• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Athiests start religious wars, too!

Belz... said:
Please don't think I'm picking on you, but do you think authority from non-god entities such as spirits, kami and the like can be considered divine ?
Click to expand...

di·vine

  http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/audio/luna/D04/D0413400.mp3 /dɪˈvaɪn/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled [dih-vahyn] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA adjective, di·vin·er, di·vin·est, noun, verb, di·vined, di·vin·ing.
adjective 1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.

3. proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.

4. godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.

5. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.

4 of 5 definitions use 'god', the fifth, I think, implies it. I think most people think divine = godly, though it is informally used to mean 'very good'
 
Egg said:
Do you not agree that atheism has no commands/dogma/divine authority that might prevent a person from killing where religion does?
Click to expand...

That is just silly.

Do you not agree that lack of interest in football has no commands/official rules that might prevent a person from kicking someone else where football does?

People don't need religion to know right from wrong. They do use it as an excuse to do wrong.
 
Belz... said:
Please don't think I'm picking on you, but do you think authority from non-god entities such as spirits, kami and the like can be considered divine ?
Click to expand...

The Greater Fool said:
di·vine

   /dɪˈvaɪn/ Show Spelled [dih-vahyn] Show IPA adjective, di·vin·er, di·vin·est, noun, verb, di·vined, di·vin·ing.
adjective 1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.

2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.

3. proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.

4. godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.

5. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.

4 of 5 definitions use 'god', the fifth, I think, implies it. I think most people think divine = godly, though it is informally used to mean 'very good'
Click to expand...
In context with a moral guide I think it implies a god. But I could be wrong. My intent was to imply a god.
 
Egg said:
Do you not agree that atheism has no commands/dogma/divine authority that might prevent a person from killing where religion does?
Click to expand...

Atheism's only dogma is a disbelief in god(s).
Theism's only dogma is beleif in god(s)

The additional dogma that grants and/or prohibits specific acts would be Religion, which both theists and atheists have available to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but RandFan's point is that only theists are prey of theistic religions, and those theistic religions generally grant divine authority for actions, often leading to attrocity.

There are, however atheistic religions, and religions that include both, that may or may not include moral authority that may lead to attrocity.

During the draft days in the USA, members of certain religions were granted exemption from service based on that religions stance on secular war and killing. I don't have handy evidence, I just know because my father, the Colonel, Sir (deceases) was involved in the exemption process. Atheists were not exempt from the draft or military service.

In this discussion, I've linked references to atheist religions that have been involved in wars and violence, so atheists are not immune from religon, just god based religions (rather by defintion of atheism).

That historically 95% of people claimed a belief in god(s), that is quite the power base to draw on. I'm not sure what the point would be of trying to recruit the 5% to fight the 95%, which is why there are probably no wars based on an "atheist cause".
 
PhantomWolf said:
Oh I agree that it would likely have occurred without them, that's the thing about wars that have no real single starters, but rather groups that come together in a common cause. Removing one or two of the group is unlikely to effect the end result. However, when you read about Jacques Hébert you find out that he was a publisher who was quite vocal pre-revolution and so was able to take a natural role in the revolution's leadership because of his position and views.
Click to expand...

Maybe it would be fair to say French atheists rode the coattails (in the end unsuccessfully) of the Revolution that was already in motion due to forces that were not anti-religion as much as they were anti-clergy and anti-monarchy?
 
The Greater Fool said:
Atheism's only dogma is a disbelief in god(s).
Theism's only dogma is beleif in god(s)

The additional dogma that grants and/or prohibits specific acts would be Religion, which both theists and atheists have available to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but RandFan's point is that only theists are prey of theistic religions, and those theistic religions generally grant divine authority for actions, often leading to attrocity.

There are, however atheistic religions, and religions that include both, that may or may not include moral authority that may lead to attrocity.

During the draft days in the USA, members of certain religions were granted exemption from service based on that religions stance on secular war and killing. I don't have handy evidence, I just know because my father, the Colonel, Sir (deceases) was involved in the exemption process. Atheists were not exempt from the draft or military service.

In this discussion, I've linked references to atheist religions that have been involved in wars and violence, so atheists are not immune from religon, just god based religions (rather by defintion of atheism).

That historically 95% of people claimed a belief in god(s), that is quite the power base to draw on. I'm not sure what the point would be of trying to recruit the 5% to fight the 95%, which is why there are probably no wars based on an "atheist cause".
Click to expand...
I do actually agree with your point that you have to put add-ons to either theism or atheism before they can become motivation or justification for violence. My point was really that if we grant religion (rather than theism) as reasonable for a comparison with atheism, then you can't just point at bad scriptural commands in religions and claim atheism doesn't have these, without acknowledging that atheism also doesn't have the more positive ones that, if followed, would prevent atrocities.
 
Egg said:
I do actually agree with your point that you have to put add-ons to either theism or atheism before they can become motivation or justification for violence. My point was really that if we grant religion (rather than theism) as reasonable for a comparison with atheism, then you can't just point at bad scriptural commands in religions and claim atheism doesn't have these, without acknowledging that atheism also doesn't have the more positive ones that, if followed, would prevent atrocities.
Click to expand...
I thought I had posted a response when you originally posted this (prohibitive dogma) saying it was a good point, but I thnk my computer sneezed or something, as it's not there.

So... That's a good point. See in support my previous comment about my father, the Colonol, Sir (deceased), that certan religions were exempt from military service... thus some religions have doctrine preventing participation in war (regardless of reason). Atheists were not excluded, period.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Maybe it would be fair to say French atheists rode the coattails (in the end unsuccessfully) of the Revolution that was already in motion due to forces that were not anti-religion as much as they were anti-clergy and anti-monarchy?
Click to expand...

No I don't think it would be fair at all to say that, since you would be revising history.

Jacques Hébert was a promenient member of the Club des Cordeliers and was at the Champ de Mars massacre just days after storming of the Bastille. He was at Champ de Mars to sign the petition to remove the king that was drafted by the Cordeliers. He was already using his popular journal, Le Père Duchesne to ridicule the monarchy, and by June of 1791 he was attacking them quite openly. After the Champ de Mars massacre he changed the tone even futher to gain an even bigger market, and gained a seat on the first Paris Commune because of his involvment in the Cordeliers. He was involved in the Insurrection during the 9th and 10th of August 1792 that lead to the demise of the Legislative Assembly and the collapse of the monarchy. He became a deputy to Louis Pierre Manuel, procureur of the commune, and then after a popular uprising because of his arrest managed to seize power.

This was not a man that was riding the coat-tails of other's work, he was highly involved from the beginning with the leadership of the revolution, even if he was a deputy rather than a General until 1793. I'd also note that there were a number of clergy involved in the early revolution leadership as well as well, so calling the initial Revolution anti-clergy is not really correct, and in fact the real war against the church didn't come into action until the Reign of Terror when the Hébertists and then later Maximilien Robespierre took control of the Convention in mid-1793. With the fall of the Girondins as the Hébertists took control, it freed them up from fighting their political enemies to attack the churches, which they then proceeded to do with relish.

In the end the only reason they failed was the growing emity between the Hébertists and Robespierre as they considered him not radical enough (he was a deist) and he considered them too radial (as atheists.) Had they not finally gone after Robespierre and failed, who knows where they would have stopped.

(One does have to note the irony of how most of those that started the relvolution and sent thousands to their deaths, all ended up heading [no pun intended] to the guillotine themselves.)
 
PhantomWolf said:
No I don't think it would be fair at all to say that, since you would be revising history....
Click to expand...

Then, atheists and deists collaborated in starting the French Revolution, though afterwards, they turned against each other, and the deists attempted genocide against atheists?

Can you really say a group "started" a war when they decided to fight back against oppression?

You could argue the oppressors started it. Were the French Revolution or Russian Revolution totally unjustified?

Have atheists started any unambiguously unjust war?
 
Mr. Scott said:
Then, atheists and deists collaborated in starting the French Revolution, though afterwards, they turned against each other, and the deists attempted genocide against atheists?

Can you really say a group "started" a war when they decided to fight back against oppression?

You could argue the oppressors started it. Were the French Revolution or Russian Revolution totally unjustified?

Have atheists started any unambiguously unjust war?
Click to expand...

Oh right, so all those thousands of people who were massacred during the time of terror, the young the old, the rich the poor, men, women, children, they all deserved it for oppressing the likes of Jacques Hébert. Someone who had to barely make do getting by on piles of money and regular travel around Europe before coming homes to a poor little mansion filled with tapestries and other art. A man who was so oppressed, that he only got to have dinners with the Mayor of Paris and others only a few times a week. Yes I'm sure you are right, those horrible oppressors living in their run down shacks with hardly anything to eat, yes, they deserved to die at the hands of such righteous and upstanding citizens as Jacques Hébert, Maximilien de Robespierre, and Jean-Baptiste Carrier.

And yes while we're at it, you're probably right in that it was all Robespierre's fault for the Hébertists coming after him too and Danton and Philippeau, after all if they had been perfect atheists instead of silly deists the Hébertists wouldn't have had to target them for elimination. Besides, how dare Robespierre have the temerity to actually fight back and win against those that decided he wasn't extreme enough. The nerve of the man.

Still it's not really quite good enough is it, so now we have shown that they were totally justified in slaughtering those evil children and poor, well anyone that disagreed with and thus oppressed them really, we better just move the goal posts 40 of 50 km to the west just in case someone actually thinks that those with an atheist ideology might just be willing to unjustly commit as terrible atrocities as anyone else that thinks that they have a right to force their ideology onto everyone else. I mean no no, they were perfectly just in commiting their atrocities while trying to force their ideology onto everyone else, and they would have suceeded too if it hadn't been for those meedling kids.
 
Last edited:
No, there is nothing inherent about not believing in a deity that will make you less likely to be a murderous thug. While God is a convenient excuse for killing for some, humans are very creative in finding other reasons for such things.
 
There's atheists on this very board who support Islamic extremists with genocidal aims.

The world's a funny place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom