It might be about religion if . . .

[Cartoonist]

It might be about religion if their Holy Book actually contains clear and literate descriptions of crimes and their barbaric punishments.

It might be about religion if the voice they credit with being inside their head is named God, Jesus, Allah, or some other deity. It's never Elvis or Batman because they don't have the power to enter your brain and tell you who to Kill. Only God is that powerful.

It might be about religion if they say it is. When someone calls himself a warrior for Jesus, he's not talking about a baseball player. When someone is swinging an axe while praising a merciful Allah, he is leaving no doubt as to what it is about.

It might be about religion if the apologists fall over themselves trying to deflect attention away from the obvious motivator.

[guillaumeb]

1. Such a simplistic post deserves a simplistic response:

What do mass murderers Joseph Stalin, Mao tse-Tung, and Pol Pot have in common?

They were all atheists. So if we apply the same illogic used in the initial post, does this prove that atheism promotes genocide?

What it is about is violent people who feel the need to justify their violence by claiming that the violent person is/was inspired by an outside force or entity.

[Cartoonist]

2. Show me the atheist holy book that inspired Stalin and others

Until then, you've got nothing.

[guillaumeb]

3. No, your post is typical of those that I name

fundamentalist atheists.

Many religious fundamentalists are intolerant of all those with whom they disagree. Many religious fundamentalists insist that they and they alone possess the truth. Whatever that is.

And some atheists are similarly intolerant and dismissive of believers, echoing the same intolerance that they claim to despise.

If your belief dismisses the existence or the possibility of a Creator that is simply your personal belief. It proves nothing.

And the same applies to believers, obviously.

[Cartoonist]

4. You still have nothing

Show me where in atheism is this need to kill predicated on their non-belief.

[guillaumeb]

5. If the three genocidaires that I named share atheism as a philosophy,

does this prove that atheism as a philosophy is to blame? No, it simply proves that some atheists kill.

The vast majority of people, believers and non-believers, have no desire to kill. People who kill generally have a motivation that they claim led them to kill. So what can we infer from this, other than the obvious idea that people do not kill for no reason?

Your point seems to be that religion=bad and my point is that such simplistic thinking leads nowhere.

[trotsky]

43. So let's say there are two "philosophies."

One philosophy has a book in which it says that being gay is a crime, and that the punishment is death.

The other philosophy has no book, it's just comprised of people who don't believe anything in that other philosophy's book.

Yeah totally the same.

[rug]

49. The second book would be quite thin.

[guillaumeb]

74. "it's just comprised of people who don't believe anything in that other philosophy's book."?

Do you believe in doing to others as you would have them doing to you?

Do you believe in "forget and forgive, live and let live"?

Two different books.

[trotsky]

82. Neither of those edicts has anything to do with atheism.

You are sabotaging your own reasoning, which is helpful. Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

91. And in your style you again avoid answering any questions.

Apparently you feel that your role, or obviously your preferred role, at DU is to be the interrogator. Tha tis one way to attempt to control the conversation.

[trotsky]

94. My answers to those questions have nothing to do with any "philosophy" of atheism.

That's the point. I'm happy to answer any relevant questions. There is no need to engage in personal attacks.

[guillaumeb]

95. I have not read any actual reply to any question that I have posed.

But to ask again,
"do unto others..."
Agree, or disagree?
"forget and forgive, live and let live"
Agree, or disagree?

My constant point to these types of posts is that any attempt to frame violence as a religious problem, or any attempt to frame religion sui generis as a problem, is too simplistic by far.

[trotsky]

96. Once again you display your inability to understand what others are saying.

That's why there is little point in answering your questions. Once more I will try to break though with you:

NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT VIOLENCE IS ONLY A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM.

THAT IS YOUR STRAWMAN WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN BRAVELY ATTACKING THE ENTIRE TIME I'VE SEEN YOUR POSTS ON DU.

Do you understand what I just said?

[guillaumeb]

97. But some few posters only seem to find and post items that highlight

when violence is done by someone with a claimed religious motivation. And some of these same few posters also post extensively in the aa forum where they talk about the problem of religion.

That hints at an agenda. Or simply a very large coincidence.

[trotsky]

98. That's because this is the Religion group, and that's the Atheism group.

We discuss religion and its impact here and there. Understand? There are dozens of other groups where you can discuss any other factors in various events.

So yeah, it's a "coincidence" that people happen to focus on the topic of a group when they discuss things in it. An amazing, agenda-driven "coincidence."

[guillaumeb]

99. And do you ever discuss the positive aspects of religion,

or are there none?

[trotsky]

100. If I see something positive, I am happy to encourage it.

What about you, do you think something negative can ever come from religion, or is religion always good?

[guillaumeb]

101. If I see one of your positive religious posts I will recommend it.

So far I am not aware of seeing any, but one hopes.


Actions are taken by individuals. No matter the claimed motivation, in my opinion the individual actor is always and only to blame.

Religion is simply a belief system. It does not act. Just as patriotism is a belief system, but people make war.

[anoNY42]

102. People act on their beliefs

Kim Davis refused to serve gay couples, was that not because of her religious beliefs?

[guillaumeb]

103. People act on their beliefs, but all people who identlfy as Christian

do not act the same. Kim Davis claims to act as she feels her religion compels her to do. How does that reflect on anyone or anything but Kim Davis?

[anoNY42]

110. The Republican party has a party platform

put forth every 4 years. Under your logic, we cannot criticize the Republican party or its platform, because 100% of Republicans do not always agree with each platform plank.

[trotsky]

112. Nice catch. n/t

[guillaumeb]

114. You are missing my point.

I am a Christian. My actions are my own, no matter how I claim to be motivated. I do not speak for "Christians", I speak for myself.

The official GOP platform is just that, but it does not imply or prove that every single republican is 100% in agreement with the platform. Criticizing the platform is one thing, but to extend that criticism to all GOP members is not valid.

[trotsky]

104. Ask and ye shall receive:

Positive post about a believer protesting an action of her church:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218230401

Bonus post - comment praising a Catholic priest:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=231026

So you believe that religious beliefs can never motivate someone to do a bad thing.

Do you also believe that they never motivate someone to do a good thing?

[guillaumeb]

105. Are you speaking for me with your last two sentences?

I know that I never said any such thing.

I believe my previous response clearly states my position on motivation, and belief, and acting according to belief.

Where is your confusion?

[trotsky]

106. Do you, or do you not, think that religion can motivate people to do bad things?

Do you, or do you not, think that religion can motivate people to do good things?

If you prefer, substitute "religious beliefs" for "religion" in the above questions.

[guillaumeb]

109. People can be motivated, or claim to be motivated,

by many things. On this we might agree. But being motivated by something says nothing about the something, in most cases, and much about the person.

Can any philosophy or belief, religious or not, be used to rationalize violence?

[trotsky]

111. "Can any philosophy or belief, religious or not, be used to rationalize violence?"

No. Not just categorically no, but even on a scale - some can be used to "rationalize" or justify it way more than others.

For instance, take the belief in unicorns. I cannot conceive of a way that belief in unicorns would lead to violence. The only way you get to it would be to bolt on additional beliefs like "I believe in unicorns, and that they are invisible but if you murder a human being you can see them." THAT could lead to violence.

Or consider the "philosophy" of white supremacy. That has led to violence, mainly since teaching the superiority of one race automatically implies the inferiority of others.

Now what if you have a founding book for a philosophy that states "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - do you think that might lend itself to violence more than some other philosophies?

[guillaumeb]

131. Since you mention unicorns, let me rephrase and merely use the word

philosophy.


The one thing that killers have in common is that they are willing to kill. whether to advance a political agenda, a philosophical agenda, or whatever, they are willing to kill.

Religious dictators have killed large numbers of people, and so have atheistic dictators.

Your particular emphasis on tiny parts of some religious books to the exclusion of the vast remainder of the religious books tells me your agenda far better than your arguments.

Now, since I have answered, a question for you?

Can religion ever be a force for good?

[trotsky]

132. Goalposts moved. Noted.

No, I won't answer your question, because you didn't answer mine.

Here's the relevant part to review:

Or consider the "philosophy" of white supremacy. That has led to violence, mainly since teaching the superiority of one race automatically implies the inferiority of others.

Now what if you have a founding book for a philosophy that states "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" - do you think that might lend itself to violence more than some other philosophies?

With those few sentences, I both dispatched your accusation of me only emphasizing "religious books" (I cited the "philosophy" of white supremacy) as well as posed a question you refused to answer.

Answer it, and we'll continue. Because I can't wait to find out how you can consider atheism a "philosophy." (Remember, you moved the goalposts. You just made it much harder for yourself.)

[guillaumeb]

133. Atheism is a belief system because it is based on the unprovable

belief that there is no Creator, or god, or divine force.

Philosophy is also a belief system, but one that is not necessarily predicated on belief in the supernatural.

Some belief systems have books, some do not, but they have in common the fact that they are unprovable, thus belief based.

(And again, the refusal to answer any other questions because you reserve to yourself the role of questioner. And the non-personal nature of this dialogue makes such avoidance easy.)

So we have competing belief systems in the atheism vs religion debate. That there is no codified, official belief save for the various books written by the various "professional atheists" allows you to insist to yourself that atheism is not a philosophy.

But if we use this definition of philosophy:

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

any atheist who makes claims about the fundamental nature of existence is engaging in philosophical thought. Just as a theologian who makes different claims is engaging in philosophical thought.

It seems to me that you are confusing terms here.

[trotsky]

134. And you're 100% wrong right out of the gate.

Atheism is the non-acceptance of theism. Don't tell me what I do or don't believe.

Now answer my question. I might have to take your refusal to answer my question as an attempt to reserve for YOURself the role of questioner. I'm not letting you off the hook. Answer my question.

[guillaumeb]

136. What is an atheist?

Not your personal definition, but what does it mean to be an atheist? Here is one attempt:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist. Most agnostics are closer in beliefs to atheists than to theists. Most of my college professors and intellectual mentors were devout atheists

.
www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american.../atheist

So if you are an atheist, it stands to reason that you lack belief in the existence of a God. And that itself is a belief.

It seems to me that this reduces to competing belief systems, neither of which is "provable" by science.


As to your statement: "Don't tell me what I do or don't believe", I leave it up to you to do that. And when, or if, you ever explain your particular beliefs is your choice.

But watching some of the (boring and repetitious) excerpts from Richard Dawkins and Neal Tyson, their style seems to revolve around insisting that Christians all believe in the literal interpretation of their holy book, and then attacking this literal interpretation by using science.

Bad debating tactics and inferior logic.

[trotsky]

137. Is a lack of belief in unicorns a belief?

How about leprechauns?

Fairies?

