Deductive Proof that Atheism Does Not Lead to Marxism or any other -ism

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Deductive Proof that Atheism Does Not Lead to Marxism or any other -ism

Check this out.  I'm going to deductively prove that atheism has nothing to do with Stalin, Communism, Marxism, or any other -ism.

 

Basic Syllogistic Logic:

Atheism: The belief that God does not exist.

P: God is a being that does not exist.

C: Therefore:  ???????

******

See?  You need another premise before any conclusion can be drawn.  There are no other premises in the definition of atheism.  So....

 

P: Atheism has only one inherent premise.

P: One inherent premise is insufficient to reach a conclusion in a syllogism.

C: Therefore, Atheism is insufficient to reach a conclusion in a syllogism.

 

QED

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Could this be logically

Could this be logically flipped?

Theism: The belief that God exists.

P: God is a being that exists.

C: Therefore: ????


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Could this be

Quote:
Could this be logically flipped?

Not only could it be flipped, but it should be.

The world would be a lot better off if more theists realized this.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Could

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Could this be logically flipped?

Theism: The belief that God exists.

P: God is a being that exists.

C: Therefore: ????

 

You have to admit you're leaving out a few premises (the baggage) that comes with most god beliefs.  The sets of rules, what you can't eat, sacred shit, an illogical story on the creation of everything, who to vote for, when you can fuck or not, who's going to hell, begets, etc.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Agreed. Just making sure I

Agreed.

Just making sure I didn't miss anything though. Smiling


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This little thing is partly

This little thing is partly in jest, but there's a real point to be had.  I honestly can't think of any political philosophy or moral philosophy that begins with atheism.  Every philosophy I'm aware of starts with another premise about humanity, or the universe, or whatever it's starting with, but nobody that I know of has managed to connect atheism to any meaningful philosophy.

Seriously, has anyone heard of a philosophy built on the foundational premise of atheism?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Could this be

Quote:

Could this be logically flipped?

Theism: The belief that God exists.

P: God is a being that exists.

C: Therefore: ????

Sure, it could be. But the problem is that a variety of theistic doctrines hardly leave their conclusion blank.

For example,

 

Christianity: The belief that Yahweh exists, created everything, judges everybody and has a divine plan.

P: Yahweh is an omnipotent deity that exists and created everything, and rewards the 'good' while condemning the 'wicked'

P1: We want to please Yahweh and be rewarded.

P2: We don't want to be punished, or watch others be punished.

C: Therefore, we must be good. Moreover, we must protect others by enforcing 'good' ideologies, while punishing 'wicked' ones...

 

...And down the slippery slope we go.

Wee.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You have to admit

Quote:
You have to admit you're leaving out a few premises (the baggage) that comes with most god beliefs.  The sets of rules, what you can't eat, sacred shit, an illogical story on the creation of everything, who to vote for, when you can fuck or not, who's going to hell, begets, etc.

These are unnecessary premises to theism.  I think the point of the first post was to keep it as basic as possible.


PorkChop
Rational VIP!SuperfanSilver Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Seriously,

Hambydammit wrote:

Seriously, has anyone heard of a philosophy built on the foundational premise of atheism?

Kelly wrote about it, right?  Reason is a religion. Smiling


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Check this

Hambydammit wrote:

Check this out.  I'm going to deductively prove that atheism has nothing to do with Stalin, Communism, Marxism, or any other -ism.

 

Basic Syllogistic Logic:

Atheism: The belief that God does not exist.

P: God is a being that does not exist.

C: Therefore:  ???????

******

See?  You need another premise before any conclusion can be drawn.  There are no other premises in the definition of atheism.  So....

 

P: Atheism has only one inherent premise.

P: One inherent premise is insufficient to reach a conclusion in a syllogism.

C: Therefore, Atheism is insufficient to reach a conclusion in a syllogism.

 

QED

 

 

Ah so you are admitting atheism is inherently illogical. Good to see..

Atheism is a presupposition - a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote: Ah so you

WillieBop wrote:

 

Ah so you are admitting atheism is inherently illogical. Good to see..

Atheism is a presupposition - a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory

Uhoh...looks like someone missed the short bus this morning.

I think one could make a much better argument than if God exists, lets have a nationalistic state, where everything is supposed to be equal, but always devolves into totalitarian despotism.

For example.

There is no God.

There are no rules.

My goals are to be enjoying life as much as possible through the means available.

