/sci/ - Science & Math

number of people killed by me: zero
so have fun sucking my atheist cock

Agnostics are too indecisive to kill people.

i would form some kind of opinion about this, OP, but sadly i too am agnostic and it is far too strenuous a task for me

>>3489616
this
and no atheist has ever killed anyone BECAUSE of their atheism, but people have killed as a direct result of their religious beliefs.

also, grouping people together and declaring guilt by association is fallacious anyway.

also, 'agnostics' suck donkey ass, and are really just cowardly atheists. pic related.

I'm afraid I'm going to need proof that Stalin, Hilter, and Mao weren't actually Agnostics.

>>3489624
> no atheist has ever killed anyone BECAUSE of their atheism

likely not true to be honest, so why say it?

Almost all murders are committed by agnostics, actually.

>and no atheist has ever killed anyone BECAUSE of their atheism, but people have killed as a direct result of their religious beliefs.

No True Scotsman.

>>3489624

that chart is complete Horseshit..
you can call a dog's tail a leg, but a dog still has only four legs.

>>3489631
>I'm going to kill you because gods do not exist.
I don't think so Tim.

>>3489635
>no true Scotsman
Look up the no true Scotsman fallacy again, you are attempting to apply it incorrectly.
The fallacy applies to statement which claim that anyone who purports to have been part of a group and is not must have never truly been a part of the group to begin with.

No person here (nor does the statement in general) makes the claim that any atheist who murders must not really be an atheist.

The statement referenced simply asserts that non-belief is not a very potent motivator for violence. The statement structure could easily be applied to other worldviews and would still be valid.
IE - No Jainist has ever killed someone because of their Jainism.
These two subjects are similar in that each philosophical position, in and of itself, does not provide motivation for violence.
They differ only in that to murder in the name of Jainism would be a literal contradiction of Jainist philosophy whereas to murder in the name of Atheism would be merely unintelligible.

>>3489624
This chart attempts to misapply the term Atheist.
I know there are many who would like the term to apply to everyone/everything that does not positively hold a belief in a deity but that is simply not true. Additionally, such a broad application would make Atheism an umbrella term in danger of becoming meaningless.

Instead, let Atheism(ist) mean what the etymology actually suggests it means, one who believes there are no gods.

This is sufficiently useful in that anyone who suspects that there are probably no gods is actually atheist. But let Atheist be applied only to those who have considered religious positions and rejected them.

To properly address other positions, let one who is not concerned with religion at all be called Apathetic(ist)(ism).
Let one who is actively hostile toward religion be called Anti-religious/Anti-theist.
Let one who has never heard of a particular religious position be called ignorant of that position.
Let one who believes that the truth value of a particular religious position is indeterminable be called Agnostic.

Finally, let the umbrella term be Irreligious(ion).

For reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

If you disagree, fine, but you must address those terms and the etymologies that go with them in order to demonstrate why these are not the proper terms to use and further why Atheism should be the term to apply to all of these positions.

>>3489626
Mao might've been more on the agnostic side (Pol Pot too), Stalin straight up believed that gods didn't exist, and Hitler was a non-religious monotheist.

>>3489624
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=persecution+of+the+russian+orthodox+church

Do you even understand the no-true-scotsman fallacy?

Atheism is a lack of belief [in god], how precisely can the lack of a belief incite or otherwise be the basis for murder?

There is no definition for an atheist because atheism is ONE position on ONE issue and has absolutely nothing to do with any other belief that the person COINCIDENTLY holds.

If an atheism murders someone, it cannot be "because of their atheism". An atheist CAN murder, they just cannot do it because of their atheism, that isn't possible. However, they CAN do it because of their egotism, hubris, self-righteousness, arrogance, etc etc. All of which is irrelevant to their atheism.

>>3489966
why wouldn't an atheist kill someone, if their core belief is that person is just a higher form of monkey, and that life itself is meaningless?

how do you get past that?

>>3489604

Implying that killing people is not a good thing?

>>3489966
Of course atheism isn't sufficient to murder someone - nothing is. You also need a reason to do it and a weapon.
But if you believe truth is the highest good, then it's also good to insult people who are wrong, silence them in public, silence them in private, and finally kill them. This is rare, but it's happened repeatedly, and will happen again.

>>3489994
maybe, but it sure doesn't look good to the general population.

>>3489973
Do you really believe that Atheists think life is meaningless? Does there have to be a God to make life meaningful. I don't think so.

>>3490179
yes, to be an atheist, you have no absolute value.

Number of statistics I pulled out of my ass:
Infinite