Athiests start religious wars, too!

[RandFan]

I see. What does any of that have to do with atheism ?

Beats me.

 

[The Greater Fool]

If someone is under the impression that atheism can only mean a positive belief that there is no god then you are right. It would be misleading to that person. But you now understand that the word does also mean an absence of belief in god. So your continued insistence that I misused the word won't advance the discussion. At the end of the day what is important is the ideas in our heads and not the words. We both now understand two things.

• Atheism is defined, in part, to mean an absence of a belief in god.
• Religious wars is defined to mean a war motivated, in part, by religion.

This isn't helpful at all. Now that we understand our terms we don't need personal attacks. FWIW: It has nothing at all with what I like and there is nothing to suggest I don't understand something as we have a working understanding of the terms we are using.

Atheism is also defined, in part, to mean a positive belief there are no god(s). I have continued to tell you how *I* use the word, and that you are applying your definition when I am using the other, narrower one.

Later, when speaking of Atheist Wars, I made it clear it was your broader definition. It would mean Wars waged without belief in god(s), and is a fair and reasonable use of the words.

So much for thread history...

OK, the topic is about Atheists (individuals?) who waged religious wars. Personally, I don't know the beliefs of historical figures. Some were purportedly religious, but did they really believe, or use religion as a tool? For a lot of years, religion was one of the most powerful forces in the world, so even atheists would pay lip service to gain access to that power.

Basically, wars were waged for power. Whatever pretext necessary would be used, and since 95% of the world believed in some sort of god(s), that is a huge powerbase to draw from, with built in manipulation handles to use. No matter the cause, theists and atheists alike fought.

Communists used atheism as a tool to attack churches, attaching atheism to communism, like religions attached to theism. Did communism do things against churches to promote atheism? Sure, that's what their propoganda said, though it was to further the cause of the power elite in communism. Religonists can explain away religious wars much the same way.

 

[RandFan]

Later, when speaking of Atheist Wars, I made it clear it was your broader definition. It would mean Wars waged without belief in god(s), and is a fair and reasonable use of the words.

No. That would be an amphibology as religious wars are about motivation not belief. The word atheism means without belief in god not without god. Even with all your caveats it's still wrong. But I know what you mean. If you want to use it that way fine, go ahead. I'll just roll my eyes and keep my mouth shut. We've beat this dead horse to a bloody pulp, can we move forward?

Communists used atheism as a tool to attack churches, attaching atheism to communism, like religions attached to theism. Did communism do things against churches to promote atheism? Sure, that's what their propoganda said, though it was to further the cause of the power elite in communism. Religonists can explain away religious wars much the same way.

Sure. Fine. At the end of the day atheists don't have faith and god to be exploited.

You have a chip on your shoulder and are hung up with this about atheists thinking they are "superior". It's nonsense as I've already told you I don't hold that atheists are superior to theists. I only hold that since atheists don't believe in a god then they have no divine authority and faith to exploit.

Can atheist antipathy toward religion be exploited? Yes. Do atheists have something analogues to faith and god to be exploited? No.

 

[The Greater Fool]

No. That would be an amphibology. But I know what you mean. If you want to use it that way fine, go ahead. Let's move forward.

That you understood means it was not amphibology. I think using words like amphibology would lead too amphibologic situatons quicker than my use of "Atheist Wars".

Sure. Fine. At the end of the day atheists don't have faith and god to be exploited.

No. Athiests don't have beleif/faith in god(s). I think it would be safe that the communist atheists had 'faith' in their leadership.

You are hung up with this chip on your shoulder about atheists thinking they are "superior". It's nonsense as I've already told you I don't hold that atheists are superior to theists. I only hold that since atheists don't believe in a god then they have no divine authority and faith to exploit.

And theists have no divine authority to exploit, only a belief in god(s) to exploit. That a simple exploitation is "If you believe in OUR god, OUR god is all moral, all correct, and it's up to us to change the world in his name". Not part of theism, at all.

Disbelief in god(s) can likewise be exploited... "Look at all these religions with doctrines to killl us! It is our human right to protect ourselves, and the best defense is a good offense!" And, yes, that is just like religion.

Can atheist antipathy toward religion be exploited? Yes. Do atheists have something analogues to faith and god to be exploited? No.

Oops, Ok, we agree on the exploitation. Spoke a bit quickly above.

But, faith in organizational leadership or prominant personalities can be and is analogous to faith in god. So, no, atheists don't lack faith, just belief in god(s).

 

[RandFan]

That you understood means it was not amphibology.

If you say that every time you use the word cat you actually mean dog and I understand that, it doesn't make you right. I'm just willing to stop arguing over the definition of dog. That's all.

And theists have no divine authority to exploit, only a belief in god(s) to exploit.

Most believe that their god is a moral guide. They do so on the basis of faith (and additional dogma).

But, faith in organizational leadership or prominant personalities can be and is analogous to faith in god.

It doesn't follow from atheism. There is nothing about atheism that presupposes that anyone must be followed based on a lack of evidence.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Most believe that their god is a moral guide. They do so on the basis of faith (and additional dogma).

Pedantically, no. Theism = belief in god(s). No attributes of faith, worship, authority, etc.

Do you think Native American Gods granted the Native American believers authority to commit attrocity? How about Ancient Greek gods? Norse Gods? These latter two I think believers simply wanted to appease and stay out of their way. Some Gnostics believe god is evil, and has no rightful authority over man.

So, what most theists might further believe means nothing to the question of theism/atheism.

It doesn't follow from atheism. There is nothing about atheism that presupposes unseen entities that must be believed on faith.

Pedant: Atheism, again, only deals with belief in god(s). There is also nothing about atheism that prohibits believing in non-god unseen entities. Many atheist religions don't believe in god(s) (duh! atheist religions) but believe in other unseen entities (referenced before).

 

[RandFan]

BTW:

Where are all of the atheist motivated wars and atrocity today? I think the evidence suggests that the atrocities of secular nations was an anomaly the result of fundamentalist communism (so called).

Modern liberal secular societies don't lend themselves to war and aggression.

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Before he began his recent travels, it seemed to Phil Zuckerman as if humans all over the globe were “getting religion”—praising deities, performing holy rites, and soberly defending the world from sin. But most residents of Denmark and Sweden, he found, don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer.

 

[RandFan]

Pedantically, no. Theism = belief in god(s). No attributes of faith, worship, authority, etc.

Belief in god is not possible without faith as there is no evidence of god.

Do you think Native American Gods granted the Native American believers authority to commit attrocity?

I've already concede this point. You are not advancing the discussion. I've stipulated that faith does not necessitate exploitation.

So, what most theists might further believe means nothing to the question of theism/atheism.

Actually it does. What they believe is not possible if theists didn't believe in god. It is a natural extension of theism. Not absolute but quite ubiquitous.

Pedant: Atheism, again, only deals with belief in god(s). There is also nothing about atheism that prohibits believing in non-god unseen entities. Many atheist religions don't believe in god(s) (duh! atheist religions) but believe in other unseen entities (referenced before).

None of these things follow from atheism.

Theists and atheists are otherwise exactly identical. Both can be motivated to atrocity. Both have beliefs that can equally be manipulated and exploited. Theists simply have an additional irrational belief that atheists don't have. This irrational belief can be manipulated and exploited.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm thinking of starting Atheism-. Only misanthropists will be allowed in. However, it definitely won't be misogynistic as I want to try and get as many chicks to join as possible.

 

[Chris L]

I'm thinking of starting Atheism-. Only misanthropists will be allowed in. However, it definitely won't be misogynistic as I want to try and get as many chicks to join as possible.

Not believing in your fellow human beings is not the same as not believing in a deity.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Belief in god is not possible without faith as there is no evidence of god.

There is evidence (that you or I may interpret differently), there is personal experience / revelation. Some theism is evidence based (aka deism).

I've already concede this point. You are not advancing the discussion. I've stipulated that faith does not necessitate exploitation.

Except that you keep saying "Most believe that their god is a moral guide. They do so on the basis of faith (and additional dogma)" which, for you, is connected to the moral guide thing, and the attrocity thing. So, yes, let's advance, just stop retreating to points we've advanced from.

Actually it does. What they believe is not possible if theists didn't believe in god. It is a natural extension of theism. Not absolute but quite ubiquitous.

Another Duh! That's part of the definition, of course theists believe in god! But, look up theism again... there is NOTHING there beyond belief in god(s). Gnostics don't believe god is a moral guide. A lot of theists have little or no doctrine attached, they "just believe" (like my father, the colonel, sir [deceased]) giving god no moral authority. That theists have moral authority is perhaps your baggage, not theirs.

None of these things follow from atheism.

Nor does atheism prevent them. Thus, one cannot say atheists don't believe in unseen entities as you have repeatedly done. They only don't believe in god(s).

Theists and atheists are otherwise exactly identical. Both can be motivated to atrocity. Both have beliefs that can equally be manipulated and exploited. Theists simply have an additional irrational belief that atheists don't have. This irrational belief can be manipulated and exploited.

