Atheism, Religion and related discussion


#1

To be honest I don't have positive opinions about Islam but I think the same about Christianity and Judaism - All 3 promote violence and there are horrible passages and verses in the Quran, Sharia, Old and New testament. Even if we can find a few or even a significant number of bad people I don't want to lump them all into the same category - I've met Christians who think gays should be hanged and I've met plenty who think society should be acceptive of gays - Now that I mention it, most people in my country are catholic and don't follow the bible literally - Most have premarital sex and probably masturbate.

Regardless, I don't accept the "no true scotsman" fallacy that terrorists aren't true Muslims or Christians or Jews, like it or not they claim to be doing everything in the name of the prophet and they are as Muslim as anyone else - I'm an atheist but I'm not going to say the man who killed 3 Muslims in the US isn't a real atheist.


Immigration, the EU and sovereignty
General News Thread
Immigration, the EU and sovereignty
Do you think 47 still has faith in religion or God?
General News Thread 2.0
#2

That's a bit of a false dichotomy because while atheism is a position of belief, it's not a Religion. Also, the killer in question killed over a parking dispute rather than because of his atheism.


#3

It's just a complete co-incidence that he had psychotic rants against muslims and was obsessed over having guns to defend himself against them? Is this like how it's not a race thing when police shoot a unarmed black kid - it's just about "self defence"?

Seriously, arguing that Atheisism is somehow not a Religion when there's huge central figures like Dawkins and Hitchens, or arguing that it wasn't a hate crime because the incident in question was a parking spot is absurd. To claim "My group can't be doing this because we're not capable of..." is pretty much what leads to hate crimes, corruption, etc as it creates that x group is always to blame.

There are plenty of Atheist religions, just look on YouTube and find their ministers.


#4

I'm sorry Quinn but the man who killed the Muslims didn't like them very much - My point was that all monotheistic abrahamic religions promote horrible things but obviously not all believers are bad, in fact I've met lots of good Catholics in my life (most of the people I meet are agnostic Christian catholics) and the only Muslim I've met was a great person.

I completely agree

I have no doubt it was a hate crime but I wouldn't blame it on atheism per se but anti-theism/anti-religion - As for your claim, Dawkins and other figures are anglo-saxon centered and don't represent atheists all over the world - personally I've seen atheist "leaders" say so much bullshit that I don't care about them and have no slightest need to be represented for them, I don't need to be voiced, I just want to be left alone in my non-belief

Yes like Buddhism, but atheism is merely not believing in gods and as such it's not a religion - I.e. There's nothing about not believing that commands me to kill Muslims or Christians but religious texts can promote violence easily against many groups of people like gays, women, non believers etc


#5
  1. He was obsessed with having guns in general.

  2. He described himself as an "anti-theist" and had psychotic rants against all religions - Islam included.

I wouldn't say it was a complete co-incidence because he may very well have harboured a particularly strong prejudice against Muslims, I don't know if he did or not - But that doesn't mean there's a correlation between his atheism and his willingness to commit murder. That's the only assertion i'm disagreeing with. There's only anecdotes and Facebook quotes relating to his atheism, but lots of neighbour testimony on his aggression and willingness to confront people who broke the "rules" of the car parking with his firearm in hand.

Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god. That's all it is, and the only thing that links atheists to each other is their mutual lack of belief in a god. A shared interest creates communities, and as such figureheads and "primary" figures emerge. That's more of our social willingness to celebritize people who come across as natural leaders in particular movements rather than anything to do with a genuine religious connotation. You wouldn't go arguing that privacy is a religion because people like Edward Snowden and Glenn Grenwald are lionized by their supporters, would you?

Besides, Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist. Hitchens was a writer, political commentator and journalist. Their atheism may be what they are both best known for, but it's not even the thing they are/were the most knowledgeable about. Atheism is a shared interest rather than an intertwined one.

That's the last thing i'm doing. It could very well have been a hate crime and will hopefully be investigated as one. But hatred of muslims isn't an atheist principle and I find it quite disingenuous to seek that correlation. Atheism is extremely simple to describe because the only thing that constitutes being an atheist is a LACK OF A BELIEF IN A GOD. That is literally it, I cannot emphasise this enough!

Well, I don't consider atheism a "group", rather individuals from many different backgrounds with a shared position of belief. It's not a race or a religion and shouldn't be treated as such. I am an atheist but I don't insist only on hanging out with other atheists, nor do I go to atheist conventions etc - Because it's just one tiny part of my life.


#6

I understand.I did the same if I didn't know much about Islam,and I saw how terrorists kill civilians and claim that "we're Muslims,and it's Islam"

All three are basically peaceful religions,but they're distorted by people and mostly groups and governments throughout the history.

They're not christians when they are breaking it's laws.

When someone follows a religion,he/she should accept it's laws,the people who claim we're muslims,aren't muslims as long as they are fighting against it,and have no interests to behave like what this religion says.your argument is like if I say I'm an atheist when I'm worshiping god!

Terrorists are doing those horrible things in the name of a prophet who hated that.so there's no agreement between these two.

It's funny,but I saw in a video that showed how some (according to themselves) muslims were worshiping a human as their god on his birthday! see how far people can go in ignorance.

As I said:


Of course you're not going to say that,because the only thing that makes an atheist is LACK OF A BELIEF IN A GOD. there's no god,holy book or prophet for atheists to specify what's good and what's forbidden.They're free to do anything and they remain atheist as long as they have no god to worship.


#7

Actually I'm not interested in what people in the world do - I've read the Quran and the bible (not the entire books, just parts of it) and I've found contradictions, beautiful verses but also very violent ones - The violence doesn't disappear because of the good part and you can't ignore it.

To some extent religions are a tool of political power that can be used by powerful wise leaders but there's also real violence practised by believers who genuinely think they are fulfilling the prophet - You should actually ask yourself where are the terrorists getting their teachings from... Hint - It's from holy books

You've got to be kidding me - They're Christians , just bad ones, but if they believe and follow Jesus they're Christians - You don't get to say that bad followers of religions are not real followers because they are true followers, they pray, believe in the same god and believe they'll go to heaven - Who says they are wrong about religion? Isn't fundamentalism the most correct way of interpretation because you take everything literally without room for mistake? Who is following the command of gods more - Peaceful people or terrorists/extremists? Sometimes I have doubts

Again if these people believe in Allah, read the Quran/sharia and believe it is the true religion they ARE Muslims just like paedophile priests ARE Christians because they believe in the bible and Jesus Christ. You can't simply say those people are not "True" muslims because if they believe in Allah surprise they are Muslims as much as anyone else. Have you ever notice that every major religion like those 3 has verses that say unbelievers are going to hell and promote violence and killing against non-believers?

My point is that I'm not going to exempt that person from being an atheist because he killed 3 muslims - Terrorists are and describe themselves as Muslims whether you like it or not, just like Christian fundies describe themselves as true Christians - My question is how do I determine who's right? Are fundamentalists wrong? If so, why? Why are liberal religious right and extremists wrong? Do you realize that terrorists say the exact same thing you're saying - That "liberal" Muslims aren't true Muslims and they are the only ones following Allah's word - Whether you like it or not and it can be hard to admit, holy books have inspired violence everywhere and you can find violence in the Quran, bible, Sharia etc and because of that you can't say that religions are peaceful but they aren't violent - It just depends


#8

There's not a correlation between any particular belief or lack thereof and the willingness to commit murder - there is a correlation between fundamentalist beliefs and a tendancy to dehumanize others. That applies whether you're a fundamentalist in a religion, a political system, a non-religious cult or a group of people who's common interest is not liking in or believing a thing.

And a lot of testimony of his online rants says that he hated muslims, considered their presence in the world a personal violation and was particularly threatening to muslims. Saying that this didn't matter and wasn't a deciding factor in him killing three people who were universally reported to be non-confrontational is the same kind of rhetoric as when people insist it's not racism - the police just happen to shoot black people all the time.

Jesus was a carpenter (and probably a rabbi too) but he's just happened to be known as a religious messiah. Mohammed was a merchant. All religious figures had other jobs too. Dawkins hasn't done anything worthwhile in evolution biology in years. Arguably he never really did anything worthwhile beyond coin the term "meme".

He gets speaking appointments to shit on religion, his best selling book is The God Delusion, he may as well just drop all pretense and set up his own evangalist station where instead of calling for an "amen" he calls for the crowd to shout "fuck religion"

Well odds are that it's not going to be because when hate crimes happen to muslims people latch on to the idea the there must have been another reason - like a parking spot. Then they don't bother to question how is it someone can allegedly have a reputation for threatening people with guns over it and nobody looked into what influenced him or called the police to stop him before he murdered three people.

So what? Christianity is a belief that spiritual salvation comes from Jesus Christ. Islam is a belief that spiritual salvation comes from following a few simple pillars of the faith (prayer, charity, etc). Both of those should, in theory, make people more peaceful because they're being offered a reward for being nice - but they have fundamentalist groups who terrorise others and hypocritical members who harass people etc.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, but that hasn't stopped people from forming communities around it, writing books explaining how to be one, running YouTube channels where they essentially get paid via ads to rant how much everyone should hate religion, sell merchandise etc. The belief (or lack thereof) is not anywhere near as important as what people do with it.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out, if you really just don't believe in something why would you build instiutions around it? Are there clubs of people who don't play golf? No. Atheism groups are essentially a religion unto themselves - they appoint a ideal to worship (science, "rational thinking", or my fav - euphoria) and leader figures (Dawkins, Hitchens, AmazingAthiest, etc) and participate in the same mob mentality and institutionalized thinking.

They are absolutely as potentially dangerous and potentially harmless as religion. And they should acknowledge that, because after all the main difference is they don't believe they're currying favour with any particular deity or supernatural beings.

I consider the ones that go to conventions, raise thousands of dollars for speaking appointments from their favourite Atheist speakers, get matching merchandise, hang out in Atheist communities etc to be groups. I do this, because they are in a group.

I don't classify all Atheists are the same group, because then I would want them held accountable for the mass murders done on the basis of religion in the USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, etc - but they definitely form a category of groups and many of these groups are toxic and harmful. They shouldn't be given a free pass just because you don't participate in it yourself.

Most people who practice religion don't go to many religious conventions or spend a lot of time discussing their religion with fellow members of their faith. It's part of the routines of their lives and it may or may not come up from time to time when events happen. Even groups like Orthodox Jews don't spend that much time actually worrying about it (otherwise they would need like literally every second person to be a rabbi) unless they've joined a fundamentalist institution.

The danger with fundamentalist groups is not the book they claim to go by or the spiritual salvation they promise but that it creates a mentality of unquestionable righteousness. Nothing they do should be questioned. Everything they do is justified. If they want to go invade someone and take their wealth, it's justified. If they set out to systematically destroy a group of people, it's justified. Whether they do this for a god, a political ideal, a cult or because of ethics in games journalism is all rather secondary to the people who's lives they destroy.

You just referenced a elite racist who go a prize named after a guy who was indiscriminate about who he banged that it's believed nearly a quarter of the world's population has him as a common ancestor. (For those keeping track, only about 10% of the population of the world is white - so he has more non-white descendants than white).

Hey, look who else has a Charlemagne Prize (in 2000).

Also apparently every single person living in Luxemberg in 1986 won the prize... and Pope John Paul II in 2004.

Also I like how you leave out that Coudenhove-Kalergi was celebrated not for his views on race but rather for his heroic efforts in combating the Nazis through propaganda and vision of uniting Europe with a single currency (which is probably why the Euro won the prize in 2002).

So, good job again confirming you don't actually look into anything you post - you just grab the first shiny thing that catches your eye and assume an air of superiority - then when you're proven wrong you change the topic or post something like a quote or a picture and expect that this someone counts as worthwhile.


#9

I like to add that there is a atheist convention as well. So some atheist to go to conventions.


#10

Correlation does not mean every case is there, and you can still be a peaceful person and dehumanize others. Jainism is similar to Shakerism in that it's a religion that exists mostly of converts (since the religion discourages people having sex, thus has few children born into it) but can still easily dehumanize people and contribute to problems. One could be a fundamentalist Jainist for instance, and never harm a person from a group but also never offer the group help while helping people who directly or indirectly oppress the group. You could even do this with the rationale that the group is wrong and that you're helping making it more desireable for people to leave the group and embrace Jainism.

I mean, just a quick look confirms there is an entire major sect of Jainism that considers women to be incapable of achieving the major goal of the religion.

Hare Krishnas do this in a fashion by offering people cheap food within Hare Kirshna establishments where people are also told all about Krishna virtues and the only food is Krishna food, etc. Thus all of this is available to those who will support them under the pretense of helping people - even though they did not actively form a help the hungry program until thirty years after inception and this program still tends to focus on good publicity and recruiting. They can also easily do this to deliberately exclude helping people.

