Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Fraggle Rocker]

Do explain what exactly was religious about those wars. There were Catholics and Protestants fighting over who is right about God, the Bible and everything. But what is religious about that? Other than the name? I really want to know.

No you don't. Every one of your posts on this thread keeps waffling around the point.

Catholics were killing Protestants because they believed that the Protestants were thwarting what they saw as their mandate from God to spread The One True Religion throughout the world. The Protestants were killing the Catholics because they believed that Catholicism was a misinterpretation of the Bible by a church that had become more bureaucratic than theological, that to be a true Christian meant a more personal connection to God and Jesus than was possible through a hierarchy, and that the Catholic institutions were preventing people from being true Christians.

If this is not precisely a religious war, then I think it's your turn to tell us what a religious war is, in your system of discourse. All you've done since you started this thread is duck and cover. You argue against everyone, but you never quite explain what it is that you're arguing for.

As far as I can see, to consider violence to be religiously motivated, we would have to believe that: 1. The violence is perpetrated by people who claim to be religious.

I think we can safely expand that to include people who appear to be religious to a majority of impartial observers.

2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.

That's too exclusive. Each of the world's major religions is well-defined. Its members, the members of other religions, and the rest of us who are outsiders to religion have no trouble reaching a consensus on the major claims of those religions. Just because I despise Christianity (or fill in the name of almost any other religion) doesn't mean that when I talk to a Christian we don't agree on what Christianity is.

3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.

Where do you come up with this weird stuff??? Religion is one of the most-studied subjects on earth. There is a gigantic consensus among human beings about the definition of religion, including religious people and irreligious people. My religious friends and I argue over the subject all the time, and in 68 years we have never had an argument grind to a halt because we could not agree on what religion is.

4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.

I assume you made a syntactical error there, and meant to say that those people believe that they are divinely ordained and that what they do is sanctioned, not that they actually are divinely ordained and that what they do actually is sanctioned.

But back to the point, since you're presenting yourself as the expert here, I'll accept your assertion that some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. I'm quite certain that there are no words to that effect in the Hindu, Jain, Baha'i or Buddhist scriptures. So unless you're trying to impress us with your expertise in some obscure Oriental religions of which we have virtually no knowledge, you must be talking about the Abrahamic faiths. We've all seen them attempting to exterminate each other, but I must admit I'm surprised that you think their holy books actually command them to do this. Especially since they all claim to follow the Ten Commandments, one of which seriously discourages killing.

5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.

Where did this come from? People are complicated. They can have multiple motivations for any action, but that doesn't preclude one of them from being the dominant motivation. The Muslim fundamentalists don't like our proselytism of democracy nor our profitable pornography industry, but the reason they want to make war against us is not because the one conflicts with their own style of government and the other siphons money away from their oriental rug industry. The reason is that both conflict with their religious principles.

6. People make no mistakes.

What a silly comment. You seem to be saying that it's invalid to argue over anything unless both positions are completely flawless.

Personally, I do not believe these statements. But it does seem that many who speak about religiously motivated violence, do believe them, at least implicitly.

It doesn't seem that way to you at all. You know damn well that you're setting up a series of straw men, knocking them down one after the other, and preparing to say that you have therefore won the argument.

This is disingenuous arguing--intellectual dishonesty. This is the most egregious type of trolling in a place of science and scholarship, and it is grounds for being banned.

I don't know - is it religious to fight over who is right about God?

Do you ever answer questions, or just ask them? If that is not a religious fight, then what the holy fuck is it???

I have had experiences with people who claimed to be religious that, quite viscerally, made me rethink what "religiously motivated violence" could be. For example: My Catholic grandmother was quite abusive toward me when I was little. She renounced her Catholic faith a few years before she passed away.

Is there a point somewhere in that paragraph? Are you asking if what she did to you was religiously motivated abuse? You haven't given us enough information.

I knew, privately, a man who was externally very religious, but was otherwise a mess.

Again, what's your point?

My classmates were Catholics and bullied me, officially on account that I was not religious, but I knew they were beaten at home, or otherwise were in trouble.

Once again, it's possible to have more than one motivation for an action, whether it's good or bad. In this case, the experts in the field tell us that people who are bullied become bullies, regardless of whatever else is going on in their lives. So by their analysis (which I present without judging its merits) this would seem not to be primarily religiously motivated violence.

Considering such things, it's difficult to talk about "religiously motivated violence."

You've cherry-picked your examples to support your point. More disingenuous arguing.

• When the Taliban destroyed those giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because A) Their interpretation of Islam forbids depictions of the human form and B) They regard Buddha as a competitor of Mohammed; it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.
• When the medieval Europeans saw Jews bathing, which at the time they considered a satanic practice, and then saw those same Jews survive the Plague in much larger numbers than their own people (ironically because cleanliness actually did reduce their exposure to the pathogens), and killed them because they had obviously survived due to intervention by Satan, it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.
• When the armies of the Christian nations fought among themselves they wantonly killed their civilians, but they never burned their libraries or destroyed their art. But when they came to the New World and fought the people they met here, they did in fact burn the Aztec libraries and destroy the Inca art, for the precisely stated reason that they were "heathen" writings and images. It would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.
• When the Orthodox Jews in Israel throw rocks at ambulances carrying deathly ill Conservative Jews to hospitals on the Sabbath, it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.

You see, I can come up with my own examples.

There is no doubt that religious(-seeming) justifications are often given for violent actions. But once one knows such people personally, knowing their inner struggle, it is hard to believe that religion had much to do with it.

It's not hard for me at all. Perhaps your own ancestors were not chased out of Europe by angry mobs of Christians.

What exactly is religious about Muslims killing Christians, or Protestants killing Catholics etc.?

Abrahamists believe that they are under orders by God to spread his teachings to all mankind. And the members of each particular sect believe that theirs is the only true religion. Therefore they believe that everyone else is actively thwarting their performance of a task set for them by God. The only way they can see to accomplish their task is to kill all those who stand in their way.

If the essence of religion is service to God, and part of that service is recognizing all living beings as God's children - then how can it be an act of religiousness to harm them?

The Bible is full of exceptions to this principle. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims believe there is a gigantic asterisk next to the commandment about killing. Particularly the Christians and Muslims, because they believe ascendence to Heaven is imminent so everyone will have a chance to be judged by God shortly and if they happened to kill the wrong guy but it was an honest mistake, God will fix it and forgive them. The Jews believe that when you're dead you will stay dead until God comes down and picks up everybody, which could be a zillion years from now, so they claim to believe that it's wrong to kill people except in self defense, but obviously they don't all live up to that belief.

To say that violence can be religiously motivated, is to either make religion into a kind of political institution, or to devalue God.

Not being religious, I have no problem with that. Religion and politics have always been intertwined. (Read up on the Khazarians for an amazing example.) As for devaluing God, hey the dude is imaginary so what the hell.

Unless we specify something that all who are rightfully to be considered atheists have in common, it is impossible to talk about atheism and atheists to begin with - there might as well be none.

Maybe you should look up the word "atheist" in the dictionary. What we all have in common is lack of belief in the supernatural. Jung calls religion a set of archetypes, and a geneticist would say that an archetype is an instinctive motif passed down somehow by the vagaries of evolution. So perhaps what we have in common is some DNA.

IOW, if we wish to talk about atheists, we have to specify what they believe and do that makes them different from those who are not atheists.

It's just as valid to ask what supernaturalists believe and do that makes them different from us, and the rhetoric of the answer is much more straightforward that way.

• They believe in the existence of an illogical, invisible supernatural universe from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the operation of the natural universe. We don't.
• They tend to develop rituals and organizations that celebrate the supernatural creatures and, to be on the safe side, offer them love, respect and obedience. Since the supernatural creatures are not real and therefore cannot actually communicate their alleged wishes, they have to invent lists of what the creatures want, and understandably these lists vary from one school of supernaturalism to another. We do not do those things.

If a person identifies themselves as an atheist, it is legitimate to request from them that they state what being an atheist means in terms of belief and practice.

I believe I just did. Since we're contrasting atheists with theists, it's acceptable to distinguish ourselves by the absence of the beliefs and practices of the theists.

In addition to not being a supernaturalist, I'm also not a German, a Shriner or a Boy Scout. In each case I can define what I am not easily enough.

Using a term to identify oneself, whereby that term does not denote anything, is void.

You need to review your notes from Logic 101A. It's perfectly reasonable to use negative terminology in an identification.

It is characteristic that all organized religions have standards of qualification. For example, in order for a person to be a Catholic, the Catholic Church has a set of standards that the person needs to comply with. If they fail to comply with them, that person is not a Catholic.

Not all organized religions are so rigorous. Judaism is universally regarded as a religion, yet in all but the most Orthodox congregations one can be an atheist and still be counted as a Jew, so long as one complies with a rather small subset of the Jewish laws. It has been called a religion of laws rather than doctrines.

You people seem to think that when those who are members of a religion commit some act of violence, they do so out of sheer boredom or viciousness, while simultaneously being politically and economically secure.

I'm not sure which people you're talking to. That certainly doesn't describe me. I have written often on this website of my analysis of religious violence.

The monotheistic religions of Abraham teach their followers that only they have the One True Religion, and that it is their duty to bring this religion to everyone else on earth. They're just a little bit better than all the rest of us because of this.

This is a blatant reinforcement of our species's pack-social instinct. When we were nomadic hunter-gatherers we had to regard all other clans as hated competitors for scarce resources, but once we invented agriculture and created a food surplus, this was no longer necessary. In fact it became advantageous to join together in larger communities where economies of scale and division of labor would make the larger tribe more prosperous.

We've spent twelve thousand years trying to overcome our inner Caveman, bribing him with central heating, indoor plumbing, motorcycles and pornography. But occasionally he breaks free and does something Paleolithic. We have ways of dealing with that and most of the time we do all right.

But the Abrahamic religions work against the advancement of civilization by reinforcing the Inner Caveman's feeling that outsiders are evil and must be eradicated. Every few generations, one or another community of Abrahamists turn their Inner Cavemen loose all at once, and they march across the border into the next country and start killing the people on the other side.

 

[lightgigantic]

How about: Not having a belief in God.

Not really since that has implications about categories of being and existence (aka ontology)
And also it doesn't define you
IOW one can take that definition and apply it to an ontological category
try again

Voila. End of story. It makes no claim as to the question of God's existence one way or the other... merely that one does not hold the belief that God exists.

If that was the case one could be an atheist theist (since, you say that atheism makes no question of god's existence, one way or the other)

This does not mean that they believe that God does not exist.
But not all atheists do discuss the quality of existence, and when they do they do not always share the same ontology - thus there is no unique identifying belief. It really is as simple as that.

Huh?
Which atheists are you talking about that don't discuss issues of existence?

Er... the truth to the questions you posed? :shrug:

yes .. which is ?

They can be answered - but who is to say what is the correct position, or whether if there even is a correct position?

we are not talking about whether they are correct - we are talking about how belief (in terms of advocating something) is the very THING that enables one to distinguish between the 8 or 9 different types of atheists.

the only one who can get out of it is the implicit atheist (which IMHO is a totally piss weak definition) ... but quite clearly not all atheists are implicit (especially yours truly) so its certainly misleading and inaccurate to run with the standard definition of an implicit atheist

So I would think it better to say that they can be guessed at... that one can hold an opinion.

You totally miss the point.

There are a host of beliefs that frame an opinion.
There is absolutely no such thing as an opinion that bypasses ontological issues

Why are you shifting the goal-posts to just explicit atheists??? Never heard of implicit atheists (which surely you must have done to try and differentiate them from explicit atheism)?

why talk of implicit atheists?
especially when the issue of belief is what distinguishes them explicit ones ....

Still irrelevant to the discussion at hand. :shrug:

Hardly.

Since the only atheists that don't make knowledge based claims are implicit atheists, that means you have quite a few atheists that do

No - I'm saying the clothing is irrelevant to the description of what a Man is. It's irrelevant how many tracksuits I wear, yet you still try to define the Man as tracksuit-wearing.

I am talking about how you are trying to usurp teh definition of implicit atheists and apply it to explict ones.

IOW because implicit atheists don't have beliefs you are trying to get us to believe in some fanciful fashion that all atheists don't have beliefs
:shrug:

But if that group allows for such diversity of ontological positions, no single one of them can be viewed as applicable to the whole. What of this do you fail to understand??

then for a start we have dire problems with your definition of atheism being a lack of belief since there are 9 or so clear categories of them that do

And I will ask again - what has this to do with an atheist - other than through your insistence that all atheists have an ontological system - yet you can not say what single ontological system, and thus even a single belief, all atheists have?

Sheesh if one want to split hairs I think you would be hard pressed to give an ontological system for group theists too - but that aside, my point is that the moment such a system, you have beliefs.

IOW if you have atheists offering knowledge based claims (ie justifying their opinions aka : justified true belief) you have belief

So - what belief - single or otherwise - is it that characterises an atheist as an atheist?

an ability to define phenomena (ie justify issues of existence) in a way that strictly prohibits attributing cause to the divine

 

[lightgigantic]

No you don't. Every one of your posts on this thread keeps waffling around the point.

Catholics were killing Protestants because they believed that the Protestants were thwarting what they saw as their mandate from God to spread The One True Religion throughout the world. The Protestants were killing the Catholics because they believed that Catholicism was a misinterpretation of the Bible by a church that had become more bureaucratic than theological, that to be a true Christian meant a more personal connection to God and Jesus than was possible through a hierarchy, and that the Catholic institutions were preventing people from being true Christians.

If that was the case, why was the conflict ended on a purely political forum?

That's too exclusive. Each of the world's major religions is well-defined. Its members, the members of other religions, and the rest of us who are outsiders to religion have no trouble reaching a consensus on the major claims of those religions.

Its just when you run into questions who and what actions accurately represents it that you run into snags.

For instance does the actions of a christian who steals act as a highlight of christian crime?

Where do you come up with this weird stuff??? Religion is one of the most-studied subjects on earth. There is a gigantic consensus among human beings about the definition of religion, including religious people and irreligious people. My religious friends and I argue over the subject all the time, and in 68 years we have never had an argument grind to a halt because we could not agree on what religion is.

ditto above

You've cherry-picked your examples to support your point. More disingenuous arguing.

• When the Taliban destroyed those giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because A) Their interpretation of Islam forbids depictions of the human form and B) They regard Buddha as a competitor of Mohammed; it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.

• 
  Yet you had a broader consensus against the destruction by the Muslim population.
  Why?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan#Preface_to_2001.2C_under_the_Taliban
  
  Its obvious the act was underpinned by a host of political elements
  

  When the medieval Europeans saw Jews bathing, which at the time they considered a satanic practice, and then saw those same Jews survive the Plague in much larger numbers than their own people (ironically because cleanliness actually did reduce their exposure to the pathogens), and killed them because they had obviously survived due to intervention by Satan, it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.

  I don't know whether you are purposely omitting details to bolster your argument or you simply haven't researched them properly
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_the_Middle_Ages#Black_Death
  
  "When the Black Death raged through Europe, the charge was given that the Jews had poisoned the wells"
  
  

  [*]When the armies of the Christian nations fought among themselves they wantonly killed their civilians, but they never burned their libraries or destroyed their art. But when they came to the New World and fought the people they met here, they did in fact burn the Aztec libraries and destroy the Inca art, for the precisely stated reason that they were "heathen" writings and images. It would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.[*]

  So what catalyzed in European culture that put a gradual end to such practices?
  Was it the view that such things were no longer heathen?
  
  

  When the Orthodox Jews in Israel throw rocks at ambulances carrying deathly ill Conservative Jews to hospitals on the Sabbath, it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_on_Shabbat_in_Jewish_law#Orthodox

"Orthodoxy generally prohibits driving during Shabbat under all circumstances except for a life-threatening emergency."

Sounds like good old fashioned politics too me ...

You see, I can come up with my own examples.It's not hard for me at all.

Problem is that they are not good examples

:shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

If an atheist can be motivated to do similar acts, its completely spurious to question whether a theist can

Except that, being honest, the atheist is immunized against spuriousness.

 

[Sarkus]

Not really since that has implications about categories of being and existence (aka ontology)

No it doesn't - not without establishing what philosophy the person adheres to.

And also it doesn't define you

Who said it did? It is a label that says that the person does not hold a specific theistic belief.

If that was the case one could be an atheist theist (since, you say that atheism makes no question of god's existence, one way or the other)

:shrug: If that is your logic at work then it explains much.
Theists make a claim as to God's existence. Anyone who doesn't adhere to that is atheist. They do not need to claim anything, merely not hold to the claim that God exists.
It really is as simple as that.

Which atheists are you talking about that don't discuss issues of existence?

Apathetic ones, for example.

yes .. which is ?

The suggested answer was, as I previously gave, "I don't know." Are you not content that some people won't claim to answer questions?

we are not talking about whether they are correct - we are talking about how belief (in terms of advocating something) is the very THING that enables one to distinguish between the 8 or 9 different types of atheists.

Distinguishes between them, yes - but there need be no single belief that all atheists hold. Again, you're just looking for colours of tracksuit. I don't claim that they're not wearing one, but that does not define the Man.

the only one who can get out of it is the implicit atheist (which IMHO is a totally piss weak definition) ... but quite clearly not all atheists are implicit (especially yours truly) so its certainly misleading and inaccurate to run with the standard definition of an implicit atheist

Whether you think it is a "totally piss weak definition" or not is irrelevant.
Whether I have beliefs outside my atheism or not, that distinguish me from other atheists, is irrelevant.
And it is NOT misleading, especially given that you highlighted the difference through using the phrase "explicit atheism", and thus you demonstrated your awareness of implicit atheism.

why talk of implicit atheists?
especially when the issue of belief is what distinguishes them explicit ones ....

So again, you can state at least a single belief that unites all atheists? This is what was initially asked, and what you continually argue for... so you can put it to rest merely by stating just one.

Since the only atheists that don't make knowledge based claims are implicit atheists, that means you have quite a few atheists that do

Irrelevant - unless you can provide a single belief that ALL atheists do hold?

I am talking about how you are trying to usurp teh definition of implicit atheists and apply it to explict ones.

No, I am using the term ATHEIST... YOU made the distinction between implicit and explicit, I didn't. To me they are all atheist.

