Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

ISAW:There have been two kinds of regimes that have lead to the mass slaughter of people. Atheistic regimes and theistic regimes. The notion that theism somehow immunizes people or organisations against tendencies to commit atrocities is not supported by history.

and it isnt a claim I made! In very rare instances christian regimes mass murdered people. But in most instances when a Christian regime got into power it didn't and the would country went about their business but accepted that Christianity was the national religion even oif from time to time iot was repressive. In all cases where atheism became the national philosophy people died in the droves putting even the worst excesses of christian regimes in the halfpenny place!

It is a simple observation
Atheists say: dont put Christians in charge they oppress people and cause harm
And it is true Christians do sometimes cause harm sometimes but they also build societies.
I am talking specifically about groups of Christians saying the country should be run with Christianity at the core of society.
If however atheists get in charge and place atheism ( not secularism - atheism) at the centre of society any abuse by Christians pales to insignificance.

Simple:
Christianity ruling - some harm sometimes, art, architecture, economic growth
Atheism ruling - total destruction, economic meltdown , piles of bodies.

jank

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Atheists don't 'believe' in any person as some sort of God-like being. These regimes are about believing in the dictators are some sort of saviour and God. Atheists don't believe in that.


.

Ah so in a round about way you are saying if everyone was an atheist there would be no dictators? Is that right?

If you actually believe that then there is no bother continuing.

Fanny Cradock

I'm surprised how often I see this mistake being made.

The inverse of Christianity isn't atheism and vise versa. The inverse of theism is atheism. The clue is in the name.

Now we can argue about the finer point of this - but I happen to think that both atheism and theism are largely valueless worldviews insofar as both comment on the existence of God(s). That's pretty much it. What is appended to these belief systems (and, yes, I think that atheism is a belief system) is what can be used for good or ill.

nickcave

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm surprised how often I see this mistake being made.

The inverse of Christianity isn't atheism and vise versa. The inverse of theism is atheism. The clue is in the name.

Now we can argue about the finer point of this - but I happen to think that both atheism and theism are largely valueless worldviews insofar as both comment on the existence of God(s). That's pretty much it. What is appended to these belief systems (and, yes, I think that atheism is a belief system) is what can be used for good or ill.

I'm not so sure. I'm an atheist in the same way I'm not a dentist.

Is not-dentist a profession?

ISAW

nickcave wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I'm an atheist in the same way I'm not a dentist.

Is not-dentist a profession?

I know the list of religions isn't that long on the census form It really is easier to tick "athises" rather sign all the others with a "not" but you must have serious problems filling out your tax returns when you have to fill out the hundreds of professions you are not.

Joking aside do you believe "There is no God". If you believe that then you are an atheist.

Delirium

Atheist isn't an option on the census form.

Fanny Cradock

nickcave wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I'm an atheist in the same way I'm not a dentist.

Is not-dentist a profession?

I wasn't aware that a worldview was the same thing as a profession. Tell you what! Why don't you ask the folks at the not-dentist forum what they think? Alternatively you can consult some of the many scholarly articles written by not-dentists and not-stamp-collectors about not-dentistry and not-stamp-collecting.

nickcave

ISAW wrote: »

Joking aside do you believe "There is no God". If you believe that then you are an atheist.

This is purely semantics - I believe I'll have a cup of tea. I believe I left the oven on.

There are many modes in which you can apply the word 'believe' and simply constructing a valid sentence with the words 'believe' and 'atheism' where you want them isn't dealing with the principle.

The principle is that atheism is not a faith system at all. It is the lack of one. It is the position of not having a faith system.

nickcave

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tell you what! Why don't you ask the folks at the not-dentist forum what they think? Alternatively you can consult some of the many scholarly articles written by not-dentists and not-stamp-collectors about not-dentistry and not-stamp-collecting.

This is actually exactly my point. The absurdity which results in treating 'not-dentist' as a profession, I mean.

Fanny Cradock

Please read my post again. In particular the first line that you dropped from the quote.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

Atheist isn't an option on the census form.

I stand corrected
I think you have the option "other write in your religion" and no religion.
If you think atheist is a religion put "atheist" in other
If not no religion will categorise you with agnostics and soft atheists colloquially known as "nones," less than a third of which are atheist.
About 100,000 of 3.7 million Irish people in the last Census were nones.

ISAW

nickcave wrote: »

This is purely semantics - I believe I'll have a cup of tea. I believe I left the oven on.

That what it is called a definition.
You know like the meter second and kilogramme?

The principle is that atheism is not a faith system at all. It is the lack of one. It is the position of not having a faith system.

You believe that do you? Fair enough.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

I stand corrected
I think you have the option "other write in your religion" and no religion.

Yep. that's how it was on the census.

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I'm an atheist in the same way I'm not a dentist.

Is not-dentist a profession?

So if I do a quick mosey over to the Dental Issues Forum, will I find your posts there where you try to pick quarrels with Dentists and tell them how wrong they are?

pug_

ISAW wrote: »

and it isnt a claim I made! In very rare instances christian regimes mass murdered people. But in most instances when a Christian regime got into power it didn't and the would country went about their business but accepted that Christianity was the national religion even oif from time to time iot was repressive. In all cases where atheism became the national philosophy people died in the droves putting even the worst excesses of christian regimes in the halfpenny place!

It is a simple observation
Atheists say: dont put Christians in charge they oppress people and cause harm
And it is true Christians do sometimes cause harm sometimes but they also build societies.
I am talking specifically about groups of Christians saying the country should be run with Christianity at the core of society.
If however atheists get in charge and place atheism ( not secularism - atheism) at the centre of society any abuse by Christians pales to insignificance.

Simple:
Christianity ruling - some harm sometimes, art, architecture, economic growth
Atheism ruling - total destruction, economic meltdown , piles of bodies.

I think there is one important point that's being missed here and that's to do with motive.

A religious state has a stated aim of promoting religion as the primary driver of the states policies. This is important because for most of the acts perpetrated on its people you can trace the reasoning behind the act back to it's religion.

Within a dictatorship however atheism is not the primary driver, it's not even secondary, it's just a convenient bi-product of oppression. The phrase 'equal opportunities oppressor' comes to mind and you could just as easily find yourself in a gulag for reading the wrong magazine as for organising a religious meeting. For a dictator it's a very seductive idea as there are two distinct advantages to oppressing religion within a dictatorship: Firstly it can be used as a means of preventing congregation outside of state control, and secondly it can be used replace the idea of God with the head of the state.

In this respect any of the dictatorships mentioned are not following a dogma of promoting atheism, so much as they are actively trying to remove as many liberties from the populace as possible and religion just happens to be one of them. As such calling a dictatorship an atheist ruled state is not a true reflection of the dictatorship.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

So if I do a quick mosey over to the Dental Issues Forum, will I find your posts there where you try to pick quarrels with Dentists and tell them how wrong they are?

Did I start this thread? Did you?

This is not the first time you've expressed that you dislike the nature of this thread.

I thought it was here for a reason - for open discussion on the existence (and non-existence) of God. Am I wrong?

If not, you shouldn't make jibes at those who simply partake in the thread, and add to it constructively.

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

This is not the first time you've expressed that you dislike the nature of this thread.

Where did anything I just said indicate dislike for this thread? I was pointing out the inaccuracy of your comparison between atheist and non-Dentist.

FWIW, I opened this thread to keep this stuff in one place, rather than having atheists spamming the entire forum and derailing multiple threads (as was happening). I don't dislike the thread at all - I think it serves a useful purpose, just as having a toilet in a separate room from the living or dining rooms serves a useful purpose. That doesn't, however, stop us commenting on the smell occasionally.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

Where did anything I just said indicate dislike for this thread? I was pointing out the inaccuracy of your comparison between atheist and non-Dentist.

FWIW, I opened this thread to keep this stuff in one place, rather than having atheists spamming the entire forum and derailing multiple threads (as was happening). I don't dislike the thread at all - I think it serves a useful purpose, just as having a toilet in a separate room from the living or dining rooms serves a useful purpose. That doesn't, however, stop us commenting on the smell occasionally.

Disgusting.

nickcave

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wasn't aware that a worldview was the same thing as a profession. Tell you what! Why don't you ask the folks at the not-dentist forum what they think? Alternatively you can consult some of the many scholarly articles written by not-dentists and not-stamp-collectors about not-dentistry and not-stamp-collecting.

You mean that there's an atheist forum and not a non-dentist forum? It's an analogy - if non-dentistry was a bigger deal (if kids were raised as dentists by default, for example), then it would have its forum. And people would write about it.

The principle of the analogy holds - non-theism is as much a faith system as non-dentist is a profession.

Not having a faith system is unfortunately a very big deal.

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

Disgusting.

I think it's quite hospitable. Your little minority group gets its own house on boards.ie Street (albeit you share it with the Agnostics) and then we give you a room in our house too! Not bad at all, if I say so myself.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

I think it's quite hospitable. Your little minority group gets its own house on boards.ie Street (albeit you share it with the Agnostics) and then we give you a room in our house too! Not bad at all, if I say so myself.

I know. You'd swear it wasn't a minority at all, right?

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

I know. You'd swear it wasn't a minority at all, right?

Oh, not at all. Your faith system is definitely a minority.

Penn

PDN wrote: »

I think it's quite hospitable. Your little minority group gets its own house on boards.ie Street (albeit you share it with the Agnostics) and then we give you a room in our house too! Not bad at all, if I say so myself.

Sorry PDN, but it would be my understanding that this is not a forum for Christians, it's a forum for people who want to discuss Christianity. Whether they're Christian, Atheist, Jewish etc, they have a room in the house whether you like it or not.

I agree some Atheists or Non-Christians go overboard, but to tar them all with the same brush and compare the points they raise to a sh*t-smelling toilet in your Christian house is absolutely ridiculous and offensive.

Fanny Cradock

nickcave wrote: »

You mean that there's an atheist forum and not a non-dentist forum? It's an analogy - if non-dentistry was a bigger deal (if kids were raised as dentists by default, for example), then it would have its forum. And people would write about it.

The principle of the analogy holds - non-theism is as much a faith system as non-dentist is a profession.

Not having a faith system is unfortunately a very big deal.

Yes, I understand it is an analogy. I'm familiar with the concept thank you very much. I happen to think it's a flawed analogy for the reasons I have outlined. Firstly, dentistry or "not-dentistry" is not the same as a worldview. That much should be obvious. Secondly, some atheists clearly feel passionately about the truth of atheism and they are keen to promote ideas that follow from a godless universe. Please show me a non-stamp collector who has the same passion about non-stamp collecting as, say, you apparently do about atheism (that is to say, arguing against theists). Now assuming you can find such a person you can then multiply my request on a large scale and show me organisations that meet to discuss non-stamp connecting and nations that are officially "not-dentists" and deny the fundamental truth claims of all forms of dentistry.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Where did anything I just said indicate dislike for this thread? I was pointing out the inaccuracy of your comparison between atheist and non-Dentist.

FWIW, I opened this thread to keep this stuff in one place, rather than having atheists spamming the entire forum and derailing multiple threads (as was happening). I don't dislike the thread at all - I think it serves a useful purpose, just as having a toilet in a separate room from the living or dining rooms serves a useful purpose. That doesn't, however, stop us commenting on the smell occasionally.

Graphic! :pac:

Penn wrote: »

Sorry PDN, but it would be my understanding that this is not a forum for Christians, it's a forum for people who want to discuss Christianity. Whether they're Christian, Atheist, Jewish etc, they have a room in the house whether you like it or not.

I agree some Atheists or Non-Christians go overboard, but to tar them all with the same brush and compare the points they raise to a sh*t-smelling toilet in your Christian house is absolutely ridiculous and offensive.

Fair point. But perhaps not all atheists who visit here are being tarred?

PDN

Penn wrote: »

Sorry PDN, but it would be my understanding that this is not a forum for Christians, it's a forum for people who want to discuss Christianity. Whether they're Christian, Atheist, Jewish etc, they have a room in the house whether you like it or not.

Light hearted banter isn't your thing?

Ok, then, I'll put my serious face on.

Anyone is welcome to post in any thread - but not to pursue their peculiar and off-topic agenda. And we have, in our infinite kindness, provided this thread especially to cater for questions from our brothers and sisters of the atheist persuasion.

I agree some Atheists or Non-Christians go overboard, but to tar them all with the same brush and compare the points they raise to a sh*t-smelling toilet in your Christian house is absolutely ridiculous and offensive.

Read the thread, my friend.

There are some very smelly posts.

But fair point. Maybe I should look around the site and take some tips from atheists as to how to show respect to those who hold different beliefs. It's never too late to learn something new.

nickcave

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I understand it is an analogy. I'm familiar with the concept thank you very much. I happen to think it's a flawed analogy for the reasons I have outlined. Firstly, dentistry or "not-dentistry" is not the same as a worldview. That much should be obvious. Secondly, some atheists clearly feel passionately about the truth of atheism and they are keen to promote ideas that follow from a godless universe. Please show me a non-stamp collector who has the same passion about non-stamp collecting as, say, you apparently do about atheism (that is to say, arguing against theists). Now assuming you can find such a person you can then multiply my request on a large scale and show me organisations that meet to discuss non-stamp connecting and nations that are officially "not-dentists" and deny the fundamental truth claims of all forms of dentistry.

Easy there - don't apply tone when you're reading my posts.

I've said it before: if non-stamp collecting was a big deal - if people were fearful of it and were likening it to mass-murder, for example, then it would have its forum.

But it is a non-profession. That's the only point you need to take from the analogy.

Atheism is not a faith system - unless you're talking about scientific axioms or something - in which case science itself becomes a faith system.

How's this - if atheism is a faith system, what 'world-view' isn't a faith system?

There must be at least one, because otherwise we are left with the certainty that the nature of the universe can never be known - and I'm just not that pessimistic.

edit: I also want to repeat that atheists do not congregate and set texts or doctrines. As such, I can't speak for all atheists - there are certain to be people who take the scientific concensus as some kind of infallible creed without examining it. If these are 'atheists' then they are not very considered atheists and I'm certainly not one of them.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

Oh, not at all. Your faith system is definitely a minority.

Usual pontificating - I'd know if I had a faith system. It's my choice.

And the trends look good on that minority - even if the figures are skewed by one side indoctrinating children.

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

And the trends look good on that minority - even if the figures are skewed by one side indoctrinating children.

Here's a wee idea. Try comparing the numbers and percentages of estimated atheists worldwide today with fifty years ago. That should give you an idea of some, er, 'trends'.

And atheists never indoctrinate children, do they? :pac:

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

Here's a wee idea. Try comparing the numbers and percentages of estimated atheists worldwide today with fifty years ago. That should give you an idea of some, er, 'trends'.

And atheists never indoctrinate children, do they? :pac:

Well don't leave me waiting: do they? And in what doctrine?

Extra points if your answer doesn't invoke irrelevant despots.