Athiests start religious wars, too!

[Manopolus]

You are talking about the human condition and not atheism. That's the the crux of the problem. Atheism has nothing to do with anything other than a lack of belief in god. If we could just get that through people's thick skulls. The Bible tells followers to kill people. The Koran and Hadith also provides for killing. There's lots and lots of happy instructions to kill. Atheism? ... crickets. Nothing. There are no atheist books about killing believers. Nothing. Nada. Zip. If your co-worker is a jerk AND atheist, he's a jerk in spite of atheism and not because of it.

I don't disagree in general. However, one could argue that losing the religion one was brought up in often leads to to this type of attitude... although for most it fades in time. IOW, you could say that the process of becoming an atheist might bring about a bit of strife.

Other than that, I agree... it's not being an atheist that makes you a jerk... any more than clinging to religious tradition does. Religion or lack thereof does not determine how much of a cad one is.

The only real difference is in the justifications offered, and whether you have a position of suitable authority to create real mayhem. Religion can give you that, but so can some other things. One way or another, the dude in authority will prey on the inadequacies of the populace, and bad things happen. I do think that religion is a short cut to sheepifying the masses, but there are other methods. Fear is the most common method, whether religiously motivated or not.

 

[MG1962]

You are NOT listening. There is NOTHING about atheism that calls for immoral behavior anymore than there is about blue eyes. If a group of people who all had blue eyes killed people would you honestly blame it on the color of their eyes?

Would you? Even if they said it was about blue eyes would you blame eye color?

Atheism has no more to do with immorality than the color of one's eyes. Got it?

I am sorry could you point out where you became the sole arbiter of what atheists are and are not. Clearly the people of the organisation I linked too equally considered themselves atheists. They even use the word in the title of their group.

 

[RandFan]

I don't disagree in general. However, one could argue that losing the religion one was brought up in often leads to to this type of attitude...

Finding out that Santa Claus is also a myth could lead to that kind of attitude. Life's a bitch. Some people cannot handle reality. That cannot be blamed on reality.

 

[RandFan]

I am sorry could you point out where you became the sole arbiter of what atheists are and are not. Clearly the people of the organisation I linked too equally considered themselves atheists. They even use the word in the title of their group.

You are STILL NOT listening. I don't care what they are. I don't care if they blame atheism. What basis do they and what basis do you have to say that what they do has anything to do with atheism?

You ignored my example of eye color, why? Please to answer that question. Your argument is post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Fallacy.

 

[Earthborn]

• There is nothing about not believing in god that leads to atrocity.

There is nothing to prevent it either.

One cannot say the same about theism.

The same can be said about theism: there is nothing about believing in God that leads to atrocity.

There is nothing inherent to atheism that would dictate persecution. That is the result of in-group out-group thinking. Which is also a basis for much of religious atrocity. The difference is that theism actually calls for murdering infidels and punishing people for blasphemy.

Do you see the difference?

I don't see the difference. I just see you using two different standards. When you talk about what is inherent to atheism you only want to consider what all atheists have in common; a non-belief in God. When you talk about theists however, you claim that what is inherent to theism is what a subset of theists do. Theism does not call for murdering infidels and punishing people for blasphemy; the only thing that is inherent in theism is a belief in God.

Whatever their problem it had nothing to do with atheism. Atheism doesn't have any dogma or presupposition. There is nothing that follows from atheism other than a lack of a belief in god. Anyone who makes an argument otherwise is arguing post hoc ergo proctor hoc. A fallacy.

Whatever their problem it had nothing to do with theism. Theism doesn't have any dogma or presupposition. There is nothing that follows from theism other than a belief in god. Anyone who makes an argument otherwise is arguing post hoc ergo proctor hoc. A fallacy.

like not collecting poststamps is not a hobby,

As much as I like the saying that "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", I don't think the analogy holds well. As far as I know there are no clubs for non-stamp collectors, no one is holding any conferences or writing any books about how great it is not to collect stamps. There are no prominent thinkers in the "non-stamp collecting" community. It sure looks like many atheists have turned their atheism into a "hobby".

 

[3point14]

You could find out easily enough by simply reviewing the thread.



Nothing I said depends upon my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I don't owe anyone an explanation of those personal details, and I'm not here to "help" you figure them out. And anyone who presumes to tell me what my beliefs are is talking out their ass.

Considered decaf?

 

[Croydon Bob]

And now you're objecting to me insulting you? That's rather bold of you.

Your wilfull ignorance regarding the meaning of the word "atheist" is a matter of fact, not an insult. It is typical of a believer to think that throwing around childish insults is the equivalent of pointing out that you are factually wrong. It is as inaccurate as equating a lack of belief in something with a belief in something.

 

[Croydon Bob]

Nothing I said depends upon my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I don't owe anyone an explanation of those personal details, and I'm not here to "help" you figure them out. And anyone who presumes to tell me what my beliefs are is talking out their ass.

Ironic nonsense.

You've made clear in this thread that you are a believer in some sort of god. You have repeatedly tried to tell a bunch of agnostics and atheists that they believe things that they don't believe. You have done nothing but presume to tell other people what they believe and you have been 100% wrong. By your own definition it is very clear where you are talking from.

 

[Croydon Bob]

But if you had never even thought about the set of things called gods, then you could not be called an atheist any more than every baby is an atheist, and at that point the word become detached from its actual usage.

