• 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!

RandFan said:
Here, I'll demonstrate, give me a scenario where an atheist kills someone because the atheist doesn't believe in god? Don't insert environmentalism, human rights, science etc., because those things are NOT intrinsic to atheism. Believing in god is intrinsic to theism. Can you see a difference?
Click to expand...
This seems to be the crux of our difference...

You are attaching additional beliefs to theism (religion) to make your point, but refuse me the addition of beliefs to counter it. Quite the double standard. It is that double standard that is the issue.
 
cosmicaug said:
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?
Click to expand...

I never said anyone killed in the name of secularism. I said they killed in the name of ideologies that were secular.
 
The Greater Fool said:
This seems to be the crux of our difference...

You are attaching additional beliefs to theism (religion) to make your point, but refuse me the addition of beliefs to counter it. Quite the double standard. It is that double standard that is the issue.
Click to expand...

Not a double standard. It comes from a misunderstanding of positive beliefs and non belief.

Positive belief informs actions. I believe X. I then derive actions from X.

I have a non belief in X. I can not derive anything from it. I need some other positive belief.

Atheism is simply non belief. Nothing can be rationally concluded from this. You need positive beliefs.

You don't believe in an infinite amount of things that you have never even thought of. You don't derive anything from those things either. Your actions are derived from your positive beliefs.
 
Daald said:
Not a double standard. It comes from a misunderstanding of positive beliefs and non belief.

Positive belief informs actions. I believe X. I then derive actions from X.

I have a non belief in X. I can not derive anything from it. I need some other positive belief.

Atheism is simply non belief. Nothing can be rationally concluded from this. You need positive beliefs.

You don't believe in an infinite amount of things that you have never even thought of. You don't derive anything from those things either. Your actions are derived from your positive beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that non-belief does not inform action. There are many atheists that are acting on their non-belief by evangalizing, righting perceived wrongs of religion, etc.

I don't disbelieve things I've never considered. Most people that identify as Atheist have considered god, evaluated the idea and or evidence, and decided it is not tennable.

I also don't believe Power Bracelets work, and tell everyone I know they don't. That is action based on disbelief.

ETA: I also know several folks that believe in god(s) and take no action on that belief. Belief or Disbelief may inform action, but it may also inform nothing further.
 
Last edited:
The Greater Fool said:
I don't believe that non-belief does not inform action. There are many atheists that are acting on their non-belief by evangalizing, righting perceived wrongs of religion, etc.

I don't disbelieve things I've never considered. Most people that identify as Atheist have considered god, evaluated the idea and or evidence, and decided it is not tennable.

I also don't believe Power Bracelets work, and tell everyone I know they don't. That is action based on disbelief.
Click to expand...

You are confusing a non belief with a negative belief I think. Believing that power bracelets don't work is a positive belief. You positively believe they do not work. You are not holding a tentative position until the evidence comes in. In a jury decision you are not voting non guilty. You are voting innocent.

I think we would both agree that we have a multitude of positive beliefs.

To show that you can act on a non-belief we would have to strip people of all those other positive beliefs so they don't interfere.

In the end you will have a person with 1 belief in the case of a theist and a person with 0 beliefs in the case of an atheist.

In this hypothetical I would argue that the one with 0 beliefs is basically brain dead whereas the one with 1 belief is still alive and can derive meaning and action from that belief.

I do not see how the one with 0 beliefs can do anything.
 
Daald said:
You are confusing a non belief with a negative belief I think. Believing that power bracelets don't work is a positive belief. You positively believe they do not work. You are not holding a tentative position until the evidence comes in. In a jury decision you are not voting non guilty. You are voting innocent.

I think we would both agree that we have a multitude of positive beliefs.

To show that you can act on a non-belief we would have to strip people of all those other positive beliefs so they don't interfere.

In the end you will have a person with 1 belief in the case of a theist and a person with 0 beliefs in the case of an atheist.

In this hypothetical I would argue that the one with 0 beliefs is basically brain dead whereas the one with 1 belief is still alive and can derive meaning and action from that belief.

I do not see how the one with 0 beliefs can do anything.
Click to expand...

Just as I have the positive belief that Power Bracelets do not work, I have the positive belief that there are no god(s).

Realistically, the only way one could not have a belief on god(s) is if you've never considered the concept. No one here (in this thread) has not considered the concept, so IMSO (In my semenatic opinion) Theism and Atheism are both positive beliefs.

Stripping out every other belief, as you suggest, we need 3 people, 1 would believe the positive, one would beleive the negative, and one would believe nothing. Without further beliefs, there is no action necessary for any of the 3 positions.
 
The Greater Fool said:
Just as I have the positive belief that Power Bracelets do not work, I have the positive belief that there are no god(s).

Realistically, the only way one could not have a belief on god(s) is if you've never considered the concept. No one here (in this thread) has not considered the concept, so IMSO (In my semenatic opinion) Theism and Atheism are both positive beliefs.

Stripping out every other belief, as you suggest, we need 3 people, 1 would believe the positive, one would beleive the negative, and one would believe nothing. Without further beliefs, there is no action necessary for any of the 3 positions.
Click to expand...


Well, we have this proposition

P: God exists.
Q: Do you believe this?

A: Yes -> theist
B: No -> atheist

Here you see that the atheist answer covers everything other than the yes answer.

When you say.

P: God does not exist.
Q: Do you believe this?

A: Yes->Antitheist (includes atheists)
B: No-> No word...maybe a-antitheist? (includes atheists and theists)

Theism and atheism only deal with the first proposition. The second proposition is something else.

As you can see from above I do not consider the 3 answers as valid. Belief is binary. You either believe it or you don't.

So a person who believes that there is no god has the following:
1. The atheist non-belief to the first proposition.
2. The antitheist belief to the second proposition.

In my view you are taking the second proposition and attaching it to the first to infer a positive belief. That is the point I am rejecting.
 
Daald said:
Well, we have this proposition

P: God exists.
Q: Do you believe this?

A: Yes -> theist
B: No -> atheist

Here you see that the atheist answer covers everything other than the yes answer.

When you say.

P: God does not exist.
Q: Do you believe this?

A: Yes->Antitheist (includes atheists)
B: No-> No word...maybe a-antitheist? (includes atheists and theists

Theism and atheism only deal with the first proposition. The second proposition is something else.

As you can see from above I do not consider the 3 answers as valid. Belief is binary. You either believe it or you don't.)

So a person who believes that there is no god has the following:

1. The atheist non-belief to the first proposition.
2. The antitheist belief to the second proposition.


In my view you are taking the second proposition and attaching it to the first to infer a positive belief. That is the point I am rejecting.
Click to expand...


I don't believe Belief is binary, you are neglecting the null theory.



A: I believe god(s) exist.
B: I believe no god(s) exist.
C: I have no belief, because I don't even know what we are talking about.

It is the null option that many aslo ascribe to atheism, which I don't. I beleive atheism is a considered position, thus a positive belief.

The main argument after this is that there is ACTION attached to any of these positions. I say no, it takes additonal beliefs (Religous Dogma, Secular Dogma) that require action.

From this argument, somehow Theists are blamed (rather than religion) because of their basic belief that gods exist, enter a religion (with other beliefs attached to theism) to commit attrocity. However, atheists are not accused similarly, that they embrace other belief systems (communism, environmentalism, etc.) that may lead to attrocity.

It may be that theists are more willing to accept things without evidence, making them more prone to being manipulated, or it may be that there are just so darn many theists that even a relatively small number being manipulated can still create quite a mess, I don't know. But, I'm not ready to hang it on the difference between basic/only theism/athesim/ignorance.
 
DC said:
so the leaders exploited their power they had, and not atheism, there is nothing in atheism one can exploit.
Click to expand...
They used atheism as a reason to attack the churches, just as the leaders used theism as a motivator to attack whatever.

Theism/atheism do not carry action, but they are used to motivate (along with other belieifs) to create action. Thus, wars for religious domination are not because of theism, but because power hungry leaders use religion for their own ends, just as the communists (and others) have used atheism for their own ends.

There are 9x as many theists as atheists, so it makes sense that appeals to theism via religion would be used significantly more than similar appeals to atheists.
 
Tell you what, make movie where R.Dawkins is kicked in the nuts about a hundred times and then see if any thing gets burned down because of it.
 
kedo1981 said:
Tell you what, make movie where R.Dawkins is kicked in the nuts about a hundred times and then see if any thing gets burned down because of it.
Click to expand...
If a Theist does the kicking, I'll bet we would see quite a few "Theists are Evil" tyraids here and other messageboards.

If atheists tried to burn anything, there are about 9x more theists nearby to see that they don't. Of course, the Theists would be blamed for their aggression in this case too.
 
"Theism" is not a meaningful position. What is "belief in a god?" What is "a god?"

How can one believe in a thing which they also believe they don't and can't understand, define, communicate with, read about... You're imagining people who believe in a nondescript "god" with no aspects, conditions, or stances; that has performed no actions; and which has never and will never make itself known in any way.

You're defining "theism" as even more vague than Deism, which I still don't see as a reasonable position.
 
ehcks said:
"Theism" is not a meaningful position. What is "belief in a god?" What is "a god?"

How can one believe in a thing which they also believe they don't and can't understand, define, communicate with, read about... You're imagining people who believe in a nondescript "god" with no aspects, conditions, or stances; that has performed no actions; and which has never and will never make itself known in any way.

You're defining "theism" as even more vague than Deism, which I still don't see as a reasonable position.
Click to expand...

Right, "theism" is too broad to attach action to that belief. Atheism, by the same token, would be too broad to attach action too. It takes further, defining beliefs which may or may not allow/require actions that lead to attrocity.
 
Croydon Bob said:
OK, I'm going to call "Poe" here. Nobody could be this stupid. Everytime Zig posts he/she/it just contradicts itself even further.

It has been a very funny joke but you've taken it too far now Zig and I don't believe you are genuine anymore.
Click to expand...

Wait... what? You're accusing me of playing a joke that has now gone too far, and that means I'm not genuine anymore? So I was genuine when I was joking? :confused:

Seriously, nobody would whine so much about imagined attempts at telling you what you think, while doing so much telling other people what you wrongly imagine that they think. A step beyond plausibility.
Click to expand...

It's not imagined, it's quite explicit. You told me that I'm religious, even though I have never indicated whether or not I am. The only implausible thing here is your current attempts to deny it. And I have no idea what you think (or, given the above, if you think), I only know what you said, and have only made claims to that effect.
 
The Greater Fool said:
I don't believe Belief is binary, you are neglecting the null theory.



A: I believe god(s) exist.
B: I believe no god(s) exist.
C: I have no belief, because I don't even know what we are talking about.

It is the null option that many aslo ascribe to atheism, which I don't. I beleive atheism is a considered position, thus a positive belief.

The main argument after this is that there is ACTION attached to any of these positions. I say no, it takes additonal beliefs (Religous Dogma, Secular Dogma) that require action.

From this argument, somehow Theists are blamed (rather than religion) because of their basic belief that gods exist, enter a religion (with other beliefs attached to theism) to commit attrocity. However, atheists are not accused similarly, that they embrace other belief systems (communism, environmentalism, etc.) that may lead to attrocity.

It may be that theists are more willing to accept things without evidence, making them more prone to being manipulated, or it may be that there are just so darn many theists that even a relatively small number being manipulated can still create quite a mess, I don't know. But, I'm not ready to hang it on the difference between basic/only theism/athesim/ignorance.
Click to expand...


Not all all. I am saying that atheism is the null theory. You are conflating 2 propositions the positive and the negative proposition and thus coming up with 3 answers.

I might agree with you that the antitheist idea could conceivably be used to inform action that is detrimental but I just don't see you doing the link.

I also realize that I am being pedantic with atheism. It seems you mean antitheist when you use the term so I can just read your arguments that way.

So to move forward.

Islam can be logically linked to theism for example.

I believe in god.
I believe this god has these specific attributes.
These attributes say x, y, z.
The people that believe in these attributes are Blah


So right there is a logical connection from god to the Blah religion.

How can you similarly link atheism/antitheism to communism for example.

I do not believe in god.
I believe that not believing in god and that I should value the poor?
I believe that not believing in god and that I should value the environment?

Doesn't the first seem logical whereas the second seem illogical?

How do you make the logical link? How does not believing in god allow you to further refine that idea to something else?
 
The Greater Fool said:
They used atheism as a reason to attack the churches, just as the leaders used theism as a motivator to attack whatever.
Click to expand...

That's not Atheism, it's anti-theism. I'm sure that's been said already but Atheism in itself cannot motivate anything.
 
The Greater Fool said:
This seems to be the crux of our difference...

You are attaching additional beliefs to theism (religion) to make your point, but refuse me the addition of beliefs to counter it. Quite the double standard. It is that double standard that is the issue.
Click to expand...
No. I add nothing. Only a belief in god.

  • Theists can and do sincerely think they have diving authority to harm others because or their belief in god.
  • Atheists have no such authority because atheists have no faith in the divine.
I don't need any additional beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom