Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[iSok]

To say that atheism can cause someone to behave in a certain manner is just a silly as claiming theism can cause someone to act in a certain manner.  In order for a person's view to cause them to act that view must be attached to a philosophical position or set of dogmas that goes beyond their belief/non-belief.

Politics and religion are the main culprits behind the wrongs in this world...it's frankly stupid to blame it solely on whether someone believes in god or not.

Certainly. It's ideologies that cause people to do things, not just mere statements of belief.

"I believe God exists" will not cause you to act in any way.
"I do not believe God exists" will not cause you to act in any way.
However, "I believe in Christianity/Islam" can cause you to act in a certain way.

Never mind......I am not going to explain this............

To say that atheism can cause someone to behave in a certain manner is just a silly as claiming theism can cause someone to act in a certain manner.  In order for a person's view to cause them to act that view must be attached to a philosophical position or set of dogmas that goes beyond their belief/non-belief.

Politics and religion are the main culprits behind the wrongs in this world...it's frankly stupid to blame it solely on whether someone believes in god or not.

I disagree........Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not.

Just a thought experiment. Take two identical twins.

Place them in two identical families, with the same environment.
(environment and genetics are now the same, these will not play as variabeles)
The only variabel here is that you tell person A --> God exists (If you die, you have to explain your actions in life)
Nothing like Christian/Islamic/Hnduism values (you'll add more variabeles, result will not be meaningful), just the thought that there is a God and you'll meet Him if you die.
Person B --> God does not exist. This is the only life you're going to live.

I can tell you this; that most assurely they will not behave the same way.

[LegendarySandwich]

Never mind......I am not going to explain this............

Okay. I'll just assume that you agree with me, then.

I disagree........Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not.

Just a thought experiment. Take two identical twins.

Place them in two identical families, with the same environment.
(environment and genetics are now the same, these will not play as variabeles)
The only variabel here is that you tell person A --> God exists (If you die, you have to explain your actions in life)
Nothing like Christian/Islamic/Hnduism values (you'll add more variabeles, result will not be meaningful), just the thought that there is a God and you'll meet Him if you die.
Person B --> God does not exist. This is the only life you're going to live.

I can tell you this; that most assurely they will not behave the same way.

Technically, you're also adding the idea of an afterlife where you will be judged, which is adding baggage to the idea of God, possibly making it an ideology.

But no, I don't think they'll act that differently -- do you have any evidence that they will?

[iSok]

Okay. I'll just assume that you agree with me, then.

@Tank, remember our little issue on the other topic?
This happens when you don't reply, they assume you agree.

Technically, you're also adding the idea of an afterlife where you will be judged, which is adding baggage to the idea of God, possibly making it an ideology.

Isn't that the idea?

But no, I don't think they'll act that differently -- do you have any evidence that they will?

The whole field of biology and psychology will agree, but who are they...

[LegendarySandwich]

Okay. I'll just assume that you agree with me, then.

@Tank, remember our little issue on the other topic?
This happens when you don't reply, they assume you agree.

I was joking.

Technically, you're also adding the idea of an afterlife where you will be judged, which is adding baggage to the idea of God, possibly making it an ideology.

Isn't that the idea?

The "idea" was the singular belief in God could and will influence you to act differently than the singular disbelief in God. The belief and disbelief in an afterlife is a separate idea.

But no, I don't think they'll act that differently -- do you have any evidence that they will?

The whole field of biology and psychology will agree, but who are they...

So, no evidence then?

[Tank]

To say that atheism can cause someone to behave in a certain manner is just a silly as claiming theism can cause someone to act in a certain manner.  In order for a person's view to cause them to act that view must be attached to a philosophical position or set of dogmas that goes beyond their belief/non-belief.

Politics and religion are the main culprits behind the wrongs in this world...it's frankly stupid to blame it solely on whether someone believes in god or not.

I disagree........Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not.

Just a thought experiment. Take two identical twins.

Place them in two identical families, with the same environment.
(environment and genetics are now the same, these will not play as variabeles)
The only variabel here is that you tell person A --> God exists (If you die, you have to explain your actions in life)
Nothing like Christian/Islamic/Hnduism values (you'll add more variabeles, result will not be meaningful), just the thought that there is a God and you'll meet Him if you die.
Person B --> God does not exist. This is the only life you're going to live.

I can tell you this; that most assurely they will not behave the same way.

Identical twins are not identical in brain structures in the same way they don't have identical finger prints. Your analogy is invalid, sorry.

[Heretical Rants]

Technically, you're also adding the idea of an afterlife where you will be judged, which is adding baggage to the idea of God, possibly making it an ideology.

Isn't that the idea?

The "idea" was the singular belief in God could and will influence you to act differently than the singular disbelief in God. The belief and disbelief in an afterlife is a separate idea.

Indeed, many people that do not believe in any kind of god believe in an afterlife.

[Tank]

Okay. I'll just assume that you agree with me, then.

@Tank, remember our little issue on the other topic?
This happens when you don't reply, they assume you agree.

Actually LS holding you to accurately defining your position, which in this case you actively declared you would not do and therefore allowed LS to make his own mind up about your position. If you had not responded at all on past experience LS would have continued to ask you until you did clarify your position. This is not the same situation at all.

[Whitney]

To say that atheism can cause someone to behave in a certain manner is just a silly as claiming theism can cause someone to act in a certain manner.  In order for a person's view to cause them to act that view must be attached to a philosophical position or set of dogmas that goes beyond their belief/non-belief.

Politics and religion are the main culprits behind the wrongs in this world...it's frankly stupid to blame it solely on whether someone believes in god or not.

I disagree........Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not.

Just a thought experiment. Take two identical twins.

Place them in two identical families, with the same environment.
(environment and genetics are now the same, these will not play as variabeles)
The only variabel here is that you tell person A --> God exists (If you die, you have to explain your actions in life)
Nothing like Christian/Islamic/Hnduism values (you'll add more variabeles, result will not be meaningful), just the thought that there is a God and you'll meet Him if you die.
Person B --> God does not exist. This is the only life you're going to live.

I can tell you this; that most assurely they will not behave the same way.

You don't know the difference between religion and god...if you did you wouldn't think that simply believing in god would require one to believe they were accountable at death.

[Existentialist]

You don't know the difference between religion and god...if you did you wouldn't think that simply believing in god would require one to believe they were accountable at death.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't Person A already been told in iSok's example that if he dies, he will have to explain his actions in life?  It's a belief system that someone has been taught, and presumably believes; the illustration is made up in order to demonstrate the contrast between them and someone who has been taught there is no accountability at the end of life.  I think iSok's example illustrates the freedom that Person B acquires once the idea of god has been rejected.  It is a good illustration as far as I can see.  I agree with iSok, they will behave differently.

[Existentialist]

Identical twins are not identical in brain structures in the same way they don't have identical finger prints. Your analogy is invalid, sorry.

I think it's a valid analogy for the purposes of illustrating iSok's point.  It's not a scenario that's ever going to happen in reality, it's a fantasy designed to illustrate an underlying belief that an atheist will behave differently from someone who believes in God.

[Whitney]

You don't know the difference between religion and god...if you did you wouldn't think that simply believing in god would require one to believe they were accountable at death.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't Person A already been told in iSok's example that if he dies, he will have to explain his actions in life?  It's a belief system that someone has been taught, and presumably believes; the illustration is made up in order to demonstrate the contrast between them and someone who has been taught there is no accountability at the end of life.  I think iSok's example illustrates the freedom that Person B acquires once the idea of god has been rejected.  It is a good illustration as far as I can see.  I agree with iSok, they will behave differently.

His illustration was constructed to disagree with my comment about being theist or atheist not being the actual cause of people's actions...he created additional beliefs to go along with if someone was a theist or an atheist in order to construct his illustration; thus building a strawman.

[Existentialist]

His illustration was constructed to disagree with my comment about being theist or atheist not being the actual cause of people's actions...he created additional beliefs to go along with if someone was a theist or an atheist in order to construct his illustration; thus building a strawman.

If the concept of god isn't accompanied by additional beliefs, it is just three letters of the alphabet put together.  I think it is necessary to grant that at least some additional beliefs attach to the concept of god or else we can't have a discussion at all about the implications of belief in god's existence.  In that sense I agree with iSok, I think.  Being a theist or an atheist can be the actual cause of people's actions.

[Whitney]

His illustration was constructed to disagree with my comment about being theist or atheist not being the actual cause of people's actions...he created additional beliefs to go along with if someone was a theist or an atheist in order to construct his illustration; thus building a strawman.

If the concept of god isn't accompanied by additional beliefs, it is just three letters of the alphabet put together.  I think it is necessary to grant that at least some additional beliefs attach to the concept of god or else we can't have a discussion at all about the implications of belief in god's existence.  In that sense I agree with iSok, I think.  Being a theist or an atheist can be the actual cause of people's actions.

Either you are confused as to the context of my comment or you are just as wrong as iSok.  

You cannot predict how one might view the afterlife or any other topic simply by knowing whether or not they believe in god (we aren't talking about bible god here).

[Existentialist]

His illustration was constructed to disagree with my comment about being theist or atheist not being the actual cause of people's actions...he created additional beliefs to go along with if someone was a theist or an atheist in order to construct his illustration; thus building a strawman.

If the concept of god isn't accompanied by additional beliefs, it is just three letters of the alphabet put together.  I think it is necessary to grant that at least some additional beliefs attach to the concept of god or else we can't have a discussion at all about the implications of belief in god's existence.  In that sense I agree with iSok, I think.  Being a theist or an atheist can be the actual cause of people's actions.

Either you are confused as to the context of my comment or you are just as wrong as iSok.

You cannot predict how one might view the afterlife or any other topic simply by knowing whether or not they believe in god (we aren't talking about bible god here).

If you define god very vaguely eg as 'something or other' then you are right, of course, but it is a level of argument that would make virtually all conversation impossible. If we can't make assumptions about what god is then we can't really make assumptions about what a teapot is or what spaghetti is.  I'd agree on the most simple philosophical level it's not possible to describe someone as, for example, a liberal if you haven't defined what liberalism is.  By putting forward the Person A/Person B scenario iSok was defining what he meant by god - for the sake of the argument, but also in terms of broadly held beliefs about what god is.  I don't see a straw man there.  

So you'd really have to say what level of definition of god you are talking about if you want to put forward your description of what we can and can't assume from someone being an atheist.  I don't think I'm confused about the context of your comment though.  The thread had started at a more developed level of assumptions about what god is than what you are talking about.  The context of Hitler, Stalin and Marx does imply a prior religious education along the lines of the judaeo-christian god.  I don't know anything about Mao's religious background but the rise of chinese communism wasn't unconnected to western imperialism and western capitalism, which were and remain heavily entwined with the ideology of the judaeo-christian god.  Also I think iSok has added some further assumptions which are widely shared in most people's concept of what a god is.   I think I've made some valid assumptions.  Feel free to disagree with my assumptions if you wish, but I think they're reasonable.

[Whitney]

God
â€"noun
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

I'm not going to argue semantics

the only way to decide that god existing means you'll be judged in the afterlife or any other such nonsense is to fall back on religious ideas of god.

Why is it so hard for people to separate the concept of god from whatever their favorite religious idea of god is? It's so bad that some can't even look at a stripped down version of god without applying ideas from organized religion to it.