I can feel your anger

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, you're still really, really missing the point.

No, you still don't have one. (I thought we covered this?)

You say that theism is responsible for some action because ultimately, the set of beliefs that motivated that action were theistic--i.e., included the belief, "At least one god exists".

No, I say people are responsible, and their religious excuses for why they did whatever they did should be ridiculed ad naus.

You say that atheism can't be responsible, because atheism alone doesn't justify actions; atheism is defined by a lack of belief in God, and nothing else. That is, you need atheism PLUS some other belief in order to justify something like murder.

No, I say that you haven't yet imagined a scenario or given an example of atheism being responsible for such things, but I did mention that you might get what you were looking for if you waited long enough, now didn't I? I think I see the distinction you're missing. You need atheism and another belief -that is not wholly dependent upon or motivated by- atheism. That's just my opinion, clearly someone may find such a belief someday, but again...I don't think you've been able to give an example of such a belief either. In the case of theism and that second belief. I believe in god and god demands that we kill blasphemers, the distinction is pretty simple isn't it?

But the same thing is true of theism. Nobody is motivated to kill by the belief "At least one god exists." No, they're motivated by a particular implementation of theism--something like Catholicism, or Protestantism, or Islam, and so forth. That's theism PLUS a bunch of other, specific beliefs--beliefs that are not a necessary result of "At least one god exists."

Uh-huh.....see the above for the distinction (in case you missed it).

Let's look at a specific example. Suppose Mr. A believes that God exists, and is telling him to kill Mr. Z because you're not Christian, while Mr. B doesn't believe that God exists, but believes that he should kill you because you're Jewish.

Now, Mr. A's justification is no more a result of theism than B's justification is a result of atheism. It is not a result of "At least one god exists" that "God is telling Mr. A to kill Mr. Z because Z isn't Christian." Likewise, it is not a result of atheism that Jews should be killed.

Except that Mr A believes a god exists to talk to him in the first place. You're correct though, Mr B just sounds like he doesn't like teh Jewz.

Do gods that don't exist talk to people....(rhetorical)? Yes, Clive, "god told me to" is a result of "at least one god exists"...there's really no way to spin this....

Rather, what is to blame are the particular set of beliefs that are motivating A's and B's actions. In A's case, the set of beliefs implements theism; in B's case, it implements atheism (i.e., it does not implement theism).

Yes, A's implements theism, because god told him to do something, and that god at least must exist...but just how does B implement atheism? Care to elaborate?

Let me ask it this way: Can you give me a series of valid deductions by which theism (the class of all belief systems that include "At least one god exists") is to blame by A's actions, but atheism (the class of all belief systems that do not include "At least one god exists") is not to blame by B's actions?

You already handled that yourself, in the above....Personally though, I don't like to pass the buck. Mr A's "god" is just his own desire to kill.

No,

Yes?

[Creed of Heresy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secularism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

As much of a citation as you could ever get. We are both right in a sense but totalitarianism is much more the guilty party here than secularism. Your case is based on loose abstracts and convolution and it's becoming very telling that it's based on shaky premises and a lot of "what-ifs." Your rising levels of condescension, which I have come to expect from the faithful whenever they realize their silliness isn't being taken as seriously as they think it should be, also needs to stop immediately. Just because your points are hard to follow because you can't keep your train of thought on the rails is not my fault, it's yours for being incapable of conveying basic ideas. Drop the condescension because I will not deal with someone who acts that way, got it? This is your only warning.

And yeah, the "negation operator" is the "un" of "unbelief," and can be exchanged with "non" for the same meaning but one less letter, making it more efficient to write. I learned that back when I was still sitting at the kiddy table and drinking from juices boxes. How come you didn't?

[CliveStaples]

No, you still don't have one. (I thought we covered this?)

We did. I guess I'll have to start using shorter words.

No, I say people are responsible, and their religious excuses for why they did whatever they did should be ridiculed ad naus.

That's a meaningless distinction. The point is, you assign some kind of blame to theism on the basis of the set of beliefs that motivated the person's actions. Right?

No, I say that you haven't yet imagined a scenario or given an example of atheism being responsible for such things, but I did mention that you might get what you were looking for if you waited long enough, now didn't I? I think I see the distinction you're missing. You need atheism and another belief -that is not wholly dependent upon or motivated by- atheism. That's just my opinion, clearly someone may find such a belief someday, but again...I don't think you've been able to give an example of such a belief either. In the case of theism and that second belief. I believe in god and god demands that we kill blasphemers, the distinction is pretty simple isn't it?

Right, I guess we need to clear up what "motivated by atheism" amounts to. Is the following belief system atheist?

B = {"It is wrong to do harm", "Killing someone causes harm", "Killing someone is wrong"}

Except that Mr A believes a god exists to talk to him in the first place. You're correct though, Mr B just sounds like he doesn't like teh Jewz.

...you're just restating the information I gave you...

Do gods that don't exist talk to people....(rhetorical)? Yes, Clive, "god told me to" is a result of "at least one god exists"...there's really no way to spin this....

...what?

You honestly think that you can prove from "At least one god exists" that God told Mr. A to kill Mr. Z because Mr. Z isn't Christian? Show me that proof, please.

Yes, A's implements theism, because god told him to do something, and that god at least must exist...but just how does B implement atheism? Care to elaborate?

Any belief system that does not include the belief "At least one god exists" implements atheism. That's what it means to be atheist--you lack the belief that God exists.

You already handled that yourself, in the above....Personally though, I don't like to pass the buck. Mr A's "god" is just his own desire to kill.

No, I never provided such a series of steps. Are you refusing to do so? If you are, I'll take that as an admission that you can't prove that theism is responsible for A's actions but atheism isn't responsible for B's.

[Gambit]

Ok Clive, I get what you are driving at. You are right of course, but it only serves to challenge the context in which the words are used. The intention of the statements are unchanging; in that, if we replace theism/theist with the word catholic, protestant, muslim etc. the cause of the atrocities is still inherently linked to religious beliefs, and a justification from the same. Can you give an example of an/group of atheist(s) committing an atrocity which was linked so closely to a common belief system, i.e. the victim believing in a god? I don't think your correlation works after the initial problem of context/semantics is resolved.

[CliveStaples]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secularism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

As much of a citation as you could ever get. We are both right in a sense but totalitarianism is much more the guilty party here than secularism. Your case is based on loose abstracts and convolution and it's becoming very telling that it's based on shaky premises and a lot of "what-ifs." Your rising levels of condescension, which I have come to expect from the faithful whenever they realize their silliness isn't being taken as seriously as they think it should be, also needs to stop immediately. Just because your points are hard to follow because you can't keep your train of thought on the rails is not my fault, it's yours for being incapable of conveying basic ideas. Drop the condescension because I will not deal with someone who acts that way, got it? This is your only warning.

And yeah, the "negation operator" is the "un" of "unbelief," and can be exchanged with "non" for the same meaning but one less letter, making it more efficient to write. I learned that back when I was still sitting at the kiddy table and drinking from juices boxes. How come you didn't?

Because "un-" doesn't always mean "not". "Unmake" doesn't mean "not make", "undo" doesn't mean "not do", etc.

---

Ok Clive, I get what you are driving at. You are right of course, but it only serves to challenge the context in which the words are used. The intention of the statements are unchanging; in that, if we replace theism/theist with the word catholic, protestant, muslim etc. the cause of the atrocities is still inherently linked to religious beliefs, and a justification from the same. Can you give an example of an/group of atheist(s) committing an atrocity which was linked so closely to a common belief system, i.e. the victim believing in a god? I don't think your correlation works after the initial problem of context/semantics is resolved.

Well, suppose (and if you don't think it's plausible, just suppose it for the sake of argument) that it could be shown that Communism was directly responsible for the deaths caused by Stalinism. And suppose (again, for the sake of argument) that it could be shown that Communism implements atheism.

Wouldn't it be true, then, that the core belief system motivating the deaths caused by Stalinism was atheist in nature?

[Ace Otana]

Is the following belief system atheist?

B = {"It is wrong to do harm", "Killing someone causes harm", "Killing someone is wrong"}

Neither. Atheism has nothing to say regarding right or wrong. Atheism simply means without theism. It's just a stance on the matter of the claim presented by theists.

What's so hard to understand

[Creed of Heresy]

Because "un-" doesn't always mean "not". "Unmake" doesn't mean "not make", "undo" doesn't mean "not do", etc.

Not always. But to add "dis" to belief is the more active form, which tends to provide the assumption that there is an anti-belief...which is a belief, in a sense. Comparing the word of "make" and "do" to "believe" is grammatically inaccurate for the comparison of the prefix of "un" since the former two are based on physical activity where "belief" is a mental or emotional activity [depending on how you see it]. For example, "unimpressed," to not be impressed, in other words the lack of being impressed, see? In my case, unbelief is actually a fitting terminology if you use it as the retractor, negator, and absentee-descriptive prefix, as I once believed and now I do not, so I "unbelieve." Non works fairly well, too, but it also DOES imply some active form of not believing, similar to disbelieve.

Ahhh, the English language with its ridiculous amount of nuances and intricacies...

[The Grand Nudger]

We did. I guess I'll have to start using shorter words.

If that will help you to more effectively convey your thoughts, please do.

That's a meaningless distinction. The point is, you assign some kind of blame to theism on the basis of the set of beliefs that motivated the person's actions. Right?

No, theism is a thing to be blamed upon, not blamed for. The distinction may seem meaningless to you, but it's a pretty useful one for me.

Right, I guess we need to clear up what "motivated by atheism" amounts to. Is the following belief system atheist?

B = {"It is wrong to do harm", "Killing someone causes harm", "Killing someone is wrong"}

Bait and switch, who cares whether a belief system is theistic or atheistic, you keep trying to determine this and then go on to make conclusions about justifications. Mr A believes god told him to do something, that's justification (at least in his mind) and "implements" theism. Mr B just happens to be an atheist and is going to do something, where atheism fits in I suppose is just that you'd like to add it in there for spice. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this has been unintentional.

...you're just restating the information I gave you...

I know, you have a habit of answering your own questions in the asking.

...what?

What part of that statement was difficult to understand?

You honestly think that you can prove from "At least one god exists" that God told Mr. A to kill Mr. Z because Mr. Z isn't Christian? Show me that proof, please.

Really? I take back the above, this shit is intentional. Bait and switch. (I don't think gods talk to people either Clive, nice to know we have common ground)

Any belief system that does not include the belief "At least one god exists" implements atheism. That's what it means to be atheist--you lack the belief that God exists.

Bait and switch. You know, you seem to have such an easy grasp of what it means to be an atheist all of a sudden, I wonder why you had so much trouble with the term before.....

No, I never provided such a series of steps. Are you refusing to do so? If you are, I'll take that as an admission that you can't prove that theism is responsible for A's actions but atheism isn't responsible for B's.

You'd take anything as an admission would you?..lol. You did give those steps, in no uncertain terms, one right after the other. Have we reached the infamous "declaration of victory" moment already?

[Creed of Heresy]

Well, suppose (and if you don't think it's plausible, just suppose it for the sake of argument) that it could be shown that Communism was directly responsible for the deaths caused by Stalinism. And suppose (again, for the sake of argument) that it could be shown that Communism implements atheism.

Wouldn't it be true, then, that the core belief system motivating the deaths caused by Stalinism was atheist in nature?

It WOULD be, were that the case, but it isn't, and it simply isn't possible since Marxism [true communism; never implemented] simply said "take away the oppression and you take away the need for religion," little else. Marxism was basically apathetic to religion, so it wouldn't be capable of implementing atheism. I can see where you're getting at, though. Basically, you're saying there IS the possibility that someone could feasibly kill in the name of atheism. You are correct. They could. They could just as easily kill in the name of bare theism. The question is, what is their justification in doing so? Atheism has no tenets to adhere to, nothing about atheism ever stipulates killing or not killing, or anything else. So the justification would be hollow and purposeless, see?

[The Grand Nudger]

In defense of religion, those claims to religious justification are hollow and purposeless as well...albeit for entirely different reasons.