IOW because implicit atheists don't have beliefs you are trying to get us to believe in some fanciful fashion that all atheists don't have beliefs

You don't get it, do you.
Whether people operate out of beliefs or not is NOT the question - and a strawman on your part (again).
The question is simple: what are the atheist beliefs - i.e. what are the (at least one) belief that all atheists share that unites them?
Or is their uniting aspect, and what defines them as atheist, their LACK of a specific belief - that which held would define them as theist?

then for a start we have dire problems with your definition of atheism being a lack of belief since there are 9 or so clear categories of them that do

Where has anyone said that atheism is a "(complete) lack of belief"?? Yet another strawman!
It is the lack of a belief... i.e. the rejection of belief in God.

IOW if you have atheists offering knowledge based claims (ie justifying their opinions aka : justified true belief) you have belief

Irrelevant - since noone has claimed that atheists can't have beliefs... they just lack/reject a belief in God. Whether they then hold other beliefs is irrelevant, as that is not what defines them as atheist.

an ability to define phenomena (ie justify issues of existence) in a way that strictly prohibits attributing cause to the divine

Finally an effort to define an atheist.
However, it isn't true for all atheists - as many just claim not to know whether a God exists or not - and will happily attribute a cause to the divine if there are no other alternatives. There is no strict prohibition to it - that would come from whatever philosophy they might hold.
So - another try, perhaps?

 

[lightgigantic]

Except that, being honest, the atheist is immunized against spuriousness.

Is that kind of like :

The following statement is True : The statement before this one is false.

??

 

[wynn]

Fraggle -

Did you notice that that set of six points that you quoted and commented on is prefaced with:

As far as I can see, to consider violence to be religiously motivated, we would have to believe that:

?

 

[lightgigantic]

No it doesn't - not without establishing what philosophy the person adheres to.

"Not having a belief in God" is already indicating the philosophy just as much as "having a belief in god" does

Who said it did?

I thought you identified as an atheist

IOW why require atheism to have qualities that that excludes yourself?

It is a label that says that the person does not hold a specific theistic belief.

Wrong again.

The moment you start talking about not having specific theistic beliefs is the moment you move beyond the standard baggage of implicit atheism and are instead talking about the explicit rejection of theistic beliefs of the explicit atheist

:shrug: If that is your logic at work then it explains much.

It's your logic since you insist the term "atheist" carries no ontological significance. So unless you can think of a good reason why one can't marry such a term to one that does (like "theist" for example) I think its time for you to rethink your ideas on the subject.

Theists make a claim as to God's existence. Anyone who doesn't adhere to that is atheist. They do not need to claim anything, merely not hold to the claim that God exists.

Which then becomes a rejection of a stance on existence .... ie : it's an ontological issue.

It really is as simple as that.

I think the problem is that you can't understand that implicit and explicit atheism do not share the same framework

Apathetic ones, for example.

Wrong again.

Apathy is an attitude to a value, not a remover of a value.

Kind of like saying an apathetic homosexual doesn't have issues of attraction to the same gender

The suggested answer was, as I previously gave, "I don't know." Are you not content that some people won't claim to answer questions?

You don't know what?
Your mother's maiden name?
The capital of Spain?

Distinguishes between them, yes - but there need be no single belief that all atheists hold.

So if all of them have a belief as a necessary ingredient to render the category meaningful, why this big tirade about how atheism strictly steers clear from any issues of belief?

Again, you're just looking for colours of tracksuit. I don't claim that they're not wearing one, but that does not define the Man.

So you are willing to concede that aside from the implicit atheist, all other varieties of atheism are utilizing aspects of belief.
Or are you still trying to say that they are not "wearing" belief on account of implicit atheism?

Whether you think it is a "totally piss weak definition" or not is irrelevant.

it means i could have a field day with it (and that there are even atheist who reject this nonsense of "implicit atheism") but for the moment I am just trying to get you to comprehend that there are essential differences between the two grades of atheism - namely the ontological issues which are absolutely necessary to render explicit atheism meaningful

Whether I have beliefs outside my atheism or not, that distinguish me from other atheists, is irrelevant.

It most certainly is not irrelevant.
So far you have been trying to push home a definition of atheism that excludes yourself (as an explicit atheist)

And it is NOT misleading, especially given that you highlighted the difference through using the phrase "explicit atheism", and thus you demonstrated your awareness of implicit atheism.

I'm just waiting for you to come to the party and recognize that explicit atheism is distinguished by issues on ontology ... which then has ramifications of belief.

So again, you can state at least a single belief that unites all atheists?

So if I incorporate implicit apolitical attitudes to english occupation of Ireland (since newborn babies, being totally ideological incapable of forming an opinion on it, are apolitical) to work along side the category of explicit apolitical attitudes to english occupation of Ireland, I have suddenly just rendered the subject ideologically undefinable (since there is no category to conceptualize the two groups harmoniously)?

Or is the rich history of social movement, philosophy, spokespersons and bodies of work (yes, all ontological issues) the real substance of establishing apolitical views on the subject?

Or do you think that such a definition is lacking because it doesn't incorporate the wider body of apolitical views (despite such views, on account of their ontological non-existence have no history, no philosophy, no spokespersons, no bodies of work and hence absolutely no influence on society)?

This is what was initially asked, and what you continually argue for... so you can put it to rest merely by stating just one.

If you insist that atheism has no requirement for belief you have not even offered one since your very self defies it.

Irrelevant - unless you can provide a single belief that ALL atheists do hold?

Its like this implicit atheists don't have belief but explicit atheists do.

IOW hijacking the requirements of implicit beliefs for the greater glory of explicit atheists is intellectual dishonesty.

IOW saying atheists don't have belief (on the strength of implicit atheism, ie toddlers) is just like saying humans don't have sex desire (on the strength of the same toddlers)

No, I am using the term ATHEIST... YOU made the distinction between implicit and explicit, I didn't. To me they are all atheist.

the problem is that the explicit has very obvious issues of belief (much like an adult has very obvious issues of sex desire)

IOW as far as belief is concerned, it distinguishes the very terms explicit and implicit atheism ... much like as far as sex desire is concerned, it distinguishes the very terms adult and toddler

You don't get it, do you.
Whether people operate out of beliefs or not is NOT the question - and a strawman on your part (again).

What the hell are you talking about.

You started this whole gaffe by resorting to the notion that atheism cannot be held accountable to any ontological position.

Further inquiry shows you think this is the case on account of one (socially, intellectually and individually unvoiced .. on account of being necessarily devoid of philosophy) ill defined category.

The question is simple: what are the atheist beliefs - i.e. what are the (at least one) belief that all atheists share that unites them?

Its this simple :
implicit atheists (by necessity) don't have beliefs
explicit atheists (by necessity) do have beliefs.

Agreeing on one unifying belief to group all (explicit) atheists would be just as difficult/easy as agreeing on one unifying belief to group all theists.

IOW it all depends on how much you want to split hairs
:shrug:

Or is their uniting aspect, and what defines them as atheist, their LACK of a specific belief - that which held would define them as theist?

what is this specific belief that you falsely believe unites all theists?

Where has anyone said that atheism is a "(complete) lack of belief"?? Yet another strawman!

So you no longer wish to maintain that (explicit) atheism is not propped up key issues of belief?

It is the lack of a belief... i.e. the rejection of belief in God.

Incorrect
Implicit atheism is not a rejection of a belief in god - thats why it has no issues of philosophy/ontology belief
Explicit atheism is a rejection of a belief in god - thats why it has key issues of philosophy/ontology belief

Irrelevant - since noone has claimed that atheists can't have beliefs...

painful reminder
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2869684&postcount=102

apparently you can't pull out key issues of belief that define teh explicit atheist

they just lack/reject a belief in God. Whether they then hold other beliefs is irrelevant, as that is not what defines them as atheist.

What nonsense

It is precisely issues of belief that make it possible to distinguish strong, weak, practical, theoretical, metaphysical, existential, etc atheists

Finally an effort to define an atheist.

already offered before - don't know you suddenly noted it now

"... explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine"

However, it isn't true for all atheists - as many just claim not to know whether a God exists or not - and will happily attribute a cause to the divine if there are no other alternatives.

lol
Even though I can't find any reference to that type of atheist on the wiki page about it, it would certainly be entertaining top hear from you as an example that would enable such an atheist to "happily attribute a cause to the divine"

There is no strict prohibition to it - that would come from whatever philosophy they might hold.
So - another try, perhaps?

lol
perhaps you would begin to make sense if you could provide an example of an atheist attributing a cause to the divine (or is it the case that they never justify causes as such ... y'know being atheist and all)

 

[Sarkus]

"Not having a belief in God" is already indicating the philosophy just as much as "having a belief in god" does

IF one states as much then it hints toward a certain style of philosophy, sure, but one doesn't need to state "I am an atheist" to be an atheist.

I thought you identified as an atheist
IOW why offer a definition of atheism that excludes yourself?

I do - and it does define my view, despite you thinking otherwise: I have no belief in god.
My point was that my personal position is irrelevant.

The moment you start talking about not having specific theistic beliefs is the moment you move beyond the standard baggage of implicit atheism and are instead talking about the explicit rejection of theistic beliefs of the explicit atheist

Sure - IF the person starts talking about it. But not only do not all atheists talk about it, but even if they do you are still unable to pin down the specific belief that all atheists share that thus can be said to define them.

It's your logic since you insist the term "atheist" carries no ontological significance. So unless you can think of a good reason why one can't marry such a term to one that does (like "theist" for example) I think its time for you to rethink your ideas on the subject.

Drivel - just because words have no ontological significance does not mean you can marry them up. They are mutually exclusive adjectives in their relation to a specific claim.

Which then becomes a rejection of a stance on existence .... ie : it's an ontological issue.

So not knowing about something is a rejection of it?? Not holding something is a deliberate act not to hold it?

I think the problem is that you can't understand that implicit and explicit atheism do not share the same framework

They do in as much as they do not hold the belief in god. Everything else is additional and, as far as the question asked of you, irrelevant.
Your problem is that you want to argue specifically about explicit atheism yet the question was raised about atheists.

You don't know what?

:shrug: You can't recall tho questions you asked???

So if all of them have a belief as a necessary ingredient to render the category meaningful, why this big tirade about how atheism strictly steers clear from any issues of belief?

Strawman: where have I (or anyone) said that "atheism strictly steers clear from any issues of belief"?

So you are willing to concede that aside from the implicit atheist, all other varieties of atheism are utilizing aspects of belief.
Or are you still trying to say that they are not "wearing" belief on account of implicit atheism?

I am (and have) said that their atheism is merely a lack of a specific belief. Their beliefs are driven by other philosophies/ontologies that might give rise to their atheism. You are trying to insist that those philosophies ARE atheism.

it means i could have a field day with it... (and that there are even atheist who reject this nonsense of "implicit atheism") but for the moment I am just trying to get you to comprehend that there are essential differences between the two grades of atheism - namely the ontological issues which are absolutely necessary to render explicit atheism meaningful

No, there aren't any differences that are not brought into the mix by their other philosophies.

It most certainly is not irrelevant.
So far you have been trying to push home a definition of atheism that excludes yourself (as an explicit atheist)

Strawman - where have I said that it excludes myself??

I'm just waiting for you to come to the party and recognize that explicit atheism is distinguished by issues on ontology ... which then has ramifications of belief.

And I'm trying to get you to appreciate that it is not their atheism that distinguishes them, but the other philosophies they hold. You're still looking at the tracksuit!

So if I incorporate implicit apolitical attitudes...

Yet another strawman argument, as we are specifically talking about atheism, not apoloticism.

If you insist that atheism has no requirement for belief you have not even offered one since your very self defies it.

I am saying there is no belief that unites them, there is merely a lack of belief (or rejection of in the case of explicit atheists). And how do I defy it??

Its like this implicit atheists don't have belief but explicit atheists do.

No, neither implicit nor explicit atheists (i.e. NO atheists) have a belief in God. They may have many other beliefs, but are united in their lack of belief in God. Period.

IOW hijacking the requirements of implicit beliefs for the greater glory of explicit atheists is intellectual dishonesty.

You still don't get it. They are both atheists - they both share the lack of belief in God. That's it. Anything else that they belief merely ADDS to their atheism and enables them to branch out to other philosophies.

IOW saying atheists don't have belief (on the strength of implicit atheism, ie toddlers) is just like saying humans don't have sex desire (on the strength of the same toddlers)

False analogy. The argument would be that ALL humans don't have sex desire, and point to toddlers as evidence that not all humans do. The position would then be to equate explicit atheism with mature humans, so as to differentiate them from immature humans.

the problem is that the explicit has very obvious issues of belief (much like an adult has very obvious issues of sex desire)

Yep - and if you can show that all atheists are explicit, and can further show the unifying belief that they all show, you may be on to something. Until then... :shrug:

You started this whole gaffe by resorting to the notion that atheism cannot be held accountable to any ontological position.

I am saying that it is not, in itself, an ontological position. It might result from one, however.

implicit atheists (by necessity) don't have beliefs
explicit atheists (by necessity) do have beliefs.

Now you're getting somewhere. Finally.

Agreeing on one unifying belief to group all (explicit) atheists would be just as difficult/easy as agreeing on one unifying belief to group all theists.

what is this specific belief that you falsely believe unites all theists?

You mean the belief that at least one deity exists?

So you no longer wish to maintain that (explicit) atheism is not propped up key issues of belief?

You're continuing your strawman.

apparently you can't pull out key issues of belief that define teh explicit atheist

Can you? You have yet to name one.
Given that I hold atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, and that any subset of atheism is driven by other philosophical positions held (where any beliefs may lie).

It is precisely issues of belief that make it possible to distinguish strong, weak, practical, theoretical, metaphysical, existential, etc atheists

Aye - and notice the qualifier before the term atheist?
So - what are the beliefs that unify them??
You are adamant they are there.
Noone is arguing that such positions may be the result of beliefs, but your argument is that there is a unifying belief, that describes all atheists. You're even hard-pressed to put forward a valid one just for explicit atheists, even after finally admitting that there are none for implicit atheists.

perhaps you would begin to make sense if you could provide an example of an atheist attributing a cause to the divine (or is it the case that they never justify causes as such ... y'know being atheist and all)

If by "divine" one specifically means a deity, then technically they don't - as soon as they do they become theist.
So really you just need to look for atheists that have swapped to theism.


Edit: These posts are getting too long - and given that you have missed the point so far, or just refuse to accept it, and you certainly haven't convinced me, I'm going to drop it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Edit: These posts are getting too long - and given that you have missed the point so far, or just refuse to accept it, and you certainly haven't convinced me, I'm going to drop it.

what total crap

The point is simple : you are using implicit atheism to broaden the category of atheism to suggest atheism is a term not defined by issues of belief (despite the very form of atheism you represent being defined by issues of belief)

IOW you insist on a defining atheism in a manner that excludes yourself.

One could apply the same trite nonsense to any ideology or philosophy by including newborn babies as an implicit population and thus shroud the whole thing in hodgepodge douchebaggery (despite the social ramifications of it being clearly established by the explicit population)

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Again, I refer you to my own personal case where I was run out of town for explicitly religious reasons.

Only if we believe that religion is whatever Arioch says it is.

:shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

what total crap

The point is simple : you are using implicit atheism to broaden the category of atheism to suggest atheism is a term not defined by issues of belief (despite the very form of atheism you represent being defined by issues of belief)

Issues of belief, sure - a lack of a specific belief.

IOW you insist on a defining atheism in a manner that excludes yourself.

How does it exclude myself, other than in your fallacious logic? I lack the belief in God. I am an atheist. I am included within my definition.
Can it be clearer than that?

One could apply the same trite nonsense to any ideology or philosophy by including newborn babies as an implicit population and thus shroud the whole thing in hodgepodge douchebaggery (despite the social ramifications of it being clearly established by the explicit population

So anything you don't agree with is now "hodgepodge douchebaggery"?
This entire line of argument started merely 'cos you don't accept the broad definition of atheism, and require it to fit into your understanding, while still accepting the existence of a subset referred to as "implicit atheists".
Given your tendency to use Wiki to support your position: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism and note the 3rd sentence: "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

It really is no more simple than that.
You look to complicate matters to prove a point that only exists with those added complications.

Further, given your inability to provide a single valid example of a single belief that categorises even all explicit atheists, let alone ALL atheists, then your position is so weak as to be non-existant.

 

[wynn]

Yes they are... if you believe that Mr.X wears a white hat then you most certainly are part of the group that does not believe Mr.X wears a yellow hat.

This pattern of reasoning is valid only in cases where the terms and the relationships between them are inambiguously definable and also thus defined.

Otherwise, there are many opportunities for equivocations, overlaps and more.

For example, in folk taxonomy, numerous species are referred to as "worms", but only some of them are biologically indeed worms.

There could be a heap of food remains filled with larvae of flies, and it would be correct to say "There are no worms here."
For a lay person, it would also be correct to say "There are many worms here."
So who is right.

Or a lay person trying to distinguish between a duck and a goose, esp. between a duckling and a gosling.
There are species of ducks that, to the lay, look like geese, and vice versa.



A person might declare "I lack belief in a God," but upon closer scrutiny, it may be revealed that the person believes tenets that are otherwise typical for someone who does have belief in God.
Tenets such as "there is a higher purpose to life" or "there is a cause for everything we experience."

"Belief in God" is a very very vague term, and such is "lack of belief in God."

LG seems to think there is an atheist "belief" - yet is utterly unable to pin down any one "belief" that underpins all atheists.

There surely has to be some reason why they "lack belief in God" or at lease state they lack belief in God.

I argue that any belief an atheist holds is not actually due to them being an atheist but due to whatever other philosophy they hold, whether it be Humanism, Naturalism, Apathism etc.

Indeed, and their atheism is related to holding those other philosophies.
(Unless you wish to argue that a person's beliefs are just a chaotic collection where one belief has no relation to any other.)

I maintain that the only thing all atheists have in common is their singular rejection of belief in God.

As versatile as atheists may be, it is possible to make a list of philosophies they hold that are exclusive to atheists.

It is not possible to consistently be a "humanist theist," "materialist theist," "existentialist theist" or "nihilist theist," for example.


What all atheists have in common is that they hold beliefs from that list of philosophies: that is, every atheist holds one or more belief or philosophy from that list.

 

[wynn]

If that is not a religious fight, then what the holy fuck is it???

A confusion in the use of terms.

 

[Sarkus]

This pattern of reasoning is valid only in cases where the terms and the relationships between them are inambiguously definable and also thus defined.

As is the case here.

There surely has to be some reason why they "lack belief in God" or at lease state they lack belief in God.

Not all atheists (in the broadest sense) state they are atheist, and as for the reasoning behind the others, that is for them to say, but I still maintain there is no specific "belief" that they all share that defines them as atheist.

Indeed, and their atheism is related to holding those other philosophies.
(Unless you wish to argue that a person's beliefs are just a chaotic collection where one belief has no relation to any other.)

Related to, and often directly caused by. But others are atheist (in the broadest sense) without such philosophies.

As versatile as atheists may be, it is possible to make a list of philosophies they hold that are exclusive to atheists.

Possibly, if one limits the exercise to explicit-atheists - but how many of the beliefs behind all of those philosophies would be common to all of them?

It is not possible to consistently be a "humanist theist," "materialist theist," "existentialist theist" or "nihilist theist," for example.

It depends if you consider Deism to fall under the umbrella of Theism or not.

What all atheists have in common is that they hold beliefs from that list of philosophies: that is, every atheist holds one or more belief or philosophy from that list.

No, they don't - unless you're only talking about explicit atheists. And if you want to go down the route even for explicit atheists you would need to ensure that it is impossible for a theist to also hold those philosophies or beliefs.

 

[wynn]

No you don't. Every one of your posts on this thread keeps waffling around the point.

You need to redo your statistics!

Catholics were killing Protestants because they believed that the Protestants were thwarting what they saw as their mandate from God to spread The One True Religion throughout the world. The Protestants were killing the Catholics because they believed that Catholicism was a misinterpretation of the Bible by a church that had become more bureaucratic than theological, that to be a true Christian meant a more personal connection to God and Jesus than was possible through a hierarchy, and that the Catholic institutions were preventing people from being true Christians.

This is a lot of mindreading you're doing there, and for people who are already deceased!

If this is not precisely a religious war, then I think it's your turn to tell us what a religious war is, in your system of discourse. All you've done since you started this thread is duck and cover. You argue against everyone, but you never quite explain what it is that you're arguing for.

Many people here claim that there exists religiously motivated violence.
They are the ones putting forward the claim, so the onus is on them to explain.

2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.

That's too exclusive.

If some person claims to have been assaulted for religious reasons because the assaulter called him an atheist, or if someone claims that "Catholics were killing Protestants because they believed that the Protestants were thwarting what they saw as their mandate from God to spread The One True Religion throughout the world" then this is indeed agreeing that "The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion."

Each of the world's major religions is well-defined. Its members, the members of other religions, and the rest of us who are outsiders to religion have no trouble reaching a consensus on the major claims of those religions.

Given the amount of discussion of topics considered religious or pertaining to religion, the above is not the case.

Just because I despise Christianity (or fill in the name of almost any other religion) doesn't mean that when I talk to a Christian we don't agree on what Christianity is

.

You consider yourself a civilized person, but you harbor contempt??
!

3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.

Where do you come up with this weird stuff???

Since none of those who claim there exists religiously motivated violence was forthcoming with explanations, I myself looked into the implied premises in their posts. This is how I came to the two sets of six points.

Religion is one of the most-studied subjects on earth. There is a gigantic consensus among human beings about the definition of religion, including religious people and irreligious people. My religious friends and I argue over the subject all the time, and in 68 years we have never had an argument grind to a halt because we could not agree on what religion is.

If it is so clearly defined, then why do you argue over it?

4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.

I assume you made a syntactical error there, and meant to say that those people believe that they are divinely ordained and that what they do is sanctioned, not that they actually are divinely ordained and that what they do actually is sanctioned.

No, I have made no such error.

If you claim, for example, that Catholics killed Protestants for religious reasons, then you believe that the Catholics were divinely ordained to do so, not that the Catholics believed they were divinely ordained so.

But back to the point, since you're presenting yourself as the expert here, I'll accept your assertion that some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. I'm quite certain that there are no words to that effect in the Hindu, Jain, Baha'i or Buddhist scriptures. So unless you're trying to impress us with your expertise in some obscure Oriental religions of which we have virtually no knowledge, you must be talking about the Abrahamic faiths. We've all seen them attempting to exterminate each other, but I must admit I'm surprised that you think their holy books actually command them to do this. Especially since they all claim to follow the Ten Commandments, one of which seriously discourages killing.

The Jains may be an exception, but probably the vast majority of human societies have developed some strategies for self-defense and what to do in the case of an attack.

5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.

Where did this come from?

It is an implicit premise in the comments of those who claim that violence is religiously motivated.

People are complicated. They can have multiple motivations for any action, but that doesn't preclude one of them from being the dominant motivation. The Muslim fundamentalists don't like our proselytism of democracy nor our profitable pornography industry, but the reason they want to make war against us is not because the one conflicts with their own style of government and the other siphons money away from their oriental rug industry. The reason is that both conflict with their religious principles.

Mindreading again, eh?

6. People make no mistakes.

What a silly comment. You seem to be saying that it's invalid to argue over anything unless both positions are completely flawless.

Apparently, you and some others are unable to understand that people make mistakes, admit them, and change their ways afterwards - and that therefore, we cannot just pronounce definitive judgements upon them.

Personally, I do not believe these statements. But it does seem that many who speak about religiously motivated violence, do believe them, at least implicitly.

It doesn't seem that way to you at all. You know damn well that you're setting up a series of straw men, knocking them down one after the other, and preparing to say that you have therefore won the argument.

You want me to believe that you can read my mind??

In fact, you are not simply "mind reading," you are actively imposing your interpretation of my intentions on me and expecting me to accept that imposition, just like you actively impose your interpretation of other people's motives on them, and expect them to accept that imposition.

This is intellectually vile, to say the least.

I don't know - is it religious to fight over who is right about God?

Do you ever answer questions, or just ask them? If that is not a religious fight, then what the holy fuck is it???

You make the claim there is religiously motivated violence, the burden is on you to explain.

I have had experiences with people who claimed to be religious that, quite viscerally, made me rethink what "religiously motivated violence" could be. For example: My Catholic grandmother was quite abusive toward me when I was little. She renounced her Catholic faith a few years before she passed away.
/.../
Considering such things, it's difficult to talk about "religiously motivated violence."

There is no doubt that religious(-seeming) justifications are often given for violent actions.
But once one knows such people personally, knowing their inner struggle, it is hard to believe that religion had much to do with it.

Is there a point somewhere in that paragraph?
/.../
Again, what's your point?

