Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea etc

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

If you are atheist, do you sympathize with Communism?

yes
1
10%
no
9
90%
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
Tcg
Prodigy
Posts: 4383
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Post #11

Post by Tcg »

bjs wrote:
I was clearly mistaken in my assumption that most atheists do not support totalitarian violence. My bad.

You came to this conclusion from ONE post? One post and you draw a conclusion about MOST atheists. This wouldn't even add up if there were two atheists in the world. I suspect there a few more than that.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #12

Post by bjs »

[Replying to Tcg]

Given the relatively small number of people who post here consistently, one seems like a sizable percentage of the whole.

User avatar
Tcg
Prodigy
Posts: 4383
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Post #13

Post by Tcg »

bjs wrote: [Replying to Tcg]

Given the relatively small number of people who post here consistently, one seems like a sizable percentage of the whole.

Your conclusion involved a universal, "most atheists." It was not limited to, "most atheists who post here consistently." Even if it were, one out of ten or so doesn't qualify as, "a sizable percentage of the whole."

There are, as I'm sure you are aware, many atheists who don't post here. You are of course free to base your conclusion on an absurdly small sample, but I doubt others will follow suit.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #14

Post by 2Dbunk »

bjs wrote: [Replying to post 6 by bjs]

I was wrong. Here is a link to a recent post (post 16) from a non-theist on this site directly stating the violence of Stalin and Mao was “arguably not a bad thing.�

viewtopic.php?t=36299&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10

I was clearly mistaken in my assumption that most atheists do not support totalitarian violence. My bad.
I think you should review the results of the on-going poll in the OP!
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #15

Post by 2Dbunk »

bjs wrote: [Replying to Bust Nak]

Yes, it is entirely possible that those who claimed that they were motivated by atheism were confused or dishonest.
A politician confused or dishonest -- is that possible?
I am always a fan of consistent reasoning, so let’s apply your reasoning to a different setting. Would you agree with someone who said that the Muslims in ISIS were not motivated by Islam since Islam cannot motivate violence?
My opinion is no.
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)
Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.

There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #16

Post by bjs »

2Dbunk wrote:
I am always a fan of consistent reasoning, so let’s apply your reasoning to a different setting. Would you agree with someone who said that the Muslims in ISIS were not motivated by Islam since Islam cannot motivate violence?
My opinion is no.
Please explain. If you are going to define atheism, and insist that other self-described atheists were wrong about their definition of atheism, then how can you deny a Muslim the right to define Islam as he sees fit?
2Dbunk wrote:
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)
Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.
If you are agreeing with Bust Nak that “atheism, being a lack of belief, can't motivate,� then it is inconsistent that “we [atheists] adhere to a live and let live philosophy.� You can say that you, personally, adhere to a live and let live philosophy. However, there is nothing in atheism that includes a live and let live philosophy or any form of rules of civil behavior.
2Dbunk wrote: There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #17

Post by 2Dbunk »

bjs wrote:
2Dbunk wrote:
I am always a fan of consistent reasoning, so let’s apply your reasoning to a different setting. Would you agree with someone who said that the Muslims in ISIS were not motivated by Islam since Islam cannot motivate violence?
My opinion is no.
Please explain. If you are going to define atheism, and insist that other self-described atheists were wrong about their definition of atheism, then how can you deny a Muslim the right to define Islam as he sees fit?
I am not denying any Muslim their right to define Islam. But if they deny that there are dictates in Islam that motivates violence against "heretics," then they are conflicted. Add that to all the "Holy Books' " conflictions and contradictions for a TOTAL SUM of chaos.
2Dbunk wrote:
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)
Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.
If you are agreeing with Bust Nak that “atheism, being a lack of belief, can't motivate,� then it is inconsistent that “we [atheists] adhere to a live and let live philosophy.� You can say that you, personally, adhere to a live and let live philosophy. However, there is nothing in atheism that includes a live and let live philosophy or any form of rules of civil behavior.
It is common sense my friend! Even you have the right to tap into common sense -- one does not have to be an atheist. Atheism is all about being independent of supernatural dependency -- we have NO rules, dictates, or dogma that dogs us and limits us and confines us.
2Dbunk wrote: There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I refer you to the understanding of COMMONSENSE. I have no time for hatred -- it is gross, and where I find it do what I can to change it i.e. voting the idiot out.
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #18

Post by bjs »

2Dbunk wrote:
I am not denying any Muslim their right to define Islam. But if they deny that there are dictates in Islam that motivates violence against "heretics," then they are conflicted. Add that to all the "Holy Books' " conflictions and contradictions for a TOTAL SUM of chaos.
It seems that Muslim could say that we have misunderstood the passage in the Koran. If we are allowing him to define Islam then, no matter how sure we are that our understanding is correct, then we would have to accept his interpretation as correct and dismiss our own as incorrect.
2Dbunk wrote: It is common sense my friend! Even you have the right to tap into common sense -- one does not have to be an atheist. Atheism is all about being independent of supernatural dependency -- we have NO rules, dictates, or dogma that dogs us and limits us and confines us.
2Dbunk wrote: There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I refer you to the understanding of COMMONSENSE. I have no time for hatred -- it is gross, and where I find it do what I can to change it i.e. voting the idiot out.
Two thoughts on common sense:

One is that it is not that common. I do not mean that not many people have it. Rather, I mean that “common sense� changes over time and from one location to the next. What we might consider common sense is not always something share in common with others.

Second, there is nothing in atheism (under this definition) that includes common sense. I am glad that you have no time for hatred, but that must be viewed as a peculiarity to your own worldview and entirely unrelated to your atheism.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #19

Post by 2Dbunk »

bjs wrote:
2Dbunk wrote:
I am not denying any Muslim their right to define Islam. But if they deny that there are dictates in Islam that motivates violence against "heretics," then they are conflicted. Add that to all the "Holy Books' " conflictions and contradictions for a TOTAL SUM of chaos.
It seems that Muslim could say that we have misunderstood the passage in the Koran. If we are allowing him to define Islam then, no matter how sure we are that our understanding is correct, then we would have to accept his interpretation as correct and dismiss our own as incorrect.
I respectfully refer you to the USA's negotiations with the Barbary Coast's Bashaw Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in 1786 at Tripoli. None other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams hoped for some reconciliation as ambassadors at large, skilled in diplomacy. Their hopes were dashed when the bashaw answered Adam's question "How the Barbary states could justify war upon nations who have done them no injury?" (The previous year, Algieria had captured and enslaved the crews of two American merchant vessels -- that would be held another ten years.)

The Bashaw's answer: "All nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave." I believe there is an element of violence and evil in that intercourse between those high representatives of state. There are many other examples of your "acceptable" dichotomy through the years, namely 9/11, mid-eastern beheadings, etc., all in the name of the "Prophet."
2Dbunk wrote: It is common sense my friend! Even you have the right to tap into common sense -- one does not have to be an atheist. Atheism is all about being independent of supernatural dependency -- we have NO rules, dictates, or dogma that dogs us and limits us and confines us.
2Dbunk wrote: There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I refer you to the understanding of COMMONSENSE. I have no time for hatred -- it is gross, and where I find it do what I can to change it i.e. voting the idiot out.
Bjs answers: Two thoughts on common sense:

One is that it is not that common. I do not mean that not many people have it. Rather, I mean that “common sense� changes over time and from one location to the next. What we might consider common sense is not always something share in common with others.

Second, there is nothing in atheism (under this definition) that includes common sense. I am glad that you have no time for hatred, but that must be viewed as a peculiarity to your own worldview and entirely unrelated to your atheism.
Bjs, atheism and agnosticism are ALL ABOUT commonsense!! By definition it is the logical way to proceed (putting away superstition, hearsay, rote reaction, etc.).
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #20

Post by bjs »

2Dbunk wrote: I respectfully refer you to the USA's negotiations with the Barbary Coast's Bashaw Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in 1786 at Tripoli. None other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams hoped for some reconciliation as ambassadors at large, skilled in diplomacy. Their hopes were dashed when the bashaw answered Adam's question "How the Barbary states could justify war upon nations who have done them no injury?" (The previous year, Algieria had captured and enslaved the crews of two American merchant vessels -- that would be held another ten years.)

The Bashaw's answer: "All nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave." I believe there is an element of violence and evil in that intercourse between those high representatives of state. There are many other examples of your "acceptable" dichotomy through the years, namely 9/11, mid-eastern beheadings, etc., all in the name of the "Prophet."
But we are letting our hypothetical Muslim define Islam. He is free to say that he Bashaw misrepresented Islam and that Jefferson and Adams, for all their other positive qualities, did not understand Islam.
2Dbunk wrote: Bjs, atheism and agnosticism are ALL ABOUT commonsense!! By definition it is the logical way to proceed (putting away superstition, hearsay, rote reaction, etc.).
This is clearly false. The majority of people in the world today, and throughout history, are theist. Theism is the common view. If there is such a thing as “common sense� then atheism is in opposition to it.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

Post Reply