I can feel your anger

[Creed of Heresy]

It's like you didn't even bother to read what I wrote.
If you kill someone because they're religious, and you think religious people deserve to die...how is that not motivated by atheism? If I kill someone because they're not Christian, and I think people who aren't Christian deserve to die, isn't that motivated by my belief in Christianity?
Similarly, if I kill someone because they're not atheist, and I think people who aren't atheist deserve to die, isn't that motivated by my belief 'in atheism' (so to speak)?

Except that the aforementioned totalitarians never killed people because they were religious. You have to realize that atheism in Russia at that time was actually quite "mainstream," compared to the US; every Christian killed in Russia often stood side-by-side atheists at the firing post. These atheists were often political dissidents who had once supported communism but rejected it once it became clear that Stalinism was just an extreme form of Leninism and was basically just religion in the guise of Government replacing God. Which I could have sworn I just explained. To also expound on this, Stalin was technically still a theist. According to a couple Russian historians, he had a profound belief in a "god of nature." Was he an atheist? Sure seemed it. Did he kill religious people? Yes. Did he kill religious people and no others? No. Did he kill religious people solely because they were religious? No. He killed religious people because organized religion was one of the greatest threats to his power, and the man was ridiculously paranoid about his grasp on power. He had an ego like you would not believe.

And to be entirely honest, his executions of Russian Orthodox adherents is an extremely small number in comparison to the number of people he killed overall: 200,000 or so people killed for being religious, as compared to the 9,000,000 killed for varying other reasons. If the man had specifically targeted the religious and only the religious, this would have more grounds to stand on, but the pattern of his killings point not to being because he was an atheist or doing it in the name of atheism, but rather that he was killing in the name of himself. You literally cannot argue this without basically trying to argue with numbers and history.

I mean, I even phrased it in a very suggestive manner. No theist kills because they think "God exists" is true; that is, nobody kills because of bare theism. They kill because of a particular belief system that implements theism--that is, they think "God exists, and wants me to kill you." Do you see that distinction?

Of course I do, and truth be told I've never stated under any circumstances that theism alone is responsible for the myriad of genocides, crusades, inquisitions, sanctioned murders/mass-murders, witch-trials that have been perpetuated throughout history BY theists...I simply point out that there are specific elements of all theistic beliefs that exhort adherents to commit genocides, crusades, inquisitions, sanctioned murders/mass-murders, and witch-trials.

I think it's a good one, and I think it's useful for analyzing beliefs that motivate action. So let's say that my belief system is B. Then a subset B' of B is said to motivate a belief b iff b is a consequence of B'.
The intersection of every motivating subset is the kernel of the motivation for b--the smallest set of beliefs needed to produce b.

*drools dumbly* ...wut? Sorry, I was never good at math, especially not word problems.

Now, here's why this is useful: Suppose I'm a theist, and I think I should kill you. That belief might not be a consequence of my theism, but rather of some other subset of my belief system--say, racism, or greed, or sadism. This will be borne out in the kernel of the motivation for the belief that I should kill you; my theism is extraneous, and not necessary for my belief that I should kill you (in this particular hypothetical--in other situations, it might indeed be necessary).

Or the many entries of your theistic denomination of choice that tell you to do so. The koran, bible, and torah all have a looot of entries that espouse and condone murdering someone else for a myriad of reasons, racism, greed, and sadism not being the least of which.

The problem for atheism is that every belief system that isn't explicitly theist implements atheism. Anyone who says, "I don't believe there's a God, but I am willing to kill someone for the money in their wallet" has an atheist belief system, and one that justifies murder for profit. Similarly, someone who says, "I believe there's a God, and I'm willing to kill someone for the money in their wallet" has a theist belief system--one that justifies murder for profit.

Actually they have a capitalist belief system, in that they desire capital. If someone says "I believe there's a god and I'm killing you for your wallet" it doesn't mean their belief entails the necessity for murder for money...in other words they're theistic capitalists. And murderers, obviously. There is no justification in either of those sentiments for murdering someone for their money. I am curious as to where you got that idea.

Now, as before, you might argue that the atheist's justification for murder isn't an outgrowth of their atheism--that is, they might acquire a belief in God and still maintain their justification for murder. But if you make this distinction for atheists, you must make it for theists as well. The theist who justifies murder might very well maintain that belief even after becoming an atheist.

Except that, again, there was no justification. Sorry, but the argument falls apart with its foundations being made out of sand. o__o

And I think we've all seen that--a deeply-held belief that is wrapped in theological clothing when it's a convenient justification, and when the justification is no longer convenient, another one is quickly acquired.

But it seems like there's something more at play. Maybe what you're saying is something like: "Sure, a particular atheist might have very immoral beliefs--e.g., Stalin/Pol Pot. However, this isn't a necessary consequence of atheism, but of that particular atheist's fucked-up worldview, which itself is not a necessary consequence of atheism."

I wouldn't even say either of these men had a worldview of anything more than just their own desire for power. Neither of them ever used atheism itself as an excuse or justification for what they did; Stalin made the claim he was killing the religious because religious institutions were an opiate that had to be taken away to clear the way for the worker's paradise, completely perverting what Karl Marx had said [Marx had basically stated that it was the opium of the oppressed people and that take away the oppression and you take away the need for the opiate; you can see where Stalin fucked this up beyond all recognition], yet in truth, as I just explained in regards to his bastardization of Marxism, it had nothing to do with that at all.

And again, I think this is a failure to recognize scope. Just as you can't blame theism for the faults of Catholicism (a particular implementation of theism), since Catholicism is not a necessary consequence of theism, you can't blame atheism for the faults of Stalinism (a particular implementation of atheism).

I DON'T blame theism for the faults of Catholicism: I blame Catholicism for the faults of Catholicism. I just also have yet to see a theistic institution [an organized one mind you] that is not amoral/immoral in some large ways while pretending it is a moral paragon.

Anyway, that's how I tend to think of it: Theism and Atheism as classes of belief systems.

Belief and unbelief, you mean. Atheism, if I may be frank, is the default position. Theism makes the claim, and atheism in the broadest sense basically rejects that claim, and the reasons for it doing so are actually very reasonable.

Let me put it like this: Christians reject 9,999 gods. When you understand why they do so, you'll understand why I reject just one more.[/quote]

[CliveStaples]

You know what, I've just realized an easy way to get you on-board Clive, rehash all of your arguments excusing theism for this or that and just replace "theism" with "atheism", get it now?

...you are obviously not reading my posts.

I already pointed out that you can't blame Atheism (a class of beliefs) for the faults of Stalinism (an implementation of Atheism), just as you can't blame Theism (a class of beliefs) for the faults of Catholicism (an implementation of Theism).

Under this framework, you can say something like, "The set of beliefs that motivated burning witches at the stake implemented theism"--that is, theism was necessary for the belief that burning witches at the stake was good (in that circumstance).

You can also say something like, "The set of beliefs that motivated Anti-Religious Zealot to murder pastors implemented atheism".

[KichigaiNeko]

I thought we were up to 30,000 gods and goddesses in total...WTF?!?! Did I miss a memo?

[The Grand Nudger]

You have some anti-religious zealots to show for that one then?

[CliveStaples]

You did it again. See how you consistently go above and beyond the call of duty on this one? Yes, btw, both scenarios are idiotic. Now, people are killed for blasphemy aren't they? Care to point out a martyr for me?

You're really missing the point.

Nobody kills because of the belief "God exists", either. They kill because they believe "God exists" AND "God says it's right for me to kill non-Christians" or something like that.

So if you can't blame atheism because you need something more than "I don't believe God exists," then you can't blame theism, either, because you need something more than "I believe God exists".

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that you have to believe a god exists to believe it spoke to you. Now try to pull that same trick off with atheism and murder. I'm not missing any point Clive, I'm trying to explain to you that you don't have one.

Can theism be implicated in some unfortunate bits of history as major contributing factor? Yes. Mainly do to the various representatives of theism all having poor track records. This would be the religion bit. Now, you don't really have to be a theist to be religious, que Buddhists, (many of which are technically atheists) and Buddhism can also be implicated in precisely the same sorts of shit. It's not as easy to do with atheism in the absence of religion because there are no agreed upon commands or principles, no guiding hand, so to speak. People will still do these things, theist or atheist, but theres simply nothing in atheism that can be offered as a solid justification. The various representatives of theism have a whole lot of built in qualifiers (probably because justification for this or that is usually a bundled feature).

