Atheism isn't a "belief system". Just one of many of your errors.

Meanwhile, you have evidence to attend to.

Calilasseia wrote:Atheism isn't a "belief system". Just one of many of your errors.

Meanwhile, you have evidence to attend to.

The definition said any "belief"; not a "belief system". You do agree atheism is a "belief".

'Theism' is an example of a belief system, a-theism is the lack of exactly that.

pelfdaddy wrote:When I taught Church History in a seminary, I encountered a serious problem....
It was straight up bullshit, and I suspected as much.

I find the above post to be as common as ever. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a pastor once, where he said he was in the ministry, as a pastor, for over 20 years BEFORE he became a Christian. He was an unbeliever for over 20 years in the ministry! I am not being critical of him as I was an unbeliever attending church for at least 20 years before I became a Christian myself.

BTW, this is the Biblical definition of a Christian as far I as I understand it:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent". (John 17).

A Christian is someone who KNOWS God personally. Although I knew about God, I didn't KNOW Him personally for the first 25 years of my life. Going to church consistently doesn't make someone a Christian either, according to what Jesus said (Matthew 7):

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never KNEW you."

Notice the word "KNOW" and "KNEW" which are emphasized everywhere in the Bible, not the head knowledge but the personal knowledge similar to KNOWING your own mother, for example.

Just to clarify, I am simply explaining my own experience and understanding of the subject so am not 'preaching' as such. My understanding of this subject does not necessarily include everyone else under the sun.

To know is also used to refer to sex. I'd rather not "know" my mother.
Does explain the frequent "Let Jesus come inside you," I hear from Christians.

Onyx8 wrote:'Theism' is an example of a belief system, a-theism is the lack of exactly that.

BOTH are 'beliefs'. You BELIEVE there is no God. You haven't searched every corner of the universe to say definitively there is no God. Therefore, atheism is a BELIEF.

KeenIdiot wrote:To know is also used to refer to sex. I'd rather not "know" my mother.
Does explain the frequent "Let Jesus come inside you," I hear from Christians.

LOL!

Nonetheless, once we KNOW someone, we cannot claim to NOT know that someone, although a case can be made to say "I didn't know (a particular detail) about that person".

And many people claim to "know" Allah, Ganesh, and many other gods and spirits and aliens, in any definition you want to use.
And yes, I don't believe in your god. There is no system to that belief.
It is not a belief system.

carl wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:'Theism' is an example of a belief system, a-theism is the lack of exactly that.

BOTH are 'beliefs'. You BELIEVE there is no God. You haven't searched every corner of the universe to say definitively there is no God. Therefore, atheism is a BELIEF.

I see this thread going down a very familiar and predictable rabbit hole.

Everyone here is well acquainted with this particular assertion I'm sure. And I'm fairly certain that Carl has heard all the rebuttals.

I, for one, will not be following.

carl wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Atheism isn't a "belief system". Just one of many of your errors.

Meanwhile, you have evidence to attend to.

The definition said any "belief"; not a "belief system". You do agree atheism is a "belief".

No it isn't. Rigorously defined, it's suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. In short, "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". No "belief" involved.

Indeed, those of us who actually think about the issues here, dispense with belief itself. Because supernaturalists have shown us all how useless it is.

carl wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:'Theism' is an example of a belief system, a-theism is the lack of exactly that.

BOTH are 'beliefs'. You BELIEVE there is no God. You haven't searched every corner of the universe to say definitively there is no God. Therefore, atheism is a BELIEF.

Perhaps in future you would be polite enough to ask me what I believe rather than telling me? Is that a deal?

I personally do not 'believe there is no god', I have no position on the existence of gods whatsoever, I simply happen to lack a belief in any of them.

Do you discern the difference? Can you take that on board?

My own studies of History, and of Human behavior overall, has demonstrated amply and repeatedly, that the order of things is awry in discussions such as this.

Specifically, this thread appears, at least on the surface, to be talking about whether murderous behavior is more a result of a belief system or not, or whether a belief system has had a dampening effect on human murderous behavior. The intent of the threadstarter certainly seems to be, to make the claim (rather coyly, I think) that belief in god(s) results in fewer acts of large-scale murder.

It seems to me, that no method of quantification can possibly be found which would be universally, or even widely acceptable, even to the tiny group of people in this little debate. Mainly because, as I have seen so many times in Histories and other forms of political discourse I have read, humans have a habit of seeing the acts of people and creatures they generally approve of, in a completely different light than those they do not.

Besides, the acts of murder themselves, are difficult to classify. How does one decide that THIS killing, which was proclaimed to be "just in the eyes of the lord" by someone at some point, is the same or different than THAT killing, which was also proclaimed to be "just in the eyes of another lord" by someone else. And how to compare that, to someone claiming that yet another killing was "logically necessary" by a non-theist?

Something I didn't see mentioned (perhaps I missed an entry, please pardon) is that the "morality" of killings is what is being argued, in some cases. That opens the problem of theist morality versus atheist morality. It would be "cheating," or at the least, a debate from bias, for each side to claim that one side is more guilty, because of a difference in whose morality was applied.

The idea that the NUMBER of deaths is pertinent is also problematic. A good case could be made that the fact that person X managed to kill more people than person Y was meaningless, due to the difference in access to both means and victims that each had.

And I come back to the fact that a long, and careful and wide-ranging enough study of Human History , has shown me that the real story, is human nature itself. The rest is all cover stories and decorations. The whole reason why so many religions and non-religious philosophies spend a lot of energy on murder, is because of it. Whether the killings were done in the name of a belief system, or a political idea, or for a practical concern, there was still lots of killing. And certainly, when someone wanted to kill, they would find a reason, within a religious belief, or without it, since what was to be done either way, was killing.

In short, an unbiased study of human History would invert this discussion entirely.

Continuing with genocides associated with WW2, we also have the crimes commited by the Imperial Japanese Army, which subscribed to Shintoism and the idea of the divinity of the Emperor. Those spiritual people were behind atrocities like the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, the Bataan Death March, and countless other crimes against humanity. I guess that in Carl's book, they are still better than atheists because they believe in something.

Hi Carl,

I could probably sleep peacefully even if I were to allow your veiled assertion that I was not a 'real' Christian to go unanswered, but it does give me a place upon which to stand while saying a few words on the subject of honesty--while we're at it.

There is a valuable disposition which, when adopted, serves us valiantly in the teeth of all the world's delusions and lies; I will term this stance merely "The Desire to be as Objective as Possible". The reason you sound--to most members of this forum--like someone who is merely regurgitating apologetics books and Christian propaganda is probably because these are the only information sources by which you allow yourself to be edified.

This is not to say that you are otherwise uneducated. I only suspect that, Faith being the source of Eternal Life (in your economy of propitiation), and Doubt being the Enemy of Faith, you are unable and unwilling to entertain even the beginnings of Doubt. This is understandable for anyone whose fear-based motivation to avoid the anguish of Eternal Damnation is as strong as that of the 'real' Christian. Doubt--after a fashion--is a prerequisite to the struggle for useful objectivity. One must be willing to briefly step away from the faith that sustains them in order to consider it with fairness.

Many apologists claim to have done this; to have seriously challenged themselves to consider the truth of their own faith claims. But this is a self-deception in nearly all cases I have encountered. What they have done is merely to study apologetics in order to get better at being an apologist, and they take this as an opportunity to claim they have "looked at both sides".

Is this dishonest? Let us just say that it is probably the best one can do in light of the paralyzing fear of what real Doubt, and thus a true attempt at Objectivity, can do to your Soul. That one percent of believers who ventures to truly subject their beliefs to the test of Reality...well, they end up here, like me, rejoicing in the joy that comes only to those who have freed their minds from the shackles of the divine.

I have no doubt that a hospital near you is home to many innocent suffering children for whose relief your milquetoast savior has not bothered to lift a finger. Perhaps this is because you have not put legs on your faith and, boldly striding from bed to bed, laid hands upon these little ones to see them leap to their feet in miraculous power. Perhaps you have overlooked this duty. Perhaps this is because you know, every bit as assuredly as I, that if you do this, nothing will happen.

Not.

A Damn.

Thing.

Presenting ten percent of the whole story of human killing is not the only reason you appear not to know very much. The fact that there is exactly ZERO reason to believe the contrived, primitive shit that you call "My Reason For Living", so that you must resort to (ahem) arguments, and so that you must call up excessively selective historical canards; neglecting the undeniable fact that by the power of the Holy Spirit you might better spend your time performing the "works greater than these" that your pathetic shit bag savior promised you would perform, is what really makes your insipidity appear callow and intentional. Taking up hammer and tongs, you have stoked the flames of propaganda and labored with mighty purpose upon the glowing iron of ignorance in quest of the ultimate masterpiece.

Very well then, lay that upon the altar if you must.

carl wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:'Theism' is an example of a belief system, a-theism is the lack of exactly that.

BOTH are 'beliefs'. You BELIEVE there is no God. You haven't searched every corner of the universe to say definitively there is no God. Therefore, atheism is a BELIEF.

No, you're still hopelessly wrong. I don't BELIEVE there is no god, I just don't have the belief in a god. You are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, as so many theists who try to tell everyone else what they think do. I know the way this conversation will go, it always goes the same way, but at least you won't be able to say you weren't told, and you'll have another case of flat-out lying to explain to your heavenly father if and when you meet him.

Carl

It is very simple. I don't believe in anything. I just don't see any evidence of the existence of any deity.

If you have hard scientific evidence of its existence produce it. I don't have prove to the negative. You are making the claim not me. The default is atheism.

carl wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Atheism isn't a "belief system". Just one of many of your errors.

Meanwhile, you have evidence to attend to.

The definition said any "belief"; not a "belief system". You do agree atheism is a "belief".

You're the one who used the words "belief system".

carl wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:'Theism' is an example of a belief system, a-theism is the lack of exactly that.

BOTH are 'beliefs'. You BELIEVE there is no God.

No, I just have not been convinced that there is a god. That doesn't mean I have been convinced that there is not a god.

I used to believe there was a god, then I thought about why I believed that for a long time, and I realized I had no good justification for that belief, so I naturally stopped having that belief. That does not mean I started believing that there could not possibly be a god of some sort.

carl wrote:You haven't searched every corner of the universe to say definitively there is no God.

Which is why I don't claim there is not a god, only that we should not run around believing that there is one, until some one can actually demonstrate it's existence.

carl wrote:Therefore, atheism is a BELIEF.

I think I have just explained why you are wrong.

carl wrote:Back from my suspension for a period of 'cooling off' I was told. Funny since I wasn't 'hot' in the first place - I can't fathom getting hot under the collar on an internet forum with others whom I don't really know. I was dismayed, however, for the selective way in which the rules are enforced - there were others name-calling me - no big deal for me but certainly a rule breaker - but they were allowed to keep posting without restriction. Maybe name-calling is allowed while preaching is not.

As an experienced master of the internet, you are no doubt aware of the routine problem of anonymous bullies attempting to stir up communities for their own sick kicks. I am sure you're glad that you've found a community which works to ensure that people aren't abused by random anonymous dudes on the internet with a grudge

carl wrote:On the subject of preaching (which BOTH religious AND nonreligious folks are VERY capable of doing), here are a few definitions of preaching from the net:

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, but it's still not true.

carl wrote:Preach (Free Dictionary):
- publicly proclaim or teach a religious message or belief; earnestly advocate a particular belief or course of action.
- to advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with; ex: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

This shows 'preaching' is not limited to religions alone but to any belief system including atheism, which can be preached vehemently, as many posts on this forum clearly demonstrate.

Even if your argument by dictionary is valid, you expressly *asked* people for their views, then responded by claiming they were preaching.

The difference is that your foray into copying and pasting sections of the Bible was entirely irrelevant - the scriptures were not in discussion, another topic was altogether.

carl wrote:In the interest of full disclosure, the bylaws should state, at the outset, that there is indeed a bias within the stated bylaws and those in control may selectively enforce the laws via personal choice. In addition, there should be no dishonest claim of 'openmindedness' or 'tolerance' in this forum, nor can the word 'rational' in the title be honestly claimed with bylaws which preclude 100% open-minded discussions in the first place.

Totally unnecessary and given you've just arrived, who exactly do you think you are to tell people how to run the forum? If you don't like it, there's a big internet out there with many places I am sure you'll feel more at home. Or you could just play by the rules you agreed to before signing up here.

carl wrote:Such censorship is nothing short of an artificial 'refuge' for those who prefer not to deal with, hear, or otherwise consider the views of others AND the ways in which others might express such views. Drawing a parallel with the Constitution of the United States, there should be no authority, high or low, who can prescribe what shall be considered orthodox in HOW such personal beliefs or opinions are expressed.

All been explained to you before - your refusal to engage in the substance of it is not a valid position from which to contend. The FUA of this forum is not the US constitution.

carl wrote:That said, I am heartily delighted by the fact that my suspension has been lifted. I endeavor to amend my blogging ways to decrease offending others for now on. The word 'endeavor' is key. Or maybe I should simply disappear from this 'inflammatory' thread to pursue 'tamer' and blander subjects.

You're not offensive, just your posts are full of bigoted crap.

carl wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Atheism isn't a "belief system". Just one of many of your errors.

Meanwhile, you have evidence to attend to.

The definition said any "belief"; not a "belief system". You do agree atheism is a "belief".

Atheism is a belief like your disbelief in Hinduism is a belief.