• 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!

NoahFence said:
So basically none of the so-called athiests who started wars were actually athiest.

Never saw that coming....


;)
Click to expand...
whether they were all athiests or not is also arguable i think. but i think its true to say that non of the said "athiests" committed atrocities in the name of atheism, regardless of their own beliefs. (or non-beliefs)
 
Irony said:
You two are using different definitions of know. You use it to express well-founded confidence in a belief, Ziggurat uses it to describe absolute knowledge.

Personally, I find your definition better, since I think it's silly to say that I can't "know" that my head is attached to my neck or that Mount Everest weighs more than an average sized potato chip. Still, there's no inherent conflict.
Click to expand...

I have the well-founded confidence that humans are story tellers and make up fictional beings for the fun of it, for profit, and for controlling other people.

That dragon was just made up. All gods were just made up. The concepts of a god were made up. If I were to claim the existence of Hifs and people believed me for thousands of years, that doesn't make them any more real.

It just means someone made something up and people have been gullible. There is no such thing as god just as there are no such things as dragons or Hifs.
 
The Greater Fool said:
I thought I said that. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it. When you said giving it thought and not knowing is agnosticism, did you mean to imply that it's not atheism?

Putting it as a Venn diagram. You draw one circle and label it theism. Then you stop. The negation of an element isn't another circle, it's everything not inside the circle.
 
NoahFence said:
So basically none of the so-called athiests who started wars were actually athiest.

Never saw that coming....


;)
Click to expand...
They were atheists (some of them anyway, they like to use Hitler as an example, but he was Catholic). The point is that atheism itself wasn't a motivator.

Ever notice how an abnormally high percentage of vicious dictators had mustaches?
 
Irony said:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it. When you said giving it thought and not knowing is agnosticism, did you mean to imply that it's not atheism?

Putting it as a Venn diagram. You draw one circle and label it theism. Then you stop. The negation of an element isn't another circle, it's everything not inside the circle.
Click to expand...

As the ETA said, stated differently, "Knowing" is used philosophically (common speech) way, not in the scientific absolute certainty sense.

So... Agnostic = Not evaluating the evidence either way as compelling enough to make a choice.

Venn diagram? I'm lucky I can post words on message boards. So, let me describe the Venn Diagram...

I'm torn, but I'll say Theism / Agnostic / Atheist / Not Caring are 4 non-overlapping circles, since they are basically conclusions. Agnostic does not overlap Theism/Atheism as Ags purposely stay out of both camps. From an "evaluation of evidence" standpoint, then the Ag circle might very well overlap both Theism/Atheism. "Don't Care" would still remain outside them all.

Hows that?
 
Last edited:
The Greater Fool said:
As the ETA said, stated differently, "Knowing" is used philosophically (common speech) way, not in the scientific absolute certainty sense.

So... Agnostic = Not evaluating the evidence either way as compelling enough to make a choice.

Venn diagram? I'm lucky I can post words on message boards. So, let me describe the Venn Diagram...

I'm torn, but I'll say Theism / Agnostic / Atheist / Not Caring are 4 non-overlapping circles, since they are basically conclusions. Agnostic does not overlap Theism/Atheism as Ags purposely stay out of both camps. From an "evaluation of evidence" standpoint, then the Ag circle might very well overlap both Theism/Atheism. "Don't Care" would still remain outside them all.

Hows that?
Click to expand...

How then do you account for the agnostic atheists (the vast majority of atheists), and how do you account for gnosticism/agnosticism being a matter of debate among theists?
 
I thought we'd get through a whole day without having the atheist/agnostic definition argument. Silly me.

Irony said:
Putting it as a Venn diagram. You draw one circle and label it theism. Then you stop. The negation of an element isn't another circle, it's everything not inside the circle.
Click to expand...

This, this, a hundred times this. In exactly the same way, for those people who believe that there is not a god, there would be another circle. Two beliefs, two circles. Everyone who is not in the circle including the theists, they are not theists - atheists. Everyone who is not in the circle including the postive atheists (or strong atheists or antitheists or whatever word you like) is not a positive atheist.

It's about recognizing that "I believe that god(s) exist." and "I believe that god(s) do not exist." are two separate claims.

A comparable situation for the armchair jury - Did OJ do it?

Position 1 - The theist, makes a claim that the event did occur.
"Yes, OJ did it. I vote Guilty."

Position 2 - The atheist, does not accept the claim that the event occurred.
"There was not enough evidence to prove that OJ killed her. I vote Not Guilty."

