Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[Stevil]

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

Can we assume that the believer will be looking forward to death, an escape from pain, dispair, misery, evil etc and move on to the much more fulfilling afterlife? For the believer, suicide would be the perfect answer, a direct and immediate route to eternal happiness rather than waste another moment on earth.
Whereas the atheist can be assumed to want to make the most of their time on earth.

[Sophus]

Why is Karl Marx in this list of villains?

[Recusant]

Einstein wasn´t an atheist. However he didn´t believe in a personal God who would save you if you just believed in him.
He did believe that the universe could not be in such perfect harmony without a God.
He regarded himself as a mere child who can barely read in a library full of books, the limits of human intellect.

I think you have it right.  Einstein seemed to go out of his way to avoid being co-opted by either religion or atheism.

url=http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_believe_in_spinoza-s_god_who_reveals_himself_in/160813.html]Albert Einstein[/url]"]“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”

Do you know what Einstein meant when he referred to "Spinoza's God?"

For a reasonable examination of Spinoza's ideas, you can read the article on Spinoza from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  I'm going to be quoting from it.

There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

That sounds like pantheism to me:  The universe = God

Spinoza's metaphysics of God is neatly summed up in a phrase that occurs in the Latin (but not the Dutch) edition of the Ethics: “God, or Nature”, Deus, sive Natura: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists”

Here we see it even more clearly: The universe = God

I think that Einstein believed that there are principles which underlie the way the universe functions.  Such principles were to him the evidence that the universe is an expression of the divine.  So no, I don't think that he was an atheist as we currently understand the term.  Neither did he subscribe to any religion, and in fact many religions would (however incorrectly) describe his way of thinking as "atheistic."  There is no doubt at all that he did not believe in Allah, nor in YHVH or Jesus. Given that, I think that in relation to the Abrahamic religions Einstein was at least an infidel if not fully atheist.

We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

Apparently some Muslims do.

[Existentialist]

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

I would say that quoting a dictionary definition of a word is arguing semantics.  I say this with the intention of being constructive, but I'm afraid those who quote dictionaries should be prepared to have dictionaries quoted to them!  Semantics means:-

â€"noun ( used with a singular verb )
1. Linguistics
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
4. general semantics.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

Your entire post is a semantic stance.  You are arguing from the semantic position (whilst at the same time saying you're not going to argue from it) that God means "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe," and rejecting all semantic stances that link the concept of god to organized religion.  Here's the full list of dictionary definitions you deselected from your quote:-  

â€"noun
2.  the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.  ( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.  ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.   Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.   ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.   ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8.   ( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
a.  the upper balcony in a theater.
b.  the spectators in this part of the balcony.

Defining God as No. 2 "the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam" would weaken your argument that God should be considered in more general terms than a god associated with a particular religion, but if we accept dictionary definition No. 2 then iSok's argument is absolutely fine, I don't see a problem with it.  Even if we don't accept dictionary definition No. 2, iSok's delineation of the role of this God explains a view of god that is very common, and his argument stacks up - Person A and Person B in his example 'most assurely they will not behave the same way.'  Actually I'd say 'probably', not 'most assuredly', but I get iSok's drift and think he's right, broadly.

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.

Definition 2. from the dictionary you quoted intrinsically includes religious ideas of god.  To be honest I think that definition 1. also intrinsically includes religious ideas of god - the hierarchical idea ("Supreme" Being), the monotheistic idea ("one" god), creationist ideas ("creator") and authoritarian ideas ("ruler") - all pretty biblical concepts, and not necessarily pagan, norse or grecian-compatible.

Please accept my apologies if I have misread your reasons for quoting the dictionary.  If your argument was not intended to be a semantic one then I have misunderstood you badly and I apologise for this.  If you have a definition of god that eliminates all religious ideas then please could you share it with us.  I agree that in discussing atheism it is necessary to separate the idea of religion from the idea of god, I don't think I could go so far as to say that it is possible to define what god is without including religious ideas.  I just don't see how it's possible.

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.

Just for the record, I don't have a favorite religious idea of god.  I suspect that people who do have such an idea don't by and large find it hard to separate the concept of god from their religion, they just choose not to most of the time.  A stripped down version of god, devoid of any religious references, seems to be to be a rather meaningless concept.  And I would say again this thread started on the basis of an assumption about the Hitlerian, Stalinist, Marxist experience of God, which is a wholly judaeo-christian type of God, and I think we need to acknowledge that context in order to have any sensible discussion about Hitler's, Stalin's, Marx's or Mao's atheism.

[Existentialist]

We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

Apparently some Muslims do.

I have been looking at that site for 5 minutes and I can't see how it shows that some muslims found religion depressing.

[Existentialist]

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

Can we assume that the believer will be looking forward to death, an escape from pain, dispair, misery, evil etc and move on to the much more fulfilling afterlife? For the believer, suicide would be the perfect answer, a direct and immediate route to eternal happiness rather than waste another moment on earth.
Whereas the atheist can be assumed to want to make the most of their time on earth.

The thing is, most believers will probably see life as a gift from god, so the pain, despair and misery is part of life and to throw it away would be a sin against god.  Whereas the atheist might realise that life is purposeless and therefore there is no point in living, he is a terrible waste of resources, and would be the most likely to kill himself.  Or someone else.

It is entirely possible to have a suicidal believer and a suicidal atheist in a suicide pact but agreeing to make it look like murder to save their relatives too much guilt and anguish about not letting their loved one discuss philosophy enough.  But even though they each agreed to end their lives, they did so for different reasons, so their atheism and religion respectively would indeed have caused them to act in a particular way.  Or else they might decide that they are both looking at things rather simplistically and decide to get up and go to work that day like everyone else.

[Whitney]

I quoted the dictionary to show why I was correct in my usage of a word and that there was no need to discuss it further.  Why do you have to make every little tiny point a long and drawn out discussion?  I for one am not interested in such nit picking.

[Existentialist]

I quoted the dictionary to show why I was correct in my usage of a word and that there was no need to discuss it further.  Why do you have to make every little tiny point a long and drawn out discussion?  I for one am not interested in such nit picking.

The meaning of the word god may be a little tiny point to you but I think it's pretty important, and similarly if you think the question of whether being an atheist causes people to act differently from being a theist is 'nit picking' then fine, there's no need for me to have a discussion with you.  Thanks for your efforts.

[LegendarySandwich]

While in theory, a stripped-down, nonreligious religion theist and an atheist may act differently just because of their views on God, I don't think that's true in reality. Of course, when you start adding extra ideas to your idea of God and making it an ideology, it probably will affect the person.

[Existentialist]

While in theory, a stripped-down, nonreligious religion theist and an atheist may act differently just because of their views on God, I don't think that's true in reality. Of course, when you start adding extra ideas to your idea of God and making it an ideology, it probably will affect the person.

You mean extra ideas like there being just one God, that it's a supreme being, that it created everything and that it rules everything?

[LegendarySandwich]

While in theory, a stripped-down, nonreligious religion theist and an atheist may act differently just because of their views on God, I don't think that's true in reality. Of course, when you start adding extra ideas to your idea of God and making it an ideology, it probably will affect the person.

You mean extra ideas like there being just one God, that it's a supreme being, that it created everything and that it rules everything?

No. To me, that's just adding more to the definition of God.

Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group; The study of the origin and nature of ideas

When you add ideas like the existence of an afterlife, a specific holy book is true, etc., it starts to become an ideology.

[Whitney]

if you think the question of whether being an atheist causes people to act differently from being a theist is 'nit picking' then fine,

That wasn't what I was referring to.  

[Existentialist]

While in theory, a stripped-down, nonreligious religion theist and an atheist may act differently just because of their views on God, I don't think that's true in reality. Of course, when you start adding extra ideas to your idea of God and making it an ideology, it probably will affect the person.

You mean extra ideas like there being just one God, that it's a supreme being, that it created everything and that it rules everything?

No. To me, that's just adding more to the definition of God.

Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?  What is this 'stripped-down' God?  I don't understand.  Really.

Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group; The study of the origin and nature of ideas

When you add ideas like the existence of an afterlife, a specific holy book is true, etc., it starts to become an ideology.

At what point isn't it an ideology?  What possible concept of god is there that doesn't draw on an ideology? Supremacy, authoritarianism, creationism, monotheism - these things define god in its most stripped-down version.  Without them, god is just 3 letters of the alphabet strung together with no meaning.

[LegendarySandwich]

I'm really tired of these arguments, with you, Existentialist -- which, coincidentally, are the only arguments you seem to participate in on this site.

Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?

I don't know. Nothing, basically.

What is this 'stripped-down' God?

A deistic god, basically.

I don't understand.  Really.

It's really quite simple.

At what point isn't it an ideology?

Basically, when it's deism, or theism without religion attached.

What possible concept of god is there that doesn't draw on an ideology? Supremacy, authoritarianism, creationism, monotheism - these things define god in its most stripped-down version.

Just because they have some of those things in their definition of God doesn't make them an ideology.

[Existentialist]

if you think the question of whether being an atheist causes people to act differently from being a theist is 'nit picking' then fine,

That wasn't what I was referring to.  

In that case I don't understand what you mean by nit picking and I have no idea what 'little tiny point' it is you think I am drawing out.   As far as I can see we have been discussing the quite important question of whether being an atheist will cause someone to act differently from being a religious believer.  You said you didn't think so, and quoted the dictionary using a supposedly 'stripped down' definition of God.  I took some trouble to answer your argument fully, by saying that the definition you used appeared to be rather selective, and not only that, I said that I didn't see what a 'stripped-down' definition of god is and asked for an example.  You replied by being dismissive of my whole post then introducing a generalisation about me personally, saying I turn every 'little tiny point' into a long drawn-out argument and adding an accusation that I am 'nit picking'.  Now you are sighing at me but not offering much else.

So what's the real problem here, Whitney?  If you don't have time to answer then feel free to say so, I will not hold it against you.  If you do find some time to reply, my argument is set out here.  It raises valid points.