Athiests start religious wars, too!

[The Greater Fool]

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.

Believing god(s) give believer divine authority is another belief, beyond theism. Again, I know folks that believe in god... and that's it. Not a god that gives out morals, authority, demands, just a god out there being god.

You insist theism includes some sort of authority. It does not. Authority comes with additional dogma.

ETA: Theism = belief in god(s). Not good god(s), not bad god(s), not authoritative god(s), not moral god(s), just any type of god(s). The rest (good, bad, moral, authoritatitive) require additonal beliefs about the nature of the specific god(s) the theist believes in.

 

[The Greater Fool]

That's not Atheism, it's anti-theism. I'm sure that's been said already but Atheism in itself cannot motivate anything.

They used the word "atheism" as their justification, though they acted anti-theistic.

But, I actually glad you agree with the point I've been making... mere belief or disbelief in god(s) does not create justifacation/authority for action.

People that rouse the masses with pleas to god(s) typically appeal to the specific god(s) of the populace. So, they don't appeal merely to a belief in god(s), but to a specific belief system (religion) in which god(s) give them authority to do what needs to be done.

 

[RandFan]

Believing god(s) give believer divine authority is another belief, beyond theism. Again, I know folks that believe in god... and that's it. Not a god that gives out morals, authority, demands, just a god out there being god.

You insist theism includes some sort of authority. It does not. Authority comes with additional dogma.

There is nothing analogues to an atheist of god. Believing there is a creator of the universe is all one needs to justify inhumanity. An atheist cannot turn to a non-existent being to justify inhumanity. There is no logic to that. A theist can believe god wants the theist to kill people. An atheist cannot believe a non-existent being wants the atheist to kill people. Theism makes a virtue of faith. To act in opposition to logic and reason. Atheism makes no such virtue of faith. An atheist only has reason. That reason might be faulty but it's not based on the virtue that ignorance is a good thing and it is not premised on the idea that ignorance is a reason to act.

 

[The Greater Fool]

There is nothing analogues to an atheist of god. Believing there is a creator of the universe is all one needs to justify inhumanity.

bald assertion.

A belief in god(s) does not equate to worship of god(s) or even agreeing with god(s).

What a theist needs to justify attrocity is additonal beliefs about the god they believe in that requires them to act out attrocity.

Of course, you aren't claiming that every theist acts, or is asked to act attrociously by their god(s), are you? Of course not, but they are still theists because all theist means is a belief in god(s), nothing more. Just like atheism is a belief in no god(s), nothing more.

An atheist cannot turn to a non-existent being to justify inhumanity. There is no logic to that.

I agree, you are presenting illogical reasoning.

Atheists can also believe awful things beyond their disbelief in god(s), some of which theists (by virtue of their additonal dogma) can't.

There is vastly more about how theists/atheist act than mere belief in god(s) / or not. That belief is not the critical one, it's the additional beliefs where they (both) believe they have a justifiable reason to act.

Your belief that theists believe they have authority from god is disprovable by one case, my father, who believed in god, an ultimate power, but that every religion had it wrong. His god didn't want worship, it wanted him to be the best person possible. There was nothing in his belief that he would impose on another person, period. Or, was he not a theist?

 

[The Greater Fool]

There is nothing analogues to an atheist of god. Believing there is a creator of the universe is all one needs to justify inhumanity. An atheist cannot turn to a non-existent being to justify inhumanity. There is no logic to that. A theist can believe god wants the theist to kill people. An atheist cannot believe a non-existent being wants the atheist to kill people. Theism makes a virtue of faith. To act in opposition to logic and reason. Atheism makes no such virtue of faith. An atheist only has reason. That reason might be faulty but it's not based on the virtue that ignorance is a good thing and it is not premised on the idea that ignorance is a reason to act.

Because theism/atheism covers one issue, belief in god(s), every belief that builds on belief in god is unavailable to the atheist. Check.

But there are infinite beliefs, and some are analogous to belief in god. Communism was a belief system that would allow atheists access to many of the same authority to commit attocity that religions grant.

I think we've repeated ourselves enough.

You believe theism includes some sort of godly authority. You should write Webster and F&W that their definitions are lacking.

