hackenslash wrote:Not often I disagree with you, Tim, and much of your post I agree with, but what you are describing is killing in the name of an ideal of atheism, not atheism itself. The distinction should be clear. I certainly carry an ideal of atheism (although not one I would be willing to enforce in the manner of the aforementioned people), in that my ideal is that ALL people eventually recognise the vacuity of belief in a deity, but that is not the same as my atheism itself, which is merely my lack of belief, it's additional to it.

I missed this. Needless to say, no questions left from me.

Viraldi wrote:

TimONeill wrote:Perhaps they might be more likely to kill in the name of their belief, but there is nothing to say that someone who simply lacks belief in God or gods might also kill those who do believe because they believe.

Well, we would have to consider other contributing factors for that heinous murder. As such, there are unjustifiable deaths that would be understood as unreasonably influenced by the common folk. With that scenario, it would not make sense for that atheist to have any explanation for his crime other than being bigoted, unrestrained, antagonistic (there`s that word again), et cetera towards theism and its advocates.

And that somehow makes it not killing in the name of atheism how, exactly?

I`m sorry, but you`ll have to illustrate the essence of atheism (lacking theism) being equivalent or practically IS the active belief, if not the assertion, that God doesn`t exist. Up to this point do I understand that, sure it`s an atheistic ideal as much as my education with regard to Calculus is an atheistic achievement, but to consider it that rather than academic achievement is sort of pedantic I would say, when said ideal is more understandable as an anti-theistic ideal.

I don't have to do any such thing. If someone kills someone else out of some comitment to the idea that God does not exist or because of a commitment to any other form of atheism, they are still killing for atheism. End of story.

hackenslash wrote:
I certainly carry an ideal of atheism (although not one I would be willing to enforce in the manner of the aforementioned people), in that my ideal is that ALL people eventually recognise the vacuity of belief in a deity, but that is not the same as my atheism itself, which is merely my lack of belief, it's additional to it.

And that hair-splitting, sophistic attempted sidestep makes sense to you? How on earth can "my ideal of atheism" be considered to have no connection to "my atheism itself"/ These word games are plain silly.

Then why do you insist on continuing to play them?

TimONeill wrote:And that somehow makes it not killing in the name of atheism how, exactly?

For the same reason that...

TimONeill wrote:It's totally neutral on that point.

...with regards to ideology or doctrine. Atheism has no embedded bigotry, antagonism, unrestrained threats towards theistic advocates, it is simply the negation (or absence) of theism (tenet that god exists).

I`m sorry, but you`ll have to illustrate the essence of atheism (lacking theism) being equivalent or practically IS the active belief, if not the assertion, that God doesn`t exist. Up to this point do I understand that, sure it`s an atheistic ideal as much as my education with regard to Calculus is an atheistic achievement, but to consider it that rather than academic achievement is sort of pedantic I would say, when said ideal is more understandable as an anti-theistic ideal.

TimONeill wrote:I don't have to do any such thing. If someone kills someone else out of some comitment to the idea that God does not exist or because of a commitment to any other form of atheism, they are still killing for atheism. End of story.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.

[If someone kills someone else out of some comitment [sic] to the idea that God does not exist or because of a commitment to any other form of atheism, they are still killing for the lack of belief in God.]

Actually, you have to illustrate how the idea that God does not exist (Positive Atheism) equals to simply a lack of belief in God or otherwise explain how Positive Atheism is not ≠ Atheism. There are intelligible reasons as to why there are distinctions as such with your mention with weak and strong atheism. In effect of these tedious semantics, it would be utterly unintelligible to state that an implicit atheist (no conscious rejection of theism) will do something in the name of anti-theistic ideals, or as you insist, atheism. The implicit atheist can range to anyone who was never raised, brought up, or learned theistic ideologies, but as you said we are capable of irrationalities and barbarities, but this does not substantiate his malign actions were in the name of the lack of belief in God or some other atheistic subset. There exists contributing factors and I highly doubt it has any correlation with benign, neutral lack of belief in God(s).

I certainly carry an ideal of atheism (although not one I would be willing to enforce in the manner of the aforementioned people), in that my ideal is that ALL people eventually recognise the vacuity of belief in a deity, but that is not the same as my atheism itself, which is merely my lack of belief, it's additional to it.

TimONeill wrote:And that hair-splitting, sophistic attempted sidestep makes sense to you? How on earth can "my ideal of atheism" be considered to have no connection to "my atheism itself"/ These word games are plain silly.

These aren`t hairsplitters Tim, they`re pretty significant as distinctions. And it`s funny that you asked, since hackenslash`s ideal (of atheism) resembles a borderline anti-theistic approach that could be euphemised as the invalidity of theism. It`s not that you`re incorrect, but it`s like conflating (mono)theism with (poly)theism, because either way they`re still understood as theism. In my own interpretation, hackenslash states that this awareness of the invalidity of theism is as a component as his scepticism of the merits behind the propositions asserting gawd`s existence. We both agree with what you said, don`t we, that atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god? They don`t entail scepticism, unless that rational human has consciously rejected it so. This, in effect, would specifically make him an explicit atheist.

Wow. If these hairs got split any more finely we'd be getting down to the sub-atomic level.

Try this: imagine someone killed someone else for not being a Christian. But when confronted with the idea that he had killed in the name of Christianity he replies "Oh no, not at all. You see I killed because of "my ideal of Christianity" but that is quite separate from "my Christianity itself". So Christianity per se has nothing to do with this killing."

Would you (a) agree, and tell him he is making perfect sense or (b) tell him that was an absurd exercise in ridiculous hair-splitting and continue to blame his Christianity for the killing?

Yes, thought so.

Please try to make sense people.

TimONeill wrote:Try this: imagine someone killed someone else for not being a Christian.

This is already telling that that somebody justified someone`s death because of someone`s lack of Christian faith.

We could easily frame this up as someone opposed to the lack of faith in god(s), therefore his anti-atheistic malice led him on to injuring anyone outspoken who affirmed their scepticism regarding god(s).

TimONeill wrote:But when confronted with the idea that he had killed in the name of Christianity he replies "Oh no, not at all. You see I killed because of "my ideal of Christianity" but that is quite separate from "my Christianity itself".

There is little description or explanation for this ideal of Christianity, let alone his Christianity emphasized.

So, what answers do you expect?

TimONeill wrote:So Christianity per se has nothing to do with this killing."

Does it or not? I think that IS the question. You`re talking to someone who has little study on comparative religions or Christianity, not to mention the diversity of denominations thereof.

TimONeill wrote:Would you (a) agree, and tell him he is making perfect sense or (b) tell him that was an absurd exercise in ridiculous hair-splitting and continue to blame his Christianity for the killing?

I would still be anticipating for my questions being answered and my requests courteously complied since I neither assume or act to know every bit of Christianity.

TimONeill wrote:Yes, thought so.

Uhm, NO? Lose the overweening attitude, unless that`s just you talking to yourself.

TimONeill wrote:Please try to make sense people.

Do the same with your analogy.

katja z wrote:

redwhine wrote:
Religion isn't just about god/gods. You can religiously follow a football team (...mind you, The Blades are gods... ) whether you believe in god or not.

But this is dangerously close to the arguments used to "show" that "atheism is (or at least, can be) a religion" that we all laugh at, isn't it?

Not to me.

katja z wrote:If you enlarge the meaning of a word enough, it can mean many things, but can hardly serve for rigorous discussion. IMO it's better to keep the word religion for those sets of ideas that have god(s) at their centre, and as a subset of "doctrine".

Ok. So long as everybody follows that rule. And we must also narrow the definition of atheism to 'lack of belief in god/s' instead of 'an organisation that goes around killing people in it's name' to be fair, mustn't we.

katja z wrote:Oh dear, I've gone and stepped into a wasp nest now, haven't I?

For you...


Don't mention it.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:

katja z wrote:

redwhine wrote:
Religion isn't just about god/gods. You can religiously follow a football team (...mind you, The Blades are gods... ) whether you believe in god or not.

But this is dangerously close to the arguments used to "show" that "atheism is (or at least, can be) a religion" that we all laugh at, isn't it? If you enlarge the meaning of a word enough, it can mean many things, but can hardly serve for rigorous discussion. IMO it's better to keep the word religion for those sets of ideas that have god(s) at their centre, and as a subset of "doctrine". Oh dear, I've gone and stepped into a wasp nest now, haven't I?

I agree with the above quote. Redwhine, would you mind clarifying your position further?

Here's the full (...un-mined...) quote...

redwhine wrote:Religion isn't just about god/gods. You can religiously follow a football team (...mind you, The Blades are gods... ) whether you believe in god or not.

Anything done in the name of religion is a result of adherence to religious doctrine whatever one's beliefs (or lack thereof).

Thus if an atheist kills in the name of a doctrine based on their atheism, it's that doctrine being followed religiously that is the cause. Atheism is merely a withholding of belief in god/s. It has no doctrine.

You may as well say that oxygen breathing is responsible, seeing as how those doing the killing just happen to also breathe oxygen.

It seems to say what I meant it to say, so sorry, no can do.

TimONeill wrote:

redwhine wrote:
Anything done in the name of religion is a result of adherence to religious doctrine whatever one's beliefs (or lack thereof).

Thus if an atheist kills in the name of a doctrine based on their atheism, it's that doctrine being followed religiously that is the cause. Atheism is merely a withholding of belief in god/s. It has no doctrine.

More word games to try to get atheistic killers on the right side of a No True Scotsman fallacy. Whether the person killing for an ideal (religion or atheism) are killing for a "doctrine" or not is irrelevant. They are still killing for an ideal. So, as I just asked hackenslash: how is "killing for the ideal of religion x" bad and to be blamed on religion x per se but "killing for the ideal of atheism" bad, but somehow nothing to do with atheism per se? That makes no sense.

I never said that no atheist had ever killed, nor did I say that when they did it wasn't bad.

Steven Weinberg wrote:With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

If I can be forgiven for addressing those who are calling 'no true Scotsman' on those who are separating their atheism from killing in the name of religious atheism (and even if I can't):

You know, if atheism had a mandate that all theists must die, it wouldn't matter because atheism is true given the available evidence. The key here is that atheism doesn't have this mandate. We can all come to atheism under completely isolated conditions because that's where the evidence leads (yes, even if we don't use evidence to get there). We cannot, on the other hand, all necessarily come to the conclusion that all theists must die, given the available evidence. Most of us, for example, realize the value of biodiversity. This is why we're capable of disowning religious atheists' beliefs without resorting to fallaceous reasoning - the only thing religious atheists have in common with us is that we both believe something which is true (or don't believe something which isn't). The significance of this is made more apparent if you were to switch atheism with gravity belief and theism with no gravity belief. Gravity exists - it's real. You can reasonably conclude that gravity exists based on the available evidence, but if someone were to take it one step further, saying everyone who doesn't believe in gravity must die, you could conclusively show him that the theory of gravity has nothing to say about nonbelievers by using the available evidence. There isn't a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in saying that his beliefs about nonbelievers are separated from your shared belief in gravity. It would only be so if you were to say he's not truly a believer in gravity (and I don't think anyone here is saying religious atheists aren't really atheists). Likewise, as I said, so long as theists aren't providing evidence that theism is true, atheism is the best available conclusion given the evidence, and it can be demonstrated that any belief beyond that has nothing to do with atheism (even if an atheist believes it does).

