Your view on Atheists

[Achilles]

I never said it was all atheists. So we're still saying the same thing.

I never said that you said all atheists

 

I took your statement and changed the 'no' to something that's a little more accurate. You are free to see it as "the same thing" however I will continue to contend that they are not.

 

you're generalizing here, science-minded atheists hold a wide variety of viewpoints, some outright say "god doesn't exist." some are more agnostic in their views.

I don't think I'm generalizing any more than you are (in fact, I would argue much less so). I imagine that the aforementioned "science-minded atheists" hold a wide variety of viewpoints on a great many things. However I don't think what it means to be an atheist is one of them.

 

If you are somehow confusing what I said (in quotes above) with "a scientist", well then we are talking about two different animals altogether.

 

your simply producing another flavor of atheist.

Not at all, however if you want to try to support your argument, I'll be more than willing to listen to what you have to say.

 

yes, all hypothesis should be accepted as a possibility until proven otherwise. And should always be retained as a "well, in case I'm wrong."

There's a big difference between "all hypothesis should be accepted" and "all hypothesis should be accepted as a possibility". My question to you regarded the former and not the latter.

 

No hypothesis should be accepted until there is evidence to support it. Conversely, no hypothesis should be ruled out until it can be disproven. In regards to theism, the god hypothesis should not be accepted because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Meanwhile the idea cannot be completely ruled out because science cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that fills that role.

 

that's a matter of opinion and perspective. Can there be an "anti-theism", I don't really think so. So how you set it up is all up to how you want to use it.

As I am trying to make heads or tails of your argument you'll have to tell me.

 

Your argument seems to be that atheism = an emphatic "no!" to the question of god. If theism is "yes" and atheism is "no", then your argument seems to be that atheism is synonymous with anti-theism. My point is that this representation is fundamentally incorrect. Atheism is to be without theism which is neither a "yes" nor a "no". If I am missing something, please feel free to let me know.

 

ok, what's the anti-theism?

"Anti-theism" is "no" to the question of god.

 

If we have a scale that runs from -100 to 100, then 0 is atheism and anything other than 0 is theism. Any positive number is a positive acceptance of theism (I believe in god) and any negative number is a negative acceptance of theism (I renounce god or I hate god, etc). For theism to exist, then some positive statement regarding the existence of a deity must be made, regardless of whether you like him/her/it or not. Atheism is completely neutral, as it is without theism.

 

that's not atheism.

LOL! Considering that I'm an athiest, I'm not sure what position you are in to tell me what is or what is not atheism.

 

You can't be atheist by simply saying: your claims of god are wrong and we don't know if there is a god. That's bordering on a weird cross between agnosticisms and atheism.

Not at all. An agnostic partially accepts the idea of a god without any evidence. They also accept that their might not be a god. Atheism is something else, specifically the acknowledgement that no positive argument can be made either way at this point in time, therefore there is no reason to accept theism.

 

Remember, Atheism is a resounding "NO", Agnosticism is a big "MAYBE", Deism is a "YES" and Theism is a dogmatic "YES".

I understand that that's how you've opted to define those labels, but your definition isn't necessarily the correct one.

 

Personally I think your definition of atheism only muddied the waters.

Considering that it's a completely objective definition, I think the problem might be yours

 

This might also be a good indication that you don't understand atheism as well as you think (no shame in that either).

 

rocks can't be devoid of morals because they lack the ability to have morals in the first place.

Precisely. Hence why we consider them to be amoral (without morals) as opposed to immoral (insufficently moral or morally deficient). This is also why someone that says "no" to theism isn't an atheist (without theism) because they are making a positive statement about the nature of theism (in this case a denouncement).

 

People devoid of knowledge of the possibility of a "god" cannot be unbelievers. Furthermore, they can still invent the idea themselves. Somebody had to come up with it right? Was that person atheistic until their own concept was introduced to them? I don't think so.

Please expand on this.

 

The world can't be black and white, it just doesn't work that way.

I don't recall making any comments regarding "the world". The distinction between theism and atheism can absolutely be black and white, which is the point I was making.

 

And those "nutjobs" that say "there is no God!" make up the definite majority of athiests.

Please support this claim with a source or admit that you're hypothesizing.

 

So unless you're redefining atheism to fit your argument, and thus cutting out the centeral "disbelief" in god, the B+W view doesn't work.

No sir, I believe my explanation of atheism doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what it is, therefore you're opting to deny it before you truly understand it. Wouldn't be the first time that happened to one of my arguments

 

Take care!

[Jae Onasi]

As I have pointed out before, Stalin and Mao were dictators first and atheists second. If atheism were the key ingredient, then their policies and practices would look radically different than all the other multitudes of theist dictators. In other words, the "killer" in both of these examples was "malevolent dictatorship" not "atheism".

They were atheists long before they became dictators, if you want to be technical. Their atheist philosophy allowed them to justify their rationale at being, and their behaviors as, dictators. You can't accuse Christians and Muslims of murder during the Crusades and blame it on religion, and yet sweep the atrocities of Stalin and Mao under the rug because you don't happen to like the fact that atheism played a huge part in these men's philosophies and actions. Atheism is an underpinning of marxism/communism; Marx stated it was a stage to communism. If these men had not believed that the classless society was the ultimate good and that they, in the absence of a higher moral authority, were the sole determiners of what that version of 'good classless society' looked like, 60 million people would not have died at their hands. Without God as their moral authority, they became their own gods and determined the moral authority not only for themselves but billions others, with utterly disastrous results. Without God they devalued and sacrificed life on their own alter of self, and had absolutely nothing stopping them from exterminating people simply because they didn't like them or their ideas. This is what happens when atheism is taken to its worst extreme.

 

Source please?

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

 

There are about 11 or 12 million deaths directly related to religious wars (I was thinking of Christianity here) prior to 1900. Compare that to Mao's 40 million and Stalin's 20 million (which does not include WWII).

 

That's called "religious persecution" and it happens in religious regimes as well

I thought atheists weren't religious.

 

This whole interlude is a strawman.

a. I had replied to Nancy

b. It's OK to go off on a tangent, as long as it's related to the topic.

[Web Rider]

I never said that you said all atheists

 

you did, however, twist what I said to imply that that I did.

 

I don't think I'm generalizing any more than you are (in fact, I would argue much less so). I imagine that the aforementioned "science-minded atheists" hold a wide variety of viewpoints on a great many things. However I don't think what it means to be an atheist is one of them.

 

what you think, and what I think, are no more correct than each other, since they're all our opinions. A little generalization is always necessary though I suppose.

 

If you are somehow confusing what I said (in quotes above) with "a scientist", well then we are talking about two different animals altogether.

 

Not at all, however if you want to try to support your argument, I'll be more than willing to listen to what you have to say.

 

you are saying "science minded atheists do this". I am saying "atheists do that". You simply pulled out a particular flavor of atheist to support your argument.

 

There's a big difference between "all hypothesis should be accepted" and "all hypothesis should be accepted as a possibility". My question to you regarded the former and not the latter.

 

No hypothesis should be accepted until there is evidence to support it. Conversely, no hypothesis should be ruled out until it can be disproven. In regards to theism, the god hypothesis should not be accepted because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Meanwhile the idea cannot be completely ruled out because science cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that fills that role.

 

that's nice, however my original statement regarding a hypothesis about chunks of cheese orbiting the sun, said that I accept it as a "possibility". I never professed to say they should ALL be accepted. Dont try to say I did.

 

For one who claims so much science stuff, you seem to forget that once a hypothesis has evidence and has been tested, it becomes a theory. Before that, any hypothesis is entirely valid, until proven wrong, of course. On the rest, we agree.

 

And an atheist can hardly be considered a "scientific" one if they're dismissing the hypothesis of God. From their partial facts they have forumlated the belief that it is wrong. It's STILL a belief.

 

As I am trying to make heads or tails of your argument you'll have to tell me.

 

Your argument seems to be that atheism = an emphatic "no!" to the question of god. If theism is "yes" and atheism is "no", then your argument seems to be that atheism is synonymous with anti-theism. My point is that this representation is fundamentally incorrect. Atheism is to be without theism which is neither a "yes" nor a "no". If I am missing something, please feel free to let me know.

 

"Anti-theism" is "no" to the question of god.

 

Due to using the dictionary as my source, I profess that atheism is "no" to god. While anti-theism is "no" to god+religion. Just as deism is "yes" to god and "no" to religion, while theism is "yes" to god and "yes" to religion. Your definitions have only a singular answer, while mine are two-fold, hence why we are likly getting different answers. But again, these definitions are no more correct than each other because they're all OUR personal definitions.

 

If we have a scale that runs from -100 to 100, then 0 is atheism and anything other than 0 is theism. Any positive number is a positive acceptance of theism (I believe in god) and any negative number is a negative acceptance of theism (I renounce god or I hate god, etc). For theism to exist, then some positive statement regarding the existence of a deity must be made, regardless of whether you like him/her/it or not. Atheism is completely neutral, as it is without theism.

 

again, considering what I said above, theism="yes" to god and religion, anti-theisim is "no" to god and religion.

 

LOL! Considering that I'm an athiest, I'm not sure what position you are in to tell me what is or what is not atheism.

 

well, if we MUST play it that way, then to that i say: LOL! Considering that I'm an athiest, I'm not sure what position you are in to tell me what is or what is not atheism.

 

Now....what was I saying about different atheists having different viewpoints? Oh, right, different atheists have different viewpoints.

 

Not at all. An agnostic partially accepts the idea of a god without any evidence. They also accept that their might not be a god. Atheism is something else, specifically the acknowledgement that no positive argument can be made either way at this point in time, therefore there is no reason to accept theism.

 

another difference in opinion. From all I've observed and thus forumlated my opinion from, agnostics say "maybe". They say: there's not enough evidence to say yes, and there's not enough evidence to say "no".

 

I understand that that's how you've opted to define those labels, but your definition isn't necessarily the correct one.

 

Considering that it's a completely objective definition, I think the problem might be yours

 

This might also be a good indication that you don't understand atheism as well as you think (no shame in that either).

 

This statement also applies to you. Your knowledge is not the end-all be-all of atheism. Nor is mine.

 

Precisely. Hence why we consider them to be amoral (without morals) as opposed to immoral (insufficently moral or morally deficient). This is also why someone that says "no" to theism isn't an atheist (without theism) because they are making a positive statement about the nature of theism (in this case a denouncement).

 

then let me be more specific. Rocks lack the capacity for morals, not in the same manner as a person who has never had morals lacks it, but the physical ability is not there to have morals. Thus, a comparason between rocks and people seems null because people always have the capacity for some morals. Rocks never do. They are not "without morals" in the same sense a person is without morals. It's like saying solid metal is empty of water and a pool of water is empty, they're not empty in the same context. Metal lacks the ability to hold water, while a pool is merely devoid of water. See what I'm getting at?

 

Please expand on this.

 

see above ^

 

I don't recall making any comments regarding "the world". The distinction between theism and atheism can absolutely be black and white, which is the point I was making.

 

Context helps, use "the world" in context, the proverbial "world" of theism and atheism.

 

Please support this claim with a source or admit that you're hypothesizing.

 

I am, as are you.

 

No sir, I believe my explanation of atheism doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what it is, therefore you're opting to deny it before you truly understand it. Wouldn't be the first time that happened to one of my arguments

 

Take care!

 

I could say the same of you.

[Achilles]

*posting as separate message due to length*

 

That would depend on whether you mean theists who don't want to be offended or Atheists who use every chance they get to attack religion.

Considering the topic was theists, I would imagine that it has to be the former. If someone doesn't want their beliefs put up for public criticism, then the simplest way to avoid the situation is avoid voicing them publicly. In this country we have many freedoms, one of which is the freedom to talk about our beliefs. Atheists are free to express their beliefs just as theists are free to express theirs.

 

So in regards to my "harping on religion killing when no one else wants to hear it", my response would be "well, quit reading the religion thread, silly"

 

What say you? How do you feel about the idea of people saying that Atheists want to restrict freedom of speech to ban discussion of religion, that they want to make following such beliefs illegal?

Mostly, I'm fine with it because I know such claims are completely fabricated.

 

First, atheists don't organize very well.

Second, atheists that did manage to organize would then have to gain sufficient power to force such an agenda.

Third, I know that 2 wouldn't happen because 1 is true, therefore I wouldn't need to worry about 2 until 1 became false.

 

Basically, you can say whatever you want. It's not going to make it any less made-up.

 

What you should do is be able to handle the consequences of what you say, good or bad. If you don't like others getting up in arms over what you say then...

What is this in regards to? Have I posted something about theism that is false? If so, you've yet to point it out and/or provide any kind of argument/evidence that contradicts me.

 

But as Jae rigfully pointed out that has already happened, so condemning religion because it creates violence is a moot point with blood on your hands.

Jae didn't rightly point out anything, as I have exposed that strawman many times before. If Jae's point had any validity Iran would be a paradise and Norway's leadership would be facing an international court for crimes against humanity.

 

Some Atheists, not all I stress, some, believe they are a law onto themselves, as evidenced by their unwillingness to abide by the same bindings as everyone else. For example those who attack religion, not just debate it but seek to draw out negative reactions, deny any wrongdoing or claim they are entitled to act this way even when they're not.

Huh? "Unwillingness to abide the same bindings as everyone else"? As in they drive on the wrong side of the road and wear their underwear over their clothing?

 

Let's see:

 

"For example those who attack religion, not just debate it but seek to draw out negative reactions". Do christians do this to others (i.e. atheists are going to hell or islam is evil, etc)? Yes or no?

 

Bonus question: Do atheists ever kill or call for the death of the pious while doing this? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, please provide examples.

 

"deny any wrongdoing or claim they are entitled to act this way even when they're not." Have christians ever used the excuse "I was doing god's will" when trying to deny any wrong-doing or claim that their actions were justified? Yes or no?

 

If your answer to any of the above questions is "yes", then the actions you've described are not limited to atheists and your argument is completely defunct.

 

Non sequiter, you cannot prove that it isn't.

Please quit introducing incorrect usage of logical fallacies in an attempt to dodge the question and address my point:

 

"Unlike theists, atheists do not have a <snip> book written by bronze age or dark age authors that tells them to kill others in certain circumstances."

 

If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll happily concede the point.

 

NOTE: I've snipped the word "fictional" since it seemed to become a focal point for you. As you can see, it did not drastically alter my argument, as I pointed out in our last exchange.

 

You lay claim that theists are mass murderers, which is actually a moot point considering. I'd say it applies.

It doesn't apply because I'm not doing any of the things that are necessary for that fallacy to apply.

 

I lay claim that theism has a history of mass murder because it's true. On September 22, 2001 ten theists flew two planes into the world trade center and killed several thousand americans. There is just one example of how religion takes lives.

 

The same could be said for Atheists wanting to ban religion out of fear that they would be killed for being nonbelievers.

Yes and if that ever happens you'll have a point.

 

I an generalizing, because just as there are bad Christians, Jews and Muslims there are bad Atheists, and just as you hold religion accountable for wrongdoings so must Atheism be held accountable for the wrong it has done.

So some bad atheists = all atheists are bad? That's what generalizing accomplishes.

 

I hold religion accountable for wrong-doings. Big difference between "religion" and "all religious people". I don't think you should be made to suffer for Inquisition, however I do think you should be aware of what your system of belief is capable of producing and I don't think that system of belief is worthy of anyone's attention.

 

Lastly, atheism is not a group or a system of beliefs on par with religion. Your claim that atheism must be held accountable is akin to saying "the logical symbol '+' must be held accountable...". Atheism does not have a centralized system of beliefs. Atheism does not have a unifying text which gives commandments regarding the behavior of followers. Atheists do not meet regularly to discuss how their actions might better reflect the will of their unseen master. Your comparison of atheists to theists in this regard is really quite inappropriate and completely a product of your imagination.

 

Ah yes. I remember that. It would seem that Atheists have a lot to answer for seeing that they like to drag up the atrocities religion has caused. Thank you Jae, you've just made my day.

Please see post #123 where I once again show that this argument is a strawman.

 

You seem to be under the impression that people who follow religion should be killing those who do not follow them, making sacrifices to their god. Quite simply that's not how they work.

The "sacrifices" addition was introduced by you. Other than that, you've summarized my point. However that is how they work and you've ignored every reference that I've provided that supports my claim. Should I take from this that you choose deny these parts of the bible? If so, on what basis did you make such a choice?

 

As a strawman is a type of red herring

I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure that a logical fallacy can be a strawman or a red herring, but not both (nor is any other combination possible). Continuing...

 

I would say bringing up the banning of religion in the Soviet Union and China is a most relevent point to bring up. Unless of course it isn't as you claim and is actually an aspect of Atheism that you find uncomfortable.

It isn't relevant because this is a characteristic of a dictatorship, not of atheism. If such a claim were true, then all atheistic regimes would have to follow such guidelines. Fortunately, we have several examples of largely atheistic governments where such oppression is not present, however most (if not all) dictatorships show signs of religious suppression of some kind. Such an objective observation would suggest that the causal relationship lies between dictatorship and religious suppression, rather than between atheistic government and religious suppression.

 

I have repeated extended open invitations for those that would like to provide an example of a repressive, atheistic government that wasn't a dictatorship or a theocracy, but no examples have been forthcoming.

[Nancy Allen``]

Atheists are free to express their beliefs just as theists are free to express theirs.

 

Except that some don't want to allow thesits freedom of speech.

 

Mostly, I'm fine with it because I know such claims are completely fabricated.

 

It could happen. And it very well might, Atheist dominated countries could well elect a leader who would see fit to ban religion. We are already seeing a leaning fpr Christianity and against Islam in America.

 

What is this in regards to? Have I posted something about theism that is false? If so, you've yet to point it out and/or provide any kind of argument/evidence that contradicts me.

 

Part of this has to do with the truth hurting. You don't like the fact Atheism led to the persecution seen in Russia and China anymore that theists like people harping on about there being no god. Part of it also has to do with being able to handle how people react to what you say, such as the outrage over the suggestion anti war protestors would get their yukks from seeing dead soldiers on TV I mentioned.

 

Jae didn't rightly point out anything, as I have exposed that strawman many times before. If Jae's point had any validity Iran would be a paradise and Norway's leadership would be facing an international court for crimes against humanity.

 

It is most valid. You cannot go running off about the crimes religion had committed when Atheism has proven to be just as bad, if not worse.

 

Huh? "Unwillingness to abide the same bindings as everyone else"? As in they drive on the wrong side of the road and wear their underwear over their clothing?

 

Look up similar threads in the Senate Chambers, I can provide specific examples if you like.

 

"For example those who attack religion, not just debate it but seek to draw out negative reactions". Do christians do this to others (i.e. atheists are going to hell or islam is evil, etc)? Yes or no?

 

Loaded question. I'll indulge however. Some do, yes. They would be the more extremist ones and I think proportionate to Atheists who are the same.

 

Bonus question: Do atheists ever kill or call for the death of the pious while doing this? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, please provide examples.

 

Yes. Russia and China are two examples, I know you hate it that religion was persecuted but you have to face up to the fact it happened.

 

"deny any wrongdoing or claim they are entitled to act this way even when they're not." Have christians ever used the excuse "I was doing god's will" when trying to deny any wrong-doing or claim that their actions were justified? Yes or no?

 

Another loaded question, but yes, which makes Atheists just as bad as theists when they act this way, in fact worse because they don't have some holy text they can use as a reasoning (excuse).

 

"If your answer to any of the above questions is "yes", then the actions you've described are not limited to atheists and your argument is completely defunct.

 

That doesn't let Atheism off the hook. Just as much criticism is on them when they act like the Christians they attack for doing wrong. To claim otherwise is hypocritical.

 

Please quit introducing incorrect usage of logical fallacies in an attempt to dodge the question and address my point.

 

I will when you do, fair enough?

 

"Unlike theists, atheists do not have a <snip> book written by bronze age or dark age authors that tells them to kill others in certain circumstances."

 

What you're forgetting is that these were very diffirent times and, again, people who follow the word of their god also have to abide by the law.

 

It doesn't apply because I'm not doing any of the things that are necessary for that fallacy to apply.

 

There was no need for you to bring the topic up so it is poisoning the well, or ad hominem, your choice, as well as non sequiter and guilt by association.

 

I lay claim that theism has a history of mass murder because it's true. On September 22, 2001 ten theists flew two planes into the world trade center and killed several thousand americans. There is just one example of how religion takes lives.

 

Combined among them Stalin and Mao have killed 60 million people, for bull**** crimes including following religion. That's just one example of how Atheism takes lives. Also, let's face it religion's just an excuse for these people, it's more a case that Al Qaeda had an axe to grind with the entire world.

 

So some bad atheists = all atheists are bad? That's what generalizing accomplishes.

 

No, some bad atheists = some bad Christians, Jews, Muslims, enviromentalists, anti war protestors, ect, ect.

 

I hold religion accountable for wrong-doings. Big difference between "religion" and "all religious people". I don't think you should be made to suffer for Inquisition, however I do think you should be aware of what your system of belief is capable of producing and I don't think that system of belief is worthy of anyone's attention.

 

Like a pair of Atheists being responsible for more deaths than religion ever was?

 

Please see post #123 where I once again show that this argument is a strawman.

 

Which suggests to me that you're doing exactly what you accuse others of, introducing incorrect usage of logical fallacies in an attempt to dodge the question.

 

The "sacrifices" addition was introduced by you. Other than that, you've summarized my point. However that is how they work and you've ignored every reference that I've provided that supports my claim. Should I take from this that you choose deny these parts of the bible? If so, on what basis did you make such a choice?

 

The basis that most people who follow religion know that this is not how to act, that the law applies to them. Otherwise we'd be well and truely ****ed as Christians, Jews, Islamists, ect try and genocide everyone.

 

I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure that a logical fallacy can be a strawman or a red herring, but not both (nor is any other combination possible).

 

A strawman is a type of red herring. Source.

 

It isn't relevant because this is a characteristic of a dictatorship, not of atheism.

 

Yet the fact they were Atheist meant that theists were executed because Stalin and Mao were against religion.

 

I have repeated extended open invitations for those that would like to provide an example of a repressive, atheistic government that wasn't a dictatorship or a theocracy, but no examples have been forthcoming.

 

Maybe because this type of arguement constructed to easily argue against is the type of strawman people avoid. "Oh oh I know Stalin and Mao were Atheist but their wrongs don't count because they didn't rule using this specific government".

[Achilles]

They were atheists long before they became dictators, if you want to be technical.

We can be technical

 

Their being atheists first has nothing to do with my point, because their regimes would not have begun until they took power. Before they were atheists, they were children. Would you like to use this as support for the argument that all children are responsible for war?

 

Their atheist philosophy allowed them to justify their rationale at being, and their behaviors as, dictators.

Did theist dictators also use their atheist philosophy to justify their rationale for being dictators? Or is it safe to say there is a psychological profile for dictators that is completely independent of theological tendencies? If you're going to prove a causal relationship, then circumstance will not suffice as evidence.

 

You can't accuse Christians and Muslims of murder during the Crusades and blame it on religion, and yet sweep the atrocities of Stalin and Mao under the rug because you don't happen to like the fact that atheism played a huge part in these men's philosophies and actions.

I've made no effort to do any such thing. I've simply sought to point out that you are assuming a causal relationship where none exists. What stalin and mao did was terrible. But to say that that they did it because they were atheists requires more evidence than you've been able to provide (and directly contradicts the evidence I have provided).

 

Atheism is an underpinning of marxism/communism; Marx stated it was a stage to communism. If these men had not believed that the classless society was the ultimate good and that they, in the absence of a higher moral authority, were the sole determiners of what that version of 'good classless society' looked like, 60 million people would not have died at their hands.

That is a very bold claim that is going to be very difficult for you to support. Please tell me how you intend to prove that if Mao and Stalin hadn't believed in a classless society, that those people wouldn't have died.

 

Keep in mind that several communes do still exist and have managed (somehow) not to wipe themselves out. Seems your case against communism is not air-tight.

 

Without God as their moral authority, they became their own gods and determined the moral authority not only for themselves but billions others, with utterly disastrous results.

Why haven't we seen such disastrous results within buddhism, taoism, hinduism, or in the ancient polytheistic religions? I would extend my question to include islam and judaism as well but they are both monotheisms that follow the god of abraham. Again, if the christian god is the authority and a lack of him = stalin/mao, we should have hundreds of examples to choose from, yet we don't.

 

Without God they devalued and sacrificed life on their own alter of self, and had absolutely nothing stopping them from exterminating people simply because they didn't like them or their ideas. This is what happens when atheism is taken to its worst extreme.

Jae, I don't believe in god. Do I devalue life? Have I sacrificed others on the alter to myself? These are quasi-rhetorical questions because I suppose you have no way of knowing for sure. But since I'm an atheist, do you automatically assume that I have or would? How about your atheist and agnostic friends? Could it be that atheism has nothing to do with it?

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

Your source only provides comprehensive stats for the 20th century. Your claim was that these two men killed more people "than in all the religious wars combined throughout the centuries". Please provide a source to support that claim or amend your claim. Otherwise, this sounds largely speculative.

 

Taken directly from your source (emphasis mine):

This is an incomplete listing of some very bad things that happened before the 20th Century. I've scoured the history books and collected most of the major atrocities that anyone has bothered to enumerate.

 

However, just because an event is missing from these pages doesn't mean that it wasn't very bloody. There are undoubtedly many other events that were never recorded and have now faded into the oblivion of forgotten history. This makes it difficult to prove whether brutality is waxing or waning in the long term. Maybe the 20th Century really was more barbaric than previous centuries (as some people say), but you'll need more complete statistics to prove it.