Money allows you to have a lot of nice things(nice house, sports car, harem of 18 year old supermodels), and allows you to do cool things(travel, find more members to put in your harem).

Therefore, I need a system in order to make a sufficient amount of money to allow for the things I want, that does not put limits on the money I can own.

All atheists should be capitalists, since these objectives can be obtained effectively through that system.

 

Of course, I don't agree with those premises, but they are about as consistent as the ones that link atheism to communism. That is, not very consistent at all. You could make any a number of premises about atheism and then craft a worldview about it, but once you get past "there is no god" most things that follow are non sequitirs related to that premise, but rather things that you think are important in shaping your own worldview, and not much else is compulsory.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ah so you are

Quote:

Ah so you are admitting atheism is inherently illogical. Good to see..

You really aren't that bright, are you? He stated that, in effect, that it is not possible to derive any conclusions from the lone statement "God does not exist", except for its own identity statement. This is a proposition that holds under all syllogistic reasoning. All it demonstrates is that it is a fallacy of non sequitur to assert that something like, for example, Communism, follows from the denial of the proposition "God exists". This is not an assertion which logically leads to the conclusion "atheism is inherently illogical" as you claimed, hence demonstrating you have no understanding of basic syllogistic logic. It is an assertion which leads only to the conclusion he demonstrated by constructing a proper syllogism, namely that it is insufficient to reach a syllogistic conclusion. You seem to equivocate that statement with the statement that "X is irrational" hence demonstrating you don't actually know what a syllogism is and hence you should probably go away as to avoid further humiliation.

Quote:

Atheism is a presupposition - a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory

Wow, your stupidity amazes. These two statements are not logically equivalent. A "presupposition" is an a priori belief held as the justificatory basis for some other belief. There is no logical equivalence between his syllogistic argument and the assertion that atheism constitutes a presuppositive belief.

Quote:

a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory

This is a fallacy of non sequitur. The premise that began the syllogistic argument was "atheism is not a belief". The argument you have attempted to craft is as follows:

P: atheism is the abscence of a belief

C: atheism is a belief

This isn't actually an "argument" in any meaningful sense, nor have you demonstrated from precisely where you have derived (C) from. Normally when two contradicting statements are derived, they are done so via a reductio. You haven't assembled a reductio, indeed, I suspect you are incapable of doing so, and thus there is no reason to hold to (C). It does not follow from the syllogistic argument. It is unjustified.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Quote:You

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
You have to admit you're leaving out a few premises (the baggage) that comes with most god beliefs.  The sets of rules, what you can't eat, sacred shit, an illogical story on the creation of everything, who to vote for, when you can fuck or not, who's going to hell, begets, etc.

These are unnecessary premises to theism.  I think the point of the first post was to keep it as basic as possible.

 

While unnecessary, they're usually there.    Most religions aren't "If God, then God."   They're more like "God, therefore you have to _______."    God always seems like the reason to modify behavior or ask for money. (or invade countries)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ah so you are

Quote:

Ah so you are admitting atheism is inherently illogical. Good to see..

Willie, I'm so glad you dropped in.  I was beginning to despair that anyone would even be able to come up with a nonsense rebuttal to my simple little gambit.  You have proven me spectacularly wrong, and I thank you.

Let's do this really, really slowly...

Anytime I want to prove something, I need two statements to put together.  It's like a puzzle.  If you have one piece of a puzzle, you don't have a finished puzzle.  You just have a puzzle piece.  You need at least two pieces to make a finished puzzle.

Here's a simple sentence for you:

God is a being that does not exist.

Ok.  Remember grammar school?

God = Subject

Is = Verb

Being = Object

that does not exist - modifier

This is one idea.  One piece of information.  We know exactly one thing.  God is nonexistent.  Now, class... how many pieces of the puzzle do we have if we have one piece of the puzzle?

That's right, Willie!  We have only one piece of the puzzle.

Now, here's another simple question for you.  If we need two puzzle pieces to make a conclusion, and we only have one puzzle piece, how many do we need before we can make a conclusion?

RIGHT AGAIN, Willie!  ONE!  You're doing very well.   One plus one equals two.

So, class, Willie has shown us that he can do simple math, and understands how puzzles work.  Tomorrow, we'll teach him how to go to the bathroom all by himself.

Quote:
Atheism is a presupposition - a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory

No, Willie.  Bad Willie!

Babies are atheists.  When they come out of a woman's tummy, they don't know what god is, and so there's no way they could possibly believe in it, now, is there?