 

[RandFan]

Because theism/atheism covers one issue, belief in god(s), every belief that builds on belief in god is unavailable to the atheist. Check.

Yes, the theist holds faith as a virtue. There is nothing inherent to atheism that permits the atheist to use ignorance as an excuse.

But there are infinite beliefs, and some are analogous to belief in god. Communism was a belief system that would allow atheists access to many of the same authority to commit attocity that religions grant.

But the atheist cannot turn to faith and a divine entity to justify atrocity. The theist can.

You believe theism includes some sort of godly authority.

I'm saying that theism can and often does provide an authority that atheism simply cannot.

You should write Webster and F&W that their definitions are lacking.

You should look up the definition of straw man.

 

[RandFan]

bald assertion.

It's a trivial fact.

A belief in god(s) does not equate to worship of god(s) or even agreeing with god(s).

I NEVER said otherwise.

What a theist needs to justify attrocity is additonal beliefs about the god they believe in that requires them to act out attrocity.

No. False. A theist only needs to believe god wants him to commit atrocity.

Atheists can also believe awful things beyond their disbelief in god(s)...

Not based on faith or a divine being. A non existent being cannot tell an atheist to kill while a theist can sincerely believe that god wants him or her to kill. A god can be an authority to justify atrocity. A non-existent being cannot.

Your belief that theists believe they have authority from god is disprovable by one case, my father, who believed in god, an ultimate power, but that every religion had it wrong. His god didn't want worship, it wanted him to be the best person possible. There was nothing in his belief that he would impose on another person, period. Or, was he not a theist?

Straw man. I don't claim every theist believes they have authority from god to kill.

Please stick to my premises and not ones you make up for me.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Yes, the theist holds faith as a virtue. There is nothing inherent to atheism that permits the atheist to use ignorance as an excuse.

THIS is the underlying conceit. Theists are ignorant. (Not that I disagree, but most are simply brainwashed from childhood).

But the atheist cannot turn to faith and a divine entity to justify atrocity. The theist can.

Nope, it takes additional dogma, dogma that not all theists agree on or accept. It is the additional dogma that is the problem, that grants the authority you claim theism grants.

Atheists have other belief systems to turn to that rationalize attrocity. But, of course they're too smart to, right?

I'm saying that theism can and often does provide an authority that atheism simply cannot.

"can" not "does". I notice softening here. The fact that it doesn't always include that authority means it's not part of the definition.

You should look up the definition of straw man.

Look the words up... it's not a straw man. It's iron clad man.

"2 belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)." (definition 1 is opposed to deism, which doesn't apply since we are talking theism/atheism).

Belief in a god worthy of worship and that grants authority is part of religious dogma (not all religions include this). Atheists could easily grant such authority to non-god figures (which is prohibited to many religious believers).

Theism/Atheism is the broadest possible classification of god belief, that's all. There are many, many subsets of theism, but beyond a belief in god(s), there is no one thing common attribute.

 

[The Greater Fool]

No. False. A theist only needs to believe god wants him to commit atrocity.

Grrrr. THAT's an additional belief!

 

[RandFan]

THIS is the underlying conceit. Theists are ignorant.

You are quite adept at the straw men. I never said theists are per se ignorant. I said that theism makes ignorance a virtue. Atheists most certainly can be ignorant and there are many gifted and educated theists. Please stop with the straw men.

Nope, it takes additional dogma

Let's try to advance the discussion. It takes additional beliefs. That said, there is nothing analogues to god for the atheist. Theists can and often do believe that god wants them to commit atrocity. Atheists have no such faith based rational to be inhumane.

Atheists have other belief systems to turn to that rationalize attrocity. But, of course they're too smart to, right?

Please stop with the straw men. Atheists cannot fall back on a deity or anything akin to a deity to justify inhumanity.

"can" not "does". I notice softening here. The fact that it doesn't always include that authority means it's not part of the definition

NO softening. I conceded from the start that authority to kill does not necessarily follow from theism. I'm really getting tired of the straw men.

Look the words up... it's not a straw man. It's iron clad man.

You look the words up. You are attributing to me arguments I never made and positions I do not hold.

