I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

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

It's because I'd say that the following system is theist:

{"God exists", "God commands us not to kill", "Killing is wrong"}

Even though theism has nothing to say regarding right and wrong. Theism simply means "At least one god exists". It's just a stance on the existence of deities.

[Creed of Heresy]

edit: Misunderstood

[Gambit]

---

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?

Although atheism is heavily linked with communism it is not a necessary requirement of the ideology. In the case of communism, it was not so much about persecuting those with a religion, as it was about eliminating any perceived threat to the progress of communism. Cuba, for instance, adapted the trend in communism of eliminating religious institutions; however, it later abandoned that approach and instead allowed citizens to worship within the confines of law.

So, it has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with pushing communism. Had Marx decided that one religion was above all others and fit in with his/Lenin's idea of a communist state, it would have been atheists who made up the greatest number of those persecuted. What I am saying is, it was communism that adopted atheism and not the other way around.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's because I'd say that the following system is theist:

{"God exists", "God commands us not to kill", "Killing is wrong"}

Even though theism has nothing to say regarding right and wrong. Theism simply means "At least one god exists". It's just a stance on the existence of deities.

Then the following system is theist

{"God exists", "God commands us to kill", "Killing is right"}

I appreciate that you have an interpretation of what god commands or desires that precludes killing people, I really do. I think that's a fine judgement call on your part. Others disagree.

[Creed of Heresy]

Actually, Gringo, given how much Lenin twisted Marx's original road map of communism, I doubt it would have mattered much at all if Marx had stated one religion was above all others.

[Ace Otana]

It's because I'd say that the following system is theist:

{"God exists", "God commands us not to kill", "Killing is wrong"}

Many theists would argue over the last two.

[CliveStaples]

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.

Metaphorical uses of prepositions aren't all that helpful, but knock yourself out.

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.

Right, I'm trying to get at the difference between "happens to be X" and "is motivated by X". Since the key distinction we're talking about is theism vs. atheism, I'm trying to get a definition we can agree on, because I think we're not really talking about the same thing right now.

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

Kinda. I think of what I would object to if I was on the other side of the argument, and then I try to include and address that in case it's what you were thinking of too. It can help speed things along.

What part of that statement was difficult to understand?

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)

You said this:

Yes, Clive, "god told me to" is a result of "at least one god exists"...there's really no way to spin this....

That is, you're claiming the belief "god told me to" is a result of the belief "at least one god exists". Which means that you can derive "god told me to" from "at least one god exists".

Now, I really don't see how that could be done. Can you show me the proof?

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.....

My definition hasn't changed since I got into this thread. It's really a continuation of work that I've done on belief systems in other forums.

My guess is that you might finally be trying to understand what I'm saying, instead of just taking the worst interpretation possible. =D

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?

Where did I give those steps? Remember the criteria they must follow:

1. Each step must be valid.
2. The result must be that theism is responsible for A's behavior.
3. The result must be that atheism is not responsible for B's behavior.

Now, I don't remember ever offering these steps. Could you link to where you remember me giving them?

---

It's because I'd say that the following system is theist:

{"God exists", "God commands us not to kill", "Killing is wrong"}

Many theists would argue over the last two.

Giving zero fucks about that, right now.

---

Then the following system is theist

{"God exists", "God commands us to kill", "Killing is right"}

I appreciate that you have an interpretation of what god commands or desires that precludes killing people, I really do. I think that's a fine judgement call on your part. Others disagree.

Yes, that system is theist as well. "Theist" doesn't mean "true"--and neither does "Atheist". Remember, Theist and Atheist are merely classes of belief systems in my formulation.

[Gambit]

Actually, Gringo, given how much Lenin twisted Marx's original road map of communism, I doubt it would have mattered much at all if Marx had stated one religion was above all others.

Granted, but again, both linked to atheism because they believed it fit best with their ideology. It could have very easily went the other way, in my opinion.

[CliveStaples]

Although atheism is heavily linked with communism it is not a necessary requirement of the ideology. In the case of communism, it was not so much about persecuting those with a religion, as it was about eliminating any perceived threat to the progress of communism. Cuba, for instance, adapted the trend in communism of eliminating religious institutions; however, it later abandoned that approach and instead allowed citizens to worship within the confines of law.

So, it has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with pushing communism. Had Marx decided that one religion was above all others and fit in with his/Lenin's idea of a communist state, it would have been atheists who made up the greatest number of those persecuted. What I am saying is, it was communism that adopted atheism and not the other way around.

Dude, you literally fucking ignored the entire point of my question. Reading is fucking fundamental.

I don't give two fucks whether Communism was actually atheist or not. I don't give two fucks whether Communism was actually responsible for anything.

What I'm trying to get at right now is what it would mean for 'atheism' to be responsible for a set of actions, in the same way that 'theism' is said to be responsible for a set of actions.

[Ace Otana]

Giving zero fucks about that, right now.

How pleasant.