[quote]bigflamer wrote:
pat wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
pat wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
pat wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
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
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.
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]
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.
Obviously your reading comprehension sucks. The document states it explicitly.
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
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:
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.
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]
No it does not as it does state specifically that religion and the religious were targeted. It doesn’t really matter that Stalin used what was left of the orthodox church as a propaganda tool. The fact remains that Atheism was state imposed and the religious were murdered with impunity. No attempt to rewrite history is going to change that fact. If you read all of it, you would know what it says. Stalin was an atheist and an staunch one. He blew up churches, murdered religious people, starved them and put them in work camps.
It was Lenin during the Bolshevik Revolution who took 200 Christian School Children as a means to exterminate religion.
Hey, it’s up to you if you want to defend the mother fucker to suit your own purposes, but facts are facts.
And none of this has to do with whether or not God exists or not. Stalin could have been the pope, it still makes no difference.
No amount of rewriting history is going to make God not exist. Even if things were as you wished they were, it wouldn’t make a damn.
And atheism. State imposed atheism was the rule of the day and millions were murdered because of it, get over it.
How would you know? You don’t know shit about it. Is it common for you to take expert stances on things you don’t know or understand? Sounds like a path to failure to me. Which is what this is a huge, massive FAIL.
Well then, you would have just invalided your original meaningless point, save for you are wrong. If it’s all about power and control, then religion didn’t have anything to do with any of the things you accused it of. Way to shoot yourself in the foot! LOL!
History FAIL. I have already provided the proof your wrong, and yet your wishful thinking is your basis for your beliefs. Ignoring facts doesn’t help your case.
Fact: Atheism was mandated by the state.
Fact: The state hosted a series of anti-religious campaigns which included but was not limited to extermination, forced-labor camps, and imprisonment.
These are facts. The links prove it, you’re just plain FUCKED here. Like usual you got nothing but some wishful thinking and some minority of leftist, idiots attempting history rewrites. Like I said, my family lived it, you cannot spin that shit.
Why don’t you ask Dr. Matt how tolerated religion was in the USSR, even in the “good times” prior to the collapse?
Where’s your proof? I provided proof, you chose to ignore it, but prove that atheism was not the state sponsored, that it was attempted to be erraticated, that people weren’t murdered because of it. This ought to be good… Oh, I should take your word for it?
Who has died for superstition? It seems to me your the one who believes in shit that does not exist. If you have to sodomize the facts to make it suit your purposes, you don’t have actual facts. You have things taken out of context and twisted. Which is typical of atheist propaganda. You probably would have had a good job in the old soviet regime, maybe even have gotten a Lada with headlight wipers.
It wasn’t about secular humanism, it was about state mandated atheism. You brought up this horseshit in the first place and now you try to twist it again? You tried to say no one ever murder because of atheism. That it’s somehow more moral, you are wrong, and badly. I posted quotes, I posted links, I even chose ones that weren’t based on anything you would consider religiously biased. You are living in some fairyland that’s for damn sure.
Oh so you’ve read and studied the bible? You have a scholarly knowledge that allows you to understand the context, purpose, point and audience of each book? Gee, where’d you get your degree?
[quote]
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?
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.[/quote]
{EDIT: That thread topic has been done to death here, but feel free to start it. I may or may not participate. It’s actually not that interesting a topic especially after it’s been beat to death}
It doesn’t matter who you quoted, or haven’t quoted. Oddly, all you atheists sound like you read from the same book with your flying spaghetti monster, jewish zombie, talking snake, sky wizard bullshit. The problem most of you have is you cannot argue substance which is why you feel you have to introduce strawmen and red herrings to make a point you don’t have.
There is another notion that needs to be cleared up. This whole bullshit about not being able to prove a negative. First of you can prove negatives all day long, either that or your are extraordinarily bad at math.
Second of all, claiming there is no God, or nothing God like requires you to then explain, if not said ‘God like existence’ then what? Because you cannot get something from nothing.
This whole idea that atheism is ‘rational’ is so retarded. It’s filled with fallacy and terrible, horrible logic. The deeper I look the worse it gets really.
[/quote]