[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Push, why no response about Neanderthals, Cro Magnons, and other Neolithic peoples?[/quote]
??
What source do you consider reliable regarding this push? I wouldn’t want to find one that you feel doesn’t do justice to your argument.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What source do you consider reliable regarding this push? I wouldn’t want to find one that you feel doesn’t do justice to your argument.[/quote]
If you understand the creation theory as well as you purport I have no doubts you can choose several of the sources that I and other creationists would deem suitable. You don’t need me to guide you.[/quote]
No, you’re asking me to not only put words in your mouth, but to make your argument for you.
I won’t do this, it’s your argument, don’t ask me to supply the information.
YOU made the statement, YOU back it up.
This isn’t difficult push.
Every creationism account I’ve reads suggests that those are deformed homo sapiens and that there’s a scientific conspiracy making them out to be missing links to fit the evolution account in a nutshell.
edit: At least concerning neanderthal, Denosivan (sp?) man, and homo erectus.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Every creationism account I’ve reads suggests that those are deformed homo sapiens and that there’s a scientific conspiracy making them out to be missing links to fit the evolution account in a nutshell.
edit: At least concerning neanderthal, Denosivan (sp?) man, and homo erectus. [/quote]
Sounds legit.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So, first you say this…
[quote]pat wrote:
Defeat it then sampson… Put your money where your mouth is. I won’t hold my breath.[/quote]
Then this falls out of your sewer…
[quote]pat wrote:
BTW, if you just post a bunch of silly links, then so will I. That doesn’t prove you know shit. Anyone can google.[/quote]
Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a stick, you really are dumb as a bucket of mule piss. It’s conversations such as this that qualify me to label you a dumb ass. Way to avoid the debate, patty cakes. Or…I have an idea, maybe you can make the attempt to answer my questions; maybe. I rather hope you try.
[/quote]
Wow, is this the best you can do? Really? LOL! That’s just pathetic. Ooooo you called me a bunch of names! What are you 12?
FAIL.[/quote]
And you still avoid the argument…
[/quote]
You haven’t presented one. You told me how stupid I was and called me a bunch of names, is that your argument? 'Cause as far as I know, you don’t have one an never did.[/quote]
Well, I’ll give you this, you’re half right at least with the above statement. I certainly did inform you of your obvious stupidity and call you a bunch of names; guilty as charged.
Try and recall, that it was YOU who presented the argument; I simply threw the bullshit flag on you, and presented a counter argument in the form of questions, the answers to which will support my counter argument. So I’ll once again ask of you, to simply answer the questions.
Is all of this too confusing for you? Cuz if you just don’t want to answer the questions, feel free to piss off.[/quote]
You presented no counter argument. Saying “Bullshit” is not a counter argument. So no, I most definitely am not confused. You brought in Hitler and Pol Pot, those are not counter arguments. Those are red herrings, diversions. Then you called me a bunch of nasty mean names, not very creative, and still not counter arguments. It’s utter garbage, but apparently it’s all you got, garbage, nothing.
Quit whining. Put up, or shut up.[/quote]
And you still won’t even attempt to answer the questions…[/quote]
You didn’t ask any questions, nimrod. How the fuck dense can you be? You want me to answer a question, ask a question. [/quote]
Fucks sake man, I gotta hold your hand through this whole process!?
This was posted by me on the previopus page:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Tell me, what drives a MAO, a Hitler, or a Pol Pot do do what they did? Was Hitler even an atheist? If it helps…you could try google.[/quote]
[/quote]
I did answer that. I mistakenly called it a strawman it’s actually a red herring. It’s doesn’t make the slightest damn if hitler and pol pot where Carmalite Nuns working for the ‘Our Lady of Chastity’ convent. How the hell does what hitler or pol pot believed make a shit about whether or not God exists, where or not something can come from nothing, or whether or not religion is right, wrong or indifferent.
Introducing shit has nothing to do with anything is a ridiculous proposition. I never made a claim that hitler was anything, or pol pot. They may be relevant evil bastards in history, but they are not relevant to a discussion about the existence of God and epistemology.
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
So do you have anything relevant to the argument at hand or do you just want to introduce irrelevant points that are utterly meaningless?
[/quote]
Dude…you made this claim:
[quote]Ahteism has led to the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history. The worst religious nut jobs could only look on in awe. This whole atheism utopia has been tried. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be a laughable failure.
You think religion makes people crazy? Atheism has led to greatest atrocities mankind has ever known. If you want to be on that side, go nuts, just don’t kill my family, I will put up a fight [/quote]
Now, we’ve had this conversation before, a few times I believe. So I said this:
So, you can see where I’d get to thinking that you posted this when you were drunk or something:
[quote]It’s doesn’t make the slightest damn if hitler and pol pot where Carmalite Nuns working for the ‘Our Lady of Chastity’ convent. How the hell does what hitler or pol pot believed make a shit about whether or not God exists, where or not something can come from nothing, or whether or not religion is right, wrong or indifferent.
Introducing shit has nothing to do with anything is a ridiculous proposition. I never made a claim that hitler was anything, or pol pot. They may be relevant evil bastards in history, but they are not relevant to a discussion about the existence of God and epistemology.
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.[/quote]
Now, perhaps you’re just getting lost in the thread, and then again, perhaps you’re drunk AND lost. Regardless, you’re not making any fucking sense. Are you trying to make the claim that the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history were committed in the name of atheism or not?
How’bout this; I’ll rephrase the same question. What drives evil people, especially leaders of men, to commit “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”? Was it really the non belief in a deity? Or was it perhaps factors other than “not believing in god”?
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[/quote]
Trying to steer this argument in this direction is a direct avoidance of proving that God does not exist, or that the arguments presented are wrong. It’s irrelevant, a point you seem to miss because you know you have no defense. You know that Dawkins and Hitchens cannot save you. Or you simply don’t know enough about it to make a proper counter claim that has any berring you you introduce the silly notion that theists are immoral. Which is a laugh since morality doesn’t really exist in the world you made up for yourself.
Stay on topic. The morality vs. immorality of atheists compared to theists is a different topic and even there the facts are not on your side. You cannot make things what you want them to be. History says your wrong.
Now, if you think that ^^ link supported your notion that ‘atheism’ wasn’t front in center of these mass murders, then a) you didn’t actually read it, b) have exceedingly poor reading comprehention, or c)
For example, again, irrelevent to the existence of God or the arguments that support it, but indulging you because I am that nice, here is an excerpt of what this paper is about:
[i]" In detail, democide is any actions by government:
(1) designed to kill or cause the death of people
(1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people;
(1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system;
(1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement;
(1.4) by massacre;
(1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions;
(1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict.
[/i]
Still waiting push.
Where’s your strong evidence that me bringing up Cro Magnon, Neanderthal, and Neolithic people is equivalent to “shooting (myself) in the foot”?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[/quote]
Trying to steer this argument in this direction is a direct avoidance of proving that God does not exist, or that the arguments presented are wrong. It’s irrelevant, a point you seem to miss because you know you have no defense. You know that Dawkins and Hitchens cannot save you. Or you simply don’t know enough about it to make a proper counter claim that has any berring you you introduce the silly notion that theists are immoral. Which is a laugh since morality doesn’t really exist in the world you made up for yourself.
Stay on topic. The morality vs. immorality of atheists compared to theists is a different topic and even there the facts are not on your side. You cannot make things what you want them to be. History says your wrong.
Now, if you think that ^^ link supported your notion that ‘atheism’ wasn’t front in center of these mass murders, then a) you didn’t actually read it, b) have exceedingly poor reading comprehention, or c)
For example, again, irrelevent to the existence of God or the arguments that support it, but indulging you because I am that nice, here is an excerpt of what this paper is about:
[i]" In detail, democide is any actions by government:
(1) designed to kill or cause the death of people
(1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people;
(1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system;
(1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement;
(1.4) by massacre;
(1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions;
(1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict.
[/i][/quote]
In absolutely NO WAY was atheism “front and center” in any of the examples from your link; just isn’t the case. Your link talks only of fanatical leaders, their regimes, and the bloodthirsty pursuit of politics and power. Nobody perpetrated the atrocities you speak of in the name of “not believing in a diety”. LOL
You’re the one who made the claim about atheism, then you claim that it doesn’t matter if these leaders were atheist. ooooookay.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[/quote]
Trying to steer this argument in this direction is a direct avoidance of proving that God does not exist, or that the arguments presented are wrong. It’s irrelevant, a point you seem to miss because you know you have no defense. You know that Dawkins and Hitchens cannot save you. Or you simply don’t know enough about it to make a proper counter claim that has any berring you you introduce the silly notion that theists are immoral. Which is a laugh since morality doesn’t really exist in the world you made up for yourself.
Stay on topic. The morality vs. immorality of atheists compared to theists is a different topic and even there the facts are not on your side. You cannot make things what you want them to be. History says your wrong.
Now, if you think that ^^ link supported your notion that ‘atheism’ wasn’t front in center of these mass murders, then a) you didn’t actually read it, b) have exceedingly poor reading comprehention, or c)
For example, again, irrelevent to the existence of God or the arguments that support it, but indulging you because I am that nice, here is an excerpt of what this paper is about:
[i]" In detail, democide is any actions by government:
(1) designed to kill or cause the death of people
(1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people;
(1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system;
(1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement;
(1.4) by massacre;
(1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions;
(1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict.
[/i][/quote]
In absolutely NO WAY was atheism “front and center” in any of the examples from your link; just isn’t the case. Your link talks only of fanatical leaders, their regimes, and the bloodthirsty pursuit of politics and power. Nobody perpetrated the atrocities you speak of in the name of “not believing in a diety”. LOL
You’re the one who made the claim about atheism, then you claim that it doesn’t matter if these leaders were atheist. ooooookay.
[/quote]
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly.
[quote]pat wrote:
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly. [/quote]
Killing in the name of a political regime isn’t killing in the name of atheism.
What you want is examples of people killing people specifically for the reason that they believed in a deity. Killing for non-belief or belief in the “wrong” deity on the other hand, is pretty well documented.
Killing for religion >>>>> killing for atheism.
I’m not even an atheist but they seem far better than all the murderous religious whackos throughout history.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[/quote]
Trying to steer this argument in this direction is a direct avoidance of proving that God does not exist, or that the arguments presented are wrong. It’s irrelevant, a point you seem to miss because you know you have no defense. You know that Dawkins and Hitchens cannot save you. Or you simply don’t know enough about it to make a proper counter claim that has any berring you you introduce the silly notion that theists are immoral. Which is a laugh since morality doesn’t really exist in the world you made up for yourself.
Stay on topic. The morality vs. immorality of atheists compared to theists is a different topic and even there the facts are not on your side. You cannot make things what you want them to be. History says your wrong.
Now, if you think that ^^ link supported your notion that ‘atheism’ wasn’t front in center of these mass murders, then a) you didn’t actually read it, b) have exceedingly poor reading comprehention, or c)
For example, again, irrelevent to the existence of God or the arguments that support it, but indulging you because I am that nice, here is an excerpt of what this paper is about:
[i]" In detail, democide is any actions by government:
(1) designed to kill or cause the death of people
(1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people;
(1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system;
(1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement;
(1.4) by massacre;
(1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions;
(1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict.
[/i][/quote]
In absolutely NO WAY was atheism “front and center” in any of the examples from your link; just isn’t the case. Your link talks only of fanatical leaders, their regimes, and the bloodthirsty pursuit of politics and power. Nobody perpetrated the atrocities you speak of in the name of “not believing in a diety”. LOL
You’re the one who made the claim about atheism, then you claim that it doesn’t matter if these leaders were atheist. ooooookay.
[/quote]
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly. [/quote]
Again, these atrocities your link is citing, are not being attributed to atheism. Nowhere in that link does it attribute those atrocities to atheism. If I’m wrong, then it should be ridiculously easy to point out where in that link atheism is explicitly the reason. My question to you earlier was about why these whack job evil pricks committed the acts that they did, and what was their goal. They did what they did in the name of politics, ambition, and the pursuit of power. Politics is religion, and religion is politics in that they both seek to place a level of control over the masses.
Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and religion, all have significant similarities. They all promise to right the wrongs, smite the wicked, bring prosperity to those who believe and follow, crush those who refuse, etc; and they all require the blind faith of their followers to follow such evil. Moreover, they not only follow, but eagerly do so with the faith that what they are doing, regardless of how massively evil it is, is somehow the right thing to do. Why would that be? What makes good people commit such evil acts? The answer is FAITH. Faith in a religious leader, or faith in a political leader, same result.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[/quote]
Trying to steer this argument in this direction is a direct avoidance of proving that God does not exist, or that the arguments presented are wrong. It’s irrelevant, a point you seem to miss because you know you have no defense. You know that Dawkins and Hitchens cannot save you. Or you simply don’t know enough about it to make a proper counter claim that has any berring you you introduce the silly notion that theists are immoral. Which is a laugh since morality doesn’t really exist in the world you made up for yourself.
Stay on topic. The morality vs. immorality of atheists compared to theists is a different topic and even there the facts are not on your side. You cannot make things what you want them to be. History says your wrong.
Now, if you think that ^^ link supported your notion that ‘atheism’ wasn’t front in center of these mass murders, then a) you didn’t actually read it, b) have exceedingly poor reading comprehention, or c)
For example, again, irrelevent to the existence of God or the arguments that support it, but indulging you because I am that nice, here is an excerpt of what this paper is about:
[i]" In detail, democide is any actions by government:
(1) designed to kill or cause the death of people
(1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people;
(1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system;
(1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement;
(1.4) by massacre;
(1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions;
(1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict.
[/i][/quote]
In absolutely NO WAY was atheism “front and center” in any of the examples from your link; just isn’t the case. Your link talks only of fanatical leaders, their regimes, and the bloodthirsty pursuit of politics and power. Nobody perpetrated the atrocities you speak of in the name of “not believing in a diety”. LOL
You’re the one who made the claim about atheism, then you claim that it doesn’t matter if these leaders were atheist. ooooookay.
[/quote]
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly. [/quote]
Again, these atrocities your link is citing, are not being attributed to atheism. Nowhere in that link does it attribute those atrocities to atheism. If I’m wrong, then it should be ridiculously easy to point out where in that link atheism is explicitly the reason. My question to you earlier was about why these whack job evil pricks committed the acts that they did, and what was their goal. They did what they did in the name of politics, ambition, and the pursuit of power. Politics is religion, and religion is politics in that they both seek to place a level of control over the masses.
Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and religion, all have significant similarities. They all promise to right the wrongs, smite the wicked, bring prosperity to those who believe and follow, crush those who refuse, etc; and they all require the blind faith of their followers to follow such evil. Moreover, they not only follow, but eagerly do so with the faith that what they are doing, regardless of how massively evil it is, is somehow the right thing to do. Why would that be? What makes good people commit such evil acts? The answer is FAITH. Faith in a religious leader, or faith in a political leader, same result.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg[/quote]
First, like you said they are all nuts. Second, denying history to justify your own beliefs is simply dishonest and foolish. You think that Atheism had nothing to do with it? You sir are a flat fool:
“The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2]”
“The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html
Hmmm… this sounds familiar:
" Communism required the abolition of religion[3]. Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief [3]."
“Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.”
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html
You really need to expand your education beyond those stupid atheist propaganda websites. The fact that some of these historical monsters were once, or studied religion and some earlier point in life does not mean that they did not hate and want to eradicate religion and religious people at any cost. History bears that out, my family lived it. So you can shove your silly, bullshit justifications that maybe, kinda sorta there was some sort of religious motivation behind their action. It’s ridiculous and flat requires you to deny strait up history as you are doing.
These people killed men, women and children because they were religious, to eradicate religion. There was a religious motivation, save for Hitler, behind these atrocities, it was to to destroy religion and they killed millions as a function of that policy.
This silly spin on history would be laughable if not tragic. So you want to go down that road, fine, your side wins. They killed more, millions more to kill religion itself. Interestingly, even at the point of a gun, they could not kill religion. Not sure I know many people who would defend a superstition to the death.
You need a proper secular education.
Now that we have put these flat idiotic notions to rest. Do you have a counter argument to God’s existence? Do you have anything that proves he does not exist? Do you have anything at all that actually refutes the arguments put forth, or are you going to keep introducing red herrings in order to dodge the issue?
Oh let me guess, the “God is a big meany” argument…
Why I bother is beyond me. Can you present anything of substance or value, or are you going to keep introducing silly slogans and talking points from infidels.org?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly. [/quote]
Killing in the name of a political regime isn’t killing in the name of atheism.
What you want is examples of people killing people specifically for the reason that they believed in a deity. Killing for non-belief or belief in the “wrong” deity on the other hand, is pretty well documented.[/quote]
Atheism as a state policy in the U.S.S.R. was not killing people against the state, it was a policy designed to eradicate religion and the religious peoples. This was not a function of mad men imposing communism and happened to just kill religious people too. They were targeted.
“Soviet policy toward religion has been based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (see Glossary), which has made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs.”
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12521.html
Resistance is futile… 
Hmmm…every species develops some modicum of intelligence as a result of natural selection. Humans had very little means of survival except our brains so ours developed moreso.
But if intellect is a result over eons, doesn’t that mean that there was very little intelligence at any ‘beginning’ of the world? Creating something like the universe would require unimaginable intellect…intellect being a result of natural selection?
There…Creationism disproven. Finally!!!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Pat wrote:
If you are actually curios though about the history of the evils of atheism in history then here is a link you can peruse at your own leisure (like you would even bother), but it’s here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/...kills/NOTE1.HTM [/quote]
Interesting link, actually; thanks for posting it. Ironically, it goes a long way towards supporting my argument, and doesn’t really do anything for your argument in support of atheism being the root cause of “the greatest mass murders and atrocities in history”.
Also, perhaps you could name for me these atrocities and mass murders that you claim were carried out under the banner of atheism.
[/quote]
Trying to steer this argument in this direction is a direct avoidance of proving that God does not exist, or that the arguments presented are wrong. It’s irrelevant, a point you seem to miss because you know you have no defense. You know that Dawkins and Hitchens cannot save you. Or you simply don’t know enough about it to make a proper counter claim that has any berring you you introduce the silly notion that theists are immoral. Which is a laugh since morality doesn’t really exist in the world you made up for yourself.
Stay on topic. The morality vs. immorality of atheists compared to theists is a different topic and even there the facts are not on your side. You cannot make things what you want them to be. History says your wrong.
Now, if you think that ^^ link supported your notion that ‘atheism’ wasn’t front in center of these mass murders, then a) you didn’t actually read it, b) have exceedingly poor reading comprehention, or c)
For example, again, irrelevent to the existence of God or the arguments that support it, but indulging you because I am that nice, here is an excerpt of what this paper is about:
[i]" In detail, democide is any actions by government:
(1) designed to kill or cause the death of people
(1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people;
(1.2) in order to fulfill a quota or requisition system;
(1.3) in furtherance of a system of forced labor or enslavement;
(1.4) by massacre;
(1.5) through imposition of lethal living conditions;
(1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict.
[/i][/quote]
In absolutely NO WAY was atheism “front and center” in any of the examples from your link; just isn’t the case. Your link talks only of fanatical leaders, their regimes, and the bloodthirsty pursuit of politics and power. Nobody perpetrated the atrocities you speak of in the name of “not believing in a diety”. LOL
You’re the one who made the claim about atheism, then you claim that it doesn’t matter if these leaders were atheist. ooooookay.
[/quote]
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly. [/quote]
Again, these atrocities your link is citing, are not being attributed to atheism. Nowhere in that link does it attribute those atrocities to atheism. If I’m wrong, then it should be ridiculously easy to point out where in that link atheism is explicitly the reason. My question to you earlier was about why these whack job evil pricks committed the acts that they did, and what was their goal. They did what they did in the name of politics, ambition, and the pursuit of power. Politics is religion, and religion is politics in that they both seek to place a level of control over the masses.
Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and religion, all have significant similarities. They all promise to right the wrongs, smite the wicked, bring prosperity to those who believe and follow, crush those who refuse, etc; and they all require the blind faith of their followers to follow such evil. Moreover, they not only follow, but eagerly do so with the faith that what they are doing, regardless of how massively evil it is, is somehow the right thing to do. Why would that be? What makes good people commit such evil acts? The answer is FAITH. Faith in a religious leader, or faith in a political leader, same result.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg[/quote]
First, like you said they are all nuts. Second, denying history to justify your own beliefs is simply dishonest and foolish. You think that Atheism had nothing to do with it? You sir are a flat fool:[/quote]
I’m glad you see it that way, as that is exactly what the religious have done and continue to do in an attempt to paint this as an atheistic problem. Of course, I certainly understand why they (believers) do this, if it were true, it would be a hard argument against atheism. Once again though, the reality is that they did these things in pursuit of their own political dogma, power, and control of the masses. Just like religion.
[quote]Pat wrote:
“The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2]”
“The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html
From your first link:
…Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed…The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful…After Nazi Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active.
Your link talks exclusively to my point in that political power/control was the catalyst for what all of these knuckleheads have done. The churches were nothing more than competing political authorities that had to be [at first] eliminated. However, when useful, churches were revived as a means to an end.
Your second link also supports these points about religion as a tool for tyrants such as Stalin.
[quote]Pat wrote:
Hmmm… this sounds familiar:
" Communism required the abolition of religion[3]. Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief [3]."
“Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.”
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html[/quote]
Your first and fourth link are the same. But once again, this was not done in the name of atheism, but the pursuit of state interests. If you’re Stalin, and you’re enforcing the dogma of state collectivization/Marxism/Communism, then you certainly don’t want to compete with the dogma of religion, and you certainly would not be interested in sharing any any of the power/control that the church had over the people.
Power and control, it always comes back to that. Always.
[quote]Pat wrote:
You really need to expand your education beyond those stupid atheist propaganda websites.[/quote]
LOL…Religion has ALWAYS been the benchmark sample of propaganda. LOL
[quote]Pat wrote:
The fact that some of these historical monsters were once, or studied religion and some earlier point in life does not mean that they did not hate and want to eradicate religion and religious people at any cost. History bears that out, my family lived it. So you can shove your silly, bullshit justifications that maybe, kinda sorta there was some sort of religious motivation behind their action. It’s ridiculous and flat requires you to deny strait up history as you are doing.[/quote]
I’ve already demonstrated how Stalin suppressed religion as a competing power source, and then harnessed the church when it suited him. I’ve said it before, religion is politics, and politics is religion. However it would be more accurate to say that religion is nothing more than politics, and politics is power.
History ABSOLUTELY bears THIS out, regardless of what your family experience has been. Whatever that experience was, I can guarantee that it could be traced back to either politics, power, or the dogma of a competing religious ideology.
[quote]Pat wrote:
These people killed men, women and children because they were religious, to eradicate religion.[/quote]
False, for reasons already stated.
[quote]Pat wrote:
There was a religious motivation, save for Hitler, behind these atrocities, it was to to destroy religion and they killed millions as a function of that policy.[/quote]
False, again, for reasons already stated. facepalm
[quote]Pat wrote:
This silly spin on history would be laughable if not tragic. So you want to go down that road, fine, your side wins. They killed more, millions more to kill religion itself. Interestingly, even at the point of a gun, they could not kill religion. Not sure I know many people who would defend a superstition to the death.[/quote]
All it takes is FAITH, Pat, people die all the time defending a superstition. They do it eagerly, and with the support of the faithful. They’re called martyrs, and proclaimed as great men and women.
The tragic spin on history occurs when the religious try to paint the argument as an atheist problem, and not one of dogma, be it religious or political.
Not one of your examples have ANYTHING to do with secular humanism and skeptical inquiry.
[quote]Pat wrote:
You need a proper secular education.[/quote]
LOL…Sure, tell me again about the talking snake and the Jewish carpenter zombies. LOL
Sorry Pat, but I have not quoted that website.
If you want to start another thread about this topic, then feel free. Perhaps I’ll do it.