When it comes to gods, I just don’t believe at this time that any god or gods exist. When it comes to the topic of deities alone, is it possible to just believe that deities exist without emphasizing any particular deity or deities?
Assuming you mean someone who vaguely believes in a god but makes no efforts to be guided by or actively practice religion, I think the answer is a resounding thunderclap of YES. That describes what I would guess to be the majority of at least American christians, whose guiding ethos is apathy.
I disagree. Most people just don’t care enough to form any personal philosophy beyond that.
Sure, I suppose so. Very New Age-y.
Edit: more seriously, some may believe that, in effect, all god(s) imagined by humans are imperfect human renderings of some real but unknown god(s), and so all in a sense “true”.
Since man created god in his own image, this is necessarily true. Probably why the OT god is such a dick.
Whether they take the step of actually thinking about their personal philosophy or not, everyone is guided by something - even if it is only “my self-interest is what is right” or “people should obey the law”.
It is quite impossible for someone able to think and act to have literally no approach to issues of morality - though, obviously, for some people the approach is going to be pretty basic, and for others, abhorrent.
Point here is that “atheist” is never going to be enough of a description to know what that approach is. It could be anything that does not require a belief in a god.
You have just stated my point much more clearly. Yes I agree, atheism is in itself separate from and even possibly unrelated to one’s moral roadmap.
But mere belief in a superbeing does not inform a person’s moral compass in any way whatsoever.
Absolutely.
Though most religions are packaged together, as it were, with a bunch of moral commandments allegedly authored by said superbeing - though again, that is no guarantee that the religion, as actually practiced, will promote adherence to said commandments.
It is also of course possible to believe in a superbeing that made the world, hold that it is actively malevolent, and so attempt to deliberately break the commandments made by said superbeing - a position advocated, I understand, by some forms of Gnosticism.
It’s not world-shaking, but I think it does. Anything that disassociates atheism from being some sort of creed with militant followers and doctrine is a good thing.
For the Christian, probably not (there are Biblical passages that do support behavior I’d call immoral, for instance). For the atheist, certainly not.
That’s a solid conceptual distinction, but I’ll note that the 1930s Soviet anti-theists referenced upthread self-identified as atheists. It’s fair to respond that while they were atheists, their distinguishing characteristic was anti-theism.
Perhaps the underlying problem is sectarianism, which can be practiced by anyone, though is seldom practiced by atheists today. Or maybe it’s violent or legalistic proselytizing, as opposed to the non-violent purely verbal or exemplary sort. Annihilationism is a dangerous tendency as well.
That makes sense, because religion tends to do double duty as it were: it can at one and the same time be (1) a belief in a god or gods; and (2) a social or personal code of morality (whether or not its followers actually follow said code).
Athiesm is of course one thing and one thing only: (1) lack of belief in a god or gods.
That is not to say that atheist individuals do not have (2) a social or personal code of morality. Clearly, they do (despite what some theists may say!). All it means is that for atheists, (2) is unrelated to (1), whereas for religious people (2) is probably at least somewhat associated with (1).
However, I would contend that for religious people, the (2) derived from (1) is unlikely to be the ‘cause’ of Inquisitions, despite the fact that those Inquisitions are carried out in the name of (1).
That is what I meant, they were atheists, but weren’t motivated to do what they did by atheism, because atheism contains nothing beyond the lack of belief in deities. A point that is worth mentioning in these sorts of situations, because all too often, atheism is pitched as some sort of counterpoint or equivalant to religion, or as a philosophy, when it isn’t.
Essentialism + eliminationism will get the job done.
And I’d agree with that contention, certainly the extreme variance in behavior of individual adherents of the same religion indicates that there’s more than the plain text of holy books and such involved.
I criticized what you said, not what you meant. My criticism was accurate. You’ve made a new claim here, which I wouldn’t have objected to. Splitting hairs? Perhaps. But what you call “word games” I call communication. I try to say what I mean, and if someone points out I didn’t, then I revise it rather than criticize them for not understanding what I didn’t say well in the first place.
Also, just because someone says something that sounds like a common complaint, don’t criticize the common complaint and apply it to the post. It’s misdirection. If you want to do that, be clear about it (as you were just now).
Don’t expect us to read your mind and agree with what you thought you said but didn’t, quite.
Irrelevant, since they were Communists. Communist kill non-Communists for the same reason Christians kill non-Christians; they are attempting to eliminate all rivals to the belief system that is using them to spread itself. Christianity and Communism are quite similar in many ways.
It wasn’t atheism that motivated them to kill anyone. Atheism can’t motivate anyone to do anything, and they had a much better reason to kill people: Communism.
And atheism and Communism aren’t the same thing, no matter how often the believers try to equate the two so they can call atheists mass murdering tyrants. It’s amusing how atheists get called “impolite” and “aggressive” all the time, while believers constantly throw out accusations that atheists are monsters - apparent that isn’t impolite.
The “meek and mild” part only gets pushed when the Christians aren’t in a position to use force, or when the preachers are encouraging their followers to be victims of the powerful. The historical norm has been “Spread the Word, destroy all rivals, crush all dissent”.
And as I said, such behavior is built into the worldview of Christianity; the internal logic of Christianity demands such aggressive, oppressive behavior regardless of the official tenets of any particular sect. A Christian being tolerant requires that they ignore the basic claims their religion makes about how the world works.
Yes, I understand that, but I don’t see any relationship between that and what we’re discussing here. You did not use the word “some” in your OP; you used the word “always”. Here’s what you posted:
it’s always been my experience that the most moral–selfless, giving, noble, honest, honorable, insert your synonym of choice here–people I’ve known have been atheist or agnostic. While the most amoral–selfish, judgmental, vindictive, apathetic–are the ones who would identify religion as an important factor in their life.
Now you’re trying to backtrack away from what you wrote in the OP, pretending that you said ‘sometimes’ rather than ‘always’. And, like I said before, I don’t blame you for doing so, since you clearly have no hope of defending what you wrote in the OP.
Yes, you’ve said this many times, in many threads. However, I don’t know anyone else who says this.
It’s always been his experience with the people he’s known.
The Christians themselves do, all the time. It’s how they justify forcing their beliefs on others and excuse harming or killing those who resist. It also often comes up when they try to handwave away the “Problem of Evil”.
Matthew 10:34 - “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” And, yes, I know that sword isn’t one of national war; Jesus goes on to say it’s a war of individuals. Fathers against sons, mothers against daughters, neighbors against neighbors. Christianity, from the founder’s own lips, is based on dividing society and on compulsory submission.
In my opinion, Der Trihs overstates the case, but the case is, nevertheless, valid to a degree. The historical behavior of theocratic Christianity, in those regions where it has attained political control, confirms his claim. People were tortured and burned alive, all to support this denomination of love.