ARE MURDERERS PROFESSING TO BE THEISTS ACTUALLY ATHEISTS

Well, Ed, I'm an atheist, too, but I haven't whacked anyone off, so far.

Your questioner seems to have a short memory, or does he exclude the inquisition, the witch burnings, or the crusades? Aahh, were those crimes or not, since it all happened it god's name?


Thou shalt not kill?

It is his contention that the ones conducting the inquisition in God's name were in effect atheists, since they blatantly violated God's laws.

amen to that






<cough cough>

The logic of the person who postulated that idea is horrendous, and an insult to atheists.A professed theist who commits a crime is still a theist- but one who prefers not to abide by the "rules".

I think that this sort of thinking coincides with the (erroneous) idea that is held by many people. That is, that in order to be a "good" person, one must believe in God. According to the questioner, if a person, is not good and moral, he must be an atheist. Since a professed theist has murdered, by the questioner's logic, he must be an atheist.

I think that that sort of analysis is called a "circular argument"!

We're having one hell of an argument on the other forum.

at best, its an inane statement totally lacking in coherent thought.

I am a professed Atheist, but by the stated logic all humans old enough to reason must be also. Where is the person who has never disobeyed God's commandments?

flyboy- Sounds like their argument is, if you don't do EVERYTHING by the "book" you are one of THEM DAMNED HEATHENS, and will go to hell. The original argument, as we analyze this, is sounding more and more to me like a pronouncement by a religious, fundamentalist zealot.

Can't argue with them. They have a high speed internet connection directly to their God!

IMO, it sounds like the person that you got this question from has confused "atheist beliefs" with "anti-theist actions". Whether one is a theist or atheist is defind in terms of what they believe as to the nature of a supreme being.

If I started up a religion that was based on all of the exact opposite principles of the Christian religion's 10 Commandments for example, I would still be a theist but could commit murder as an act of my faith. I would still be a theist though.

Apparently whoever came up with this idea believes that people can't act counter to their professed beliefs which, IMO, is a significant mistake when viewing human nature.

What about the murderers that claim to be Agnotic Dyslexic Insomniacs?

Were that true than every religion is basically atheistic since they all have committed atrocities in Gods name and continue to do so?

This is just one of those cases where someone gets carried away with a silly idea.

How about a theist who believes in an impersonal, amoral deity as first cause of creation? Such a deity as takes no interest in the affairs of humankind?

The author of this idea is probably attributing magic powers to words or magic powers to a belief.

Like so many doctrines connected to religion this one is incapable of demonstration because, by definition, anyone who commits murder is not a theist even if he/she had previously professed to be one.

Well, dable (welcome to A2K!) they would be up all night wondering whether there really was a Dog (rimshot, baa-BOOM!).

What is this? A person who commits horrible murders must be an athiest?

I don't think so. Some people are born into very painfully agonizing lives. Some just don't handle negativity too well when up against jealousy, envy, or desire for wealth. . They may steal, they may murder. Can't see whether it would matter should they be theist, or athiest. Sometimes it's just a matter of one person making a difference in their lives by encouragement, mentoring,etc.

I used to back in the 60s or 70s wonder at why, given that they both came from abusive parents, Rod McQuen was an angel and Charles Manson a monster.

It seems to me that some people that promote Jihad do not believe in the things they preach themselves. Example — one of the spiritual leaders of the Hamas terrorist organization Dr. Abed el-Aziz Rantissi. His emissaries convince underprivileged young Palestinians to commit suicide bombings in exchange to eternal life in paradise. From the other side, when the field commanders of his own organization attempted to recruit his son, they were told to back off, and the boy was sent to Saudi college, as far as possible from Palestine. If Mr. Rantissi really believed in Allah, Koran, Jihad, I do not think he would object for his son getting a ticket to paradise. The problem is that he does not believe in anything except money and power. And many promoters of terror under Islamic "sauce" do not differ much from him. They abuse religious beliefs of their underprivileged compatriots for achieving quite materialistic goals.

Stillwater nailed it, but that does not make him a murderer.

How does heap of illogical, sophistic crap sound?

Anyone happy with that to describe this argument?

Edit: Er - i meant the argument as posited - not you folk!

atheism
If it is the case that a professed theist who breaks God's law is, for that reason alone, really an atheist, it then follows (equally absurdly) that a professed atheist who complies with God's law by not committing murder is, for that reason alone, really a theist.

No. They do it in the name of Alah. c.i.