Following a belief which is true is demonstrably far less likely to lead you to an untrue belief than an untrue belief is, and so it's also not fallaceous to conclude that theism, being untrue, more readily leads to other untrue beliefs, such as nonbelievers needing to be exterminated. Furthermore, not only is there no evidence for theism (or else theists are being extremely stingy with said evidence) and therefore more capable of misleading to other untrue beliefs, there's also no evidence for nor contrary to a theist claiming that killing atheists is intrinsic to his theistic beliefs. Christian A, for example, who says he's killing in the name of christianity could not be so easily contested by christian B who says christianity is opposed to killing, especially given the bible's notoriety on the matter. Neither christian has any conclusive means of demonstrating what a 'true christian' ought to believe nor what beliefs are extraneous to christianity. As far as I can tell, killing in the name of atheism versus killing in the name of theism is much more unanalogous than it may appear to be on the surface.

Hope that helps!

-Quip

TimONeill wrote:hackenslash was trying to microscopically split a hair by claiming there is some sort of difference between killing "for the ideal of atheism" and "atheism itself". You might have to ask him what exactly he means by "the ideal of atheism" but whatever it means, it doesn't get away from the fact that people doing it are killing for atheism.

It really is bizarre the lengths some are going to to try to avoid an uncomfortable truth - people are just as capable of killing in the name of atheism as they are for any other ideal or idea. Just deal with it people. Condemn it and move on. Stop trying to pretend we are somehow immune to the irrationalities and barbarities common to all humans.

Not wanting to put words in hacks mouth or speak on his behalf, he does that well enough for himself, but I think his distinction was quite clear, not microscopic at all. I don't think hack was trying to immunise his view against the notion that atheists can be irrational and behave reprehensibly, he was just saying that atheism is not a political ideology and when people 'kill in the name of atheism' they are killing in the name of their ideological premises. To outline this distinction is to make clear that all atheist do not share the burden of responsibility (or guilt) for the immoral actions of some atheists.

I want to thank everyone for their input over the last two pages. There are some hairs that need to be split, IMO, and it is good to have an opportunity for this discussion among atheists.

@ redwhine: I apologise if you feel that I quotemined your post, that certainly wasn't my intention.

THWOTH wrote:

TimONeill wrote:hackenslash was trying to microscopically split a hair by claiming there is some sort of difference between killing "for the ideal of atheism" and "atheism itself". You might have to ask him what exactly he means by "the ideal of atheism" but whatever it means, it doesn't get away from the fact that people doing it are killing for atheism.

It really is bizarre the lengths some are going to to try to avoid an uncomfortable truth - people are just as capable of killing in the name of atheism as they are for any other ideal or idea. Just deal with it people. Condemn it and move on. Stop trying to pretend we are somehow immune to the irrationalities and barbarities common to all humans.

Not wanting to put words in hacks mouth or speak on his behalf, he does that well enough for himself, but I think his distinction was quite clear, not microscopic at all. I don't think hack was trying to immunise his view against the notion that atheists can be irrational and behave reprehensibly, he was just saying that atheism is not a political ideology and when people 'kill in the name of atheism' they are killing in the name of their ideological premises. To outline this distinction is to make clear that all atheist do not share the burden of responsibility (or guilt) for the immoral actions of some atheists.

Couldn't this likewise hold for, say, xians or muslims? I doubt many skeptics here would condemn all believers for the atrocities some commit in the name of gods. The connection from the god-concept to the atrocity just seems clearer, simpler, as many such connections are built into their holy books. It's not as if biblical literalism is a mandate. But if they need an excuse to invoke doctrine and kill some people, they needn't go far. Atheists at least may have to work at it some to leap from 'no belief in gods' to killing people.

In all, it just seems a poor argument, perpetuated because the numbers look impressive. Killing in the name of...whatever...god or no-god...isn't an argument I rely on. If anything, it just obfuscates the problem believers face. Why their alleged cosmic superbeings allowed this trainwreck of 'creation' in the first place.

tytalus wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

TimONeill wrote:hackenslash was trying to microscopically split a hair by claiming there is some sort of difference between killing "for the ideal of atheism" and "atheism itself". You might have to ask him what exactly he means by "the ideal of atheism" but whatever it means, it doesn't get away from the fact that people doing it are killing for atheism.

It really is bizarre the lengths some are going to to try to avoid an uncomfortable truth - people are just as capable of killing in the name of atheism as they are for any other ideal or idea. Just deal with it people. Condemn it and move on. Stop trying to pretend we are somehow immune to the irrationalities and barbarities common to all humans.

Not wanting to put words in hacks mouth or speak on his behalf, he does that well enough for himself, but I think his distinction was quite clear, not microscopic at all. I don't think hack was trying to immunise his view against the notion that atheists can be irrational and behave reprehensibly, he was just saying that atheism is not a political ideology and when people 'kill in the name of atheism' they are killing in the name of their ideological premises. To outline this distinction is to make clear that all atheist do not share the burden of responsibility (or guilt) for the immoral actions of some atheists.

Couldn't this likewise hold for, say, xians or muslims?

Exactly.

Quip wrote:If I can be forgiven for addressing those who are calling 'no true Scotsman' on those who are separating their atheism from killing in the name of religious atheism (and even if I can't):

You know, if atheism had a mandate that all theists must die, it wouldn't matter because atheism is true given the available evidence. The key here is that atheism doesn't have this mandate. We can all come to atheism under completely isolated conditions because that's where the evidence leads (yes, even if we don't use evidence to get there). We cannot, on the other hand, all necessarily come to the conclusion that all theists must die, given the available evidence. Most of us, for example, realize the value of biodiversity. This is why we're capable of disowning religious atheists' beliefs without resorting to fallaceous reasoning - the only thing religious atheists have in common with us is that we both believe something which is true (or don't believe something which isn't). The significance of this is made more apparent if you were to switch atheism with gravity belief and theism with no gravity belief. Gravity exists - it's real. You can reasonably conclude that gravity exists based on the available evidence, but if someone were to take it one step further, saying everyone who doesn't believe in gravity must die, you could conclusively show him that the theory of gravity has nothing to say about nonbelievers by using the available evidence. There isn't a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in saying that his beliefs about nonbelievers are separated from your shared belief in gravity. It would only be so if you were to say he's not truly a believer in gravity (and I don't think anyone here is saying religious atheists aren't really atheists). Likewise, as I said, so long as theists aren't providing evidence that theism is true, atheism is the best available conclusion given the evidence, and it can be demonstrated that any belief beyond that has nothing to do with atheism (even if an atheist believes it does).

Following a belief which is true is demonstrably far less likely to lead you to an untrue belief than an untrue belief is, and so it's also not fallaceous to conclude that theism, being untrue, more readily leads to other untrue beliefs, such as nonbelievers needing to be exterminated. Furthermore, not only is there no evidence for theism (or else theists are being extremely stingy with said evidence) and therefore more capable of misleading to other untrue beliefs, there's also no evidence for nor contrary to a theist claiming that killing atheists is intrinsic to his theistic beliefs. Christian A, for example, who says he's killing in the name of christianity could not be so easily contested by christian B who says christianity is opposed to killing, especially given the bible's notoriety on the matter. Neither christian has any conclusive means of demonstrating what a 'true christian' ought to believe nor what beliefs are extraneous to christianity. As far as I can tell, killing in the name of atheism versus killing in the name of theism is much more unanalogous than it may appear to be on the surface.

Hope that helps!

-Quip

You have made some very good points, sir. I agree with almost all of your arguments. However, even if killing in the name of theism is unanalogous to killing in the name of atheism, people were still killed in the name of atheism. This leads to my next point.
...................................
Some of you guys have stated that my title was completely wrong. That is certainly true if I only have Wikipedia as my source. However, I have already provided another source. Again, if you have missed it, my source is called: The French Revolution: a political history, 1789-1804, Volume 3 By François-Alphonse Aulard. Thus, some of the below quotes need to be corrected:

No one's saying these people weren't atheist. The objection would be that they didn't kill "in the name of atheism", which is true.

Interesting. An article that seems to utterly fail to support the fantastic claim of the OP's subject line.

I just want to clear this out of the way before we move on.

TimONeill wrote:

tytalus wrote:

THWOTH wrote:
Not wanting to put words in hacks mouth or speak on his behalf, he does that well enough for himself, but I think his distinction was quite clear, not microscopic at all. I don't think hack was trying to immunise his view against the notion that atheists can be irrational and behave reprehensibly, he was just saying that atheism is not a political ideology and when people 'kill in the name of atheism' they are killing in the name of their ideological premises. To outline this distinction is to make clear that all atheist do not share the burden of responsibility (or guilt) for the immoral actions of some atheists.

Couldn't this likewise hold for, say, xians or muslims?

Exactly.

Of course. One does not hold all members of the Catholic Church accountable for the horrors of the inquisition, only those who might maintain that the inquisition was a good thing; one does not hold all Muslims accountable for the Twin Towers, only those that perpetrated and/or facilitated such horror, or who hold it was a virtuous and righteous act; one does not hold all atheists accountable for the horrors of Stalin's Gulags and the deaths of c.18 million citizens simply because he declared C.C.C.P an atheist state.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:According to a book that I have already cited ( The French Revolution: a political history, 1789-1804, Volume 3 By François-Alphonse Aulard) some of the members of the cult, including some leaders, wanted to replace state religion completely with atheism. And these goals were the motives for some of the persecutions. Is this is not what you called "doing something in the name of atheism"?

Do you have the apposite passages for us to read and review or are you implicitly requesting us that we read it ourselves? I hope you aren`t giving us a source for the sole purpose of making your position titivated.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:my source is called: The French Revolution: a political history, 1789-1804, Volume 3 By François-Alphonse Aulard

Which by the way had interesting passages,

http://www.questia.com/read/56721955#

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION A POLITICAL HISTORY 1789-1804

Chapter III THE RELIGIOUS POLICY BEFORE THERMIDOR 9TH, Laws against refractory priests. -- II. Dechristianisation. pg 162 — 163

The "cult of Reason," organised in Paris by the sections, spread through the provinces also, under the auspices of the people's clubs and the deputy-commissioners. Many of the churches were closed, then converted into Temples of Reason; there were "Goddesses of Reason" and anti-Catholic processions. Nearly all the cities appeared to rally to the new worship. In the south-west especially, under the auspices of Dartigoeyte and Cavaignac, the process of dechristianisation was so violent as to cause scandal.

Taken on the whole, this movement, which was almost universally Deistic, not materialistic nor atheistic, seems to have been, in Paris, cheerful and superficial so long as the people took part in it; but pedantic and sterile when embraced by a few men of letters only. The provinces took the matter more seriously. In the de-partments, and especially in the cities, there were serious and sincere attempts to abolish the ancient religion and to establish a rationalistic worship. The Goddesses of Reason were not actresses, as in Paris, but in almost every case, and this the most hostile witnesses do not deny, beautiful and virtuous young girls, belonging to the upper middle classes.

This cult was eagerly adopted in those critical hours of the national defence (at the end of 1793) by the generality of active patriots, by the Jacobins, by the members of the revolutionary committees, by the municipal officers; in short, by the whole militant Revolution.

One must not look to find a different aspect, a different spirit, among the worshippers of Reason, accordingly as they were, for example, Bretons or Pro-vençals. If the festivals of Reason were not everywhere celebrated in the same manner; if the zeal for "de-christianisation" was more violent in Strasburg, for instance, and Auch, than in Chartres or Limoges, it was because from the height of the Strasburg steeple men could see the Austrian outposts; because at Auch the Revolution was threatened by the machinations of the clergy; while at Chartres the enemy was far away, and at Limoges the Revolution had no dangerous adversaries.

The cult of Reason was less a change of the religious conscience of the French than an expedient of patriotic defence against the Catholic clergy. Little by little it became transformed into the worship of the Patrie. The busts of the philosophers in the temples were soon replaced or eclipsed by those of Marat, Chalier, and Le Peletier, who were the personifications, in the popular mind, not of the doctrines of the new cult, but of revolutionary France attacked by reaction. Men finally turned away from the cold image of Reason, to honour above all the trinity of the bleeding martyrs of patriotism.

Chapter III THE RELIGIOUS POLICY BEFORE THERMIDOR 9TH, The cult of Reason. -- III. The religious policy of the
Committee of Public Safety. The persistence of Catholicism. pg. 164

On the 1st of Frimaire of the year II ( November 21, 1793) the man whom France and Europe regarded as the real head of the Government, Robespierre, solemnly protested, from the tribune of the Jacobins, against this violence.

"People have thought," he said, "that in welcoming civic offerings the Convention had proscribed the Catholic religion. No, the Con-vention has taken no such rash measure; the Convention will never do so. Its intention is to maintain religious liberty, as it has proclaimed, and at the same time to repress all those who abuse that liberty for the purpose of disturbing the public order; it will not permit the persecution of peaceful ministers of religion, and will punish them with severity as often as they dare to avail themselves of their privileges in order to deceive the citizens and to arm the prejudiced, and monarchism, against the Republic. The priests have been denounced for saying Mass; if they are prevented from saying it, they will say it all the longer. He who tries to prevent them is a greater fanatic than they who say the Mass. There are men who would willingly go farther; who, under the pretext of destroying superstition, would make a kind of religion of atheism itself. Every philosopher, every individual can adopt what opinions of atheism he pleases. Whosoever would make a crime of it is a fool; but the public man, the legislator, who should adopt such a system would be a hundred times more a fool. The National Convention abhors it. The Convention is not a maker of books, an author of metaphysical systems; it is a popular political body entrusted with making not only the rights, but the character of the French people respected. It was not in vain that it proclaimed the Declaration of the Rights of Man in the pre-sence of the Supreme Being. It will perhaps be said that I am narrow; a man of prejudices; perhaps a fanatic. I have already said that I speak not as an individual nor as a systematic philosopher, but as a representative of the people. Atheism is aristocratic. The idea of a great Being who watches over oppressed innocence and who punishes crime triumphant is essentially of the people. (Loud applause.)

And pg. 182

The Committee of Public Safety had felt this im-possibility of "dechristianising," or rather of "de-catholicising" France by violence. It endeavoured to maintain the principle of liberty of conscience. Then it was obliged to allow the deputy-commissioners to act as they willed in religious matters; and they, according to the circumstances and the neighbourhood, encouraged or prevented the use of violent means against religious worship and the persecution of believers.

This violence in no wise arose from a philosophical fanaticism; but from the exasperation of patriotic feel-ing, which had been wounded by the conduct of the priests, "Papists," or not "Papists." It was in the name of the safety of France that the militant demo-crats overturned the Catholic altars. It was in the name of the safety of France that the Government endeavoured to maintain the altars and to protect the Catholics.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:

Quip wrote:If I can be forgiven for addressing those who are calling 'no true Scotsman' on those who are separating their atheism from killing in the name of religious atheism (and even if I can't):

