Happy Atheist Forum

Hi all;

I'm new to the forum so bear with me.  On another discussion forum the recent shootings came up and they were discussing the plans of the Westboro bunch who were evidently going to protest the funeral of the 9 year old.

My basic point to the group was a 'what if there was no religion' statement.  If there were no religion these WBC people wouldn't have the bible to preach from, without tax breaks for churches maybe the WBC wouldn't have the finances to do all the traveling protests etc etc.  One person started to debate the topic with me from the pro-religion stance and we went from there.  

The debate was a fairly predictable one as far as the arguments he provided however I didn't have a good response for his accusation regarding atrocities 'by atheists'.  He tossed out Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Marx/Pol Pot as if to show atheism caused their behavior.  How does one counter this argument?  I tried the logical atheism isn't a set of beliefs argument as well as showing evidence regarding hilter and christianity and that was also ignored.

I tried to tread very lightly into the topic as to not get the readers riled up.  Even though I started kindly and was very careful with my responses the debate regressed into name calling and accusations of twisting scripture and lying etc so I gave up before it got nasty.  What's the best way to introduce an atheistic argument into a public forum that will allow a topic to be discussed logically and yet avoid spurring emotional reactions?

Thoughts?

superdave

Quote from: "superdave"He tossed out Hitler

...Not an atheist. Napoleón, however, was.

Quote/Stalin

...Was a strong leader when his country needed one, genocidal maniac or no.

Quote/Mao/Marx

Know too little to make a proper comment.

Quote/Pol Pot

...Never justified any of his doings with having no faith in gods to the best of my knowledge.

Quoteas if to show atheism caused their behavior.  How does one counter this argument?

Ask them to present some historical justification for their claim that atheism is the cause of any of those leaders' wrongdoings. A speech or a letter or... Something.

QuoteI tried the logical atheism isn't a set of beliefs argument as well as showing evidence regarding hilter and christianity and that was also ignored.

If they ignore good, verified evidence, show them the middle finger and walk away. They are not worth your time.

QuoteI tried to tread very lightly into the topic as to not get the readers riled up.  Even though I started kindly and was very careful with my responses the debate regressed into name calling and accusations of twisting scripture and lying etc so I gave up before it got nasty.  What's the best way to introduce an atheistic argument into a public forum that will allow a topic to be discussed logically and yet avoid spurring emotional reactions?

Don't. Stay away from it unless you are in a mood for bodily fluids on the walls. If you ARE in such a mood, then there is no problem, yes?

QuoteThoughts?

Yup. The above.  

What did Marx ever do to anyone?  

Plenty of atrocities by atheists, plenty of atrocities by religious believers.  The crusades, the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, Islamic suicide bombers, 9/11 - all done in the name of religion.

Quote from: "Wilson"all done in the name of religion.

...Or not. A lot of crap was done in the name of something else, but because religion is so convenient a way of hiding one's motives...

The only difference between an atheist and a Christian (for example) would be the Christian belief, and teachings of the particular church a person belongs to. So really the burdon falls on the Christians to prove that Christian belief and teachings ensure that there aren't Christians that perform atrocities.
If a person is making a stance that Atheism causes the attrocities they would then need to prove that all other religions avoid creating these atrocoties and they would also need to point to the reasons as to why atheism leads to this atrocoty path.

If they start talking about 10 commandments and other things then just point out the objective morality that the Christians believe in. According to this belief of theirs, even atheists should be aware of, understand and agree to these moralities and hence would not need to be taught them in the guise of a faith.

How about "Imagine if there were no Indoctrination"

It's indoctrination into religious and political beliefs which allow most of the preventable bad things in this world to happen.

One cannot demonstrate that it was atheism that drove these malefactors to their crimes against humanity.  Einstein was an atheist, was it atheism that drove him to his accomplishments in physics?  Hitler touted his Christianity, but was it Christianity that drove him to invade Poland and massacre Jews?  The argument you are facing is baseless.  One's profession of faith or lack thereof does not indicate whether or not they are capable of moral conduct.

-a-train

We will never know wether atheism was a cause or not.

This argument does however show that the world would not be some utopian place without religion.
I think that WITHOUT religion the world would be far worse than it is now.
Yes we have seen times where religion stopped the advancement of society, but at other times it contributed a lot.

As for the people mentioned, rotten apples are everywhere in human society, some follow religion others do not.

Quote from: "a-train"One cannot demonstrate that it was atheism that drove these malefactors to their crimes against humanity.  Einstein was an atheist, was it atheism that drove him to his accomplishments in physics?  Hitler touted his Christianity, but was it Christianity that drove him to invade Poland and massacre Jews?  The argument you are facing is baseless.  One's profession of faith or lack thereof does not indicate whether or not they are capable of moral conduct.

-a-train

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.

Quote from: "iSok"We will never know wether atheism was a cause or not.

Bzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

Atheism was not a cause, nor could it be, because there is no logical path of motivation between the absence of a single class of belief and such atrocities. It takes blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives for such a logical route to be engendered, and since atheism has NO doctrine, such a logical route is impossible.

QuoteThis argument does however show that the world would not be some utopian place without religion.

Nor does anybody suggest that. What we do suggest, though, is that without religion there will be a whole set of reasons less for people to be horrible to each other.

QuoteI think that WITHOUT religion the world would be far worse than it is now.

Yes, because the world is much better while we have rape victims stoned to death as adulteresses, or where we have public floggings for having bread delivered by a male who is not a member of your family. What you think is utterly irrelevant in this regard. Only what you can demonstrate has any weight here.

QuoteYes we have seen times where religion stopped the advancement of society, but at other times it contributed a lot.

Post hoc fallacy. At best, it could be said that society has advanced through people who were religious, though I put it to you that this occurred in spite of religion, not because of it.

QuoteAs for the people mentioned, rotten apples are everywhere in human society, some follow religion others do not.

Which makes a mockery of your above statement, and lends weight to my rebuttal of it.

QuoteBzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

funny

QuoteAtheism was not a cause, nor could it be, because there is no logical path of motivation between the absence of a single class of belief and such atrocities. It takes blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives for such a logical route to be engendered, and since atheism has NO doctrine, such a logical route is impossible.

The human psychology is not that simple to describe in two sentences. Not everyone thinks the same way you do or rationalize the same way you do.

Some atheist emphasize that God absolutely cannot exist.
- If God does not exist, that means you cannot be 'punished' for what you do.
That means that you can do whatever you want, since you regard other human beings as your rivals in this life. what the heck, you only life once.

Do you really think that no person in the world would think that way?
The answer is no.
Conclusion: therefore 'atheism'  could have been an indirect cause. Don't feel offended.
I have not said that atheism is 'bad', the person itself is 'evil'.

QuoteNor does anybody suggest that. What we do suggest, though, is that without religion there will be a whole set of reasons less for people to be horrible to each other.

A lot of people suggest that, really a lot of people.
I think without religion people would be even more horrible to eachother.

You regard religion as an human ideology.
How many people have not been killed by human ideology's like Capatalism and Communism?

QuoteYes, because the world is much better while we have rape victims stoned to death as adulteresses, or where we have public floggings for having bread delivered by a male who is not a member of your family. What you think is utterly irrelevant in this regard. Only what you can demonstrate has any weight here.

Don't jump to stuff like that. Yes I know it's bad. But you only bring situations forward where religion has to do with it.
You connect bad things to religion and good things tot atheism.

QuotePost hoc fallacy. At best, it could be said that society has advanced through people who were religious, though I put it to you that this occurred in spite of religion, not because of it.

Actually the west here seem only to remember the dark ages.
We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

'The ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr'
'To listen to the words of the learned, and to instill into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises'
'The acquisition of knowledge is a duty incumbent one every Muslim, male and female'
'He who leaves home in search of knowledge, walks in the path of God'
'Go in quest of knowledge, even unto China'
a few of the many sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) about the search of knowledge.
These are only the sayings of a man, the Qur'an actually commands man to seek for knowledge.

At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, most Arabs were lucrative
in slave trade, women trade and engaged in constant tribal wars.
After the relevation, within 300 years, the muslims came up with universities.
Christian monarchs in the 10th century were sending their offspring to Cordoba in Spain, to study at Islamic universities.

I think you can blatantly ignore this argument on two points. One, Hitler himself justified his work in the name of the "Almighty Creator". And two, Marx never committed anything close to an atrocity. It's people who claimed to be designing states based upon his philosophy while simultaneously mutilating his stances and arguments that may have committed atrocities. Soviet Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia have no similarity to Marxism.

Quote from: "iSok"We will never know wether atheism was a cause or not.

Precisely.  I rest my case.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "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.

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............

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "iSok"Never mind......I am not going to explain this............

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

QuoteI 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?

QuoteOkay. 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.

QuoteTechnically, 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?

QuoteBut 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...

Quote from: "iSok"

QuoteOkay. 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.

Quote

QuoteTechnically, 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.

Quote

QuoteBut 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?

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote

QuoteTechnically, 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.

Quote from: "iSok"

QuoteOkay. 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.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "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).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "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).

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.

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

Quote from: "iSok"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.

Why is Karl Marx in this list of villains?

Quote from: "iSok"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.

Quote from: "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 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/).  I'm going to be quoting from it.

QuoteThere 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

QuoteSpinoza'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.

Quote from: "iSok"We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

Apparently some Muslims do. (http://www.harunyahya.com/)

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

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "iSok"We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

Apparently some Muslims do. (http://www.harunyahya.com/)

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

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ideology"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.

Quote from: "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.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ideology"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.

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

Quote from: "Existentialist"Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?

I don't know. Nothing, basically.

QuoteWhat is this 'stripped-down' God?

A deistic god, basically.

QuoteI don't understand.  Really.

It's really quite simple.

QuoteAt what point isn't it an ideology?

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

QuoteWhat 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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6621&start=30#p99179).  It raises valid points.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Saying someone is a theist means they believe in a god or gods, even those who believe in a god or gods have a varied view of things like an afterlife. Reincarnation is not the same kind of afterlife that Christians speak of, because instead of going to heaven or hell, they're just coming back here. Deists are theists in that they believe in a god or gods but several that I've talked with don't believe in an afterlife and even more that I've talked with don't think people will have to explain themselves after death. So saying that one is a theist only implies that they believe in a god or gods, not necessarily anything else like an afterlife or being held accountable for their actions in life. This I think is the contention with saying that a belief in being held accountable for their actions is an addition to merely being a theist.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"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.

This logic does not make sense. For a theist, the eternal afterlife would likely be a greater gift than the momentary real life, you know, the one with the pain and misery. I mean, come on, lets get past the appertiser and move onto the main course already.

With regards to atheist, who says that life lacks purpose? having a belief in a god does not give life a purpose. What would the purpose be? The purpose to life is having a belief in god?  Ho hum, the afterlife gets one right next to the almighty greatness herself. This would be like being put on hold. "Sorry, god is busy right now, your soul is important to her so please wait, you are 499,645,234th in the queue". Well the best way to jump to the front of the line would be to self terminate, or take up some high risk hobbies and occupations. Waiting is so overrated.

Quote from: "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.

'These arguments'?  What arguments?  I'm arguing about the whether being an atheist or a theist is likely to cause someone to act differently.  That's on topic.  Some people are saying it will, some are saying it won't.  I say it will.  There's nothing wrong with at least arguing that is there?   And what's the coincidence?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?

I don't know. Nothing, basically.

Agreed.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"What is this 'stripped-down' God?

A deistic god, basically.

By which you mean what?  A god who created the universe and then didn't interfere?  He's just as non-existent as the interfering one.  If I thought either of those two existed, I'm sure I'd act differently.  Besides which, both types of god exist in religion.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"I don't understand.  Really.

It's really quite simple

Thank you.  That really clears it up for everyone.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"At what point isn't it an ideology?

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

Theism without the religion attached?  This sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.  I would be interested in what you mean by religion in that case.  Could you give me an example of theism without religion?  Or even deism without religion.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Well ok, if you want to play it like that.  I don't see it that way, I think they're all drawn from religious ideology.  

Personally I would summarise my position as this: I think that god is a supernatural being who created the universe.  If you, like me, think that this god doesn't exist in reality, and he only exists in people's imaginations, I think you will act completely differently from someone who thinks that he does exist.  Infact I also think you will act differently from someone who isn't sure whether god exists or not.  I think it's inevitable that if you discard the belief in god, you by necessity discard a load of religious ideas with it.

In answer to the opening post - Hitler, Stalin and Mao were products of Capitalism more than being products of atheism, I think it is to capitalism that we must look for the oppression that the ideologies that were unleashed in their time can be traced to.  If any of them were atheists, then it was a kind of atheism that drew heavily on the authoritarian, monotheistic traditions handed down from religious hierarchies of the past.  I don't see much evidence that Hitler was an atheist anyway.

Marx was just an old bloke who passed his time in the British Library.  He offered a number of insights into the workings of capitalism that nobody had previously documented.  A lot of oppression has been associated with him unfairly.  He was an atheist, but not all people who say they are marxists really are marxists.

I don't see that atheism has any history of causing oppression, even in the times of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Marx.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I think that god is a supernatural being who created the universe.  If you, like me, think that this god doesn't exist in reality, and he only exists in people's imaginations, I think you will act completely differently from someone who thinks that he does exist.

Most people are concerned with the future rather than the past, especially with regards to what happend 14 billion years ago.
When people make their daily life's decisions e.g. whether to have Yum Cha for lunch or eat some fish and chips by the beach or stay at home and have some sandwiches I seriously doubt they think about whether the big bang 14 billion years ago was a natural event or whether it was created by an intelligent designer. Seriously what difference does it make with regards to the creation of the universe on what decisions most people make in their lives?

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "iSok"We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

Apparently some Muslims do. (http://www.harunyahya.com/)

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

Fair enough.  "Harun Yahya" does not find religion depressing.

Actually I was referring to the fact that Adnan Oktar ("Harun Yahya's" actual name) is against science; specifically he denies that evolution ever occurred, based on his religious belief.  I found an old thread started by Squid about this charlatan, and have posted a quote from his website.  If you care to discuss it, you can join me there.  No need to derail this thread.

Quote from: "Existentialist"In answer to the opening post - Hitler, Stalin and Mao were products of Capitalism more than being products of atheism, I think it is to capitalism that we must look for the oppression that the ideologies that were unleashed in their time can be traced to.  If any of them were atheists, then it was a kind of atheism that drew heavily on the authoritarian, monotheistic traditions handed down from religious hierarchies of the past.  I don't see much evidence that Hitler was an atheist anyway.

That's a really tortured attempt to distance Stalin and Mao from atheism.  They were atheists; they behaved badly; get over it.  Capitalism was to blame for their actions?  Montheistic religion was to blame for their actions?  Good grief.  We atheists are supposed to rely on logic; let's try to maintain that tradition.

Quote from: "Wilson"We atheists are supposed to rely on logic;

Several things wrong with this. Firstly, this erroneously treats 'we atheists' as some sort of homogeneous grouping, which is not accurate. Atheists are extremely diverse, and in reality, the atheism is largely incidental. Secondly, there is no requirement for atheists to be logical. There are many routes to atheism, and not all of them involve reason.

I do agree that attempts to distance these people from atheism is a bit silly, but so is any attempt to paint their actions as being resultant from their atheism. Their actions stem from blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives, which is very akin to religion. Indeed, religion is merely a subset of this very principle, albeit the largest.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Existentialist"In answer to the opening post - Hitler, Stalin and Mao were products of Capitalism more than being products of atheism, I think it is to capitalism that we must look for the oppression that the ideologies that were unleashed in their time can be traced to.  If any of them were atheists, then it was a kind of atheism that drew heavily on the authoritarian, monotheistic traditions handed down from religious hierarchies of the past.  I don't see much evidence that Hitler was an atheist anyway.

That's a really tortured attempt to distance Stalin and Mao from atheism.  They were atheists; they behaved badly; get over it.  Capitalism was to blame for their actions?  Montheistic religion was to blame for their actions?  Good grief.  We atheists are supposed to rely on logic; let's try to maintain that tradition.

It's really not very tortured at all.  It's a sound historical analysis.  The development of the Soviet tyranny from about 1924 to 1955 was all about the development of a particularly ruthless type of state capitalism.  The survival of this type of capitalism depended on ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite.  The impetus for this was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal.

As I said earlier, I don't know much about the religious history of China.  But I do know that before the late 1940's China had been the subject of some pretty persistent imperialist competition by foreign powers, and it was as much pushed and pulled by the needs of capitalism as any other country.  The rise of the Chinese communists was partly a nationalistic reaction to this but once they were in power, they set about building their own version of state capitalism ruthlessly and without mercy.  It is difficult to imagine how any kind of atheist-based philosophy could even be talked about in such an ideological environment.  The impetus was undoubtedly capitalist in nature, and capitalism closely embraces any cult-like ideology that suits it, whether it be monotheistic religion or the ideology of the great leader.

Quote from: "Stevil"Most people are concerned with the future rather than the past, especially with regards to what happend 14 billion years ago.
When people make their daily life's decisions e.g. whether to have Yum Cha for lunch or eat some fish and chips by the beach or stay at home and have some sandwiches I seriously doubt they think about whether the big bang 14 billion years ago was a natural event or whether it was created by an intelligent designer. Seriously what difference does it make with regards to the creation of the universe on what decisions most people make in their lives?

When you decide there's no god, all the responsibility for your actions falls on you alone.  A theist is more likely to think they are being guided by god - answering god's calling, or being shown by god the way ahead. I think an agnostic atheist is more likely to take a passive approach - their lives are governed by the awaiting of evidence.

My biology teacher on high school had a PhD in Psychobiology.

He told me a lot about these experiments on two groups.
What I remember is that he told me, that no matter how insignifant a certain
variabele is, it will always influent the subject. So that's why I believe that
even if you believe in God and not in an after life it will affect you.

But I can't proof it by showing results of an experiment.
I'll rest my case till I've proven it.

I agree any variable will influence the subject, on that basis even two atheists who hold exactly the same position on the existence of god will act differently.  But I also think that whether a person is an atheist or a theist will cause them to think about things in a particular way.  So given a questionnaire put to 50 atheists and 50 theists, the atheists' results will tend to congregate around one set of ideas, the theists around another set.  It depends on the questions and of course, I can't prove it either, any more than others can prove it won't make any difference at all.  Proof is a bit superfluous when we're discussing our opinions anyway.

We can't fall into the same trap the theists are in.

They consider the mind of Hitler, Mao, Marx, and the minds of all of mankind as one would consider a computer program or a chemical compound.

They ask: If that program or compound is exposed to x, what is the effect?

This question is based on the assumption that if the effect is good, then x is good or "right".  If the effect is bad, then x is bad or "wrong".

They assume that if the effect of a given idea on a human mind is good, then the idea is right.  If the effect of that idea is bad, then the idea is wrong.  And how do they define good and bad?  Arbitrarily.

What a mess.

A child doing good because he/she believes Santa will bring gifts is no evidence of the existence of Santa.

The truth and knowledge of it do not automatically bring about any action.  Man volitionally interprets facts and acts on his own.

-a-train

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "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.

'These arguments'?  What arguments?  I'm arguing about the whether being an atheist or a theist is likely to cause someone to act differently.  That's on topic.  Some people are saying it will, some are saying it won't.  I say it will.  There's nothing wrong with at least arguing that is there?   And what's the coincidence?

You're trying to argue about definitions and such.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?

I don't know. Nothing, basically.

Agreed.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"What is this 'stripped-down' God?

A deistic god, basically.

By which you mean what?  A god who created the universe and then didn't interfere?

Pretty much.

QuoteHe's just as non-existent as the interfering one.

Irrelevant, and unprovable.

QuoteIf I thought either of those two existed, I'm sure I'd act differently.

First: that's just you.
Second: how?

QuoteBesides which, both types of god exist in religion.

So?

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"I don't understand.  Really.

It's really quite simple

Thank you.  That really clears it up for everyone

It was a joke.

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"At what point isn't it an ideology?

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

Theism without the religion attached?  This sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.  I would be interested in what you mean by religion in that case.

Quote from: "theism"the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

QuoteTheism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of a god and his relationship to the universe. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Quote from: "religion"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

QuoteCould you give me an example of theism without religion?  Or even deism without religion.

Theism: "I believe a God exists."
Deism: "I believe a God exists that has created the universe and then didn't do anything."

Quote

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"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.

Well ok, if you want to play it like that.  I don't see it that way, I think they're all drawn from religious ideology.  

Personally I would summarise my position as this: I think that god is a supernatural being who created the universe.  If you, like me, think that this god doesn't exist in reality, and he only exists in people's imaginations, I think you will act completely differently from someone who thinks that he does exist.  Infact I also think you will act differently from someone who isn't sure whether god exists or not.  I think it's inevitable that if you discard the belief in god, you by necessity discard a load of religious ideas with it.

How exactly would you act differently if you had a belief that God existed, but didn't associate with any particular religion or ideology? How do you think that everybody else would act differently in their day-to-day lives if their belief in the existence of God changed overnight?

QuoteIn answer to the opening post - Hitler, Stalin and Mao were products of Capitalism more than being products of atheism, I think it is to capitalism that we must look for the oppression that the ideologies that were unleashed in their time can be traced to.  If any of them were atheists, then it was a kind of atheism that drew heavily on the authoritarian, monotheistic traditions handed down from religious hierarchies of the past.  I don't see much evidence that Hitler was an atheist anyway.

Marx was just an old bloke who passed his time in the British Library.  He offered a number of insights into the workings of capitalism that nobody had previously documented.  A lot of oppression has been associated with him unfairly.  He was an atheist, but not all people who say they are marxists really are marxists.

I don't see that atheism has any history of causing oppression, even in the times of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Marx.

Agreed.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I do agree that attempts to distance these people from atheism is a bit silly, but so is any attempt to paint their actions as being resultant from their atheism. Their actions stem from blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives, which is very akin to religion. Indeed, religion is merely a subset of this very principle, albeit the largest.

I agree with your statement that the actions of Stalin and Mao are not resultant from their atheism, and that is the argument we should make, not that 2+2=5.

Quote from: "Existentialist"It's really not very tortured at all.  It's a sound historical analysis.  The development of the Soviet tyranny from about 1924 to 1955 was all about the development of a particularly ruthless type of state capitalism.  The survival of this type of capitalism depended on ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite.  The impetus for this was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal.

From Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

Also from Wikipedia: "The economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning. The economy was characterised by state control of investment, public ownership of industrial assets, and during the last 20 years of its existence, pervasive corruption and socioeconomic stagnation."

I get it that you hate capitalism.  That's fine.  But when you make statements that are just plain dumb and 180 degrees off, expect to be called on it.  You're not allowed to make arguments based on crazy definitions that nobody but you accepts.

Quote from: "Wilson"I get it that you hate capitalism.  That's fine.  But when you make statements that are just plain dumb and 180 degrees off, expect to be called on it.  You're not allowed to make arguments based on crazy definitions that nobody but you accepts.

Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Look at wikipedia's article on state capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

State capitalism could indeed be defined as "a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning."  This is why so many advocates of the market economy use more specific terms such as "laissez faire" or "free market".  Though Marx and Engels used the term "Capitalism" to describe market economies, it has been expanded back to its original meaning of simply owning and using capital.  With that, everyone is a capitalist.  

When Existentialist said: "The impetus for this [the ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite] was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal."  He/she is referring to state capitalism, not the market economy.  But this is an impossible assertion to prove and it is irrelevant.  It is impossible to know the real impetus for what happened in Russia.  Did the leadership there think their actions would lead the people to the utopian communist economy?  Did they do it so they could live in splendor?  We don't know, and that is the point which we need to point out.

In medieval times it was constantly said: If only our king was a believer in this or a believer in that, the kingdom would be great!  It was the great discovery of the Enlightenment that no ruler, ruling class, or arbitrary bureau can direct the economy and bless the people at large, regardless of their beliefs as to how best to govern.  It is the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people.

Quote from: "a-train"Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Existentialist didn't use the term "state capitalism" until I called him on it.  Regardless, "capitalism" and "communism" have widely accepted meanings having to do with who controls the means of production.  To arbitrarily change those meanings so that everything is a variation on capitalism makes it impossible to intelligently discuss the issues.  And strikes me as a little goofy, to be honest.

Quote from: "Existentialist"When you decide there's no god, all the responsibility for your actions falls on you alone.  A theist is more likely to think they are being guided by god - answering god's calling, or being shown by god the way ahead. I think an agnostic atheist is more likely to take a passive approach - their lives are governed by the awaiting of evidence.

I really do struggle to understand you Existentialist.
You often say things that are the total opposite to what I think. Not saying you are right or wrong but just completely opposite to me.

How can making all your own decisions be seen as passive?
I would have thought allowing yourself to be guided by god, answering god's calling would be passive. Sitting there waiting for instructions.

But to get back on topic, you seem to be adding additional attributes to god. Making an assumption that if people believe in god then they also believe that god is responsible for guiding and calling people. Is this what Mormon's believe, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Aztecs, Maoris, Aborigonies, Greeks, Zulus, Christians, Hindus...?

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Existentialist"'These arguments'?  What arguments?  I'm arguing about the whether being an atheist or a theist is likely to cause someone to act differently.  That's on topic.  Some people are saying it will, some are saying it won't.  I say it will.  There's nothing wrong with at least arguing that is there?   And what's the coincidence?

You're trying to argue about definitions and such.

Well if you're tired of it, don't argue.  And I mean for your own sake.   It takes two to tango.  It's entirely voluntary.  Don't blame me for something you're doing yourself.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"He's just as non-existent as the interfering one.

Irrelevant, and unprovable.

Irrelevant?  That god doesn't exist?  Hardly.  
Unprovable - agreed.  I still say he doesn't exist.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"If I thought either of those two existed, I'm sure I'd act differently.

First: that's just you.
Second: how?

I would be more inclined to be tolerant of hierarchical, authoritarian ideas and the notion that everyone should accept their station in life.  I can elaborate further if you want but it would form a long ideological argument and there would be a great deal of discussion about definitions.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Besides which, both types of god exist in religion.

So?

So both types of god are based on religious ideas and can't be separated from their religious purposes.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Basically, when it's deism, or theism without religion attached.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Theism without the religion attached?  This sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.  I would be interested in what you mean by religion in that case.

Quote from: "theism"the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

QuoteTheism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of a god and his relationship to the universe. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Quote from: "religion"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

So you found two definitions of theism (Princeton, Wiki) and one of religion in Wikipeda and all you've done is paste them.  I wasn't really just asking for a cut and paste from an encyclopaedia and no reference to the context of my question.  I can see getting to the bottom of this is going to take a while.  

I don't see how any of the definitions you supplied break the link between theism and religion.  The Princeton quote refers to a 'doctrine', even in the broadest sense the wiki quote refers to a 'belief'.  But as I've asked already, belief in what?  You say belief in a creator god who doesn't interfere.  But the creator god is a belief that is so rooted in religion that it can only be defined in terms of the doctrines of religion.  Thanks for taking the trouble to find your quotes but to be honest they don't address the fundamental problem I'm having with understanding your position - and I would be most grateful if you could refrain from replying that it is simple.  I can't see how what you've quoted supports your case.  You may want to add some more text to clarify this, just quoting wikipedia as if the quote can argue the case for you doesn't cut it.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Could you give me an example of theism without religion?  Or even deism without religion.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Theism: "I believe a God exists."
Deism: "I believe a God exists that has created the universe and then didn't do anything."

Well really I meant an actual, real-world example where it has been documented that belief in a god was being followed by real people successfully while having no religion to follow, but if you want to make up a couple of theoretical examples I can work with that.  The problem remains that you're talking about God - a concept which can only be understood in the context of religious ideas about creation, omnipotent power and hierarchical supremacy.  Take any of those religious ideas out of the equation and God is no longer God.  The idea of a god that created the universe and then didn't do anything comes from religion.  I find it difficult to see how anyone could come up with such an idea who had never been exposed to religious thinking.  I do see the theoretical distinction you are trying to draw, between god and religion, but it seems I only need to probe the ideas a little bit to realise that these theoretical boundaries collapse.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"How exactly would you act differently if you had a belief that God existed, but didn't associate with any particular religion or ideology? How do you think that everybody else would act differently in their day-to-day lives if their belief in the existence of God changed overnight?

Hang on a minute there - I think you're asking me to put myself in a position that I'm arguing against.  The concept of god is inseparable from religious ideology.  If it doesn't have religious ideology associated with it, then it isn't a god.  

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteIn answer to the opening post - Hitler, Stalin and Mao were products of Capitalism more than being products of atheism, I think it is to capitalism that we must look for the oppression that the ideologies that were unleashed in their time can be traced to.  If any of them were atheists, then it was a kind of atheism that drew heavily on the authoritarian, monotheistic traditions handed down from religious hierarchies of the past.  I don't see much evidence that Hitler was an atheist anyway.

