Athiests start religious wars, too!

[Ziggurat]

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.

No, it's nothing of the sort. It's a disagreement about the definition of words. What I define as agnostic you would apparently define as atheist. But it's about words, not people.

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.

That's not what happened. So let's review. First off, DC assumed that I was religious. He did not ask me, he simply stated it as if it were a known and established fact. I asked him why he thought that. At that point, Croyden Bob jumped in with the following answer:

Your astonishing ignorance.

Note that this is not only an insult, but it's still an unsupported supposition. I take considerable offense when people make assumptions about me based upon their animosity towards me. It doesn't matter what that is, whether it's an assumption about my race, my profession, my family, my sexuality, my religious beliefs, my favorite sports team, whatever. I've had a history of that happening before, and I never give in to it by revealing those details.

Bob and I had a further exchange where Bob continued to assert what he does not know. Then you stepped into that exchange, saying

You could clear that up, you know, by actually answering.

But there was no question. Not from Bob, anyways. Bob never asked me if I was religious. From the first, he consistently asserted it. And he did so as an insult. Other people have asked the question, but not Bob. So my interaction with Bob had nothing to do with any questions, because Bob never asked any. And that is the interaction you stepped into, not the interactions with anyone else on the topic.

Your first was solely on the issue of my own religious beliefs or lack thereof, and not on thesubject of the definitions of the words involved. If the issue was just your own curiosity about why my definitions vary from your definitions, then making that clear would have helped you a lot. But the only thing you mentioned was the item I was most offended by, and the item that actually matters the least to the actual topic of the thread. And again, it presumed that there was a question when a major part of the dispute between Bob and me is that there was no question. So yeah, I looked pretty unfavorably on that post. It seemed to be excusing Bob's assumptions, and validating his interest in the topic which had nothing to do with differences in variations in terminology between groups, and everything to do with him trying to justify his insults. Whether or not any of this is what you intended, that's what was conveyed.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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?

First, you skipped some steps...

I believe in god(s)
These folks say god(s) spoke to them
I believe god(s) spoke to them
These folks say god(s) are the ultimate moral authority
I believe god(s) told these people the truth
These folks say anyone that doesn't worship this god must be killed.
I believe I must act.

Atheist nexus:

I don't believe in god(s)
These folks trying to make a better world also don't believe in god(s)
I believe these folks make sense
These folks tell us Beleivers (aka Religions) are undermining their authority and draining resources we all could use.
I believe these folks are right.
These folks say we must stamp out religions
I believe I must act.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh dear. I'll explain it again. You tried to tell other people what they believed and you got it all wrong.

No, I have never tried to tell other people what they believe. That stands in direct contrast to you, by the way.

If you call yourself an atheist but don't believe that there is no god, and I say that atheists believe that there is no god, then I'm not telling you that you believe that there is no god, I'm telling you that I think you have used the wrong word to describe yourself. That is a dispute about the definition of words. It is not a dispute about what you believe. Because again, I don't make any claims about what anyone else here believes. Only you do.

Ironic hypocricy.

That is, ironically, correct.

You haven't helped yourself with this latest nonsensical abusive word salad.

Once again, you are in no position to complain about abuses.

I've no idea what you are trying to achieve by posting all these pointless insults.

And the ironies accumulate.

And I have no idea why your very first post to me opened with an insult. What precisely were you trying to achieve?

 

[Belz...]

No, it's nothing of the sort.

That's not what happened.

But there was no question.

Amazing. So I got everything 100% wrong, then ?

So let's review. First off, DC assumed that I was religious. He did not ask me, he simply stated it as if it were a known and established fact. I asked him why he thought that. At that point, Croyden Bob jumped in with the following answer:

Irrelevant to my request.

Then you stepped into that exchange, saying

I remember that. Do you admit that I made no claim that you were obligated to answer, and that that post didn't show me taking 'sides' ?

But there was no question.

There was no exclamation point, but there was a 'question' as to your beliefs. Let's not play with words again, shall we ?

If the issue was just your own curiosity about why my definitions vary from your definitions, then making that clear would have helped you a lot.

How so ? I already explained to you why I asked.

No, I have never tried to tell other people what they believe.

Actually, if you tell them that, by being atheists, they have a belief, you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Amazing. So I got everything 100% wrong, then ?

You got a number of important things wrong, yes. And for someone who wants to claim that they're taking a non-confrontational path, and that the hostility is just coming from me, you aren't doing yourself any favors with the sarcasm.

