A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

So you should also look at the extremes in philosophy too. And atheism is an extreme.

Atheism is an absolute. (Remember my (rhetorical) question about Absolute Zero?)

Originally Posted by davar55

Agnosticism is sort of middle-of-the-road.

Agnosticism is admitting the truth: We can't know for sure. (Just like we can't reach Absolute Zero.)

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Atheism is an absolute. (Remember my (rhetorical) question about Absolute Zero?)



Agnosticism is admitting the truth: We can't know for sure. (Just like we can't reach Absolute Zero.)

I can't help feeling that you, chasall, are treating atheism as a mathematical theorem.

I tend to regard it as a criminal matter (controversy intended), the question being: is the absence of at least one god settled beyond all reasonably doubt? That criterion is sufficient to kill people in some jurisdictions, notably that in which davar55 resides. AFAICT, davar55 also views it in that light but I'm sure he'll clarify if clarification is needed.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by xilman

I can't help feeling that you, chasall, are treating atheism as a mathematical theorem.

Absolutely. (Joke and irony intended.) (By the way, it's Halsall. CHalsall.)

But to be serious and honest, learning about mathematics and physics (and chemistry, biology, history and philosophy) was the path I personally traveled to come to my current world view.

Originally Posted by xilman

I tend to regard it as a criminal matter (controversy intended), the question being: is the absence of at least one god settled beyond all reasonably doubt? That criterion is sufficient to kill people in some jurisdictions, notably that in which davar55 resides.

I agree. I would go further, and suggest that this problem exists in many jurisdictions. And in many belief systems.

I personally believe it is because of a lack of education, honest discourse, and thought.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Absolutely. (Joke and irony intended.) (By the way, it's Halsall. CHalsall.)

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately ascribed to incompetence. It was a simple tyop.

Not that I seriously believed you were being malicious.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I agree. I would go further, and suggest that this problem exists in many jurisdictions.

Indeed. It was true here in the UK within my lifetime, though not in recent decades.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by xilman

Indeed. It was true here in the UK within my lifetime, though not in recent decades.

Really?

[davar55]

Re: ^^

Why exactly can't we ever know for sure?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

...
I tend to regard it as a criminal matter (controversy intended), the question being: is the absence of at least one god settled beyond all reasonable
doubt? That criterion is sufficient to kill people in some jurisdictions, notably that in which davar55 resides. AFAICT, davar55 also views it in that light but I'm sure he'll clarify if clarification is needed.

I don't quite get this. If you mean that claiming, say, in public, that
no god exists could get one into trouble, as in being attacked or worse
jailed for a heretical view, then certainly that's been historically true
in many "jurisdictions". The jurisdiction in which I reside is NYC, USA,
and that's not a danger here, except if a thug posturing as a defender
of religion should do something stupid. But there are other ways the
first amendment to the US Constitution is not fully supported and
accepted, such as frequent incursions on the separation of church
and state. Is this what you meant?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Really?

Really

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

I don't quite get this. If you mean that claiming, say, in public, that
no god exists could get one into trouble, as in being attacked or worse
jailed for a heretical view, then certainly that's been historically true
in many "jurisdictions". The jurisdiction in which I reside is NYC, USA,
and that's not a danger here, except if a thug posturing as a defender
of religion should do something stupid. But there are other ways the
first amendment to the US Constitution is not fully supported and
accepted, such as frequent incursions on the separation of church
and state. Is this what you meant?

Nope.

In the US it only needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you have committed any of a range of actions before the state has sufficient justification to kill you.

See my response to chalsall for the situation in the UK.

[Brian-E]

Just another point about this tangential subject:
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is often less neat and tidy than many people assume it is.
From http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php

Eighteen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 229 years in prison – including 202 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.

These people are undoubtedly the tip of a very disturbing iceberg which will include many innocent people who have been executed. Wrongful conviction occurs in all countries, not just the USA. A majority of countries now (no longer) apply the death penalty, but all imprison people for very long periods when they have been convicted of a serious crime. Once a person has been convicted it is notoriously difficult to get the case re-opened. Convicted prisoners attract little sympathy.