Atheism has claimed more lives than all religions combined?

I can most certainly detest the God of Abrahamic religions. Assassin1349

You can detest the concept thereof. The ideology and scripture preached. You cannot hate a god unless you acknowledge it as real. Or at least plausible.

Believe to be not real, you mean. If any atheist claims to know there to be no god, he/she is just as delusional as someone who says he/she knows a deity exists.

MindFreeze

Your correction was incorrect. I know there to be zero gods as much as I know there to be zero unicorns or magical wish granting toads, For without any evidence, and I say evidence: not proof. Without evidence, any scrap, I can safely accept no god exists, for not a single scrap of evidence exists thus far. To lump my claim in with theists is unintelligible at best. They believe without any proof, merely faith. I discard a concept based on zero evidence, so my point of view is the same? I'm sorry, are you by any chance an abuser of illegal narcotics?

communism was definately a secular ideology with an intent of suppressing religious belief of any kind as one of it's policies.

are all atheists communists no, but you can't deny atheism had a strong influence on the ideologies of communism which I can say was even worse than nazism.

mao's communist policies and purges of his countrymen resulted in 40-70 million deaths, no religious war has even come close to that

communism was definately a secular ideology with an intent of suppressing religious belief of any kind as one of it's policies.

are all atheists communists no, but you can't deny atheism had a strong influence on the ideologies of communism which I can say was even worse than nazism.

Deano

The question is not if they were atheist or not. But if they killed because of their atheism. I argue that various religious extremist groups have killed because others were not of the same faith and did not practice the religion of which the extremists practiced. But atheism does not rule that one must not tolerate Jews, or Christians, or Muslims etc. Simply atheism means that one is not religious. Atheists who have killed have killed for their own personal beliefs or reasons, and not beliefs that are even close to being shared by the tiniest fractions of atheists. Who ever wrote that article was incredibly ignorant and is guilty of extreme over-generalization.

The belief that they had the right to suppress others' beliefs was a strong influence of communist ideals; this is not something that goes along with the term that describes someone with a lack of belief of deities, aka atheism.MindFreeze

atheism can mean more than just a lack of belief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

the question is not if they were atheist or not. But if they killed because of their atheism. I argue that various religious extremist groups have killed because others were not of the same faith and did not practice the religion of which the extremists practiced. But atheism does not rule that one must nottolerate Jews, or Christians, or Muslims. Simply atheismmeans that one is not religious. Atheists who have killed have killed for their own personal beliefs or reasons, and not beliefs that are even close tobeingshared by thetiniestfractionof atheists. Who ever wrote that article was incredibly ignorant and is guilty of extreme over-generalization.

metalpower08

Your correction was incorrect. I know there to be zero gods as much as I know there to be zero unicorns or magical wish granting toads, For without any evidence, and I say evidence: not proof. Without evidence, any scrap, I can safely accept no god exists, for not a single scrap of evidence exists thus far. To lump my claim in with theists is unintelligible at best. They believe without any proof, merely faith. I discard a concept based on zero evidence, so my point of view is the same? I'm sorry, are you by any chance an abuser of illegal narcotics?

dhyce

lol, by your logic, anything outside of what modern science has proven to exist, does not exist. If this close-minded mentality was applied to all areas of research and philosophy, we'd get nowhere. Good thing this is just your opinion...

Someone in this thread already pointed out violence against religious people by communists (and semantics aside, they can be considered atheists). Religion at least promotes peace, love and acceptance, and has done so for hundreds or thousands of years. Even with the crusades, I'm willing to bet that religion has saved countless more lives than it has taken. Its contribution to morals and values that we take for granted today is undeniable, and you'd be stupid to dismiss it as nothing but a burden on our society. F1_2004

I don't think you even read what I typed.

Did you even SEE what I typed about the difference between atheISTS and atheISM?

And furthermore, when did I EVER ****ing say that religion is a burden on society?

And even further furthermore, religion absolutely does not CAUSE peace, love, or acceptance. A hell of a lot of people exemplify those traits beautifully while still being atheists, and a hell of a lot of religious people represent the antithesis of peace, love, and acceptance.

Bottom line is that one's belief on whether or not there is a god has NOTHING to do with their behavior as a human being. NOTHING. Being an atheist/christian/muslim does not in ANY way determine whether or not you'll be a saint or a devil. Do NOT try to attribute this to one's belief/disbelief in a deity, because that's beside the point. The REAL point is whether or not you want to be an ass. If you want to be an ass, you'll have no problem using your religion (or atheism) in order to justify your behavior. Religion (or atheism) can be used as a tool for evil OR good, exactly the same as a chainsaw or an AK-47. And just as how most people don't like to blame guns for people who go on shooting sprees at the mall, I don't blame religion OR atheism for what people choose to do.

If you want to love, then there's plenty in religion and atheism to allow that.

And if you want to hurt/maim/rape/steal/kill, then there's plenty in religion and atheism to allow that.

The religion/atheism is a total non-issue. The issue here is whether or not you want to help people or be a jerk to people, and whether or not you're going to try to justify that based on your religion rather than just manning up and taking responsibility for the good/bad things that you personally choose to do.

lol, by your logic, anything outside of what modern science has proven to exist, does not exist. If this close-minded mentality was applied to all areas of research and philosophy, we'd get nowhere. Good thing this is just your opinion...

F1_2004

No, I am talking about evidence. I accept all opinions with testable, intelligible evidence. I love unusual theories based on loose strands of evidence we gather. I study all scientific grounds to the best of my admittedly limited intellect. I strive to study all theories, so I can form an educated, well-grounded opinion. I analyze and ponder over research, going far out of my way to match unlikely theories with those well accepted.

In my last post, I was referring to a lack of evidence, please look that word up, honey. For religion lacks it, which is the very center of my point.

atheism can mean more than just a lack of belief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Deano

Again, this is defined by believing to have the ability of "suppression of religious freedom and practice" of those that don't agree with you.
This has nothing to do with the particular belief somehow promoting this.

The real right answer is that religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, are not responsible for mass murder.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

lol, by your logic, anything outside of what modern science has proven to exist, does not exist. If this close-minded mentality was applied to all areas of research and philosophy, we'd get nowhere. Good thing this is just your opinion...

dhyce

No, I am talking about evidence. I accept all opinions with testable, intelligible evidence. I love unusual theories based on loose strands of evidence we gather. I study all scientific grounds to the best of my admittedly limited intellect. I strive to study all theories, so I can form an educated, well-grounded opinion. I analyze and ponder over research, going far out of my way to match unlikely theories with those well accepted.

In my last post, I was referring to a lack of evidence, please look that word up, honey. For religion lacks it, which is the very center of my point.

[QUOTE="Assassin1349"] I can most certainly detest the God of Abrahamic religions. dhyce

You can detest the concept thereof. The ideology and scripture preached. You cannot hate a god unless you acknowledge it as real. Or at least plausible.

Believe to be not real, you mean. If any atheist claims to know there to be no god, he/she is just as delusional as someone who says he/she knows a deity exists.

MindFreeze

Your correction was incorrect. I know there to be zero gods as much as I know there to be zero unicorns or magical wish granting toads, For without any evidence, and I say evidence: not proof. Without evidence, any scrap, I can safely accept no god exists, for not a single scrap of evidence exists thus far. To lump my claim in with theists is unintelligible at best. They believe without any proof, merely faith. I discard a concept based on zero evidence, so my point of view is the same? I'm sorry, are you by any chance an abuser of illegal narcotics?

I don't understand why you would result to making personal insults, but I'll try again.

Claiming to know something without a doubt is delusional. As you say, this is what many theists do without evidence. Claiming to know to opposite to be true is just as delusional.

I would personally agree that you have good grounds to not accept such a claim of the existence of supernatural beings, but to say you know they don't exist, as if you are capable of knowing all there is to know about deities, is delusional at best.

And even further furthermore, religion absolutely does not CAUSE peace, love, or acceptance. A hell of a lot of people exemplify those traits beautifully while still being atheists, and a hell of a lot of religious people represent the antithesis of peace, love, and acceptance.

Bottom line is that one's belief on whether or not there is a god has NOTHING to do with their behavior as a human being. NOTHING. Being an atheist/christian/muslim does not in ANY way determine whether or not you'll be a saint or a devil. Do NOT try to attribute this to one's belief/disbelief in a deity, because that's beside the point. The REAL point is whether or not you want to be an ass. If you want to be an ass, you'll have no problem using your religion (or atheism) in order to justify your behavior. Religion (or atheism) can be used as a tool for evil OR good, exactly the same as a chainsaw or an AK-47. And just as how most people don't like to blame guns for people who go on shooting sprees at the mall, I don't blame religion OR atheism for what people choose to do.

If you want to love, then there's plenty in religion and atheism to allow that.

And if you want to hurt/maim/rape/steal/kill, then there's plenty in religion and atheism to allow that.

The religion/atheism is a total non-issue. The issue here is whether or not you want to help people or be a jerk to people, and whether or not you're going to try to justify that based on your religion rather than just manning up and taking responsibility for the good/bad things that you personally choose to do.

MrGeezer

But you're not entirely right. Historically, Religion has played a large part in shaping our modern system of ethics and morality. Furthermore, today, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes. So, religion has had and continues to have a positive effect on society.

But you're not entirely right. Historically, Religion has played a large part in shaping our modern system of ethics and morality. Furthermore, today, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes. So, religion has had and continues to have a positive effect on society.

F1_2004

Yep, you just totally proved it by making a massively general and unsupported statement.

You don't have much of a point, babe. There are many possibilities in science that haven't been or are not currently testable (particular with regards to outer space, where many things are unknown and not "testable" by traditional means). Before you can get the chance to study scientific grounds, someone is breaking those new grounds, and I can guarantee you that they don't approach it with a "if there's no evidence of this yet, then it must not exist" mentality.F1_2004

Sorry, any point with the slightest shred of evidence: I investigate. Otherwise, it will remain a claim with no evidence. My stance has the brightest stature, I accept all claims related to analysis, study, and evidence. Everything else? I discard, until the slightest modicum of evidence is revealed. Until then, its category will lump with Santa and the Tooth Fairy, I'm sorry.

I don't understand why you would result to making personal insults, but I'll try again.

Claiming to know something without a doubt is delusional. As you say, this is what many theists do without evidence. Claiming to know to opposite to be true is just as delusional.

I would personally agree that you have good grounds to not accept such a claim of the existence of supernatural beings, but to say you know they don't exist, as if you are capable of knowing all there is to know about deities, is delusional at best.

MindFreeze

I dislike your mindset, in complete honesty. It is identical to saying, "Unicorns might exist, Zeus might exist, Gremlins might exist." Your mindset accepts anything without evidence as a possibility. I'm sorry, I only accept a belief as credible, until an iota of provable, nay, considerable evidence is shown. It's not delusional to say a being does not exist when no evidence says otherwise.

Furthermore, today, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.

F1_2004

How does one quantify and thereby measure "higher ethical attitudes"?

I dislike your mindset, in complete honesty. It is identical to saying, "Unicorns might exist, Zeus might exist, Gremlins might exist." Your mindset accepts anything without evidence as a possibility. I'm sorry, I only accept a belief as credible, until an iota of provable, nay, considerable evidence is shown. It's not delusional to say a being does not exist when no evidence says otherwise.

dhyce

If anything is not inconsistent with what we know about the universe, then it is by definition a possibility, in that a theoretical world could exist in which it existed without creating any logical contradiction. That is all that is necessary for something to be a possibility (although obviously not a probability).

What's the point of all this? The basis for establishing the truth of a belief is not how peaceful, useful, violent, desirable or whatever it is. All of this bickering is about as relevant as the "it's disgusting!!!!" crap people like to talk about in same-sex marriage debates.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

Furthermore, today, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.

GabuEx

How does one quantify and thereby measure "higher ethical attitudes"?

You don't. There's no reason to believe that morals are objective, and until moral objectivity is actually proven we can't exactly go around measuring how good and bad people are.

Not to mention that he didn't actually provide a link which backed up his statement.

come on that isn't true people have been killing each other over differences in faith for thousands of years even to this day there thousands of people dieing everyday in the name of Religion when are we going to break free of the Religious elite that that has plagued mankind for to long and the biggest bunch of criminals and hypocrites are the Roman Catholic Church .

If anything is not inconsistent with what we know about the universe, then it is by definition a possibility, in that a theoretical world could exist in which it existed without creating any logical contradiction. That is all that is necessary for something to be a possibility (although obviously not a probability).

GabuEx

Probability is my preferred realm of study. Considering Shiva over String Theory strikes me as counter productive. I'm aware that a wide array of insane possibilities may be worth research. However, I tend to regard testable, well constructed theories supported by factual evidence above religious texts, no matter what. The fact that I'm having this conversation baffles me. Evidence > faith. My mind, simplistically.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

But you're not entirely right. Historically, Religion has played a large part in shaping our modern system of ethics and morality. Furthermore, today, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes. So, religion has had and continues to have a positive effect on society.

MindFreeze

Yep, you just totally proved it by making a massively general and unsupported statement.

Here's just one article that might hopefully elaborate more on what I'm saying: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r30712pn2q513456

There is a ton more literature on the subject. I think you'd be very hard-pressed to argue that religion hasn't affected our morality.

I dislike your mindset, in complete honesty. It is identical to saying, "Unicorns might exist, Zeus might exist, Gremlins might exist." Your mindset accepts anything without evidence as a possibility. I'm sorry, I only accept a belief as credible, until an iota of provable, nay, considerable evidence is shown. It's not delusional to say a being does not exist when no evidence says otherwise.

dhyce

If you are telling me you know 100% sure, without a doubt, that these things do not exist, I don't know what else to tell you.

From your point of view, everything is impossible that does not have evidence. But when it has evidence, all of a sudden it is not impossible anymore. Was there then not a certain degree of possiblity before this hypothetical evidence was found?

I see what you are trying to say, and it seems you are trying to approach this in a scientific mindset, but trust me, if a researcher hypothesizes the existence of the Higgs boson for example, we don't just all turn our backs and say, pfftt, BS, no evidence therefore I know it does not exist. No, this came through reasonable predictions just as the structure of DNA was reasonably predicted by Watson and Crick.

I'm not comparing these in terms of validity, and I went on a bit of a tangent there, but I'm just trying to show you what I mean in terms of saying that you know something can not exist/is not possible (as opposed to believing), instead of just going after someone personally if they don't agree as you seem to like to do.

If you are telling me you know 100% sure, without a doubt, that these things do not exist, I don't know what else to tell you.

From your point of view, everything is impossible that does not have evidence. But when it has evidence, all of a sudden it is not impossible anymore. Was there then not a certain degree of possiblity before this hypothetical evidence was found?

I see what you are trying to say, and it seems you are trying to approach this in a scientific mindset, but trust me, if a researcher hypothesizes the existence of the Higgs boson for example, we don't just all turn our backs and say, pfftt, BS, no evidence therefore I know it does not exist. No, this came through reasonable predictions just as the structure of DNA was reasonably predicted by Watson and Crick.

I'm not comparing these in terms of validity, and I went on a bit of a tangent there, but I'm just trying to show you what I mean in terms of saying that you know something can not exist/is not possible (as opposed to believing), instead of just going after someone personally if they don't agree as you seem to like to do.

MindFreeze

If hypothetical, researchable, testable, evidence is found, then the scientific method very well begins, huh?

No, I do not completely accept an idea until some form of evidence comes through as plausible. Okay, I'll elaborate on my way of thinking. If a tested theory, accepted almost unanimously, is challenged by a perceived quack, I'll still research his theory, no matter how insulted. If he provides a credibled theory, something I feel is in contradiction of the evidence I have so far, I'll delve in. Science is all about discovery, if it is proven wrong: good. Give the guy an award! Science is about analysis, developing theories, based on what is there. Finding truth. Nothing so far points undeniably to a god, thus, the theory is unaccepted scientifically. Without evidence of any kind, I cannot entertain the theory. Period.

Probability is my preferred realm of study. Considering Shiva over String Theory strikes me as counter productive. I'm aware that a wide array of insane possibilities may be worth research. However, I tend to regard testable, well constructed theories supported by factual evidence above religious texts, no matter what. The fact that I'm having this conversation baffles me. Evidence > faith. My mind, simplistically.

dhyce

But nothing of what you said has any real relevance to the question of what it means for something to be possible. As long as the existence of a proposed theoretical entity does not contradict anything that we know about the universe, then it is possible by the very definition of "possible". To state categorically that something does not exist is to state that it is necessarily logically contradictory with our world, and then it falls to you to prove that assertion, and you have not done so. The statement that unicorns might exist, which is to say that unicorns are not logically contradictory when taken with the world as we know it today, may only be refuted by showing that unicorns are logically incompatible with the universe, and therefore indeed cannot exist. This does not mean that they do exist, but likewise it does also mean that one cannot state categorically that they do not exist without showing precisely why their existence is an impossibility.

Your statement subtly shifts the discussion from whether or not God is a possibility over to whether or not God is a probability, and that is not what your argument to which I replied argued against.

Personally I feel that you need to separate the religion from the individual. Would that person have committed those ideals with the thoughts about religion outside of the argument or not?

I don't look at anything from a religious perspective until I see all of the ulterior motives aside from religion first. I don't agree that religion makes people crazy all the time, but it certainly has the ability to make people ignorant of the suffering or whims of others.

My personal thoughts as an atheist myself would be that people are people and that they're going to do things under the guise of religion or not so it makes no difference. People will follow a charismatic psycho as well as a charismatic genius.

But nothing of what you said has any real relevance to the question of what it means for something to be possible. As long as the existence of a proposed theoretical entity does not contradict anything that we know about the universe, then it is possible by the very definition of "possible". To state categorically that something does not exist is to state that it is necessarily logically contradictory with our world, and then it falls to you to prove that assertion, and you have not done so. The statement that unicorns might exist, which is to say that unicorns are not logically contradictory when taken with the world as we know it today, may only be refuted by showing that unicorns are logically incompatible with the universe, and therefore indeed cannot exist. This does not mean that they do exist, but likewise it does also mean that one cannot state categorically that they do not exist without showing precisely why their existence is an impossibility.

Your statement subtly shifts the discussion from whether or not God is a possibility over to whether or not God is a probability, and that is not what your argument to which I replied argued against.

GabuEx

. . . I lump unicorns, gremlins, and the oreo fairy of everlasting grace under the same umbrella with god due to them all having the same verity. If I were to accept one, I must then accept them all, letting in a deluge of mindless stupidity. My point is that it is not possible unless proven so. Which may sound ignorant, yet due to how our religions have shedded under the actuallity of science before, from what a star is to just how imbecilic Noah's Ark is, I see no reason to outright deny the possibility of a god. Every claim ever made in a religious text is entirely incongruent with the reality we know. Until evidence, any shred is presented, I will continue to deny the claim of religion. I see no reason to accept a theory that cannot support itself based on the world I experience.

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]Hilter had a religion... But does it really matter? You shouldn't be killing people, without a god, or in the name of God, period.entropyecho

Well if you lookt at Aztecs religion and their blood fests it's hard not to notice the correlation.

. . . I lump unicorns, gremlins, and the oreo fairy of everlasting grace under the same umbrella with god due to them all having the same verity. If I were to accept one, I must then accept them all, letting in a deluge of mindless stupidity. My point is that it is not possible unless proven so. Which may sound ignorant, yet due to how our religions have shedded under the actuallity of science before, from what a star is to just how imbecilic Noah's Ark is, I see no reason to outright deny the possibility of a god. Every claim ever made in a religious text is entirely incongruent with the reality we know. Until evidence, any shred is presented, I will continue to deny the claim of religion. I see no reason to accept a theory that cannot support itself based on the world I experience.

dhyce

But your statement that "it is not possible unless proven so" is, well, provably wrong. As I have alluded to, the rigorous defintion of "possible" is to say that that which is possible is that which is not logically incompatible with our world. It is thus extremely easy to prove the possibility of something: all one must do is suppose the existence of a world that contains everything we know about our own, and additionally that contains this theoretical entity, such that this world does not contain any logical contradictions. To disprove the idea that something is possible, one must show that such a world cannot exist, which requires that one prove a necessary logical contradiction between what we know about our world and what we know about this theoretical entity. Possibility is thus the default state of being; one must prove the impossibility of something, not its possibility.

The bottom line is that, as I have already noted, you are interchangably addressing possibility and probability, which are two extremely different concepts, and which may certainly not be taken to be interchangable in the least. Evidence affects probability, but not possibility; the only thing that affects possibility is the state of being in logical contradiction with the world. You do not need to accept that something does exist to accept the possibility that it exists; to accept the possibility that it exists merely implies that one has accepted that nothing in the definition of this theoretical being is logically contradictory with our universe. Certainly that which has no evidence in its favor is improbable, but that says nothing of its being impossible. Indeed, stating that that which simply has no evidence in its favor creates the logical absurdity (that has already been noted) that something denoted as impossible then suddenly becomes possible simply with evidence in its favor, but this surely does not do justice to the meaning of the word "possible". If something is possible, then it has always been possible.

But your statement that "it is not possible unless proven so" is, well, provably wrong. As I have alluded to, the rigorous defintion of "possible" is to say that that which is possible is that which is not logically incompatible with our world. It is thus extremely easy to prove the possibility of something: all one must do is suppose the existence of a world that contains everything we know about our own, and additionally that contains this theoretical entity, such that this world does not contain any logical contradictions. To disprove the idea that something is possible, one must show that such a world cannot exist, which requires that one prove a necessary logical contradiction between what we know about our world and what we know about this theoretical entity. Possibility is thus the default state of being; one must prove the impossibility of something, not its possibility.

The bottom line is that, as I have already noted, you are interchangably addressing possibility and probability, which are two extremely different concepts, and which may certainly not be taken to be interchangable in the least. Evidence affects probability, but not possibility; the only thing that affects possibility is the state of being in logical contradiction with the world. You do not need to accept that something does exist to accept the possibility that it exists; to accept the possibility that it exists merely implies that one has accepted that nothing in the definition of this theoretical being is logically contradictory with our universe. Certainly that which has no evidence in its favor is improbable, but that says nothing of its being impossible. Indeed, stating that that which simply has no evidence in its favor creates the logical absurdity (that has already been noted) that something denoted as impossible then suddenly becomes possible simply with evidence in its favor, but this surely does not do justice to the meaning of the word "possible". If something is possible, then it has always been possible.

GabuEx

My argument asserts that technically unlimited possibilities require proof. The act of disproving an entity is meaningless. To discard possibility is no long stretch without evidence. It is an absurd, baseless claim. A god of the gaps. Probability then states, based on the aforementioned rules of possibility that this claim is in all likelihood a dud. Due to its lack of tangibility. To say it is improbable, says the same about unicorns and bridge dwelling trolls, as I have stated. Any imaginary being is possible, but is it probable? Based on evidence, no. Which is my ongoing, seemingly ambiguous point.

Any imaginary being is possible

dhyce

And that is precisely the point that I am making. If you acknowledge that as true, then we have no further disagreement.

[QUOTE="dhyce"]

. . . I lump unicorns, gremlins, and the oreo fairy of everlasting grace under the same umbrella with god due to them all having the same verity. If I were to accept one, I must then accept them all, letting in a deluge of mindless stupidity. My point is that it is not possible unless proven so. Which may sound ignorant, yet due to how our religions have shedded under the actuallity of science before, from what a star is to just how imbecilic Noah's Ark is, I see no reason to outright deny the possibility of a god. Every claim ever made in a religious text is entirely incongruent with the reality we know. Until evidence, any shred is presented, I will continue to deny the claim of religion. I see no reason to accept a theory that cannot support itself based on the world I experience.

GabuEx

But your statement that "it is not possible unless proven so" is, well, provably wrong. As I have alluded to, the rigorous defintion of "possible" is to say that that which is possible is that which is not logically incompatible with our world. It is thus extremely easy to prove the possibility of something: all one must do is suppose the existence of a world that contains everything we know about our own, and additionally that contains this theoretical entity, such that this world does not contain any logical contradictions. To disprove the idea that something is possible, one must show that such a world cannot exist, which requires that one prove a necessary logical contradiction between what we know about our world and what we know about this theoretical entity. Possibility is thus the default state of being; one must prove the impossibility of something, not its possibility.

The bottom line is that, as I have already noted, you are interchangably addressing possibility and probability, which are two extremely different concepts, and which may certainly not be taken to be interchangable in the least. Evidence affects probability, but not possibility; the only thing that affects possibility is the state of being in logical contradiction with the world. You do not need to accept that something does exist to accept the possibility that it exists; to accept the possibility that it exists merely implies that one has accepted that nothing in the definition of this theoretical being is logically contradictory with our universe. Certainly that which has no evidence in its favor is improbable, but that says nothing of its being impossible. Indeed, stating that that which simply has no evidence in its favor creates the logical absurdity (that has already been noted) that something denoted as impossible then suddenly becomes possible simply with evidence in its favor, but this surely does not do justice to the meaning of the word "possible". If something is possible, then it has always been possible.

Such a definition of possibility is meaningless, since it excludes nothing. Even Plato's laws of thought crumble if we allow our imaginations to run riot while granting multiverse "theory" as possible.jimmyjammer69

One may call it meaningless if they so choose, but it is nonetheless the correct definition. "Possible" or "impossible" is a binary state of being; something cannot be "more possible" than another - it either is possible or it is not. What people really mean when they say "more possible" is "more probable". Probability is what describes the likelihood that something is true; possibility simply describes the capability of something to be true. A four-sided triangle is impossible, because the description is inherently contradictory. God is not, or at least a properly formed definition of such an entity.

And that is precisely the point that I am making. If you acknowledge that as true, then we have no further disagreement.

GabuEx

Oksy then, let us shake hands, then dance a merry jig! I care little of your differing probabilities when it comes to imaginary beings. Mine all equate somewhere close to naught, until proven otherwise. That is simply how my mind works. All is a laughably unlikely possible, to me. Santa, Zeus, and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man exist on the same realm for me. That is all. All is possible, though not probable/considerable until evidence arises.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Such a definition of possibility is meaningless, since it excludes nothing. Even Plato's laws of thought crumble if we allow our imaginations to run riot while granting multiverse "theory" as possible.GabuEx

One may call it meaningless if they so choose, but it is nonetheless the correct definition. "Possible" or "impossible" is a binary state of being; something cannot be "more possible" than another - it either is possible or it is not. What people really mean when they say "more possible" is "more probable". Probability is what describes the likelihood that something is true; possibility simply describes the capability of something to be true. A four-sided triangle is impossible, because the description is inherently contradictory. God is not, or at least a properly formed definition of such an entity.

Re. the four sided triangle: Ok, that's a good example, but we're invoking the law of non-contradiction here. If we claim multiverses (yuck) are definitely possible then we can imagine THAT a universe in which some of the laws of thought don't apply is in turn possible and so four-sided triangles are also possible. We could alternatively claim that it is only the will of God which prevents four-sided triangles from existing, and in this case they're also not impossible.

To take the above one step further, stating that four sided triangles (or anything eslse for that matter) are impossible is to state that an omnipotent God (or a god who can break what we have decided is a fundamental rule) is impossible, if we rely on the "what's imaginably possible"definition of possibility. Possibility is a human term, describing our limited understanding of the universe, just like probability. All probability is at either infinity:1 or unity, and it's only our lack of knowledge which makes it seem otherwise. To give another example, wouldn't it be ridiculous to say that feeding a fire with water was possible (or at a probability of 2:1) when I was 3 years old but it's impossible now?

Religion isn't the cause of all those mass murders and wars in history. It's just an excuse or control mechanism used by those in power to incite those atrocities. Stalin, Mao, and other infamous leaders didn't need as an excuse because they had such control over their populations.

Death is the result of idiocy not belief.

Vesica_Prime

Natural death? Idiotic indeed.

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religions combined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

entropyecho

The accusations of religion costing many lives isnt just based on the people causing them being religious but those people waging wars in the name of religion.

I find a huge difference there.

EDIT: But btw like others have said the argument for any side in regards to who killed how many is pointless; I just hate the equivocation going on without people considering important parametres.

If you blame all murders from an atheist on atheism then I'm going to blame all murders from religious people on religion and in that battle you lose by a looooong shot.

Also you're so wrong I actually don't know where to begin, it's as if you haven't even read the bible.

WTF? Hitler was a catholic. Now I find this thread really stupid. I'm an atheist. But tell me. Crusader wars? Billion of Muslims died. Greece, Macedon, Rome,.. all had religion. KKK clan is catholic. You should go out more often.

Trying to equate whether atheists or religious people have killed more overall is utterly pointless in itself. Ninja-Bear

I'll go with this

Crusader wars? Billion of Muslims died.

gooper102

I'm not sure how that's possible, seeing as the peak population size of the entire planet during Middle Ages was somewhere around the realm of half a billion.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"]Trying to equate whether atheists or religious people have killed more overall is utterly pointless in itself. Bedizen

I'll go with this

But don't you think it matters? I mean don't different religions have different perspectives? Catholics shouldn't kill. But why do they? Or at least why did they? They said it's a path to heaven to kill an infidel. It's same crime as killing a catholic.

And I'd like to bring out another point of this religion killing. Don't catholics kill most of animals on earth? I know that Muslims don't eat that much meat. And Buddhists neither. Atheists are not that many and still many of them're vegetarians. I count killing an animal as a crime that should be punished by death.

[QUOTE="Bedizen"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Bear"]Trying to equate whether atheists or religious people have killed more overall is utterly pointless in itself. gooper102

I'll go with this

But don't you think it matters? I mean don't different religions have different perspectives? Catholics shouldn't kill. But why do they? Or at least why did they? They said it's a path to heaven to kill an infidel. It's same crime as killing a catholic.

And I'd like to bring out another point of this religion killing. Don't catholics kill most of animals on earth? I know that Muslims don't eat that much meat. And Buddhists neither. Atheists are not that many and still many of them're vegetarians. I count killing an animal as a crime that should be punished by death.

It is a pointless argument.