As a radical aJovist, I'll defend your right to Azeusism to my last drop of ichor.
excellent display of argumentative fallacies
To be completely honest, the rebuttal I use to that statement (that of atheist atrocity) is to simply point out the logical fallacy of killing for no god. No one commits to an act for the lack of something. Crimes commited for god are commited because they believe it will satiate the will of their chosen deity. But to kill because there isn't one? The only way that could feasibly happen is if a theist turns atheist in despair and decides to kill people due to his world crumbling down around him. Even then, he's still an angry theist with abandonment issues! So whilst the Azeusism argument is a good one, I will stick to this. No one kills for a lack of belief.
I see your point. The only problem is that you are dealing with absolutes. No ONE? Who's to say? But, as you're saying, I think that religious would have more grounds to commit mass murder than atheists would. Now it's not based on complete data, as it's just an educated opinion. My advice is to find a way to reword it with absolutes.
Correlation does not mean imply that its the cause.
Your argument sucks.
Because Zues doesn't exist.
Neither does your concept of an abrahamic God.
And your completely disregarding every other historical fact that led to Stalins genocidal policies, it wasn't just his disbelief in God that caused him to commit such an atrocity.
1. I state at the beginning of my argument that it is flawed -- that's the entire point.
2. The flaw is not that Zeus does not exist.
3. I agree, there is no reason to believe that either Zeus or the Abrahamic God exists.
4. You're disregarding that the point of my argument is show that disbelief is not a motivating belief for any kind of action.
1. Take fossil
2. Smash the other guys teeth in with said fossil
4. You have won the argument
The two arguments are basically the same. In other words, you are making the same point but are just articulating it in a different way.
In evolution it is also true that previously more homogeneous groups break up and become so different they can't reproduce with each other anymore. This process seems to have begun with the religiously inclined. While you can still reproduce with them (with some difficulty) the chasm is getting wider. I can almost spot them with the naked eye. To argue with them seems fruitless, a linguistic chess game.
its also easy to spot a lot of holes in your argument and and the same case i can make an argument for everyone not being me to blame. Stalin- not me. Pol Pot- not me.
First of all, I know that the Azeusist argument is flawed -- that's the point.
Responding to: "Religions don't cause deaths and neither does Atheism."
I would say that it is possible that a person can be motivated by his religion to do a charitable act. I would also say that it is possible that a person can be motivated by his religion to kill an infidel. In both cases, religion can definitely, and easily, be a motivating factor. In fact, religious people often say that they are motivated to act based on their religious beliefs.
Can you name a single action that you have made in the past week that was motivated by your not believing in... a green three headed moth that lives in South America? Probably not, because beliefs can motivate people rather easily. It is really hard for a non-belief to motivate a person to do anything.
Responding to: "Religion is not the problem."
Take "the bishop" (I write about him here:http://conversationalatheist.com/2008/12/kill-the...) that claims to have killed 110 child-witches in Nigeria. Imagine that we are next to him as he is about to pour "a potion of pure alcohol and his own blood, into the eyes of a young boy lying on a table."
What motivates this man to pour a potion of alcohol and blood into a boy's eyes? Do his beliefs that the boy is demon possessed have any bearing -- or is this just behavior that people would tend to do whether they believed in demons or not?
It's not the belief in a god that is the motivating factor in these things. It's the belief that what they are doing, in every instance, will better the world. Religion isn't the cause of that line of thinking. It's exactly the same as the people that are NOT religious doing things that any normal person would refer to as insanity.
Yes, they may say that religion is their reasoning, but it really isn't. Their reasoning is the betterment of the world, which they have a very twisted view of.
Take, for example, someone who had some issues involving anger, or perhaps did not appreciate human life. They are religious, and for that reason only, they hold back their anger and don't kill anyone. You might say "but they're still a bad person" and you'd be correct... but they hold back their instincts out of fear of the repercussions of their god. So then if one day they gained absolute proof that no god exists, and at some point later on killed someone, no longer fearing divine retribution... what would you consider that situation?
Would it be killing in the name of not believing in something? No... for the same reason that religion isn't the cause of "religious wars" or crazy people killing child-witches.... it's not the fault of the belief. It's all in the person.
Let's do this in baby steps.
A person who spends an hour a day praying the rosary. Is this behavior motivated by the person's religious beliefs?
"Let's do this in baby steps. "
First off, don't talk down to me like a child. It's a common tactic of fools masquerading as intellectuals, which is quite common of most bloggers that specifically target religion. I came to you with respect under the assumption that you wouldn't be a pompous ass. Don't make it be for nothing.
Now, to answer your question, it is no more motivated by religion as you writing your blog is motivated by you not believing in a god. Think about it. The two seem rather... similar, do they not? Neither, though, are motivated by religion or NOT believing in something... I'm actually quite surprised that you've yet to get a grasp on how paradoxical your statement is when you yourself are doing something (maintaining this blog) that most people would describe as being motivated by NOT believing in a god or other religious figure. The correlation isn't difficult to come to. Most people, though, would be wrong, just as you are wrong about people being motivated by religion.
By "baby steps" I meant that I was going to claim the smallest and least controversial thing possible thing to be religiously motivated. It wasn't intended to offend.
A person who spends an hour a day praying the rosary "is no more motivated by religion as you writing your blog is motivated by you not believing in a god."
Could you give an example of a single action that is taken because of a specific religious belief?
If not, could you give an example of where a specific belief (your choice) motivated a specific action of any kind?
A person who prays to God because he believes that God is listening -- seems to me that "believing God is real" is a necessary belief to have in order to engage in this kind of activity.
The person who is pouring a potion of blood into a child's eyes to get rid of the child's demons -- seems to me that "believing that demons are real and can be affected by potions" is a necessary belief for a person to engage in this kind of activity.
"Could you give an example of a single action that is taken because of a specific religious belief? "
I've said a number of times (in fact this is the point of all the comments I've left so far...) that actions are not taken directly because of a religious belief.
"A person who prays to God because he believes that God is listening -- seems to me that "believing God is real" is a necessary belief to have in order to engage in this kind of activity."
You may have done is sub-consciously, but you made an argument that is worded in a way that it seeks to prove itself right. What you should have said is this:
"A person who prays to God -- seems to me that "believing God is real" is a necessary belief to have in order to engage in this kind of activity."
Which would be incorrect. There are a lot of people that pray regardless of the fact that they aren't positive there is a god at all, or just out of habit due to family practices, or even out of fear that they would be chastised otherwise (in certain families... obviously this is a bad thing, but we can't pretend it doesn't happen).
Anyway, in order for you to understand what I'm saying, let me put it this way.
"A person who write a blog specifically about Atheism, trying to put religion in a bad light -- seems to be that "believing there is no god" is a necessary belief to have in order to engage in this kind of activity."
Would I be right if I said that? You say that no action is motivated by NOT believing... yet this is the exact opposition to the argument you attempt to use on me. Neither are correct, because neither of them are talking about the direct motivation.
Please give me an example of a specific belief (of your choosing) that motivates any action of your choosing.
Belief has many meanings. If you are referring to a religious belief, then you haven't been listening.
If I have something in my head that I believe I will need to know later, I will seek a pencil and paper to write it down.
Ok, so our disagreement isn't over whether "beliefs" can ever motivate an action. We disagree about why you think if a belief is "religious" it is completely impotent to motivate action of any kind. I can't guess what common feature religious beliefs have that render them useless at getting a person to do anything, do you have an idea?
The reason that I think that beliefs can motivate actions...
Consider a Muslim who believes that Allah is real -- (a religious belief)
that Allah wants him to pray by putting out a rug that faces Mecca and putting his head to the floor 5 times a day -- (a religious belief).
Now, if a Muslim proclaims these beliefs, I can make some predictions:
That this guy, and others who claim the same beliefs will place a rug facing Mecca, and place their heads on this rug five times a day... statistically significantly more than a group of people who do not claim these beliefs.
And if asked, "Why is that fellow bowing on that rug?" I would answer, "He believes that he is praying to Allah in the manner Allah prescribes." -- and the Muslim himself would say the same thing.
If he is motivated by the beliefs that I list, do you disagree on calling them "religious"?
If you think that he is motivated by some non-religious belief to place out his rug every morning, what possible non-religious belief would that be?
The belief of Muslims is not (in general cases) that Allah "wants" them to pray. They do so to communicate with someone that they believe in, but the belief that motivates them is that doing so will improve their situation in life, a belief that is entirely possible to have without being a Muslim.
To put things in perspective, if people believe that watching the nightly news will improve their situation in life (through knowledge, or perspective), they will sit down and watch the news regularly (statistically, significantly more than a group of people who do not claim these beliefs).
The examples can be tied to anything directly that doesn't involve religion. That is why they aren't caused by religious belies, only the belief that an action can improve your life.
When you were a child, you might have believed in Santa. If your parents taught you that Santa was real and brought you presents, you would believe it and that was that. The belief of Santa isn't what would cause you to stay up Christmas Eve in your living room. What truly motivates a person is the idea that their life can be improved by committing an act. This is basic psychology. Religion and Atheism can indirectly affect a person, but beliefs other than through basic human greed (for lack of a better word) can not motivate.
"but the belief that motivates them is that doing so will improve their situation in life, a belief that is entirely possible to have without being a Muslim."
You are arguing that "the belief that motivates them is that [praying five times a day toward Mecca] will improve their situation in life, a belief that is entirely possible to have without being a Muslim"?
Let's say that I wanted to talk a person out of praying toward Mecca five times a day (for whatever reason). If we could remove the motivating belief for this action, he would stop doing it, right? So, which beliefs would have to be removed for this person to stop praying to Mecca five times a day?
I'm going to make the case that the only beliefs that I would have to overturn in this person's head are religious beliefs: It would be enough to convince him somelike like 1. Allah/God does not exist or 2. that Allah is the wrong God to pray to and praying toward Mecca is making the true God angry five times a day. or something along those lines.
You claim that the motivating belief is that "an action can improve your life." Is that the belief that has to be overturned to stop the person from praying to Mecca five times a day?
Of course not, even according to you. You claim that "an action can improve your life" is a common belief to everyone, including me.
To sum up: if the removal or overturning of a specific religious belief would stop a certain action (like praying to Mecca); the motivating belief is the religious belief.
What about enslavement of the lower classes?
You miss the point of the argument. It is beyond trivial to change the argument to escape this "debunking."
Run the argument again but substitute "Gerald, the Fly-God that punishes people for wearing socks on Tuesdays" for Zeus.
Your "debunking" sidestepped entirely -- unless you want to try and argue that people who commit atrocities or enslave people were believing in Gerald-God?
Well, I'm an atheist, of course, but I can't say this is the most creative argument I've heard in a while.
Don't confuse cause with correlation. Simple mathematical rule taught in Algebra One.
I don't understand these kinds of notes at all. I think they are argumentatively agreeing with me.
Where do you think Down Syndrome came from? Azuesism. He will strike the wicked.
Why are talking with xians in the first place?
... track backe bei http://mirelladempsy.sport.fr/ ......
grand , votre blog design est réellement merveilleux , Je suis recherche pour obtenir un nouveau modèle pour mon moncler doudoune personnel site Web , j'aime vôtre, maintenant je vais aller recherche le exacte même disposition style !...
They did not do them in the name of their belief system! WHEN WILL PEOPLE STOP USING THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT!
Lol, Christfag here and I also believe in Zeus. I guess I'm covered huh!
You're fucking stupid.
Correlation has nothing to do with the cause.
I'll use your logic here:
Hitler was a vegetarian, he performed a mass genocide on People of the Jewish faith
Paul Mccartney is a Vegetarian, which means he must also believe in Hitler's Ideals
Paul Mccartney wants to perform a mass genocide on People of the Jewish faith
as we know, Paul Mccartney has no plans for a mass genocide.
You're an idiot.
Chill dude. I started the whole argument that you hate with "Find the flaw in the following argument:"
You got it right!