Babies don't even know how to make a presupposition, do they?  They don't know anything yet.  But they're still atheists!  So let's do a simple logic game.

P: Babies can only be things that do not require presuppositions

P: Babies are atheists

C: Atheists do not require presuppositions.

See how easy that is?  That's a complete puzzle.

 

 

Oh... yeah..

 

QED.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Oh...

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh... yeah..

 QED.

 

Now you've done it.  He's going to think you're making fun of him for not graduating from high school.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, my.  We can't have

Oh, my.  We can't have that, can we.

Willie, I'm making fun of you because you're horrible at critical thinking.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
How about this?

If P1. Athiests don't believe in universal right and wrong.

P2. People who dont believe in right and wrong think whatever they do is ok

Then,

Q1. Atheists think whatever they do is ok.

and If

P3. Oppressive dictators think whatever they do is ok.

Then

Q2. If you dont think everything you do is ok, you are not an atheist or oppressive dictator

and if

P4. Christians don't think everything they do is ok.

Then

Q3. Therefore, Christians are not atheists or oppressive dictators.

(Sound but invalid would you say?)

 

 

 

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:a

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory

This is a fallacy of non sequitur. The premise that began the syllogistic argument was "atheism is not a belief". The argument you have attempted to craft is as follows:

P: atheism is the abscence of a belief

C: atheism is a belief

This isn't actually an "argument" in any meaningful sense, nor have you demonstrated from precisely where you have derived (C) from. Normally when two contradicting statements are derived, they are done so via a reductio. You haven't assembled a reductio, indeed, I suspect you are incapable of doing so, and thus there is no reason to hold to (C). It does not follow from the syllogistic argument. It is unjustified.

I thought Willie might like to see what a proof by contradiction looks like. I couldn't do one on atheism and non-belief because.... well... there's just no contradiction. Atheism literally defines "not belief in god(s)", how can not belief contradict not belief? :S

So anyhow Willie this is for you, I chose logical thinking for the subject (it may help to maintain your interest).



1. -Proposition- logic (ie coherent logical thinking) is not belief
2. if logic is not belief then it is not believed
3. and from (2) then - if it is logic (then it's not belief and not believed)
4. and if (logic is not belief and not believed) is untrue then logic is not not believed and is a belief

5. consider that logic is not belief and not believed

a. definition of belief: cognitive content held as true
b. definition of believed: accepted as true, credited with veracity
c. definition of logic: system of reasoning
d. definition of reasoning: coherent and logical thinking
e. definition of logical: legitimate {ie based on known statements or events or conditions}

definition of logic from e&d: system of coherent and legitimate {ie based on known statements or events or conditions} thinking

insert into 5:
5. <a system of coherent and legitimate {ie based on known statements or events or conditions} thinking> is not <cognitive content held to be true> and is not <accepted as true, credited with veracity>.

definition of cognitive content: thinking {and system of thought}
definition of held to be true/accepted as true: considered to be legitimate {ie based on known statements or events or conditions};


6. contradiction!! - this is what a contradiction looks like, Willie - therefore logic is a belief and is believed.

Conclusion: Logic (as in coherent logical thinking) is belief (and distinguished from the basic definition of belief by "coherence".)

you can follow this up with something further to think about if you like such as...

... definition of coherence: orderly and consistent relation of parts.

and you can then even advance a statement about the original subject based on what you have derived without looking a total fool...

logic = belief with the quality of being composed of orderly and consistently related parts.

Any questions?
 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Velocity Eleven
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
yes but how many theists

yes but how many theists claim to just be a theist and not of any particular religion?


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Right and wrong are just

Right and wrong are just words.   What does it mean to be right?  What helps us survive?  How can it be universal if it just on the whim of god?  If it is not just a whim of god, then why does we need one to understand it?  The only way there can be a universal right or wrong is if there is a logical reason to consider it right and wrong, but that would require a definition for right.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If P1. Athiests don't

Quote:
If P1. Athiests don't believe in universal right and wrong.

Um... dude.  I already demonstrated that this conclusion cannot follow from atheism.  Did you also miss the whole point?

For the record, some atheists do believe in universal right and wrong.

No point in continuing on with the rest of your (very bad) proof.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:2. if logic is

Eloise wrote:
2. if logic is not belief then it is not believed

I believe in logic.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr. XC's translation of WillieBop

WillieBop wrote:
Ah so you are admitting atheism is inherently illogical. Good to see..

Atheism is a presupposition - a belief that is defined as the absence of a belief, and thus self-contradictory


In case this deductive reasoning is going over your head, maybe I can offer a different perspective on this.

Theism = God belief
Atheism = No God belief

Color = Visual perception of light
Opacity = See through (no color, no light perceived)

So, if we substitute theism and atheism with color and opacity, this is how you sound:

Mr. XC's translation of WillieBop wrote:
Ah so you are admitting opacity is inherently illogical. Good to see..

Opacity is a perception of light - a color that is defined as the absence of a color, and thus self-contradictory

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: QED'Cept

Hambydammit wrote:
 

QED

'Cept not. 

Hambydammit wrote:

Check this out.  I'm going to deductively prove that atheism has nothing to do with Stalin, Communism, Marxism, or any other -ism.

Look man, I know you said this was partly in jest, but I know you really do believe that no ideology can be inferred from atheism.  Without materialistic atheism, we wouldn't be talking about Marxism right now.  You may not be able to infer that syllogistically, but syllogisms mean very little in the face of actual Marxism practiced in actual places.  Also, this highlights the inherent redundancy of syllogistic logic--it very rarely if ever tells us anything about the world that we don't already know. 

The connection between any belief and any practice (i.e. atheism and Marxism, theism and racism, etc.) would be impossible to express syllogistically; that's just not what syllogistic logic does. 

 


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Could

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Could this be logically flipped?

Theism: The belief that God exists.

P: God is a being that exists.

C: Therefore: ????

 

P1: God is a being that exists.

C1: Therefore God can be shown to exist.

 

The problem is, God cannot be conclusively proven to exist, nor has any universally-agreed upon definition been offered, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..

 

And if something can't be proved, it's probably not true.

 

P2: God can not be shown to exist.

C2: Therefore P1 is false.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Look man, I know you

Quote:
Look man, I know you said this was partly in jest, but I know you really do believe that no ideology can be inferred from atheism.

No, I believe it's patently obvious that atheism, defined as the lack of belief in god, cannot lead to any other conclusion at all.. about anything, including politics, the nature of existence, logic, or anything else.  A non-belief in anything cannot philosophically lead to anything else.  Its the nature of a negative belief.

Now, I recognize that there are philosophies that could not exist without atheism.  I'm quite familiar with dialectical materialism, and I'm happy to concede that it would fail without atheism.  However, it's crucially important to note that DM did not come from atheism.  It came from materialism.  Materialism doesn't follow from atheism.

Marx took materialism, the law of opposites, negation, and transformation, and combined these with his lack of belief in a god to form Marxism.  None of these laws can be deduced from atheism.  They must come from other observations of the universe and other foundational beliefs.

Think of it this way.  Atheism only produces an empty space.  It tells us absolutely nothing about what we should believe.  Nada.  Zip.  Scratch.  Nil.  Love.  Goose egg.  An atheist is free to believe in absolutely anything except a god, at which point he has to turn in his badge and decoder ring.  Marxism, Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, fetishism, monism, platonism, and a thousand other isms can be put where there is nothing.  Any one of these must hinge on some positive belief about existence.  Atheism provides not a single positive belief.  Nothing can be derived from it.  Nothing.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:Look

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Look man, I know you said this was partly in jest, but I know you really do believe that no ideology can be inferred from atheism.

No, I believe it's patently obvious that atheism, defined as the lack of belief in god, cannot lead to any other conclusion at all.. about anything, including politics, the nature of existence, logic, or anything else.  A non-belief in anything cannot philosophically lead to anything else.  Its the nature of a negative belief.

You're approaching this tabula rasa, as though atheism isn't intertwined with a myriad of opposing beliefs.  If this really were the case, then I'd agree with you, but this isn't the case at all.  Atheism can be traced back at least to classical Greece, but atheism as we know it today is etymologically and ideologically reactive to theism--particularly Abrahamic monotheism. 

Quote:
Now, I recognize that there are philosophies that could not exist without atheism.  I'm quite familiar with dialectical materialism, and I'm happy to concede that it would fail without atheism.  However, it's crucially important to note that DM did not come from atheism.  It came from materialism.  Materialism doesn't follow from atheism.

Perhaps not syllogistically, but you're kidding yourself if you really think that there isn't a link between materialism and atheism.  The thing is, it seems to be a chicken/egg type of thing--all these ideas were kicking around at about the same time, so it's hard to definitively say which came first.  Practically speaking, materialism probably led to atheism. 

Quote:
Think of it this way.  Atheism only produces an empty space.  It tells us absolutely nothing about what we should believe.  Nada.  Zip.  Scratch.  Nil.  Love.  Goose egg.  An atheist is free to believe in absolutely anything except a god, at which point he has to turn in his badge and decoder ring.  Marxism, Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, fetishism, monism, platonism, and a thousand other isms can be put where there is nothing.  Any one of these must hinge on some positive belief about existence.  Atheism provides not a single positive belief.  Nothing can be derived from it.  Nothing. 

Again, if we were talking about atheism in a vacuum, then sure, perhaps it tells us nothing about what we should believe. 

It almost seems like you're trying to play tricks here, Hamby.  You're taking one of the many facets of materialism--atheism--and defending it as though it underpins your entire world view.  Would it be more accurate to say that Marxism, communism, atheism, et al were inferred from materialism? 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Justin, I'm not sure why you

Justin, I'm not sure why you can't see the disconnect here.  It's really simple.

 

1. NOTHING logically follows atheism.

2. Anyone who has a philosophy that they claim is founded on atheism is just wrong.

3. Many philosophies INCLUDE atheism, but atheism comes AFTER the foundation of the philosophy.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, 

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,  guys  

(gals too)

Just finished reading the thread to this point

and noticed all the responses to Willie and he uhhh,

he hasn't returned yet guys.

 

[thunderous voice from above]

WILLIE HAS LEFT THE BUILDING !!!

[\thunderous voice from above]

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
WILLIE HAS LEFT THE

WILLIE HAS LEFT THE BUILDING

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Mick
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-07-06
User is offlineOffline
It's entirely irrelevant

It's entirely irrelevant whether atheism only has one inherent premise or not. A person would only need to show that one such premise or whichever conclusion logically entails Marxism.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Mick, you've missed the

Mick, you've missed the whole point.  It's completely relevant whether atheism has only one premise or not.  One premise a conclusion does not make.  Therefore, the ONLY possible statement is that Marxism includes atheism, but that it does not derive from it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It's entirely

Quote:

It's entirely irrelevant whether atheism only has one inherent premise or not. A person would only need to show that one such premise or whichever conclusion logically entails Marxism.

This sentence does not make sense. Firstly, conclusions do not "entail" anything, they follow from antecedants or premises which entail conclusions. Second, it is not possible to draw a conclusion with one premise. The reason for this is obvious. Premises fall into two categories:

1. Propositional

2. Conditional

A propositional premise is a statement about what is. Thus, to state "X is the case" is a propositional premise. Examples of propositional premises include "my skin is green", "my computer is out of battery", "the telephone is ringing", "there is an apple on my desk", etc. Propositional premises are distinguished by the fact that they constitute statements about what is the case in the universe of discourse. 

A conditional premise is a statement about what will be the case if a certain antecedant holds. These will always contain the logical operators "if" or "iff". Examples of conditional premises include "If my skin is green, then I am an iguana", "if my computer is out of battery, it has been unplugged for at least 3 hours", "if the telephone is ringing, then Jim is calling", etc. Conditional premises do not make statements about what is the case.

This leads us to an immediately obvious problem about drawing any conclusions based on having a single premise. If we start with a single premise, this is either propositional or conditional. If a propositional statement is asserted, then nothing will follow from it unless it is linked to some consequent via a logical operator (if or iff). This is the basis of a syllogism. A propositional statement cannot lead to anything unless a conditional is attached (which would be a second premise). For example, if we have a propositional statement "the phone is ringing", it is intuitively obvious that this leads to the consequent "someone is calling", but if someone had never encountered a phone before, they wouldn't know that unless they had two premises, the propositional and the conditional. Oftentimes we miss out the conditional in everyday language because it is intuitively obvious, but in logical argument, it must be present.

The next problem is even more obvious. If our one premise is conditional, it doesn't say anything about how the world is. Thus we cannot draw any conclusions about how the world is because we have no knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the antecedant. In this case, we would start with a propositional premise "Atheism is lack of belief in God". In order to demonstrate that this leads to Marxism, etc. one would have to attach a particular conditional. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Marxism includes

Quote:

Marxism includes atheism, but that it does not derive from it.

Never heard of liberation theology?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Mick
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-07-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Mick,

Hambydammit wrote:

Mick, you've missed the whole point.  It's completely relevant whether atheism has only one premise or not.  One premise a conclusion does not make.  Therefore, the ONLY possible statement is that Marxism includes atheism, but that it does not derive from it.

