Smoking Then Talking About Religion In General.

If people weren't doing shitty things in the name of religion they'd find some other way to justify their actions.

 

The primitive religious zealot is the one who kills, or scorns, in the name of his or her religion, and not the one who abstains; the former are produced en masse (as are all kinds of blind followers, and herds), the latter are honed existentially.
 
Also, a belief is no different than an "idea"; (instead of narrow-mindedly focusing on, and highlighting, the ill deeds of "religious" fanatics) read up a little on Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, etc., plenty of nefarious rulers (all of the ones who were listed, being avouched atheist) have slaughtered, conquested and reigned in the name of an "ideology" (or should I say, a belief system).
 
To categorize, and label, all religious people into one commensurable group, is as abusrd as categorizing all atheist into one commensurable group.

 

The point made in your last paragraph requires a little more investigation.

The reason religious people can in fact be grouped far easier than atheists is due to the following reason.

Atheism has no tenants and no dogmas. There is nothing about a rejection of a claim that can lead to horrible acts. Religions(most) have dogmas, they have authoritative documents that specifically command actions. In addition, when these are supposed commands from a divine overseer it becomes even more persuading.

The people who conform to the ideals can in fact be grouped in to certain categories. If a person were to subscribe to a tenant and belief they become part of a specific subsection.

That aside I would say that Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini were political dogmatists.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 
Atheism has no tenants and no dogmas.
 
Atheism is a position taken - positively; stop acting like atheism is some sort of passive opinion. Atheists deny the spiritual as being, and adhere to the assumption that talk of the supernatural is, nonsensical (that's not only a rejection, but a positive assertion).
 
There is nothing about a rejection of a claim that can lead to horrible acts.
 
Wtf are you talking about? All sorts of people reject claims; subsequently acting on, and in congruence with, their rejection; which has lead to horrific deeds. Let's start with the denial, or rejection, of racial equality... there's plenty more...
 
The people who conform to the ideals can in fact be grouped in to certain categories. If a person were to subscribe to a tenant and belief they become part of a specific subsection.
 
Change the word "ideal" with principle - and you have atheism as a group. People who adhere to a principle can in fact be categorically grouped together.
 
That aside I would say that Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini were political dogmatists.
 
Who killed, and slaughtered, millions of people because they believed in and avouched the "law of nature" (as atheists do).

 

No we don't (not all of us, anyway). There are many spiritual atheists as well as those that believe in the supernatural. You're applying characteristics to atheism that have nothing to do with atheism in and of itself.

 

@[member="Boats And Hoes"], honestly it's not the best idea to try to have an argument when you dont know much about what your talking about. Most atheist are spiritual in one way or another. However, I think the original point was war over religion and there is no recorded history of an atheist killing people simply for believing in something different as far as religion goes.

Sent from my VS920 4G using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

 

 
Lol, now we have spiritual atheists? How hilarious.
 
@[member="untilwesoar"], honestly, it's not the best idea to make a plea that is totally retarded.
 
A given atheist professes that he or she is "spiritual", which is just a word, and yet, in the same breath, claims that all of life, the natural world, and cosmic reality, is simply the result of the unconscious flux of material energies incapable of being influenced by "free will". Right, and I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about? "Spiritual atheists"... .
 
However, I think the original point was war over religion and there is no recorded history of an atheist killing people simply for believing in something different as far as religion goes.
 
The atheist Mao, the atheist Stalin, and the atheist Mussolinni, killed tens of millions of people because of their dissonant beliefs; and, of course, this wasn't done because of their own "religious" beliefs, I mean, that's the whole point, they were irreligious! Duh. (Actually, the principles of their state, was their "religion'). Yet, that doesn't mean they didn't kill people because of their own personal beliefs, i.e., their affirmative belief in the "survival of the fittest" maxim and the "law of nature".
 
There are many spiritual atheists as well as those that believe in the supernatural.
 
Well, these so called atheist you speak of must be rarer than a chimpanzee dancing on the head of pin. lol
 
What is atheism "in and of itself"?
 
"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."
 
Source.... http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

 

spiritual

[ ˈspiriCHo͞oəl ]

adjective
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things:
 
Full Definition of SPIRITUAL<div>1
:  of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the <span>spirit :  incorporeal </span>
 
of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena

</div> 
Yea, I'm pretty sure an atheist is defined as such precisely because of his or her denial of the spiritual.
 
Lol, "spiritual atheists". Thanks for the laugh.

 

I will take your points in order.

1. I am not a fan of the word "Atheism" because people often boot-strap other things to it as you have. Atheism is by definition disbelief in theistic claims and it has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality. Theists have made the positive assertion that a supernatural being exists (in most cases) and the atheists don't believe this. It isn't believed due to insufficient evidence for the claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant, to disbelieve a claim that doesn't have support is the default position. Logic 101.

2. Racial inequality is not a claim... You are presenting a false equivalency, and appear to be conflating two ideas. My point was and is that a rejection of a theistic claim can in no way lead directly to horrible acts. 

3. Here lies the fundamental misunderstanding that you bring to this topic. I addressed it in part earlier in this post though I will repeat it to clarify. Atheism is a rejection of god claims. As Sam Harris says it is like being a non-astrologer. We don't have to create a category for people who don't accept the nonsense of astrology. We can talk about truth, evidence, science, reason, and rubbish, and put the astrologers in their place, as so we can do away with these other claims. We don't group people in to a subsection because they don't believe in claims that are unsupported. The same goes for those who don't have faith in the propositions and hypotheses made by the religious. The sole reason why the word atheist exists is because most people believe in a supernatural power(at least in America), therefore those who don't are seen as different and thereby labeled. 

4. Lol, I find it funny even addressing that last point. Yes atheists believe in the laws of nature. Yes Stalin etc, believed in the laws of nature, it does not follow that atheism leads to the slaughter of millions. That is a non-sequitur. 

 

 
1.) The theist puts forth a claim, or asserts something, yes, the atheist does not deny that; yet, what the atheist denies is the veracity of the claim's assertions, hence, an atheist is positively denying a claim or assertion as false, and not witholding an opinion as to the claim's or assertion's existence (to be sure, the claim or assertion isn't what an atheist disbelieves in, obviously the atheist acknowledges the proposition, an atheist affirmatively denies the proposition as false). So, again, atheism is not a lack of belief, or some passive opinion, it's an adamant denial of the veracity of a belief (hence, it's a position taken - positively). LOGIC 101.
 
2.) What are you talking about? The idea, or assertion, that one race is inherently superior to another, that is, that the various races of the planet earth are not inherently on the same hierarchical echelon, is a claim; a very straightforward one (might I add).
 
My point was and is that a rejection of a theistic claim can in no way lead directly to horrible acts.
 
The linguistic, or conversational, denial may not, but the ethical denial can sanction, and has sanctioned, a lot more than you're willing to concede.
 
3.) Your point is moot. Atheism is the denial of a claim, assertion, or proposition for being false; the affirmation that a given proposition is either true or false creates a division; one group accepts as true, the other accepts the contrary. It's simple logic, dr.
 
4.) I never said it did. Check my first post.

 

I will combine two points.You are so obviously confusing terms and misdealing words. You are changing the meaning of the term atheism. Atheists do no assert that the claim is false, you are doing nothing more than playing with words here. Atheism and theism address only the proposition that a god exists. Theists assert that one does, atheists do not believe them. I take the analogy of a gumball machine. This gumball machine holds a definite amount of gumballs and the number of gumballs is either even or odd. Someone asserts that the amount is even, simply because you do not believe that the number is even does not mean that you are claiming that it is odd. You seem to mistake atheism for anti-theism. An introductory course in the foundations of logic should clear up the problem you have with understanding that a rejection does not lead to the contra-positive.
 
I am not going to argue the meaning of a word distinctly understood, nor will I argue the principles of logic, these things are easy enough to Google.

No matter how many times you assert your incorrect conception of atheism, you will not make it come true. 

2. My point in the first post was that a claim, rejected, can not lead to horrible acts. You stated that racial equality was a claim. It is however a demonstrable fact that there is no more or less evolved group of human beings. Racial equality is not a claim and therefore can't be a basis for your point.
Now, my position is that disbelief in a claim does not lead to people acting in a way that leads to abominations. Can an atheist do bad things? Sure. Can a religious person do bad things? Sure. Can a rejection of a god claim lead, without hesitation a good person to do a bad thing, no. Can religion cause a good person to do a bad thing, absolutely. I was, for a some time a tutor for an ethics class during undergraduate studies. If you would like to discuss the ethical implications, i'm more than willing to unpack that box. I would add that there have been many many studies done on these topics, countering the very idea you propose. (Also easy enough to Google)

 

 

 
Lol, you're not nearly as comptent as you think you are.
 
Atheists do no assert that the claim is false, you are doing nothing more than playing with words here. Atheism and theism address only the proposition that a god exists. Theists assert that one does, atheists do not believe them.
 
Do atheist deny the reality of the claim, or the validity of it? Obviously the claim itself is not what's in question, again, theism and atheism have to do with the acceptance or denial of a certain claim as either true or false. It seems you do no want to understand simple logic, and neither want to comprehend basic epistemology.
 
This gumball machine holds a definite amount of gumballs and the number of gumballs is either even or odd. Someone asserts that the amount is even, simply because you do not believe that the number is even does not mean that you are claiming that it is odd.
 
This is an unsatisfactory analogy; and the root of your confusion... you seem to conflate atheism and agnosticism.
 
You're committing a very elementary mistake. A proposition is either true or false; either there is an even amount of gumballs in the gumball machine, or there is not (it's one or the other). So, to begin with, and to be clear, any party who passes judgement on the 'estimated' amount of gumballs in the gumball machine, has, before anything, acknowledged the reality of the gumballs. Whereby, a person who disbelieves that the real amount of the gumballs in the gumball machine is even, has not, in the same breath, I concede, affirmed the contrary, that is, affirmed that he believes that the real amount is odd; but, the question consequentially arises, does this person who positively disbelieves that the real amount is even, believe that the real amount is odd? Either he does, or he does not (there is no between here); if he does, then he has avowed and avouched, positively, the contrary (which in this case would be atheism); and if he does not, that is, if does not believe and disbelieves that the real amount is odd, then that means this person is denying both possible positions after acknowledging their reality and conceding to them, or, in other words, this person is withholding judgement in regards to his own personal belief about the real amount (after acknowledging there is an amount that is real). Put simply, he hasn't really believed or disbelieved either... he remains agnostic.
 
No matter how many times you assert your incorrect conception of atheism, you will not make it come true.
 
It seems your conception of atheism is incorrect. Atheism and agnosticism are two different things, and two different stances on the matter.
 
Racial equality is not a claim and therefore can't be a basis for your point.
 
How is the assertion that whites, i.e., one group, are better than, and not equal with, blacks, i.e., another group, not a claim? Are you serious? You seem to confuse yourself... for I don't mean racial equality as in the same exact rights imputed by a state, in the state, regardless of race, I mean the ideologically asserted superiority or inferiority (or commensurability) of a given race. Ever hear that some men believe a certain kind of others are merely 3/5ths of a human? You know what that claim encouraged and sanctioned, right?

 

@[member="Boats And Hoes"], okay so you really arent getting it are you? Youre making yourself look flooish. Athiest do not believe in a God. Thats what ties us all together. You can be spiritual with the earth, yourself, or the supernatural. Once again, and ill describe it a little more since you cant read and understand well, no atheist has ever started a war saying that they will kill people who believe in a God. We dont kill for ignorance. You like throwing out names of horrible people that have started wars that didnt believe in any God. Would you like examples of wars started by Christians, Muslims, Jews, or really any religion? Saying Stallin was an athiest and killed for non atheist reasons is NOT a good example for your arguement. It just shows ignorance.

Sent from my VS920 4G using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

The human spirit is human emotions.. and atheists can have emotions, emotional connections. Take that as you will. While I do agree with you personally, as an atheist I don't consider myself spiritual.. but based on how I interact with the world, many many people have claimed that I am spiritual. It's because I form emotional connections in the moment a moment is happening, emotions based on the environment. So it really depends on the individual and what they consider their spirit to be, cause I believe in spirit the emotion, not a metaphysical spirit. If there was only one lesson I'd like you to learn, its not to assume your assumptions on others are correct. If you want to learn about others, actually learn from them..

Not only that, there is a concept called 'spiritual but not religious'. The people who aren't religious might not even believe in deities, but still form an emotional connection with the world around them. Since they don't believe in deities, by definition they are atheist. They might be agnostic atheists, but they're still atheist.

 

Being passionate (or showing emotional interest) is the not same thing as being spiritual.
 
An emotive attachment to something isn't necessarily spiritual. 
 
Take away a video game console from a child, or their cell phone, and the child will become impassioned and very emotional, but does that mean the child is, in such a regard, spiritual? No.

 

Never said being passionate is the same as being spiritual, those are words you put into my argument so you have something to argue.

Emotional interest isn't always the same thing thing as an emotional connection.. they can run hand in hand for some, but isn't always the case. Besides, you're trying to use a child, who has barely developed their human emotions beyond the superficial, as an example.

Forming an actual emotional connection is what its about. Take many Japanese people for example, they believe there is spirit in just about everything. Even a robot they designed and created has a spirit to them.. some see those spirits as Gods, and some simply see them as the spirit of the object in question, there to form an emotional connection to.

 

theism and atheism have to do with the acceptance or denial of a certain claim as either true or false. 
 
Wrong, once again.
 
Theism and atheism address ONE prong of the argument, this being whether a god exists. They do not address the second prong, whether no god exists. The anti-theistic position is one which defends that issue, rather convincingly by the way. You are making the gross error of trying to address two separate prongs of an argument simultaneously. Theism proposes the existence of this god. Atheists are not convinced of the truth of this proposition. Therefore they do not credit it as true. I have again and again demonstrated the flaw in your logic and you just can not seem to grasp it. 


I will make one more attempt.
 There are two propositions, either a god exists or no god exists. This is about what is actually true. Theism and atheism address your belief about these propositions. We will take a court room analogy. The defendant is either guilty or innocent. The prosecution claims that the defendant is guilty. We are only addressing guilt (proposition 1), not innocence (proposition 2). You either believe that the defendant is guilty or you believe that the defendant is not guilty. If we lack sufficient evidence to make a guilty ruling, the person is considered to be not guilty. They are addressing the first prong. At the end of the day if he is found not guilty that does not mean he is innocent. 
 
Just as this does not mean that when an atheist is not convinced by scanty evidence this does not mean that he asserts that this god is innocent of existing. It simply means that the claimant has not provided evidence sufficient to justify belief. 
 
As argued before, I am again sorry to inform you, that my account on this is correct. I am fully aware of what atheism is and publicly defend the default position on these issues, you appear not to be understanding. We have already discussed the difference between atheism and agnosticism if I recall correctly. 

You will have to agree with the following statement to be in accordance with fact.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism goes to what a person does, and does not know.
Atheism and Theism go to what a person believes on a the god topic.

They are separate terms, under those strict definitions I would be an agnostic atheist. I tend to reject all of these labels as mentioned before.
 
If you read my comment carefully I addressed your statement proposing that racial equality is a claim, not that racial inequality is a claim. Suggested inequalities are senseless claims, though the fact that we are all in the strictest sense the same is not. I'm sure you will agree with this.
 

 

^ All of this is excess derived from a pedant's pride.
 
It's very simple. Substance A exists - either one accepts the proposition as true or does not. You do, then you're theist; you do not, then you're a-theist. Now, if you are to withhold from affirming denial and acceptance, then that means you are not positively committed to either extreme, that is to say, you remain undecided on the matter, i.e., AGNOSTIC. Or, if you deny the proposition, substance A exists, as, all together, absurd, then you are still an a-theist, because you positively deny the the claim and the object of the claim as illegitimate and false.
 

 
Right, so he, based on the circumstances, withholds from personally accepting either the illegitimacy or the legitimacy of the assertion (or have you already accepted the illegitimacy, and if you have, then, this conversation is pointless and you have already posited your sentiment's), that is, he, personally, is undecided about what he will decide. And so, it's easy to see why your courtroom analogy is skewed, and, again, unsatisfactory. Either the defendent comitted the act or he did not (there is no in between). To withhold your own personal belief as to whether or not the defendent committed the act or did not, does not take away from the fact that the answer to the question can only go one of two ways - either he did or did not. So, again, doc, to withhold your personal belief as to which way is the correct one, means you, personally, are UNDECIDED about what you believe the case to be; that is, you are agnostic. Geez, it's simple logic; so stop responding with unnecessarily long replies which only go to agitate your own errancy.

 

You won't get anywhere with Boats on what it means to be an atheist.. he isn't one so he won't be able to understand that there are 2 prongs to atheism. One where they believe gods don't exist, which would be gnostic/positive atheism.. and one where they lack belief either way, agnostic/negative atheism. He only understands positive atheism, which is understandable seeing as he isn't an atheist.. just wish he'd actually listen to atheists about what atheism is.