Athiests start religious wars, too!

[Belz...]

But my point was that atheism starts with the null hypothesis. A person who says he doesn't know is NOT a theist.

So it's impossible to have an agnostic theist ?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Hmmm just thinking about the original question.

What atheist started a religious war?

 

[AlBell]

Though I've been willing to separate theism and religion for the sake of this discussion it's very important to note that religion is inherently theistic. Yes, I know that not all cars are Fords, I get that. However, it is the inherent nature of theism that I'm focused on here. It is this inherent nature that provides religion with it's justification for moral claims and proscriptions.

• God + faith are necessary for religious proscription. And not just necessary BTW. It is by and large the claimed basis of morality for the vast majority of theists.
• No god + no faith are necessary for nothing beyond a lack of belief in god. To say more would be either tautological or factually wrong.

At the very least I would hope that people would agree that theism lends itself to moral proscription while atheism lends itself to nothing.

Luckily for atheists, PZ etal are defining Atheism+ which will give atheists the moral authority to attact ignorant doucebags and proscribe 'right thought', at the moment just verbally.

ps. Atheists can worship their own egos.

 

[ehcks]

So it's impossible to have an agnostic theist ?

A belief in a god they also believe they can never know, so they must take it on faith as if that were a test?

There's plenty of those.

 

[theprestige]

Hmmm just thinking about the original question.

What atheist started a religious war?

Lenin.

Communism was a secular ideology with a utopic vision of the future.

Lenin believed the utopia could be achieved through violent revolution, and that the promise of paradise offered by communism gave him the moral authority to commit atrocities.

Really, this thread should have ended on page one, with Marxism-Leninism and general agreement that atheist ideologies can be every bit as horribly credulous as theist ideologies.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmm just thinking about the original question.

What atheist started a religious war?

I'd say that the best example is the one I linked to previously, however funnily enough it would seem that every time a form of government that claims to be areligious (as opposed to simply secular) has come to power, that government has then proceeded to attempt to stamp out any form of theist belief in its population, banning freedom of worship, destroying any organised religion, and persecuting and killing any that objected. Granted, there haven't been a lot of them, but all have done it. By contrast, of the few Theist governments that have been set up, the majority have only reacted with violence and kicking opponents out in defence when those people have tried to undermine them. In the case of Geneva they kicked out the Catholics, then relented and against better judgement allowed them back, only to have the returned plot against them again.

I find it intriguing and sort of funny that history is actually in quite stark contrast to common belief.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Lenin.

Communism was a secular ideology with a utopic vision of the future.

That was a religious war? I thought that was primarily class warfare, not religious warfare, the main target being the Czarist monarchy which happened to be in collusion with the Russian Orthodox church (friend of enemy is enemy).

 

[theprestige]

That was a religious war? I thought that was primarily class warfare, not religious warfare, the main target being the Czarist monarchy which happened to be in collusion with the Russian Orthodox church (friend of enemy is enemy).

Marxism-Leninism was a belief system with a utopic vision that justified violence in the minds of its believers.

Don't get so excited about what the communists removed that you forget what they tried to put in its place, and how, and why.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'd say that the best example is the one I linked to previously [Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution] , however funnily enough it would seem that every time a form of government that claims to be areligious (as opposed to simply secular) has come to power, that government has then proceeded to attempt to stamp out any form of theist belief in its population...

Hmmm, I'm reading about the French Revolution, and it appears the revolutionaries were deists, not atheists. If you could name an actual atheist who "started" the French Revolution I'd like to read about him.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Marxism-Leninism was a belief system with a utopic vision that justified violence in the minds of its believers.

Don't get so excited about what the communists removed that you forget what they tried to put in its place, and how, and why.

I wouldn't say I'm excited. I'm looking for a smoking gun that satisfies the claim in the OP.

The French and Russian revolutions were mainly about class warfare, with the churches additional targets because they backed (and were part of) the ruling classes.

What do we mean, precisely, by "religious war?" Atheists, by definition, are not religious, so their wars cannot be religious wars from their perspective, and they'd not go to war against the religion, but against what religious people are actually doing (e.g siding with the Czar or French royal class). I'll read more about the Russian Revolution, but I'm not sure it "started" as a religious war.

In the case of the French Revolution, I'm reading about banning of public displays of the cross, but the revolutionaries, from what I'm reading, were not atheists.

 

[RandFan]

So it's impossible to have an agnostic theist ?

Fair cop. Either doesn't know or doesn't believe, fair enough?

 

[RandFan]

Luckily for atheists, PZ etal are defining Atheism+ which will give atheists the moral authority to attact ignorant doucebags and proscribe 'right thought', at the moment just verbally.

ps. Atheists can worship their own egos.

Of course they can and I reject much of what is going on behind Atheism+. But the "+" behind atheism has nothing to do with atheism (though I do agree with most of it).

 

[RandFan]

Agreed. However I'd also note that they are also far stronger motivations than the idea of "Go and kill because your god demands it." That might have worked back in 2 or 3 millennia BC, but is going to get a raised eyebrow and a "what the heck are you smoking look" today.

The more likely motivation used is "If you don't fight then they'll take over and force you to either convert to {enter appropriate horrible religion here} or they'll kill you" which again is just as much of a motivation for the atheist as the theist.

Even looking at war and killing in the desire to spread an ideology, theist really has to take back seat to more secular violence such as communism, and yes even there atheism has had a go (check the link I gave to the French Revolution) and for the most part, pretty much all of that violence has been targeted at theists, be it from other theists, communists or in a few examples, atheist.

Communism wasn't the result of Atheism. If you want to say that the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others was not religiously motivated then that's fine. I don't personally mind if you say "secular violence" to make that point but it wasn't atheism that caused the violence. As for the rest I find your analysis shallow and presumptive. I would agree that religion is declining as a motivating factor but beyond that I'm afraid the dynamics behind wars and atrocity are far more complex than you suggest.

 

[Xero]

 

[The Greater Fool]

Communism wasn't the result of Atheism. If you want to say that the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others was not religiously motivated then that's fine. I don't personally mind if you say "secular violence" to make that point but it wasn't atheism that caused the violence. As for the rest I find your analysis shallow and presumptive. I would agree that religion is declining as a motivating factor but beyond that I'm afraid the dynamics behind wars and atrocity are far more complex than you suggest.

Using your logic of a / Not a...

If it's not a Theistic war then it's an Atheist War. You have all the wars by or using theism, then all others outside that set would be atheist wars, No?

 

[RandFan]

I'd say that the best example is the one I linked to previously, however funnily enough it would seem that every time a form of government that claims to be areligious (as opposed to simply secular) has come to power, that government has then proceeded to attempt to stamp out any form of theist belief in its population, banning freedom of worship, destroying any organised religion, and persecuting and killing any that objected. Granted, there haven't been a lot of them, but all have done it. By contrast, of the few Theist governments that have been set up, the majority have only reacted with violence and kicking opponents out in defence when those people have tried to undermine them. In the case of Geneva they kicked out the Catholics, then relented and against better judgement allowed them back, only to have the returned plot against them again.

I find it intriguing and sort of funny that history is actually in quite stark contrast to common belief.

I cannot begin to defend the Communists but you have simply not made your case here. The dynamics that led the founders of this nation to call for religious freedom was in large part influenced by hundreds of years of sectarian violence and religous wars. This idea of comparing and contrasting religious and secular atrocity to find out which was better strikes me as absurd. Religious violence isn't kinder and gentler violence. It isn't more tolerant of difference. Again, you are taking complex and chaotic events and reducing them 2 dimensional.

 

[RandFan]

Using your logic of a / Not a...

If it's not a Theistic war then it's an Atheist War. You have all the wars by or using theism, then all others outside that set would be atheist wars, No?

No. Your syllogism is invalid and you are misusing the definition.

A bird has wings.
A cat does not.
A dog does not have wings therefore a dog is a cat.

Atheism is without religion.
Theistic war is one that is prosecuted by theists.
If theists don't prosecute the war then the war must be atheistic.

I get your point. The war was prosecuted without religion. But a theistic war isn't simply one fought because those who prosecuted it were religious. It is prosecuted in part BECAUSE of religion.

 

[The Greater Fool]

No. Your syllogism is invalid.

A bird has wings.
A cat does not.
A dog does not have wings therefore a dog is a cat.

Atheism is without religion.
Theistic war is one that is prosecuted by theists.
If theists don't prosecute the war then the war must be atheistic.

Wow, that was some great gymnastics.

The set outside theist war is atheist war
War = War, factor war out
The set outside theist is atheist. Your claim way back.

So, either War <> War or you just don't like the answer.

 

[RandFan]

Wow, that was some great gymnastics.

The set outside theist war is atheist war
War = War, factor war out
The set outside theist is atheist. Your claim way back.

So, either War <> War or you just don't like the answer.

I edited my previous post. From that:

I get your point. The war was prosecuted without religion. But a theistic war isn't simply one fought because those who prosecuted it were religious. It is prosecuted in part BECAUSE of religion.

Many wars have been fought by people who were religious that had nothing to do with religion. Just because those people were all religious doesn't make the war religious.

Your usage of the word atheism here is an amphibology. You are using the word in a way to hide the nature of what a religious motivated war is compared to an atheistic motivated war. The problem is the motivation for the war.

 

[RandFan]

addendum

I'm posting this in a new post because I don't want it to be missed. Wanted to make sure the point gets across and I often edit too slowly.

A religious war isn't simply fought by religious people. A religious war is one fought in part DUE TO religion. Hence, the use of the term "atheistic war" is not right if the war isn't fought BECAUSE of atheism.