 

 

 You seem to say that a conclusion does not come from one premise (see the bolded), but then follow with a conclusion indictator (Therefore) from only one premise. Moreover, I do not see how that conclusion follows in any deductive or inductive sense from that premise.

As I say, the claim that atheism entails marxism does not derive from the premise that "atheism is a disbelief or denial of God's existence." Rather, it would follow from the claim that the denial/unbelief that God exists entails Marxism. 

The belief that atheism is true entails belief that marxism is true

you believe atheism is true (analytic to "you are an atheist&quotEye-wink

You believe marxism is true.

 

The argument is obviously unsound but that's not the point.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't think it's

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if Marx/Stalin whoever were Theist, they would have merely replaced atheism with Christianity or Islam.


 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:follow from the claim

Quote:

follow from the claim that the denial/unbelief that God exists entails Marxism. The belief that atheism is true entails belief that marxism is true.

This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Mick
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-07-06
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:This sentence does

 

Quote:
This sentence does not make sense. Firstly, conclusions do not "entail" anything, they follow from antecedants or premises which entail conclusions.

 

This is a misunderstanding. What I said and meant to convey was that someone can ~p as a conclusion from say:

p-->q

~q

Thus, ~p

---

And argue that [](~p-->r) or (~p-->[]r) is true. Thus, r ultimately follows.

 

 

 

Quote:
Second, it is not possible to draw a conclusion with one premise. The reason for this is obvious. Premises fall into two categories:

1. Propositional

2. Conditional

 

Single analytical statements can derive conclusions. The premise that <>(A&B) can lead to the conclusion that <>A just like []A does to <>A or p=q can be concluded with q=p.

 


Mick
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-07-06
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

follow from the claim that the denial/unbelief that God exists entails Marxism. The belief that atheism is true entails belief that marxism is true.

This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

No it is not.  affirming the consquent is this:

 

p-->q

q

p

 

My argument is MP:

 

p-->q

p

q


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You use the operators in a

You use the operators in a very confusing manner. What precisely do you mean by <>(A&B)? To me, this immediately reads "Iff A and B" which doesn't make any sense by itself since it isn't a wff. What is []A supposed to represent? It doesn't look like any sentential or quantifiable operator I have ever seen.

Anyway, we are veering off point. The argument in question is quite simple. Let us begin with the premise:

P: I am an atheist

where we attempt to derive the conclusion

C: I am a Marxist

To do this would require attaching a conditional such that A=>M where A and M are respective symbolization keys for "I am an atheist" and "I am a Marxist". The problem is that this would require demonstrating that A logically leads to M. Here again, we take our premise to be:

P: Atheism is a lack of belief in God

where we attempt to derive the conclusion.

P: God does not exist

P2: ?????

C: Workers of the world, unite!

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Soory, I must have misread

Soory, I must have misread it. I thought you started with "Marxism entails atheism is true" and ended up with "atheism entails marxism is true".

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Mick
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-07-06
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:You use the

deludedgod wrote:

You use the operators in a very confusing manner. What precisely do you mean by <>(A&B)? To me, this immediately reads "Iff A and B" which doesn't make any sense by itself since it isn't a wff. What is []A supposed to represent? It doesn't look like any sentential or quantifiable operator I have ever seen.

<> and [] are operators of modal logic. <>(A&B) reads possibly both A and B and [](A&B) would mean necessarily both A and B.

 

I agree that there is nothing inherent within the definition of atheism that states anything about Marxism. However, a person need not depend on the definition of atheism to get its dependency. Rather, as you and I agree, they'd need to argue that atheism logically entails marxism. This is analogous to an apologist focusing on the common belief that objective morality exists. It is not prima facie obvious that asserting the existence of objective morality entails the existence of God but that's irrelevant to the apologist. For he will take the belief that objective morality exists and argue that if objective morality exists, then God exists.

 

Likewise, the arguer would take the atheism and argue that it entails marxism. I'm not sure how the arguer would approach the issue because it seems to blatantly false but that's besides the point. I'm merely speaking amount the logical form of the argument.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:<> and [] are

Quote:

<> and [] are operators of modal logic. <>(A&B) reads possibly both A and B and [](A&B) would mean necessarily both A and B.

Should have guessed. You should probably use the character map for clarity, though:

A(A&B)

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism