Athiests start religious wars, too!

[cosmicaug]

But if you had never even thought about the set of things called gods, then you could not be called an atheist any more than every baby is an atheist, and at that point the word become detached from its actual usage.

I should add that if it bothers you to call babies atheist it should bother you even more to call babies agnostic.

 

[eir_de_scania]

I'm an atheist, but I can't honestly say I don't believe in gods. I'm totally, 100% convinced that no gods, goddesses or other deites exist. I'm as certain on this as I am in being covinced trees grow with their roots in the ground and branches in the air.

I don't know what the "atheism-is-a-belief-too"- crowd will think of me? Extra strong atheism-believer, probably?

Oh, and if I would catch religion (highly unlikely, but you never know) I would definitely turn to the Norse pantheon. They've always seemed like a decent bunch to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

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??

I never stated my personal beliefs. If I had, and someone said that I picked the wrong word to describe those beliefs, then objecting to that word choice to describe beliefs that I stated would be very different from what has actually happened. What has actually happened is that someone told me what they think I believe even though I never provided that information. The word choice used to describe those beliefs are not under dispute. I'm not having an argument with anyone about what it means to be "religious". Bob isn't claiming an error in terminology that I use to describe myself. He's claiming knowledge about me that he doesn't have.

And he intends it as an insult, in case you didn't notice. That's the real kicker here. Did you not realize that? Did it escape your attention? Or did you simply not care? Because it matters, a lot. I've never intended anyone any offense by applying the label "atheist" or "agnostic" to anyone who didn't think they fit that label. And I've never used them as an insult. So no, what he did and what I did are worlds apart, and it's disappointing that you couldn't figure that out on your own.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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

Wouldn't that be a SUBSET of Theists (believers in god) that further believe the voices in their head are god(s)? Sorry, I don't see "believers who converse with god(s)" as part of the definition of theist in the dictionary.

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.

Nice assertion.

Essentially, they had the majority, or power, or whatever to support their authority to commit attrocity. Stalin had the authority by whatever means.

You seem to believe authority to commit attrocity only derives from god. I don't believe that is a supportable assertion. Most governments have the authority to commit attrocity, if they choose. That authority does not derive from belief in god. Or, do you believe it does?

 

[RandFan]

Wouldn't that be a SUBSET of Theists (believers in god) that further believe the voices in their head are god(s)? Sorry, I don't see "believers who converse with god(s)" as part of the definition of theist in the dictionary.

It's a subset. There is no analogues atheist subset. Atheist have no divine authority to justify atrocity.

Nice assertion.

? What have I asserted in that paragraph?

Essentially, they had the majority, or power, or whatever to support their authority to commit attrocity. Stalin had the authority by whatever means.

Stalin didn't justify his atrocity based on atheism. The crusades, inquisitions and 9/11 were justified based on divine authority.

You seem to believe authority to commit attrocity only derives from god.

That's a straw man.

I don't believe that is a supportable assertion. Most governments have the authority to commit attrocity, if they choose. That authority does not derive from belief in god. Or, do you believe it does?

Atheist govts can't point to atheism as their basis or authority for their immorality. Theists and theocratic govts can and do, do exactly that.

• Would you accept the proposition that there are theists who sincerely believe that they have divine authority that allows them to harm others?
• Would you accept the proposition that there are theists who rely on faith to behave immorally?

 

[The Greater Fool]

It's a subset. There is no analogues atheist subset. Atheist have no divine authority to justify atrocity.

That is sorta silly. Of course atheists have no divine authority, they don't believe in god. There ARE atheists, however, that believe certain things are "human rights" and that exteme measures to protect those are appropriate. However, what SOME or MOST atheists or theists believe in addition to their belief about god(s) are just that: additional beliefs.

? What have I asserted in that paragraph?

"Agreement is not license to kill or harm"
Sure it is.

Stalin didn't justify his atrocity based on atheism. The crusades, inquisitions and 9/11 were justified based on divine authority.

Reread where this came from. I was addressing the idea that authority to commit attrocity only comes from god. It comes from many sources.

That's a straw man.

You seem to only recongnize authority from god. Do you accept athority to commit attrocity has and does come from other sources? The USA has committed attrocities, does authority to do that come from god(s)? The USSR likewise.

However, you continue to ignore that the group linked in Wiki 4 pages ago (The Godless) did commit attrocities in the name of atheism, which you say doesn't happen. Yes, they were communists, an additional belief system, which perhaps used Atheism as an excuse, much the same as other countries use god(s) as an excuse or to gain support.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Atheist govts can't point to atheism as their basis or authority for their immorality. Theists and theocratic govts can and do, do exactly that.

• Would you accept the proposition that there are theists who sincerely believe that they have divine authority that allows them to harm others?
• Would you accept the proposition that there are theists who rely on faith to behave immorally?

Would you accept that there are theists that don't, and that there are theists that decry such things?

Again, "the Goddless" *DID* use atheism as a reason and motivator/manipulator to attack religions and commit attrocities.

Since 90% of the world are theists, I would expect a vastly larger number of theists are misled and manipulated using their belief in god(s) than atheists are their disbelief in god(s). It's not very effect to mobilize the 10% against the 90%, so I would expect it to rarely be done.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Just one other thought...

There are several instances where attrocities were committed with the appeal to it being "god(s) will". There have also been many that don't mention god(s) support.

Would not anytime an attrocity was committed, and god was not mentioned as a motivator, be an atheist attrocity? Minimally an agnostic attrocity?

It just seems if god(s) is mentioned, it's because of belief, but if god(s) not mentioned, it's ignored.

 

[DC]

Religions exploit theism to benefit the leaders.
Communism exploited atheism to benefit the leaders.
Not so big a difference.

how so?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Ever notice how theocracies with identical faiths don't attack each other, and those of different faiths, even of faint distinctions (eg Shia vs. Sunni), find war irresistible?

I think religious aggression is rooted in doubt. The mere existence of a culture that doesn't agree with your belief in your imaginary friend is volatile because it tickles the doubt that your imaginary friend is imaginary. The more absurd the faith, the more aggression is engendered by doubt. (E.g. the creationist who killed the evolutionist.)

Theists can be like 3 year olds who explode in rage when told St. Nick does not exist, because both God and Santa believers know, deep down, their imaginary papa may very well be a hoax.

Atheists are completely lacking in this incentive to go to war. Tell a Muslim that Allah is imaginary, and you may get a threat of beheading. Tell an atheist that Allah exists, and he'll ask for proof. Ergo, atheists are less likely to be incited to war over religion.

But the real reasons wars are declared (theft) have nothing to do with why they are fought (faith):

"All wars are wars among thieves who are too cowardly to fight and who therefore induce the young manhood of the whole world to do the fighting for them." (Emma Goldman, 1917)

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." (Seneca, ca. 4 BC – AD 65)

 

[RandFan]

That is sorta silly. Of course atheists have no divine authority, they don't believe in god.

It's not silly at all. The lack of that authority is what makes all the difference in the world.

There ARE atheists, however, that believe certain things are "human rights"

Human rights don't follow from atheism.

"Agreement is not license to kill or harm"
Sure it is.

Based on what theory?

Reread where this came from. I was addressing the idea that authority to commit attrocity only comes from god. It comes from many sources.

Never said it only comes from god.

• There is nothing inherent to atheism that provides that authority.
• There IS something inherent to theism that provides that authority.

You seem to only recongnize authority from god. Do you accept athority to commit attrocity has and does come from other sources? The USA has committed attrocities, does authority to do that come from god(s)? The USSR likewise.

Yes it comes from other sources. But those sources are subject to questioning and they don't follow from atheism.

However, you continue to ignore that the group linked in Wiki 4 pages ago (The Godless) did commit attrocities in the name of atheism, which you say doesn't happen. Yes, they were communists, an additional belief system, which perhaps used Atheism as an excuse, much the same as other countries use god(s) as an excuse or to gain support.

There's nothing about atheism to support that claim. To claim that god is the basis for morality and thus killing is justified is rational. Saying "atheism" made me do it is not rational.

 

[RandFan]

Would you accept that there are theists that don't, and that there are theists that decry such things?

Of course. I've never suggested otherwise.

Again, "the Goddless" *DID* use atheism as a reason and motivator/manipulator to attack religions and commit attrocities.

Again, nothing about atheism justifies the claim. A theist can rationally say that god told him to kill. An atheist cannot rationally claim that atheism made him kill as there is nothing inherent to atheism that would justify atrocity. God can and does justify atrocity, happens all of the time.

Since 90% of the world are theists, I would expect a vastly larger number of theists are misled and manipulated using their belief in god(s) than atheists are their disbelief in god(s). It's not very effect to mobilize the 10% against the 90%, so I would expect it to rarely be done.

There is nothing about not believing in something that calls for or justifies atrocity.

 

[RandFan]

Just one other thought...

There are several instances where attrocities were committed with the appeal to it being "god(s) will". There have also been many that don't mention god(s) support.

Would not anytime an attrocity was committed, and god was not mentioned as a motivator, be an atheist attrocity? Minimally an agnostic attrocity?

It just seems if god(s) is mentioned, it's because of belief, but if god(s) not mentioned, it's ignored.

To justify a claim there needs at least be a plausible connection. If a theist sincerely believes god wants him to kill someone then that's a direct connection between the killer and his *belief in god. You cannot give me a similar scenario for atheists. You have to insert humanism or science or some other connection that does not follow from atheism.

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?

*Belief in god is called "theism".

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm still waiting for a list of all these wars that were purely over religion. I even looked it up on wikipedia which was no help because it admitted that the list they have isn't actually a list of wars started purely because of religion either. Perhaps someone can help by pointing out the ones I am missing.

 

[theprestige]

Ever notice how theocracies with identical faiths don't attack each other, and those of different faiths, even of faint distinctions (eg Shia vs. Sunni), find war irresistible?

No, I can't say that I have ever noticed that.

Can you name two theocracies of identical faiths that have never attacked each other?

Two theocracies.

Identical faiths.

Never attacked each other.

Ready? Go!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ever notice how theocracies with identical faiths don't attack each other, and those of different faiths, even of faint distinctions (eg Shia vs. Sunni), find war irresistible?

So why aren't there mass civil wars between the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, and.... all over the US?

 

[DC]

So why aren't there mass civil wars between the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, and.... all over the US?

the US is a theocracy now?

 

[Mr. Scott]

No, I can't say that I have ever noticed that.

Can you name two theocracies of identical faiths that have never attacked each other?

Two theocracies.

Identical faiths.

Never attacked each other.

Ready? Go!

 

[Croydon Bob]

And he intends it as an insult, in case you didn't notice.

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. 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.

 

[Croydon Bob]

So why aren't there mass civil wars between the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, and.... all over the US?

Erm, you do know that Anglicans and Roman Catholics have fought, just not in the US, right? And that the only reason the JW's and various other fringe Christian sects are in the US is because other Christians were persecuting them in countries like Holland and Britain?