 

There are about 11 or 12 million deaths directly related to religious wars (I was thinking of Christianity here) prior to 1900. Compare that to Mao's 40 million and Stalin's 20 million (which does not include WWII).

See above.

 

I thought atheists weren't religious.

I'm not sure I follow your point. Does one have to be religious to practice religious persecution? If Nancy's darkest fears became true and atheists started killing theists, wouldn't that be religious persecution?

 

a. I had replied to Nancy

Doesn't make it any less of a strawman. Her comment was that atheists might disregard the law. You interjected that they already did and then ran down a list of atrocities committed by two dictators.

 

b. It's OK to go off on a tangent, as long as it's related to the topic.

Sure is, but when you introduce a tangent as a response to an argument, and the response doesn't necessarily apply and is only being introduced in an effort to artificially bolster a point, that's called a strawman.

 

I'm ok with a discussion about Stalin and Mao, but I really think it should be split of into another thread, where we can all talk about atrocities committed by dictators.

 

This is my last response for the night. I'll catch up with everyone tomorrow.

[Samuel Dravis]

And an atheist can hardly be considered a "scientific" one if they're dismissing the hypothesis of God. From their partial facts they have forumlated the belief that it is wrong. It's STILL a belief.

If they were using all of the facts available, wouldn't that be doing the best they could do? A theist would say, "god has xyz attributes, he does this x type of thing." Upon not observing any of those actions attributed to this god, the hypothesis would still be valid, yes - but its usefulness is somewhat lacking. The evidence would not support the hypothesis, anyway.

 

As with the cheese orbiting, it, strictly speaking, could be true. However, Few people would bother watching out for large chunks of cheese while piloting a space ship over there. Any hypothesis, theory or law could be fundamentally unsound, just as any hypothesis could be viable. However, given current evidence (and lack of positive evidence to support it), there is no reason to believe that there is, in fact, cheese orbiting. I'd even go so far as to say that as far as I can tell, there isn't any cheese orbiting. There is no cheese!

 

(the last statement obviously including the unspoken qualification "based on information available to me", simply because I am human and thus not omniscent - this information should be obvious)

 

Due to using the dictionary as my source, I profess that atheism is "no" to god. While anti-theism is "no" to god+religion. Just as deism is "yes" to god and "no" to religion, while theism is "yes" to god and "yes" to religion. Your definitions have only a singular answer, while mine are two-fold, hence why we are likly getting different answers. But again, these definitions are no more correct than each other because they're all OUR personal definitions.

Part of the problem people have with this is that atheism is applied to a fairly large group of people with quite different beliefs. These include the 'weak' atheists and the 'strong' atheists. Strong atheists are, as you say all atheists are - people who deny the existence of god(s) outright. "I know there is no god" would be something you'd hear from them.

 

Weak atheists can also say the same thing, of course, but it is simply meant in a different manner. They include that "according to my best info" unspoken in their sentence, similar to "There is no cheese!" Weak atheists are similar to agnostics, but think that the existence/nonexistence of a god(s) can be known to some degree (obviously they find evidence for that existence lacking).

 

Many might mix and match based on what god is being spoken of. If clearly one god is supposed to do some action, and that action does not occur, than that is 'hard' evidence that either the god does not exist or he is not as described. In the first case, "There is no god" supports observed fact better than "there is a god", and in the latter, the hypothesized entity is unknown, in which case it becomes difficult to define "god" in order to say the sentence "there is a god."

 

Theist: There is a personal god

Deist: There is a god

W. Atheist: There is no reason to suppose there is a god, therefore I do not believe (I think Achilles fits here)

S. Atheist: There is no god or There is evidence against x god

[Web Rider]

If they were using all of the facts available, wouldn't that be doing the best they could do? A theist would say, "god has xyz attributes, he does this x type of thing." Upon not observing any of those actions attributed to this god, the hypothesis would still be valid, yes - but its usefulness is somewhat lacking. The evidence would not support the hypothesis, anyway.

 

As with the cheese orbiting, it, strictly speaking, could be true. However, Few people would bother watching out for large chunks of cheese while piloting a space ship over there. Any hypothesis, theory or law could be fundamentally unsound, just as any hypothesis could be viable. However, given current evidence (and lack of positive evidence to support it), there is no reason to believe that there is, in fact, cheese orbiting. I'd even go so far as to say that as far as I can tell, there isn't any cheese orbiting. There is no cheese!

 

(the last statement obviously including the unspoken qualification "based on information available to me", simply because I am human and thus not omniscent - this information should be obvious)

 

Part of the problem people have with this is that atheism is applied to a fairly large group of people with quite different beliefs. These include the 'weak' atheists and the 'strong' atheists. Strong atheists are, as you say all atheists are - people who deny the existence of god(s) outright. "I know there is no god" would be something you'd hear from them.

 

I was trying to say not all atheists are "strong" ones, but that an athiest's(strong or weak) "there is no god" was stronger than Achilles' "there probly isnt a god and the god argument is wrong." but otherwise I generally agree.

 

Weak atheists can also say the same thing, of course, but it is simply meant in a different manner. They include that "according to my best info" unspoken in their sentence, similar to "There is no cheese!" Weak atheists are similar to agnostics, but think that the existence/nonexistence of a god(s) can be known to some degree (obviously they find evidence for that existence lacking).

 

Many might mix and match based on what god is being spoken of. If clearly one god is supposed to do some action, and that action does not occur, than that is 'hard' evidence that either the god does not exist or he is not as described. In the first case, "There is no god" supports observed fact better than "there is a god", and in the latter, the hypothesized entity is unknown, in which case it becomes difficult to define "god" in order to say the sentence "there is a god."

 

Theist: There is a personal god

Deist: There is a god

W. Atheist: There is no reason to suppose there is a god, therefore I do not believe (I think Achilles fits here)

S. Atheist: There is no god or There is evidence against x god

 

you've presented the gray area of belief much better than I could. So, thank you for that. I was having a hard time trying to overcome Achilles black and white views on theism. If you don't mind, I'm going to make sure I bookmark this post for future refrence.

[ET Warrior]

Their atheist philosophy allowed them to justify their rationale at being, and their behaviors as, dictators.

That's an irrational assumption, since there have also been plenty of very religious dictators throughout history.

 

I am reminded of a quote, "No matter what, you will always have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. But to have good people do bad things, that takes religion".

 

Regardless of their religious affiliation, Stalin and Mao would have been mass murderers because they were bad people. Maybe their targets would have been different, but they still would have done the same things. Atheism was not the call to arms that allowed them to justify murder, it was their psychotic lack of morals that did it.

 

It is most valid. You cannot go running off about the crimes religion had committed when Atheism has proven to be just as bad, if not worse.

But atheism does not call upon people to commit crimes, and people do not commit crimes in the name of atheism. If someone who happens to be an atheist commits genocide that is not to blame on their atheism. Likely they would be just as murderous were they to believe in some deity.

 

You will not have a person who is good and moralistic change their ideals in the name of atheism, but this is a common theme with religion, as evidenced by The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

[Prime]

Christians are still getting beaten today in China for something as simple as telling another person about Christ, and Christians have to hide to worship if they can't get a state sponsorship for their church. I'd call that atheist terrorism, and we're lucky we don't have that experience here in the US.

How can that be atheist terrorism? If that was the case, all the other official religions in China would also be getting the same treatment. And for that matter, China would likely not have official state religions. As has been pointed out, that's religious persecution, not atheist terrorism.

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

 

There are about 11 or 12 million deaths directly related to religious wars (I was thinking of Christianity here) prior to 1900. Compare that to Mao's 40 million and Stalin's 20 million (which does not include WWII).

The two issues I see are that the pre-1900 list is incomplete, and you have not shown why the millions killed by these dictators were a direct result of atheism. From my schooling much had to do with any threat to their power, and weren't solely on religious grounds.

 

I would say bringing up the banning of religion in the Soviet Union and China is a most relevent point to bring up.

Religion is not banned in China. There are five recognized religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholic Christianity, and Protestant Christianity.

 

Without God as their moral authority, they became their own gods and determined the moral authority not only for themselves but billions others, with utterly disastrous results. Without God they devalued and sacrificed life on their own alter of self, and had absolutely nothing stopping them from exterminating people simply because they didn't like them or their ideas. This is what happens when atheism is taken to its worst extreme.

But there have been theistic regimes that have committed similar atrocities, and claimed that their god gave the the right to do so. It is by no means a monopoly held by atheists. And by God to you mean the Christian God?

 

But atheism does not call upon people to commit crimes, and people do not commit crimes in the name of atheism. If someone who happens to be an atheist commits genocide that is not to blame on their atheism. Likely they would be just as murderous were they to believe in some deity.

