Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.

The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.

This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.

Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.

The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.

I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.

Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.

OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head

Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.

If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

There are huge numbers of examples of this appropriation of local customs into Christianity. Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas which comes from Woden.

The whole Christmas celebration is aligned with the existing midwinter festivals.

Easter is aligned with existing Spring festivals and even takes it’s name from a Germanic god.

George and the Dragon comes from Horus killing a Nile Croc (the inconography here is staggeringly similar.)

The whole idea of resurrection was taken from Egyptian tradition.

Various elements from the Mithra cult also found their way into modern Christianity. Mithra was pretty much the blueprint for Modern Christianity though it had two issues. It hadn’t developed enough from obvious Sun Worship and it wasn’t inclusive enough of female figures.

The fun thing is that the inconsistencies in the gospels actually show where the early Christians were not quite sure which bits they were co-opting. Different figures in the early church evidently had different ideas of the direction that the religion should take. Partly, this was based on the local customs where they happened to be or which group they were trying to persuade.

This leaves us with fun situations like Jesus being virgin born but also descended from David on his father’s side where two different stories have been combined into one.

They are aligned on purpose. It was a way to bring pagans into the fold by maintaining their traditions but making them Christian celebrations…So what’s your point? None of it invalidates anything, at all.[/quote]

So the fact that they made things up as they went along and accepted anyone into the fold whilst telling them to continue their practices and coopted the practices into the greater religion doesn’t cause you at any point to question the validity of your beliefs?

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Erm, the Egyptian Religions predate Christianity by thousands of years so it is pretty obvious who ripped off who.

The Jesus and his mother Mary is a straight rip off of Horus and Isis for instance.

This is called a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument - a logical fallacy.

Actually, the Egyptian archaeological record is scant on many things and Muslims are not known for treating artifacts from the period of ‘Jahilya’ (the time of darkness before the land was converted to Islam) with any sort of respect or deference. For instance, there has been a campaign in Iran to dismantle the pre-Islamic Persian structures. The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas because they were a representation of Jahilya. During Muslim occupation of India, thousands of Hindu shrines and temples were destroyed. An archaeologist’s best hope remains in finding things before the Muslims. But even so, stuff tends to get destroyed in the Nile flood plains.

The Bible is generally treated with more skepticism than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts when it comes to historical matters owing to the prevailing minimalism of archaeologists these days. Minimalism is nothing more than a presupposition.

I think the Bible definitely agrees with the archaeological record in the Levant regarding the Israelite invasion.

Hoffmeier’s book on the matter is very good.

OK first lets look at Isis and Horus, note sun disk above Isis’s head

Right, I get it. Because one thing that came later is somewhat similar (but mostly different) to something that came earlier, therefore the thing that came earlier caused the thing later.

If we’re to stick to logic, you have 0 proof of what you’re saying.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

There are huge numbers of examples of this appropriation of local customs into Christianity. Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas which comes from Woden.

The whole Christmas celebration is aligned with the existing midwinter festivals.

Easter is aligned with existing Spring festivals and even takes it’s name from a Germanic god.

George and the Dragon comes from Horus killing a Nile Croc (the inconography here is staggeringly similar.)

The whole idea of resurrection was taken from Egyptian tradition.

Various elements from the Mithra cult also found their way into modern Christianity. Mithra was pretty much the blueprint for Modern Christianity though it had two issues. It hadn’t developed enough from obvious Sun Worship and it wasn’t inclusive enough of female figures.

The fun thing is that the inconsistencies in the gospels actually show where the early Christians were not quite sure which bits they were co-opting. Different figures in the early church evidently had different ideas of the direction that the religion should take. Partly, this was based on the local customs where they happened to be or which group they were trying to persuade.

This leaves us with fun situations like Jesus being virgin born but also descended from David on his father’s side where two different stories have been combined into one.

They are aligned on purpose. It was a way to bring pagans into the fold by maintaining their traditions but making them Christian celebrations…So what’s your point? None of it invalidates anything, at all.

So the fact that they made things up as they went along and accepted anyone into the fold whilst telling them to continue their practices and coopted the practices into the greater religion doesn’t cause you at any point to question the validity of your beliefs?[/quote]

I have always questioned my beliefs, if they cannot stand up to scrutiny, then I don’t need to believe them.
The fact that they aliened with these holidays simply stems from the fact that nobody knew the actual date of Christ’s birth or death, but felt that both events should be celebrated. We know that Christ was crucified around the time of Pentecost which ironically tends to be in the spring along with the Germanic festivals of spring. Easter never falls on the same day any how, it should be obvious we are not celebrating a particular event that occurred on a specific date.
Whether or not the celebrations actually align with the exact dates of their occurrence isn’t one of those things I feel the need to doubt God’s existence over. I got bigger fish to fry.

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

So the fact that they made things up as they went along and accepted anyone into the fold whilst telling them to continue their practices and coopted the practices into the greater religion doesn’t cause you at any point to question the validity of your beliefs?[/quote]

If a practice isn’t heretical, why would they have to stop? You seem to be arguing that Christians were obligated to reinvent the wheel, or something. Who cares if Christmas is on Dec. 25th, or July the 4th? Or, that we have wreaths, christmas trees, speak English or any other language. I have no idea what you think you’re trying to tell us.

[Cortes]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have no idea what you think you’re trying to tell us. [/quote]

Neither does he.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.[/quote]

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

So the fact that they made things up as they went along and accepted anyone into the fold whilst telling them to continue their practices and coopted the practices into the greater religion doesn’t cause you at any point to question the validity of your beliefs?

If a practice isn’t heretical, why would they have to stop? You seem to be arguing that Christians were obligated to reinvent the wheel, or something. Who cares if Christmas is on Dec. 25th, or July the 4th? Or, that we have wreaths, christmas trees, speak English or any other language. I have no idea what you think you’re trying to tell us. [/quote]

Who cares if Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed? Who cares if the slavery of the Israelites by the Egyptians and the subsequent flight is totally made up? Who cares if there is really a God or not?

Well I did. That is why I stopped going to church.

[Sloth]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Well I did. That is why I stopped going to church.[/quote]

And?

[Sloth]

Oh sorry, almost forgot:

(Throws battery acid at Cockney)–Apostate!

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Well I did. That is why I stopped going to church.

And?[/quote]

Now I have more free time on a Sunday

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.[/quote]

All the folks who did this:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

All the folks who did this:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
[/quote]

Ah ok I see where you went wrong. You see a Catholic educated Marxist Communist with a God complex and you see that as Atheist (interesting parallel between our mate Saloth and Stalin.)

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.[/quote]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Here are some more links for ya…

I don’t know all their names, but the people who carried out these murders on behalf of their beloved leaders are indeed culpable.

The fact that atheists have carried out the greatest atrocities in history is well documented. I really don’t know how you can argue against it…It’s flat ludicrous to deny it…What did the holocaust not happen either? Hitler, ironically was not an atheist. And Pol Pot was to an atheist.
This is a matter of fact. If you are an atheist because you want to be on the side that has done less harm in the world then your on the wrong side.
Atheists are the winners by a long shot…You can try and play mind games but the facts are stubborn.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

All the folks who did this:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Ah ok I see where you went wrong. You see a Catholic educated Marxist Communist with a God complex and you see that as Atheist (interesting parallel between our mate Saloth and Stalin.)[/quote]

And you will find while they were in their seminaries and or Catholic schools they did not commit such atrocities, only after they rejected their religion did they murder, torture, rape, with impunity.

[Dustin]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

All the folks who did this:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Ah ok I see where you went wrong. You see a Catholic educated Marxist Communist with a God complex and you see that as Atheist (interesting parallel between our mate Saloth and Stalin.)

And you will find while they were in their seminaries and or Catholic schools they did not commit such atrocities, only after they rejected their religion did they murder, torture, rape, with impunity.[/quote]

I can also use religion to justify these horrible acts. And I wouldn’t be the first to do it.

[Neuromancer]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Here are some more links for ya…

I don’t know all their names, but the people who carried out these murders on behalf of their beloved leaders are indeed culpable.

The fact that atheists have carried out the greatest atrocities in history is well documented. I really don’t know how you can argue against it…It’s flat ludicrous to deny it…What did the holocaust not happen either? Hitler, ironically was not an atheist. And Pol Pot was to an atheist.
This is a matter of fact. If you are an atheist because you want to be on the side that has done less harm in the world then your on the wrong side.
Atheists are the winners by a long shot…You can try and play mind games but the facts are stubborn.[/quote]

Your argument is so flawed it beggars belief.Seriously,there has been more than enough murder and atrocities to go around,but you always trot out this same old chestnut.You ascribe causality to events where you have absolutely no credible evidence of that causality,other than opinion.When a religious zealot or nation records “We are doing this for God”,you would have concrete proof of a particular motivation.But even those particular acts can also be ascribed to causation other than the religious angle,so I don’t see your point.You take the examples of frankly batshit crazy individuals and ascribe to them the motivation you feel supports your argument.But your premise is wrong from the get go.

[pat]

[quote]Dustin wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

All the folks who did this:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Ah ok I see where you went wrong. You see a Catholic educated Marxist Communist with a God complex and you see that as Atheist (interesting parallel between our mate Saloth and Stalin.)

And you will find while they were in their seminaries and or Catholic schools they did not commit such atrocities, only after they rejected their religion did they murder, torture, rape, with impunity.

I can also use religion to justify these horrible acts. And I wouldn’t be the first to do it.[/quote]

Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Here are some more links for ya…

I don’t know all their names, but the people who carried out these murders on behalf of their beloved leaders are indeed culpable.

The fact that atheists have carried out the greatest atrocities in history is well documented. I really don’t know how you can argue against it…It’s flat ludicrous to deny it…What did the holocaust not happen either? Hitler, ironically was not an atheist. And Pol Pot was to an atheist.
This is a matter of fact. If you are an atheist because you want to be on the side that has done less harm in the world then your on the wrong side.
Atheists are the winners by a long shot…You can try and play mind games but the facts are stubborn.[/quote]

But I am not an atheist because they are the side that did less harm. Atheism isn’t a side. I am an atheist because I do not believe in any God.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Here are some more links for ya…

I don’t know all their names, but the people who carried out these murders on behalf of their beloved leaders are indeed culpable.

The fact that atheists have carried out the greatest atrocities in history is well documented. I really don’t know how you can argue against it…It’s flat ludicrous to deny it…What did the holocaust not happen either? Hitler, ironically was not an atheist. And Pol Pot was to an atheist.
This is a matter of fact. If you are an atheist because you want to be on the side that has done less harm in the world then your on the wrong side.
Atheists are the winners by a long shot…You can try and play mind games but the facts are stubborn.

Your argument is so flawed it beggars belief.Seriously,there has been more than enough murder and atrocities to go around,but you always trot out this same old chestnut.You ascribe causality to events where you have absolutely no credible evidence of that causality,other than opinion.When a religious zealot or nation records “We are doing this for God”,you would have concrete proof of a particular motivation.But even those particular acts can also be ascribed to causation other than the religious angle,so I don’t see your point.You take the examples of frankly batshit crazy individuals and ascribe to them the motivation you feel supports your argument.But your premise is wrong from the get go.[/quote]

It does seem that a religious background (Stalin wanted to be a priest, Pol Pot wanted to be a monk) coupled with Marxist Communism can be an explosive mixture. We obviously only have a sample of 2 here but there are interesting parallels.

[Neuromancer]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Here are some more links for ya…

I don’t know all their names, but the people who carried out these murders on behalf of their beloved leaders are indeed culpable.

The fact that atheists have carried out the greatest atrocities in history is well documented. I really don’t know how you can argue against it…It’s flat ludicrous to deny it…What did the holocaust not happen either? Hitler, ironically was not an atheist. And Pol Pot was to an atheist.
This is a matter of fact. If you are an atheist because you want to be on the side that has done less harm in the world then your on the wrong side.
Atheists are the winners by a long shot…You can try and play mind games but the facts are stubborn.

Your argument is so flawed it beggars belief.Seriously,there has been more than enough murder and atrocities to go around,but you always trot out this same old chestnut.You ascribe causality to events where you have absolutely no credible evidence of that causality,other than opinion.When a religious zealot or nation records “We are doing this for God”,you would have concrete proof of a particular motivation.But even those particular acts can also be ascribed to causation other than the religious angle,so I don’t see your point.You take the examples of frankly batshit crazy individuals and ascribe to them the motivation you feel supports your argument.But your premise is wrong from the get go.

It does seem that a religious background (Stalin wanted to be a priest, Pol Pot wanted to be a monk) coupled with Marxist Communism can be an explosive mixture. We obviously only have a sample of 2 here but there are interesting parallels.[/quote]

I’d be more likely to draw the parallels that both were complete megalomaniacs with serious personality disorders.If they had been born a few hundred years earlier,they may have become like Attila or Ghengis Khan.I find the religious link tenuous at best.The single minded psychopathic pursuit of power and ruthless extermination of opponents,real or imagined, that the two embarked on stands outside their expressed political views.I think those were convenient vehicles they used at the time,and in another time they would have used whatever the going system was in order to satisfy their desires.

[Dustin]

[quote]pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.

Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.

And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.

I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.

But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.

Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.

You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.

OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)

So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.

All the folks who did this:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Ah ok I see where you went wrong. You see a Catholic educated Marxist Communist with a God complex and you see that as Atheist (interesting parallel between our mate Saloth and Stalin.)

And you will find while they were in their seminaries and or Catholic schools they did not commit such atrocities, only after they rejected their religion did they murder, torture, rape, with impunity.

I can also use religion to justify these horrible acts. And I wouldn’t be the first to do it.

Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.[/quote]

Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.

I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.

And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.