I can feel your anger

[The Grand Nudger]

You did make that exact same statement with regards to atheism/theism and murder for profit though didn't you? Neither statement provides a justification. I mean you posted this in the last hour or so Clive.......

I don't believe and I'm going to murder you for -whatever- No justification, just a declaration.
I do believe and I'm going to murder you for -whatever- No justification, just a declaration.

-Unless, of course, god has commands or desires which are clearly and plainly expressed in whatever text you feel is of divine origin.....which they do-

[Ace Otana]

The question is whether they justify their actions with some sort of theistic belief or with an atheistic one--by which I mean, a belief

What belief would that be?
Atheism = Lack of theism. A lack of belief.

"Unbelief"? It's easier for me to think of it in terms of beliefs you affirm.

Fine, name the beliefs.

Either the set of beliefs you affirm includes "There exists at least one god", or it doesn't. I don't see the need to set up a set of 'un-beliefs'.

There is no 'setting up' of non-belief. Theists claim there is a god, an Atheist rejects the claim. That's it. Theist believes, the A-theist does not. It really doesn't get any simpler.

[Creed of Heresy]

You're making a lot of stuff up, here.

I never claimed that if someone says, "I believe there's a god and I'm killing you for your wallet", then their beliefs entail the necessity of murder for money. That's pretty clearly false--why would murder be the only way of getting money??

The question is whether they justify their actions with some sort of theistic belief or with an atheistic one--by which I mean, a belief (or set of beliefs) that does not include or imply "At least one god exists".

You should have pointed that out, then. Because you did not. And if it was instead hidden in that needlessly convoluted precursor that I did not understand, then perhaps instead of dancing around and trying to sound clever you should have just said what you just said, which is a lot more coherent and much less abstract.

Hmm. That seems like a thoroughly secular desire, yes? Shouldn't we hang their crimes on the neck of Secularism?

I mean, if their motivation was thoroughly sacred--i.e., theistic--then you'd feel justified hanging their crimes on the neck of Theism, yes?

No, that's a totalitarian desire. Secularism is where all religions are given no preferential treatment or consideration. Hence why I hang the blame on the neck of totalitarianism, because totalitarianism is to blame.

"Unbelief"? It's easier for me to think of it in terms of beliefs you affirm. Either the set of beliefs you affirm includes "There exists at least one god", or it doesn't. I don't see the need to set up a set of 'un-beliefs'.

Unbelief = I do not believe. It's not a matter of "I believe no god exists," it's a matter of "I do not believe the claims of god are reasonable enough to consider." A common error the religious tend to make is that they see it through the assumption that there MUST be a belief there is no god, but that simply is not the case. The claims do not make the religious, the religious make the claims.

What a really nice, tired cliche that contributes nothing to the discussion.

Nice, tired STEREOTYPE you mean. XD Still holds true. It was also an addendum to my statement that atheism is a default position which attaches to the point that theism makes the claim and atheism is simply not believing that claim, and the most basic of reasons WHY the claim is not followed by atheism. It ties in, albeit loosely.

[CliveStaples]

Except that you have to believe a god exists to believe it spoke to you. Now try to pull that same trick off with atheism and murder. I'm not missing any point Clive, I'm trying to explain to you that you don't have one.

Can theism be implicated in some unfortunate bits of history as major contributing factor? Yes. Mainly do to the various representatives of theism all having poor track records. This would the the religion bit. Now, you don't really have to be a theist to be religious, que Buddhists, (many of which are technically atheists) and Buddhism can also be implicated in precisely the same sorts of shit. It's not as easy to do with atheism in the absence of religion because there are no agreed upon commands or principles, no guiding hand, so to speak. People will still do these things, theist or atheist, but theres simply nothing in atheism that can be offered as a solid justification. The various representatives of theism have a whole lot of built in qualifiers (probably because justification for this or that is usually a bundled feature).

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

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".

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.

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."



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.

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).


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?