Your logic dictates that lacking beliefs in each of those constitutes a belief system. Your desperate attempts to try and make atheism into a "belief system" lead you to nonsensical positions.

Now answer my question. You look more and more silly avoiding it at this point.

[guillaumeb]

138. You do not believe that unicorns exist.

That is a positive statement, even if expressed negatively.

Your desperate attempts to avoid classifying atheism as a belief system are interesting. But in the end, an atheist believes that there is no god, or creator, or divine. And you cannot escape this.

[skepticscott]

139. Why do you keep lying and making shit up about what other people think?

There is a difference between saying "I am absolutely certain that no gods of any kind exist anywhere in the known universe" and saying "I am not convinced at this point in time that any gods exist"

A huge difference. A fundamental difference. And yet, you keep trying to attribute the first to people who only claim the second. Why? It is fundamental intellectual dishonesty. Is that the only way you can make a case?

[guillaumeb]

140. I named no names. You did in your reply accusing me.

I quoted a dictionary definition of the word "atheist". So the fundamental dishonesty is yours for falsely accusing me of that which I did not do.

And many, but not all, people here state categorically that they do not believe in a god.

[skepticscott]

141. You're lying again

Here's a quote from your post 21 in this thread, directed specifically at me:

I believe in a Creator.

You believe that there is no Creator.

What I accused you of is exactly what you did. And still you continue to repeat the lie that not believing in a god is the same as being certain there is no god.

[guillaumeb]

142. You are correct here.

I should have said that "you may not believe that there is a Creator".

But belief is belief. You can deny that, but in cases that are unprovable, the believing in the existence of a particular something or believing that that particular something does not exist are equivalent.

[Cartoonist]

143. You are incorrect here.

I do not accept the existence of a god because there is no evidence of such. I will gladly believe in god should any evidence come forward. I do not state categorically that there is no god.

be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

The opposite of that is not belief

[skepticscott]

144. In other words

you lied. Out your sorry ass. Knowing that the truth was otherwise. And you still have no concept of what "provable" means, so your statement here is just as much horseshit.

And stop trying to tell me what I "believe". You have no fucking idea what I "believe". Stick to making statements about what YOU believe, because that's really all you know.

[guillaumeb]

145. Ad hominem and evasion.

First, I do not care what you believe. I only take exception to the efforts of some here to attack belief and believers.

Nor do I care about your angry attempts at provocation.

And what I believe is not what I know, it is what I believe. I know that water freezes at 0 Centigrade. I know that gravity will always cause the brick to fall on my foot, or the bread to land butter side down on the floor.

I believe in a Creator.

[Lordquinton]

147. So belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Claus

Or unicorns, or Bigfoot.

All equal.

Got it.

[trotsky]

146. What you've just done is classify every single lack of belief into a belief.

Congratulations on making the terminology useless. No point in continuing this discussion; you've failed miserably. Thanks!

[trotsky]

135. Oh and this line of baloney:

"any atheist who makes claims about the fundamental nature of existence is engaging in philosophical thought"

But yet that still doesn't make atheism a philosophy. Keep trying. But please answer my question first. Can you?

[trotsky]

130. So, still waiting for a response. When you have time, of course. n/t

[skepticscott]

107. That's rich

This whole thread is littered with you avoiding direct questions and making statements you can't back up with facts when challenged. Point that finger at yourself.

[Cartoonist]

67. That's not my point at all

My point is that certain acts of homicide are attributable to religion. Not all acts, just some. While atheists may commit homicide, their atheism is a non-factor.

[guillaumeb]

75. But if certain acts can be attributed to religious belief because the actors

claim to be motivated by religion, how does this reflect on the vast majority of believers who do not commit violent acts?

Certain people commit violence in the name of country. Does this condemn the country, the idea of patriotism?

[Brettongarcia]

85. Many once committed violence, naming religion as the reason

Though fewer Christians do this today, some today still are effected by the old calls to apparently, kill gays or sodomites, etc.

Not to mention the millions of Muslims who still committed violence, naming religion as the cause.

In recent years the old calls in the holy books to hate and murder, are not quoted as much. But they're still there. And still doing damage.

[guillaumeb]

92. And you response to my actual point is..............?

[cpwm17]

108. "Not to mention the millions of Muslims who still committed violence"

Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2016, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

That's an exaggeration.

The current wars are not coincidentally in areas that the US has major military operations. The PNAC list of nations to destroy are Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran. They also want conflict with Russia. They've succeeded in Iraq and Libya by getting the US government to go along. The US is trying hard to finish the job in Syria by supporting the Jihadists against Assad, Iran, and Russia.

We can look forward to much more of this under the next president:

The US also arms and enables Saudi Arabia's actions against various nations, including their atrocities against Yemen.

The average American supports war and violence against civilians more than the average Muslim.

[Lordquinton]

9. So your intolerance of any who disagree with you makes you a fundamentalist Christian?

The belief in a creator proves nothing, dismissing it as a concept with zero supporting evidence (and centuries of disproved theories, and many theories that actively disprove gods, plate tectonics anyone?) It doesn't have anything to prove.

And please point to the Atheist holy book that gives us our instructions on who to hate, I'm in the dark and limiting it to pedophile enablers, homophobes, misogynists, and the like.

[guillaumeb]

14. My intolerance?

Please give examples, or one example, of my intolerance in this forum. I am a believer but expect nothing of others save that they live and let live.

