, "I 'believe' there is nothing (other than air) in that safe"...is making a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence (that is not necessarily a grammatical error); stating an oxymoron; or stating a logical contradiction? — Frank Apisa

Correct

The "belief" (or guess) "There is nothing in the safe (except air)" is as good as a guess that there are guns or money or a dead body in it. — Frank Apisa

Correct

P, the first sentence of your OP read, "In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God." How the hell can discussing the definition of atheism be a digression from it? — Frank Apisa

I was simply using that as an example. That discussion is what prompted me to start this one. Apologies for any confusion.

No...it is not impossible — Frank Apisa

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

Beats the hell out of me. But this is a digression from the the issue. ON THE QUESTION "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. And actually, the majority of your posts are a digression from the OP I posited. I couldn’t care less about solving whatever beef you have with defining Atheism. I’m interested in whether or not beliefs require objects. I believe they do. The consequence of this certainly affects how Atheism is defined, but that is only a side-effect, not the actual issue at hand.

I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object. — Frank Apisa

That is impossible. How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=?

BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why.

Saying that a belief is a blind guess doesn’t answer the question. If X=object, then what does -X=? What part of your previous post did I sidestep?

My position is that you are wrong about what a belief is, if, that is, you don’t think they require objects. My assumption is that when people say things like “I believe that no Gods exist” it is either 1) a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence, 2) an oxymoron, such as stating that you feel numb (numbness is defined as the absence of feeling), 3) a logical contradiction, as a belief implies possession and you cannot possess “nothing,” or 4) some other reason I might have missed.

If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person. — Frank Apisa

Awesome. Under this logic I get to define what physics, biology, law, chemistry, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is as they all are applied to me. Surely you’re emotional response to this topic is making you say things you don’t mean, right? After all, Atheism could apply to me too, so I get to define it.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.

I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.

Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.

I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting. — Frank Apisa

Again with the babies... I don’t consider those incapable of forming a belief as anything. They are excluded because they cannot meet the requirements necessary to have an opinion. That is like calling rocks Atheists. Also, I am not concerned with who identifies as an Atheist, nor with the IQ level of Atheists. Couldn’t Atheists use that descriptor simply because they do not believe there are any Gods?

Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify? — Frank Apisa

Depends on how you define Atheism :lol:

As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists. — Frank Apisa

So do guesses require objects?

Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."

Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"

If I’m not an Atheist it wouldn’t matter if I thought it was reasonable or not, why would it? Anyway, my question still stands as to who gets to define Atheism then?

No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.

The alternatives being Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism. The issue is understanding the definitions of each of those and based on that deciding which one you fall under. Not having the expectation that these groups change their definition in order to oblige you.

It is not debatable at all. THEY CAN'T!

But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.

That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense.

Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as. Secondly, if I’ve done anything in this thread, it’s been ask questions. I haven’t insisted on anything. Thirdly, and this applies to everyone involved in the discussion, my main interest is determining the criteria for belief. The definition of Atheism was just an example of the possible implications of belief requiring an object. I take no issue with discussing these implications, but would first like get the issue of what constitutes belief out of the way. I think beliefs require objects. I may be wrong, I don’t know.

My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."

Yes, but only because their belief has an object; God. I’m debating that without an object there is no belief.

The problem is not non-atheists trying to define atheism in a way that better serves their needs...but rather with atheists trying to define it in a way that better serves their needs.

Perhaps. But don’t Atheists have the right to define Atheism however they choose? If not, then who gets to define it?

Atheists are defining "atheism" in a way that requires people like me to be considered an atheist.

That’s how categories work. If you fit the criteria established for that group, then by definition you are a part of that group. It’s that way with political affiliations, sex, nationality, economic status, etc. If the shoe fits...

They are defining "atheism" in a way that requires every newborn baby, every infant, every toddler...to be considered an atheist.

I think it’s at least debatable whether or not infants are even capable of forming a belief. Especially a belief about an abstract concept that requires abstract thought.

How does confidence equate to belief? As an example, an Atheist could say the following. “Theists have been unable to convince me that at least one God exists. Therefore, I do not believe a God exists, and am confident that I am right.”

The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"...that they start arguing from a position of weakness.

If I say that I do not believe that any God exists, that isn’t a false statement. There’s no pretending. Conversely, couldn’t it be said that the issue actually is non-Atheists trying to define Atheism in a way that better serves their needs? Also, wouldn’t those people who identify as Atheists be the people best suited to define what Atheism is in the first place? I am not a Theist. Therefore I have no right to try to tell people who identify as Theists that actually they are defining Theism wrong. I have to accept whatever definition they provide.

On the question of "Is there at least one god...or are there no gods"...the best anyone can do is to make a blind guess. There is no way whatsoever that one can get to a "yes there is at least one" or "no, there are none" using logic, reason, science, or math. It just cannot happen that way right now.

I think saying it is a blind guess is exaggerated. Atheists and Theists alike both have reasons for their stance. Something must have convinced them one way or the other.

Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv.

Agreed.

Is there a stegosaurus in your room right now? Probably not. So which do you believe: that there is a stegosaurus in your room, or that there's not?

I would say that I don’t believe that there is a stegosaurus in my room.

Just a quick search turned up these: https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/health/science-of-fear/index.html

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/six-things-were-born-to-fear

Or we infer it from other things. Most people don't need to first encounter a tiger to realize it is dangerous. Maybe instinct has some part in that process, but I think parenting and rational inference have a much larger role.

We certainly do infer and generalize our experiences to inform us about our environment. Yet we still seem to have need of fight/flight/freeze responses. Particularly in situations that call for immediate action where careful rational decision making is too slow to ensure our survival. I’m not entirely confident enough to hazard a guess as to which has a larger role. I would assume you’re correct though just based on the psychological and physiological issues that occur with prolonged triggering of fight/flight/freeze responses, such as PTSD as an example.

I'd say it's about a 50/50 split. It takes a twisted mind to exploit people's misery to get what they want, but it takes a lazy and ignorant mind to never question its own emotional responses. Shame on the exploiter for exploiting people. Shame on the exploitee for letting themselves be exploited.

With this, I’m not sure how effective this sort of “mind over matter” approach is at overcoming fear. I can’t speak to mild fears or phobias, but typically some sort of therapeutic technique is needed (flooding, exposure therapy, etc.) to overcome an irrational fear in general.

The problem I see with this line of thinking is that you’re essentially saying that instinct is not needed, which isn’t true. In order to make rational decisions, you must have prior experience of that particular object. If you’ve never encountered a tiger before, how would you make the rational decision to flee (or fight, play dead, etc.)? The point is choices made out of fear are more likely to be incorrect (such as mistaking leaves being blown for a tiger), but they are quicker and ultimately safer. Generally speaking, of course. Fear is unpleasant, but perhaps not as much as being mauled to death. The issue with it governing people’s lives has more to do with people exploiting our innate fear response than fear itself. Wouldn’t you agree?

Fear seems to me to be irrational. If it is conditioned into an individual, then that seems outright evil.

Not if there is a tiger behind you, then it is perfectly rational. What are you suggesting is evil? It seems that the “it” in your statement is referring to fear, which would mean that you are claiming that fear is evil. Is this what you mean?

The point I am making is that fear is the worst way to instill patriotism, cohesiveness, and camaraderie among a population.

Depends on what you mean by worst. It seems to be quite an effective method, no?

I believe this phenomenon of fear has been handed down from the Cold War paranoia about total annihilation.

I believe it is much older than that. Irrational fear of the “savages” is partially what justified the genocide of the Native Americans.

The problem of fear is that it leads to poor decision making.

Again, this depends on context.

So, what do you think? When do we step back and propose that a should can be substituted as an is here? Is that possible in this instance?

Depends. What “should” are you suggesting replace what “is?”

Good point. How then would you determine who to vote for, while maintaining a clean conscious?

I think much of it comes back to our ego (sin of pride). It's one thing being proud of your accomplishments, your family, so on and so forth but it's entirely another to have exaggerated self worth.

99% of everything comes down to our ego, for better and worse. It is bad to have an exaggerated self worth, and also to get your sense of self worth from your conviction in unprovable beliefs like the EOG. Although I’m certainly guilty of this myself at times.

Hummm...I always though education and agnosticism seem the more proper fit.

I’m sure it’s both. Probably more accurate to say that religious belief and education are inversely correlated.

Obviously we aren’t smarter than this. Look at the insults that are thrown around even in this thread, and I’m not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. Should we know better? Of course, but that simply isn’t the case. Sarcasm and one-up-manship are just too tempting to resist. Along with proving your intellectual superiority. If item number 7 on your list were adhered to I’m sure things would be different, but it isn’t.


If you’re only referring to Atheists in this forum, you are likely correct. I am referring to society in general. Watch any televangelist, or attend practically any church long enough and you will hear Atheists being disparaged. My claim is also that history bears this out. The number of nonbelievers who have been killed in the name of God far outnumbers the number of Christians or even Theists in general that have been killed in the name of Atheism. Also, I would suspect that you are more likely to encounter Atheists in a philosophy forum than in society at large, simply because those who engage in philosophical discussions are more likely to have received a higher education than the general public, and Atheism and education are correlated.

For the record, I would agree that a lot of Atheists are resentful towards Christianity for the reasons I earlier explained. I’m not trying to defend anger or animosity from either side, just observe and hypothesize.

Being told you need to repent for sins; that lust, greed, avarice, etc. are bad; that an afterlife exists; that God exists, etc.,etc. would all be considered lies.

Holding these beliefs have real emotional effects, and affect how a person structures their life.

This is what I don't understand. If I'm an atheist, I would not be angry toward Christianity because it would have no effect on my emotional well being. So, my question is why are Atheists so resentful when it makes better sense to say 'I don't believe in God, therefore, I'm happy'?

This is very dependent on the particular persons upbringing. For example, if someone was raised as a Christian, but later became an Atheist, it is very easy to harbor resentment. They would be resentful of the fact that from their perspective they were lied to and coerced to live this lie. They would also be vigilant in wanting to prevent this from happening to others.

But guess what, we live in the information age now. Why can't we move past the old paradym's and be a little more sophisticated about our views (say, concerning EOG ?). There is no reason why we can't. Wouldn't that help with the anger issue?

What would help with the anger of Atheists is Christians refraining from making sweeping judgements about Atheists (and the reverse of this also applies). However, I think there is also a distinction to be made in the kinds of aggressive/antagonistic comments made on either side. An angry Atheist will make comments ridiculing Christianity, but angry Christians often make more personal comments, such as claiming that an Atheist is evil, going to hell, needs to beg for forgiveness, and is generally deserving of hate and is to be shunned. Personal attacks are more likely to elicit anger. In other words, the Christians started it and have historically been more violent towards nonbelievers.

Purely speculative, but I always viewed laughter as a socially acceptable way to express pleasure that would otherwise be viewed as unacceptable. This could explain why comedy can become dated as cultural norms change. Also, what we often find to be humorous are things that are offensive, taboo, controversial, painful, embarrassing, “sinful” desires, etc. In this way, I think laughter is a natural act that humans, being social creatures, could perform without risking being ostracized from the tribe. Therefore, humor arose from this phenomena as a pathway for others to gain acceptance and/or stature within the group as well. Those of us who could laugh at unfortunate events (pain, embarrassment, etc.) as a way to express the pleasure witnessing them caused, as opposed to actually causing the events themselves, were more likely to be accepted by the group. The involuntary act of laughter was then exploited by those who were good at making people laugh as a way to gain acceptance within the group.

I would venture to say that the sort of thinking that views “the other” in black and white terms and makes blanket generalizations about them is wrong. Obviously I can’t speak to your personal experiences with Atheists, but assuming you’re being honest, and I have no reason to doubt that, your experiences alone don’t warrant generalizations of this magnitude. It is a fact that all humans experience anger sometimes, but no one experiences anger all the time. That being said, I do feel that a person can become angry quite often when specific topics are brought up as a result of their personal beliefs, values, and experiences. I would assume that most Jews are easily angered by Nazi propaganda, dogma, doctrine, etc. It appears that Atheism and Christianity have a generally antagonistic relationship. Often on both sides. So I think it naturally follows that a Christian/ Atheist would appear angry more often than not when these ideologies are discussed.

I feel somewhat similarly, although admit that Pfhorrest’s logic is solid. I think the issue may be whether or not you bring your emotions with you to the voting booth? If you feel like you’re making a stand against a certain stance it feels gratifying and is alluring. Whereas compromising can feel like you’re betraying yourself a little bit. So perhaps that is the first question to answer; whether or not to be calculated and strategic, or passionate and assertive?

Seemed like the polite thing to do.

A responsible vote is a vote that maximizes the good that is likely to get done. For yourself, your country, the whole world.

This is easy enough to accept, but at least sometimes what is good for yourself is at odds with what is good for your country, etc. Then how do you decide?


Trump’s insufficiencies are too numerous and various to name. Without you offering a particular characteristic, or number of them, that qualifies voting for him as irresponsible I’ve nothing to reply.

Strategic voting is about not making perfect the enemy of good.

Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C.

A if your favorite candidate. B has problems, but C is clearly way worse than them. All measured by principles: A best supports your principles, C violates them the worst, and B is not as good as A but not as bad as C.

It becomes clear that A will almost certainly not win whether or not you vote for them. But B could beat C, and your vote might make the difference, and that would further advance the cause of your principles, or at least impede attempts to violate them. To abstain from voting might be to allow C to win over B, just because you couldn't have A.

So, for the sake of defending your principles, B is the strategically best way to cast your vote.

Would you recommend this strategy if doing so causes direct harm to yourself? For some, the line between making ends meet and being destitute is very thin. I cannot blame a person in poverty, for example, for voting for Andrew Yang solely for the purpose of receiving $1K a month, knowing how valuable that $1K a month is to them. Even if he doesn’t represent their deeply held values otherwise, or they do not believe that his policies would be better for the country.

...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible.

And, what exactly makes doing this irresponsible?

No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...

Then what does irresponsible voting look like?

So you’re suggesting that the most responsible way to vote is to put the good of the country or local community ahead of your own personal values, ideals, etc.? Not necessarily disagreeing, but I’ve heard it argued that you should vote for your own best interest. Care to elaborate why you fall on the side of the fence you do?