You know, if atheism had a mandate that all theists must die, it wouldn't matter because atheism is true given the available evidence. The key here is that atheism doesn't have this mandate. We can all come to atheism under completely isolated conditions because that's where the evidence leads (yes, even if we don't use evidence to get there). We cannot, on the other hand, all necessarily come to the conclusion that all theists must die, given the available evidence. Most of us, for example, realize the value of biodiversity. This is why we're capable of disowning religious atheists' beliefs without resorting to fallaceous reasoning - the only thing religious atheists have in common with us is that we both believe something which is true (or don't believe something which isn't). The significance of this is made more apparent if you were to switch atheism with gravity belief and theism with no gravity belief. Gravity exists - it's real. You can reasonably conclude that gravity exists based on the available evidence, but if someone were to take it one step further, saying everyone who doesn't believe in gravity must die, you could conclusively show him that the theory of gravity has nothing to say about nonbelievers by using the available evidence. There isn't a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in saying that his beliefs about nonbelievers are separated from your shared belief in gravity. It would only be so if you were to say he's not truly a believer in gravity (and I don't think anyone here is saying religious atheists aren't really atheists). Likewise, as I said, so long as theists aren't providing evidence that theism is true, atheism is the best available conclusion given the evidence, and it can be demonstrated that any belief beyond that has nothing to do with atheism (even if an atheist believes it does).

Following a belief which is true is demonstrably far less likely to lead you to an untrue belief than an untrue belief is, and so it's also not fallaceous to conclude that theism, being untrue, more readily leads to other untrue beliefs, such as nonbelievers needing to be exterminated. Furthermore, not only is there no evidence for theism (or else theists are being extremely stingy with said evidence) and therefore more capable of misleading to other untrue beliefs, there's also no evidence for nor contrary to a theist claiming that killing atheists is intrinsic to his theistic beliefs. Christian A, for example, who says he's killing in the name of christianity could not be so easily contested by christian B who says christianity is opposed to killing, especially given the bible's notoriety on the matter. Neither christian has any conclusive means of demonstrating what a 'true christian' ought to believe nor what beliefs are extraneous to christianity. As far as I can tell, killing in the name of atheism versus killing in the name of theism is much more unanalogous than it may appear to be on the surface.

Hope that helps!

-Quip

You have made some very good points, sir. I agree with almost all of your arguments. However, even if killing in the name of theism is unanalogous to killing in the name of atheism, people were still killed in the name of atheism. This leads to my next point.
...................................
Some of you guys have stated that my title was completely wrong. That is certainly true if I only have Wikipedia as my source. However, I have already provided another source. Again, if you have missed it, my source is called: The French Revolution: a political history, 1789-1804, Volume 3 By François-Alphonse Aulard. Thus, some of the below quotes need to be corrected:

No one's saying these people weren't atheist. The objection would be that they didn't kill "in the name of atheism", which is true.

Interesting. An article that seems to utterly fail to support the fantastic claim of the OP's subject line.

I just want to clear this out of the way before we move on.

I think one of my points is that killing people and saying it's in the name of atheism isn't the same as killing in the name of atheism any more than killing and saying it's in the name of gravity would be killing in the name of gravity. I could also no sooner kill in your name simply by killing and saying I am (unless you gave me a reason to believe I should?). As I'd pointed out, one major key difference between the two is that it can be easily demonstrated atheism has nothing to do with killing, whereas this is not the case with theisms. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying people who kill in the name of theism represent all theists, either, but who kills in the name of theism? More often you'll find people killing in the name of their deity of choice or religious affilliation - and more often you can easily find a link between these beliefs and the belief that an out group ought to die.

-Quip

I'm confused as to the purpose of this thread.The opening post concludes...

TheAznValedictorian wrote:Anyways, I just would like my fellow atheists to know that people had died in the name of atheism. Richard Dawkins was wrong.

It can't be to show that RD is not infallible, surely? I'm sure that RD has been wrong on many occasions and would freely admit the same. I am equally sure that he welcomes the times when he has been shown to be in error, as that means he can correct the error. Which is the reasonable thing to do and fits in with the 'Cult of Reason'.

It can't be to give theists the moral high ground, surely? The best that can be hoped for, if the premise can be proved, is that atheists are just as bad as theists.

So, what then?

Two pints to Viraldi for tracking down the source and providing some context.