Marx was just an old bloke who passed his time in the British Library.  He offered a number of insights into the workings of capitalism that nobody had previously documented.  A lot of oppression has been associated with him unfairly.  He was an atheist, but not all people who say they are marxists really are marxists.

I don't see that atheism has any history of causing oppression, even in the times of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Marx.

Agreed.

Good.

Even the concept of the afterlife not existing within a theistic model seems rather inconsistent.  Afterlives and religion seem to be fairly universal.  And anyway, this whole argument stemmed from iSok's example of Person A who was told in the example that God exists and there is an afterlife, an idea that is intrinsic to islam, christianity and judaeism as well as a lot of other religions.  He was hardly arguing something that only a minority of religious believers accept.

Thanks anyway for taking the time and trouble to reply, LS.  These things are far from simple and it does take a while to compare another person's thinking with your own.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Existentialist"It's really not very tortured at all.  It's a sound historical analysis.  The development of the Soviet tyranny from about 1924 to 1955 was all about the development of a particularly ruthless type of state capitalism.  The survival of this type of capitalism depended on ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite.  The impetus for this was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal.

From Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

Also from Wikipedia: "state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism â€" the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value in a commodity economy â€" with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. Fredrick Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, states that the final stage of capitalism would consist of ownership over production and communication by the (bourgeoisie) state."

I said state capitalism, not capitalism.  

Quote from: "Wilson"Also from Wikipedia: "The economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning. The economy was characterised by state control of investment, public ownership of industrial assets, and during the last 20 years of its existence, pervasive corruption and socioeconomic stagnation."

It is a common analysis that the Russian economy was state-controlled, the Western economy was private, therefore the USSR was communist, the west capitalist.  My analysis is that the Russian economy was a variation of capitalism.  State capitalism, in fact.  This is an ideological argument.  Wikipedia isn't going to settle it one way or another.

Quote from: "Wilson"I get it that you hate capitalism.  That's fine.  

No it's not "fine", Wilson, because actually I don't hate capitalism, you got that wrong I'm afraid.

Quote from: "Wilson"But when you make statements that are just plain dumb and 180 degrees off, expect to be called on it.  You're not allowed to make arguments based on crazy definitions that nobody but you accepts.

See Wikipedia.  My definitions are ok.  I take it you hate freedom of speech.

Quote from: "Davin"Saying someone is a theist means they believe in a god or gods, even those who believe in a god or gods have a varied view of things like an afterlife. Reincarnation is not the same kind of afterlife that Christians speak of, because instead of going to heaven or hell, they're just coming back here. Deists are theists in that they believe in a god or gods but several that I've talked with don't believe in an afterlife and even more that I've talked with don't think people will have to explain themselves after death. So saying that one is a theist only implies that they believe in a god or gods, not necessarily anything else like an afterlife or being held accountable for their actions in life. This I think is the contention with saying that a belief in being held accountable for their actions is an addition to merely being a theist.

Most theists believe in the afterlife.  That's really the common usage of theism.  Besides, iSok confirmed that common understanding explicitly in his "Person A" example.  I entirely agree with iSok's example.  Nobody since he posted it has come up with a criticism of it that stands up to scrutiny, and I am very happy that if someone is a theist, that fact will in itself cause them to behave quite differently from an atheist.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "a-train"Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Existentialist didn't use the term "state capitalism" until I called him on it.  Regardless, "capitalism" and "communism" have widely accepted meanings having to do with who controls the means of production.  To arbitrarily change those meanings so that everything is a variation on capitalism makes it impossible to intelligently discuss the issues.  And strikes me as a little goofy, to be honest.

No, not 'regardless'.  You didn't 'call' me on "state capitalism", you disagreed with me about capitalism so I introduced you to the concept of State Capitalism to help your understanding.  Please revisit the conversation and refresh your memory as I think it has become inaccurate.  I do not think that in the Soviet economy the workers ever controlled the means of production, except perhaps for a few months in 1917.  A state-controlled economy is not necessarily a proletariat-controlled economy, so use of the term 'communism' to describe them is problematic.  These debates are being held at a very advanced level among socialists around the world, if you care to look at them.  You may need to spend a little less time relying on Wikipedia, though, and I assure you they are for from being 'arbitrary' as you allege.  I have to ask myself who is really being goofy here.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "a-train"Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Existentialist didn't use the term "state capitalism" until I called him on it.  Regardless, "capitalism" and "communism" have widely accepted meanings having to do with who controls the means of production.  To arbitrarily change those meanings so that everything is a variation on capitalism makes it impossible to intelligently discuss the issues.  And strikes me as a little goofy, to be honest.

Oh and it is.  It is ridiculous.  But its not Existentialist's fault, this mangling of definitions started a century ago.  I've seen too many conversations go awry simply because of it.

In the U.S., "capitalism" takes its definition from 18th century economic writings (the same definition used by Marx).  In Europe, capitalism refers to a social system dividing the owners of capital (capitalists) and those that don't own capital (workers).  While Marx would have agreed that such class division would be the effect of free-market capitalism, he did not define capitalism as that division as do many Europeans today.

The proper term "Mercantilism" is used (and appropriately) to describe the protectionist national economic planning of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in western Europe. Europe never fully embraced the free-market capitalism adopted in the United States.  Europe slowly drifted out of Mercantilism moving toward free-markets and free trade, but kept much of the mercantilist apparatus.  This is partly why socialism grew there in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Many of the American Framers even argued for American mercantilism.  In some ways they were able to get mercantilist policies in place (protectionist measures, the bank of the United States).  Alexander Hamilton was one such Framer.  But Americans still defined capitalism as a free market system.

The rise of anti-capitalism was as rapid as was capitalism and one of the main strategies of anti-capitalism has always been to redefine capitalism.  This spilled into the U.S. in the late 19th Century and really gained footing in the 20th.  With that, many Americans now think that GM's near failure and subsequent bailout is another example of capitalism.  Whereas, using the classical definition, that would be an example of something very different than capitalism.

So, we all have to be careful to define these terms when we talk about them or all sorts of confusion will result.  Unfortunate.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"When Existentialist said: "The impetus for this [the ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite] was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal."  He/she is referring to state capitalism, not the market economy.  

Thanks for helping me explain other things to Wilson, but on this I wasn't really referring solely to state capitalism.  I think the Soviet system and Chinese communism were brought into existence, and maintained, by the failings of capitalism.  State capitalism was the result - another oppressive variation on the capitalist theme.  

Quote from: "a-train"But this is an impossible assertion to prove and it is irrelevant.  It is impossible to know the real impetus for what happened in Russia.  Did the leadership there think their actions would lead the people to the utopian communist economy?  Did they do it so they could live in splendor?  We don't know, and that is the point which we need to point out.

Hmm well I'm half with you on that.  It is pretty much impossible to know what happened before our time, but we can build models of what happened, and what the impetus was, based on all sorts of things.  I accept the caveat that any model may be incorrect, nevertheless it is possible to attach one's analysis to a chosen model even if the concrete, hard-and-fast, conclusive proof of a historical fact isn't there, if it's consistent with These decisions about the credence we give to different historical analyses are the kinds of decisions that atheist, agnostics and theists tend to make differently because of their stance on the existence of god.

Quote from: "a-train"In medieval times it was constantly said: If only our king was a believer in this or a believer in that, the kingdom would be great!  It was the great discovery of the Enlightenment that no ruler, ruling class, or arbitrary bureau can direct the economy and bless the people at large, regardless of their beliefs as to how best to govern.  It is the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people.

Property?  Wealth?  Greatest number?  We can't really co-opt the Enlightenment into that analysis, I think.  Social democracy possibly, laissez-faire economics conceivably, but Enlightenment?  Not really.

Quote from: "a-train"Oh and it is.  It is ridiculous.  But its not Existentialist's fault, this mangling of definitions started a century ago.  I've seen too many conversations go awry simply because of it.

In the U.S., "capitalism" takes its definition from 18th century economic writings (the same definition used by Marx).  In Europe, capitalism refers to a social system dividing the owners of capital (capitalists) and those that don't own capital (workers).  While Marx would have agreed that such class division would be the effect of free-market capitalism, he did not define capitalism as that division as do many Europeans today.

The proper term "Mercantilism" is used (and appropriately) to describe the protectionist national economic planning of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in western Europe. Europe never fully embraced the free-market capitalism adopted in the United States.  Europe slowly drifted out of Mercantilism moving toward free-markets and free trade, but kept much of the mercantilist apparatus.  This is partly why socialism grew there in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Many of the American Framers even argued for American mercantilism.  In some ways they were able to get mercantilist policies in place (protectionist measures, the bank of the United States).  Alexander Hamilton was one such Framer.  But Americans still defined capitalism as a free market system.

The rise of anti-capitalism was as rapid as was capitalism and one of the main strategies of anti-capitalism has always been to redefine capitalism.  This spilled into the U.S. in the late 19th Century and really gained footing in the 20th.  With that, many Americans now think that GM's near failure and subsequent bailout is another example of capitalism.  Whereas, using the classical definition, that would be an example of something very different than capitalism.

So, we all have to be careful to define these terms when we talk about them or all sorts of confusion will result.  Unfortunate.

-a-train

All new to me.  What's the difference between what the Americans call capitalism and what the Europeans call capitalism?  I don't quite get it.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Existentialist"When you decide there's no god, all the responsibility for your actions falls on you alone.  A theist is more likely to think they are being guided by god - answering god's calling, or being shown by god the way ahead. I think an agnostic atheist is more likely to take a passive approach - their lives are governed by the awaiting of evidence.

I really do struggle to understand you Existentialist.
You often say things that are the total opposite to what I think. Not saying you are right or wrong but just completely opposite to me.

Thanks.  That is a compliment.

Quote from: "Stevil"How can making all your own decisions be seen as passive?
I would have thought allowing yourself to be guided by god, answering god's calling would be passive. Sitting there waiting for instructions.