And belief in anything proves nothing. Gravity needs no belief to be a force. Evolution needs no belief to be the only workable theory to explain the fossil record.

And your statement "and many theories that actively disprove gods" exhibits some confusion as to what the word theory means. If something has been proven it is a fact. A theory is something that is proposed but not conclusively proven.

The existence of a Creator cannot be proven or disproven. That is why religious belief is also called faith. Faith is the acceptance of and belief in that which cannot be proven.

[apcalc]

38. You are confusing " theory" and hypothesis.

A theory, is something hypothesized and confirmed or summarized scientifically by observations and repeated testing.

[guillaumeb]

60. A theory is the result of an initial hypothesis.

And a theory is unprovable or it would be called a law.

One of us is confused.

[skepticscott]

64. You got that right

and it isn't apcalc. You don't even seem to have a grasp of "theory", "law" and "provable"

[guillaumeb]

70. Again, one of us is confused:

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
The process of becoming a scientific theory
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

So according to these sources, every theory starts as a hypothesis. Now please explain how my post differs from this.

[skepticscott]

79. You stated that

If a theory is provable, it becomes a law. And a theory is unprovable or it would be called a law.

And then you stated this, in direct contradiction:

Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.

Seriously, dude...don't try to bluff your way through an argument about science with me by parroting shit you don't understand. I will hand you your head every time.

[guillaumeb]

115. You are always ready with insults and ad hominem.

But you obviously:
1) did not read the articles, or
2) read the articles and missed the links,
3) or are looking to be angry because

I did not write the articles. I stated nothing here, it was stated by the actual authors of the actual, linked articles. And your third paragraph includes a reference to the NSTA.

So when one talks about a certain lack of understanding.........I might say to remove the beam from your own eye before removing the speck from your neighbor's eye. To quote the Master.

[skepticscott]

116. Seriously? You took all that time, and this is the best response you could come up with?

You cut and pasted a bunch of stuff you didn't understand and then asked how this post of yours:

A theory is the result of an initial hypothesis.

And a theory is unprovable or it would be called a law.

contradicts it. You were shown exactly how. And you respond by making up still more shit.

You were given the opportunity to debate with intellectual honesty, and you chose to do exactly the opposite. If you think that entitles you to be treated with respect and courtesy, think again.

[guillaumeb]

117. Again, you live up to your style.

Can you actually respond to someone who does not support your particular beliefs without the silly attempt at put downs?

You totally missed the point that these were not my words. And that says a lot.

[skepticscott]

120. Says the poster

who can do nothing except drop snark into a thread.

[skepticscott]

119. Can you actually respond

without being blatantly dishonest?

These WERE your words:

A theory is the result of an initial hypothesis.

And a theory is unprovable or it would be called a law.

And now you're trying to say they aren't. This is not about my "beliefs" (which you lied about, and still have not backed up your claim). This is about your dishonesty. Which I'm done with.

[Major Nikon]

80. True, but it isn't that hard to figure out which

When you conflate scientific theories like evolution and gravity with the "theory" of a creator, then it just isn't that hard to see where the confusion lies.

[guillaumeb]

121. It is you who mentioned the words "theory" and "Creator" in the same phrase.

Belief in a Creator is not a theory, it is a belief. Faith has been described as "the willing suspension of disbelief". But belief, or faith, is not incompatible with science except for those whose agenda insists on making it so.

There is no confusion on my part.

[Major Nikon]

122. Sure....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=231913



Nor is it he first time you've compared the provability of scientific theories with belief, and each time you continue to do so it makes no more sense.

[guillaumeb]

124. What DU are you looking at?

To your reference:
What I said was:

Please give examples, or one example, of my intolerance in this forum. I am a believer but expect nothing of others save that they live and let live.

And belief in anything proves nothing. Gravity needs no belief to be a force. Evolution needs no belief to be the only workable theory to explain the fossil record.

And your statement "and many theories that actively disprove gods" exhibits some confusion as to what the word theory means. If something has been proven it is a fact. A theory is something that is proposed but not conclusively proven.

The existence of a Creator cannot be proven or disproven. That is why religious belief is also called faith. Faith is the acceptance of and belief in that which cannot be proven.

In the second paragraph, I actually said "belief in anything proves nothing". How you interpret that to mean I compared theory to belief puzzles me. The two sentences clearly point out the difference between provable theory and belief. I do not equate belief with proof, I contrast it.

In the final paragraph, I state "faith is the acceptance and belief in that which cannot be proven". Again, no attempt is made to equate faith and proof. The confusion, as I will term it, seems to be entirely yours.

I can only assume that either
1) you do not understand what I plainly wrote, or
2) you simply wish to take issue with people who disagree with you.

I am willing to accept either, but it makes discussion difficult.

[Major Nikon]

125. So why even bring up gravity and evolution?

You do realize you aren't the first to come up with this nonsense, yes?

[guillaumeb]

126. Avoid and evade?

And do you now admit that your reply completely avoided what I actually said?

[Major Nikon]

127. You stole my line!

[skepticscott]

123. Really, you need to stop trying to opine on science

You don't understand it at all and look rather silly when you try to pretend that you do.

Nothing in science is ever proven conclusively in the way that things in mathematics are. And the existence of a creator could be "proven" in the same way that the existence of Barack Obama can be "proven". And lacking that, the evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence of a creator can be examined scientifically, and a greater or lesser likelihood assigned.

[Lordquinton]

128. Even math is fuzzy

just look at Pi.

[skepticscott]

129. What about Pi?

Its value is known to trillions of digits after the decimal point. It can be mathematically proven to be equivalent to expressions that contain no trancendental numbers.

Where exactly is the "fuzzy" part?

[Major Nikon]

12. Fundamentalist doesn't mean what you think it means

[guillaumeb]

15. I am aware of the definition, and am modifying it to make a point.

I though that was obvious by my explanation of my meaning for the term "fundamentalist atheist".

I hope this clarifies things.

[Major Nikon]

17. You should probably employ some other strategy besides subliteracy to make your point

Those who try to pretend atheism is just like religion usually just wind up making a fool of themselves. The only thing fundamental to atheism is the nonoccurrence of belief in the divine. Ascribing anything else simply demonstrates ignorance of what atheism actually is.

[guillaumeb]

18. Your lack of appreciation for nuance does not condemn the nuance.

But to really simplify for the more literal minded here:

1)Religion does not kill people. Religion is simply a belief system.
2) Belief does not kill people.
3) People kill people.
4) Sometimes these people justify their violence with reference to a particular belief system.

5) And sometimes atheists, people who have no belief in a Creator, kill people. Atheism is also a belief system because atheists do not believe in a Creator.

But no matter what the declared motivation of the killer, the victims are just as dead.

[skepticscott]

19. Atheism is a belief system

Because atheists lack belief in something? Like not collecting stamps is a hobby and bald is a hair color?

Seriously? I know you and your ilk here need to classify atheism as a "belief system", but you make yourself look incredible foolish and intellectually desperate when you do.

[guillaumeb]

21. In your own desperation, you avoid the obvious.

I believe in a Creator.

You believe that there is no Creator.

Neither of us can prove our belief.

It really is that simple. What sometimes amazes me is that some intolerant type atheists can be equally as inflexible as their faith-based counterparts.

[skepticscott]

23. You have to invent beliefs for me

in order to support your lame argument. It really is that simple.

How about asking me what I believe, rather than making shit up? Or would that destroy whatever feeble support you imagine your position has?

[guillaumeb]

24. What stops you from advancing your beliefs?

And what does that have to do with my position that any belief is unprovable?

Do you believe in gravity or do you know that gravity is an attractive force?

[skepticscott]

25. What evidence do you have

that I "believe there is no creator"?

You claimed that as if it were certain. Let's see you back it up with facts.

[guillaumeb]

27. You avoided my response.

Again, what are your beliefs in this matter?

Are you skeptical, but open?

You have the floor, and the space. And this is the "religion" group so feel free to expound on your beliefs.

[Eko]

32. Many atheists dont

believe in god because that is what they want, rather there is and has never been any proof to believe in god. You could use the same argument you are using to say not believing in santa claus is a belief, its not, there is no santa claus because there is no proof for one.

[skepticscott]

36. Back up your own claim first

Then you'll have the right to expect responses from others.

What evidence do you have that I don't believe in a creator?

Either back up your claim, or admit you made it up.

[skepticscott]

78. Still waiting for you to back up your claim

Everyone is watching. Either you have evidence, or you lied out your ass. Which is it?

[Major Nikon]

41. Gravity can be measured. God, not so much

Comparing the proof of god and the proof of gravity is an argument creationists and other Christian fundamentalists often make which has at least something to do with why people often laugh at them hysterically.

[trotsky]

44. Do you have a belief that leprechauns don't exist?

Some people believe they do. How can you be so intolerant of them?

[Major Nikon]

45. Imagine how the believers of invisible pink unicorns must feel

Witch Doctors and Voodoo practitioners rarely get any respect.

When you get right down to it, nobody can really prove that talking donkeys, bushes, and snakes have never existed. I mean where they there at the time? How can they possibly know Noah didn't live to be over 900 years old?

[trotsky]

46. They're all just beliefs! Ta da!

With one wave of the hand, all criticism of religion is thereby nullified. If the non-believer persists, just call them an "anti-religious bigot" and the game is over. Brilliant!

[Major Nikon]

47. The idea that man descended from monkeys is really just an opinion

No more valid than the idea of night and day existing before the sun.

[trotsky]

48. Naturally.

Turtles all the way down. You can't prove it isn't, so, well... you know.

[Major Nikon]

22. The best part is this level of ridiculousness is used as a building block for more ridiculousness

To add to the hilarity, the belief that there is no creator is really no different than the belief that there is a creator because neither can be proved or disproved. By that 'logic', anyone is free to make all the moronic unfalsifiable claims they want, and those that call bullshit still have an equal burden to make the case against them. That's the level of silliness that all superstitious nonsense relies on.

[guillaumeb]

26. Do you truly believe that ignorance, name calling, and personal hostility are substitutes

for argument?

If so, please yourself with your ad hominem silliness. But do not suppose that it makes you more convincing, except among like-minded types.

[Major Nikon]

28. What name did I call you?

Please be specific.

[guillaumeb]

29. Well, since you asked,

this is what your previous post was:

To add to the hilarity, the belief that there is no creator is really no different than the belief that there is a creator because neither can be proved or disproved. By that 'logic', anyone is free to make all the moronic unfalsifiable claims they want, and those that call bullshit still have an equal burden to make the case against them. That's the level of silliness that all superstitious nonsense relies on.

I suppose that one could argue that using the terms "moronic", "unfalsifiable", and "silliness" to describe another's arguments is actually complimentary.

If you intended them as such, please accept my apology.

[Major Nikon]

31. I intended them exactly as they were used. If you can't answer my question, please say so.

Otherwise I'll just have to assume that your accusation is completely baseless.

Meanwhile are you actually positing that if I don't complement you, I'm actually calling you a name? If so, that sounds like silliness to me.

[guillaumeb]

34. Avoidance. Not very original, but I suppose it serves.

But, if you intended them as used, then you classified me as silly and moronic. Using your own terms. Silly of course has many uses and meanings, and I can be silly at times. But moronic is another matter.

And you neither complement nor compliment me, but that is another matter and has no bearing on my position.

[Major Nikon]

40. You have been avoiding my question and still are

I get that you think you can make unprovable assertions and the burden of disproving them lies with the person calling bullshit, but in the world most call reality it just doesn't work that way.

If you want to allege that I called you a name, then you should be able to specify that name, yes? Otherwise it's just another assertion you can't or won't support. I didn't use "silly" to begin with so now you're just making things up and at any rate "silly" isn't a name and neither is moronic, so if you want to play grammatical games I suggest you start by learning the difference between an adjective and a noun and then further expand the lesson into the object the adjective is describing.

I didn't 'classify' you as anything. If you didn't understand what I was talking about, then you should ask reasonable questions and I'll be glad to clarify. As yet all you've done is make silly baseless accusations. Since you clearly don't have the least clue about what I am talking about, I'll explain it to you in terms you might more easily understand.

If I said Marvin the Martian is a real being that really lives on Mars, that would be a moronic unfalsifiable claim. According to your banal reasoning, if you didn't believe this you would have an equal burden of disproving my claim as I have for proving it. For further reading please reference the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russell's Teapot.

[rug]

50. Okay, prove that God can be measured and tested.

[Major Nikon]

51. Bob's your uncle

[rug]

55. "You can't pick it up, can you?"

"He can't lift the hammer."

Pick it up.

[Major Nikon]

58. ...

[rug]

66. That is by far the most substantive post you've put up in this thread.

You could have just said you can't. But then you'd have had to lose face.

[Major Nikon]

69. It's also by far more interesting than any post you've put up in this thread

And most others.

[rug]

71. Clearly, when you can't support your position you resort to farting beavers.

Congratulations. You've brought this room to new heights of intelligent discussion.

This will further your research. http://www.fart-sounds.net/fart_sound_board.htm

[Major Nikon]

72. And yet that still beats your usual gibberish

Claims of "intelligent discussion" from someone who baselessly calls other people bigots, employs obvious logical fallacies while incessantly denying they haven't, and has a reserved parking space at the island of misfit toys, just doesn't impress anyone but yourself all that much.

Since you have yet to offer anything better, I'll just leave you with something far more interesting. Like I said, I just ain't playing your games no mo. If you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, feel free to continue on your own.

[rug]

73. Clearly, you don't know what "baseless" means.

Resurface when you either gather your wits or can answer the challenge.

Because without demonstrating that a god can be proven, you're spouting increasingly ugly nonsense,

[Major Nikon]

20. This cliched argument is usually formatted as "guns don't kill people"

Which while true, doesn't change the fact that guns and religion make it much easier to kill people more efficiently.

If rejection of a "belief system" is itself a "belief system" then so is the disbelief in unicorns or Russell's Teapot.

Good luck explaining how atheism motivates anyone to do anything. More convincing people than you have failed.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

53. fundamentalist atheists

yep

[skepticscott]

10. Show us the evidence

that these "self-identified atheists" murdered others as part of being an atheist. Show us what they believed because of their atheism that made them kill so many people.

Speaking of pathetic arguments that are so old they're almost not worth responding to.

[skepticscott]

13. Apparently kwassa did not like being asked for evidence

It's so annoying to have to actually back up your claims with facts and logical arguments.

[skepticscott]

6. They all had dark hair

Does that prove that having dark hair promotes genoicde?

Now do you see how utterly ridiculous the non-point you failed at attempting to make is?

Too bad...because everyone else does.

[rurallib]

30. and Hitler was a Catholic

[anoNY42]

52. Nope

"They were all atheists. So if we apply the same illogic used in the initial post, does this prove that atheism promotes genocide? "

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot may not have believed in the supernatural, but they didn't do what they did merely because God does not exist. They committed crimes for reasons involving power.

What the OP is talking about is someone who is religious and commits a crime because of that religion.

[Lance Bass esquire]

76. Christians like Bush , Nixon and Reagan killed plenty.

Atheism and Christianity mean nothing when the person who practices it's tenets is a psycho.

JMHO

[guillaumeb]

77. Murderers are not limited to any one philosophy.

And 30 different murderers might posit 30 different philosophical reasons to justify the murder. Which tells us nothing about the philosophies cited.

[Brettongarcia]

81. The big mass murderers are Muslims today

They cite Islamic - religious - ideas, as their motive.

[cpwm17]

84. In my lifetime, it's hard to beat the US when it comes to mass-murder.

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

The worst crime this century was the unprovoked war against Iraq. The US floods the region with weapons and supports some of the worst elements in the region. What religion causes us to do this?

[Brettongarcia]

86. The Old Testament

Implicit commands to hate and attack those who don't believe in the Judeo Christian God.

[cpwm17]

87. There are some people that take the Old Testament too seriously

such that, they favor some people over others. That is a significant factor in our ME foreign policy, though the metaphysics of religion is only partly a factor. Much of the motivation is just racism and greed, like in so many other problems in this world.

[Brettongarcia]

88. There are many factors. Religion is one, though.

[cpwm17]

89. The same is true for violence committed by Muslims.

Many people promote war over economic policy, or for many other reasons. The Cold War was sort of a holy war.
Religion is just one reason.

But all aggressive violence is caused by selfishness, regardless of the excuse. There's nothing special about religion in that regard.

Religion can be a good tool for those that are inclined to do evil (and good.) People create their own gods in their own image.

[Brettongarcia]

90. So religion has a multiplier effect on things

[cpwm17]

93. Religion certainly seems to be somewhat harmful overall (in my opinion),

though it's difficult to know how much better the world would be without it. The 20th century certainly had plenty of evil that wasn't related to religion. There are too many really selfish people in this world.

[Brettongarcia]

149. On the contrary:Religion is a major factor in violence

As we see in terrorism.

Most major western countries agree that radical Islamic religion is a very, very major factor in countless mass killings.

Indeed, those who claim religion is not a factor in murders, killings, go against the overwhelming consensus among nearly all the experts on this subject.

Why have some persisted for years, in this extremely odd position: that religion does not cause violence, or is a very, very major factor?

[guillaumeb]

153. On another note, patriotism is THE major factor in state violence.

And state violence, country against country, is responsible for far more deaths than is the non-state violence that is sometimes called terrorism.

[Brettongarcia]

156. Yes. And states often cite religion as motive

"God and country."

Even England has an official state religion, technically. Thanks to Henry 8. Anglicanism. Or Englishism, you might call it.

Nationalism, racism, religion, murderous rage, ignorance and mental illness, all typically feed off and compliment each other.

[guillaumeb]

157. Excellent comment:

Nationalism, racism, religion, murderous rage, ignorance and mental illness, all typically feed off and compliment each other.

Great point.

[Brettongarcia]

113. Stalin etc. said he was responding to religious oppression

Feudalistic Christianity had enslaved the masses as serfs. And had declared war on all those who resisted. In thus case, Lenin and Stalin etc,.were fighting a defensive war against an old armed enemy. From clericalism and divine right kings, to white Russians. And then later counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries.

[cpwm17]

8. The objective way to compare atheists to theists

is to actually compare their relative behaviors.

Who commits the most crime? Who supports and conducts more war? Who treats the weaker and less powerful the best? Those are some good measures to determine relative moralities.

[guillaumeb]

16. Given the huge disparity in numbers between believers and non-believers,

your comment proves nothing save that there are more believers than non-believers.

But using your logic, there have been more 20th century mass murdering atheist dictators than believing dictators. Does this prove something about atheists?

[cpwm17]

33. Mass murdering dictators is just one of a number of potential measures

Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2016, 10:54 PM - Edit history (1)

comparing the morality of believers and non-believers. Of course the relative numbers of non-believers and believers would be considered.

In practice, this measure would be difficult. But the attempt would show that there are a lot of assholes from people of all religious and non-religious persuasions.

Religions do often have the problem of at times actually promoting bad behavior (lots of bad behavior promotion is in the religious texts which can't be ignored) and of being objectively not true, but still, non-believers can find their own excuses for engaging in bad behavior.

I don't completely agree with some in this thread that bad behavior by atheists should always be disregarded since atheism itself is not a philosophy and is only a non-belief in any gods. It's true that atheism isn't a philosophy, but still, theists claim that their religions do some good also. Atheism is neutral on such issues. If bad behavior by atheists does not count, by definition, then theists have no chance of looking good by comparison. That comparison would be rigged from the start.

I'm biased for atheists to some extent, but I still don't want to exaggerate the problems caused by believers. Morality is innate, with some learning involved. Regardless of religious belief, people will find their own excuses for their own selfish behavior, which is the cause of all evil in this world.

[guillaumeb]

35. A nuanced reply.

But I would reframe your last argument. You said:

I'm biased for atheists to some extent, but I still don't want to exaggerate the problems caused by believers. Morality is innate, with some learning involved. Regardless of religious belief, people will find their own excuses for their own selfish behavior, which is the cause of all evil in this world.

Without addressing the issue of atheism, I would say:

I'm biased for atheists to some extent, but I still don't want to exaggerate the problems caused by believers. Morality is innate, with some learning involved. Regardless of religious belief or non-belief, people will find their own excuses for their own selfish behavior, which is the cause of all evil in this world.

[skepticscott]

37. Yet another claim that you keep repeating

even though you have no evidence or argument for it.

[cpwm17]

39. That's what I meant by my sentence.

Non-belief is included.

[Major Nikon]

42. Some find excuses in a book that includes directions for selling your children into slavery

So I'd say that difference is just not all that nuanced, especially when quite a few consider that book to be a fax from god.

[Buzz cook]

54. This thread got off the rails quick. Religion is a fig leaf not a cause

Acts of violence done in the name of religion are motivated by sociopolitical reasons or psychological motives. Religion is just the excuse for those actions.

To blame a book or a series of myths for acts of violence is to believe that they contain power of their own outside of human agency.

It gives magical power to an inanimate object.

[cpwm17]

56. "It gives magical power to an inanimate object."

Exactly! It's magical thinking.

