Atheists use 9/11 as excuse to attack all religions

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

atheism isn't responsible for anything, whether good or bad. People don't do good things, bad things, or anything at all because of their lack of belief in gods...

Actually, they have, at least in the name of a lack of belief in God/gods. Anyone remember the Reign of Terror?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the installment of the Revolutionary Calendar on 24 October. Against Robespierre's concepts of Deism and Virtue, Hébert's (and Chaumette's) atheist movement initiated a religious campaign in order to dechristianize society. The program of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation of clergy and the condemnation of many of them to death, the closing of churches, the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, the large scale destruction of religious monuments, the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education, forced marriages of the clergy and forced abjurement of their priesthood. The enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight. The climax was reached with the celebration of the goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November...

I'm not sure we disagree per se judging by the rest of your post, but the fact of the matter is that people are just as capable of doing horrible things regardless of what their beliefs are. A person's beliefs/creeds/politics, while often confused with virtue, is not in itself virtue. Being a capitalist does not make you unethical, just as being a communist does not automatically make someone ethical.

And for the record, atheists are not bereft of positive claims. Stating conclusively that there is not a God/gods is at it's core faith-based statement.

As I previously stated, logically, the only belief that one can hold, without employing a great deal of faith is negative Atheism/Agnosticism/Theism.

ie:

I have no proof that a god exists therefore I choose to believe one does not until it is proven otherwise.

or

I have no proof that a god does not exist therefore I choose to believe one does until it is proven otherwise.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

As I previously stated, logically, the only belief that one can hold, without employing a great deal of faith is negative Atheism/Agnosticism/Theism.

ie:

I have no proof that a god exists therefore I choose to believe one does not until it is proven otherwise.

or

I have no proof that a god does not exist therefore I choose to believe one does until it is proven otherwise.

The latter supposition is illogical. Logic doesn't assume the existence of things in the absence of evidence to suggest that existence.
You can't prove that I don't have a pet unicorn that is responsible for rain and imperceptible to all save me.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

The latter supposition is illogical. Logic doesn't assume the existence of things in the absence of evidence to suggest that existence.
You can't prove that I don't have a pet unicorn that is responsible for rain and imperceptible to all save me.

There's plenty of evidence that suggests that a god/Gods exist (certainly a great deal more than your invisible rain-making unicorn). Everything from the fact that these religions exist, to the number of people who have religious experiences, to the teleological argument, to the fact that anything exists at all. There is also plenty of evidence against one's existence. What matters is how one interprets that evidence, but based upon any of that evidence one can only come to those two conclusions (or I suppose one could claim "I don't know, the evidence is inconclusive" and thus agnosticism) and remain logically consistent.

Personally, I do not believe in a god, at least not a God in the sense of a monotheistic religion, but I also believe, based upon what I have seen, that there is more to existence than simple physics, and based upon this evidence I have made suppositions as to what that "more" may be. This is a perfectly logical position.

[Godslayer Jillian]

If one tries to logically arrive to a conclusion, then one must go through the logical way of going about it.
Existence of religions, existence of 'epiphanies', teleological arguments, existence itself... all these are causal fallacies.
They are no evidence of a God except if the existence of such God is taken as a priori, which strips away all attempts at being logical to begin with.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

If one tries to logically arrive to a conclusion, then one must go through the logical way of going about it.
Existence of religions, existence of 'epiphanies', teleological arguments, existence itself... all these are causal fallacies.
They are no evidence of a God except if the existence of such God is taken as a priori, which strips away all attempts at being logical to begin with.

You mean the Fallacy of a single cause? they certainly can be, though not necessarily. It depends upon the particular argument. Evidence is not always proof. Similarly, it is a fallacy of a single cause to state that all the previous mentioned evidence was never caused by a "divine being". For instance, in the "God does not exist" thread, epiphanies are caused by epilepsy, but that does not mean categorically that all epiphanies ever were always caused by epilepsy.

They are easily evidence towards the existence of a god/Gods a posteriori.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I'm not talking about single cause at all.
But what the hell? You just said "it is a fallacy of a single cause to state that all the previous mentioned evidence was never caused by a "divine being""
That means you're saying that it's a fallacy of a single cause to assume something does not come from a single cause...

[Despanan]

Damn Gothic.net! my post should read:

Originally Posted by Despanan

They certainly can be, though not necessarily. It depends upon the particular argument. Evidence is not always proof. Similarly, it is a fallacy of a single cause to state that all the previous mentioned evidence was never caused by a "divine being". For instance, in the "God does not exist" thread, epiphanies are caused by epilepsy, but that does not mean categorically that all epiphanies ever were always caused by epilepsy.

They are easily evidence towards the existence of a god/Gods a posteriori.

[Drake Dun]

Righteo. I have to go to work, so I'll just tackle one post for the moment.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Here I disagree with you. Yes, religion does sling bullshit and demand unquestioning belief, but so can atheist governments.

The call is for secular governments, not atheist ones, but yes, a government can demand unquestioning belief without religion. And you can kill someone without a gun, but the gun sure helps.

Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities.

The formula with religion is simple: "A magic man to whom you owe obedience said X." You can justify pretty much anything with that. How do you do the same thing with atheism?

Atheism, in some cases, may be a system of non-belief, but, in the case of the early Soviet Union at least, it was more of substitution of one belief for another. Under Lenin and Stalin the church was suppressed so that the state could take its place. It was an attempt to eliminate any potential for split loyalty, to make the state god, and god the state... It's a short leap - more of a leggy stride - from killing for god to killing for the state.

Atheism is not statism.

Granted, the Soviet Union never went to war crying "for God and country", but in the "Great Patriotic War", they fought for Stalin and the motherland. What's the difference?

I can't see why the Russians should be blamed, rather than credited for fighting Hitler, but anyway. It's the difference between religion + nationalism, and leader worship + nationalism. Disbelief in the Loch Ness Monster or YHWH doesn't factor in.

Now, I do agree with you when you say that Atheism in and of itself does not cause violence, but the same can be said for organized religion.

I agree, but in a limited way. This is where things get tricky. I'd like to address it at length in a later post, so I'm flagging it here.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm not talking about single cause at all.
But what the hell? You just said "it is a fallacy of a single cause to state that all the previous mentioned evidence was never caused by a "divine being""
That means you're saying that it's a fallacy of a single cause to assume something does not come from a single cause...

No, I wasn't, though perhaps I did not express myself adequately. A fallacy of a single cause is when it is assumed that something has only one cause, when in reality, it might have multiple causes.

Take religious "epiphanies". There is evidence that a similar mental state can be caused by epilepsy. However, just because epilepsy is one explanation, does not mean that every religious epiphany in history was necessarily caused by epilepsy. Some might have been lies, some might have been epilepsy, and, unlikely as I find it, some might have been genuine religious experiences.

Essentially what I was saying here was having another explanation for something, while compelling, does not invalidate other possible explanations in all cases.

Anyway, this was more or less a segway. Originally I misread your post, and then the internet crapped out on me, and then I had to go to rehearsal, but the point remains:

Just because some of the evidence one might cite for the existence of God is fallacious in certain circumstances (especially when dealing with positive claims) does not mean that such things are useless in an a posteriori argument for the existence of the divine.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The call is for secular governments, not atheist ones, but yes, a government can demand unquestioning belief without religion. And you can kill someone without a gun, but the gun sure helps.

Are you implying that religion is somehow deadlier or more malicious than atheism? I'd ask you to look at history, as the most horrific genocides we can name have been committed for reasons other than religion.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The formula with religion is simple: "A magic man to whom you owe obedience said X." You can justify pretty much anything with that. How do you do the same thing with atheism?

Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Atheism is not statism.

I don't recall ever saying that they were the same. All I was doing was showing how atheism can be used in the same way as theism.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I can't see why the Russians should be blamed, rather than credited for fighting Hitler, but anyway. It's the difference between religion + nationalism, and leader worship + nationalism. Disbelief in the Loch Ness Monster or YHWH doesn't factor in.

I never blamed them for fighting the Nazis. I never blamed them for anything. All I did was try to show how one can replace the skeletal hand of god with the flesh-and-blood hand of a dictator, and have rather similar outcomes.

My point, in short, is that both religion and atheism can be used, in different ways, to justify almost anything. Neither one has an inherent advantage over the other, just differences to be exploited. The real issue is with the men doing the exploiting.

Now, time for bed.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily.

As with their belief on the non existence of purple elephants? Please tell us how?
Also Hitler was Christian despite what the one priests book may say. Read Hitlers book.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Take religious "epiphanies". There is evidence that a similar mental state can be caused by epilepsy. However, just because epilepsy is one explanation, does not mean that every religious epiphany in history was necessarily caused by epilepsy.

No one said all of them were. But how is it not fallacious to believe that while some "epiphanies" are epilepsy, others are visions of God? There's absolutely no reason to believe that.
And I go back to saying I never implied a fallacy of a single cause. I never said that believers are wrong in believing all that happens goes back to God. In fact, why are we talking about that fallacy when it can't be applied to a being that is supposed to be the totality of causation?

What I am saying is that the examples you mentioned are merely fallacies because they ignore causation. How can there be an a posterioti argument for God?
How can you see a piece of evidence and out of that evidence infer the existence of a metaphysical transcendental being? It can't. You have to have the idea of God already in your head to believe evidence takes shape around it. It's the same mentality than conspiracy theories: the evidence shapes itself around a premise that is taken as a priori.

[Drake Dun]

Here we get into a problem of definitions. Depending on how you define "Christian", Hitler may have been a Christian. He was not the sort of Christian you normally think of when you hear the word, though. Anyway, it could hardly be clearer that he was no atheist. Nor was he in the least bit hesitant to pump Christianity for all it was worth in the arena of propaganda.

Actually, that comment annoyed me enough that I'm not willing to continue this conversation until you acknowledge that. It's on my list of automatic disqualifiers, like saying that if the theory of evolution were true there would be no monkeys.

Lenin was an atheist. No complaints there.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Actually, they have, at least in the name of a lack of belief in God/gods. Anyone remember the Reign of Terror?

That's a genuinely interesting case. Much more challenging to my position than the example of Stalinist Russia. Frankly I can't be bothered to research the history right now, so instead I'm going to assume the most adverse fact set - that during the French revolution, people indeed went around killing other people not in order to destroy some particular religious organization or because of a beef with some particular religion, but for the specific purpose of eradicating belief.

Let me settle this with a hypothetical. Suppose you have an individual who is convinced that the Loch Ness Monster is not real. Unfortunately, this guy lives right next to Loch Ness. He is so horribly annoyed by the fact that so many people around him believe in the Monster that finally one day he goes on a homicidal spree, screaming about how he's going to kill every motherfucker who thinks Nessie is real.

If you're prepared to say that his lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster is to blame for that, then I'll agree that at least by your standards, atheism can be properly blamed for things (if that's not a big enough admission, you can press for more). The only other two options I see are (1) for you to register some legitimate objection to the analogy or (2) for you to drop the claim.

Getting to things one bit at a time...

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Here we get into a problem of definitions. Depending on how you define "Christian", Hitler may have been a Christian. He was not the sort of Christian you normally think of when you hear the word, though. Anyway, it could hardly be clearer that he was no atheist. Nor was he in the least bit hesitant to pump Christianity for all it was worth in the arena of propaganda.

Actually, that comment annoyed me enough that I'm not willing to continue this conversation until you acknowledge that. It's on my list of automatic disqualifiers, like saying that if the theory of evolution were true there would be no monkeys.

Lenin was an atheist. No complaints there.

It doesn't matter if Hitler was a Christian of any stripe. The point is that in his Reich religion was eventually entirely supplanted by the state. Nazism itself became tantamount to a religion.

I'd like to know what this propaganda you speak was, because, if memory serves me, the Catholic Centre Party was bitterly opposed to the Nazi party, and was one of the political opponents that Hitler crushed after his ascent to power.

You say that you won't continue the conversation until I acknowledge that Hitler was a Christian? I acknowledge it, and I say that it's a completely separate and irrelevant issue. I never claimed that Hitler wasn't religious. The fact is that it doesn't matter. I claimed that Hitler and his circle of Nazi supporters undermined and essentially destroyed the authority of German churches in order to eliminate any potential feelings of split loyalty. If anything, I think that Nazi-era German newsreels hold up my claim that Hitler managed to turn his political cult of personality into something nearing Godhood.

On a another note, I don't appreciate how you responded to my post with this petty, entirely irrelevant attack citing definition. You didn't even attempt to address the crux of my argument, instead picking out one small detail - a detail that is completely immaterial, I should add - and attempting to use it as leverage to change the direction of the discussion.

Poor form.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

That's a genuinely interesting case. Much more challenging to my position than the example of Stalinist Russia. Frankly I can't be bothered to research the history right now, so instead I'm going to assume the most adverse fact set - that during the French revolution, people indeed went around killing other people not in order to destroy some particular religious organization or because of a beef with some particular religion, but for the specific purpose of eradicating belief.

You're wrong on this issue as well. The participants in the French revolution by and large didn't engage in destruction for the sake of eradicating belief. They were... dun dun DUN... replacing belief in religion, which was intimately tied to support for the monarchy, with a new, more egalitarian state, one without a monarchy supported by the idea of divine right.