 

[RandFan]

What a theist needs to justify attrocity is additonal beliefs about the god they believe in that requires them to act out attrocity.

Grrrr. THAT's an additional belief!

Fine. I apologize. You are correct and I was wrong on that point and it conflicts with my concession that atrocity does not necessarily follow from theism.

There IS NO ANALOGUE for the atheist to justify inhumanity by appealing to a non-existent being and faith. Your point of additional beliefs does not change the fact that theists have a ready made divine authority to justify inhumanity based only on belief in things not seen.

 

[The Greater Fool]

You are quite adept at the straw men. I never said theists are per se ignorant. I said that theism makes ignorance a virtue. Atheists most certainly can be ignorant and there are many gifted and educated theists. Please stop with the straw men.

Let's try to advance the discussion. It takes additional beliefs. That said, there is nothing analogues to god for the atheist. Theists can and often do believe that god wants them to commit atrocity. Atheists have no such faith based rational to be inhumane.

Please stop with the straw men. Atheists cannot fall back on a deity or anything akin to a deity to justify inhumanity.


NO softening. I conceded from the start that authority to kill does not necessarily follow from theism. I'm really getting tired of the straw men.

You look the words up. You are attributing to me arguments I never made and positions I do not hold.

OK, so theism doesn't include authority from god? Great, we agree. That's what I've been arguing all along. I felt we were talking past each other 2 pages ago.

I did look up the words, I linked it in the post were you tell me to look them up.

The whole "theists are ignorant", no, you didn't use those words, you just gave that message. "per se". Yeah, "straw man".

OK, carry us forward. Belief Systems like religion or politics (Not theism/atheism) are used motivate populaces for war...

 

[RandFan]

OK, so theism doesn't include authority from god? Great, we agree. That's what I've been arguing all along. I felt we were talking past each other 2 pages ago.

Theism provides for a divine authority. The theist need not believe that his or her god proscribes atrocity but there is nothing to obviate it either and in fact such proscriptions are typical in religion. No such authority can exist for atheists. Atheist cannot appeal to a belief in things not seen to justify atrocity.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Theism provides for a divine authority. The theist need not believe that his or her god proscribes atrocity but there is nothing to obviate it either and in fact such proscriptions are typical in religion. No such authority can exist for atheists. Atheist cannot appeal to a belief in things not seen to justify atrocity.

Theism/atheism only addresses belief in god(s). Not devine authority to rule or get its way.

I've sourced what I'm saying. Source your assertion that Theism includes goddly authority of any sort.

Atheists can believe in ghosts, angels, ETs, Unicorns, whatever. Again, things unseen aren't covered by atheism, only god(s).

 

[RandFan]

Theism/atheism only addresses belief in god(s). Not devine authority to rule or get its way.

But most religions including the largest in the world, Christianity, hold that god is the basis for morality based on faith. There is nothing about atheism that would allow for an unseen entity to be the ultimate moral authority based on faith.

I've sourced what I'm saying. Source your assertion that Theism includes goddly authority of any sort.

I've already conceded that theism does not necessarily include a godly authority. I've only argued that theism PROVIDES for an unseen moral authority that theists take on faith.

Atheists can believe in ghosts, angels, ETs, Unicorns, whatever. Again, things unseen aren't covered by atheism, only god(s).

It's possible. The point you are missing is that there is nothing intrinsic to atheism that calls for or even suggests an unseen entity who is a moral authority. Show me otherwise. Theism doesn't simply suggest an unseen entity, it's a prerequisite.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html

What gives God the right to have total control of the universe? The real question is, why wouldn't an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect God have the right to do as he sees fit? We are used to thinking about human rights and what humans should and shouldn't do, so we are likely to make the mistake of thinking of God as a more powerful (and therefore more corrupt) human. However, God is not a human who has somehow acquired great power; instead he is Deity, a supernatural being who is far superior to humans and who has a perfect mind and heart.
There are many reasons why mere humans do not have the right to be supreme rulers of the universe:

• They might make a disastrous mistake due to ignorance, inexperience, fatigue, etc.
• They could have evil intentions and use their power for evil, or they could be fooled by an evil person
• They might be corrupted by flattery and think themselves wiser and greater than they really were
• Even if they wanted to do good, they wouldn't know for sure what would be best for everyone
• They are likely to show favoritism to some and treat others unfairly

A theist can make this type of argument. No similar argument can be made by atheists.

 

[Belz...]

An atheist only has reason.

I think you erred here. Being an atheist does not require reason, just lack of faith. Your point still stands, mind you.

 

[RandFan]

I think you erred here. Being an atheist does not require reason, just lack of faith. Your point still stands, mind you.

Conceded. An atheist most certainly could invent all kinds of rationalization. There's just nothing inherent to atheism that lends itself to irrational belief. Theism starts with a belief founded on an absence of evidence.

 

[The Greater Fool]

But most religions including the largest in the world, Christianity, hold that god is the basis for morality based on faith. There is nothing about atheism that would allow for an unseen entity to be the ultimate moral authority based on faith.

I've already conceded that theism does not necessarily include a godly authority. I've only argued that theism PROVIDES for an unseen moral authority that theists take on faith.

It's possible. The point you are missing is that there is nothing intrinsic to atheism that calls for or even suggests an unseen entity who is a moral authority. Show me otherwise. Theism doesn't simply suggest an unseen entity, it's a prerequisite.

A theist can make this type of argument. No similar argument can be made by atheists.

Quoting Christian dogma to support why God is supreme isn't a demonstration that All Theists believe this way. But, you don't say all, you just want to speak of Theists as if they are all that way when in reality you agree it's only many/most. OK.

Aside from god(s), atheists can believe any bat crap crazy ideas that are analogous. How about channelling an Atlantian, or advanced ET? Perhaps, more commonly, ascestors speaking to us? All "provide" for the possibilities that god(s) do. Atheism only rules out one crazy, not all.

 

[RandFan]

Quoting Christian dogma to support why God is supreme isn't a demonstration that All Theists believe this way. But, you don't say all, you just want to speak of Theists as if they are all that way when in reality you agree it's only many/most. OK.

We started our discussion with my conceding that atrocity dose not necassarily follow from theism. So obviously they don't all believe that way. That's not the point. That was never the point. The point is that theism has built into it a faith based belief in a god. This fact lends itself to a moral authority and does so without evidence. This figure that is believed in the face of reason can be used for atrocity. There is no analogue in atheism.

Aside from god(s), atheists can believe any bat crap crazy ideas that are analogous. How about channelling an Atlantian, or advanced ET? Perhaps, more commonly, ascestors speaking to us? All "provide" for the possibilities that god(s) do. Atheism only rules out one crazy, not all.

Atheism doesn't start with anything akin to faith which as Tim Minchin notes "is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." An atheist could believe in irrational ideas but those ideas are not intrinsic to atheism. Faith and an unseen entity are intrinsic to theism.

And that's the difference.

• Atheism starts with the null hypothesis.
• Theism starts with the faith hypothesis and the god hypothesis. From there the rest is easy.

 

[The Greater Fool]

We started our discussion with my conceding that atrocity dose not necassarily follow from theism. So obviously they don't all believe that way. That's not the point. That was never the point. The point is that theism has built into it a faith based belief in a god. This fact lends itself to a moral authority and does so without evidence. This figure that is believed in the face of reason can be used for atrocity. There is no analogue in atheism.

Atheism doesn't start with anything akin to faith which as Tim Minchin notes "is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." An atheist could believe in irrational ideas but those ideas are not intrinsic to atheism. Faith and an unseen entity are intrinsic to theism.

And that's the difference.

• Atheism starts with the null hypothesis.
• Theism starts with the faith hypothesis and the god hypothesis. From there the rest is easy.

I'm as big a Tim Minchin fan as the next guy (Storm is a fav), but you're really stretching the definition of theist and especially atheist, when compared to the dictionary (which is supposed to be the arbitor of meaning).

We should note that their are atheist religions with other unseen entities.

I don't think your points are necessarily true. Both can start from null, with evidence weighed, and different conclusions reached. That may be a completely different derail.

At any rate, I think we understand each other, though we disagree.