Quote from: TheWalrus on May 31, 2014, 04:10 AM
Yeah, you didn't read the part where I said Adolph, Benito, and Joseph made bad examples for this discussion because you immediately charged in and asked if I was suggesting a correlation, when clearly I went out of my way to say I wasn't suggesting anything.
I know you were saying we shouldn't judge a group by its worst members, and of course I agree. But I got the feeling that you do think Stalin was actually motivated by atheism, if not, never mind. But there are a few things worth clarifying.
Quote from: TheWalrus on May 31, 2014, 04:10 AMSince atheism is a world view, as you so succinctly put it, it can never be held accountable as paramount in a person's behaviors. It is like criticizing vacuum in space for a lack of density. How can an atheist be held accountable for anything, since they so clearly believe in nothing? At least spiritual people have some accountability. Atheists need not take responsibility for their actions neither point the finger inward as a result of their actions.
Is 'not' a world view, I think you mean. You just jumped from 'atheism' to 'atheist'; atheists are just as accountable as anyone else, but 'atheism' on its own isn't the source of that accountability for any particular action, since it means nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. Hard atheism on the other hand, would be an actual belief that 'no gods exist', or particular gods don't exist, and since it's an actual belief, could be argued to be a motivation for a person's actions in some situation. Atheism doesn't mean a belief in nothing, again, just a lack of belief in gods.
Quote from: TheWalrus on May 31, 2014, 04:10 AM
The main criticism of your defense of atheism is you want to have it both ways, Mablak. You would have me believe that in one aspect, atheism is a greater promoter of the common good. But when provided with arguments to the contrary, atheism as a concept dissolves into nothingness, and ceases to be quantified.
I never suggested atheism was a promoter of the common good. Since the word doesn't refer to any particular belief, this statement wouldn't make sense. I suggested
atheists can promote common good just as well as the religious, I didn't imply their reasons for doing so are based on
atheism. Utilitarianism, skepticism, tolerance, etc, are the kinds of beliefs/attitudes that actually produce the good outcomes I'm talkin' about.
Quote from: TheWalrus on May 31, 2014, 04:10 AM
In retrospect, it seems rather absurd that we have even mounted the discussion, atheism is clearly not the philosophical equal to religion, not because it is any less valid as a school of thought, but rather one is something, and the other is a lack of something.
Atheism is explicitly not a school of thought, world view, or ideology. Just a single stance on a single issue. You're thinking that atheists are 'just atheists', and nothing else, but we have full belief systems. The actual world views atheists have are often based on humanism, skepticism, methodological naturalism, and so on, though no particular belief is required or entailed by atheism on its own.