[Ace Otana]

Oh, a secular 'religion', you mean? I thought those didn't exist.

Secular means without religion/religious belief. No interference from religion. So you can't really state 'secularism' as a religion if by definition secular means without such a thing.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Damn it, here I go again....

Stalin, pol pot were corrupt communist dictators acting from their political stance. You can't really kill in the name of atheism. Simply because atheism means without theism. Essentially it means you're killing for without theism. Also those dictators killed many atheists too so it can't really be said they killed for atheism.
You can however kill for a religion. People have committed mass murder in the name of a religion and a god. Catholics during the second world war murdered around 400 to 600 thousand people in the name of god.

A common mis-understanding.
*pats on back*

???

You can kill for atheism. It's a worldview, an ideology--or at least there are belief systems that implement it, in the same way that theism is an ideology that various belief systems implement.

Under Communism, religion was a threat to the dominance of the state. So they eliminated it. If killing people to stamp out religion isn't atheist...well, I don't know what is.

You admit it yourself. The "dominance of the state" was the dominance of Communisn, Stalin, Pol Pot. Atheism had nothing to do with it.

[CliveStaples]

You should have pointed that out, then. Because you did not. And if it was instead hidden in that needlessly convoluted precursor that I did not understand, then perhaps instead of dancing around and trying to sound clever you should have just said what you just said, which is a lot more coherent and much less abstract.

That 'needlessly convoluted precursor' wasn't me trying to sound clever. It's called logic. If you don't like it, then maybe you should go get yourself a juice box and sit at the kiddie table.

No, that's a totalitarian desire. Secularism is where all religions are given no preferential treatment or consideration. Hence why I hang the blame on the neck of totalitarianism, because totalitarianism is to blame.

...wait, what? That's what you think 'secular' means? Can you give a citation?

Unbelief = I do not believe.

Then "unbelief" is unnecessary. All you need is "belief" and the negation operator.

---

Secular means without religion/religious belief. No interference from religion. So you can't really state 'secularism' as a religion if by definition secular means without such a thing.

Of course. My point was that he was using 'religion' in a non-theological sense (a 'cult of personality', or some kind of anthropological/sociological notion of "religion"). I was just ribbing him because most atheists (e.g., you) insist on using it only in a theological sense ("Atheism isn't a religion!!").

---

In the spirit of the thread: I hate how theists, when challenged about the atrocities committed under the banner of religion, by God or in his name, start accusing atheists of the same atrocities. Can a theist please cite one instance where even an atheist leader (Or anyone else, for that matter) specifically slaughtered people in the name of atheism? I'm not talking about the number of religious people killed, I'm talking about a clear agenda that was aimed at religious people only. Now, even if you can produce such a document, written in their own words, can you explain how it negates the actions of your brethren/god? Yes, people would still commit atrocities in the absence of religion, but let's take away the divine endorsement and incentive for them to justify it.

Can an atheist please cite one instance where even a theist leader specifically slaughtered people in the name of theism? I can think of people who killed in the name of Allah, of Jehovah, of Jesus, but none in the name of theism in general.

[Epimethean]

There does seem to be a rather "precious" distinction that theists like to skirt regarding the difference between disbelief and unbelief. Unbelief connotes for most atheists the absence of belief. Disbelief seems a bit more active, as it suggests the act of believing not. I would say that most theists are disbelievers of other religions rather than unbelievers, whereas atheists can quite possibly be unbelievers. The need to ascribe religious connotation to unbelief is tenuous at best, and disingenuous very often.

[Ace Otana]

All you need is "belief" and the negation operator.

Belief in what and why?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Can an atheist please cite one instance where even a theist leader specifically slaughtered people in the name of theism? I can think of people who killed in the name of Allah, of Jehovah, of Jesus, but none in the name of theism in general.

Anyone who kills in the name of any of their fairy tale monsters kills in the name of theism. What kind of retard fails to grasp that? Oh. You.