Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

So basically every atheist totalitarian regime in history has been totalitarian.

Brilliant ISAW, bravo :rolleyes:

No basicall the "what if they all had beards would that mean beards and atheism cause genocide? " fallacy doesn't work

REad the reference

the "but there were totalist and communist" doesn't work because there are examples of non atheistic communist regimes where atheism was not enforced. The non atheistic regiumes dont fare so badly when it comes to deaths. and ther is religious regimes such as the Holy see. It isn't a democracy you know. But they are not surpressing non believers and killing them off!

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Im suggesting that your claim of genocide of over 100 million american natives by christianity is in error!

By Christians from Christian countries where christianity was integral to their ideologies.

You just cut out a load of web hits . Where do any of the above attest to the claim that Christianity is responsible fro the death of over 100 million native Americans?

Whats the point in me posting links if you won't even bother to read them ?

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm

A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.

Evasion noted!

I haven't even read it to evade it.

See above. I take all deaths caused by "Religious regimes" even if they killed believers.

You left out about 90% of them. France, USA, British Empire, Germany, Italy .................

They can not claim they supplied it themselves! And they can't claim "there are sources all over the place" and only supply the ones I already gave them and expect people to think they are credible!

1. As everyone here well knows I usually always give wiki as my source.
2. I looked it up first just as I look it up for anything I'm interested in.

REad your source! 95 per cent killed by disease! LOL next you will claim AIDS was sent by God I suppose?

How does it matter how they were killed ? You are claiming famine and mis-management of resources for your stats.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

I'm a bit confused, why would I have to show that I posted it/used it before you ? If you use a source first am I denied using it ?

Not at all. But if you claim the sources are abundant and you "supplied it three times already?" when in fact you didn't and I supplied it then it appears

1. you make false claims
2. you do shoddy research

You are free to use my sources to support your point of view but if you claim you supplied them first and you know you didn't you are lying.

To my knowledge I supplied them first and questioned you about them. Im quite happy to admit I was wrong if you show you supplied them earlier but as it is I showed you where i supplied them.

Why don't you stop saying that and provide some evidence for it ? show us the calculations.

Which calculations of what. As regards numbers of deaths I supplied you with the reference to Rummel.

Stalin persecuted everyone who didn't do what he wanted/said.

So what? so did some Popes. That doesn't mean the Church was not responsible.

His stats blame communists. Your the one saying it was atheism to blame.

Non atheistic communism didnt do as much damage. Post reform China and cuba for example!

So in other words, during WW2 Stalin did promote religion.

NO! He stopped surpressing one particualr denomination in one countery the Ukraine. Just as China had an "official" Church. supression of religion still remained. And it was intended even on the orthodox but as it hadent worked he relaxed it to exploit it.

The USSR officially allowed some religious freedom. They separated church and state. The people were not killed to spread atheism.

Whenever atheistic waves came people drowned . Whenever they were relaxed and people allowed religion society improved. Of course you can't see this as having any meaning can you? It is just a co incidence?

Persecuting anything which got in the way of his politics was his plan.

So what same for some Popes!

Americas genocide - 112,000,000

Source? You are making the figure up! When you supply the source you will se it is ludicrous to claim the church planned 112 million deaths.

Oh ? The genocide committed against 90%+ of the population of an entire con tinent, the stealing of their lands, destruction of their religions and language. They were tame compared to Stalin ?

Yes. You are trying to shift into a "two wrongs" argument. I dont say the removal of land was right nor the famine in Ireland but it is minor in numbers compared to atheistic regimes.

And you are lying when you claim 90 per cent of the American natives were killed by christians! 95 per cent died from disease!

http://books.google.ie/books?id=68uiSw-p-XAC&dq=death+by+government+rummel+amazon&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=LsTzS_viPIXL-QaD54yLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Death by government" beginning page 57

By 1900 10,000 -25,000 Indians may have been killed. page 59 source 77

These are listed as a fraction of 110 million deaths but the population dropprd by as much as 95 per cent dur to disease the sources given are 77 through 83 and the source
for the 110 million is source 78 Encyclopdia Britannica (1973, Vol. 12, p. 54).

The figure he thinks more reasonable is between 60 and 80 million (source 83)
Chalk and Jonassohn (1990, p. 177).
In going from a a pre-publisher edited edition but I have no reason to assume the reference wrong.

Now where does your "112 million" come from?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

By Christians from Christian countries where christianity was integral to their ideologies.

No reference given to the source of 110 million!
[quoter]
Whats the point in me posting links if you won't even bother to read them ?

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm

[/quote]

The point is so you can quote from them and show you actually understood them,. but you didnt do that! You just pasted in links from a google search without reading them didnt you? Shoddy!

the above link is dead when io try to access it!

1. As everyone here well knows I usually always give wiki as my source.

As I stated above - shoddy!

2. I looked it up first just as I look it up for anything I'm interested in.

But didn't post what I suggested you didn't want others to see? Like all the non christian genocides in the same table? Selected out your own biased interest did you?
Selective quoting and leaving out the contest is not proper.

How does it matter how they were killed ? You are claiming famine and mis-management of resources for your stats.

Famine CAUSED by people not caused by weather conditions!

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

No basicall the "what if they all had beards would that mean beards and atheism cause genocide? " fallacy doesn't work

REad the reference

the "but there were totalist and communist" doesn't work because there are examples of non atheistic communist regimes where atheism was not enforced. The non atheistic regiumes dont fare so badly when it comes to deaths. and ther is religious regimes such as the Holy see. It isn't a democracy you know. But they are not surpressing non believers and killing them off!

Where are there examples of non-atheist communist regimes?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I did NOT claim all people killed by atheistic regimes were killed because they were believers!

No, you claimed they were killed in the promotion of atheism, as I said.

You now appear to be back tacking from that, probably because you realise it was a nonsensical claim.

ISAW wrote: »

I did claim regimes who killed over a hunderd million promoted state atheism

They also promoted good hygiene, you want to blame the deaths on that as well?

This is what happens when you build up a case based on a house of cards, it very easily comes crashing down when the flaw in the logic is pointed out.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

You are free to use my sources to support your point of view but if you claim you supplied them first and you know you didn't you are lying.

I find arguing with you to be very strange. I'm just going to say "OK" to whatever point it is your trying to make here.

Which calculations of what. As regards numbers of deaths I supplied you with the reference to Rummel.

As far as I saw Rummel gave deaths caused by communist regimes for a huge variety of reasons.

Your claiming something very different and you haven't backed it up.

So what? so did some Popes. That doesn't mean the Church was not responsible.

Not the church but Christianity was not responsible. Christianity is not responsible, for example, for the Northern Ireland conflict.

Using your idea of responsibility for atheism and applying it to christianity then yes it would be responsible for it as well as WW1/2 and pretty much every conflict/killing any European country has been involved in for the past 1000 years.

Non atheistic communism didnt do as much damage. Post reform China and cuba for example!

China was never atheist, but that of course depends on your definition of a religion which I'm sure you'll disagree/agree with to suit your purpose.

North Korea is highly religious and is the biggest offender by far proportionally speaking.

NO! He stopped surpressing one particualr denomination in one countery the Ukraine.

No your wrong and to be honest I'm getting a little sick of correctly your wild and obviously false statements and then you not even giving the decency of a reply.

I wonder will you even admit so here. Or will you disregard this because its from wikipedia ? :pac:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

National cultures, religions, and languages were not merely tolerated but in areas with Muslim populations were encouraged.

The Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 forced Stalin to enlist the Russian Orthodox Church as an ally to arouse Russian patriotism against foreign aggression. Religious life revived within the Russian Orthodox Church. Thousands of churches were reopened and multiplied to 22,000 before Khrushchev came to power. The regime permitted religious publications, and church membership grew.

After this the church was still officially sanctioned, i.e > It was legal. There was still anti-religious propaganda and arresting etc of uncooperative priests etc but the church itself was legal and continued to exist.

Islam in the USSR, in those countries with high Muslim populations, was tolerated.

Just as China had an "official" Church. supression of religion still remained. And it was intended even on the orthodox but as it hadent worked he relaxed it to exploit it.

Hang on a second. A few posts ago he was executing believers by the truckload, now hes simply using them ?

What was that we said about goal posts ....

Whenever atheistic waves came people drowned . Whenever they were relaxed and people allowed religion society improved.

Not for the Native Americans, or the Africans, or the Australians or .....etc etc etc.

Source? You are making the figure up! When you supply the source you will se it is ludicrous to claim the church planned 112 million deaths.

I've given you several sources now and stop straw manning. I never said the church planned 112 million deaths, I said Christian Europeans caused the deaths of 112 million people in the Americas.

Yes. You are trying to shift into a "two wrongs" argument. I dont say the removal of land was right nor the famine in Ireland but it is minor in numbers compared to atheistic regimes.

112 million native Americans is a minor number to you ?

And you are lying when you claim 90 per cent of the American natives were killed by christians! 95 per cent died from disease!

Died from disease brought there by christian Europeans. I have never denied this.

The figure he thinks more reasonable is between 60 and 80 million (source 83)
Chalk and Jonassohn (1990, p. 177).

The last source I gave you gives a number of 150, I just used 112 since its on wiki and easy to view.

Now where does your "112 million" come from?

Wikipedia. On the link you supposedly provided.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

The point is so you can quote from them and show you actually understood them,. but you didnt do that! You just pasted in links from a google search without reading them didnt you? Shoddy!

I did quote from it.

the above link is dead when io try to access it!

Google Cache -> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FDpEyyKWiQUJ:freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm+http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

But didn't post what I suggested you didn't want others to see? Like all the non christian genocides in the same table? Selected out your own biased interest did you?
Selective quoting and leaving out the contest is not proper.

