Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

I expect better than a strawman argument from you.

So tell me which of these are "true" religious leaders? The Pope? Osama Bin Ladan? Billy Graham? Fred Phelps? The Dali Lama? Martin Luther? Mohammed? The Apostle Paul? The tribal shaman? The Jehovah's Witness who runs the local donut shop? Jimmy Swaggart?

Do they require a degree? Who is authorised to grant it? The local community college? Harvard? Oral Roberts University?

Who establishes the standards? Are there any standards?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So if Jesus say love thy neighbour and you go by his wishes, isn't that religiously motivated.

I think you are trolling wynn.

Oh and Wynn killing people by fire is anything but mundane.

Yes definitely trolling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unless we specify something that all who are rightfully to be considered atheists have in common, it is impossible to talk about atheism and atheists to begin with - there might as well be none.

If you insist, as you have, that there is nothing that all those who consider themselves atheists have in common, then the term "atheist" is void, without any power to denote anything, and cannot and should not be used as an identifier.

IOW, if we wish to talk about atheists, we have to specify what they believe and do that makes them different from those who are not atheists.

If a person identifies themselves as an atheist, it is legitimate to request from them that they state what being an atheist means in terms of belief and practice.

Using a term to identify oneself, whereby that term does not denote anything, is void.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is characteristic that all organized religions have standards of qualification.


For example, in order for a person to be a Catholic, the Catholic Church has a set of standards that the person needs to comply with. If they fail to comply with them, that person is not a Catholic.

 

The minimum requirement is that they lack a belief in God.

 

I'm not talking about such practical matters. I'm talking about cases of violence that are specifically motivated by religious teachings and beliefs that would not have otherwise happened.

 

As spidergoat has said, the only thing they have in common is a lack of a particular belief.

I have made no such insistence. Not only do you try to "fix" my posts and insert sentences I didn't write, you now try to claim I have insisted that which I have not.
:shrug:

Why should that which unites them be a belief?

Why? It is a reactionary label in the face of theism. It requires nothing more than having no belief in the existence of God. It doesn't even need a belief in the non-existence of God.

But it does denote something... it denotes the absence of a specific belief that all theists have.

 

Just curious: where does this come from? Some kind of code from the Church of God or some group like that?

You are aware, I'm sure, that the term Katholikos originally referred to general Christianity (esp excluding heretics), and did not have its present (implied) meaning until the Protestant Reformation more than a millenium later.

The titles "Mother" and "Father" - in my mind these don't exist in Christianity in the Roman era. Or do you mean Holy Roman Empire? And by Rome, did you mean the Vatican? Or are you saying Nero was after her? If so: what the-?

I'm just wondering about this, it seems bizarre. usually Catholics are on the chopping block for venerating Mary. There's 2000 years of art dedicated to Mary and a also number of societies, orders and cloisters named after Mary.

When I hear a person say "Yashua" alarms go off in my brain. Was that name ever recorded in Hebrew? I doubt it. I think it only appears as "Iesous".

There seems to be some underlying cynical/skeptical notion of history in what you wrote. If so, why?

 

The Crusades.

 

Those who consider themselves atheists and who hold "I believe God does not exist" are not in your group of atheists then.

You have continued to argue the point that there are many kinds of "atheists" and then wanted to know from LG what it is that all these "atheists" have in common.

We non-Aboriginals feel awfully united, don't we?

In your exchange with LG, you two have noted that there are many kinds of atheists, and that they do not actually have anything in common.

Then the term "atheist" only makes sense as an adjective, but not as a noun.

 

You people seem to think that when those who are members of a religion commit some act of violence, they do so out of sheer boredom or viciousness, while simultaneously being politically and economically secure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lets limit our discussion to religious violence, since violence can be done for any number of reasons, even when one is politically and economically secure.

 

@wynn --

Again, I refer you to my own personal case where I was run out of town for explicitly religious reasons.

 

Arioch, you are a coward. If I was run out of town for such reasons I would walk into the mob and take as many heathens with me as I could.

 

You would rather die than just leave town? This happened to talk radio host called Randi Rhodes. She was kicked out of some southern state by the KKK because she is a Jew.

 

Yes they are... if you believe that Mr.X wears a white hat then you most certainly are part of the group that does not believe Mr.X wears a yellow hat.
Those who believe God does not exist are a subset of those who do not hold the belief that God exists.

LG seems to think there is an atheist "belief" - yet is utterly unable to pin down any one "belief" that underpins all atheists.
I argue that any belief an atheist holds is not actually due to them being an atheist but due to whatever other philosophy they hold, whether it be Humanism, Naturalism, Apathism etc. I maintain that the only thing all atheists have in common is their singular rejection of belief in God.

If Aboriginals were the majority and their beliefs pervaded your society, perhaps the analogy would fit better.

Yes they do - that they do not hold a belief in God.
Then the term "atheist" only makes sense as an adjective, but not as a noun.[/QUOTE]Strictly it is an adjectival noun. Much like referring to people as "the rich", or "the poor".

 

@Knowledge --

And that would be why I would still be alive and you would be dead. You may call it cowardice but I call it not being willing to die for no reason.

 

Then it has no need 9or even capacity) to establish a stance in regards to any aspects of existence (which would include theism)
IOW one cannot use atheist or any of its derivatives as a noun in philosophical discourse
:shrug:

reading the wiki link on belief, what do you think is the distinction between "believe- in" and "believe-that"

then I guess that leaves you with the problem of explaining why you have so much to say in regards to atheism
:shrug:

Perhaps there is a case for using that to define implicit atheism (which, btw, is IMHO just a political ploy to bolster numbers ... kind of like saying there wasn't a majority english favour to have a british presence in Ireland during the seventies since infants and the like, due to being unaware, didn't put a strong favour on the move)

more Implicit atheism

If you believe that one must call upon new born babies to establish the high points of a philosophical approach to a subject, you already do

more Hogwash.

Belief certainly does come into the picture when distinguishing between implicit and explicit atheism

Too late.
Since you used them in a noun in a sentence, you are already bringing issues of belief into the discussion.

IOW regardless of your ideas about atheism being implicit, we certainly don't find those characteristics in your person (because you are an explicit atheist ... as well as explicitly disbelieving in unicorns and such)

 

If an atheist can be motivated to do similar acts, its completely spurious to question whether a theist can

 

On the contrary you are simply having a hissy fit because I am pulling you up on your game of loaded questions
:shrug: