Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

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

Duh. I have merely stated a fact. Namely, the fact that I do not understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that Jews were prosecuted because they were of the wrong religion.
I just plain do not understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion, and in this thread, you all have the opportunity to explain it.


A fallacious argument from personal incredulity would be to say "I don't understand that, therefore, it isn't true."

Which is something I never said.

 

[wynn]

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

Reluctance to assimilate with the native population in a foreign country, considering oneself separate from the native population
is not necessarily a problem.

European colonialists were typically reluctant to assimilate with the native population in a foreign country, considering themselves separate from the native population, and this didn't automatically cause them problems (as they killed or subdued the native population).

In the case of the Jews in Germany and in some other countries, the power ratio was in favor of the native population, not the Jews, hence the Jews lost.

 

[spidergoat]

But the difference is Jews lived in Europe for centuries. The only thing keeping them separate was religion. In fact, many German Jews were totally assimilated.

 

[wynn]

If they were still Jews, then they weren't assimilated.

 

[lightgigantic]

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

Just as long as it doesn't involve a rejection of gods since that touches on issues of existence

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

If you don't know what the term means in different contexts, how can you say that?

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.

then you have over stepped your original intro to this post by touching on issues of existence
:shrug:

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

Its dead set clear that newborn infants are apolitical ... at least as much as they are atheist

Only to you is it hogwash,

Even some notable atheists agree it is hogwash

You may bring a philosophical approach.

As opposed to what?
The dogmatic narrow minded approach?

However I wouldn't as philosophical BS does not come into the equation.

Ironically enough sunshine its the philosophical approach that has established events, individuals and justifications for atheism .....

But what is implicit and explicit atheism, something you made up.

err ... no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

As said before you reading too much into it, the core position is to have "no belief" in the claims of god/gods.

that in no way suggests that there aren't beliefs intrinsic and necessary to explicit atheism

You seem to think it is rocket science, well a wakeup call it's not.

If you rate reading a few paragraphs from wiki about belief and atheism as rocket science, I don't think discussing this topic is your forte
.

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.

Feel free to indicate those atheists that don't subscribe to a physical ontology ...

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.

actually I am just referencing what other people have said about it ... which is certainly more than your effort

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.

It doesn't appear that you even know what is the difference between implicit and explicit atheism

 

[GeoffP]

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

A collection of spiritual or theistic beliefs organized under a reasonable auspice of commonality or frequency.

What do you understand by "religion" or "religious"?

 

[wynn]

A collection of spiritual or theistic beliefs organized under a reasonable auspice of commonality or frequency.

What do you understand by "religion" or "religious"?

I tend to agree with your definition.

But I fail to see how "a collection of spiritual or theistic beliefs organized under a reasonable auspice of commonality or frequency" can motivate violence.

?

 

[wynn]

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.

I do not at all think that they are sufficiently defined. See below.

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.

We can collect a list of philosophies that are compatible with atheism, but not compatible with theism. What all atheists have in common is that they hold one or more philosophies from that list.

Compare this with citizens of European countries: they are all Europeans, but per se, they are German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish etc.

One of the things that distinguishes a German citizen from a Brazilian citizen is that the German citizen is a European, and the Brazilian is not.

There may be no single factor that all Europeans have in common (such as language, nationality, currency, president, ...), other than the qualifier "European", but they all have in common that they are citizens of one of the countries in the geographical entity called "Europe."

Similarly, there may be no single belief that all atheists have in common, other than the qualifier "lack of belief in God", but they all have in common that they hold one or more philosophies from that list.

It's not? Care to summarise why not?

The deist idea that God creates the Universe and everything in it, sets it into motion and then has nothing further to do with it, ever, is an idea compatible with polytheism or a system of demigods, but not with God (capital G).

A human can make a clock, wind it up and let it be, never to care about it again.
A demigod can function by the same principle: make something and let it be (and then another demigod takes over).

God, however, is inextricably bound to everything there is. He cannot not care about it, He cannot let it be. He is always involved.

We consider someone theist if they believe that at least one deity exists. It is the generally accepted definition of the term.

It is also a useless definition, to say the least. Because according to that definition, a person who hates God is a theist!
And also, that Tibetan Buddhists are theists!

That's the only requirement for considering someone a theist.

The only requirement according to whom? The author of a dictionary? People who consider themselves atheists?

Are you suggesting there is an alternative definition of theism, perhaps?

Absolutely.

For an adequate definition of theism, we need to look into theism.

Further, atheism is a reactionary stance to theism, defined by theism, so atheism is only meaningful in relation to theism, while not on its own.

So let's look what a theism may consider to be atheism - the Islamic concept of kafir:


Types of kufr (disbelief) - Adapted from 'Tafseer ibn Katheer[5] The Qur'an uses the word kufr to denote a person who covers up or hides realities, one who refuses to accept the dominion and authority of God (Allāh). There are several types of Al-Kufr ul Akbar:

1. Kufrul-'Inaad: Disbelief out of stubbornness. This applies to someone who knows the truth and admits to knowing the truth and admits to knowing it with his tongue, but refuses to accept it and refrains from making a declaration. The Qur'an states: "Do ye twain hurl to hell each rebel ingrate?" [6]

2. Kufrul-Inkaar: Disbelief out of denial. This applies to someone who denies with both heart and tongue. The Qur'an states: "They recognize the favor of Allah, yet they deny it, and most of them are ungrateful."[7]

3. Kufrul-Kibr: Disbelief out of arrogance and pride. The disbelief by the devil (Iblees) is an example of this type of kufr.

4. Kufrul-Juhood: Disbelief out of rejection. This applies to someone who acknowledges the truth in his heart, but rejects it with his tongue. This types of kufr is applicable to those who calls themselves Muslims but who reject any necessary and accepted norms of Islam such as Salaat and Zakat. The Qur'an states: "And they denied them, though their souls acknowledged them, for spite and arrogance. Then see the nature of the consequence for the wrong-doers!"[8]

5. Kufrul-Nifaaq: Disbelief out of hypocrisy. This applies to someone who pretends to be a believer but conceals his disbelief. Such a person is called a MUNAFIQ or hypocrite. The Qur'an states: "The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them." [9]

6. Kufrul-Istihlaal: Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allah has made unlawful (Haram) like alcohol or adultery. Only Allah has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundaries of faith.

7. Kufrul-Kurh: Disbelief out of detesting any of Allah's commands. The Qur'an states: "And those who disbelieve, perdition is for them, and He will make their actions vain; That is because they are averse to that which Allah hath revealed, therefor maketh He their actions fruitless."[10]

8. Kufrul-Istihzaa: Disbelief due to mockery and derision. The Qur'an states: "And if thou ask them (O Muhammad) they will say: We did but talk and jest. Say: Was it at Allah and His revelations and His messenger that ye did scoff; Make no excuse. Ye have disbelieved after your (confession of) belief. If We forgive a party of you, a party of you We shall punish because they have been guilty."[11]

9. Kufrul-I'raadh: Disbelief due to avoidance. This applies to those who turn away and avoid the truth. The Qur'an states: "And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent before? Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; and if you call them to the guidance (Qur'an), they will not ever follow the right course (Islam) in that case."[12]

10. Kufrul-Istibdaal: Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allah's Laws. This could take the form of: (a) Rejection of Allah's law (Sharee'ah) without denying it, (b) denial of Allah's law and therefore rejecting it, or (c) Substituting Allah's laws with "artificial" (i.e. non-Muslim) laws. The Qur'an states: "And if Allah had pleased He would surely have made them a single community, but He makes whom He pleases enter into His mercy, and the unjust it is that shall have no guardian or helper."[13] The Qur'an says: "Truly, Allâh is with those who fear Him (keep their duty unto Him), and those who are doers of good and righteousness." [14]


The stance of a kafir is primarily an ethical stance, not an ontological one.


Or atheism according to a Hindu tradition:

BG 7.15: Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

Thus four types of what are effectively atheists:
1. people who are grossly foolish
2. people who are the lowest among mankind
3. people who are deluded
4. people with demonic natures

Again, this is not an ontological stance on atheism, but an ethical and practical one.


I conted that theism and atheism are primarily ethical and practical stances:
Theism is a favorable inclination toward God,
atheism is an unfavorable inclination toward God.


Given the common definitions of God (The Creator, Maintainer and Controller of everything, The First Cause, the Summum Bonum) and the common definitions of individual living entities such as humans (fully dependent on God), it would be illogical to take an ontological stance on theism or atheism (such as "I believe / I lack the belief that God exists").
Given the common definitions of God and ourselves, it is pointless to speculate about whether God exists or not and whether we believe one or the other, as such speculation does not apply.

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?

Congratulations on remembering.

 

[elte]

I think you might be imploring belief in Go(o)d.

The best we seem to be able to come up with, to delineate what that is, are the good qualities that human beings can posses, which is the model for Good.

The idea of a good, powerful god appears to be derived from that. The argument goes, however, "If God is so good, why is there suffering." That question is problematic for the classical idea of theism.

Personally, I still long for God, but have recently been able to waste less time on it than in the past. We appear to be all alone in confronting problems, so the best thing to do seems to be heavily studying what science can teach. Having knowledge of the universe is how we give ourselves the best chance for our futures, given the evidence that we are on our own in this universe.

 

[Sarkus]

I do not at all think that they are sufficiently defined. See below.

Then the issue is with your understanding, nothing else.

We can collect a list of philosophies that are compatible with atheism, but not compatible with theism. What all atheists have in common is that they hold one or more philosophies from that list.

And there will be atheists that do not hold to any of those philosophies. So your criteria is inadequate, and it also does not answer the actual question of naming a belief that all atheists hold. So you are continuing along a strawman argument.

Similarly, there may be no single belief that all atheists have in common, other than the qualifier "lack of belief in God", but they all have in common that they hold one or more philosophies from that list.

No, they don't all hold one or more philosophies from that list. Explicit atheists might, so if you want to limit the argument to just them then just say so, but by doing so you effectively move the goalposts.
But this sentence of yours does seem to concede the point, so thank you.

The deist idea that God creates the Universe and everything in it, sets it into motion and then has nothing further to do with it, ever, is an idea compatible with polytheism or a system of demigods, but not with God (capital G).

Irrelevant. Theism is not specific to God (capital G) but with belief in one or more gods.

It is also a useless definition, to say the least. Because according to that definition, a person who hates God is a theist!
And also, that Tibetan Buddhists are theists!

If a person believes God to exist then yes, they would be theist.

The only requirement according to whom? The author of a dictionary? People who consider themselves atheists?

If you don't want to go by the definition given in a dictionary, please provide an alternative source that offers a different definition.

So let's look what a theism may consider to be atheism - the Islamic concept of kafir:

This is actually a separate term, although is similar to how the term Atheism used to be. But atheism has developed in meaning since.
Ancient Greeks used to consider anyone who turned away from Gods, who lived their life with an absence of gods, as atheists, while still believing in the existence of the gods. But this was because the question of the existence of gods was not questioned.
The term atheism has developed since then.
Kafir, as defined by Wiki, is thus along the ancient usage of atheism.

As for atheism per the Hindu tradition, I would suggest that the term atheism is not the most appropriate for the translation. If we were talking about the term used in the original script then sure, and when it was first translated it may have been an accurate translation - but while the Western word has changed, the translation loses accuracy.

I conted that theism and atheism are primarily ethical and practical stances:
Theism is a favorable inclination toward God,
atheism is an unfavorable inclination toward God.

Interesting for another thread, perhaps, but I'm sure anyone could argue anything about theism or atheism if they insisted on using their own definitions.
Bear in mind there is already a phrase "practical atheist" (that also covers many of the Kafir aspects etc) which implies a far broader understanding and usage of the term atheism.

Given the common definitions of God ...

And what of the other gods?

Congratulations on remembering.

 

[wynn]

Then the issue is with your understanding, nothing else.

Perhaps I should, like so many of you, don the cloak of the objectivist, stop owning my statements and begin to pretend to act as if I would be enlightened.

 

[Sarkus]

Or you could counter arguments validly, or push the claim that we work from different and unbridgeable understandings of what constitutes a theist and/or an atheist... rather than sulk? Up to you, of course.

 

[wynn]

or push the claim that we work from different and unbridgeable understandings of what constitutes a theist and/or an atheist...

Yeah, I could push that claim. It is very very very meaningful to push a claim of unbridgeable understandings.

Since I am not a theist nor religious, I have no obligation nor justified desire to convert anyone, this is where our exchange on this topic ends for me.

 

[Sarkus]

Since I am not a theist nor religious, I have no obligation nor justified desire to convert anyone, this is where our exchange on this topic ends for me.

You think I am out to convert? I am neither a theist nor religious either (at least as far as I understand the terms) - but that doesn't mean one can't nor shouldn't point out issues one identifies with claims that others make. But that is a far cry from attempts to convert.

 

[wynn]

You think I am out to convert?

I don't know.

I am neither a theist nor religious either (at least as far as I understand the terms) - but that doesn't mean one can't nor shouldn't point out issues one identifies with claims that others make. But that is a far cry from attempts to convert.

You don't think it's a folly and a waste of time to push a claim of unbridgeable understandings?

"It's totally clear that we operate with totally different definitions, but let's lock horns anyway" -?

 

[Sarkus]

You don't think it's a folly and a waste of time to push a claim of unbridgeable understandings?

"It's totally clear that we operate with totally different definitions, but let's lock horns anyway" -?

By "pushing a claim of unbridgeable understanding" I mean that one should state clearly that they consider the argument to arise from such, with the intention being that horns are duly parted with an increased understanding between the two of that difference, and that at the core at least one side considers it to be unbridgeable.

It is certainly not meant in the way your example suggests.

 

[GeoffP]

I tend to agree with your definition.

But I fail to see how "a collection of spiritual or theistic beliefs organized under a reasonable auspice of commonality or frequency" can motivate violence.

?

Are you serious? What if those beliefs call for violence against non-believers?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

I call a Poe on you.

 

[Bells]

Are you serious? What if those beliefs call for violence against non-believers?

Or for those who commit violence against those who perform services they disagree religiously? The anti-abortion movement violence (think bombings and murders) are religiously motivated. Eric Rudolph and James Kopp spring to mind for being motivated by their Christian beliefs when committing their crimes.

Or organisations such as National Liberation Front of Tripura, who commit terrorist acts which are motivated by their religious beliefs. Even Anders Breivik, who bombed the capital and then went on his shooting rampage because he felt Muslims were destroying the Christian ideal of Norway. Then of course there is the LRA, who apparently pray and wear rosary beads when 'going into battle'.

 

[GeoffP]

Or for those who commit violence against those who perform services they disagree religiously?

That also; in my opinion, such a slant would certainly extend to practices for which there are even peripherally unscriptural reactionary sentiments in opposition to the public good.