Religion can definitely contribute to bad behavior, but one shouldn't overplay that hand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=231592

Anyone that is so full of oneself, such that he is willing to harm someone else, for whatever reason, is selfish (unless, perhaps, he is profoundly mentally ill. But then he is sick and not necessarily evil.) That should be self-evident.

People have minds of their own. Anyone that claims their imaginary god told them to murder is only murdering someone out of their own desire to murder. Murderers put themselves above those that they murder.

There's nothing magical about religion, such that, religion makes evil acts not selfish. There's nothing magical about religion, such that, a person murdered in the name of religion is any more dead than someone murdered for any other alleged reason. Evil is evil.

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. So your answer is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Acts of violence done in the name of religion are motivated by sociopolitical reasons or psychological motives. Religion is just the excuse for those actions.

In many cases, you can't separate "religion" from "sociopolitical causes". Religion is culture, and is firmly intertwined with society and politics.

To blame a book or a series of myths for acts of violence is to believe that they contain power of their own outside of human agency.

Religion isn't just what's written down in old books.

Your position relies on an overly simplistic and not-entirely-useful definition of "religion". I would urge you to read up on the sociology of religion to get a more comprehensive view of what constitutes religion, and the roles religion plays in society.

[Buzz cook]

59. "Religion is culture" yes exactly

By that you're saying that religion is sociopolitical.

It is only when religion is part of the social fabric that it can be used to excuse acts of violence.

If someone used Zeus or Odin as an excuse for violence we would either think they were lying or insane. The only reason xtianity is "acceptable" as an excuse for violence is because it is part of the social fabric.

Religion is used by the powerful to control the powerless. If we remove religion that will not stop the powerful from trying to control the powerless.

And guns don't kill people they just make it very easy to kill.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. A distinction without a difference.

It is only when religion is part of the social fabric that it can be used to excuse acts of violence.

Religion is always a part of the social fabric. There's no point measuring religion if it were separate from society when it is never separate from society.

Religion is used by the powerful to control the powerless.

Sometimes it is used by the powerless to become powerful.

If we remove religion that will not stop the powerful from trying to control the powerless.

No one said removing religion from the world would cure all ills. Obviously, it wouldn't. But in the absence of religion, there is one less taboo behind which the stupid and the horrible may shield their stupid and horrible opinions from criticism; and there is one less illogical wellspring from which horrible decisions arise.

[Brettongarcia]

62. If religion is an excuse for violence, it encourages it

Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2016, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

It helps violence happen, by in some ways seeming to let people off for doing certain bad things.

In particular, convincing people that magic powers are making them do things, weakens their sense of self will and control. And personal responsibility.

God made them do it, they think; so now they don't have to worry about their own personal responsibility for their own personal actions.

Which is probably a factor in many more crimes than the very obvious hate crimes noted by statistics.

It's not just an after-the-fact excuse, for what they were going to do anyway. It's often the final thing that makes it happen.

Religion is oftenhe final straw that makes a bad thing happen. By assuring the perpetrator in effect, that he isn't responsible. That God or the devil, is ordering, compelling him to do it. So he is just following orders. Or is the innocent victim of external powers, making him do things. After deciding he has an excuse, the person then finally decides to go out and finally do it.

[trotsky]

65. But what about the people who believe the book is the divine word of god?

If they then act on what is contained in that book, what are they doing?

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. Some people are fixated on violence.

And because violence is so abhorrent it is easy to explain religious violence away as the product of mental illness or innate evil.

But the negative effects of religion extend well beyond physical brutality. Lancaster County Mennonites are costing the State of Pennsylvania millions because, according to their firmly held religious beliefs, rubber tires are sinful. So they drive steel-wheeled tractors on public roads. Mental illness, innate evil, class warfare, imperialism... the old standbys just don't explain this one away.

Religion just might have something to do with it.

[Brettongarcia]

63. Very nice OP

Funny too.

[Brettongarcia]

83. The religious would've killed people anyway?

A guy buys an apple because his wife asked him to. But according to the arguments advanced by many here, it wasn't because his wife asked him. It was because of his own inner inclinations. Which would have lead him to buy one anyway.

Even though say, he doesn't like apples himself?

So it isn't really true that orders, commands, ideas, requests from others - whether from God or from your wife ---have no influence or causal force, on our behavior.

And the idea, often expressed on DU, isn't true. That those persons who cite religion as the reason for their crimes, were frustrated, or would have done these things anyway, even without religion. Clearly different external forces, commands, continually effect our behavior.

Its not just our deep inner anger that makes things happen, all by itself. Other things, like religion, are a factor too.

[Brettongarcia]

148. See DU "Terrorism is Not About Religion" responses

[Cartoonist]

150. I've seen 'em

weak arguments.

You can bet every time some charity is proffered, the same people will say how absolutely wonderful religion is.

[Brettongarcia]

151. 1 good point: experts agree religion relates to terrorism

Some good comments there at least.

Arguments are made here, constantly, by religious defenders, that religion and violence are not related. But? The best counterargument is terrorism today. Huge numbers of experts tacitly agree that Muslim terrorism is driven by of course, parts of Islam. They're called "Muslim Terrorists" after all.

There are many factors in killings. But religion is well known to be connected to violence, when it comes to, for instance, terrorism. The clearest example.

[rug]

152. What's the religious factor in Baton Rouge and Dallas?

[Cartoonist]

154. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Not all bad things stem from religion. But when they do, it is dishonest to claim religion is not responsible.

[Brettongarcia]

155. Why can't the religious honestly confess their sins?