Most Christians never read the Bible. Most muslims read the Qu'ran but do not read all of the Haddiths. Most jews read enough to understand their day to day requirements. All of them tend to turn to others for guidance in interpreting the works and in dealing with complicated crises. If you are a Christian you go to your pastor, priest or minister. If you are a muslim you go to a cleric and if you are a jew you go to a rabbi.

In this way, a consistent belief is maintained in the community and the influence of the experts consulted often outweighs the contents of the book. Christian fundamentalists outright ignore the guidance of Jesus if their minister quotes from Leviticus and tells them they must be hateful towards gays, or quotes Leviticus to justify slavery - even though a basic Christian scholar can tell you the whole point of Christ's sacrifice was to free Christians from the restraints in the Old Testament.

If you're a part of a religious community and either your or it change views, then there's almost always an option to move into a different community of the same faith. Raised as unorthodox Jew but feel that it's too liberal and not enough devotion is being shown? Move to an orthodox community that matches your politics and requires you to wear a kippah at all times.

Likewise, Atheist groups function more or less the same way. In Australia and want to talk with other like-minded white Atheists about how secularism will fix everything? Go here. Want to snark and belittle people for having faith? Follow Dawkins on Twitter. Want to do both? Do both.

Most atheists don't belong to any particular institution, but then neither do most Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews or any other religion. They tend to just practice their faith or lack thereof privately - and they all have fundamentalist institutions.

You don't even need to pray to be a Christian. You just need to believe that spiritual salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ, son of God. My parents consider themselves Christian but have never set foot inside a church outside of weddings, funerals and baptisms of children, they don't own a Bible and they don't know the Lord's Prayer or any other conventional prayer.

Do you want to hate gays? If you do, there's a church for that where the preachers will quote Paul and Leviticus regularly. Do you want to not hate gays? If you do, there's a church for that where the preachers will remind us that Jesus said to love thy neighbour. Both will tell you that you're right to feel that way and may place further expectations on you.

"Want to hate gays? Sure. We'll support you but we also expect you to support the idea that slavery is condoned by God and hence the natural state of the black man is to be slaves to the white. We expect you to agree that black man's servitude to white is his path to Heaven. We also expect you to advocate against governments teaching science..." So someone who is a virilent homophobe finds approval and a place in the group and gets more approval for doing whatever the leader advocates - the easiest course for them is to think of only people in the group as human and essentially surrender decision making to the leader. This is institutionalized thinking and it is what defines fundamentalism.

Hate gays, taxes or poor people but also hate the idea of god? Join the Atlas Society.
Hate women mostly and hate other marginalized groups and also hate the idea of god? Subscribe to the AmazingAtheist and join A Voice for Men.
Hate religion and think that pretending you understand science makes you superior? Join the Dawkins Society.

If you want approval for a political stance and are happy to conform in order to get more approval, there's a group out there for you. The more you conform, the more approval you'll get.

Same scrutiny by who? My high school had people teaching Catholic Religious Education who hadn't read the Bible and didn't know most of the major parables - they used to get shitty with me when I'm quote bits of the Bible. There are also plenty of people who insist that The God Delusion should be mandatory reading for everyone and even batshit people who send their children to camps so strangers will teach them how to Atheist.

That you didn't get sent to these camps doesn't matter. Most christians don't get sent to pray-away-the-gay sessions. Most muslims don't get preached to by Boko Haram. You can't say one group is defined by it's fundamentalists and the other group isn't because the other group doesn't want to be. It doesn't work like that. That's the kind of institutionalist thinking that fundamentalist groups promote: Violence by out group is justified and never about hate, all other groups are inherently violent and hateful so we're just defending ourselves!

Yeah, you send your kids to brainwashing camps to join non-religious groups all the time right?

Oh look now we're dividing up atheism to distance ourselves from groups that we don't like and declare them to be not-true (un)believers because we don't like what they do but don't want to challenge them or police our own... in what way is atheism not a religion?

Seriously. Institution. Leaders. Intepretations. Manipulation to avoid responsibility. Attacking people with different beliefs. These are all the things that religions get criticized for so why should someone get a free pass for saying "But I don't believe in Invisible Man in the sky!" ?

Atheism has a fairly basic core fundamental belief.

And when interviewed Christopher Hitchens made it clear he believed the work he was doing was in the best interests of humanity and would be what made humanity better - his group were the only ones doing the right thing. That Hitchens didn't believe in a sentient higher power or that he was going to an afterlife is really inconsequential. He still ruthlessly trampled over the beliefs of others because he was certain his stance was right and that validated everything he did.

Ideologies that aren't political views!? WTF? You want to complain about the politics of religion then remove politics when asking for outside comparisons. Well let's look at some secular examples:

The Great Famine of India, 1876-1878, approximately 5.5 million Indians starved to death (millions and millions more suffered) because at the time the fashionable thinking was that altruism had been proven to be wrong by Darwin (like Marx, Darwin is usually championed by people who don't have a fucking clue what he said). It was therefore concluded that it was right for the British colonizers to throw lavish feasts and parties while the common class of India starved, because obviously natural selection failed those who were starving. it was seen as the correct action because it was felt that Christian charity had created underclasses of weaklings.

Want to talk Nazis? Did you know that the dominant theory behind the mass murders of groups in the Holocaust was the Eugenics movement which was founded in Britain and popularized in the USA? It was a purely secular ideal (which again was misunderstanding Darwin to an amazing extent) that advocated humanity should take control over it's future rather than lead it to survival of the fittest. Thus they started categorizing and speculating what "undesirable" traits should be forcibly removed the species and helped fund Nazi Germany when they agreed to start purging criminals, the disabled, gays and "undesirable" ethnic groups. All of which is of course, pretty much completely opposed to Christian ideals both in the lack of charity in the idea that they could do better work than God.

The USSR? Did you know that the reason why Communism flourished in Russia instead of in Marx's home nation of Germany was because the Russian elite had also latched onto the same ideals as the other two groups and hence suspended helping the poor in any way and simply focused on milking them dry. Thus it created the desperate impoverished class who were seeking a messiah and who came in the form of Lenin (who amongst other things promised to abolish religion for the good of the masses). So spitting on Christian charity led to anti-religious rioting, secularism disaster squared.