Agreed. Except... oh nevermind... Agreed. No, I gotta go for it... Atheist disbelief can be exploited also, as the communists did with their attacks on churches. Atheist dibelief in god is not an issue for theists (Duh! it's in the definition)

 

[The Greater Fool]

duplicate

 

[angrysoba]

Belief in god is not possible without faith as there is no evidence of god.

Tides go in; tides go out. Tides go in; tides go out.

None o you godless heathens can explain how that's possible without God therefore God must exist.

 

[RandFan]

There is evidence (that you or I may interpret differently), there is personal experience / revelation. Some theism is evidence based (aka deism).

See temporal lobes of god. And take a refresher course on epistemology. Your personal experience and revelation cannot be verified.

Except that you keep saying "Most believe that their god is a moral guide. They do so on the basis of faith (and additional dogma)" which, for you, is connected to the moral guide thing, and the attrocity thing. So, yes, let's advance, just stop retreating to points we've advanced from.

What do you think we've advanced from that I keep retreating to? I can't make it out from your paragraph.

Another Duh!

Look, that's not an out for you. Saying "duh!" to my argument doesn't change anything. It's my argument. If you don't like it stop responding. If you cannot be polite then stop responding. It's not my fault that theists have an irrational belief that can be exploited. Pointing out the inherent nature of theism isn't a point against me.

Atheist disbelief can be exploited also...

No more or less than a theists disbelief in Allah or Shiva can be exploited. Theists and atheists are on par when it comes to having disbelief that can be exploited. Atheists don't have faith in an unseen deity that can be exploited.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

I never said that an atheist "started" the French Revolution, the athiest led war happened during the French Revolution. Let me help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

They didn't last long, less than a year, before the Deists took over, and finally the Theists once more. It was lead by the likes of Jacques Hébert, who was there from the beginning, but met his end after clashing with Maximilien de Robespierre.

 

[RandFan]

That theists have moral authority is perhaps your baggage, not theirs.

Right.

 

[bobwtfomg]

Tides go in; tides go out. Tides go in; tides go out.

None o you godless heathens can explain how that's possible without God therefore God must exist.

You call it God I call it gravity

 

[Mr. Scott]

Can someone name an atheist who started a religious war?

My working definition of "religious war" is one in which both sides attempt to prove their god is stronger or more extant.

The OP is invalid until someone names an atheist who started a religious war.

The French Revolution was started by deists according to what I've read.

The Russian Revolution was not started as a religious war.

Any other attempted examples?

Somebody correct me! I learn more when I'm corrected than when my pontifications are unanswered.

 

[angrysoba]

You call it God I call it gravity

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Then explain how this "gravity" thing causes the tides...

You can't explain, therefore God exists.

 

[The Greater Fool]

See temporal lobes of god. And take a refresher course on epistemology. Your personal experience and revelation cannot be verified.

No thank you. *My* personal experience and revelation ARE evidence for *Me*. Thus, what *I* accept as evidence and the weight I give it are different than *yours*, but they are nonetheless evidence, and any conclusion I come to is then "evidence based", not faith. The My, me, I, you, yours are generic, since I have never had a personal revelation, but if I do, I can tell you that will be some pretty weighty evidence, for me.

Look, that's not an out for you. Saying "duh!" to my argument doesn't change anything. It's my argument. If you don't like it stop responding. If you cannot be polite then stop responding. It's not my fault that theists have an irrational belief that can be exploited. Pointing out the inherent nature of theism isn't a point against me.

Please quote fairly and contextually. It's "Duh! That's part of the definition" meaning you're not adding anything, you're restating the defintion. I've even said the exact same thing when I did it, in the same post, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

Let me save you argument time:
I accept that theists believe in god(s).
I accept that atheists don't believe in god(s).
Knowng these definitions:
I accept that atheists won't appeal to god(s) they don't believe in.
I accept that theists won't disbelieve in the god(s) they worship.
I also accept the various other ways of restating Atheist = No god(s), Theist = God(s)

Agreed?

No more or less than a theists disbelief in Allah or Shiva can be exploited. Theists and atheists are on par when it comes to having disbelief that can be exploited.

You're in USA and you haven't heard the Christian reaction to the Middle East Moslem situation. Christian disbelief in Allah is being very much exploited. "My God! They want the world to worship their false god!"

Atheists don't have faith in an unseen deity that can be exploited.

When you quote this line, quote the whole line, OK: Duh! That's the definition. You're rewording part of the definition again. BELIEF, not faith, first of all. And, as you can see above, Christian disbelief in Allah can be manipulated, so why can't atheist disbelief in Allah be likewise manipulated? Remember you said "Aside from belief in god(s), Atheists and Theists are exactly the same". Why aren't they exactly the same when it comes to disbelief in Allah?