Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Sarkus]

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.

Strawman. There is no overlap between theism and atheism (or do you hold they are not mutually exclusive?), and they are sufficiently defined for the point raised in the analogy: that 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.
If you want to show how the amount of discussion on a/theism affects the validity of the analogy, feel free, but the amount of discussion on European politics doesn't mean we can't say that France is not England.

Name some. Infants?

Among others.

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

That was not the question. The question is to name an atheist belief - as in a belief held by all atheists that distinguishes them from others. The question was not to list the philosophies that atheists might hold. If you raise a belief that one atheist holds but another doesn't then it is not an atheist belief but a belief of whatever philosophy they hold.

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

You did. Congratulations on remembering.

Deism is an internally inconsistent position.

It's not? Care to summarise why not?

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.

Relevancy? Unless you're advocating one can be an atheist and a theist, in their broadest sense?

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.

Irrelevant, as explained.

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.

We consider someone theist if they believe that at least one deity exists. It is the generally accepted definition of the term.
That's the only requirement for considering someone a theist. Whether they tack a particular religion onto that theism is a separate matter.
Are you suggesting there is an alternative definition of theism, perhaps?

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.

Sure - and if I am seen to be committing such a logical fallacy I would hope that the other person points it out.
But I am not sure of the relevance here - unless you are accusing me of something?

 

[gmilam]

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 everyone who claims to be religious is a Catholic. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the thousands of non-denominational protestant churches in the US. All someone has to do is claim to be a preacher, start a church and people will come. It's apparently not even that difficult to obtain a tax exempt status for their church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

 

[gmilam]

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.

Logic fail.

Since I do not believe in god, I can't possibly believe that they were divinely ordained by god. All that is required is that THEY believe they are divinely ordained by god. Since I cannot read minds all I have to go on is their own words.

 

[wellwisher]

People other kill each other simply because the other person is different and/or will not merge into uniformity. World War II was more based on survival of the fittest and natural selection, which is more atheist religion than traditional religion; superior race. This line in the sand, set the theme for the new difference, justified what came next.

Stalin, was an atheists and may hold the world record for killing his own people. This too was based on differences from his communist ideal and what he felt would undermine this ideal by those who were different.

In America, this is more bias connected to Protestant against Catholics, than the other way around. This battle line is mild compared to Stalin, and does not normally lead to death and war. It is more done at the social level. It was very hard for a Catholic to become president until John Kennedy, due to this line in the sand.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Then it has no need 9or even capacity) to establish a stance in regards to any aspects of existence (which would include theism)

Exactly, as it is merely to lack belief in the claims of god/gods.

reading the wiki link on belief, what do you think is the distinction between "believe- in" and "believe-that"

What would be the point, it has no bearing on what the term atheist means.

then I guess that leaves you with the problem of explaining why you have so much to say in regards to atheism

I don't but I do have a lot to say about theism, the fact that I'm labelled an atheist, whether I like it or not, is only relevant to me being the opposite to theism and as such why I debate theism.

Perhaps there is a case for using that to define implicit atheism (which, btw, is IMHO just a political ploy to bolster numbers ... kind of like saying there wasn't a majority english favour to have a british presence in Ireland during the seventies since infants and the like, due to being unaware, didn't put a strong favour on the move)
more Implicit atheism

For it to be implicit it would need to be implied at its core, as being incorrect. It clearly is not.

If you believe that one must call upon new born babies to establish the high points of a philosophical approach to a subject, you already do
more Hogwash.

Only to you is it hogwash, You may bring a philosophical approach. However I wouldn't as philosophical BS does not come into the equation.

Belief certainly does come into the picture when distinguishing between implicit and explicit atheism

But what is implicit and explicit atheism, something you made up. As said before you reading too much into it, the core position is to have "no belief" in the claims of god/gods. You seem to think it is rocket science, well a wakeup call it's not. There are no atheist beliefs, there are people you label as atheist, who may or may not accept the label that have their own belief, that could be similar to another person labelled atheist, but they are not common held beliefs they are individual belief, the core position repeated yet again is to have "no belief" in the claims of god/gods.

IOW regardless of your ideas about atheism being implicit, we certainly don't find those characteristics in your person (because you are an explicit atheist ... as well as explicitly disbelieving in unicorns and such)

Even though you're not an atheist you seem to think you know atheism, better than anybody else, even those who have been labelled atheist, due to not holding to your delusion.
You have a misconception of what core atheism is, although you have been repeatedly told, you still refuse to change your viewpoint, it just goes to show, how intellectually dishonest you are.

 

[GeoffP]

People other kill each other simply because the other person is different and/or will not merge into uniformity.

Yees... but religion is notable among the common differences of mankind that result in violence as being an inciting agent of that violence.

 

[gmilam]

As I've said many times, it's the theist that defines the atheist.

Since most people are unable to define what they mean by the word god, then there is no way for me to know if I "believe" it may be possible or not.

If you believe in the old man in the sky watching our every move, then no, I do not believe in that.

If your concept is a more fuzzy "the universe is god", I obviously believe the universe exists.

Call me whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.

 

[wynn]

The Nazis did.

And what is the relevance of that?

If the Nazis or whoever claim that the Jews are of the "wrong religion" - does that mean that the Jews have to believe they, the Jews, are of the wrong religion?

 

[spidergoat]

No, it means religion is the cause of their being singled out for death. If they weren't Jewish, they probably would not have gone to the gas chambers and the ghettos.

 

[wynn]

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 everyone who claims to be religious is a Catholic. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the thousands of non-denominational protestant churches in the US.

Again, my post, for you:

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.

 

[spidergoat]

But even if they aren't considered a member of that church, they would still be considered religious.

 

[wynn]

No, it means religion is the cause of their being singled out for death. If they weren't Jewish, they probably would not have gone to the gas chambers and the ghettos.

I just don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.


One group of people (in this case, the Germans) were looking to solve their dire socio-economic situation that ensued after the Great Depression.
They hoped that by eliminating those who posed a threat or a burden in any way (such as foreigners, enemies, the people who were in some way lesser such as the mentally ill and the physically deformed), would help solve the problem.

This has nothing to do with religion.

 

[wynn]

But even if they aren't considered a member of that church, they would still be considered religious.

By whom?

 

[wynn]

Yees... but religion is notable among the common differences of mankind that result in violence as being an inciting agent of that violence.

Can you, given your above sentence, state what you understand by "religion"?

 

[spidergoat]

By whom?

By me.

And apparently you too:

I see no need to limit myself to the popular versions of the Abrahamic religions...

 

[Arioch]

And that's a point for Chimpkin.

 

[spidergoat]

I just don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.


One group of people (in this case, the Germans) were looking to solve their dire socio-economic situation that ensued after the Great Depression.
They hoped that by eliminating those who posed a threat or a burden in any way (such as foreigners, enemies, the people who were in some way lesser such as the mentally ill and the physically deformed), would help solve the problem.

This has nothing to do with religion.

Why would they consider Jews to be part of that group? They were not foreigners or enemies. And why did this phenomenon happen to follow the pattern of pogroms and Jew hatred that existed in Christian Europe for so many centuries? The historical massacres also often happened after the passion plays, where Jews were portrayed as responsible for killing Jesus?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

I just don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.

And now we get to the flaw underlying all of your posts. Arguments from personal incredulity are not a valid form of argumentation.

 

[wynn]

Why would they consider Jews to be part of that group? They were not foreigners or enemies.

They were. The Jews were reluctant to assimilate with the native population wherever they've settled, considering themselves separate from the native population. As such, they were practically intruders.

 

[spidergoat]

And what was the cause of that? Wait for it.... Religion!