Ultimately, atheism does not have a set of rules for how one should live their life, and perhaps more importantly, how everyone else should live theirs.

[SilentScope001]

Atheistic Terrorism.

 

The Nihlistic Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilist_movement

 

The Nihilist movement was an 1860s Russian cultural movement which questioned the validity of traditional values and institutions. It is derived from the Latin word "nihil", which means "nothing". After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, Nihilists were known throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence as a tool for political change.

 

The Nihilists were outraged by the disparity between Russian semi-feudal society and life in countries such as England and France. The movement owes its name to the 1862 novel Fathers and Sons by the Russian author Ivan Turgenev. Although the term had been used before, its widespread usage began with that book. The main character of the novel, Bazarov, is a Nihilist who wants to use his knowledge to educate the people. This "go to the people — be the people" campaign reached its height in the 1870s, during which underground groups such as Circle of Tchaikovsky, People's Reprisal and Land and Liberty were formed. This became known as the Narodnik movement. The Russian State attempted to suppress them. In actions described by the Nihilists as propaganda of the deed many government officials were assassinated. In 1881 Alexander II was murdered on the very day he had approved a proposal to call a representative assembly to consider new reforms.

 

Beginning with the reign of Peter the Great (1682–1725), there was considerable interest amongst the Russian elite in the technological, artistic, and intellectual achievements of Western Europe:

 

During the 1820s and 1830s Russian thought was influenced powerfully by several waves of German Romantic idealism and then the philosophy of Hegel, both of which raised to Russian consciousness the concept of distinct national identity and of “inevitable” historical progress… (Wasiolek, 3)

 

After the Crimean War (1853–56) however the Nihilists opposed the German-influenced liberals of the 1830–40s generation, decrying previous reforms as ineffective. Both of these reformers were opposed by the conservative Slavophiles, who sought to uphold established traditions and cultural institutions.

 

Nihilist political philosophy saw established religions, political institutions, and morality as opposed to Freedom. Unlike Anarchism the Nihilists did not see the State as automatically bad. The right sort of rulers would make the right sort of changes to society. The Nihilists were not advocating belief in nothing, they believed in liberating human beings from creeds and practices that are justified by an appeal to objective values. Although this critique is often accompanied by an endorsement of the findings of modern science, appeals to truth are also rejected.

 

See. Actual terrorism. They carried out bombings against people they hate. They KILLED a head of state. And they don't believe in God (after all, it is a part of traditional morality and must be smashed). Now can we stop accusing religion of causing violence? Anyone can be violent no matter what, and can justify any action they do. And every group can have a paramilitary side ready to do harm against anyone who disagree. So does that mean we must condemn all groups?

[Achilles]

you did, however, twist what I said to imply that that I did.

I acknowledge that you feel that this happened. My effort was to show that I was not presuming to speak for all atheists. It was not to imply that you were making such presumption.

 

what you think, and what I think, are no more correct than each other, since they're all our opinions. A little generalization is always necessary though I suppose.

I would tend to disagree, however I can see that we're probably not going to be able to work through that so I'll leave well enough alone.

 

you are saying "science minded atheists do this". I am saying "atheists do that". You simply pulled out a particular flavor of atheist to support your argument.

You are probably correct. I think I tend to stereotype atheists as rational people and this is an error on my part. This exchange has helped me to remember that not all people that categorize themselves as atheists are rational about their belief. Additionally, I think it has helped me to better understand Dawkin's strong/weak atheism model.

 

that's nice, however my original statement regarding a hypothesis about chunks of cheese orbiting the sun, said that I accept it as a "possibility".

I'm not sure I saw that post, therefore I don't know what you're referring to.

 

I never professed to say they should ALL be accepted. Dont try to say I did.

*shrugs* (emphasis mine)

yes, all hypothesis should be accepted as a possibility until proven otherwise. And should always be retained as a "well, in case I'm wrong."

 

For one who claims so much science stuff, you seem to forget that once a hypothesis has evidence and has been tested, it becomes a theory. Before that, any hypothesis is entirely valid, until proven wrong, of course. On the rest, we agree.

Your point was that the hypothesis should be accepted, which is not a practice of science.

 

And an atheist can hardly be considered a "scientific" one if they're dismissing the hypothesis of God. From their partial facts they have forumlated the belief that it is wrong. It's STILL a belief.

I think you may have missed the gist of my point. There is no reason to accept a hypothesis if there is no evidence to support it. It is foolish to presume that there will never be any evidence but it is not foolish to acknowledge that no evidence currently exists.

 

For example, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that will accept the hypothesis that the droppings of invisible pink unicorns are the source of gravity. Obviously we can't rule it out, but neither do we accept this as true without asking for some kind of proof.

 

Due to using the dictionary as my source, I profess that atheism is "no" to god. While anti-theism is "no" to god+religion. Just as deism is "yes" to god and "no" to religion, while theism is "yes" to god and "yes" to religion. Your definitions have only a singular answer, while mine are two-fold, hence why we are likly getting different answers. But again, these definitions are no more correct than each other because they're all OUR personal definitions.

Yes, I acknowledge that you and I have accepted differing definitions of what "atheist" means. I prefer to keep my definition as it does not require me to have information that I could not possibly have, while I'm sure you will prefer to keep yours for reasons which are your own.

 

again, considering what I said above, theism="yes" to god and religion, anti-theisim is "no" to god and religion.

Then by your own definition, atheism and anti-theism are the same. I disagree, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point and move on.

 

well, if we MUST play it that way, then to that i say: LOL! Considering that I'm an athiest, I'm not sure what position you are in to tell me what is or what is not atheism.

We should sit down and compare libraries some time

 

Please forgive me the appeal to authority. I couldn't resist

 

another difference in opinion. From all I've observed and thus forumlated my opinion from, agnostics say "maybe". They say: there's not enough evidence to say yes, and there's not enough evidence to say "no".

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

 

I understand that that's how you've opted to define those labels, but your definition isn't necessarily the correct one.

I would say from a clinical standpoint, it's the only one. However I acknowledge that others may choose to accept definitions that aren't as rigorous.

 

then let me be more specific. Rocks lack the capacity for morals, not in the same manner as a person who has never had morals lacks it, but the physical ability is not there to have morals. Thus, a comparason between rocks and people seems null because people always have the capacity for some morals. Rocks never do. They are not "without morals" in the same sense a person is without morals.

Sure they are. All humans (and arguably some animals) go through a process by which they aquire morals. They do not come out of the womb with morals, therefore a baby is amoral just the same as a rock is. In both cases the example is completely without morals.

 

The difference is that the human has the capacity to aquire morals at some point during development, while a rock cannot. In the same way, humans are also all atheistic until they are enculturated into a theistic tradition. I used an extreme example to highlight my point, but it's still valid.

 

It's like saying solid metal is empty of water and a pool of water is empty, they're not empty in the same context. Metal lacks the ability to hold water, while a pool is merely devoid of water. See what I'm getting at?

Actually, I'm afraid I don't. Don't worry about clarifying though, because I'm sure that you missed my original point.

 

Context helps, use "the world" in context, the proverbial "world" of theism and atheism.

You didn't specify, therefore I could only use the term in the context in which you presented it. This additional information does not change my point, nor does it change my rebuttal. The only thing that has changed is my acknowledgement of your right to have a irrational definition of atheism.

 

I am, as are you.

Actually, I am not. I have offered up extensive support for my argument. You have not offered any sound arguments to show my arguments to be logically flawed or inherently incorrect. You have successfully lobbied for acceptance of your definition though, which is not the same thing.

 

I could say the same of you.

Indeed you could. Thanks again for your response. Take care.

 

Except that some don't want to allow thesits freedom of speech.

Then I would suggest these individuals attend a few civics lesson. Until atheists organize and have some sort of centralized doctrine, I'm afraid that your generalizations aren't going to impress me very much.

 

It could happen. And it very well might, Atheist dominated countries could well elect a leader who would see fit to ban religion. We are already seeing a leaning fpr Christianity and against Islam in America.

*shrugs*

In an infinite universe, anything is possible. I meteor might fall from the sky and destroy my office building any moment. I guess I tend to view my time as too valuable to waste hand-wringing over what's possible and instead focus on things that are probable. If you see atheism as a big threat, then it seems that no amount of rational discussion is going to sway you from that course, no matter how improbable such a thing might be.

 

Part of this has to do with the truth hurting. You don't like the fact Atheism led to the persecution seen in Russia and China anymore that theists like people harping on about there being no god. Part of it also has to do with being able to handle how people react to what you say, such as the outrage over the suggestion anti war protestors would get their yukks from seeing dead soldiers on TV I mentioned.

