I can feel your anger

[Creed of Heresy]

???

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it so difficult to imagine how and why an elaborate and dense myth structure might contribute or facilitate idiotic shit like killing in the name of a voice in your head? Conversely is it difficult to understand how and why ones lack of belief in that same myth structure might lead to entirely different conclusions when presented with the same voice in ones head?

Gods/No Gods, of the two only one set is actually capable of issuing orders (or so the story is told). Now, whether or not you trust those orders or carry out such a divine command (if you had received such a thing) is another issue entirely. For an atheist, it's pretty cut and dry. If you hear a voice that says "I am god your god and I command you to kill so and so" you go get your head checked. Hopefully a theist does the same, but the question then becomes....why? Does god not speak to people, does god not command his followers to violence? Any answer meant to sidestep these issues only makes it even stickier.

So, in a way Sell, I agree with you, placing the onus on religion is bullshit. Gods don't command anything to anyone, they don't exist. Sadly, that's not how the zealously faithful perceive this scenario and only then does it become important to point out how often (and how transparently) religion has commanded violent shit without the help of any gods whatsoever. Am I implying here that religion is solely and uniquely responsible for violence, that an atheist world would be a utopia? LOL, no, I don't believe in fairy tales remember? Last I checked "utopia" was a booming market for the faithful, and constantly invoked in precisely these sorts of "godwillsit" scenarios. Martyrs, seats of the righteous in the kingdom of heaven type shit. No, I'm very much aware of how violent we can be given any reason what-so-ever, and those acts of violence carried out under the banner of a god only stand out to me as particularly ridiculous examples of this. Personally, I don't place the blame for anything on religion (I think that this is undeserved credit), I place the blame for all manner of idiotic/amusing/violent shit on human beings, and this group of activities includes within it religion.

@Clive, "stamping out religion" isn't some atheist agenda, or an atheist commandment. Governments like the one you mentioned are in the habit of stamping out any competition for authority, consider that devoutly religious governments in history have tried to "stamp out religion" -just, you know, other peoples religions.

Atheism: I don't believe -FULL STOP-
Atheism as presented by those intent of making reference to Stalin or Pol-Pot: I don't believe -ergo I'm going to violently eliminate those that do-

So, whereabouts in "I don't believe" do we find the atheist command to eradicate the faithful (or anyone, for that matter)? Now, I could tell you that there are some folks I'd love to eliminate, but you'd be hard-pressed to connect that in any way to my atheism. You know what though, this is an unfair comparison. Power has been in the hands of the faithful for so long that there are bound to have been complete assholes for us atheists to point at and say "Look at what this guy did in the name of god!" Give atheism some time, you may yet see the sort of shit you're forcing poor Stalin and Pol-Pot into. Patience is a virtue.

[KichigaiNeko]

@ the OP

No you can't feel my anger cos I don't have my hands around your throat choking you... get a life dipstick

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you kill someone because they're religious, and you think religious people deserve to die...how is that not motivated by atheism?

cut and snipped because you answered your own question while asking the question, bolding is mine

It's motivated by the bolded bit above, and pro-tip, you don't even have to be an atheist to have such a motivation. Maybe you think religious people should die, particularly those religious people that don't agree with your religion. That sounds familiar doesn't it?

The full post

---

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.

---

There's a whole lot of fail not addressed in that post btw Clive, standouts include the justification of murder for profit, etc etc. It's entirely possible that you have no idea wtf you're talking about amigo. Here's my two cents. You really want atheism to be a bad thing™. Trouble is that we only have to point to history(and current events) to draw the brush, so to speak. You are forced to squirm, redefine, assert, and engage in "what-ifs combined with concessions". Last I checked no one was defending Stalin or Pol-Pot under the banner of atheism, and if you'd be willing to go through your holy book and denounce any and all acts of violence commanded by god and carried out by men (or indeed, carried out by god himself) you and I would be on common ground here. People do things, the blame lies on the people who do things. This doesn't mean that you or I don't get to ridicule their idiotic "reasons" for doing them, so long as we can accurately represent those reasons, which in the case of atheism (at least your particular brand of atheism and all that it entails), you have failed to do.

[CliveStaples]

It's motivated by the bolded bit above, and pro-tip, you don't even have to be an atheist to have such a motivation. Maybe you think religious people should die, particularly those religious people that don't agree with your religion. That sounds familiar doesn't it?

Right, but if you think God doesn't exist, and you kill people who think He does because you think religiosity is a disease that needs to be stamped out...isn't that motivated by an atheist belief?

I mean, if I'm a Christian, and I think I should kill you because you're blaspheming God, and that's wrong, isn't that the same as an atheist who thinks he should kill me because I believe in God, and that's wrong?

[Zen Badger]

And when has anyone committed atrocities in the name of atheism?

Come on, it can't be that hard to name one.

[Ace Otana]

Right, but if you think God doesn't exist, and you kill people who think He does because you think religiosity is a disease that needs to be stamped out...isn't that motivated by an atheist belief?

No. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of. Atheism simply means without theism. If you kill people for having religious belief, it can be said you're anti-religion, anti-theist in the extreme. Atheism simply means one without belief in god.

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

Though incorrect. Theism is a belief system, A-theism is the lack of that belief system.

[KichigaiNeko]

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

Though incorrect. Theism is a belief system, A-theism is the lack of that belief system.

They ALWAYS get it wrong Ace, don't they??

[CliveStaples]

And when has anyone committed atrocities in the name of atheism?

Come on, it can't be that hard to name one.

That's what we're arguing about: whether the examples I've proposed are "atrocities in the name of atheism".