Bolded, right the first sentence, and the end of my comment.
Read what I write.

You've cherry-picked your examples to support your point. More disingenuous arguing.


* When the Taliban destroyed those giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan because A) Their interpretation of Islam forbids depictions of the human form and B) They regard Buddha as a competitor of Mohammed; it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.
* When the medieval Europeans saw Jews bathing, which at the time they considered a satanic practice, and then saw those same Jews survive the Plague in much larger numbers than their own people (ironically because cleanliness actually did reduce their exposure to the pathogens), and killed them because they had obviously survived due to intervention by Satan, it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.
* When the armies of the Christian nations fought among themselves they wantonly killed their civilians, but they never burned their libraries or destroyed their art. But when they came to the New World and fought the people they met here, they did in fact burn the Aztec libraries and destroy the Inca art, for the precisely stated reason that they were "heathen" writings and images. It would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.
* When the Orthodox Jews in Israel throw rocks at ambulances carrying deathly ill Conservative Jews to hospitals on the Sabbath, it would be quite difficult to not call this religiously motivated violence.

You see, I can come up with my own examples.

If you would actually go and meet those Talibans, Christians, Jews etc. in person, and live with them for a while, you'd be inclined to change your opinion about them.


From a distance, like the distance provided by the media, they may indeed look like violent religionists.

From a personal relationship, they are just humans struggling to get by in daily life, just like everyone else.

It's not hard for me at all. Perhaps your own ancestors were not chased out of Europe by angry mobs of Christians.

The Nazis killed my grandmother's husband, and even she forgave them.

What exactly is religious about Muslims killing Christians, or Protestants killing Catholics etc.?

Abrahamists believe that they are under orders by God to spread his teachings to all mankind. And the members of each particular sect believe that theirs is the only true religion. Therefore they believe that everyone else is actively thwarting their performance of a task set for them by God. The only way they can see to accomplish their task is to kill all those who stand in their way.

That doesn't answer my question.

* They believe in the existence of an illogical, invisible supernatural universe from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the operation of the natural universe.

Really? You have met people who said "I believe in the existence of an illogical, invisible supernatural universe from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the operation of the natural universe?"

Copy-paste scriptures that state "There exists an illogical, invisible supernatural universe from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the operation of the natural universe."

Using a term to identify oneself, whereby that term does not denote anything, is void.

You need to review your notes from Logic 101A. It's perfectly reasonable to use negative terminology in an identification.

Only when used in the context of a positive terminology.

It is characteristic that all organized religions have standards of qualification. For example, in order for a person to be a Catholic, the Catholic Church has a set of standards that the person needs to comply with. If they fail to comply with them, that person is not a Catholic.

Not all organized religions are so rigorous. Judaism is universally regarded as a religion, yet in all but the most Orthodox congregations one can be an atheist and still be counted as a Jew, so long as one complies with a rather small subset of the Jewish laws. It has been called a religion of laws rather than doctrines.

What exactly are you objecting to then?

The monotheistic religions of Abraham teach their followers that only they have the One True Religion, and that it is their duty to bring this religion to everyone else on earth. They're just a little bit better than all the rest of us because of this.

This is a blatant reinforcement of our species's pack-social instinct. When we were nomadic hunter-gatherers we had to regard all other clans as hated competitors for scarce resources, but once we invented agriculture and created a food surplus, this was no longer necessary. In fact it became advantageous to join together in larger communities where economies of scale and division of labor would make the larger tribe more prosperous.

Make up your mind then.
Cavemen mentality is cavemen mentality, not religion. An X is an X, not a Y.

We've spent twelve thousand years trying to overcome our inner Caveman, bribing him with central heating, indoor plumbing, motorcycles and pornography. But occasionally he breaks free and does something Paleolithic. We have ways of dealing with that and most of the time we do all right.

But the Abrahamic religions work against the advancement of civilization by reinforcing the Inner Caveman's feeling that outsiders are evil and must be eradicated. Every few generations, one or another community of Abrahamists turn their Inner Cavemen loose all at once, and they march across the border into the next country and start killing the people on the other side.

Then you'd do well to take some of your own medicine and bribe your Inner Caveman, because you sure don't like outsiders and desire to earadicate them!

 

[spidergoat]

The vast majority of my relatives were also killed by Nazis because they were the wrong religion. This ism in no way a controversial statement.

 

[wynn]

As is the case here.

Not at all.

Given that the amount of discussion on theism is practically infnitely more than the amount of discussion of what, for example, a "table" or a "chair" is, things are far from being so simple as far as a/theism is concerned.

Related to, and often directly caused by. But others are atheist (in the broadest sense) without such philosophies.

Name some. Infants?

Possibly, if one limits the exercise to explicit-atheists - but how many of the beliefs behind all of those philosophies would be common to all of them?

The point is that we can make a list of such philoosphies, and every atheist has some philosophy or part thereof from that list.

It depends if you consider Deism to fall under the umbrella of Theism or not.

I said:
It is not possible to consistently be a "humanist theist," "materialist theist," "existentialist theist" or "nihilist theist," for example.

Deism is an internally inconsistent position.

No, they don't - unless you're only talking about explicit atheists. And if you want to go down the route even for explicit atheists you would need to ensure that it is impossible for a theist to also hold those philosophies or beliefs.

Again, in practice, it is a matter of consistency and awareness of one's beliefs.
An actual person may hold even mutually exclusive beliefs, without being aware of those beliefs or the fact that they are mutually exclusive.


But as far as we are talking about abstract types, it holds that there are some philosophies that are incompatible with theism, and others that are incompatible with atheism; some that are compatible with theism, and others that are compatible with atheism. We can make such lists.


In practice, we would be remiss to consider someone a theist simply because they hold one theistic tenet; just as we would be remiss to consider someone an atheist just because they hold one atheistic tenet.


Which is why in actual discussion, it is more accurate to discuss presented arguments, rather than assume sides and rather than assume that all claims made by someone who made one theistic claim, are theistic; or that all claims made by someone who made one atheist claim, are atheist.

 

[wynn]

The vast majority of my relatives were also killed by Nazis because they were the wrong religion. This ism in no way a controversial statement.

Who said that they were of the wrong religion?

They themselves? Did your relatives ever say "We are of the wrong religion"?

 

[spidergoat]

The Nazis did.