By the by, adding a disclaimer to your post saying that you "can't be bothered to research the history" doesn't protect you from being wrong. You're still basing your entire post on an erroneous assumption, which will, almost invariably, lead to an erroneous conclusion.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Let me settle this with a hypothetical. Suppose you have an individual who is convinced that the Loch Ness Monster is not real. Unfortunately, this guy lives right next to Loch Ness. He is so horribly annoyed by the fact that so many people around him believe in the Monster that finally one day he goes on a homicidal spree, screaming about how he's going to kill every motherfucker who thinks Nessie is real.

If you're prepared to say that his lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster is to blame for that, then I'll agree that at least by your standards, atheism can be properly blamed for things (if that's not a big enough admission, you can press for more). The only other two options I see are (1) for you to register some legitimate objection to the analogy or (2) for you to drop the claim.

These hypotheticals don't "settle" anything. They're nebulous, at best, and far too simple to effectively explain any of the situations that you've previously cited.

Don't try to declare the issue settled with a ham-fisted, hypothetical dichotomy.



My entire argument is that atheism can be just as destructive as theism, depending on how either set of ideals is put to use. Argue that, if you'd like.

[Drake Dun]

Am I not writing in English or something? I don't think we've managed to communicate clearly on even one point. I'm not even sure we're successfully disagreeing with each other.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Am I not writing in English or something? I don't think we've managed to communicate clearly on even one point. I'm not even sure we're successfully disagreeing with each other.

Spare me the snotty indignation. If you really think that we're not on the same page, then, by all means, try to remedy that.

All you've done thus far, however, is throw up a screen of bluff and bluster. You attacked one insignificant portion of my argument, claiming a problem with definition. You failed to even comment on the meat of my argument.

As for this alleged lack of clarity, I feel that I was perfectly comprehensible in my responses, and in setting out my argument for you. If you've got a problem with my argument, fine. Break it apart, analyze it, tear it to pieces, whatever. But attack my argument. You haven't done that yet, responding to me only with snide remarks and evasive comments.

[Drake Dun]

From where I'm standing, I answered your argument way back in the begining when I said "Atheism is not statism". You just reiterated the same argument though, so now I'm wondering whether I understood your point in the first place. I get that you're saying atheism can be used to justify evil deeds. I just can't figure out what your support for that is.

I do want to get this Hitler thing out of the way (anyway, I suspect it will dovetail with the main question). I wasn't demanding that you acknowledge Hitler as a Christian. That should be obvious, since I expressed doubt about whether the label was appropriate myself. I was reacting to this:

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The formula with religion is simple: "A magic man to whom you owe obedience said X." You can justify pretty much anything with that. How do you do the same thing with atheism?

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily.

The only way that can be read is as an allegation that Hitler used atheism to justify atrocities. It's a lie I've heard so many times and which is so obviously untrue that I simply don't put up with it anymore (the usual version is some claim that Hitler was an atheist and/or was determined to spread atheism).

Now, I ran across another quote from you while digging up the above that may put all of this in perspective:

Are you implying that religion is somehow deadlier or more malicious than atheism? I'd ask you to look at history, as the most horrific genocides we can name have been committed for reasons other than religion.

I was scratching my head when I originally read that, but then I just assumed there was a glitch in your choice of expression or something and moved on. Now I'm thinking you actually meant it exactly the way you said it. I.e., you were suggesting that a genocide which is not committed for a religious purpose is by definition the fault of atheism.

Have you actually got the idea that "atheism" means anything that isn't religion? So like, if I kill a guy for his wallet, that's an example of atheism causing murder? Is that what you're saying here?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

No one said all of them were. But how is it not fallacious to believe that while some "epiphanies" are epilepsy, others are visions of God? There's absolutely no reason to believe that.
And I go back to saying I never implied a fallacy of a single cause. I never said that believers are wrong in believing all that happens goes back to God. In fact, why are we talking about that fallacy when it can't be applied to a being that is supposed to be the totality of causation?

As I said earlier, it was a segway based upon a misreading of your post. Though for the record there's plenty of reason to allow for the possibility that others are indeed visions of god. As I stated before evidence is not proof. Are you asking that I use logic to "prove" that god exists? That's ridiculous. I'm simply saying that the possibility for the divine is more plausible than the pink rain-causing unicorn in gothicus's closet, even though both ideas cannot be disproven.

What I am saying is that the examples you mentioned are merely fallacies because they ignore causation. How can there be an a posterioti argument for God?
How can you see a piece of evidence and out of that evidence infer the existence of a metaphysical transcendental being? It can't. You have to have the idea of God already in your head to believe evidence takes shape around it. It's the same mentality than conspiracy theories: the evidence shapes itself around a premise that is taken as a priori.

Ahh here's where we're getting down to the core of the matter.

It's not outlandish at all for some people to look at the world around them and see order. They look at the world around them, which they can observe and from that argument they see order. Sometimes it leads to ridiculous thinking, as in conspiracy theorists and those who make positive claims about Gods/goddesses.

Other people look at the world around them and see chaos. The evidence shapes itself around that premise in their minds, same as the premise of order. Sometimes it leads to ridiculous thinking, as in nihilism or those who make positive claims about the nonexistence of Gods/goddesses.

Both of these people, for the most part, see the same evidence, they simply interpret it in a different way, and they way they interpret it comes down, essentially, to taste.

Now, especially when we deal with metaphysical ideas, we can never be entirely certain, but honestly, it is impossible to make any sort of statement about reality without first making an unfounded assumption about the nature of reality.

Take for instance the assumption that one's perception of reality is correct. We can assume that it is not correct, but that of course would be pointless, so we have to choose to place a certain degree of faith in our perceptions or otherwise having such a conversation would be pointless.

What it comes down to, is that you can lend credence to practically any idea or concept with logic, one just has to pick one's postulates. Choosing that the universe is essentially chaotic, or essentially ordered or some combination of the two is one of the first postulates that we must choose before we can proceed. It can be based upon evidence , but honestly our perception of that evidence brings us back to square one anyway, and so, at it's core, this assumption is based upon nothing more than taste.

Thus, the only way one can make a reasonable assumption about the nature of reality, is to first assume as to the ordered/chaotic nature of reality. Once we have that, we find evidence and develop a guess about the nature of reality based upon that evidence. As long as we refrain from making positive claims about our assumption, whatever it may be, we are in safe territory. Logically speaking.

[Godslayer Jillian]

But seeing the world as ordered still does not reasonably lead to believing that it must be ordered because of a great being that orders it.
The only way to come to this conclusion is if we already take it for granted that a god creates order; and then god is again an a priori.

[KontanKarite]

Well, there is, I think one thing atheism has against theism. It's essentially a singular idea. Once you decide that according to your "tastes", you believe that there IS a god/dess, you've already delved into a fairly baseless position because despite you claiming a divine being exists, you still can't know that being without becoming yet even more dumb in your assumptions. Atheism at it's core is an inherent lack of believing there is a god/dess. There's really not much deviance from that answer, while theists are stuck always trying to prove if Krishna created the world or if Jesus did.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

It doesn't matter if Hitler was a Christian of any stripe. The point is that in his Reich religion was eventually entirely supplanted by the state. Nazism itself became tantamount to a religion.

I'd like to know what this propaganda you speak was, because, if memory serves me, the Catholic Centre Party was bitterly opposed to the Nazi party, and was one of the political opponents that Hitler crushed after his ascent to power.

You say that you won't continue the conversation until I acknowledge that Hitler was a Christian? I acknowledge it, and I say that it's a completely separate and irrelevant issue. I never claimed that Hitler wasn't religious. The fact is that it doesn't matter. I claimed that Hitler and his circle of Nazi supporters undermined and essentially destroyed the authority of German churches in order to eliminate any potential feelings of split loyalty. If anything, I think that Nazi-era German newsreels hold up my claim that Hitler managed to turn his political cult of personality into something nearing Godhood.

Just a slight correction.
The Nazi party made a DEAL with the catholic party and other parties to get power and to kick the communists out. The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.
Any site that I have found that says that Hitler was not a christian uses the same old source that is backed up by nothing. Also all those sites happen to be christian sites.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Just a bit to add
You say Lenin used Atheism the same way Nazism and other powers used Christianity to get power.
Prove it. Show some propaganda showing that atheism was used as a driving force like equality was.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Just tossing this in about the Stalin/Hitler atheism thing. Thinking that YOU are the most powerful being in the universe is not the same as atheism.

[Despanan]

But seeing the world as ordered still does not reasonably lead to believing that it must be ordered because of a great being that orders it.
The only way to come to this conclusion is if we already take it for granted that a god creates order; and then god is again an a priori.

I'm really not sure why having a concept of a god must be an a priori assumption Jillian. There was obviously a time before the concept of a god existed, therefore people did not always have the idea of god in their mind, and therefore for one to infer the possible existence of a greater/creator being is easily a possible conclusion to come to a posteriori. So why does it have to be a priori?

For that matter, why is it not reasonable to assume that that order is imposed/designed? As it is not common for order to occur randomly, it is reasonable to assume that that order is the work of a consciousness. We humans have consciousness and impose order, so what is so irrational about the idea that a greater consciousness imposed greater order?