Muslims and Israelites killing people

[agnosticatheist]

1. Christians, do you find the killings carried out by muslims to be horrifying and disgusting?

2. Do you find the killings carried out by the israelites to be horrifying and disgusting?

[KenRU]

To you, they are insignificant. Is the distinction between a theist and a Catholic insignificant, as well?

You’re implying that the distinctions between an animist and observant RC are the same as a secular humanist and that of an atheist.

Where did you get "animist" from? Certainly not from the dictionary.

Theism (as per the dictionary):

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

I am using the word theist as defined by the dictionary. Animism is not a necessary part of theism.

Catholicism is a religion. Religions fall under theism (by definition this is true).

If atheism had a worldview, it would fall under the term atheism.

A secular-humanist is one whose worldview entails the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God. Atheists believe that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment w/o belief in God – a tenet routinely articulated here on this website as well as hundreds more by atheists. Therefore, an Atheist is a Secular Humanist.

Hmm, by those definition, I agree. Once you remove the necessity of god from dictating what is moral and how one attains self-fulfillment they do seem to be interchangeable.

One may describe “Naturalism� as distinct but it’s defined as a philosophical viewpoint where everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted and certainly delving into naturalist websites one finds the same thing – that man is capable of achieving morality and self-fulfillment w/o belief in God.

In essence, we’ve just removed god and the supernatural from the picture. That is all it says, I agree.

It is not saying anything more though, is it?

Is there a call to violence (slaying the infidels, for example) in the crusaders holy books?

Yes. How does it change the fact that atheism and interpretations of texts such as the Manifesto of the Communist Party have led some to violence – very extreme violence – on multiple occasions? It doesn’t.

Sure it does, because those texts do not tell one how to be an atheist. The holy books tell one how to be a Christian or Muslim.

How is that not relevant?

I acknowledge that the violent behavior by militant atheists is equally deplorable (given your comparison). I am NOT condoning or excusing any bad behavior.

Yes, but you’re not acknowledging that atheism and it’s spread was the purpose – even when they specifically said that atheism was the impetus for their actions.

This goes right back to my analogy. If (as a Catholic) I killed people in the name of Christ, is the fact that I am a Catholic relevant? Does it say anything about Christ or Catholicism?

I asked you earlier, “Do you know their motivations better than they did?�

Do you acknowledge motives can be misplaced? Do those who bomb abortion clinics have the same kind of “inspiration�?

What does it mean (or say) about veganism if one kills in its name? What is the relevance of making this claim? It tells me nothing (good nor bad) about veganism. It only tells me that the person is cruel and/or insane. It tells me about the character of the person, not veganism.

Same for those who kill in the name of atheism. This "inspiration" you wish to keep illustrating brings nothing to the conversation, it says nothing about atheism, nor does it say anything about veganism when the vegan kills.

I do not presume to say someone is lying, so if they state that is their reason, I agree then that is their reason. It doesn’t mean I agree it is a cohesive one. Or that it even makes sense. I can kill people for wearing the color blue. It doesn’t mean that my logic is sound.

Those are all ancillary issues.

Really? Let’s see if you are consistent.

Is it ancillary to say that the right-wing Christian lunatic who bombs an abortion clinic, or shoots a medical doctor who performs abortions that his Christian "inspiration" has nothing to do with Christianity?

When this person commits these violent acts, what does this say about Christianity? Is Christianity his inspiration? And dos it speak ill of Christianity, especially if I lump this act under the umbrella of people who were inspired to kill for Christianity?

They killed people and did it in the name of atheism; therefore, atheism can inspire people to violence and challenges to that simply aren’t based upon fact.

This carries the equivalent weight of saying “people need air to breathe� and is more accurately stated as (imo) "people can be “inspired� to violence for just about anything.

If you disagree, please explain why. Can you provide an example that will illustrate the difference?

Let me put it this way: If (when I was a Catholic) I killed people who didn’t believe in Christ or take him as their savior, would that be the fault in any way of Christianity?

Fault has nothing to do with it.

So you admit atheism has no fault with respect to Lenin’s and Hitler’s actions?

If Catholics did this and said that Catholicism was their inspiration then it was. Now, whether or not they were following the tenets of their faith is different.

Exactly. Does atheism have tenets?

That’s one whopper of a condition you tacked on to your apology, JLB. You’ll forgive me if I find myself calling it’s sincerity into question.

My conscience is clear as to whether or not I was attacking you personally. I wasn’t.

Well, as long as your conscience is clear, lol.

-all the best

[JLB32168]

I am using the word theist as defined by the dictionary. Animism is not a necessary part of theism.

Animism is belief that common everyday things have spirits that are called “gods� in some forms of it. You implied that Atheist/Secular-Humanist was as inappropriate as theist/Catholic. Animism is theistic as is Roman Catholicism; however, the contrasts far outnumber the comparisons; whereas, the contrasts between the unnamed worldviews of most atheists and the worldview of self-proclaimed Secular-Humanists are indistinguishable so as to make the two synonymous with one another. I maintain that any protests against that are simply unreasonable/illogical – whatever.

If atheism had a worldview, it would fall under the term atheism.

And I have produced sources from the Internet where atheists indeed referred to the “atheist worldview� and how their website seeks to educate people to further it (the worldview, that is.)

Once you remove the necessity of god from dictating what is moral and how one attains self-fulfillment they do seem to be interchangeable.

That is what I’m saying – that the two are interchangeable if one abides by commonly received definitions of the concept “secular-humanism.�

Sure it does, because those texts do not tell one how to be an atheist. The holy books tell one how to be a Christian or Muslim.

Why is this supposed to be earth-shattering, which you seem to think it is? I don’t see it’s importance. Two groups of people found justifications to kill. That Christians interpreted OT commands as license to do so, when Christ clearly said “Pray for your enemies� rather than pelt them w/rocks is the same thing as Atheists who read “Religion is the opiate of the masses� and felt that gave them license to wipe religion and the religious from the face of the planet.

This goes right back to my analogy. If (as a Catholic) I killed people in the name of Christ, is the fact that I am a Catholic relevant? Does it say anything about Christ or Catholicism?

It says that people will interpret a text anyway they want and claim it as their inspiration – be it good or bad.

• 1. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind – it is abominationâ€� means “Kill men who participate in homosexual actsâ€�
  2. “Religion is the opiate of the masses� means “wipe religion and the religious from off the face of the planet.�

This "inspiration" you wish to keep illustrating brings nothing to the conversation, it says nothing about atheism, nor does it say anything about veganism when the vegan kills.

I’m not trying to say anything about atheism other than atheist claims that religion causes violence – be atheist and then violence will decrease dramatically (yes, that is routinely implied by most atheists) is a case of “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones� since atheism indeed has moved some to extreme violence. Atheist characterizations would cast all of us theists as anti-science, anti-intellectual, slack-jawed hicks who praise Jay-zuz while waving our hands in the air while not contributing much else to society except intolerance and violence.

So you admit atheism has no fault with respect to Lenin’s and Hitler’s actions?

They killed theists and said that atheism was their inspiration; therefore, I take them at their word - that atheism inspired them to commit atrocities. Fortunately, most atheists may think that theism is ridiculous, but they don't take it any further than that - just as most Christians think that homosexuality is a grave sin, but take it no further than that.

Exactly. Does atheism have tenets?

If some call a worldview then indeed it can have tenets.

[KenRU]

Sure it does, because those texts do not tell one how to be an atheist. The holy books tell one how to be a Christian or Muslim.

Why is this supposed to be earth-shattering, which you seem to think it is? I don’t see it’s importance. Two groups of people found justifications to kill. That Christians interpreted OT commands as license to do so, when Christ clearly said “Pray for your enemies� rather than pelt them w/rocks is the same thing as Atheists who read “Religion is the opiate of the masses� and felt that gave them license to wipe religion and the religious from the face of the planet.

We will disagree, obviously. There is absolutely an importance. Atheism has no book telling one how to be an atheist. Religions do have a holy book. I maintain that any protestations to the contrary “are simply unreasonable/illogical - whatever�.

See below for a practical difference.

This goes right back to my analogy. If (as a Catholic) I killed people in the name of Christ, is the fact that I am a Catholic relevant? Does it say anything about Christ or Catholicism?

It says that people will interpret a text anyway they want and claim it as their inspiration – be it good or bad.

Great. Now what text (teaching one how to be an atheist) can be misinterpreted? Please don’t use one that teaches one how to be a fascist, Marxist or whatever. A text teaching one how to be an atheist is what I am asking you for.

2. “Religion is the opiate of the masses� means “wipe religion and the religious from off the face of the planet.�

This is not from a book teaching one to be an atheist. No matter how much you want to link it to atheism will not change this fact. And any attempts to do so will just appear exactly as what it is – a desperate attempt to even the playing field.

[/list]

This "inspiration" you wish to keep illustrating brings nothing to the conversation, it says nothing about atheism, nor does it say anything about veganism when the vegan kills.

I’m not trying to say anything about atheism other than atheist claims that religion causes violence – be atheist and then violence will decrease dramatically (yes, that is routinely implied by most atheists) is a case of “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones� since atheism indeed has moved some to extreme violence. Atheist characterizations would cast all of us theists as anti-science, anti-intellectual, slack-jawed hicks who praise Jay-zuz while waving our hands in the air while not contributing much else to society except intolerance and violence.

I have encountered some theists (on this website and elsewhere) who would characterize atheists as without morals, without a sense of right and wrong and/or devil worshippers.

But I am careful not to generalize that all theists do this.

Citing that there is a tangible, provable link (inspiration, if you will) from religious texts to violence and bigotry does not mean (to me at least) that all theists behave this way.

So you admit atheism has no fault with respect to Lenin’s and Hitler’s actions?

They killed theists and said that atheism was their inspiration; therefore, I take them at their word - that atheism inspired them to commit atrocities. Fortunately, most atheists may think that theism is ridiculous, but they don't take it any further than that - just as most Christians think that homosexuality is a grave sin, but take it no further than that.

Well yes, they do, they propose, endorse and legislate laws against same sex marriage.

The difference, as I said, is very relevant.

Exactly. Does atheism have tenets?

If some call a worldview then indeed it can have tenets.

Then you should be able to explain this further for me. Let’s say I agree (entirely) with this point “Atheism is a worldview�. Please, tell me what are some of my tenets?

-all the best

[JLB32168]

We will disagree, obviously. There is absolutely an importance. Atheism has no book telling one how to be an atheist. Religions do have a holy book.

Yes, we’re going to have to disagree because both sides have a significant body count informed by their take on a reading selection. You see a difference. I don’t.

Great. Now what text (teaching one how to be an atheist) can be misinterpreted? Please don’t use one that teaches one how to be a fascist, Marxist or whatever.

In other words, exclude those texts that atheists used to inspire their violence and once that evidence is off the table then tell you what text/teaching was misinterpreted. Isn’t that like “Exclude all evidence from NASA. Now that we’ve done that, what evidence do you have that men ever landed on the moon?�

This is not from a book teaching one to be an atheist.

Okay.
Why is that important? The fact that you guys found reasons outside of religious books to slaughter tens of millions of people is supposed to demonstrate what exactly – your creativity?

I have encountered some theists (on this website and elsewhere) who would characterize atheists as without morals, without a sense of right and wrong and/or devil worshippers.

Then talk to them. I’m addressing the constant assertion, “Atheism doesn’t inspire people to violence because there’s no book for atheism that teaches it.� This is supposed to be of some significance and apparently theists are supposed to utter some combined “GASP!!� at the fact that atheists got into power and butchered people – but at least it wasn’t because of a book (except that it was.)

Well yes, they do, they propose, endorse and legislate laws against same sex marriage.

Well yes. They do vote and try to move people to see their side of things and see that policy reflects those ideas. Morality is relative though. They’re only wrong in opposition’s eyes.

Then you should be able to explain this further for me. Let’s say I agree (entirely) with this point “Atheism is a worldview�. Please, tell me what are some of my tenets?

Let’s start off with two: Atheists believe in the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society
And
They believe in the development and propagation a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity.
Is that a good start?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 143 by JLB32168]

China took a picture of the American flag on the moon...
Do you now get the picture?

[KenRU]

We will disagree, obviously. There is absolutely an importance. Atheism has no book telling one how to be an atheist. Religions do have a holy book.

Yes, we’re going to have to disagree because both sides have a significant body count informed by their take on a reading selection. You see a difference. I don’t.

Hopefully, the difference that I see will become clearer to you below.

Great. Now what text (teaching one how to be an atheist) can be misinterpreted? Please don’t use one that teaches one how to be a fascist, Marxist or whatever.

In other words, exclude those texts that atheists used to inspire their violence and once that evidence is off the table then tell you what text/teaching was misinterpreted. Isn’t that like “Exclude all evidence from NASA. Now that we’ve done that, what evidence do you have that men ever landed on the moon?�

No, you are not excluding those texts that just atheists use. You are excluding those texts that ANYONE can use.

This is not from a book teaching one to be an atheist.

Okay.
Why is that important?

Because that is what we are talking about.

The fact that you guys found reasons outside of religious books to slaughter tens of millions of people is supposed to demonstrate what exactly – your creativity?

You keep saying “you guys�, as if, once again, the violence perpetrated is inspired by something teaching one to be an atheist (thus lumping “us� all together). It doesn’t. Unlike religion, there is no “text� teaching one to be an atheist. There is a text, though, teaching one to be a Christian.

Acting like a book INSPIRED BY GOD is just as powerful a teaching tool as one that is written by a man, is minimizing the power of your god, and probably isn’t the best argument you can make.

If I’m teaching my son to be a Christian, and I say, “this book is inspired by god, heed it well and live your life accordingly and you will be rewarded in the afterlife�, are you really going to argue that this message is JUST AS POWERFUL as if I told him, “here, son, read this book, it doesn’t really teach you to how to be an atheist, but it does touch on it, it really teaches you how to be a Marxist, oh, and it is inspired by a man�.

Which do you think will be more persuasive? If both have a passage that can be interpreted to cause harm, which is more likely to inspire people? The man made text or the divinely inspired one?

You really don’t see a difference now?

I have encountered some theists (on this website and elsewhere) who would characterize atheists as without morals, without a sense of right and wrong and/or devil worshippers.

Then talk to them. I’m addressing the constant assertion, “Atheism doesn’t inspire people to violence because there’s no book for atheism that teaches it.� This is supposed to be of some significance and apparently theists are supposed to utter some combined “GASP!!� at the fact that atheists got into power and butchered people – but at least it wasn’t because of a book (except that it was.)

I’m not expecting any such gasp, lol. But an honest critique is not an unwarranted expectation.

Again, the book inspired atrocities, but it is not a book that teaches one to be an atheist.

Well yes, they do, they propose, endorse and legislate laws against same sex marriage.

Well yes. They do vote and try to move people to see their side of things and see that policy reflects those ideas. Morality is relative though. They’re only wrong in opposition’s eyes.

Not when they are imposing their religious beliefs on someone who doesn’t share them.

Then they’re just plain wrong. Much like you wouldn’t appreciate being forced to follow Islamic laws.

Then you should be able to explain this further for me. Let’s say I agree (entirely) with this point “Atheism is a worldview�. Please, tell me what are some of my tenets?

Let’s start off with two: Atheists believe in the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society

Do you agree with this worldview? If so, then it is not an atheist worldview then is it? Plus, where did you find such a list?

And
They believe in the development and propagation a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity.
Is that a good start?

It is if you can answer the following:

Where did you get such an idea? And, do you share these beliefs?

-all the best