My new word for the day. I will be using it often. Thank you.
What can I say? I was brought up by fervent non-stamp collectors. It’s just part of my psyche.
You know who else didn’t collect stamps?
What’s funny, is that I actually did collect stamps for a short time when I was a kid. I guess that once I discovered non-stamp collecting, I just can’t stop telling people about it. I’m like an ex-smoker or a born again Christian. I’m a born again non-stamp collector!
It did wonders for your sanity. 
I should try to not collect them either, if only I could start to disbelief in them.
Wait, I know this one … the guy who did not disbelieve in disbelieving in them.
Damn, not making sense while still being grammatically correct is so much easier in German. And mandatory in French.
Well two of them were.
Actually, Hitler was motivated by communism as well but in a subtly different way.
It’s the same old argument. Do you think Jerry Falwell was motivated by theism? What difference does it make? Atheists are just as capable of doing wrong as theists. My responses are rebounds to the criticisms of theism based on lumping all theists together, as you have only imagined I have done. Either you believe there is no God, or you don’t, just as you believe there is a God or you don’t. The remarkable part of this thread is the way atheists use the same type of arguments that theists do to disparage those who disagree with them. And in my case and Cagey Drifter’s we did not refer to the validity of atheism at all.
To the extent that religion formed his repugnant views and crusades, offered him a platform of legitimacy in the public eye, and granted him access to and support from thousands of members of the country’s dominant religion, I’d say it makes a whole lot of difference.
Hi again, TriPolar.
Let’s recap. Your first post (in reply to the OP asking “Why do atheists insist that atheism is a ‘non-belief’?”) in its totality was:
Then, asked about what that had to do with the question, you replied:
And then you went off on a tangent about “not lumping all theists together” and threatened to bring up Stalin and Hitler. And then, predictably, the rest of the thread derailed into yet another discussion about definitions and Stalin and Hitler. Great.
I can’t help but think you’re actually “contributing” to another thread but for some reason are posting your replies in this one.
Depending on the particular god, somewhere between “impossible” to “probably not” to “your god isn’t interesting enough to believe in and/or you’re only calling it ‘god’ because that makes you feel better”.
You are aware that not all postulated gods are the omnimax Christian style gods, right?
Exactly. I usually alternate between “Which God?” and “Praise Odin!”
False dilemma. These are the exact same statements, one set framed in the negative, and one in the positive. But neither of them state what atheists actually believe about god, which is nothing. Atheists do not believe in god. This is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no god, regardless of how many times you repeat it. It is a lack of belief. Non-belief. Nada, nihil, bubkis. Atheism is a belief the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Really, there’s only so many ways to say it. The fact that you dont get it doesn’t make it any less true.
The problem with this faulty line of thinking is that you are creating a new belief system for every single thing you don’t believe exists:
“I believe that unicorns don’t exist”
“I believe that the Earth isn’t flat”
“I believe that an invisible and intangible dragon doesn’t live in my garage”
“I believe that the god you believe in doesn’t exist”
Someone explain to me why only the last is a belief system, and not the others.
I agree but there are differences in un-belief depending on the necessity to deal with particular beliefs. I am pretty sure your lack of belief, that a dragon lives in your garage, is as firm as it is unchallenged. It’s a position you can easily hold just by following basic logic.
Your lack of belief in a Christian God, however, was likely challenged by more than one person and with a variety of arguments - encompassing logic, morality, exempla etc. - that were supposed to shake your position. Frequent engagements in such discussions, however, usually lead to a more accentuated un-belief that might even develop into a distinguished and more or less active disbelief.
If people want to stick their thumbs up their noses in public for the purpose of curing bad eyesight I’ll shake my head and walk away. If two or more people start sticking their thumbs up each others noses in the belief that it will cure their bad eyesight ever faster, I will laugh at them, then walk away. But when one of those bozos attempts to stick her/his thumb up my nose, an in-depth(sorry) discussion is going to ensue.
You’re lucky you’ve only encountered the Nose sect.
And for far too long in history and still in far too many parts of the world they can call the authorities to force your thumbs up your nose or cut them off to punish you.
I’m not claiming that atheism is a belief system about God. I’m saying that some atheists respond to the claim that they believe in no God in the same way that some theists react to the claim that there is no God. A* belief *is not the same thing as a belief system.
I agree with those who say that religion leads to people to do wrong by encouraging belief in unprovable, non-demonstrable things. This provides fertile ground for people to make up anything they want and give it the attribute of divinity. But atheists are no better if they accuse all theists of this type of behavior.
Communists were not led to repression of religion by atheism, obviously. Their adoption of atheism was a way to supplant religious power structures with political ones. But their expressed reasons were the same as those of non-political atheists.
My point from the beginning was that some atheists proselytize. Some of these people display the same level of offense as theists whose beliefs are criticized. And atheism is not an excuse to deride theists for holding a belief, or other atheists for not feeling the same way about the subject. This behavior is simply fodder for those theists who try to impose their beliefs and belief systems on others.
Not sure I go with you here. The nature of my unbelief is based on the same reasoning whether we talk about pink unicorns or christian god.
The amount of challenge is greater, the quality of the evidence is equally weak. The unbelief remains unchanged.
Setting aside the right-thumb vs. left thumb controversy for now, did you know that both the Nazis and the Communists were against walking around in public with your thumb up your nose in public?
It isn’t an accusation, it is a statement of fact.
Theists believe in a supernatural being.
Once you sign up for that then anything can (and does) go.
Of course not every theist goes off the deep end and starts executing the first born but they are only one scriptural interpretation away from doing so. If they believe in their god that is.
If they see fit to interpret scriptures in another way entirely then I’d suggest they weren’t really serious about their faith in the first place and are using their innate social instincts to guide their morality.
If so, why the need for the supernatural guy in the first place?
No, [theistic] religion is that way by definition.
Outside of - possibly - Der Trihs, who here in this thread made that accusation?
I’m sorry, what were the “expressed reasons” and which non-political atheists are you talking about?
But that still doesn’t mean that atheism itself is a belief - at least not in the way that most of the faithful hold their beliefs.
Now, personally, I don’t think that atheism is an excuse to deride theists. I deride certain subsets of theists because their believes are ridiculous, willfully ignorant and often actively dangerous to a greater or lesser extend. I could be a deist and still think the same way about that.