Is it true that atheism has killed more people then organized religion?...

[Existentialist]

No I mean you'd have to disagree with what the word means.

If, for example, I say that the word "cheese" means: "A slide in a children's playground", I am redefining the word in the same sense that you are redefining atheism.

Cheese is a bad example. Socialism would be a better analogy.

---

Atheism per se is not an ideology

Well in my book it is. But then, I think the definitions of words can be arrived at subjectively and the purpose of discussion is to enable people to compare their subjective definitions. I'm well aware that others think arguments are settled objectively by dictionaries or hard logic, and that a dissenter is just wrong.

[Edwardo Piet]

Cheese is a bad example. Socialism would be a better analogy.

The definition of cheese I gave as being "A slide in a children's playground" is no more incorrect than any definition of atheism whatsoever that is said to mean that atheism is an ideology. How does disbelief in God or positive belief that there is no God in itself equate to an ideology?

---

Well in my book it is. But then, I think the definitions of words can be arrived at subjectively and the purpose of discussion is to enable people to compare their subjective definitions. I'm well aware that others think arguments are settled objectively by dictionaries or hard logic, and that a dissenter is just wrong.

Well in my book "Book" means "A forest fire", (So, I mean that in my forest fire "forest fire" means " a forest fire", which may not make sense to you but that's because all these other words I'm using I'm also meaning to mean different things to what you would probably expect them to mean (!)) so, as you can see, if we start using words to mean whatever we want rather than what they generally properly mean in our language then we will never understand each other.

Calling "Atheism" an ideology is exactly like calling disbelief in Santa Claus or denying Santa Claus' existence altogether an ideology. Maybe by ideology you don't mean ideology, maybe by ideology you mean "A mere single disbelief/belief in the non-existence of and not in fact a belief system", but I doubt it.

[Existentialist]

Well in my book "Book" means "A forest fire", (So, I mean that in my forest fire "forest fire" means " a forest fire", which may not make sense to you but that's because all these other words I'm using I'm also meaning to mean different things to what you would probably expect them to mean (!)) so, as you can see, if we start using words to mean whatever we want rather than what they generally properly mean in our language then we will never understand each other.

It depends on how authentic you're being, or whether you're really just fibbing about what you think certain words mean just to make the point. Ultimately, we could both completely talk in code, but I suspect we would only choose to do that if one of us found the other's ideas so threatening to our existence that we became fearful of the other's point of view

Calling "Atheism" an ideology is exactly like calling disbelief in Santa Claus or denying Santa Claus' existence altogether an ideology. Maybe by ideology you don't mean ideology, maybe by ideology you mean "A mere single disbelief/belief in the non-existence of and not in fact a belief system", but I doubt it.

You're right I don't mean that. I mean a belief system. Atheism is a whole belief system.

And are you really saying Santa Claus doesn't exist? hock:

[Thor]

Actually I don't think that either religion or atheism are responsible for killing people.

I disagree concerning religion. When you have a religion that teaches its followers that "nonbelievers" are "infidels" and deserving of death, then it is perfectly reasonable to hold the religion responsible when one (or more) of its followers kills people in the name of that religion.

When a person kills someone, responsibility lies with the person doing the killing.

Of course the person doing the killing bears responsibility for his (or her) actions. But it is important to examine the MOTIVATION that inspired the killing. If you had a church in your community where the leaders were preaching genocide of blacks and Jews, and some of the members went out and killed blacks and Jews, would you say that the church bears no responsibility in the killings?

Once we start creating a chain of responsibility for the responsibility, we let the killer off the hook, and enter a world of confusion.

Who is talking about "letting the killer off the hook"? The killer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But we also need to understand WHY the killing took place to better prevent other killings.

The abortionist killers bear responsibility for their act, not their church.

When the church is frothing at the mouth and telling the congregants how abortion doctors are "baby killers", and how abortion is "evil", then, yes, the church bears responsibility when one of its members acts on the church's words and kills someone. The churches want us to believe that idiots like Paul Hill "aren't one of them". Oh, yes, they are. The church whips someone like Paul Hill into a frenzy with their rhetoric and then when the moron thinks he's "protecting the unborn" by killing a doctor, they run for the hills and disavow themselves. All the while gleeful that an abortion doctor is dead.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're right I don't mean that. I mean a belief system. Atheism is a whole belief system.

What beliefs does it hold, how is it a system?

[Existentialist]

You're right I don't mean that. I mean a belief system. Atheism is a whole belief system.

What beliefs does it hold, how is it a system?

Isn't that why we're all on this forum - to answer that question, to compare thoughts about our belief systems?

[Edwardo Piet]

You didn't answer my question.

[Existentialist]

I could answer your question, but I would be telling you what my belief system is - what my atheism means to me. I could go on quite a long time, I would talk about what the existence of God means in terms of perpetuating capitalism and how the non-existence of God spells major problems for all hierarchies including atheist-labelled ones, and how the absence of a supreme being puts us individually in a position of complete freedom. I could go on a long time about this. However I suspect a retort might be, "that isn't what it says in a dictionary!", that I have tainted the pure objective meaning of the word atheism with a load of subjective beliefs that cannot be objectively proven, that I am therefore wrong, that the things I believe may follow from atheism but that other atheists don't share my beliefs etc etc. Don't you think I deserve an answer too - isn't that the reason we are all on this forum, to compare our views about what the ideology of atheism really is? If not, what atheism is could simply be announced, it need not be debated, and the forums could be renamed "Consequences of Atheism" Forums.

---

When the church is frothing at the mouth and telling the congregants ... how abortion is "evil", then, yes, the church bears responsibility when one of its members acts on the church's words and kills someone.

And we wouldn't get an atheist telling his congregants how "evil" a religion is now, would we?

[Entropist]

I could answer your question, but I would be telling you what my belief system is - what my atheism means to me. I could go on quite a long time, I would talk about what the existence of God means in terms of perpetuating capitalism and how the non-existence of God spells major problems for all hierarchies including atheist-labelled ones, and how the absence of a supreme being puts us individually in a position of complete freedom. I could go on a long time about this.

But you are talking about Marxism and existentialism, not atheism.

[Minimalist]

You're right I don't mean that. I mean a belief system. Atheism is a whole belief system.

What beliefs does it hold, how is it a system?

Isn't that why we're all on this forum - to answer that question, to compare thoughts about our belief systems?

No.


I come here because here religious assholes can be treated like assholes. Their mumbo-jumbo does not have to be "respected" or even "tolerated."

Try going to a 'believer board' and find out how long you last when you tell them they are wrong.