'Agnostic' atheists sit there waiting for evidence.  Just as bad in my view as sitting there waiting for instructions.  I agree, making all your own decisions is not passive. Agnostic atheists should make their minds up.

Quote from: "Stevil"But to get back on topic, you seem to be adding additional attributes to god. Making an assumption that if people believe in god then they also believe that god is responsible for guiding and calling people. Is this what Mormon's believe, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Aztecs, Maoris, Aborigonies, Greeks, Zulus, Christians, Hindus...?

Well, I did say 'more likely'.  I wasn't proposing it as an absolute fact.  You often hear people say things like 'I answered God's calling'.  It stems from the idea of a benign, creationist, ruling god doesn't it?

We keep coming back to this stripped-down god.  I'd never realised before that god was such a stripper.  How much can he take off before he has no clothes?  

He's got to have some clothes surely, otherwise it's just indecent.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I agree any variable will influence the subject, on that basis even two atheists who hold exactly the same position on the existence of god will act differently.  But I also think that whether a person is an atheist or a theist will cause them to think about things in a particular way.  So given a questionnaire put to 50 atheists and 50 theists, the atheists' results will tend to congregate around one set of ideas, the theists around another set.  It depends on the questions and of course, I can't prove it either, any more than others can prove it won't make any difference at all.  Proof is a bit superfluous when we're discussing our opinions anyway.

The question there becomes 'which is the affected view?'

In reality, while it could be said that a worldview without theism will be different from one that includes theism, it cannot necessarily be said that there is a causal relationship between lack of belief and that worldview. Belief in a deity, especially one that includes religion (because religion is not the same as belief, and is a qualitatively different thing), will most certainly affect your worldview, but the absence of it? I suggest that this is nonsense. The results will be different, but only one of them could actually be said to be necessarily affected.

Now, while my atheism most definitely doesn't affect my worldview, my worldview is most definitely affected by my strong opinion that the beliefs of others should not impinge on the world and the society in which I and my children live, but that view is not a function of my lack of belief, but of other facets of my political make-up, mostly in the form of recognising that the people who hold those beliefs are not justified in dictating to me how I should live my life, and should have no influence on the legislative and political systems in said society. This is merely a political view, and is not actually tempered by my lack of theistic belief. Indeed, there are many believers who recognise that religion should not be an undue influence on social and economic policy. This principle is known as secularism, which is not equivalent to atheism.

Absence of belief is the default, so no effect can be inferred from it, or at least, it can't if you have any grasp of basic logic.

Quote from: "Existentialist"'Agnostic' atheists sit there waiting for evidence.  Just as bad in my view as sitting there waiting for instructions.  I agree, making all your own decisions is not passive. Agnostic atheists should make their minds up.

This is an incorrect assumption. Actually Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god however as with many other theories of "interest" they keep their eyes open with regards to new information, facts or proof and at such time then reassess the validity of certain open theories. In my opinion theists and strong atheists pretend to go around with their eyes shut. However in reality if some conclusive proof pops up they will likely open their eyes.

Quote from: "Existentialist"We keep coming back to this stripped-down god.

Most definitely. It is evident to me that most people participating in this thread understand this point well. For those that don't I will attempt to make this more clear.
The statement made by iSok was "Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not."
So here we are trying to put a common denominator onto the God creature so that we can understand what is different between being an Atheist and the people that have a common belief with regards to a common God. Because the faiths are different we need to strip down the God concept into its common denominator. You could offer an alternative to this problem.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Existentialist"'Agnostic' atheists sit there waiting for evidence.  Just as bad in my view as sitting there waiting for instructions.  I agree, making all your own decisions is not passive. Agnostic atheists should make their minds up.

This is an incorrect assumption. Actually Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god however as with many other theories of "interest" they keep their eyes open with regards to new information, facts or proof and at such time then reassess the validity of certain open theories. In my opinion theists and strong atheists pretend to go around with their eyes shut. However in reality if some conclusive proof pops up they will likely open their eyes.

It's not really an assumption, more an observation.  It would stand to reason that if your view of the world was one that required a high level of evidence regarding all judgements, then procrastination is a risk.  Often what I see is agnostic atheists being very compartmentalised in their thinking, using limited evidence from one aspect of life to make their minds up, and simply not able to cope with conflicting evidence.  The Wikipedia references are a basic level of the problem.  They'll quote a paragraph at you to prove that something is 'correct' and be completely unable to cope with a conflicting paragraph from the same publication without getting angry or dismissive.  This seems to come up in every single thread here.  I think it's because, in demanding the highest standard of evidence (eg proof of the non-existence of god) before making their minds up and saying firmly that he doesn't exist, they have to face the problem that adequate evidence does not exist to make their minds up about most big decisions, like how to vote or whether to support a particular political rebel.  So rather than face the problem that evidence is incomplete, contradictory and usually unhelpful, they tend to home in on what is concrete in order to reduce their anxiety that life is confusing and there is no real truth about anything.  Homing in on the concrete is what leads to compartmentalising and the selective use of partial evidence.  

And no, I don't really observe that Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god.  I don't even believe that atheists who assert firmly that there is no god do that.  Religious ideas are so bound up with the doctrines of capitalism that it would be impossible to function at all in a capitalist system if someone led their life 'as if there is no god'.  

It may not be a comfortable position to be in, but at least I acknowledge the profound religious conditioning I have and we all have experienced.  To just throw it off like it never happened doesn't strike me as realistic.  

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Existentialist"We keep coming back to this stripped-down god.

Most definitely. It is evident to me that most people participating in this thread understand this point well.

Oh great.  I am in a minority.  There must be something wrong with my intelligence level then.  

Quote from: "Stevil"For those that don't I will attempt to make this more clear.

How generous.  Let's all gather round.  All one of us.  

Quote from: "Stevil"The statement made by iSok was "Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not."
So here we are trying to put a common denominator onto the God creature so that we can understand what is different between being an Atheist and the people that have a common belief with regards to a common God. Because the faiths are different we need to strip down the God concept into its common denominator. You could offer an alternative to this problem.

I think in the context of iSok's statement I know what is meant by God.  The challenge seems to be to come up with a concept of a god that makes so little impact on an atheist that he behaves in exactly the same way as a theist, in order to fulfil the idea that it would make no difference whether he was an atheist or a theist.  Sorry, it can't be done.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks for helping me explain other things to Wilson, but on this I wasn't really referring solely to state capitalism.  I think the Soviet system and Chinese communism were brought into existence, and maintained, by the failings of capitalism.  State capitalism was the result - another oppressive variation on the capitalist theme.

And this common view defines the failure of capitalism as the bankruptcy or failure of some firm or industry.  Whereas the classical economists and modern pro-capitalist economists see industry failure or bankruptcy as a necessary process within capitalism.  In fact, it is a sign that capitalism is working, not failing.  Marx thought, and he was right, that as major firms went into failure they would go to government for help or government would automatically assume the position of saving the firm on any number of grounds.  The firm or industry would then be either nationalized, taken under government control, or subsidized in some way by government.  He thought this would inevitably lead to socialism (government ownership).  Pro-capitalist economists see the failure of industries and businesses as a necessary process in the re-allocation of capital within the economy.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Property?  Wealth?  Greatest number?  We can't really co-opt the Enlightenment into that analysis, I think.  Social democracy possibly, laissez-faire economics conceivably, but Enlightenment?  Not really.

I guess I am not sure what you are saying here.  Clearly the most material outcome of the Enlightenment was the Atlantic Revolutions and the rejection of the "Divine Right of Kings" and mercantilism.  Capitalism (free markets) was the economic system advocated by much of the Enlightenment thinkers and that is why it replaced the mercantilist states and/or colonies during the revolutions, especially that of the American Revolution.  It is absolutely certain that the rise of capitalism in the west was directly attributed to the Enlightenment.

-a-train

Quote from: "Existentialist"All new to me.  What's the difference between what the Americans call capitalism and what the Europeans call capitalism?  I don't quite get it.

Well, that is what I just explained.  Mainstream America sees capitalism as free markets, Mainstream Europe sees capitalism as the division of two classes: capitalists and workers.  One is an economic definition, the other is a social definition.  Certainly these are generalizations.  Some Americans may define capitalism as a social system, I know many Europeans who use the economic definition.  But the mainstream ideas are generally as I described and America has moved more toward the European view in the last few decades.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Existentialist"All new to me.  What's the difference between what the Americans call capitalism and what the Europeans call capitalism?  I don't quite get it.

Well, that is what I just explained.  Mainstream America sees capitalism as free markets, Mainstream Europe sees capitalism as the division of two classes: capitalists and workers.  One is an economic definition, the other is a social definition.  Certainly these are generalizations.  Some Americans may define capitalism as a social system, I know many Europeans who use the economic definition.  But the mainstream ideas are generally as I described and America has moved more toward the European view in the last few decades.
-a-train

Well if you have sources for that I'd be more interested but these two transatlantic views of capitalism you have described are fairly compatible with each other and I haven't really seen the distinction you make being used much.  I thought most commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have a fairly incomplete understanding of what Capitalism is and what its roots are.

On the Enlightenment you said,

Quote from: "a-train"In medieval times it was constantly said: If only our king was a believer in this or a believer in that, the kingdom would be great! It was the great discovery of the Enlightenment that no ruler, ruling class, or arbitrary bureau can direct the economy and bless the people at large, regardless of their beliefs as to how best to govern. It is the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people.

The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Quote from: "Existentialist"And no, I don't really observe that Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god.  I don't even believe that atheists who assert firmly that there is no god do that.  Religious ideas are so bound up with the doctrines of capitalism that it would be impossible to function at all in a capitalist system if someone led their life 'as if there is no god'.

