I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

He pretty much just explained why you can't really kill in the name of atheism. XD I don't think he could get any clearer. It's not much of a worldview because it simply is a negative. There is no title for people who do NOT collect stamps [A-stamp collectist?] or do NOT believe in Santa Claus [Aclausist?], the only reason the term "atheist" exists is because of how much of the population IS theistic. Worldview? Hardly. Atheism itself is not a worldview. Everything AFTER atheism, however, is. Communism is a worldview. Humanism is a worldview. Nihilism, materialism, capitalism, socialism, all worldviews. Atheism? Not hardly. Atheism = not-theistic. You might as well call a someone "not Eskimo" for all the specifics that entails.

And no, Leninist communism did not eliminate religion. In fact, later on, they sponsored a good deal of churches.

Leninist communism simply replaced "god" with "state." For all intents and purposes, it WAS a religion, complete with worship, iconic imagery, ritualistic practices, hymns, and fanaticism.

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)?


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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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."

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).


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