Athiests start religious wars, too!

[NoahFence]

So whenever I beat senseless facebookers who think "Athiests start wars, too you know", they always come up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Che

I assume the answer is no, but is there any way these people started their conflicts due to athiesm?

To me it seems like a massively stupid question but I've been known to be wrong before so I just want to ensure that none of the above dolts were Athiest, and if they were, they didn't start wars because of it....

 

[s_pepys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhczvtmbWE

 

[Irony]

^ Hitch pretty much gave the definitive answer there.

Communism is a faith. They were atheists only because the church represented a rival faith. Atheism isn't even a belief, much less a belief system. It can't motivate very much at all. Now, secularism, skepticism, and the like most certainly can motivate people, but so far I've yet to see a case of them motivating people to war.

 

[Ziggurat]

Atheism isn't even a belief, much less a belief system.

Atheism is most definitively and explicitly a belief. It doesn't have any associated hierarchy and not much in the way of dogma, so may you can argue that it's not a belief system, but it is by its very definition a belief.

It can't motivate very much at all.

Sure it can. But that's not the question, the question is has it done so on any large scale. So far it doesn't appear to have. But on an individual level? You'd be a fool to discount it categorically.

 

[s_pepys]

im not sure. is not believing in santa a belief?

 

[Ziggurat]

im not sure. is not believing in santa a belief?

If you believe Santa Clause does not exist, yes, that's a belief.

A lack of any belief in regards to God's existence would be agnosticism, not atheism.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Atheism is most definitively and explicitly a belief. It doesn't have any associated hierarchy and not much in the way of dogma, so may you can argue that it's not a belief system, but it is by its very definition a belief.

No. Atheism is absence of belief.

An atheist doesn't believe there is no god(s); an atheist knows there is no god(s).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A lack of any belief in regards to God's existence would be agnosticism, not atheism.

You have it backwards.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. Atheism is absence of belief.

An atheist doesn't believe there is no god(s); an atheist knows there is no god(s).

Uh... no. Since God's non-existence is not provable, an atheist does not know, he can only believe. And if he doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, he's not an atheist.

 

[The Greater Fool]

A lack of any belief in regards to God's existence would be agnosticism, not atheism.

Giving it no thought is "not caring about god"

Giving it thought and not knowing is agnostic.

Knowing there is a god is theism.

Knowing there is not a god is atheism.

Once you've given it thought, I don't think you can reset to "not caring".

ETA: Since nothing can be known (scientifically) 100%, it is often softened to "current belief". Theists and atheists use "know" in a non-scientific sense.

 

[ehcks]

Uh... no. Since God's non-existence is not provable, an atheist does not know, he can only believe. And if he doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, he's not an atheist.

The invisible incorporeal massless non-energetic dragon in my garage is also not provable. I know it doesn't exist.

 

[Irony]

Giving it no thought is "not caring about god"

Giving it thought and not knowing is agnostic.

Knowing there is a god is theism.

Knowing there is not a god is atheism.

Once you've given it thought, I don't think you can reset to "not caring".

ETA: Since nothing can be known (scientifically) 100%, it is often softened to "current belief". Theists and atheists use "know" in a non-scientific sense.

Alright, but for the record, that makes Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steven Fry, James Randi, Penn & Teller, and pretty much every single well-known atheist in all of history not atheists.

 

[fuelair]

im not sure. is not believing in santa a belief?

Thus, being aware that 2+2 + 4 is a belief. Being aware that New York is north of Florida is a belief. Don't buy it as comparable. To be a belief in the way the term is normaly used in human writing and speech involves the necessity that the answer must not be blatantly obvious. Cable television and cars and the moon are real, observable, and have testable existance not just/only beliefs. Ghosts, alien spacecraft and zombies are beliefs with no verifiability. Not the same.

 

[cosmicaug]

Atheism is most definitively and explicitly a belief. It doesn't have any associated hierarchy and not much in the way of dogma, so may you can argue that it's not a belief system, but it is by its very definition a belief.

That implies that the number of beliefs I hold is infinite. Furthermore, I only knowingly hold some of those beliefs and the fraction of total beliefs that I hold knowingly is, essentially, zero.

 

[NoahFence]

So basically none of the so-called athiests who started wars were actually athiest.

Never saw that coming....

 

[Ziggurat]

That implies that the number of beliefs I hold is infinite.

Only in a trivial sense that certain sets contain an infinite number of members. But you have had a finite number of thoughts, and if you don't think about something, you don't have a belief about it.

Furthermore, I only knowingly hold some of those beliefs and the fraction of total beliefs that I hold knowingly is, essentially, zero.

And?

 

[Irony]

The invisible incorporeal massless non-energetic dragon in my garage is also not provable. I know it doesn't exist.

You two are using different definitions of know. You use it to express well-founded confidence in a belief, Ziggurat uses it to describe absolute knowledge.

Personally, I find your definition better, since I think it's silly to say that I can't "know" that my head is attached to my neck or that Mount Everest weighs more than an average sized potato chip. Still, there's no inherent conflict.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Alright, but for the record, that makes Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steven Fry, James Randi, Penn & Teller, and pretty much every single well-known atheist in all of history not atheists.

I don't believe what I wrote invalided those Smart Guys (TM) atheism. Care to explain? Or, have I made a classic blunder asking?

 

[Irony]

I don't believe what I wrote invalided those Smart Guys (TM) atheism. Care to explain? Or, have I made a classic blunder asking?

Well, to my knowledge, just about every single notable atheist has clearly stated that they don't know (in the sense of having absolute knowledge) that gods do not exist. They simply don't believe in them based on lack of evidence.

Atheism is exactly what the word implies: not theism.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Well, to my knowledge, just about every single notable atheist has clearly stated that they don't know (in the sense of having absolute knowledge) that gods do not exist. They simply don't believe in them based on lack of evidence.

Atheism is exactly what the word implies: not theism.

I thought I said that. :shrug: