Janus

No, it also relates to individuals believing that some people (infidels, heretics, foreigners, barbarians, etc) are inferior or evil or dangerous or deserve to be oppressed and killed because that's what their ideology or religion teaches them.

And that is all it has.

First, I don't think that "they" weren't really atheists, there's nothing ambiguous about atheism, it's not an ideology or a belief system.

Second, it's not a separate issue, it's the central issue. Should I hold out from criticizing racists because people who belonged to one of the groups I belong to (caucasians) were racists too? Of course I shouldn't hold out, because I don't have anything in common with other caucasians except a label. And even though this label has been correlated with racism in the past, it's obvious that there is nothing about being a caucasian that makes it more likely I'll be a racist. What could make it more likely is the belief system that I might adopt via exposure to my parents', friends', and society's beliefs.

Islam, Christianity, and other religions aren't only labels, they're also a set of beliefs that promote and encourage certain behaviors and mentalities, some of which lead to violence. Atheism is only a label, it says nothing about morality, about the way atheists should act or think. I have nothing more in common with Chinese Communists than I have with 18th century caucasian racists.

If you want to show me that my belief system can encourage violence just as easily as Islam can, find evidence that secular humanism encourages violence. Secular humanism is my belief system, atheism is just a label.

Lógos Sokratikós

As of this moment (going back to the poll), the Islam bar far exceeds the Christianity bar. I wonder how the same poll would have looked before Sept-11-2001 !

adren@line

Christianity really doesn't teach that but Christians are considered the biggest bastards of history.

And any doctrine that includes atheism is essentially an atheistic doctrine, and hence a belief system. Your simplistic hypothetical definitions of what atheism "technically" is do not apply to real-life.

ok, but apply this same logic to atheistic doctrine.

atheism is a broad generic label that includes or is related to atheistic doctrines. These particular brands of atheists were bastards, and it was related to their abhorrence of religion and God, which is directly related to the ethos of atheism.

sec. humanism is another branch off of the atheist tree. Obviously the Chinese were not secular humanists.

Blui

Depends, are we also taking into consideration the Old Testament?

No, thats like saying if businesses include Coca Cola, the business is in fact under Coca Cola.

Atheism is not a doctrine, don't mistake this with anti-religiosity, which can occur together, but not always.

Really? Atheism has a quite definite definition, that is, not accepting Theism.

Btw, Atheism does not abhor religion, nor God, that is an attitude.

Thats like saying Evolution in fact abhors the blacks(or other ethnic group) because of nazi Eugenics

You seriously don't know what Atheism is, remember, Anti-religiosity is not Atheism.

adren@line

nope.


you need to re-read what I write.
What you keep referencing are hypothetical, "official" definitions of atheism that exist in la-la land or some imaginery place and are not reflective or reality.

Reality dictates that atheism is indeed a a set of doctrines, a set belief systems, etc,etc that is just as varied as the "Hinduism" or "Christianity" label.

For example, the generic and official "Hinduism" label doesnt mean shit in regards to schools such as the Carvakas above and beyond simplistic and superficial technicalities.

So again, "atheism" on paper is nothing more than a rejection of God. Atheism in real-life is far more, depending on the person and can lead to and include all sorts of other beliefs and belief-systems.

This forum is proof of the wide variety of belief systems that fall under the atheism umbrella.

no its not, because I specifically referenced the Chinese brand of atheism, which is not secular humanism.

sure I do.

anyone can go to dictionary.com and bark on about "official definition" oblivious to the fact of reality.

Blui

What do you mean by 'hypothetical'? this is the definition as it is accepted authoratively now and as it was coined.

No, that is a poor argument, could i say that the definition for racism is infinite fluid?

There is some standard to which we must adhere too, a common definition, otherwise everyone can personally make up their definition and communication would be impossible.

This is of no relevance.

It can lead to various beliefs, but it is incorrect to state those beliefs as doctrines of atheism, the same that the belief in God can lead to the belief in christian angels, but it is incorrect to state the belief in Christian angels is a doctrine of the belief in God. Many religions don't.

The same that Eugenics is not a doctrine under the umbrella theory of evolution.

Wrong, this forum may be proof of various beliefs that can be led too, by a belief in either Atheism, materialism or rationalism.

As i stated, the belief in God for many people (e.g. Christians) leads to the belief in Christian angels, but it is incorrect to state the belief in Christian angels falls under the umbrella Belief in God.

There is no such thing as a chinese brand of Atheism, they do not change the definition of Atheism to suit themselves.

What reality? that Atheists have done bad acts is no more to the point that people that wear shoes have done bad acts.

You must demonstrate that Atheism had an influence on promoting said bad act.

Remember, Anti-religiosity !=Atheism

Janus

"Any doctrine that includes the belief that astrology is nonsense is an anti-astrological doctrine, and hence a belief system. Simplistic hypothetical definitions of what anti-astrologicalism "technically" is do not apply to real life."

Please. It's not logically impossible to base a doctrine on a lack of belief, or on the belief that a claim is false. Such a belief can be part of a doctrine, but it can't "include" a doctrine, as you say below.

The "ethos of atheism"? What is that exactly? Stop beating around the bush and tell us what this ethos is.

Christianity is defined by a set of beliefs that determine which doctrines are "Christian" and which are not. For example, a theist who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus isn't a Christian. Please tell us, what is the equivalent set of beliefs that define what an atheist is? Surely it goes beyond my "simplistic", "hypothetical" definition of what atheism "technically" is?

And no, "abhorrence of religion and God" has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. There are religious atheists. There are non-religious atheists who love the idea that other people believe in that nonsense. There are non-religious deists and theists who hate religion.

What is so special about God that all belief systems must be branches of a belief or lack of belief in Him? Why don't you say that secular humanism is a branch of naturalism, or of skepticism, or of rationalism, or of pragmatism, or of altruism?
Of course, the reality is that it's not a branch of anything, it's a belief system that includes all of these beliefs.

adren@line

that is the definition on "paper" , yes. Just as Hinduism has a definition on-paper that bears little resemblance to the Carvaka school.

sure you could, but that has no relation to my argument.

and I am not refuting that, but the "official" definition is not how "atheism" plays out in real life.

\
it is of the utmost relevance and perhaps the most relevant point in my post. If you fail to see that then you do not get my argument.

The fact is that "Hinduism" by definition does not reflect much of what the Carvaka school of Hinduism is.

The same concept can be applied to atheism.

no it is not.
Just as Carvaka is a doctrine of Hinduism, as Sufism is a doctrine of Islam, any atheistic doctrine is in fact just that, a doctrine of atheism.

there is no such thing as an exclusive belief-system based around Christian angles that does not include God.

Even if there way, then it is still a doctrine of Christianity, which has "official" definitions regarding Jesus, God, etc.

that depends who you ask.

atheism can lead to the various beliefs, or the various beliefs can lead to atheism. That doesn't change the atheism association and thus placing the belief system under the atheist umbrella.

sure, but whats the point?

I never equated dog to cat or insisted that dog falls under the category of cat.

you're not making any sense.
The Chinese adhered to a specific atheistic doctrine that is quite different from the atheistic secular humanism doctrine.

You are not approaching this in a hierarchical and categorical sense, while I am. "Atheism" is a broad and generic term, ie "no belief in God", which is present in many atheistic doctrines that vary from each other.

The fact that they vary from each other does not negate the fact that they are atheistic doctrines even by official definitions.

specific atheists, yes. They have "done bad acts", all based on their specific atheistic creed.

id have to disagree, but if you believe otherwise, then suite yourself.
:huh:

adren@line

You're the second person in the last hour to copy/paste exactly what I had written and substitute key words with "astrology".

What is this? Is this something that Richard Dawkins did in his new best-selling books and hence the thousands of his fan boys adopted this tactic, or are the bunch of you simply incapable of thinking as individuals?

Is this primitive tactic characteristic of atheistic group-think behavior or do you simply get-off on copying each other?

quite funny, and peculiar.

Anyways, to answer your questions:

sure it can.

"a rejection of God"

ofcourse it does, and depends on the specific brand of atheism.

yes it does. The abhorrence is a result of atheistic belief. If there was no atheistic root or belief to start off with then the abhorrence would not exist, and this is n reference to specific brands of atheists, not all.

they arent.
Buddhism is not a branch of atheism or theism. It is non-theistic.

technically it could be considered a branch of any of those, along with atheism.

Unforgiven Too

Thank you, my feelings exactly. I can't really vote because I don't think any one religion is especially inherently violent--as has been noted on this site, Islam is Xianity minus about six hundred or so years. Which to me means, in the context of time, they could become in time as (relatively) mild as Xianity is today. When I consider any religion in its entirety, they all come up pretty even, or at least the three Abrahamic religions do.

And considering the nature of religious belief, I can't really settle that level of opinion without thinking about the context of time and history. Now if the question was "which religion is, today, the most openly violent", that might be a different story.