Still completely wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Anyone who doesn't believe in gods is an atheist, this does not require special thought. If a person has never heard of baseball then they don't play baseball, they're not a fan of a baseball team; they do not have to be aware of baseball to have an absence of interest in it.

 

[Croydon Bob]

And I won't answer the question because it's none of your damn business.

I didn't start the fight. But you joined it. And it's not a discussion forum for personal topics that people don't want to share.

Total hypocrisy.

You jumped into a thread about whether atheists start wars in the name of atheism by resurrecting a tiresome old factually wrong cliche that religionists are always coming out with: that atheism is a belief.

You derailed the thread by posting rubbish based on religious belief. You started this nonsense and you still haven't had the sense or decency to admit that you were completely wrong.

 

[s_pepys]

Quite true.



Are you unwilling to say that you believe pink unicorns, etc. do not exist?

I'm quite willing to say that I believe they don't exist. I'm not sure why you think that's a problem. You seem to be reflexively rejecting the idea of believing something doesn't exist because you think it's part of an attack on atheism. But it isn't, at least not on my part.

are you also willing to accept that they might exist?

 

[Damien Evans]

LOL - I honestly don't know much about the Eastern Orthodox religions. They may even pre-date the Catholics

The Catholics and Orthodox split from each other slowly over several centuries.

 

[RandFan]

There is nothing to prevent it either.

?

The same can be said about theism: there is nothing about believing in God that leads to atrocity.

Yes there is. See the Bible. See the Koran. That's the difference. Atheists don't have sacred texts or tenant for committing atrocity.

I don't see the difference.

Atheists don't have sacred tenants, dogma or texts that include killing people. Theists have sacred tenants, dogma and texts. Atheists have no divine authority to kill, maim or enslave. Theists DO have divine authority to kill, maim and enslave (see the sacred texts).

When you talk about theists however, you claim that what is inherent to theism...

I understand your point. As a concept itself, theism does not necessitate atrocity. However, atrocity is justified in sacred texts. If atheists had such texts I would grant you the point but we don't. Nothing about atheism would cause someone to write books telling people to kill and harm other people because nothing follows from a lack of something. Theists can say that their god told them to kill (see sacred texts like the Bible and the Koran). Atheists cannot turn to atheism to justify killing. Can you at least admit that much? That there are no sacred atheistic screeds that proscribe atrocity?

Theism doesn't have any dogma or presupposition.

See the Bible. See the Koran.

There is nothing that follows from theism other than a belief in god. Anyone who makes an argument otherwise is arguing post hoc ergo proctor hoc. A fallacy.

God spoke to them. God told them to kill. Prove he didn't? Thinking that you talk to an invisible being that can proscribe atrocity doesn't follow from atheism. Can you admit to that difference?

 

[Belz...]

You jumped into a fight

A fight ? As I said, you're way too emotionally involved in this.

where I had been directly insulted without provocation

Yes, I noticed, and I didn't report it only because I wanted to see if it was going to end there or escalate. I also figured you could handle it.

and you took sides with the person who insulted me.

Wow, now that's delusional. I simply asked you to answer the question to clear things up, and now I take side with your enemies ? I think you should take a break from this thread.

Neither of those options are endearing you to me right now.

You don't get to pull crap like that and pretend that you're just trying to get along. You're not.

And I won't answer the question because it's none of your damn business.

I didn't start the fight. But you joined it. And it's not a discussion forum for personal topics that people don't want to share.

I suggest you re-read that to yourself, aloud, preferably with someone around, and ask them if you sound rational, now. I've had my disagreements with you in the past, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Belz...]

Still completely wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Anyone who doesn't believe in gods is an atheist, this does not require special thought. If a person has never heard of baseball then they don't play baseball, they're not a fan of a baseball team; they do not have to be aware of baseball to have an absence of interest in it.

They also don't play the sport of NOT baseball.

 

[DC]

Quite true.



Are you unwilling to say that you believe pink unicorns, etc. do not exist?

I'm quite willing to say that I believe they don't exist. I'm not sure why you think that's a problem. You seem to be reflexively rejecting the idea of believing something doesn't exist because you think it's part of an attack on atheism. But it isn't, at least not on my part.

well maybe RandFan is a sceptic and tries to not make any claims without supporting evidence, unlike you.

 

[DC]

As much as I like the saying that "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", I don't think the analogy holds well. As far as I know there are no clubs for non-stamp collectors, no one is holding any conferences or writing any books about how great it is not to collect stamps. There are no prominent thinkers in the "non-stamp collecting" community. It sure looks like many atheists have turned their atheism into a "hobby".

well once the stampcollectors start introducing laws based on stampcollecting, once the stampcollectors get taxbrakes for their organisations, once the stampcollectors supress the non stampcollectors, once the stampcollectors want to introduce science contradicting teachings in your kid's school, there might be clubs and organisations of non stampcollectors.
the analogy holds very very well.

 

[RandFan]

Theists can and do sincerely believe that god wants them to kill people.

 

[DC]

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img831/306/wtc911r.jpg[/qimg]

Theists can and do sincerely believe that god wants them to kill people.

most of them also do believe their god is justified to kill as many humans and other animals as much as he likes. they even tell their kids nice stories about it, and turn a horrible genocide into a story for kids.

 

[RandFan]

My belief in pink unicorns and/or the lack thereof.

well maybe RandFan is a sceptic and tries to not make any claims without supporting evidence, unlike you.

I'm willing to make a probabilistic statement about pink unicorns and about the existence of god. I believe both are very unlikely.