Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism

[Thermos aquaticus]

Real world argument: Awareness of not believing in god often leads one to question the role of gods in society. When this is judged to be negative, it is logical to seek to remove such effect. Violence has been one of the options taken to achieve this and, in such circumstances, it is a consequence of the subject's atheism.

Real world argument: Awareness that this life is the only life we have leads one to value this life more. This also leads to the conclusion that other people's lives are also very valuable, including their freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Therefore, atheism leads to the conclusion that we should have a secular government that strongly protects the individual freedoms of its citizens, including their freedom to believe what they want and to live their lives as they see fit.

 

[Augustus]

Real world argument: Awareness that this life is the only life we have leads one to value this life more. This also leads to the conclusion that other people's lives are also very valuable, including their freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Therefore, atheism leads to the conclusion that we should have a secular government that strongly protects the individual freedoms of its citizens, including their freedom to believe what they want and to live their lives as they see fit.

Can do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You want to talk about my person and my beliefs, what have they got to do with who you think is allowed to call themselves Skeptics or not?

I asked because it seems like I've hit some sort of nerve. You seem angry; if that's the root issue, let's deal with it directly.

 

[Jumi]

I asked because it seems like I've hit some sort of nerve. You seem angry; if that's the root issue, let's deal with it directly.

You seem to want to avoid discussing things by misdirection. That's fine, but I wanted to know more about what you think skepticism is. It seems you are avoiding that discussion, so I'm fine with just taking it as your opinion.

By the way questioning if someone is angry seems like a tactic some religionists take are you sure you want to use that...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to want to avoid discussing things by misdirection.

And you seem to have an agenda you won't admit to.

We're done.

 

[Jumi]

And you seem to have an agenda you won't admit to.

So you were thinking I must have had some agenda here. Ookay...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ignoring the fact that this is a cognitive impossibility by anyone who can roughly comprehend the term god, there is no legitimate way to claim it is 'incorrect'.

When someone uses an accepted definition of a common word you don't get to decide it is wrong just because it isn't your preferred definition.

No--- if you want to know about Plumbers, do you ask a Used Car Salesman?

No-- you ask a *plumber*.

If you want to know what "atheist" means-- ask an actual atheist-- not a theist.

Atheism is not faith, as you claimed before. That is a fact. The Strawman False Definition comes from theists, who cannot comprehend being without faith.

You are wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ignoring the fact that this is a cognitive impossibility by anyone who can roughly comprehend the term god, there is no legitimate way to claim it is 'incorrect'.

The absence of theism doesn't necessarily imply the absence of all beliefs whatsoever.

Atheists can have any range of beliefs; the determining characteristic is that none of these beliefs are a belief that a god exists.

When someone uses an accepted definition of a common word you don't get to decide it is wrong just because it isn't your preferred definition.

The fact that your definition is incoherent is another good reason to reject it.

 

[Cacotopia]

I was in Surabaya a little while ago, and where I was staying was only a couple blocks from where those psychos decided to blow themselves up in the name of Islam.

 

[Cacotopia]

"those weren't true believers" I am so sick of that excuse.

 

[Augustus]

No--- if you want to know about Plumbers, do you ask a Used Car Salesman?

No-- you ask a *plumber*.

If you want to know what "atheist" means-- ask an actual atheist-- not a theist.

I am an atheist. I don't recall electing you to speak on my behalf either.

Atheism is not faith, as you claimed before. That is a fact. The Strawman False Definition comes from theists, who cannot comprehend being without faith.

Ironic when people falsely claim strawman while in the process of actually strawmannirg.

I said it was a belief, not a 'faith'.

You are wrong.

See above and previous post.

 

[Ponder This]

Which question?

This question:

"Do atheists and antitheists justify the killings of theists under Mao and Pol Pot?"

It's the question posed by the OP.

 

[Ponder This]

You got #1, wrong here. What you have instead is a Straw Man, a classic Logical Fallacy.

Atheism simply states: We do not believe gods exist.

Subtle, but important distinction: BELIEF that gods do not exist is something else.

Since your #1 is wrong, and all the rest depend on it? We may simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

Noted. Essentially what you are saying is that the term 'atheist' refers to 'agnostic atheists'. I think that's fair. And, in that case, the OP should've referred to Mao and Pol Pat more accurately as being antitheists (people who affirm the proposition 'Gods do not exist' is true). So I accept that your answer to the question is: you do not justify the actions of Mao and Pol Pat because you are an agnostic atheist and therefore are not yourself convinced of the truth of the statement 'Gods do not exist'. You think that maybe they do exist or maybe they don't exist. Moreover, you don't agree with the truth of the statement 'Religions are made by man', in other words, religions are 'make-believe'. Otherwise, you could just pick the argument up from line 2 and draw the same conclusion that 'millions must die'.

To be clear, this is an Equivocation Fallacy, a question of equivocating weak and strong atheists and not a Straw Man Fallacy in which I'm somehow presenting the wrong argument... I gave the basic Marxist argument that justifies the actions of communists such as Mao and Pol Pat against religions, did I not? Please do correct me if I'm wrong and there actually is some other argument we should be looking at instead of this one. If there is some other argument that is the correct one, then please do present it for me. I am not intending to present the wrong argument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Essentially what you are saying is that the term 'atheist' refers to 'agnostic atheists'.

As you probably know, increasingly more atheists are self-defining themselves as people that lack a god belief. This includes both agnostic atheists and those that assert that "Gods do not exist" (gnostic atheists). A definition that includes only the latter is inadequate.

in that case, the OP should've referred to Mao and Pol Pat more accurately as being antitheists (people who affirm the proposition 'Gods do not exist' is true)

That's not my understanding. People who affirm that "Gods do not exist" are generally called strong (or gnostic) atheists, not antitheists. Antitheists, which is a poor term, are people that consider religion a net harm to the world and would like to see it diminish in its influence over humanity (I just left another RF thread started by a new member - a believer - who tells us that she is dying and is now dreading that she wont't be forgiven for her life and will be going to hell - not a nice way to spend your last few months).

And, of course, Mao and Pol Pot killed to acquire and consolidate power and to promote a political ideology, not for lack of a god belief. I hope the OP wasn't implying that having a god belief diminishes bloodlust and ruthlessness.

 

[ChristineM]

This question:

"Do atheists and antitheists justify the killings of theists under Mao and Pol Pot?"

It's the question posed by the OP.

In already answered that from my perspective in post #87.

However as far as i am aware no religious person has yet responded to my counter question whether they justify the christian Hitler's mass murders

 

[Augustus]

The fact that your definition is incoherent is another good reason to reject it.

Yet me and millions of others frequently use it for meaningful conversation without any misunderstanding. Fancy that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet me and millions of others frequently use it for meaningful conversation without any misunderstanding. Fancy that.

The people who use atheism in the sense of "rejection of belief in gods" typically only worry about rejection of the one god they happen to believe in. That approach is workable, but narrow-minded and chauvinistic to the world beyond their religion.

Some make a slight improvement: they still consider their god to be the gold standard, but concede that theists of other "lesser" religions aren't atheists. Still, they'd never say that a person was disqualified from atheism because they had never heard of - and therefore never rejected - Ahura Mazda, Hestia, or some other "lesser" god.

Where "rejection" definitions become incoherent is when we give up this chauvinistic two-tier approach, put all gods on the same level, and require an atheist to reject all of them. This task is impossible for all practical purposes, so it implies that real-world atheists don't exist.

 

[Augustus]

The people who use atheism in the sense of "rejection of belief in gods" typically only worry about rejection of the one god they happen to believe in. That approach is workable, but narrow-minded and chauvinistic to the world beyond their religion.

Some make a slight improvement: they still consider their god to be the gold standard, but concede that theists of other "lesser" religions aren't atheists. Still, they'd never say that a person was disqualified from atheism because they had never heard of - and therefore never rejected - Ahura Mazda, Hestia, or some other "lesser" god.

Where "rejection" definitions become incoherent is when we give up this chauvinistic two-tier approach, put all gods on the same level, and require an atheist to reject all of them. This task is impossible for all practical purposes, so it implies that real-world atheists don't exist.

Do you believe that self acknowledged atheism (however you define it) can, in certain situations, influence how you perceive the world?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe that self acknowledged atheism (however you define it) can, in certain situations, influence how you perceive the world?

Depends what you mean by that, but I'd lean to "no - not in and of itself."

Edit: and for the record, I define atheism as the lack of belief in gods.

 

[Augustus]

Depends what you mean by that, but I'd lean to "no - not in and of itself."

I mean:

No person in human history has ever been influenced in any way by their lack of belief in god/s? True/false

For example, Richard Dawkins' atheism is completely irrelevant to his worldview. True/false