You're ignoring the point. You're assuming a causal relationship where no evidence for one exists. If a causal relationship did exist and could be shown, then your point would be absolutely valid.

 

It is most valid. You cannot go running off about the crimes religion had committed when Atheism has proven to be just as bad, if not worse.

Repeating it isn't going to make it true.

 

Look up similar threads in the Senate Chambers, I can provide specific examples if you like.

You're free to do whatever you would like. You can copy and paste the whole forum if you wish, however you'll only be providing examples of individual actions (assuming that said actions actually do what you insinuate they are doing).

 

Loaded question. I'll indulge however. Some do, yes. They would be the more extremist ones and I think proportionate to Atheists who are the same.

The "yes" will suffice. Your supposition is noted.

 

Yes. Russia and China are two examples, I know you hate it that religion was persecuted but you have to face up to the fact it happened.

Your examples are contested, however I'll acknowledge that you answered "yes" and provided two weak examples. I'm well aware that religious persecution has happened just as I am aware that a majority of it is initiated by religious people.

 

Another loaded question, but yes, which makes Atheists just as bad as theists when they act this way, in fact worse because they don't have some holy text they can use as a reasoning (excuse).

Your response is noted.

 

That doesn't let Atheism off the hook. Just as much criticism is on them when they act like the Christians they attack for doing wrong. To claim otherwise is hypocritical.

You are moving the goal post.

 

The point, which you appear to have missed, is that you're clinging to the idea that this is an "atheist" endeavor. By your own admission, it is not. This reminds me of story from the bible where jesus challenges a group of people claiming to have spiritual superiority. I believe the applicable line is, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

 

I will when you do, fair enough?

I see you've been taking notes from others.

 

What you're forgetting is that these were very diffirent times and, again, people who follow the word of their god also have to abide by the law.

Completely beside the point. Same bible. Nothing from god saying, 'remove those sections'. You are ignoring the facts.

 

There was no need for you to bring the topic up so it is poisoning the well, or ad hominem, your choice, as well as non sequiter and guilt by association.

Let me know when you've figured out which fallacy you think I'm guilty of. In the mean time, I'll just assume that you're not going to address my point.

 

Combined among them Stalin and Mao have killed 60 million people, for bull**** crimes including following religion. That's just one example of how Atheism takes lives.

Strawman (please look it up before you try to tell me I'm wrong). Since you're not refuting my arguement or offering a counter-argument, I'll assume you're conceding the point.

 

Also, let's face it religion's just an excuse for these people, it's more a case that Al Qaeda had an axe to grind with the entire world.

And what is that axe, Nancy? Unbelievers in their holy land? Yes, it would certainly seem that religion is just an excuse.

 

No, some bad atheists = some bad Christians, Jews, Muslims, enviromentalists, anti war protestors, ect, ect.

But I'm confused. You just admitted that you were generalizing. Now you're presenting an argument for why generalizing is bad. Please help me understand.

 

Like a pair of Atheists being responsible for more deaths than religion ever was?

Please support your argument with a source.

 

Which suggests to me that you're doing exactly what you accuse others of, introducing incorrect usage of logical fallacies in an attempt to dodge the question.

Then I can only assume that you're confused about what a strawman arguement is.

 

The basis that most people who follow religion know that this is not how to act, that the law applies to them. Otherwise we'd be well and truely ****ed as Christians, Jews, Islamists, ect try and genocide everyone.

Oh, so it's majority rule? If a majority of christians opted to declare war against non-believers, then that would determine "the correct interpretation" until a different majority could be formed? This would seem to suggest that there is no objective "truth" in the bible, which I believe has been my point all along.

 

A strawman is a type of red herring. Source.

Fair enough. I don't recall having seen it presented that way before. Thank you for the link.

 

Yet the fact they were Atheist meant that theists were executed because Stalin and Mao were against religion.

How is that any different than if Stalin and Mao were Muslim? Or Protestant? Muslim dictators that execute christians and/or muslims of an opposing denomination are still guilty of executing on the basis of religion.

 

Here's a logic exercise that I hope will help prove my point:

 

All facist are oppresive.

Some facist are athiests.

Therefore, all atheists are oppresive.

 

or more obviously:

 

All pets have names.

Some pets are named "fluffy".

Therefore, all pets are named "fluffy".

 

Maybe because this type of arguement constructed to easily argue against is the type of strawman people avoid. "Oh oh I know Stalin and Mao were Atheist but their wrongs don't count because they didn't rule using this specific government".

Speaking of strawmen...

 

The invitation was open to any example the meets the criteria. If the argument presented were true, then there should be a plethora of available examples, yet none have been presented. If you can think of one, please let me know.

 

Theist: There is a personal god

Deist: There is a god

W. Atheist: There is no reason to suppose there is a god, therefore I do not believe (I think Achilles fits here)

S. Atheist: There is no god or There is evidence against x god

Regarding Deism and Theism: The distinction between a personal god and a non-personal one seems very much like a distraction to me. In both cases the believer believes in a supernatural cause (namely "gods" or "a god"). I guess I have a hard time understanding why polytheism and monotheism are considered types of theism, yet deism is somehow different. The deist still believes in a god even though the nature of the god is different from the personal god of the monotheist. It seems that this logic, if valid, should extend to the belief in a benevolent personal god as opposed to a malevolent personal god, the myriad of polytheistic gods, etc. See my point?

 

Regarding W. Atheism and S. Atheism: Again the distinction seems like a false construct. A = without. Theism = belief in a god or gods. Atheism is being without a belief in a god or gods (this seems to be distinctly different than atheism as a belief that there is no god). It is a neutral state.

 

To make a postive statement about the non-existence of a god or gods is to leave that neutral state. To say that you know there is no god requires that you support such a claim with evidence. Since such a being would have to exist outside our ability to measure him/her/it, then by definition, such evidence could not be possible (since it's existence would then make it part of the natural universe and he/she/it would stripped of his/her/its supernatural status).

 

Since the claim that no god exists cannot be supported, then it logically incorrect to make such a statement. Similarly, to make the claim that god does exist without being able to provide supporting evidence is also logically incorrect.

 

From this starting point, "strong" atheism puts the claimant in an indefensible position since one cannot prove that something does not exist (ala your earlier commentary regarding the space-cheese

 

I am very much looking forward to reading your thoughts on this.

[ET Warrior]

See. Actual terrorism. They carried out bombings against people they hate. They KILLED a head of state. And they don't believe in God

Again, you miss the distinction. Atheists who commit violence do not imply that atheism in any way promotes or causes violence.

 

For example, a man who kills another and happens to be left handed does not correlate to an assumption that he killed because he was left handed. He quite likely had a completely unrelated motive, in the same way that an atheist who kills another very likely did not kill simply because he was an atheist.

 

However, many religious texts DIRECTLY COMMAND their followers to commit acts of violence. Further, many people who would normally not commit such acts of violence may be convinced that they must in order to maintain favor with their deity of choice.

[SilentScope001]

For example, a man who kills another and happens to be left handed does not correlate to an assumption that he killed because he was left handed. He quite likely had a completely unrelated motive, in the same way that an atheist who kills another very likely did not kill simply because he was an atheist.

 

However, many religious texts DIRECTLY COMMAND their followers to commit acts of violence. Further, many people who would normally not commit such acts of violence may be convinced that they must in order to maintain favor with their deity of choice.

 

Could that be said for all sorts of religions?

 

The Palestian-Israeli war may have everything to do with territory. Palestinan insurgents/terrorists/whatever want territory. God tells them to kill those who are taking away their territory, and guess what, territory is taken away! To them, God is saying that it is okay to fight in self-defense, BUT the real reason they are fighting is for land, not for God. Sucidie bombings is just one military tactic, one that is hated by many people and considered illegit, but is a tactic that is used anyway.

 

Same thing with Crusades. The Muslims took away Land that rightfully belonged to Chrisitans, God told them that it is okay to fight in self-defense, and so they did, but they fought mainly for the Land, not because they hate Muslims.

 

Or what about power? If a conservative religious organization like the KKK calls for the destruction of Jews, are they really wanting to kill off the Jews, or are they interested in taking over the power that they believe that Jews already held? Or if the KKK wants to "keep Blacks in their case", are they interested in keeping their power over the blacks, and the killing of blacks and all that cross-burning is just one way to ensure that?

 

The reason that "God", in all these cirmustances, backs their cause for seizing land or Power, is because that organization believes that "God" is on their side. If say, the terrorists decide to give up, then they'll believe that God is on their side and backs their goal of surrendering.

 

God has been demoted from his holy place to a properganda poster, a symbol like the American flag, and it is done so that it can be used to rally people to back some more underhanded goals.

 

Religion is a tool used by people to accomplish their main goals. People are not tools for religions.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Then where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? The Tibetans are occupied and oppressed just like the Chechen, Kurdish and Palestinian people. I don't see them blowing themselves up, running planes into buildings, or assassinating Chinese political leaders. Why is it the World Trade Center lies in ruins, and not the Jin Mao building?

 

Of course terrorists and other murderers have reasons to do what they do. But it is religion that fuels their actions. It's akin to how a person may want to rob a bank, but only does so when you give him a gun. Terrorism is far more common amongst people of violent religion than amongst the rest of us. The terrorists themselves state that they do what they do for religious motivation - as opposed to, say, blond terrorists whose hair color has nothing to do with their actions.

 

A report entitled An Inclusive World, from scientists from all over the world, found the following:

A global research report An Inclusive World prepared by an international team of researchers from all continents has analysed causes of present day terrorism. It has reached the conclusions that terrorism all over the world functions like an economic market. There is demand for terrorists placed by greed or grievances. Supply is driven by relative deprivation resulting in triple deficits - developmental deficit' date=' democratic deficit and dignity deficit. Acts of terror take place at the point of intersection between supply and demand. [b']Those placing the demand use religion and other denominators as vehicles to establish links with those on the supply side. This pattern can be observed in all situations ranging from Colombia to Colombo and the Philippines to the Palestine.[/b]

Source.

[SilentScope001]

Then where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? The Tibetans are occupied and oppressed just like the Chechen, Kurdish and Palestinian people. I don't see them blowing themselves up, running planes into buildings, or assassinating Chinese political leaders. Why is it the World Trade Center lies in ruins, and not the Jin Mao building?

 

A quick search revealed the reason:

 

They didn't get the firepower to do so.

 

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jcws.2006.8.3.102?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jcws

 

This article analyzes the Chushi Gangdrug Tibetan resistance as narrated primarily by Tibetan veterans. The article recounts the origins of the Tibetan resistance forces, their relationship with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, their eventual laying down of arms in 1974, and their legacy in the present-day exile community. Analyses of the Tibetan resistance and the guerrilla war must take account of cultural as well as political and historical factors. The war, pitting a voluntary Tibetan guerrilla movement against the Chinese Communist army, had implications well beyond Tibet and China. India, Nepal, and the United States all became involved. In addition to presenting the perspectives of the soldiers alongside those of the relevant states, the article situates its discussion within the latest anthropological literature on international relations and the Cold War.

 

It costs money for the actual PDF, so all we got is this itty bitty abstract.

 

Oh, and this is some properganda from the insurgency group's website linking them to Tibetan Buddhism as well (as its defenders). Worth a read:

 

http://www.chushigangdruk.org/history/history12.html

 

I'm sure you can argue that they did not do the same acts as the other groups you have named, but it may have been for praticality sake. They fought against China, and they have done insurgent actions. There are more ways to fight a war than by resorting to lavish explosions.

 

Of course terrorists and other murderers have reasons to do what they do. But it is religion that fuels their actions. It's akin to how a person may want to rob a bank, but only does so when you give him a gun. Terrorism is far more common amongst people of violent religion than amongst the rest of us. The terrorists themselves state that they do what they do for religious motivation - as opposed to, say, blond terrorists whose hair color has nothing to do with their actions.

 

Religion is a tool to justify to themselves why they want to do whatever it is they are doing. Nancy Allen''' provided an interpertion that doing violence is against religion and if you do, you're getting a one-way ticket to Hell. I somewhat agree with that statement.

 

Other religious people do not. They offer a different interepertion of the same exact religion. It is not the religion that says that you must kill, it is an interpertion of that religion, an interpretion that many people do not actually believe.

 

What interpretion must a religious recruit believe in? Then that shows the beliefs of the religious recruit, which are not affected by religion at all, but what that person PERSONALLY believe. And when you realize that said interpertion is used to justify whatever goals the founders of said interpertion...well, it seems that you can blame the interpertion of religion that cause violence, but you really are blaming the founders of that intepretion, who want to gain power, take land, or something else.

[Achilles]

Again, you miss the distinction. Atheists who commit violence do not imply that atheism in any way promotes or causes violence.

 

For example, a man who kills another and happens to be left handed does not correlate to an assumption that he killed because he was left handed. He quite likely had a completely unrelated motive, in the same way that an atheist who kills another very likely did not kill simply because he was an atheist.

 

However, many religious texts DIRECTLY COMMAND their followers to commit acts of violence. Further, many people who would normally not commit such acts of violence may be convinced that they must in order to maintain favor with their deity of choice.

QFE

[Nancy Allen``]

I have one question before I continue this thread. A facist such as Bin Laden is religious, and condemns other religions, therefore religion is to blame for his crimes. A facist like Stalin and Mao is Atheist and condemns religion, but that doesn't make Atheism to blame for their crimes?

 

I will address something that was raised actually, there are a number of reasons why Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists want us dead. Two main ones would be jealousy of how successful we (we as in the civillized world) are and outrage over our forces closing in on their activities. They want Israelis dead because they had gone over to the enemy, they want Muslims dead because they are not militant enough. And religion is the perfect excuse in their eyes to justify murder.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

A quick search revealed the reason: They didn't get the firepower to do so.

Firepower? You don't need resources to carry out resources. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma courthouse with fertilizer and racing fuel. To commit arson all you need is a Molotov cocktail and something that burns. Anyone who wants to can become terrorists. Heck, 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of people with box-cutters. You're telling me there aren't box-cutters in Tibet? Heck, strike that, all you need is something hand-held with a button on it and the statement that there's a bomb on the plane. Worked on September the 11th.

 

Oh, and insurgency and terrorism are two different things. Guerrilla warfare against an occupying army is not terrorism.

 

Religion is a tool to justify to themselves why they want to do whatever it is they are doing. Nancy Allen''' provided an interpetion that doing violence is against religion and if you do, you're getting a one-way ticket to Hell. I somewhat agree with that statement.

You do. However, a lot of people don't, and a lot of those have children that are being trained by an Arabic Mickey Mouse to blow themselves up at the nearest marketplace.

 

It's no surprise that if one really believes in a god, and really believes that the god wants you to kill, there's a risk he'll do it. After all, what's a life time of jail or execution to a place in Paradise with 72 virgins?

 

Oh, and what about Aztecs sacrificing their own children atop huge pyramids? Was that motivated by other things than religion, too? Would they have torn out the hearts of innocents even if they did not believe in Quetzalcoatl? Somehow I doubt it. Same goes for abortion clinic bombers and others who, when caught, they always give religious reasons for what they do.

 

I have one question before I continue this thread. A facist such as Bin Laden is religious, and condemns other religions, therefore religion is to blame for his crimes. A facist like Stalin and Mao is Atheist and condemns religion, but that doesn't make Atheism to blame for their crimes?

If it was merely that ibn Ladin was religious, I wouldn't consider his adherence to mythology the reason why he carried out 9/11. However, when he himself identifies himself as a fundamentalist and says he's doing what he's doing for God, and every second word that comes out of his ass is 'Allah' - of course we state that religion is to blame for what he did.

 

If a neo-nazi blows up a Jewish synagogue, we blame his Nazism, which told him to blow up the building. Yet if a Muslim fundamentalist blows up a synagogue, we blame everything but his fundamentalism, even though to him, it was what told him to bomb the structure.

 

Funny thing.

[Achilles]

I have one question before I continue this thread. A facist such as Bin Laden is religious, and condemns other religions, therefore religion is to blame for his crimes.

Yes and no. Ultimately, bin Laden (and his ilk) have to bear the personal responsibility for "pulling the trigger". However, the system that they operate within is also accountable since it promotes such behavior.

 

If a company makes a car that explodes on impact, you don't sue the individuals that make that car, you sue the car company. Why? Because the company manufactured a defective product and it is reasonable to expect that a car company not manufacture cars which kill their buyers. Similarly, company policies that de-emphasized product safety or even promoted the manufacture of unsafe products would be a sign that the company is to blame for any deaths that came about as a result of the use of their product. Sure, the employees could have chosen not to work there and those that did help to make the car are partially responsible, but it wouldn't be uncommon to hear individuals say "I didn't really think about what I was doing. I was just doing what my bosses told me to do".

 

So in the case of bin Laden, you have an individual willing to kill operating within a system that promotes killing. However, in this...

 

A facist like Stalin and Mao is Atheist and condemns religion, but that doesn't make Atheism to blame for their crimes?

...scenario, you have individuals acting, but not complicit system (atheism has no dogma which calls for the killing of non-believers, sinners, etc).

 

Using the earlier car manufacturer analogy, suppose an investigation discovered that the car company itself did everything in their power to ensure the safety of their vehichles, however one crazy guy was able to sabbotage all the vehicles in his plant without anyone finding out.

 

If you can identify a central, unifying, dogmatic ideology within atheism that calls for the systematic murder of everyone that disagrees with that philosophy, then we can compare apples to apples and find that atheists are some sick bastards. Unfortunately, no such ideology exists within atheism, however such ideology is explicit within all three of the world's major monotheisms.

 

I will address something that was raised actually, there are a number of reasons why Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists want us dead. Two main ones would be jealousy of how successful we (we as in the civillized world) are

Close. I would tend to agree that the underlying theme is jealousy, but not at how "successful" we are, rather that so much of the world seeks to emulate our "fallen" ways.

 

Islam calls for piety and westerns are anything but pious. That we are considered "the gold standard" by many cultures must be infuriating.

 

and outrage over our forces closing in on their activities.

Close again. Closer to the truth would be "our forces closing in on their holy lands". Imagine if a muslim walked into your church next sunday and started throwing a big LA-style gangsta party on the altar during the middle of mass. That's how some of them feel about our military presence in the middle east. Since their religion promotes jihad, martyrdom, and the killing of infidels, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they are lining up to suicide-bomb our troops. The sooner that light comes on for us, the better off we'll be.

 

And religion is the perfect excuse in their eyes to justify murder.

QFE/T

[Nancy Allen``]

Religion is no excuse. People can cry about religion calling on them to kill all they want, it's all a load of crap.

[Achilles]

I responded to your question in good faith and I would appreciate it a great deal if you could reciprocate by taking the time to formulate a coherent response to what I've posted.

 

I can't speak for DE, but I imagine he might feel the same

[Nancy Allen``]

Fine. Just because someone does wrong because of their beliefs, or non belief, doesn't mean it's to blame. In point of fact people who do this are quite rare. Majority rule? Perhaps, but even in Middle Eastern Muslim countries they have moved on from the bad old days that the people who commit acts of terror want. Ask those who follow religion if we should follow the ways of stoning those to death back in biblical times and the answer would be a resounding no. Those who think anything like this not only take their religion too seriously but in the case of Christianity at least they forget about Jesus interceding at the execution (he who is without sin cast the first stone). Hand wringing over a possible mass Christian crusade or Muslim Jihad is a waste of time, the responsibility begins and ends with the perpretrators of those who commit these acts. Is it errornous to blame Atheism for Stalin and Mao? If so then it would be equally as errornous to blame religion for Bin Laden. It would be safe to say after all that if Bin Laden didn't use Islam as an excuse he would use something else, the same as Stalin or Mao would have been equally as murderous without Atheism. If individual actions are not the fault of Atheism then you cannot blame religion for the acts of individuals either. To claim that those who spiritual superiority of religion is wrong would suggest that Atheists who claim moral superiority is equally as wrong. Besides, times have changed. We do not chop off the hands of those who shoplift, though maybe we should, does religion condemn us for not doing so? Even if they did the law would state that it is illegal to do so, and people who follow religion have to abide by the law according to their holy texts. Saying that Stalin or Mao were Atheist is offensive, a strawman, ect must mean that bringing up religious wrongdoing must equally be as offensive, a strawman. You cannot have it both ways. Why do Muslims attack the entire world? They use religion as an excuse but their real reasoning is a lot more simplified, hatred at our success, hatred that we treat women better than goats, hatred that there is action taken against them. Regardless, like it or not religious fanaticism has not killed as many people as Stalin and Mao. Here's the evidence.

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

 

Are people who follow religion supposed to be killing each other? Should they be trying to wipe out those who do not believe? No they shouldn't, as they are to abide by the law. Saying that Stalin and Mao do not count as Atheists doing wrong because of their style of government is to avoid facing up to the fact they killed those who followed religion because they were so against it. Would it be better to say that Bin Laden's portrayal or Islam puts it in a negative light? Is that his intent in the first place, to portray Islam as evil and therefore cause strife over it? But again it's no excuse for their actions.

[Achilles]

Fine. Just because someone does wrong because of their beliefs, or non belief, doesn't mean it's to blame.

Please present an argument that supports this. The examples I provided in the last few posts should make excellent jumping-off points.

 

In point of fact people who do this are quite rare.

Source please?

 

Majority rule? Perhaps

You sound unsure. I've heard several claims that religion is the only source of objective morality, yet it would seem that there's nothing objective about it. If religion has such fickle masters, then how can you be sure that your interpretation is the correct one?

 

but even in Middle Eastern Muslim countries they have moved on from the bad old days that the people who commit acts of terror want.

Sidebar: You know each time "the west" makes some fopah against islam, there are calls for death and protests in the street. Yet any time we hear about an act of terror against innocent civilians in the west - nothing. What do you think that says about muslim support for terrorism?

 

Ask those who follow religion if we should follow the ways of stoning those to death back in biblical times and the answer would be a resounding no. Those who think anything like this not only take their religion too seriously but in the case of Christianity at least they forget about Jesus interceding at the execution (he who is without sin cast the first stone).

Why would I even consider "those who think anything like this" if you are confident that the answer would be a resounding "no"? It seems you think there might be a few people that might not share your sentiment? Besides the bible advocates death by stoning, so doing so would only put one in accordance with Christianity, not against it. By the way, the practice of stoning is still rampant in the middle east, so you might want to reconsider your first point as the evidence does not support it.

 

Hand wringing over a possible mass Christian crusade or Muslim Jihad is a waste of time, the responsibility begins and ends with the perpretrators of those who commit these acts.

Like religious leaders?

 

Is it errornous to blame Atheism for Stalin and Mao?

Yes, for reasons that I have already provided.

 

If so then it would be equally as errornous to blame religion for Bin Laden.

No it is not, for reasons that I have already provided.

 

It would be safe to say after all that if Bin Laden didn't use Islam as an excuse he would use something else,

bin Laden's jihad is religiously motivated. Your point falls apart after that.

 

the same as Stalin or Mao would have been equally as murderous without Atheism.

Which is likely true considering that there is no atheist doctrine promoting murderous behavior. In fact there is no atheist doctrine, period.

 

If individual actions are not the fault of Atheism then you cannot blame religion for the acts of individuals either.

Yes you can for reasons I've already provided.

 

To claim that those who spiritual superiority of religion is wrong would suggest that Atheists who claim moral superiority is equally as wrong.

Please clarify.

 

Besides, times have changed. We do not chop off the hands of those who shoplift, though maybe we should, does religion condemn us for not doing so?

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/amputation-ltr.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1428159.stm

http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/93.shtml

http://www.saudinf.com/main/y5501.htm

 

Depends on your religion, I guess. Those that subscribe to religions that promote such behavior seem to be doing it.

 

Even if they did the law would state that it is illegal to do so, and people who follow religion have to abide by the law according to their holy texts.

Huh?

 

Saying that Stalin or Mao were Atheist is offensive, a strawman, ect must mean that bringing up religious wrongdoing must equally be as offensive, a strawman.

That would depend on the context.

 

Why do Muslims attack the entire world? They use religion as an excuse but their real reasoning is a lot more simplified, hatred at our success, hatred that we treat women better than goats, hatred that there is action taken against them.

Mostly incorrect for reasons that I have already addressed.

 

Regardless, like it or not religious fanaticism has not killed as many people as Stalin and Mao. Here's the evidence.

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

That source has already been discredited twice by two different people. Please provide another.

 

Are people who follow religion supposed to be killing each other?

Conditionally, yes, per their holy texts.

 

Should they be trying to wipe out those who do not believe?

Yes, per their holy texts.

 

No they shouldn't, as they are to abide by the law.

Yes, they should in accordance with god's law.

 

Saying that Stalin and Mao do not count as Atheists doing wrong because of their style of government is to avoid facing up to the fact they killed those who followed religion because they were so against it.

Mao and Stalin both killed theists because they were marxist communists and marxist communism denounces religion. Therefore just as islam, judaism, and christianity have blood on their hands for their violent edicts, so does marxist communism for its doctrine of violent revolution. Atheism, in this scenerio, is a red herring. If marx promoted islam, it's mostly likely that the same thing would have happened.

 

Would it be better to say that Bin Laden's portrayal or Islam puts it in a negative light?

Have you read the quran?

 

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

 

Yes, my source is biased, but his point is sound.

 

Is that his intent in the first place, to portray Islam as evil and therefore cause strife over it? But again it's no excuse for their actions.

Good question. Perhaps we can ask him if/when we capture him.

[Nancy Allen``]

The bottom line is that people who follow religion also must abide by the law. If they do not then not only do they break it they disobey their religion.