This is news to me, please elaborate? How do I go about my life as if there is a god? Oh, by the way please also show me how this also allows me to be different to all believers at the same time.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Oh great.  I am in a minority.  There must be something wrong with my intelligence level then.  

It seems that in a lot of countries Atheists are in the minority, probably I am too (actually I am proud to be a lover of heavy metal music, this clearly puts me in the minority). It would be incorrect to assume that minority groups have something wrong with their intelligence level.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"For those that don't I will attempt to make this more clear.

How generous.  Let's all gather round.  All one of us.

I didn't want to assume that you were the only one.

Quote from: "Existentialist"I think in the context of iSok's statement I know what is meant by God.  The challenge seems to be to come up with a concept of a god that makes so little impact on an atheist that he behaves in exactly the same way as a theist, in order to fulfil the idea that it would make no difference whether he was an atheist or a theist.  Sorry, it can't be done.

This is pure spin. Please define what the difference is between an Atheist and all believers and how that impacts the atheists ability to behave in the same way as any and all of the believers.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "Existentialist"I agree any variable will influence the subject, on that basis even two atheists who hold exactly the same position on the existence of god will act differently.  But I also think that whether a person is an atheist or a theist will cause them to think about things in a particular way.  So given a questionnaire put to 50 atheists and 50 theists, the atheists' results will tend to congregate around one set of ideas, the theists around another set.  It depends on the questions and of course, I can't prove it either, any more than others can prove it won't make any difference at all.  Proof is a bit superfluous when we're discussing our opinions anyway.

The question there becomes 'which is the affected view?'

In reality, while it could be said that a worldview without theism will be different from one that includes theism, it cannot necessarily be said that there is a causal relationship between lack of belief and that worldview. Belief in a deity, especially one that includes religion (because religion is not the same as belief, and is a qualitatively different thing), will most certainly affect your worldview, but the absence of it? I suggest that this is nonsense. The results will be different, but only one of them could actually be said to be necessarily affected.

'Absence of belief' is maybe a shorthand way of describing one type of atheism, but to simply leave it at that without acknowledging that the atheist has arrived at this 'absence' only after a process of thought and serious consideration of the issues is to understate what it is.  It's the experience of the process that leads to the differing behaviour, not the vacuum, void or 'absence' in this theoretical atheist's head.  

Quote from: "hackenslash"Now, while my atheism most definitely doesn't affect my worldview, my worldview is most definitely affected by my strong opinion that the beliefs of others should not impinge on the world and the society in which I and my children live, but that view is not a function of my lack of belief, but of other facets of my political make-up, mostly in the form of recognising that the people who hold those beliefs are not justified in dictating to me how I should live my life, and should have no influence on the legislative and political systems in said society. This is merely a political view, and is not actually tempered by my lack of theistic belief. Indeed, there are many believers who recognise that religion should not be an undue influence on social and economic policy. This principle is known as secularism, which is not equivalent to atheism.

Absence of belief is the default

Nope, now you've lost me.  The default what?  I'm an atheist.  I have a belief.  I have a belief that there isn't a god.  I've arrived at that position through a lot of mental energy.  Calling it an 'absence of belief in god' is a total inaccuracy, never mind a default.  My belief has affected my political beliefs, my view of secularism, my views of other people's rights.  And whatever type of atheism atheists hold, I'd have thought most of them would resist the notion that their stance on the existence of god is defined by a mere 'absence', whether it's of belief or anything else.  It suggests they've given no thought to it.  The result in terms of the belief fails to acknowledge the intellectual process that led up to it.

Quote from: "hackenslash"so no effect can be inferred from it, or at least, it can't if you have any grasp of basic logic.

Oh brilliant, there go my logic circuits again.  Another intelligence failure on my part I suppose.  What you've set up is the logic of a contrivance, the contrivance being the 'absence of belief' which is unattached to any thought process, any ideological or religious influence, it's a manifestation of pure intellect totally unconnected to the real world you live in.  Your logic works on that level, but like the stripped-down god, it has no connection to reality and I find it rather unbelievable.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Well if you have sources for that I'd be more interested but these two transatlantic views of capitalism you have described are fairly compatible with each other and I haven't really seen the distinction you make being used much.  I thought most commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have a fairly incomplete understanding of what Capitalism is and what its roots are.

The Cambridge Dictionary says http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/capitalism:

capitalism noun /ˈkæp.ɪ.təl.ɪ.zəm//-t ̬əl-/
: an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism:

cap·i·tal·ism noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Notice the omission of the term "free market" and the inclusion of the terms "political and social" in the British dictionary.  Notice also that the American dictionary says that capitalism means that "the distribution of goods [..] are determined mainly by competition in a free market", while the British dictionary says capitalism is "directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people."  I am not saying that either of these definitions are right or wrong, only that they are slightly different and the crux of that difference is economic versus social.

It is true from the standpoint of economists that most people around the world have a bad definition of capitalism.  The economic and social definitions of the term are at odds.  Many who take up the economic definition do not believe that a bifurcation of the society respectively into two classes (capitalists and workers) is implicit or even necessary.  It is there that much of the trouble begins.  Those looking to end classism and taking up the social definition will be inclined to be opposed to capitalism.  Those who take up the economic definition may very well want to end classism, but rather see capitalism as a system compatible with that end, many find it the only economic system compatible with that end.

Quote from: "Existentialist"The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Certainly there are those who would not find it a "discovery".  Conservatives definitely didn't, they thought it all confusion and ridiculous.  But oh well, I am convinced and I call it a "discovery" and take the massive explosion of wealth and prosperity under the western liberal governments as my evidence.

-a-train

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Existentialist"And no, I don't really observe that Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god.  I don't even believe that atheists who assert firmly that there is no god do that.  Religious ideas are so bound up with the doctrines of capitalism that it would be impossible to function at all in a capitalist system if someone led their life 'as if there is no god'.

This is news to me, please elaborate? How do I go about my life as if there is a god? Oh, by the way please also show me how this also allows me to be different to all believers at the same time.

Religion is profoundly tied up with the nature of capitalism.  To function in a capitalist society - to pay due respect to work hierarchies, ideological beliefs at work and in education, to conduct relationships and manage property and economic relationships - we all have to have some allegiance to the capitalist work ethic, the legitimacy of hierarchies, and acknowledge various abstract belief systems and social norms.  This conditioning affects us all, and is heavily influenced by authoritarian religious ideas and religious ways of relating to each other.  I would not confidently say I am completely de-conditioned from that even as an atheist.  But if you feel you are de-conditioned then go ahead, you will probably achieve great things in the capitalist world on that basis.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Existentialist"Oh great.  I am in a minority.  There must be something wrong with my intelligence level then.  

It seems that in a lot of countries Atheists are in the minority, probably I am too (actually I am proud to be a lover of heavy metal music, this clearly puts me in the minority). It would be incorrect to assume that minority groups have something wrong with their intelligence level.

Well done.  In quoting this you deleted your comment that led to me saying that.  Well recovered!

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"For those that don't I will attempt to make this more clear.

How generous.  Let's all gather round.  All one of us.

Quote from: "Stevil"I didn't want to assume that you were the only one.

Why would it matter if I were?

Quote from: "Existentialist"I think in the context of iSok's statement I know what is meant by God.  The challenge seems to be to come up with a concept of a god that makes so little impact on an atheist that he behaves in exactly the same way as a theist, in order to fulfil the idea that it would make no difference whether he was an atheist or a theist.  Sorry, it can't be done.

Quote from: "Stevil"This is pure spin. Please define what the difference is between an Atheist and all believers and how that impacts the atheists ability to behave in the same way as any and all of the believers.

Well, in a nutshell, the atheist doesn't believe in god, and believers do.  The atheist is determines that he makes his own decisions, the believer thinks he's doing the right thing according to the ideology he has developed in relation to god.  It therefore depends on the ideology, morality, doctrine and attitude to sin of the theist's religion, but it seems so obvious to me that these things will cause the theist to behave very differently when faced with the same decisions as the atheist.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Religion is profoundly tied up with the nature of capitalism.  To function in a capitalist society - to pay due respect to work hierarchies, ideological beliefs at work and in education, to conduct relationships and manage property and economic relationships - we all have to have some allegiance to the capitalist work ethic, the legitimacy of hierarchies, and acknowledge various abstract belief systems and social norms.  This conditioning affects us all, and is heavily influenced by authoritarian religious ideas and religious ways of relating to each other.  I would not confidently say I am completely de-conditioned from that even as an atheist.  But if you feel you are de-conditioned then go ahead, you will probably achieve great things in the capitalist world on that basis.

Sorry, I still don't understand. What in particular is the impact of belief in god? It isn't hierarchies, I'm sure hierarchies exist even with animals that don't know of the existence of beliefs.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Well done.  In quoting this you deleted your comment that led to me saying that.  Well recovered!

Huh, no intent to mislead or recover here. I simply delete stuff to reduce the size of my response posts.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Stevil"I didn't want to assume that you were the only one.

Why would it matter if I were?

It wouldn't matter, I just didn't want to assume

Quote from: "Existentialist"It therefore depends on the ideology, morality, doctrine and attitude to sin of the theist's religion

Yes, in a nutshell. We are trying to work out what the commonality is between all believers so that we then can workout what the difference is between atheists and all believers. It is hard to do because there are many, many differences between the believers. So we strip the god concept down. In the end we are simply left with a belief in god with regard to the creation of universe event or a non belief in god with regard to the creation of the universe event. In most people's cases that event in history does not impact their decisions.

Brace yourselves, I'm going in:

Quote from: "Existentialist"'Absence of belief' is maybe a shorthand way of describing one type of atheism, but to simply leave it at that without acknowledging that the atheist has arrived at this 'absence' only after a process of thought and serious consideration of the issues is to understate what it is.  It's the experience of the process that leads to the differing behaviour, not the vacuum, void or 'absence' in this theoretical atheist's head.  

