Athiests start religious wars, too!

[Croydon Bob]

No, you could simply stay out of it. That was always an option. It still is, in fact.

You could have stayed out of this thread. Now you're complaining that you are being called out for posting derailing nonsense? You think you can make up whatever off-topic definitions of other people's thinking that you like and then they are to blame for responding? If there's a forum where you are allowed to get away with that sort of behaviour then I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Croydon Bob]

Bob: Tom, I need you strap on this explosive vest.
Tom: Why?
Bob: You are going to kill yourself and others.
Tom: Why?
Bob: Because we are atheists and nothing wants you to kill yourself and others... wait, never mind.

I did NOT say that!

But I do agree with the points you have been making.

 

[RandFan]

I did NOT say that!

But I do agree with the points you have been making.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Again, I said I would grant the premise. No need to restate it.

Based on what theory?

Based on the theory that "evangalism" = "evangalism".

But theism provides both justification and authority without reason. Atheism provides nothing. Atheism doesn't ask anyone to accept something on faith. Theism does.

How does [only] a belief in god(s) provide justification or authority? That a theist beleives god(s) exist does not create anything. Religion provides justification and authority.

No. You've not dealt with the substantive difference between theism and atheism.

• Theism provides both authority and justification for atrocity without reason.
• Atheism provides neither.

Neither provides neither.

Theism = [only] belief in god(s). It does not mean belief in god(s) that require worship, action or anything else. Only that "something" that is what the believer describes as god(s) exists, somewhere. Religion is what uses belief for it own ends. Anti-Religion uses disbelief.

That's fine but there is a substantive difference between theism and atheism. One provides a convenient divine authority and justification for atrocity without need of reason. Atheism does not.

It's hard not to be repetitive, as this thought has been stated 2-3 times in this post.

Theism doesn not provide ANY authority, no more than atheism. Religion adds the dogma of divine authority.

Religion causes Bob to strap on the explosives, not the Theism.

Theism can be exploited, yes. So can atheism, as the wiki linked group shows.

 

[RandFan]

How does [only] a belief in god(s) provide justification or authority? That a theist beleives god(s) exist does not create anything. Religion provides justification and authority.

God is the ultimate authority. If god says to kill someone then it's justified.

Neither provides neither.

But we know this is not true. Both the Bible and Koran contain divine instructions from god to kill. You can pass this off to religion in an attempt to deflect responsibility but there is no divine authority and no faith without theism. There is no analog for atheism.

Theism = [only] belief in god(s). It does not mean belief in god(s) that require worship, action or anything else. Only that "something" that is what the believer describes as god(s) exists, somewhere. Religion is what uses belief for it own ends.

In the end god makes for a pretty powerful justification to kill and faith allows for the suppression of reason.

Anti-Religion uses disbelief.

For what? Tell me how it is used the way religion uses god and faith. And don't just direct me to a wiki page. State it outright.

Theism doesn not provide ANY authority, no more than atheism. Religion adds the dogma of divine authority.

God is the authority. Faith is a means to forgo reason.

Religion causes Bob to strap on the explosives, not the Theism.

Wouldn't work without faith and god.

Theism can be exploited, yes. So can atheism, as the wiki linked group shows.

It shows no such thing. Nothing about atheism provides authority or justification for atrocity. There is no faith. There is no god. Theism relies on both faith and god and religion is quite adept at exploiting both. There is nothing about atheism that can be exploited the way god has been exploited for atrocity for thousands of years.

 

[Belz...]

No, you could simply stay out of it. That was always an option. It still is, in fact.

Look, Zig, you're usually a pretty level-headed guy, right ? So le me try again.

This thread is about whether atheists start religious wars. Nevermind that this is a contradiction in terms, and that we haven't seen any evidence of that in this thread, beside mere claims.

You stepped in and equated atheism, the lack of belief, with belief. Well, that's nonsense, but I suspect that the problem is that you confuse atheism with specific atheists. Myself, for example, am quite confident in saying that there is nothing supernatural, including gods, full stop. Now, I don't know 100%, but I'm pretty sure. Sure enough to state it repeatedly. And I'm also quite ok with being told that this is a belief, albeit one based on a preponderance of evidence, and lack of evidence of the reverse. I wouldn't be ok with being told it is a faith, but that's beside the point. Anyway, this belief is mine, and it doesn't follow from my atheism. It's just me, and I disagree with you using the fact that some atheists hold this position to equate atheism with that belief.

Since that sort of confusion about the term is usually a hallmark of theists, it's understandable that a few people in this thread assumed that you were a theist, and asked you to confirm or deny it. Your reaction to that was disproportionate and belligerent, even considering the "ignorance" statement by another poster. When I suggested that you answer the question to clear that up, you then attacked me and suggest that I somehow side with your enemies, which is beyond ridiculous, in addition to claiming that I said you were obligated to do so, which is just sad.

Does that sound level-headed to you ?

 

[Ziggurat]

You could have stayed out of this thread.

And you could have refrained from being an ass. But you didn't.

Now you're complaining that you are being called out for posting derailing nonsense?

Your entire disagreement with me comes down to a semantic disagreement. You don't like the definition of atheism and agnosticism that I'm using. Fine. But not only are the definitions I'm using pretty commonly used definitions, they're still just definitions. That's the only point of any substance on which you've disagreed with me. But from that, you've decided to not only personally insult me, but also draw conclusions about me that you have absolutely no knowledge of. That, frankly, just makes you look like an ass. How much of an ass? Well, the last person who was convinced they could determine something about my personal beliefs on religion was Ion. You haven't reached his level yet, but you're walking in the right direction.

If there's a forum where you are allowed to get away with that sort of behaviour then I'd be interested to see it.

A forum where I disagree with you about the meaning of a word? Quelle horreur! What is this world coming to!?!!?1?eleventy-one!!!?

 

[The Greater Fool]

God is the ultimate authority. If god says to kill someone then it's justified.

But we know this is not true. Both the Bible and Koran contain divine instructions from god to kill. You can pass this off to religion in an attempt to deflect responsibility but there is no divine authority and no faith without theism. There is no analog for atheism.

In the end god makes for a pretty powerful justification to kill and faith allows for the suppression of reason.

For what? Tell me how it is used the way religion uses god and faith. And don't just direct me to a wiki page. State it outright.

God is the authority. Faith is a means to forgo reason.

Wouldn't work without faith and god.

It shows no such thing. Nothing about atheism provides authority or justification for atrocity. There is no faith. There is no god. Theism relies on both faith and god. There is nothing about atheism that can be exploited the way god has been exploited for atrocity for thousands of years.

Wouldn't work without the Religious dogma of life after death.

If I believe in the unicorns, invisible dragons, or god(s), there is no "authority" in my mind, other than I'm more clever than those that don't believe. Those that don't believe also have no authority, other than being more clever for not believing.

When a bunch of us unicorn believers get together and decide what the unicorn demands of us, that is Religion.

Theism = belief in god(s). There is nothing in that definition that indicates god(s) right to rule, any authority, any need to act. Same for Atheism.

Perhaps you have never run across people that just beleive in some sort of universal power they call god that makes no demands, does not meddle, just out there. I have, so it's easy to mark the difference between that belief, and religion.

As much as religions see other religions and atheists as a threat, atheists could also see religions as a threat.

Atheists jump up and down that "Atheism is only a belief in no god(s) / disbelief in god(s)... that is all, nothing more." then attribute all sorts of attributes to theism which simply means "belief in god(s) and nothing more."

Atheists say "is not stamp collecting a hobby?" but by the thinking above, somehow stamp collecting is more than a hobby.

I think we're talking past each other.

 

[RandFan]

I think we're talking past each other.

Well help me out here. Many theists have for millennia used god to justify atrocity. That's a fact. Since there is no evidence of god then one must believe in god on faith alone. God and faith can be easily exploited for evil purposes. Give me the atheist analog that relies on a fundamental aspect of atheism to justify atrocity and forgo reason?

 

[DC]

Ah! But his culture's bad so it doesn't matter.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Well help me out here. Many theists have for millennia used god to justify atrocity. That's a fact. Since there is no evidence of god then one must believe in god on faith alone. God and faith can be easily exploited for evil purposes. Give me the atheist analog that relies on a fundamental aspect of atheism to justify atrocity and forgo reason?

Most religions are comprised of Theists. Was it the belief in god(s) that caused the attrocity, or the dogma of the religion?

The wiki link of the Goddless would be one where atheism was exploited. The atheism itself was attached to additional dogma (communism). This is often hadwaved as a different beleif system, similar to religion (note: not similar to theism).

You previously mention in/out group dynamics, and groups will use any premise necessary to win.

 

[DC]

And you could have refrained from being an ass. But you didn't.



Your entire disagreement with me comes down to a semantic disagreement. You don't like the definition of atheism and agnosticism that I'm using. Fine. But not only are the definitions I'm using pretty commonly used definitions, they're still just definitions. That's the only point of any substance on which you've disagreed with me. But from that, you've decided to not only personally insult me, but also draw conclusions about me that you have absolutely no knowledge of. That, frankly, just makes you look like an ass. How much of an ass? Well, the last person who was convinced they could determine something about my personal beliefs on religion was Ion. You haven't reached his level yet, but you're walking in the right direction.



A forum where I disagree with you about the meaning of a word? Quelle horreur! What is this world coming to!?!!?1?eleventy-one!!!?

yeah the usual strawmen definitions we often see from the religious nutters that just can't imagine that someone does not believe in something without actually believing that that something can not exist.

 

[Mr. Scott]

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....

Some thoughts on atheism in the history of wars:

Hitler: No evidence he's atheist, grew up Roman Catholic, colluded with the Catholic Church in his war effort, used faith to motivate his followers who were certainly not atheists.

Stalin: The Russian civil war, which was to overthrow the Czar's and church's cruel policies (a justified conflict not motivated by atheism), defending against Polish invasion (ancient pre-communism conflict), defending Russia against Nazi Germany (conflict started be theists).

Mao: Rose to power "during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion," so who "started the conflict?" Doesn't sound like an atheism-motivated conflict to me.

Che: Fought theistically-inspired colonialism and imperialism, not because they were theistic, but because they were imperialistic. If he'd backed it up with a belief some god was on his side, things likely would have been much more ugly.

Is evicting foreign invaders "starting a conflict?"

In any case, the "they do it, too" argument is infantile. I don't know anyone who's sure there would be no wars if there were no theists.

Chimps, who have basically the same brains we have (but smaller) engage in wars and presumably have never heard of gods. Their motivation is "we must fight to defend (or expand) our territory." Their "god" is their alpha male, psychologically identical to the gods humans invent and fight wars in the name of.

 

[DC]

Most religions are comprised of Theists. Was it the belief in god(s) that caused the attrocity, or the dogma of the religion?

The wiki link of the Goddless would be one where atheism was exploited. The atheism itself was attached to additional dogma (communism). This is often hadwaved as a different beleif system, similar to religion (note: not similar to theism).

You previously mention in/out group dynamics, and groups will use any premise necessary to win.

well religions are based on theism, while communism is not based on atheism.
there is the big difference.

 

[DC]

Some thoughts on atheism in the history of wars:

Hitler: No evidence he's atheist, grew up Roman Catholic, colluded with the Catholic Church in his war effort, used faith to motivate his followers, who were certainly not atheists.

Stalin: The Russian civil war, which was to overthrow the Czar's and church's cruel policies (a justified conflict not motivated by atheism), defending against Polish invasion (ancient pre-communism conflict), defended Russian against Nazi Germany (conflict started be theists).

Mao: Rose to power "during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion," so who "started the conflict?" Doesn't sound like an atheist-motivated conflict to me.

Che: Fought theistically-inspired colonialism and imperialism, not because they were theistic, but because they were imperialistic. If he'd backed it up with a belief some god was on his side, things likely would have been much more ugly.

Is evicting foreign invaders "starting a conflict?"

In any case, the "they do it, too" argument is infantile. I don't know anyone who's sure there would be no wars if there were no theists.

Chimps, who have basically the same brains we have (but smaller) engage in wars and presumably have never heard of gods. Their motivations are "we must fight to defend (or expand) our territory." Their "god" is their alpha male, psychologically identical to the gods humans invent and fight wars in the name of.

nice post, good arguments i think.

 

[Croydon Bob]

And you could have refrained from being an ass. But you didn't.

You really do seem to have lost it. It's not my fault you were wrong. There's no need to be abusive just because you were wrong.

That, frankly, just makes you look like an ass. How much of an ass?

Do you really think that the fact that you were completely wrong about what an atheist is makes me an ass? You are digging deeper and deeper.

A forum where I disagree with you about the meaning of a word? Quelle horreur! What is this world coming to!?!!?1?eleventy-one!!!?

Oh dear. I'll explain it again. You tried to tell other people what they believed and you got it all wrong. Then you whined that other people were trying to tell you what you believed. Ironic hypocricy. You are behaving as if you are special and are allowed to post any old garbage unchallenged. You haven't helped yourself with this latest nonsensical abusive word salad. I've no idea what you are trying to achieve by posting all these pointless insults. Why not just accept that you were clueless regarding atheism, and that you have learnt something?

 

[The Greater Fool]

well religions are based on theism, while communism is not based on atheism.
there is the big difference.

Religions exploit theism to benefit the leaders.
Communism exploited atheism to benefit the leaders.

Not so big a difference.

 

[RandFan]

Most religions are comprised of Theists. Was it the belief in god(s) that caused the attrocity, or the dogma of the religion?

But I've already agreed that for this discussion theism doesn't cause atrocity. So your question is pointless. My argument is that theism provides a convenient authority and justification for morality.

The wiki link of the Goddless would be one where atheism was exploited.

Not based on anything fundamental to atheism.

The atheism itself was attached to additional dogma (communism). This is often hadwaved as a different beleif system, similar to religion (note: not similar to theism).

You previously mention in/out group dynamics, and groups will use any premise necessary to win.

Yes I did. But atheism doesn't provide anything for them to win. I cannot rationally state that because I'm an atheist I am justified in killing or harming others. If I believe that god wants me to kill someone then I can rationally make that claim.

 

[Croydon Bob]

well religions are based on theism, while communism is not based on atheism.
there is the big difference.

Yes.

Mr Scott has made some great points; the chimp one I will use myself in future. But it comes back to this. Nobody has ever started a war because they had an absence of belief in a deity.

 

[RandFan]

Communism exploited atheism to benefit the leaders.

Tell us how? All I see is ad hoc or post hoc proctor hoc. Provide the nexus from atheism to atrocity?

• I believe in god.
• God says to kill.
• God is the ultimate moral authority.

How would an atheist go about justifying atrocity using atheism?