I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

Giving zero fucks about that, right now.

How pleasant.

Sometimes, I try. Other times...

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

You keep giving examples of that difference as it applies to justification.

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.

[quote]
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?

Why would I require proof of that, and if I had proof to offer do you imagine that I would be an atheist? Bait...and...switch. I don't derive anything from "at least one god exists", but your hypothetical Mr A certainly did. Can god tell you to do something if god doesn't exist Clive? If you believe god has told you to do something............what other belief absolutely must be necessary?

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

Both your guess and appraisal of the situation would be wrong.

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?

Howsabout you reread your own posts?

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.

Glad we agree. Now, would you say that theism was responsible for keeping people from killing in your system?

[Gambit]

I missed fuck all. I addressed your supposition in my previous post, then working from your hypothetical explained why it was wrong. Anyway, I need to go write some articles. Peace out, y'all.

[Creed of Heresy]

Truth be told this discussion is far more interesting than the OP. I just realized this thread's been hijacked like a Cadillac in Detroit but you know what? I'm ok with that.

[CliveStaples]

You keep giving examples of that difference as it applies to justification.

I don't know what you mean here. I'm just gonna move on.

Why would I require proof of that,

Because you're claiming one exists. You're claiming that one is derivable from the other.

...and if I had proof to offer do you imagine that I would be an atheist?

This...literally has nothing to do with being an atheist.

Let me say this very clearly:

Proving that "god told me to" is a result of "at least one god exists" doesn't mean proving that "at least one god exists" is actually true.

It means proving that if "at least one god exists" is true, then "god told me to" must necessarily follow.

Bait...and...switch. I don't derive anything from "at least one god exists", but your hypothetical Mr A certainly did. Can god tell you to do something if god doesn't exist Clive? If you believe god has told you to do something............what other belief absolutely must be necessary?

No, no, no. Cut the shit. You claimed that one is merely a consequence of the other. How do you know that?

Both your guess and appraisal of the situation would be wrong.

Ah, so you're still taking the worst possible interpretation. Rough crowd.

Howsabout you reread your own posts?

Well, since I have, I know that I gave no such steps. So I'm just gonna move on.

Glad we agree. Now, would you say that theism was responsible for keeping people from killing in your system?

Hold on. We're still on my question. You haven't answered it.

Remember this?

---

I missed fuck all. I addressed your supposition in my previous post, then working from your hypothetical explained why it was wrong. Anyway, I need to go write some articles. Peace out, y'all.

Fuck, I missed it. I'm the asshole. This forum is a lot harder to read than my usual one. Sorry, I apologize.

[The Grand Nudger]

You gave the hypothetical, that was your call. Whether or not any god actually spoke to Mr A has nothing to do with whether or not this was his justification for killing so-and-so. That Mr A had to believe in at least one god to believe that a god spoke to him should be so blisteringly obvious that I am at a loss as to why I have had to address this over and over.

You failed to offer any justification for Mr B, instead simply jumping from "Mr B is an atheist" to "Mr B is gonna kill Teh Jewz". In Mr A's case, there was something that tied the two together, in Mr B's case, there is not.

Again, you answered your own questions, repeatedly.

We are still on your question. If, in your system, theism is responsible for not killing, then, in my system, theism is responsible for killing -for precisely the same reason...even if no god is commanding anything at all-. Now, I go one step further, theism is to be blamed upon people, not blamed for the actions that people undertake. See, no metaphor there, I meant it quite literally.

[CliveStaples]

You gave the hypothetical, that was your call. Whether or not any god actually spoke to Mr A has nothing to do with whether or not this was his justification for killing so-and-so.

Right, we're not talking about whether God actually did anything. We're not talking about whether Mr A's beliefs are accurate.

That Mr A had to believe in at least one god to believe that a god spoke to him should be so blisteringly obvious that I am at a loss as to why I have had to address this over and over.

...you don't. I never disputed that.

But you also need to believe that Jews exist in order to believe that you should take action and kill one. And the belief that Jews exist isn't theistic; therefore, it is non-theistic. Therefore it is atheistic. So murderous anti-Semitism requires an atheistic belief (that Jews exist).

We are still on your question. If, in your system, theism is responsible for not killing, then, in my system, theism is responsible for killing. Now, I go one step further, theism is to be blamed upon people, not blamed for the actions that people undertake. See, no metaphor there, I meant it quite literally.

The distinction seems entirely pointless. You want to blame theism upon someone, and not blame theism for that person's actions.

Okay, so you're blaming the person for believing theism?


Fuck it, I really don't give two shits about this meaningless semantic debate about prepositions. I'm getting back to the substance.



Which, if any, of the following systems are atheist:

{Killing CliveStaples is good}
{No gods exist, killing CliveStaples is good}
{No gods exist, People who believe in God deserve to be killed, killing CliveStaples is good}
{People who believe in God deserve to be killed, killing CliveStaples is good}

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

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?

You jyst wish you could somehow distance your batshit corner of xtardism from the others. You are all cut from the same turd.

---

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.

There was certainly a lot for him to pick. up from your religion on his way to becomong his own monster deity.

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!

Oh. look -- more straw men for you to pound up your ass.

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.

No. thanks, I find your quaint religious family sexual practices and rituals to be abominable and choose not to imbibe.

But you do stand out as a fine example of Christian Morality and conduct. Your pastor will be proud -- fo give him a copy of your tantrums here, perhaps he will read this out loud for your congregation this Sunday morning.

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.

You obviously missed the part about Stalin and Pol Pot being their own "objects of worship", whelp.

[CliveStaples]

You obviously missed the part about Stalin and Pol Pot being their own "objects of worship", whelp.

Right, a decidedly mundane and anthropic brand of worship.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, we're not talking about whether God actually did anything. We're not talking about whether Mr A's beliefs are accurate.

I'm glad you've decided to abandon this horseshit, maybe the discussion can move along now.

...you don't. I never disputed that.

No, you realized how pathetically worded your statements were and attempted a bait and switch, but I don't hold grudges..lol.

But you also need to believe that Jews exist in order to believe that you should take action and kill one. And the belief that Jews exist isn't theistic; therefore, it is non-theistic. Therefore it is atheistic. So murderous anti-Semitism requires an atheistic belief (that Jews exist).

Christ, you're gonna break your arm if you keep reaching like that...... (pro-tip "people who aren't christians" is also an "atheistic belief" by your crippled metrics)

The distinction seems entirely pointless. You want to blame theism upon someone, and not blame theism for that person's actions.

Okay, so you're blaming the person for believing theism?


Fuck it, I really don't give two shits about this meaningless semantic debate about prepositions. I'm getting back to the substance.

What substance? Yes Clive, I tend to hold people responsible for what they do and why they do it. I know, I know, it seems pointless

Which, if any, of the following systems are atheist:

{Killing CliveStaples is good}
{No gods exist, killing CliveStaples is good}
{No gods exist, People who believe in God deserve to be killed, killing CliveStaples is good}
{People who believe in God deserve to be killed, killing CliveStaples is good}

None of them. Strange, because just a minute ago you knew exactly what atheism meant...