Irrelevant to my request.

It's very relevant. Your request had context. You put it in a context.

I remember that. Do you admit that I made no claim that you were obligated to answer, and that that post didn't show me taking 'sides' ?

You never stated it, but implications get conveyed. Perhaps you didn't even intend the implication, but again, the context created it. Here, I'll give you an example.

A: I'm in favor of gay marriage.
B: That's because you're gay.
A: What makes you say I'm gay?
B: Because of how totally lame you are.
A: That's got nothing to do with the acceptability of gay marriage.
C: Why don't you answer his question about whether or not you're gay?

Can you not conceive of why someone might take offense to that question? Can you really not understand?

There was no exclamation point, but there was a 'question' as to your beliefs.

Not on Bob's part there wasn't. He was quite convinced.

How so ? I already explained to you why I asked.

Well after the fact. Certainly not at the time. And I'm still not going to answer it, both because it's irrelevant to the validity of my argument and because the strategy of using identity-based insults should never become a weapon to force people to reveal personal information. Once an insult about an assumed personal detail has been made against me, I make it a point not to reveal that detail, whether or not that assumption is correct.

Actually, if you tell them that, by being atheists, they have a belief, you are.

Except that I'm not telling anyone that they are an atheist under my definition. If I say that I'm a flat-earther because I think the earth is locally flat, and you say that flat-earther's think the world is globally flat, you aren't telling me what I believe. You're telling me that you think the label I have attached to myself is wrong.

 

[Earthborn]

Yes there is. See the Bible. See the Koran. That's the difference.

The only difference there appears to be is that you are talking about subsets of theists, while talking about atheists as a whole. It is true that some theists have the Bible or the Koran, but similarly some atheists believe in books that similarly provide them with philosophical arguments for atrocities. Just because that's not true of all atheists is irrelevant, because it isn't true of all theists either.

Theists have sacred tenants, dogma and texts.

Some of them.

Atheists have no divine authority to kill, maim or enslave.

They don't have divine authority, because that would mean they wouldn't be atheists. It hasn't stopped some atheist groups to think that they do have the authority to do those things, based on moral arguments written in books.

I understand your point.

I don't think you do.

Atheists cannot turn to atheism to justify killing.

Theists cannot turn to theism to justify killing; they'll have to turn to a more specific worldview/philosophy to do that. Just like atheists.

Thinking that you talk to an invisible being that can proscribe atrocity doesn't follow from atheism. Can you admit to that difference?

Atheists may not talk to invisible beings that can proscribe atrocity, but some of them may argue that "science" or "logic" proscribes atrocity. Theists may talk to invisible beings that do not proscribe atrocity. The only difference between theists and atheists is a belief in "invisible beings". They are not very different in their attitude toward "atrocity".

 

[s_pepys]

If atheism is only a disbelief in god(s) or belief that no god(s) exist, then obviously theism is only the belief in god(s).

Like atheism, there is nothing about theism that would cause strife. There is no book, no instructions, no directives, no anything for either group.

Seems some people are confusing theism and religion. Religion goes far beyond theism, making a whole set of claims and commands, which set the stage for the strife they cause.

no, i think you are confusing theism and deism.

theism is more than just a belief in a higher power, it implies an interventionist style god. thats how i see it, i may be wrong?

 

[Chris L]

Seconded... looks like a "no true Atheist" fallacy to me

Then you misunderstand what I am saying. They may well have been atheists in the sense that they did not believe in a supernatural deity, but their persecution of theists was not motivated by that non-belief. It was motivated by them not wanting their belief system (a worship the state) to have to compete with other belief systems. Not believing in a deity is not the same as not believing in anything.

 

[sphenisc]

no, i think you are confusing theism and deism.

theism is more than just a belief in a higher power, it implies an interventionist style god. thats how i see it, i may be wrong?

In this context you are wrong, because that would imply that atheism is a lack of belief in an interventionist style god, which is a broader* definition than most people would accept.





* If I've worked out my nested negatives correctly.

 

[s_pepys]

In this context you are wrong, because that would imply that atheism is a lack of belief in an interventionist style god, which is a broader* definition than most people would accept.





* If I've worked out my nested negatives correctly.

yes, i see what you mean. so you could be an adeist also? confusing!

 

[sphenisc]

yes, i see what you mean. so you could be an adeist also? confusing!

God knows.

 

[s_pepys]

in my head the term atheist would cover a non belief in all the different "isms". i have never heard of an adeist before.

i wonder....... ADEIST+?

 

[tsig]

If atheism is only a disbelief in god(s) or belief that no god(s) exist, then obviously theism is only the belief in god(s).

Like atheism, there is nothing about theism that would cause strife. There is no book, no instructions, no directives, no anything for either group.

Seems some people are confusing theism and religion. Religion goes far beyond theism, making a whole set of claims and commands, which set the stage for the strife they cause.

Atheism = Theism

Up = Down

Mice and Geese living together!!

 

[3point14]

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

So, either with you or just not allowed to be in involved in the discussion without provoking your ire?

Still pretty binary.

 

[tsig]

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

Your reaction is out of all proportion to my post. You're here on a public forum, questions are to be expected.

 

[RandFan]

First, you skipped some steps..

No. Some people sincerely believe that god speaks to them.

Atheist nexus:

I don't believe in god(s)
These folks trying to make a better world also don't believe in god(s)
I believe these folks make sense
These folks tell us Beleivers (aka Religions) are undermining their authority and draining resources we all could use.
I believe these folks are right.
These folks say we must stamp out religions
I believe I must act.

There is something missing from your nexus (in other words it's not established). What gives "these" people authority to commit atrocity? Agreement is not license to kill or harm.

 

[tsig]

No, I have never tried to tell other people what they believe. That stands in direct contrast to you, by the way.

If you call yourself an atheist but don't believe that there is no god, and I say that atheists believe that there is no god, then I'm not telling you that you believe that there is no god, I'm telling you that I think you have used the wrong word to describe yourself. That is a dispute about the definition of words. It is not a dispute about what you believe. Because again, I don't make any claims about what anyone else here believes. Only you do.



That is, ironically, correct.



Once again, you are in no position to complain about abuses.



And the ironies accumulate.

And I have no idea why your very first post to me opened with an insult. What precisely were you trying to achieve?

You're attempting to tell some one how they describe themselves?

After you pitched a fit about him asking you how you describe your self??

 

[RandFan]

The only difference there appears to be is that you are talking about subsets of theists, while talking about atheists as a whole. It is true that some theists have the Bible or the Koran, but similarly some atheists believe in books that similarly provide them with philosophical arguments for atrocities. Just because that's not true of all atheists is irrelevant, because it isn't true of all theists either.

Those books do not reason for atrocity on the basis of an absence of a belief in god (show me otherwise).

Theists cannot turn to theism to justify killing

Theists can and have turned to their belief in god (belief in god is called theism) to justify atrocity. Crusades, inquisitions.

Atheists may not talk to invisible beings that can proscribe atrocity, but some of them may argue that "science" or "logic" proscribes atrocity.

Show me the laws that justify atrocity on the basis of science? Now, show me the laws that justify atrocity on the basis of atheism? See, even if you could find laws that justify atrocity based on science that has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Belz...]

You got a number of important things wrong, yes. And for someone who wants to claim that they're taking a non-confrontational path, and that the hostility is just coming from me, you aren't doing yourself any favors with the sarcasm.

I don't really care if I'm in your good graces or not, especially the way you approached this discussion.

You never stated it, but implications get conveyed.

That's BS and you know it. There is _nothing_ in "You could clear that up, you know, by actually answering." that implies an obligation on your part. On the other hand, I can see why you'd think I was siding against you, but that's YOUR interpretation, not me putting things implicitly.

A: I'm in favor of gay marriage.
B: That's because you're gay.
A: What makes you say I'm gay?
B: Because of how totally lame you are.

That is very far removed from what's being argued, however. I've already explained to you why people might think you are a theist.

Not on Bob's part there wasn't. He was quite convinced.

Take it up with him. The question of your religiosity has nevertheless been raised. It's your decision not to address it, but don't complain that people reach their own conclusion.

Well after the fact.

Well after ? It was less than an HOUR later, Zig.

And I'm still not going to answer it, both because it's irrelevant to the validity of my argument

Absolutely true.

Except that I'm not telling anyone that they are an atheist under my definition.

If you're defining atheism in a certain way, doesn't that, kinda, label all atheists as fitting that definition ?

 

[cosmicaug]

More people have been killed in the name of secular political ideologies than religious ones.

Attacking and killing members of a neighboring tribe because they have stuff you want is a secular act as long as you don't add a "because our god wills it" to the act. That doesn't mean that this is an example of killing for or in the name of secularism, however. The 9/11 hijackers, on the other hand, would have claimed that they were killing for Islam and most people would view it that way. See the difference?