I can feel your anger

[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}