Position 3 - The positive atheist, makes a claim that the event did not occur.
"No, OJ is innocent, he did not do it. I vote Not Guilty."

In the case of both positions 2 and 3, they do not accept the claim that OJ did it. Position 2 may not have any strong belief one way or the other, but because he has no reason to believe in guilt, he votes Not Guilty. In the case of position 3, they make a further claim that OJ did not do it.

Substitute "God is real" for "OJ did it" and you're done. Positions 1 and 3 make counterclaims, position 2 is the group of people who did not accept position 1's claim. Everyone who holds position 3 also holds position 2.
 
Last edited:
Anthony Grayling seems to take the "strong atheist", and he appears to be notable to me. http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/anthony_grayling_on_atheism

That said, I would say the problem with the OP's assertion is that it really only posits that one particular opinion on one particular issue as the critical feature to determine if a person is likely to start a "religious" war. I would think such a lone data point would be pretty meaningless.

Instead I would recommend that the way one thinks, (i. e. how one comes to conclusions and how strongly one holds to them) would be much more telling.

Skepticism to me is much more reserved and introspective. Clearly Stalin et. al were nothing of the sort.
 
Atheists are just angry with God, obviously. That's why they cause all those wars and kill all those people. And that's why they have so many children with multiple partners and sponge off the government, which is their God. Their false God. That is, when they are not actively not having children and refusing to bring God's gifts into the world through their use of contraceptions and abortions and gay marriages. Hitler was an atheist!

[/JK]
 
Gregoire said:
Anthony Grayling seems to take the "strong atheist", and he appears to be notable to me. http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/anthony_grayling_on_atheism

That said, I would say the problem with the OP's assertion is that it really only posits that one particular opinion on one particular issue as the critical feature to determine if a person is likely to start a "religious" war. I would think such a lone data point would be pretty meaningless.

Instead I would recommend that the way one thinks, (i. e. how one comes to conclusions and how strongly one holds to them) would be much more telling.

Skepticism to me is much more reserved and introspective. Clearly Stalin et. al were nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

have you read pz myers recently?:D
 
Irony said:
How then do you account for the agnostic atheists (the vast majority of atheists), and how do you account for gnosticism/agnosticism being a matter of debate among theists?
Click to expand...
I account for it by this discussion. "Knowing" has both a scientific (certainty) sense and a philosophical (common speech) sense". People that claim "Agnostic A/Theist" are saying "I can't know there is/is not as a scientific certainty, but based on the evidence I've evaluated, I am A/Theist"

Do I really need to explain why believers discuss non/different believers? As a former fundy, I know non-Christians / atheists / agnostics / gnostics / and all generic "other" groups, including other (fake) Christians were generally discussed as people to be enlightened and saved, each with different tactics / approaches. Does that prove something? I'm an atheist discussing it because I've given it considerable thought and like my conclusions challanged.
 
Ziggurat said:
Atheism is most definitively and explicitly a belief. It doesn't have any associated hierarchy and not much in the way of dogma, so may you can argue that it's not a belief system, but it is by its very definition a belief.
Click to expand...
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
 
In fact, philosophy has traditionally treated a claim of knowledge to be a justified true belief. That is, to say that you know something requires that you believe it too.
 
angrysoba said:
In fact, philosophy has traditionally treated a claim of knowledge to be a justified true belief. That is, to say that you know something requires that you believe it too.
Click to expand...
Sliiiiiiiiiightly different than calling it a religion though.
 
Don't blame atheism.

  • Stalin didn't commit atrocities because he was an atheist.
  • Stalin didn't commit atrocities in the name of atheism.
  • There is nothing about not believing in god that leads to atrocity. One cannot say the same about theism.
 
Ziggurat said:
Only in a trivial sense that certain sets contain an infinite number of members. But you have had a finite number of thoughts, and if you don't think about something, you don't have a belief about it.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what a believer is thinking about when they think about a god (only they do) so I am not thinking about it therefore I am not an atheist?
 
Ziggurat said:
If you believe Santa Clause does not exist, yes, that's a belief.

A lack of any belief in regards to God's existence would be agnosticism, not atheism.
Click to expand...

If I return a verdict of 'not guilty' in a trial because I have seen no evidence to warrant a conviction, but still acknowledge the possibility of the defendant's guilt, is that a belief?
 
angrysoba said:
In fact, philosophy has traditionally treated a claim of knowledge to be a justified true belief. That is, to say that you know something requires that you believe it too.
Click to expand...

But one needn't claim to know with epistemological certainty that gods don't exist in order to be an atheist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom