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

[leo-rcc]

What two things?

1) The definition
2) The consequences of the definition

What consequences?

Consequences for religion, consequences for organisational structures that are based on religion, consequences for authoritarian systems that draw on the fear induced by historical religious systems, consequences for marriage, families, adults, children, political consequences, economic consequences... you know, all the consequences!

No I don't know, what does that have to do with not believing in gods?

[Entropist]

Entropist, you've made your point, we don't need an encyclopedia here.

Read them more carefully. Its not what you think.

[Existentialist]

I don't like what you're saying, because I thinks it's retarded... to be perfectly honest. But you define things any way you like. I've said what I have to say.

I note your gracious granting of permission for me to define things any way I like, even if it is accompanied by a rather graceless adjective. However, I didn't actually need your permission - I'll do it anyway, and far from breaking down into confusion, I'm sure the communications will be enhanced and clarified for anyone who chooses to read them.

---

No I don't know, what does that have to do with not believing in gods?

I acknowledge you've said you don't know, though I suspect you have an inkling of what I meant, I gave quite a few examples of the areas I think are affected, and I wonder if infact you are being a little bit obtuse. I will be happy to discuss all these consequences at a later time, for the moment I must offer my apologies, I need my bed, by all means reply at your convenience.

---

Entropist, you've made your point, we don't need an encyclopedia here.

Read them more carefully. Its not what you think.

Too late for parlour games I'm afraid! Good night!

[Entropist]

Too late for parlour games I'm afraid! Good night!

Games? I'm just following your lead.

[ABierman1986]

I agree that atheism isn't an ideology or belief system. I have no ties or dogmas or creeds tying my actions and my motivation doesn't lie in anything other than reason and observation of the world around me.

Basically I don't rely on information that is supernatural in nature. It could exist, it could not exist, but it's not reliable. I don't tie a "disbelief" in God to my atheism, my atheism is rooted in that I believe in what exists, and my belief is strengthened by evidence I see for and against different things. By that token, I have little to no belief in God, but I could be persuaded with evidence and observation.

Now see, my atheism is my own, and most likely very different from many others. But then again, each person's religion is their own and unique I've noticed. So if I try to look at the situation from the shoes of a theist I can understand why atheism might be seen as a belief system or ideology.

Many atheists I have known, myself included, define Christianity as the belief in jesus and the resurrection, salvation, etc.. We define it really loosely in all honesty. Christians within themselves segregate into hundreds of groups, some with violently opposing views, and a Baptist would not want to be called a Lutheran. It's the same for all the religions.

So in the shoes of a theist, I see a group of people who deny the existence of God, they all have this trait in common, and I am used to separating people into religious groups as the majority of the population put themselves into one already. I think it is fair to say (though this may be a point of dissension) that atheists have a tendency to share some demographic or social characteristics, or at least publicly known or activist atheists that make national news.

I think it is perfectly justifiable, if wrong, to say Atheism is an ideology or belief system. We are already so used to loosely categorizing people and using a single belief or set of beliefs to categorize entire spectrums that atheism fits the bill for common perception of a belief system. I think the more important thing to take away from this discussion is that the broader personality of the people who share a common single idea or belief can't be categorized inside any single definition.

[Existentialist]

I think it is perfectly justifiable, if wrong, to say Atheism is an ideology or belief system.

A rather ambiguous statement. I think you need to be clearer in what you're saying, it seems a little slippery to say something is "justifiable, but wrong". I think it's a matter of opinion. Some people obviously think that atheism is an ideology or belief system, some people think it isn't. Both sets of people think the other side is wrong and should adopt their definition. I have my views, others have theirs. If this situation is accepted, the debate can continue.

[leo-rcc]

No I don't know, what does that have to do with not believing in gods?

I acknowledge you've said you don't know, though I suspect you have an inkling of what I meant, I gave quite a few examples of the areas I think are affected

Just from the top of my head you mentioned religion, you are aware that there are atheist religions right? Just religions that have no gods in them. Just because these religions are different than for instance Christianity or Islam or Hinduism it doesn't change the fact that they are religious and still atheists.

Furthermore you mentioned political things, atheism doesn't make a person left-wing, right-wing, democrat, liberal, libertarian, or conservative.

and I wonder if infact you are being a little bit obtuse.

No, I am still wondering how you arrive at atheism being a belief system. What is it that atheists believe in?

[ABierman1986]

I think it is perfectly justifiable, if wrong, to say Atheism is an ideology or belief system.

A rather ambiguous statement. I think you need to be clearer in what you're saying, it seems a little slippery to say something is "justifiable, but wrong". I think it's a matter of opinion. Some people obviously think that atheism is an ideology or belief system, some people think it isn't. Both sets of people think the other side is wrong and should adopt their definition. I have my views, others have theirs. If this situation is accepted, the debate can continue.

I didn't mean to be ambiguous, the rest of the post was supposed to clarify it. Just because there are valid reasons for someone to believe a fallacy, making the belief justified, it's no less wrong. My entire point is that from an ignorant perspective there are legitimate reasons why Atheism might be thought of as an ideology, but these are unresearched and ultimately unfounded reasons that are uncovered once one gets a better education.

If that's not clear enough then just forget I said anything, this discussion has no place for me then.

[Thor]

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?

Does any atheist try to inspire people to go out and kill believers? I doubt you can show me where that has occurred. But I would have no trouble showing you where religions have condoned and inspired the killing of others.

[Minimalist]

And we wouldn't get an atheist telling his congregants

Atheists do not have congregants.

con·gre·ga·tion (knggr-gshn)
n.
1. The act of assembling.
2. A body of assembled people or things; a gathering.
3.
a. A group of people gathered for religious worship.
b. The members of a specific religious group who regularly worship at a church or synagogue.

We don't have churches. Or priests. Or holy days. Or bingo. Or child-molesting parties.