Atheist Atrocities and a Confusion of Causes

[gharik]

From dictionary.com

5 under verb seems the closest to your usage, yet I'm not sure "definite plan or procedure" works. Atheists really seem to have consistent plan. More like denial, or refusal to agree/believe/accept. Atheists are certainly in no way as evangelical; if at all, as many other followers of different faiths, though some may think so here: but this IS a debating site, after.

But perhaps "accommodate" might work. Secular humanism is more "accommodating" of Atheism, as is my faith: Unitarianism. (I am not an Atheist.)

The rest of my comment is in regard to "intersection" and the link provided. One can graph an "intersection" between many things: doesn't always mean that much. My definition of Atheism would be...

My use of "implement" is closer to its use in Java or C. In fact, it's a pretty direct analogy.

[finder]

Not true. The claim that "God...is spirit" and that this is a "universal truth" is filtered through my standards for evidence, primarily the scientific method. If that claim cannot be properly substantiated with convincing, verifiable evidence then I am not compelled to consider it true, and in doing so I become an atheist. The claim is "it's a universal truth that god is a spirit", the claim cannot be supported by anything that reaches my standard for evidence that would validate that claim and the conclusion I reach is that it's highly unlikely to be true that god is a spirit (ergo...I'm an atheist). Conclusions follow an examination of the available evidence. Atheism is a conclusion.

But Jack, that is your belief system. The scientific method which is woefully unqualified to determine whether a spirit god exist or not because it refuses to consider any explanation but a physical one. That's why I compared God with "truth." Universal truths exist even if we have no means of evidencing or proving them. God is in the same category. By definition science is an atheistic belief system since it has a definitive absence of theistic explanations. Which is fine for studying the physical realm but the conclusion of "atheism" that you derived at from it is based on faith and nothing else.

[Apeman81]

Give me an example where someone justified an evil act because god doesn't exist.
It's much easier to find examples of evil acts justified by a belief in gods.

Even when something evil is done by an atheist they don't justify it because god doesn't exist.

You expose the fallacy of the original question.

People seek to justify their acts of evil.

Some who claim god, use god as a justification. Name one whose actions were actually justified by god.

Some who claim not god, use not god as a justification. Name one whose actions were actually justified by not god.

Whether you use god or not god to justify such actions, the justification is false.

The outcome is equal.

[Jack]

Which is fine for studying the physical realm but the conclusion of "atheism" that you derived at from it is based on faith and nothing else.

No faith (at least the sort I presume you're using, religious-type faith) is required to examine and detect the material universe. No faith is required to ascertain that natural evidence includes no suggestion of a god or a particular god. In short, it requires no faith to reach a conclusion that the natural universe shows no evidence of gods.

The scientific method which is woefully unqualified to determine whether a spirit god exist or not because it refuses to consider any explanation but a physical one.

Precisely. The arguments in favor of a "spirit god" all require the belief that some mysterious realm exists beyond this physical one we all experience, a realm that cannot be experienced by everyone. It's a contention that those of us who respect and appreciate the physical universe see no reason or need to take seriously.

[finder]

No faith (at least the sort I presume you're using, religious-type faith) is required to examine and detect the material universe. No faith is required to ascertain that natural evidence includes no suggestion of a god or a particular god. In short, it requires no faith to reach a conclusion that the natural universe shows no evidence of gods.

My point wasn't that you had religious faith, of course not, you're atheist. My point was you had/have faith of a self prophesying nature in which you control the path that leads to your ideal conclusion. For instance, you do not know that physics won't one day uncover something so phenomenal in the universe it may change your whole outlook on things concerning God, you just simply believe it won't. Am I wrong?

Precisely. The arguments in favor of a "spirit god" all require the belief that some mysterious realm exists beyond this physical one we all experience, a realm that cannot be experienced by everyone. It's a contention that those of us who respect and appreciate the physical universe see no reason or need to take seriously.

But you are willing to take "multiverse" seriously?

[Jack]

For instance, you do not know that physics won't one day uncover something so phenomenal in the universe it may change your whole outlook on things concerning God, you just simply believe it won't. Am I wrong?

Only when you speculate that I "simply believe it won't". I have no way of knowing what future discoveries we'll make, so it would be silly for me to have an opinion on the future one way or the other. I don't know. I know I don't know, it's not a faith-like belief. My conclusion of atheism is based on the evidence that presently exists and has been offered by theists as evidence of the existence of their gods. I cannot and do not project my atheistic conclusion into the future. At one time I believed in the Christian god and thought nothing could ever change my mind that he existed. I was wrong. I could be wrong again. I don't think I am now, but tomorrow, who knows?

But you are willing to take "multiverse" seriously?

I think it's an interesting though mind-boggling concept, but I know too little about advanced mathematics and cosmology to "take it seriously". It's certainly no more weird that the ideas that come from theology.

[Peter]

Philosophical naturalism which tends to coincide with scientific naturalism, social Darwinism, self-direction, and the list goes on.

Tends to coincide? We'll have to disagree.

You can not deny that the supernatural exists, without making the positive claim that the natural is all that does exists.

Having no proof positive I can't deny the supernatural so I make no claim that the natural is all that exists.

I can say absolutely that if the supernatural "exists" it exists wholly outside the natural realm. If, as theists claim, the supernatural influences the natural in any way it becomes NOT supernatural. In short, the concept of supernatural is entirely meaningless. We should only be discussing natural interactions and natural forces potentially not yet discovered by science.

[Peter]

You expose the fallacy of the original question.

People seek to justify their acts of evil.

Some who claim god, use god as a justification. Name one whose actions were actually justified by god.

Some who claim not god, use not god as a justification. Name one whose actions were actually justified by not god.
Whether you use god or not god to justify such actions, the justification is false.

The outcome is equal.

I asked you first. Give us an example of some evil act directly justified by shouting "I did this because there is no god!"

Now conversely, I could start listing all the evil acts directly justified by shouting "I do this because my god tells me to!" but I doubt I could even keep up with all the evil acts ongoing.

How in the world can you claim the outcome is equal?!

[Apeman81]

Give me an example where someone justified an evil act because god doesn't exist.
It's much easier to find examples of evil acts justified by a belief in gods.

Even when something evil is done by an atheist they don't justify it because god doesn't exist.

You miss the point. god justifies me is a single excuse. Not god justifies me is every other excuse.

Stalin used not god. Pol Pot used not god. Hussein used not god.

People use whatever they wish to justify their actions. Unless it can be demonstrated that the justification they claim actually justifies their actions, the excuse they use is not responsible for their actions.

[hensatri]

You miss the point. god justifies me is a single excuse. Not god justifies me is every other excuse.

Stalin used not god. Pol Pot used not god. Hussein used not god.

People use whatever they wish to justify their actions. Unless it can be demonstrated that the justification they claim actually justifies their actions, the excuse they use is not responsible for their actions.

Please bear in mind, this original post wasn't about which world view promotes more genocide, atheism or Religion.

My original point was that Atheism CAN'T promote genocide, because it has absolutely 0 instructive value, it is nothing more than the rejection of a single claim.

Obviously religion CAN get people to do bad things, but that goes without saying, we all know this, but so can any other world view that is based on absolute authority and proscriptive teachings. Religion is not the only villain here, I am not trying to say it is, I am just trying to say that Atheism most certainly is NOT the villain, as several apologists have tried to argue.

[Apeman81]

My original point was that Atheism CAN'T promote genocide, because it has absolutely 0 instructive value, it is nothing more than the rejection of a single claim.

Atheism versus atheist?

Same holds for religion and religionists.

Just as some atheists have committed atrocities not justified by their atheism, some religionists have committed atrocities not justified by their religion.

The fact they claim religion as their impetus means nothing unless their religion actually justifies it.

Like Stalin. His belief in the requirement of Atheism in order to create the perfect communist party led him to persecute the church through a campaign of terror including destruction of churches, state ordered anti-religious propaganda in school, and the execution of more than 100,000 Monks, Nuns, and Priests during the purges of 1937–1938.

[Apeman81]

Give me an example where someone justified an evil act because god doesn't exist.

Joseph Stalin. His belief in the requirement of Atheism in order to create the perfect communist party led him to persecute the church through a campaign of terror including destruction of churches, state ordered anti-religious propaganda in school, and the execution of more than 100,000 Monks, Nuns, and Priests during the purges of 1937–1938.