Utter bollocks. Firstly, we've gone over why absence of belief is the only rigorous definition of atheism that exists several times now, and you still haven't grasped it. It isn't a shorthand way of describing atheism, it is the only definition that fulfills the criteria of being both sufficient and necessary, which is what any robust definition of anything must fulfill in order for the definition to be useful. It is not necessary for an atheist to have arrived at their atheism through a process of thought, only that they don't have an active belief in a deity. Atheism is not an intellectual position, although it can be arrived at through application of the intellect. All that it takes to fulfill the sufficient and necessary conditions, which MUST be the criteria for any definition of anything, is an absence of active belief in the existence of a deity. It takes no thought, and no process, to lack an active belief in a deity. It is the default position.

QuoteNope, now you've lost me.

That happens a lot with people who can't keep up, despite having been schooled on rigorous definitions repeatedly by several people citing numerous sources, so it doesn't surprise me in the least.

QuoteThe default what?  I'm an atheist.  I have a belief.  I have a belief that there isn't a god.

Which is, of course, fine. The only thing is that you are carrying features which are superfluous to a rigorous definition of atheism. Your active belief in the non-existence of any deity is extraneous to the necessary and sufficient conditions inherent in atheism. Just because your position can be described as atheism does not mean that your position is definitive of atheism. It simply isn't, and you have been schooled on this, and why this is the case, repeatedly. I am an atheist, and I have no such active belief, not least because I am an empiricist, and I reject categorical assertions such as yours unless there is sufficient evidence to justfy such a position. You are asserting that your definition of atheism is applicable to the full set, when it simply isn't. Moreover, you are implying this in the face of atheists who are telling you, and citing accepted definitions, that they do not fit your definition. Given that, and given an accepted definition that DOES apply to the full set of all atheists, your contention is non-rigorous, unrobust, and frankly dishonest. When you have been schooled, the best approach is to actually learn. Further, your active belief in the non-existence of a deity is only marginally better supported than the theists' active belief in the existence of a deity.

QuoteI've arrived at that position through a lot of mental energy.

Again, great, if that works for you. The only thing is that your definition does not apply to the full set of all atheists. Many dictionaries and other sources far more robust than your blind assertion accept the definition generally accepted, not just on this forum, but among atheists in general.

QuoteCalling it an 'absence of belief in god' is a total inaccuracy, never mind a default.

Utter guff. It is accurate, because it is the only common ground that is shared by ALL atheists. Any definition that does not encompass the whole set is unrobust BY DEFINITION, and should therefore be discarded, or at least be considered a subset. You are, as somebody who carries an active belief that no deities exist, a subset of all atheists, the majority of which simply don't have an active belief that a deity exists.

I won't cite dictionary definitions here that support my position, because they have already been provided, and yet you have continued to re-assert that your is the only one that has any value. You're wrong, as many here and elsewhere will attest to.

QuoteMy belief has affected my political beliefs, my view of secularism, my views of other people's rights.

Yours has, yes, because yours is an active belief in the non-existence of a deity. Other atheists, and in fact the largest portion of the set, are not so afflicted. They simply have no active belief in a deity and recognise that the categorical claims of others with regard to the existence of a deity (including yours) have no place in deciding policy, because that's what secularism means.

QuoteAnd whatever type of atheism atheists hold, I'd have thought most of them would resist the notion that their stance on the existence of god is defined by a mere 'absence', whether it's of belief or anything else.

What you would have thought is of no consequence, and utterly irrelevant. In any event, I know many thousands of atheists, and very few of them would identify with your definition. Put simply, you are wrong.

QuoteIt suggests they've given no thought to it.

Quite the opposite, in most cases. They've given it a great deal of thought, and have concuded that, while they have no active belief in the existence of a deity, andf are thus atheists, they recognise that the question is probably unanswerable. For myself, I think that, if any interventionist deity does exist, then knowledge is possible, which is why I describe myself as a gnostic atheist. Not because I know, but because I think that knowledge is possible.

 

QuoteThe result in terms of the belief fails to acknowledge the intellectual process that led up to it.

You're assuming that atheism requires an intellectual process, which is why you are struggling with the fact that atheism is the default position. Perhaps you should extend your education in this regard.

QuoteOh brilliant, there go my logic circuits again.  Another intelligence failure on my part I suppose.

Quite possibly, although I will not comment. More likely its a failure of understanding, which is quite common in those whose understanding is rooted in erroneous definitions.

QuoteWhat you've set up is the logic of a contrivance, the contrivance being the 'absence of belief' which is unattached to any thought process, any ideological or religious influence, it's a manifestation of pure intellect totally unconnected to the real world you live in.

On the contrary. It's a manifestation of actually understanding what the bloody word means, and what constitutes a rigorous definition. It isn't difficult. There is nothing contrived about it. Indeed, if you spoke to a significant number of people who actually arrived at their atheism through rigorous intellectual processes, the majority would agree with me, because your position is intellecyially only a step away from the reidiculous belief that a deity exists. Closing the door to the possibility that an entity that we wouold recognise as a deity exists is as intellectually bankrupt as the converse position, because it rules out the possibility of falsifiying evidence. As an empiricist, I can never do that, because discarding any falsifiable hypothesis is unscientific.

QuoteYour logic works on that level,

No. Logic works on that level. I have no logic of my own, and this crass statement demonstrates that you don't actually know what you're talking about, as if your previous 'discourse' on this matter has demonstrated all too readily.

Quotebut like the stripped-down god, it has no connection to reality and I find it rather unbelievable.

Well, again, what you believe is of no consequence and, frankly, of little interest. This might change if you can apply a little rigour in your discourse.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "superdave"He tossed out Hitler

...Not an atheist. Napoleón, however, was.

Was he? My understanding was Napoleón was critical of religion but did in fact believe in God.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Utter bollocks... you still haven't grasped it... despite having been schooled... you have been schooled on this... dishonest... you have been schooled... the best approach is to actually learn... your blind assertion... Utter guff... Other atheists are not so afflicted... that you would have thought is of no consequence, and utterly irrelevant...  perhaps you should extend your education... failure of understanding... what the bloody word means... It isn't difficult... your position is intellectually only a step away from the ridiculous belief ...intellectually bankrupt ...crass statement ...you don't know what you're talking about... what you believe is of no consequence ... and of little interest

No I can't place the character.  Is it Flashman, the bully from Tom Brown's Schooldays?

Nope. It's the character 'you got your arse kicked' from HAF.

No intention of deaing with the evisceration of your nonsense then?

Quote from: "hackenslash"Utter bollocks... you still haven't grasped it... despite having been schooled... you have been schooled on this... dishonest... you have been schooled... the best approach is to actually learn... your blind assertion... Utter guff... Other atheists are not so afflicted... that you would have thought is of no consequence, and utterly irrelevant...  perhaps you should extend your education... failure of understanding... what the bloody word means... It isn't difficult... your position is intellectually only a step away from the ridiculous belief ...intellectually bankrupt ...crass statement ...you don't know what you're talking about... what you believe is of no consequence ... and of little interest

Quote from: "hackenslash"Nope. It's the character 'you got your arse kicked' from HAF.

No intention of deaing with the evisceration of your nonsense then?

In view of this and your previous foul comment to me in another thread, I think you're on the wrong website for the type of relationship you're looking for.  Anyone who thinks a member of this forum must compulsorily participate to the masochistic side of the type of relationship you seem to be looking for has missed the point of why people are asked to show civility.  It's not the first time in your case.  I can assure you this is the last comment I will be posting to you in this thread.   Goodbye.

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Existentialist"The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Certainly there are those who would not find it a "discovery".  Conservatives definitely didn't, they thought it all confusion and ridiculous.  But oh well, I am convinced and I call it a "discovery" and take the massive explosion of wealth and prosperity under the western liberal governments as my evidence.

I take the massive poverty and oppression under western liberal governments as counter-evidence.  I think you're interpreting the Enlightenment in a way that distorts its meaning.  The Enlightenment certainly made political discourse and philosophical discussion possible, but "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people" is not an Enlightenment 'discovery'.  I would say the Enlightenment made that kind of thinking possible, but it also made communist and socialist ideology possible.  It was multi-faceted in that sense, not just a slogan for the merits of capitalism.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Existentialist"The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Certainly there are those who would not find it a "discovery".  Conservatives definitely didn't, they thought it all confusion and ridiculous.  But oh well, I am convinced and I call it a "discovery" and take the massive explosion of wealth and prosperity under the western liberal governments as my evidence.

I take the massive poverty and oppression under western liberal governments as counter-evidence.  I think you're interpreting the Enlightenment in a way that distorts its meaning.  The Enlightenment certainly made political discourse and philosophical discussion possible, but "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people" is not an Enlightenment 'discovery'.  I would say the Enlightenment made that kind of thinking possible, but it also made communist and socialist ideology possible.  It was multi-faceted in that sense, not just a slogan for the merits of capitalism.

Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.
-a-train

I didn't say that communism and socialism were invented by Enlightenment participants.  I said the Enlightenment made it possible to develop socialist thinking, just like it made it possible to develop pro-capitalist thinking.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "a-train"Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.
-a-train

I didn't say that communism and socialism were invented by Enlightenment participants.  I said the Enlightenment made it possible to develop socialist thinking, just like it made it possible to develop pro-capitalist thinking.

Enlightenment thinkers didn't just create the groundwork for free-market economies.  They overthrew government mercantilism and replaced it with free markets.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "a-train"Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.
-a-train

I didn't say that communism and socialism were invented by Enlightenment participants.  I said the Enlightenment made it possible to develop socialist thinking, just like it made it possible to develop pro-capitalist thinking.

Enlightenment thinkers didn't just create the groundwork for free-market economies.  They overthrew government mercantilism and replaced it with free markets.

-a-train

You said the Enlightenment 'discovered', "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people."  My challenging this meant that I do not think this was actually an Enlightenment 'discovery' in the same sense as a discovery of a scientific fact like the laws of gravity.  It is not a physical truth that we must all live by.  You may not have meant this, but it is the wording you used, and I disagreed with it.  

I'm sorry now I'm off out for a few days.  See you in a while.

Quote from: "Existentialist"You said the Enlightenment 'discovered', "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people."  My challenging this meant that I do not think this was actually an Enlightenment 'discovery' in the same sense as a discovery of a scientific fact like the laws of gravity.  It is not a physical truth that we must all live by.  You may not have meant this, but it is the wording you used, and I disagreed with it.  

I'm sorry now I'm off out for a few days.  See you in a while.

Understood, and I acknowledged that not everyone will agree that this was a "discovery".  I gave the example of the conservatives who opposed liberalism.  But to those that disagree I point to the dramatic difference in the standard of living for the average citizen of states with free enterprise economies and those living in controlled economies.

-a-train

Quote from: "Existentialist"In view of this and your previous foul comment to me in another thread, I think you're on the wrong website for the type of relationship you're looking for.  Anyone who thinks a member of this forum must compulsorily participate to the masochistic side of the type of relationship you seem to be looking for has missed the point of why people are asked to show civility.  It's not the first time in your case.  I can assure you this is the last comment I will be posting to you in this thread.   Goodbye.

I've showed you nothing but civility. Your nonsense, however, is a different matter. You really don't want to see incvility.

Having said that, the entire reason I post in the way I do is that it sorts out the wheat from the chaff. See, it's clear that you're notactually interested in addressing why you're wrong, or discussing it in any way. You only want to support your previously held conclusions. In that light, giving you the get-out clause that you have apparently taken is just another way for me to ensure that I am only dealing with people who are actually interested in learning. If you can't separate yourself from your arguments, and recognise that comments levelled at your posts are not levelled at you, and more importantly, if you're interested in addressing your errors, then I'm really not interested in discussion with you. Indeed, I never really was interested in discussion with you unless you showed a willingness to learn. All my post were aimed at the onlookers, as is always the case.

BTW, you should recognise what a foul comment actually is, and perhaps familiarise yourself with Goldenmane's Third Rule Of Public Discourse. You might find it educational.

Guess he didn't understand what a snide ass was either, those semantics and intellectual gymnastics he argues with are rather annoying.

Existentalist, if you want to participate on these forums you need to be a whole lot more mature than that,  Sandwich has been nothing but civil, there is a reason you got a warning over him, I suggest you change your attitude quickly if you want to remain on this forum yourself.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Guess he didn't understand what a snide ass was either, those semantics and intellectual gymnastics he argues with are rather annoying.

Existentalist, if you want to participate on these forums you need to be a whole lot more mature than that,  Sandwich has been nothing but civil, there is a reason you got a warning over him, I suggest you change your attitude quickly if you want to remain on this forum yourself.

Thanks Ultima22689.  Just on a point of fact, I wasn't aware that I had received a 'warning' that has any status in the rule-enforcement process of the forum.  Please could you or anyone point me to this so that I can make representations and defend myself.  I certainly wouldn't want to participate in a forum that requires me to debate with someone using the bullying model of argument I have referred to above.  Thank you.

I am afraid I am on my holidays till Sunday so I am on a time-limited computer at the moment.  I regret I do not therefore have time at the moment to add any further to the substance of the actual topic that this thread is about.  Please feel free to post something on-topic in my absence so I can respond on the subject on my return.  Thanks.

Quote from: "Existentialist"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Guess he didn't understand what a snide ass was either, those semantics and intellectual gymnastics he argues with are rather annoying.

Existentalist, if you want to participate on these forums you need to be a whole lot more mature than that,  Sandwich has been nothing but civil, there is a reason you got a warning over him, I suggest you change your attitude quickly if you want to remain on this forum yourself.

Thanks Ultima22689.  Just on a point of fact, I wasn't aware that I had received a 'warning' that has any status in the rule-enforcement process of the forum.  Please could you or anyone point me to this so that I can make representations and defend myself.  I certainly wouldn't want to participate in a forum that requires me to debate with someone using the bullying model of argument I have referred to above.  Thank you.

I am afraid I am on my holidays till Sunday so I am on a time-limited computer at the moment.  I regret I do not therefore have time at the moment to add any further to the substance of the actual topic that this thread is about.  Please feel free to post something on-topic in my absence so I can respond on the subject on my return.  Thanks.

In the last thread you got into a spat with Legendary Sandwich. I must apologize as I won't go looking to link said thread or quote said post as I don't think it's my job to go about quoting mod warnings out of fear that I may dig myself a hole.  There has only been one thread where you've had a similar discussion with Legendarysandwich, unless i'm mistaken, I suggest you start there if you would like to find out what i'm referring to, good luck to you, you're too intelligent to be lumped up with the rest of those who fall in bad favor on these forums, do think about the things said. I don't dislike you nor am I or anyone else trying to goad you into these type of conversations however I can guarantee you that carrying on in such  a condescending manner that you've previously displayed isn't going to do you well in conversation on this forum.  LegendarySandwich, myself and many others on the forum will speak with crude humor and/or language however we never personally attack people in such a manner and that is why we're still here. With all due respect, if you can't deal with "colorful" language on this forum, which is one of the most hospitable i've seen, then you would do well to learn to accept it or abandon internet forums altogether.

Hitler was born and raised Catholic, but never practiced the faith as an adult.

Stalin was indeed an atheist, though he did attend seminary school as a young man and was planning to be a priest.

My position on the matter is as follows:

I reject ANY supreme authority / supervisory figure in which there can be no dissent and whose rules one must follow on threat of punishment. Thus, I reject any "God", not only because I don't believe in such a being or his representative on earth (hello Pope), but also because religions / religious books outline rules one must follow (often ridiculous and/or immoral ones at that) without question. Similarly, totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China played a similar game: There is a supreme authority figure, you must obey his rules/commands, you can't question this authority or voice dissent lest you be punished, executed, etc. Totalitarian regimes have this in common with religious ones, and I reject all of them.

I would suggest people consider reading the secular advice of men like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Baruch Spinoza re. how a society could function without the need for belief in a supernatural being. If such a secular society (full of atheists) follows the advice of these men yet descends into chaos, violence, persecution, and ruin, then I'll consider the theist argument that only a society based on Christian or Jewish principles can succeed / be free / be moral, etc.

Quote from: "Ken2468"If such a secular society (full of atheists) follows the advice of these men yet descends into chaos, violence, persecution, and ruin, then I'll consider the theist argument that only a society based on Christian or Jewish principles can succeed / be free / be moral, etc.

Even that would be no evidence that the theistic morality has any merit.  In order for man to make any use of morals he must follow them.  If dishonesty and self-deceit can be considered moral, then man is doomed anyway.  It is imperative that man understand the universe as it is and use that knowledge to accomplish his ends, or else he cannot accomplish them.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -Francis Bacon, Novum Organum

-a-train

These historical figures were not atheist by their up bringings. Marx may have been closer to being an atheist at a later time in his life but not as a boy. The rest just knew how to get to the masses. Religious fanatics do used them from time to time as examples of the worst of criminals. But, were these the worst of criminals? History saids that more than 90% of all wars is due to religious beliefs, so the very worst criminal is religion ( religious beliefs ). Some just want to clean themselves and their religious beliefs with historical figures such as these.

Quote from: "hvargas"These historical figures were not atheist by their up bringings. Marx may have been closer to being an atheist at a later time in his life but not as a boy.

Because that's when it counts as true Atheism.

When you entered the minds of so called historical political thinkers you find hidden agendas which they keep away from their followers. Their transitions periods are noted much later in life just as they are about to leave this physical world. There are no true atheist or whatever in this world. They are all attached one way or another with an inhereted gene that has evolved deep within each individual according to their particular race and family. Since religion is mark with the blood of the innocents and not innocents it looks outside as to compare and say that such figures as Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Marx were the worst killers of history. The true of the matter is that both religious and political leaders throughout the history of the world had been the destroyers of LIFE. There is not one that is worst then the other or more atheist or less. In their last day they are saying something to this effect -- " dear god forgive me all of my sins ", they say this in their silent mind just in case. Now, what will you say in your last day of this life ?

Quote from: "hvargas"In their last day they are saying something to this effect -- " dear god forgive me all of my sins ", they say this in their silent mind just in case. Now, what will you say in your last day of this life ?

Are you referring to "Pascal's Wager" here? Pascal's Wager is the idea that believing in God is a no-lose proposition (If you believe in God and are wrong, you are no worse off. But if you believe in God and are right, you hit the jackpot of enternal life in heaven, so it's best to believe).

If a person does this, it seems to me they would be doing it for their own self-interest and not due to a genuine belief in God or a desire to lead a life of good works (or a "deathbed conversion" after a life of not following what Jesus asks of you). If so, a God who can read minds (eg. silent prayer) should easily be able to know what your thoughts are and I suspect he would likely take this into consideration when sitting in judgement of you after you died. Further, I think a God would have much more respect for an atheist stating he was just being honest with himself in not believing vs. a "Christian" who believed / did good works / made a deathbed conversion for the sole purpose of getting themselves admitted into heaven after they died if such a place does indeed exist.

Quote from: "hvargas"" dear god forgive me all of my sins ", they say this in their silent mind just in case. Now, what will you say in your last day of this life ?

In case you can't figure it out, AD is not an atheist  :blink:

Quote from: "Whitney"Btw, thanks for giving me a good laugh with that no true atheist comment; I always think it is funny when someone claims to psychically know what others are thinking.  

Don't be surprised by the mysticism of the mystic.

-a-train