Stop typing. I can already see the responses about how this "wasn't in the name of atheism" because it wasn't formally, but religious fundamentalism doesn't take it's actions for religious reasons but rather political. ISIS is funded by people who just want to get western influence out of Middle East. The Crusades were over controlling farm lands, mines and trade routes. Oppressing queer people is about creating a hated underclass to project your frustrations on and feel superior to (kind of like Reality TV).

The actual belief in something supernatural is really, really insignificant compared to people's willingness to let a core belief and the need to acceptance allow them go down the scary path of surrendering their judgement and dehumanizing others. It doesn't matter whether the people who throw pig guts on Muslim graves are Christians or Atheists, the families of the departed suffer just the same.


#11

Bombing abortion clinics, passing anti-gay laws among other things like the inquisition sound a lot worse than that - And hating women seems a common procedure in most religions - Not to say in society itself

I don't know why, what good is there in being religious if you have never read the book yourself? I mean, don't you want to know the rules and avoid missing something important? Are you just going to believe everything the rabbi/priest/cleric tells you (or alternatively your parents)?

The new testament is useless without the old one because it predicts the prophecy of the messiah - This is an argument I've never understood ("The old testament doesn't matter") - Why are people who value the new testament right and those who value the old testament wrong? Why are verses about loving everyone considered enough to cancel the verses that dislike gays?

Curiously all of those people legally and theologically belong at least to a church and if not they at least have a sect of rules, written or oral to follow (belief in the afterlife, god, in commandments, etc) - Atheists don't have any of that - There's groups for atheists mostly because it's sometimes complicated to find atheists in real life and people feel alone, others had bad experiences with faith and were forced to convert or kicked out of the house for not believing or even suffer from stress because they are literally unable to stop believing since they were indoctrinated so hard

My mother is the same - But do you admit then that all fundamentalists are Christians then? They believe in resurrection trough Jesus Christ

I don't see why parents can't teach atheism to kids since religious people have been doing that with strangers from pretty much forever but I think it's ridiculous because it's complicated to teach non belief in gods to someone - There are people arguing for hundreds of books to be official in schools ranging from the silliest to the darkest - Obviously there's some nuts who want the god delusion to be taught in schools but that will never happen

I don't think most Muslim or Christian are fundamentalist - I can say that because fundamentalists represent the worst you'll ever find in a religion - My rule is find me the fundies in a religion and I'll tell you how bad or good it can be - The sole reason why I said the same rule doesn't apply is because both groups are different - Atheism is to religion as bald is to a haircut or abstinence is a sex position - Religion involves a sect of beliefs around the world, universe, social rules, existence and frequently the supernatural - Atheism is simply not believing in gods the same way that a word like agolfist would describe someone who doesn't golf - And that word only exists because belief in god is so popular that we had to find a word to describe ourselves - And even if we were fundies the worst we have are guys like Dawkins or Hitchens who despite their bad rhetoric write books and give lectures - Compare that to suicide bombings, riots, violence and terrorism.

I don't understand this question - And I don't have kids

Fuck, you still don't understand - They are as atheist as I am, they are perfectly non believers as much as me or any other atheist, but you can't blame the harm done on the fact that they were atheist - Stalinism is a political doctrine and so is Maoism, Lenininsm etc and they all have core principles made by those leaders and previous people like Marx and Engels - Whether you like it or not communism is an anti-religion ideology because it believes religion is the opium of the people and that's not going to change - Blaming atheism on this would be like blaming smokers or moustaches because stalin had a moustache and smoked

Leaders - Only for a small amount of anglo-saxon people - Most atheists in the world may not even know who Richard Dawkins is
Interpretations - Of what? THere are no books?
Manipulation - We only have responsibility for our actions, we can't kill someone simply for not believing in god since there's no commandment to convert others in atheism - We don't have a bible telling us that only atheists are saved (hinting that we should convert others one way or another to avoid hell).

I'm not saying those people shouldn't be called true atheists, but the point is that the fact they were atheists is irrelevant to the point - Hitler according to some didn't really believe but he was also a vegetarian - Is that relevant to anything?

One without books, rules or beliefs - simply a non belief, therefore you can't have fundamentalists because there are no rules to follow - Everything that happens including atheist clubs hating religion etc is a choice of people to associate themselves - Honestly the reason why atheists become atheists isn't just because we don't believe but we dislike some parts about belief in supernatural entities we consider illegitimate authorities and truths we can't question and for that that's why we aren't religions - It's the last thing many want to be

Yes, he put words on a book, how serious is that compared to picking up a Kalashnikov and killing cartoonists or something like that? Are you seriously thinking Hitchens was a monster to mankind when he simply spoke his mind, regardless of how much you disagree with him?

Darwinism isn't atheism, atheists don't need to be Darwinists, both have nothing to do with each other, there's atheists who don't know what evolution even is and believe in things like horoscopes - But go on....

Yes I did know that but thank you

This has nothing to do with atheism - The fact religions principles are absent does not equate with "atheism caused this", it's merely something caused by other variables like Darwinism

That's not secularism, it's anti-religion as you put it and anti-religion can manifest itself in many ways including from other religions people (those who kill the less good believers)

And it's also because certain books say so and denying it won't help your cause - ISIS is because of power, but it's because they believe to be fulfilling Islam's ideas, the Christian who bombed abortion clinics believed to be helping god, queer people are oppressed because major religions are sexist and usually only recognize the existence and creation of men + women and not any other sex so what did you expect from religion? Are you saying you know more than the Pope, supreme authority of the church who has condemned trans people and gays continually? Do you believe he is wrong?

As for your examples, I never said and I would be dead wrong if I did that all wars/atrocities were religious, I don't believe the bullshit some atheists say that if we take down religion most evil will disappear but the examples you provided don't erase the amount of harm done - This silly idea that it's not religion but people/politics/society is terrible because it conceals how dangerous it can be to have blind faith in something and not being up to discussion - Whether you like it or not Jihads believe they are doing Allah's work, they don't merely want power, they believe that's pure Islam and they hate other secular Muslims - Christians in the middle age and the church in particular wanted power but they felt they were doing what God wanted as well and they believed it for real - It's caused by religion, it's the basic idea, simply by the mere fact that if religion didn't exist those fundies wouldn't exist as well, because there would be nothing to be fundamentalist about - They could riot over other things and find other ideologies, but that one would not allow them. Your argument can pretty much be used for anything and it becomes invalid - I could say that nazis weren't really motivated by white power but by another completely unrelated thing but that wouldn't make it true and I could argue that there's peaceful nazis who simply want to live calmly with other white people in peace and we should therefore respect and not judge those because of the majority - Why is belief in superiority of race worse than believing your religion bears the absolute truth over all other humans?


#12

Interesting and relevant -

How about putting this discussion in a new thread by the way?


#13

There are 3 points that I find problematic what the athiests have said.

1 - Using religious fundamentalist groups and claiming that they represent the religion, yet when a Marxist persecutes religious people because he or she hates religion all of a sudden thats not because of of atheism on anti theism? One rule for yourself and another for religions?

2 - Atheism is NOT based on scientific evidence - its a philosophical position = philosophical materialism. The argument isnt based on "evidence" or lack there of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssDXlAnvdgw .

3 - Atheists do not have a monopoly on the scientific community. There are many religious people there - Just because some scientists are loud atheists does not mean they represent the whole scientific community. To claim there is a correlation between "science" and atheism isn't true.


#14

Did you read a single thing? No shit it's worse. I pointed out you don't need to dehumanize people and you go "well but doing that is worse". What's next? You're going to same burglars aren't real criminals because they don't burn your house down like arsonists do?

Atheist philosopher Alain de Botton has quite a few bits on things that he thinks Atheism should learn from Religion. It's worth looking up, but for the moment I'll summarize. Religion has a lot of reasons to appeal to people:

  • The supportive community
  • The comfort of believing that regardless of whatever happens there is someone who cares about you (even if it's an invisible man in the sky)
  • Comfort of routine from childhood
  • A philosophy that they personally understand
  • It helps them deal with a particular issue in their life (substance abuse for instance)
  • It's a cultural norm they grew up with (like wearing clothes)
  • A calendar that helps them order their lives and manage their routines

This is another major fundamentalist type issue that Atheist groups create - rather than make any attempt to actually understand and explore what religion does for people there's just the attitude of "I think it should do this, if it doesn't do this it's stupid and wrong and we should tell people about how it's wrong." This is really no different from old people telling you what video games do wrong or what's wrong with social media.

The Old Testament is necessary because it tells people about the previous demands of God so they can appreciate Jesus' sacrifice and know about the God that begot him. Without the Old Testament then God has no introduction and there is no creation myth or explanation how we got to Mary.

The New Testament then provides the new rules which are supposed to supplant the old rules and the guidance of the people who knew Jesus... and a few people who had no idea who he was but hey. It's supposed to be the guide for how to be a good Christian until Judgement Day - which is explained in Revelations (that people take with a grain of salts since it was about three hundred years after Christ).

It's a complicated document and one that most people don't really understand, hence why they go to their priest/pastor/etc. Which is fairly standard - it's why we have philosophers, doctors, financial planners, etc

Anyone who believes in the salvation through Jesus is a Christian. Fundamentalists can be of any sort, but sure the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians (despite their weird interpretations). It's just like how they're white, American, English speakers, etc. They can be part of groups without defining the whole group.

Why will it never happen? People said Hitler would never accomplish anything while he was writing his book. The God Delusion isn't anywhere near as bad a read as Chairman Mao's handbook. Where is the safety net here? Assuming a thing can't happen is basically how you get disaster.

Teaching kids non-belief is really not that complicated. If you look into the camps, they're not even that focused on teaching non-belief or critical thinking - they're just focused on trying to debunk the camp owner's understanding of religion (see the bit above) to guarantee your child won't turn into a dirty theist. Parents who actually want to teach their kids non-belief just have to take the time to actually talk to the kids along with the social issues related to the matter, etc.

Don't tell it to me, tell it to the people who worship Dawkins, Hitchens, and other Atheist figures. Also, we've just covered you don't understand shit about religion or why people appeal to it - why are you still lecturing on what is and isn't a religion? Did you ever stop to question that or are you just repeating what another atheist told you?

Most suicide bombers have no real interest in religion - they get conscripted in with the agreement that if they do it then their families will be taken care of. This was uncovered in research years ago but is fanatically ignored by atheists who want to shit on religion. Also, what do you think a guy killing three muslims over a parking spot is? What do you call mass murder of monks and priests in soviet nations? How bad does it actually have to get before it's a problem?

"We're sorry that people harass you, defile your graves, mis-represent you, spread misinformation that leads to you being systematically excluded from protection - but at least we haven't burned your houses down... yet! Oh wait... is your house on fire? Okay well at least we haven't shot your children yet!"

I did say Citation required initially - then I figured it's better to point out: It doesn't matter if there's a lot who don't follow him, there's a lot of religious people who don't particularly take their queues off any figure either. The issue is not everyone int he whole world, it's fundamentalists.

Literally everything. Why are we here? What's the moral way to live? How do we reconcile revenge vs benefit to society? Why does this require a book? Do you not actually live and go out and do things without consulting a book on what to do?

I cannot follow what you are trying to say here other than you think that you're special for not believing in religion.

Oh so words in a book has no consequences now? Do books matter or not? Make up your fucking mind. By this insanity then Osama Bin Laden is blameless because he just said words to videos, gave money to people and wrote emails.

The "individual responsibility" argument makes no sense because you're literally arguing that everything including religion is completely irrelevant and we shouldn't even worry about talking about groups. See how pointless that is?

You can be anti-religious and secularist - in fact it's a pretty common combination! So common in fact I've yet to find any secularist group that isn't loudly backed by anti-religious folks or focused entirely on talking about who religion doesn't belong first and benefits of secularism second (if at all).

But it was totally secular: They removed religious influence from the decision making and instead adopted a different ideology that was totally uninfluenced by religion, then they adopted a whole new religious free system of society. That the latter was anti-religion was more a matter of politics (communism was anti-everyone who wasn't communist) than anything else.

I notice that you keep shifting the goal posts even after I told you not to - it was "find cases of ideologies" now it's "let me nitpick how this isn't my ideology".

If you, like fundamentalists - you have no intention of paying attention to what people say and just replying with your own pre-packaged rhetoric you should just be honest about it.

Yes. Because I'm not a practicing Catholic (which is the only subgroup of Christians who are supposed to recognize the Pope's authority) - also did you know there are even Catholic nuns who don't consider themselves beholden to the Pope? Do you in fact know anything about any religion?

No, you just said books don't matter - you're arguing it's the books fault but book writers are blameless... oh wait they can only be blameless if they're Atheists. Yeah, no fundamentalist thinking there!

How many Jihadists do you know personally? How many have you interviewed? Do you think it's a magical co-incidence that experts are saying that the USA created ISIS when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you think it's just co-incidence certain environments create jihadists while others don't? Do you think it's just as relevant that all jihadists are homosapiens? Why do you think your piece of information is so important?

You keep saying that but I can't help but notice you defend it with religious conviction.

I'm glad you're leaving his conversation because I'm not interested in hearing about your personal definitions for things that you invented to win the argument.

Same source says most scientists are theists. Awkward.

It's actually not a constitutional right - hence why they have the numerous issues of "religious freedom". The closest it came to being a constitutional right is letters by one Founding Father which are not legal documents. Also, atheism would not be special under this - either rules are set by a dominant religion or they're not.

Futhermore you'll notice if you actually follow the shenanigans that generally there's an awful lot of theists arguing religion shouldn't dictate the laws - on all the hotspot issues. (Most prominently can Christians sell cakes to gays). To pretend that atheism owns these issues is just ridiculous and insulting to everyone involved and a classic case of "special snowflake" syndrome.

"He's been completely disowned..." (ie his 667k followers aren't people you like so they don't count - ignoring the fact that disowned means he had the position). It's very easy to claim anyone isn't "really" part of your group, I'm curious why only atheists should be allowed it though.

Please describe the exact amount of participation in what aspects of each religion to qualify for it. Be precise and be sure to cite sources within the texts of the religion. Judging by your confidence it should be easy.

Also please clarify at what level of disbelief is required to formally be an atheist? Is it just you think it's unlikely? Do you have to the "strong atheist" who wouldn't believe in God even if he appeared before you? Also, should we be prosecuting people who fill in census forms incorrectly?

How about decide if you're leaving or not and stop going Expert by posting a video with a random statement to pretend it has great significance. Personally I think this is highly relevant to the topic since Islamaphobia is a major aspect the the EU xenophobia and covers more or less the same double thinking evidenced here.

"White people deserve to keep Europe to themselves because of these things I decided about non-white people."
"Atheism can't have the same problems as religion because of these things I decided are important about religion."

Only apparently it's only bad when Expert does it for some reason.

I didn't say he wasn't racist, I said he got his award for combating the Nazis and talking about a big unified Europe - his racism was irrelevant. Again... you might want to stop to actually read everything before typing up.


#15

The only thing I am doing is explaining to you what Atheism is, which is:

A. A position of belief, not a position of knowledge
B. The lack of belief in a deity
C. Not a religion

That is literally it.

Are you denying that every major Religion asks you to accept fantastical stories without evidence? Are those statements wrong? What's "invented" about them?

Also, I didn't say I was leaving the conversation - Just that I have no interest in indulging your war-of-attrition debating style.

Are you sure about this?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Yeah, and there's also a lot that buy fried chicken to protest gay rights.

Because atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God, this is going to encompass a broad palate of people. Inevitably, some of these people will be scumbags. TJ Kincad is one of these scumbags, and many of his supporters are people who share similarly unpleasant views (on women in particular since focuses on feminism - He should be called TheAmazingMisandrist really). I think it's completely fair for people to denounce that kind of behaviour especially when someone claiming to "represent atheists" is spouting such garbage.

Anyway, this is a case of a bad egg being called out for his bollocks - the same thing anyone with a conscience would do in any social situation. And he's still nowhere near as reputable as Dawkins or Hitchens and does nothing else besides spout bullshit on the internet and e-beg.

Why? I'm not the one asserting that people who "practice" religion don't have to do anything. Practicing lawyers don't have to the court often either, right?

As with any position of belief, there is going to be varying degrees of intensity to that belief. I find The Spectrum of Theistic Probability to be quite a good way of answering this question. You could even argue that the majority of atheists are technically agnostic because at this point in time it is literally impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, you also can't disprove the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. Or Superman!

Based on this, I would say that I am a "De Facto Atheist". What about you?

How about you stop making ad-hominem attacks at me for merely trying to have a discussion? I'm not saying "fun fact" before linking a bunch of questionably racist shit, I'm linking a video which contains a chat between a theist and an atheist on a radio program that had some relevance to what we were just talking about. I'm guessing you didn't bother to look at it.

Reductio ad absurdum - I never once said this. Atheism isn't a religion. That is my position. That is my only position. Bad people can be atheists. Good people can be atheists.


#16

That's because atheism is precisely not a religion, it is merely a state of mind, a position that consists in not believing in gods - I could even believe in ghosts, afterlives and so on and still be an atheist. As for Marxists, I don't claim they are guilt free or that they weren't/aren't true atheists, my point is simply that it's irrelevant their religious belief because their form of organizing the state actually comes to closer to - GUESS WHAT - A religion and not a lack of something!

This isn't a double standard, it's a standard

Then prove me god exists - The philosophy is irrelevant, most atheists are not interested in reading philosophy books or learning about philosophy and the materialist part is irrelevant because I can believe in afterlives and ghosts if I wish - In fact you can be atheist and spiritualist - I for example am an atheist but not materialist because I think some things like morality are not measurable by matter

Actually evidence points towards scientists mostly elite scientists being less likely to be religious - But I don't give a flying fuck, I want scientists to be productive and I dont' care about what they believe or not

No, it's simply that if you look at different religions and its fundamentalists you will find that some are worse than others - You don't see a lot of reports about isolated african or amazonian tribal religions causing suicide bombings - My point isn't that its worse but that the fact you pointed out the problem with Jainism (1) Proves the point indirectly that religion is bad because there will always be someone fucking everything up (2) Doesn't change anything previously - Let me tell you this:

Fundamentalism means having a doctrine and following it literally, every word (oral or written) and making no exceptions - A Fundamentalist for example will think that "Thou shall not kill" (Random example) is absolute while a liberal/moderate will think you may be able to kill in self defense - a Fundie believes the bible is literally the word of god while a moderate may see it as a spiritual guide - Regardless of what you believe, the words are there and if people bomb someone or kill someone and claim to avenge a prophet, a figure or god then I see no reason to not believe them - If I kill someone tomorrow and claim to the cops it was to please the god in the old testament would that mean I'm not Christian?

Also, it's actually possible to quantify the number of harm done by religions - Christianity and Islam in particular are worse (I'm thinking about crusades and inquisition but mostly the latter) - Just taking a look at terrorist group lists will show you that there are more extremist groups for these religions (and some for Judaism) than for Jainism and tribal small religions etc - Can you honestly explain me since I'm apparently so dumb why are there so many terrorist Islamic groups? Why do they do shit? many claim to follow the Quran and quote verses, I think it was ISIS who delivered something on how to treat sex slaves - So tell me....

First things first - I noticed that in the later replies you said several times that I don't know anything about religion - I like your posts (really) but you have a terrible habit of assuming things about other members and honestly you should be careful about that because you may end up in wrong conclusions - In this case I've been raised Christian by my parents so to claim I don't know anything about religion is naive - Because I do know I left it - What do you know exactly?

Secondly, I don't give a damn about the following list and I'm pretty aware that all those things are good for religious people but none says if religion is true or false - There's so many religions that I have no idea which one I would believe and because of that it's irrelevant the comfort of philosphy if the idea seems false or unreasonable to me

Atheists are a very diverse group so you dont' get to actually claim what we stand for or not - You can find neo nazi atheists and communist social justice activist ones - We're not a monolithic group and from my experience (limited) few of us would actually say that religion doesn't bring good because it does - It's just that that good is based on an idea we consider unlikely to be true and people are better off searching comfort in other ways - Granted I've struggled because I don't believe in life after death I've found happiness in many things in life like my family, my girlfriend, my degree and lately my new dog

So the old testament pretty much is irrelevant and are the rules don't matter? What if the old testament claims it matters? What do we do? When did jesus explicitly cancel the old testament?

Precisely my point so thanks for corroborating - I never said the WBC defines Christianity and I don't think ISIS defines Islam that would be unreasonable but they're still Christians and Muslims - My main question was - Why are these believers bad? They claim to follow god's word, so why are they wrong and moderates are right? Can't moderates be wrong? don't moderates pretty much metaphorically interpret each bad verse to fit a more moral outcome in your everyday life?

Do you have any reasonable predictions? Do most people in society hate religious people so much that it would cause a holocaust of religious people? I don't see a reason why a western country with laws would allow an anti-religious book when secularism means (I'm a law student) the freedom to live in society without the imposition of any spiritual or theist beliefs or otherwise - This means that at least in my country and according to my constitution a government cannot allow an anti-religion book to be passed in public schools and I guess Britain and so on also have laws protecting minorities and religious groups (heck the queen is the head of the Church)

I find that reprehensible - But anyway I'm not going to teach my kids to be atheists, I'll let them pick.

Do you have any numbers on how many atheists worship Dawkins at least to the extent of killing other people for them? I understand why religion appeals because I'm an ex-Christian and I've struggled for a lot of time to face the fact it's not likely to be a god (the thought of dead terrifies me without an afterlife) - Your belief that I don't understand religion or its need is unreasonable because I feel compelled many times to change my mind because it's not easy to live without believing in a higher purpose - I've varied between agnostic theism and atheism many times because sometimes I wished to believe in a higher being but I just can't anymore - To say we don't understand the appeal is ridiculous because atheists are a diverse group and many are ex-theists who were brought up as kids to Christianity, Islam, etc and have read the books, gone to church etc - Don't you find weird that sometimes apostates can be the most anti-religious people ever (kinda like ex-smokers sometimes become the most militant anti-smoking people)?

To explain what is and isn't a religion I don't need an expert card and your ad hominem is pretty much useless because what I said previously is irrelevant to the point being made now, I could have said religious people are all devils that wouldn't invalidate the fact that a religion is usually (simple definition) a sect of beliefs and rules about the world, societies, the supernatural and other things - Atheism is not that therefore it isn't a religion - End of story, you're embarrassing yourself by calling us a religion.

And yes, the fact I don't worship atheists doesn't mean I can't use their quotes because some arguments and debates have proven quite useful to debate theists in real life and discuss atheism when someone requires it (other than that I'm not interested in doing it voluntarily) - I like theatheistvoice youtuber because he's more moderate and discusses things that matter and can actually affect atheists on daily lives

As for your affirmation on fundamentalism - Can you prove that? - And why does fundamentalism arise in the first place? I'm not saying everyone in it doesn't have other interests or that there is no political power involved or economic variables but who's in charge? Why are organizations like ISIS called Islamic terrorists and not "family protection of members terrorists"? My whole argument here is that fundamentalism shows us the worst in each religion - The argument that "it's not religion it's something else" is useless because it can be applied to ANYTHING - I could argue perfectly that corporate leaders are not motivated by profit but because they want to run the world or that political leaders aren't really political but motivated by money or religion - What's the point? I can say that to pretty much anyone about anything, it's a useless argument that only strawmans - You can say that some people have bad interpretations of the Quran, but they are as Muslim as anyone else - Or do you believe ISIS is not "Muslim" and is non-theist or Christian?

I call it an ideologically motivated murder possibly by anti-religious sentiment.

Let me rephrase this:

Atheism - Non belief in gods - The maximum you can get out of atheism is someone who is 100% sure there are no gods at all, everything else like hating religion is not atheism but...

Anti-theism - A simple google will pretty much tell you what anti-theism is and it's a position that applies well to people like Hitchens - He said it himself he was an anti-theist - Another thing you don't get is that anti-theism isn't a property of atheism, I could believe in god and be anti-theist to other religions or I could be a deist or a spiritualist and be anti-religion against organized religion - My whole point is that it can't be motivated by atheism because it is logically impossible to be motivated by a lack of belief in something just like I can't be motivated to kill someone because I don't believe in aliens or don't play golf. Get your facts straight, maybe research a bit on atheism, talk to some etc

Strawman

Are you asking me to answer this questions as an atheist?

Not special, but not being religious is clearly different from being religious. Atheism doesn't have a bible, no commandments, you can literally find atheists without nothing in common accross the globe with all kinds of beliefs and lifestyles - If you go to a religion you will most likely encounter people who at the very least believe in the same god and figure (Jesus and so on) and believe in some commandments, sometimes read a book, believe they are going to heaven and that there's a hell, and this spreads until someone believes gays are raging against god and other horrible things

I haven't read his books or any "atheist" books but did Christopher Hitchens actually advocate something like Bin Laden? You still not follow the reasoning here - Books matter when their put in a pedestal - For a religion who declares itself the truth about the world the book contains the rules - Books written by figures like Hitchens are there for people to buy but you don't have a commandment saying you need to believe to go to heaven - So yes, books matter, but there are no books on "atheism" - At the most you could write a book about the virtues of being atheist like being free from going to church and other things but most content in those books is anti-theist and not merely atheist - In fact a book about atheism could be simply a blank page, it would fit. I believe anti-theistic sentiment can behave like a religion sometimes and I don't think those people as a group are guilt-free but that's much more than simply being an atheist, it's wanting to destroy religion and eradicate religious people. Be clear - What do you actually object to a person speaking his/her mind in a book and giving lectures saying that religion sucks if that's their opinion ? Wouldn't a priest be able to say atheism sucks because to be saved Jesus is the one to follow? Isn't this merely people expressing contrary opinions?

I agree and there are groups, but what's the point? Inevitably if you get yourself in a group it will get blood on its hands and you will be seen poorly because of actions of others - Speaking of that, how many atheists kill people because of a lack of belief in god?

Personal experience is irrelevant - But I'm not interest in those groups either way

It was only in favour of the working class, to some degree

I don't see why I should consider this since this accusation has no evidence

God lord yes I was raised Catholic (Christian) - My point here isn't that everyone follows the pope but the figure of the pope is usually someone with vast knowledge who studied the bible and other Christian teachings his whole life to reach the position - My question is why is Christianity LGBT friendly? what do you do about verses condemning gay people?

Because those books are more directed towards anti-theism and not atheism as I've explained - Everything else will be repetition - But to clear something up it will be hard for you to find a book by an atheist that claims it is the ultimate truth and that to be saved you need to believe in something. Books from people like Hitchens merely throw out an opinion but they don't say people who don't believe will go to hell and there is no coercion for you to actually believe everything the book says, not to mention those books usually are backed up by consistent arguments and make clear points - What do you believe in all honesty that is dangerous about people like Hitchens releasing books? Do you think it's any worse than (imagine) an anti-communist releasing a book called "why communism sucks"?

I ask the same question to you

No, it makes sense, but would ISIS exist if Islam didn't exist? Answer this

Is it a coincidence that in certain religions you can always find violent people willing to have dangerous interpretations of its teachings?

Irrelevant and strawman

EDIT:

Another thing on fundamentalism - One of the things about fundamentalism that you probably know is that people refuse to change their mind and as you spoke yesterday they won't allow dissent on debate - Curiously this applies well to people who claim they will never leave their doctrine even if it's proven wrong but that's not something that applies to atheists - Most atheists are simply not convinced or see no reason at all to think there are gods or other supernatural beings but we will probably change our minds with reasonable evidence - I'm not demanding for god or Jesus Christ to show up in front of me but some good deduction arguments would probably be enough (without fallacies) - Main thing here is that we can't be considered fundamentalists about anything even if atheism was a religion because few of us actually claim to never change our minds, I would gladly admit I'm wrong if someday I'm convinced there is a god


#17

The whole point is that some atheist have indeed persecuted religious people because of their atheism (eg opiate of the masses"). However this does not apply to all atheists does it, so why don't you use the same standards when talking about religious people as well?? looking at your previous points you dont.

Not believing in God IS a philosophical statement - you don't not read books, By you asking "prove to me God exists" is a philosophical statement as well. This point was specifically about people using science to justify their atheism, which you clearly dont.

If you mean by white scientist then your probably right - pity other scientist all over the world dont count in these "evidences".

Just to add you dont just have to be religous to be a fundamentalist - non religous people/movemnets can have that mind set as well.

You see you do it again? that's like me asking you would Stalin, Mo or pol pot exist if it wasn't for there hatred and disbelief(atheism) of religion?? Its meaningless statement.


#18

It's not because of atheism, it's because of anti-theism - I can't persecute someone for lacking a belief in god just like I can't persecute someone for lacking a belief in Aliens - You are pretty much mixing something that is logically impossible. I don't use the same standards because atheism is not a religion but religious people are a part of a religion - Get your facts straight, I'm trying to explain to people who don't know the super simple definition of atheism what atheism is (hint - it's literally the absence of belief so it's nothing)

Can you logically explain why the absence of something can cause me to kill someone? Like I don't believe in anything supernatural, does that belief in your view command me to do anything against other people? Are there bibles or qurans for me to read that may tell me to do things others will disapprove? Do I have a church to go to and do I have to do things to be saved? Do I have a coherent organized group that agrees on some core principles?

I use science in the sense that I have seen no compelling proof that gods exist - it's not a philosophical statement - I could make a philosophical statement about god not existing because of the evil in the world problem but saying I am not convinced is not a philosophical position, it's simply a statement of my state of mind and has nothing to do with philosophy. Stop mixing

I don't care what scientists believe in, I just want scientists to be happy being scientists

Since I'm getting tired of some explanations, some simple links will explain better:


#19

anti theist that call themselves atheists! - that's the whole point. Its got nothing to do with your definition of it - its the same with religious people - if they call themselves Muslims, Jews etc etc then you have to judge them on that merit. Not blame the entire religion or all atheists who don't identify with there definition - like yourself or other Jews and Muslims.

Anti theists don't go around saying we are anti theists - they just say we're atheist. Same with Muslims or chirstains who do things in the name of there religion.

Hating religion and religious people is good enough reasons for some people to do crazy things to them. All depends on the individual. I'm making general statements just like you are - no personal attacks.

Even though your using philosophy in that entire paragraph - we'll just say forget about it happy.


#20

Because they happen to be atheists but that's irrelevant, my girlfriend is an outspoken anti-theist and she believes in a higher force so both positions are not mutually exclusive

Lack of belief or non-belief or belief that gods don't exist is the only definition of atheism. There is nothing else to it. But I'm sure you can provide other definitions since you know so much about it

Yes they do, my girlfriend does it, Hitchens did it, Hawkins pretty much admitted it indirectly and so did Harris, it's not hard to identify. I could be an anti-theist and a theist at the same time

A lot of people don't vocally tell what their position is but show it trough gestures and opinions - If I say I think women should be able to abort I'm not explicitly saying I am pro-choice but it's pretty clear I am because of the words I said - When an atheist says he hates religion it's pretty much a sign that he is also an anti-theist - But quite honestly simply disliking something isn't a reason to kill people, have you ever wondered why Richard Dawkins never thought about picking up a gun and killing theists?

Hating religion is not atheism, it's anti-theism, have you even bothered to google a simple definition of what atheism is? I can't kill someone in the name of atheism because atheism is a lack of belief in gods, there is nothing written there about hate, it's just non belief, it's a nothing, how can I kill for nothing, a vacuum?

Where? Because I only see a pretty basic common sense statement by me saying I am not convinced. That is not philosophy and I find it amusing that you feel entitled to come tell atheists that their position is philosophical when it doesn't need to have anything to do with it. I could be an atheist simply because I was never brought up about gods and I didn't know what gods were.