Athiests start religious wars, too!

[RandFan]

most of them also do believe their god is justified to kill as many humans and other animals as much as he likes. they even tell their kids nice stories about it, and turn a horrible genocide into a story for kids.

Exactly, and what is the atheist equivalent? "See Johnny it's like this, a non-existent person..." Nothing follows from that. But you take the human ego and add to it the concept that there is an all powerful god and that god likes things to suffer and die. And he loves it when you kill and burn animals also.

He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

 

[Virus]

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

Plenty of people replaced religion with gobbledygook like Marxism and Communism that's just as irrational and even more dangerous.

 

[angrysoba]

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

Plenty of people replaced religion with gobbledygook like Marxism and Communism that's just as irrational and even more dangerous.

Hey everyone! This thread is really going to get intellectual now that Virus has arrived!

 

[Ziggurat]

are you also willing to accept that they might exist?

Sure, I can accept that my belief could be wrong. But I still believe they don't exist. Honestly, don't you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I noticed

Then why did you act like it was a mystery?

Wow, now that's delusional. I simply asked you to answer the question to clear things up

1) it wouldn't "clear things up"
2) it's none of your damn business
3) I already made a decision not to share that information

There is very little personal information I share on this board. This is partly because I like my privacy, and partly because I try not to form arguments that rely on my personal circumstances. But what I never do is share personal information because someone who just insulted me demands it.

and now I take side with your enemies ?

Yes. You have basically declared that I have an obligation to share personal information I don't want to share. And the only one who is receiving any criticism from you is me, all because I don't want to share some personal information. Not the person who started the unprovoked insults, and not the person who made unsubstantiated claims about personal details of another poster in order to try to support those insults. So yeah, I've concluded from your behavior that you have chosen to take his side against me. There is no mystery to it. Review your own behavior and I think you'll be able to see pretty easily why I'm hostile to you right now. And I will remain hostile for as long as you continue to take his side. Will you choose hostility between us? Or will you stop?

 

[RandFan]

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

No one was killed in the name of secularism.

Plenty of people replaced religion with gobbledygook like Marxism and Communism that's just as irrational and even more dangerous.

Granting the premise for argument's sake, A.) non religious does not translate into dangerous. B.) Religion does not need to be replaced. It could simply cease to be.

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

Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

 

[tsig]

Then why did you act like it was a mystery?



1) it wouldn't "clear things up"
2) it's none of your damn business
3) I already made a decision not to share that information

There is very little personal information I share on this board. This is partly because I like my privacy, and partly because I try not to form arguments that rely on my personal circumstances. But what I never do is share personal information because someone who just insulted me demands it.



Yes. You have basically declared that I have an obligation to share personal information I don't want to share. And the only one who is receiving any criticism from you is me, all because I don't want to share some personal information. Not the person who started the unprovoked insults, and not the person who made unsubstantiated claims about personal details of another poster in order to try to support those insults. So yeah, I've concluded from your behavior that you have chosen to take his side against me. There is no mystery to it. Review your own behavior and I think you'll be able to see pretty easily why I'm hostile to you right now. And I will remain hostile for as long as you continue to take his side. Will you choose hostility between us? Or will you stop?

So we're either with you or against you?

 

[The Greater Fool]

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.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Let's try to move the discussion forward. Let's grant your premise that nothing necessarily follows from theism other than a belief in god. Atheists don't have the basis or pretext for atrocity that theists do, namely god, right? A person who is a theist can sincerely believe that god wants that person to kill someone, right?

 

[Belz...]

Then why did you act like it was a mystery?

Citation please.

1) it wouldn't "clear things up"

Your opinion. I think it would, and I am obviously not alone.

2) it's none of your damn business

That is of course your right. I don't know why you're so angry about it.

3) I already made a decision not to share that information

Indeed. Not making yourself clear is sure to bring this debate forward. Of course, this entire discussion is a derail by you.

There is very little personal information I share on this board. This is partly because I like my privacy, and partly because I try not to form arguments that rely on my personal circumstances. But what I never do is share personal information because someone who just insulted me demands it.

Stating whether you are a theist or an atheist or whatnot would invade your privacy ? Again, that's your decision, but it's a weak excuse.

Yes. You have basically declared that I have an obligation to share personal information I don't want to share.

I have never said that. This is a lie.

EDIT: Here's the evidence that it's a lie, by the way:

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

Anyway, moving on...

And the only one who is receiving any criticism from you is me

Another lie, since I already told you I saw the attack on you by the other poster; though to be fair calling someone ignorant is not much of an attack.

So yeah, I've concluded from your behavior that you have chosen to take his side against me.

Your powers of deduction are weak. Additionally, seeing black-and-white "with us or against us" issues in even simple discussions such as this one is quite telling.

Review your own behavior and I think you'll be able to see pretty easily why I'm hostile to you right now.

No. Since I am not in your head, something I am very grateful for, given your behaviour, you can't expect me to see things your way. Again, given your level of tension, I think you should take a break.