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Can I hate atheism for Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.? I feel like that's the way a moron tries to learn:

"Herp derp, that other bad guy thought X was good. So X must really be bad! Herp a derp a derpadoo!"

Stalin trained as a seminarian. You should hate your own xtard religion for him. And both Stalin and Pol Pot were ideologues and very much the object of worship of their own self-made "religions". Their anti-religion stances were the product of the competition over control over credulous idiots like you that religions pose.

[Creed of Heresy]

I thought we were up to 30,000 gods and goddesses in total...WTF?!?! Did I miss a memo?

Well we DID just Scientology a few years back, and that introduced virtually an entire alien civilization as being gods and goddesses so the number is probably much higher but I reject Scientology so hard that I don't even count its numbers in the rejection pool. Rejection 2: Rejecting Harder.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I already pointed out that you can't blame Atheism (a class of beliefs) for the faults of Stalinism (an implementation of Atheism), just as you can't blame Theism (a class of beliefs) for the faults of Catholicism (an implementation of Theism).

As if protestantism didn't have its own trick bag of atrocities.

[CliveStaples]

Actually they have a capitalist belief system, in that they desire capital. If someone says "I believe there's a god and I'm killing you for your wallet" it doesn't mean their belief entails the necessity for murder for money...in other words they're theistic capitalists. And murderers, obviously. There is no justification in either of those sentiments for murdering someone for their money. I am curious as to where you got that idea.

You're making a lot of stuff up, here.

I never claimed that if someone says, "I believe there's a god and I'm killing you for your wallet", then their beliefs entail the necessity of murder for money. That's pretty clearly false--why would murder be the only way of getting money??

The question is whether they justify their actions with some sort of theistic belief or with an atheistic one--by which I mean, a belief (or set of beliefs) that does not include or imply "At least one god exists".

NExcept that, again, there was no justification. Sorry, but the argument falls apart with its foundations being made out of sand. o__o

Nice completely pointless metaphor, but I wasn't saying that what they were doing was actually justified, or that I believed it to be justified. I was talking about how they would justify it.

I wouldn't even say either of these men had a worldview of anything more than just their own desire for power.

Hmm. That seems like a thoroughly secular desire, yes? Shouldn't we hang their crimes on the neck of Secularism?

I mean, if their motivation was thoroughly sacred--i.e., theistic--then you'd feel justified hanging their crimes on the neck of Theism, yes?

I DON'T blame theism for the faults of Catholicism: I blame Catholicism for the faults of Catholicism. I just also have yet to see a theistic institution [an organized one mind you] that is not amoral/immoral in some large ways while pretending it is a moral paragon.

Welcome to the real world. It's full of assholes who think they're good people.

Belief and unbelief, you mean. Atheism, if I may be frank, is the default position. Theism makes the claim, and atheism in the broadest sense basically rejects that claim, and the reasons for it doing so are actually very reasonable.

"Unbelief"? It's easier for me to think of it in terms of beliefs you affirm. Either the set of beliefs you affirm includes "There exists at least one god", or it doesn't. I don't see the need to set up a set of 'un-beliefs'.

Let me put it like this: Christians reject 9,999 gods. When you understand why they do so, you'll understand why I reject just one more.

What a really nice, tired cliche that contributes nothing to the discussion.

---

As if protestantism didn't have its own trick bag of atrocities.

So not the point right now. Do you really expect me to exhaustively list every possible example?

---

Stalin trained as a seminarian. You should hate your own xtard religion for him.

Because we all know that everyone who trains as a seminarian remains a Christian for the rest of their lives. And we all know that any evil a person does is directly a result of some religious institution! It's so simple! Everyone who disagrees with you is just a fucking retard!


Shouldn't you be busy fucking your dad right now? You'd be doing humanity a much bigger favor by staying off the internet as much as possible.

And both Stalin and Pol Pot were ideologues and very much the object of worship of their own self-made "religions". Their anti-religion stances were the product of the competition over control over credulous idiots like you that religions pose.

Oh, a secular 'religion', you mean? I thought those didn't exist.