Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Xelasnave.1947]

Glad to be of help.

Well it did not really help me because I dont understand what it means if I do what you say.

Nothing to expand on really. It just doesn't mention anything about them being the first humans.

I did not realise that Jan.
I just jumped to that conclusion.
Silly me.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It arose as a response to W4Us claim that "Atheists don't persecute theists because they are theists".

Thank you for your reply.
And frankly I disagree with the statement sortta in so far as I think folk persecute others because they can and because they are on the other side.. and you can bet in any mob killing folk you will have atheists and theists who probably are just hateful and nasty...
Alex

 

[Musika]

And so do Theists,

I never said they didn't. I did suggest however that history shows being atheistic does not diminish the individual or collective capacity to be competitive in the field of genocide.

in addition to committing crimes in the name of their religion.

I think we have been over this before. Committing all sorts of things in the name of ideology appears to be the tour de force of the industrial modern age. Of course an atheist isn't liable to commit crimes in the name of religion, because they don't ideologically subscribe to such things.

Why do Islamists cry "Allah is great", while blowing up a building and killing 3000 innocents. Is that a joke or is that NO JOKE?

They also say the same thing when they curse their mother in law.

The problem is that they can confess their crime to a priest and be absolved, so they can do it again and again,

Well I guess that puts Islamic terrorists in a pinch.

wheras a theist has to live with his conscience, forever, until he dies.

I assume you made a typo and meant "atheist".

Problem solved, I guess.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It is a pity God could not help a little more.
Clearly this free will idea needs refinement.
Its a church idea ... a mere excuse for why a loving God does not care.
Why do folk have to be so intolerant and angry...where does all the hate come from.

Alex

 

[iceaura]

It waa more of a cursory history lesson for W4U. Practically all historical instances of State Atheism result in outstanding performance in the field of genocide of not just theists, but also a whole host of other classes and creeds.

Your list has little or nothing to do with atheists killing people simply for being theists. The killers you list were not all atheists - certainly not by the standards of the OP of this thread - and as far as one can tell their victims were not selected for their theistic beliefs.

If there is an example buried in that list of some atheists selecting and killing theists simply for being theists, as required, perhaps you might do us the courtesy of pointing to it?

So what do you suppose they did when they looked at civic registries to determine who to purge from society?

They didn't, mostly. Certainly not in, say, Uganda. And if they had, they would have been looking at registries indicating political allegiance (tribe, church, language, Party, etc) - civic registries of theists don't seem to have been all that common.

 

[Musika]

Your list has little or nothing to do with atheists killing people simply for being theists. The killers you list were not all atheists - certainly not by the standards of the OP of this thread - and as far as one can tell their victims were not selected for their theistic beliefs.

If there is an example buried in that list of some atheists selecting and killing theists simply for being theists, as required, perhaps you might do us the courtesy of pointing to it?


They didn't, mostly. Certainly not in, say, Uganda. And if they had, they would have been looking at registries indicating political allegiance (tribe, church, language, Party, etc) - civic registries of theists don't seem to have been all that common.

Just to be clear, are you arguing that an examination of instances of State Atheism shows no evidence that being a theist was sufficient grounds for being persecuted by an atheist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

 

[iceaura]

Just to be clear, are you arguing that an examination of instances of State Atheism shows no evidence that being a theist was sufficient grounds for being persecuted by an atheist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Nope. I'm just pointing out that these lists and so forth don't seem to have much bearing on the matter.

Along the way, most of these lists and Wikis and so forth also seem to slide around between religion and theism carelessly - for example, the Chinese State described as "atheist" in operational fact persecuted atheistic religions as diligently as theistic ones, with the target of persecution being not theism per se but organized religious practice. The situation seems confused.

And nowhere do we find the inverted equivalent of things like the Spanish Inquisition, where the ferreting out of concealed states of personal theistic belief was a goal of organized atheistic persecutors.

 

[Musika]

Nope.

Ok then

 

[Write4U]

Where is the claim in that link?

Jan.

Do the research.

 

[Write4U]

Of course an atheist isn't liable to commit crimes in the name of religion, because they don't ideologically subscribe to such things.

Thank you, we are in agreement on that point.

 

[Write4U]

Just to be clear, are you arguing that an examination of instances of State Atheism shows no evidence that being a theist was sufficient grounds for being persecuted by an atheist?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

No it does not. In fact that link specifically states;

State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen

So it is not for personal religious views, but for the power held by religious institutions over the behavior of individuals. IOW, political considerations.

 

[Write4U]

You're not irrelevant, but you are a atheist, which makes your comments understandable.
Jan.

Just going by recorded history, Jan.

 

[Musika]

No it does not. In fact that link specifically states; So it is not for personal religious views, but for the power held by religious institutions over the behavior of individuals. IOW, political considerations.

Gee, if only all those countless millions knew all they had to say was "But wait, despite having personal religious views, I have no formal capacity in the administration in the religious institution".

 

[Write4U]

I assume you made a typo and meant "atheist".

Thanks for the correction. It should read atheist. But I am sure there are also theists who feel genuinely guilty after having committed a "sin". I am not attacking the character of theists, I am condemning any actions of theists against apostates in the name of God, much as I condemn all violence both mental or physical by anyone.
It is why I identify as metaphysical "humanist". The metaphysical part is based on the theory that the universe is fundamentally "mathematical" in essence, which removes the necessity for a sentient and motivated God.
Trying to keep it real simple as per Occam's Razor.

 

[Musika]

Thank you, we are in agreement on that point.

In other breaking news, Atheists do not get their children baptized!
We might have to request a sticky thread to compile all these revelations.

 

[Musika]

Thanks for the correction. It should read atheist. But I am sure there are also theists who feel genuinely guilty after having committed a "sin". I am not attacking the character of theists, I am condemning any actions of theists against apostates in the name of God, much as I condemn all violence both mental or physical by anyone.
It is why I identify as metaphisical "humanist". The metaphysical part is based on the theory that the universe is fundamentally "mathematical" in essence.

In the same manner, there are a host of things one can identify with in the name of God/religion to avoid violence towards other living entities.

 

[Write4U]

Gee, if only all those countless millions knew all they had to say was "But wait, despite having personal religious views, I have no formal capacity in the administration in the religious institution".

Actual quote from wiki link you provided

State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen

Your requote of my post

Write4U said:
No it does not. In fact that link specifically states; So it is not for personal religious views, but for the power held by religious institutions over the behavior of individuals. IOW, political considerations.

First correct the misquote of my post. Then I welcome your comments.

 

[Musika]

Actual quote from wiki link you provided
Your requote of my post
First correct the misquote of my post. Then I welcome your comments.

Unless you also have no problem with contextualizing the antics of the inquisition as merely arising from political differences between nortb and south europe, you are being dishonest.
If connecting violence to ideology of geography or institution is sufficient to label it political, then suddenly everything is but politics.

 

[Write4U]

Unless you also have no problem with contextualizing the antics of the inquisition as merely arising from political differences between nortb and south europe, you are being dishonest.
If connecting violence to ideology of geography or institution is sufficient to label it political, then suddenly everything is but politics.

You think that religions do not engage in politics? Why then should we have need for an "establishment clause"?

 

[Write4U]

In other breaking news, Atheists do not get their children baptized!
We might have to request a sticky thread to compile all these revelations.

Right, I am not baptized and I have not baptized my children. So what?
Revelation? Of what?
Some kind of criminal offense? Are you for real?

p.s. I believe circumcision (both male and female) is a criminal offense.