And I will remain hostile for as long as you continue to take his side. Will you choose hostility between us? Or will you stop?

I'm not responsible for your hostility, but nice try.

 

[Belz...]

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

Evidence that they were killed _because_ of secularism ?

 

[angrysoba]

Let's try to move the discussion forward. Let's grant your premise that nothing necessarily follows from theism other than a belief in god. Atheists don't have the basis or pretext for atrocity that theists do, namely god, right? A person who is a theist can sincerely believe that god wants that person to kill someone, right?

No, I think all he is saying is that it doesn't follow from being a theist that you have a basis for atrocity just as it doesn't follow from being an atheist that you have a basis for atrocity.

Having said that, there are versions of theism and there are versions of atheism that do lay down bases for atrocity.

In other words, I think that "The Greater Fool" is saying neither one is ethically superior in that sense.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Let's try to move the discussion forward. Let's grant your premise that nothing necessarily follows from theism other than a belief in god. Atheists don't have the basis or pretext for atrocity that theists do, namely god, right? A person who is a theist can sincerely believe that god wants that person to kill someone, right?

No. Yes.

Again, belief in god(s) (and nothing more) is no more a pretext for action than disbelief in god(s). Belief does not require nor imply action.

An evangelical (small e, generic) theist would pose a similar danger as an evangelical atheist.

It is the religion (and ADDITIONAL dogma) that demand action.

Theism/Atheism don't cause anyone to kill anyone. Religion and Anti-Religion, dogma that spawns from them, can and does, or be used as an excuse for atrocity.

There are plenty of theists these days that believe in god(s) but without any religion. Of course, these are also looked down upon by religion, and they are treated like the religious by some/many atheists.

I think I moved it forward, no? That it is religion and (as in the case of the wiki group linked earlier) Anti-Religion that seem to be the problems, not the generic belief (or non) in god(s).

 

[DC]

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

Plenty of people replaced religion with gobbledygook like Marxism and Communism that's just as irrational and even more dangerous.

Virus said so, that settles it.

 

[angrysoba]

Virus said so, that settles it.

Ah! But his culture's bad so it doesn't matter.

 

[Daald]

Theism is a positive proposition.
Atheism is a negative proposition.

You can't derive anything from a negative proposition. You can from a positive one.

Theism has one presupposition. That presupposition is god.
Atheism rejects that presupposition.

Religion is an extension of a that presupposition made more specific. (my god)

So logically you can go from (god) -> (my god) -> murder someone.

You can't do the same from (nothing) ->(some positive belief)-> murder someone. You can logically go back only to (some positive belief). You can't blame the nothing.

I think the problem here is of definition.

The negative proposition of the lack of belief in gods is being put together with the positive proposition that there is no god.

In that case you have (nothing)->(no god) ->murder someone. That (no god) is being billed as atheism when it is the positive belief of antitheism.

 

[RandFan]

Let's grant your premise that nothing necessarily follows from theism other than a belief in god.

No, I think all he is saying is that it doesn't follow from being a theist that you have a basis for atrocity...

That's what I said.

In other words, I think that "The Greater Fool" is saying neither one is ethically superior in that sense.

I'm trying to move the discussion forward by granting that premise for the sake of argument. What part of "okay, I'll accept that for now" is problematic?

 

[Ziggurat]

So we're either with you or against you?

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

 

[RandFan]

Again, belief in god(s) (and nothing more) is no more a pretext for action than disbelief in god(s). Belief does not require nor imply action.

Again, I said I would grant the premise. No need to restate it.

An evangelical (small e, generic) theist would pose a similar danger as an evangelical atheist.

Based on what theory?

It is the religion (and ADDITIONAL dogma) that demand action.

Theism/Atheism don't cause anyone to kill anyone. Religion and Anti-Religion, dogma that spawns from them, can and does, or be used as an excuse for atrocity.

But theism provides both justification and authority without reason. Atheism provides nothing. Atheism doesn't ask anyone to accept something on faith. Theism does.

I think I moved it forward, no?

No. You've not dealt with the substantive difference between theism and atheism.

• Theism provides both authority and justification for atrocity without reason.
• Atheism provides neither.

That it is religion and (as in the case of the wiki group linked earlier) Anti-Religion that seem to be the problems, not the generic belief (or non) in god(s).

That's fine but there is a substantive difference between theism and atheism. One provides a convenient divine authority and justification for atrocity without need of reason. Atheism does not.

 

[RandFan]

So logically you can go from (god) -> (my god) -> murder someone.

You can't do the same from (nothing) ->(some positive belief)-> murder someone. You can logically go back only to (some positive belief). You can't blame the nothing.

Bob: Tom, I need you strap on this explosive vest.
Tom: Why?
Bob: You are going to kill yourself and others.
Tom: Why?
Bob: Because we are atheists and nothing wants you to kill yourself and others... wait, never mind.