Your the one who made such a big deal saying you provided the link first. Why should I hide a link to something you believe I got here, off the same thread that your accusing me on.

Famine CAUSED by people not caused by weather conditions!

Like the famine in Ireland ? Or the destruction of the native americans food source ?

But of course your going to give us a link detailing how the famines in russia were meticulously planned to kill as many people as possible aren't you ?

StealthRolex

We can argue whether or not atheism caused more violence and deaths as much as we can argue if Christianity caused more violence or deaths and get nowhere because neither atheism nor theism causes violence or deaths.

Empirical evidence will useful in determining who has killed how many does not tell us why.

Any examination of violence in communist, atheist, fascist's, religious or any regime known to be violent tells us that the cause is intolerance.

The OPs question can then be reduced to "are atheistic regimes more intolerant than any others" and "was their intolerance influenced by their atheism"

If we look at what atheist posters say about God or Christians in this forum what does that say about their tolerance?

Can Christians be intolerant? Yes, It is part of human nature.
What does Christianity tell us about intolerance? It tells us it is wrong. Is there a source? yes, the Bible.
Are there intolerant Christians? Yes.
Can these Christians be violent? Yes.

Can Atheists be intolerant? Yes, It is part of human nature.
What does atheism tell us about intolerance? It tell us whatever we want to hear. For every atheist preaching tolerance there will be at least one preaching intolerance overtly or covertly.
is there a source? Pick whatever atheist philosopher that suits.
Can these atheists be violent? Yes.

Within society we have evolved to the point were we know what is tolerable and what is not. In most societies personal beliefs are tolerated as long as the belief system itself is not hurting anyone.
e.g. Christianity is tolerated. Fascism is not.

I would reduce the OPs question further and ask which is more intolerant, Christianity or Atheism and what evidence is there to support the notion.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

We can argue whether or not atheism caused more violence and deaths as much as we can argue if Christianity caused more violence or deaths and get nowhere because neither atheism nor theism causes violence or deaths.

..... That would be similar to what myself and wicknight said 4 days ago yes ?

But 2 points.

- Some killings etc are theistically or anti-theistically motivated but the vast majority of crimes attributed to either of these were actually caused for other reasons.

- Its not possible for atheism to be responsible for anything, let alone killing. Atheism is having no philosophy. Promoting atheism is not atheism, its anti-theism.

I would reduce the OPs question further and ask which is more tolerant, Christianity or Atheism and what evidence is there to support the notion.

I think the question is flawed. Christianity is not the opposite of atheism, atheism is 100% tolerant because atheism says nothing about anyone or anything in any way, good or bad.

Anti-theism vs Christianity might be the better choice.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can Christians be intolerant? Yes, It is part of human nature.
What does Christianity tell us about intolerance? It tells us it is wrong. Is there a source? yes, the Bible.
Are there intolerant Christians? Yes.
Can these Christians be violent? Yes.

Can Atheists be intolerant? Yes, It is part of human nature.
What does atheism tell us about intolerance? It tell us whatever we want to hear. For every atheist preaching tolerance there will be at least one preaching intolerance overtly or covertly.
is there a source? Pick whatever atheist philosopher that suits.
Can these atheists be violent? Yes.

So it is some what pointless. Any Christian who is intolerant will simply find an excuse in the Bible to be intolerant and justify to themselves that God approves, as slavers in the Americas did for hundreds of years.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

..... That would be similar to what myself and wicknight said 4 days ago yes ?

But 2 points.

- Some killings etc are theistically or anti-theistically motivated but the vast majority of crimes attributed to either of these were actually caused for other reasons.

- Its not possible for atheism to be responsible for anything, let alone killing. Atheism is having no philosophy. Promoting atheism is not atheism, its anti-theism.



I think the question is flawed. Christianity is not the opposite of atheism, atheism is 100% tolerant because atheism says nothing about anyone or anything in any way, good or bad.

Anti-theism vs Christianity might be the better choice.

Point taken

No -ism is responsible for anything. -ists are responsible for their actions. Fascism and Communism were not responsible for anything. Fascists and Communists were. Christianism is not responsible for anthing, Christians are.

Promoting atheism may not be atheism but it is promoting atheism witht he aim of increasing the number of atheists.

I think your suggestion is flawed as Christianity was not presented as an opposition to atheism. Christianity and atheism are different belief systems, one professing belief in God the other professing a faith in the non-existence of God.

I would clarify the question though as "Are atheists as practitioners of atheism more or less intolerant than Christians, the practicioners of Christianity".

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

So it is some what pointless. Any Christian who is intolerant will simply find an excuse in the Bible to be intolerant and justify to themselves that God approves, as slavers in the Americas did for hundreds of years.

It is not justification to oneself that is important for Christians. One could argue that the Bible can be used to justify anything and it is frequently said that Satan can quote chapter and verse for his own ends.

I understand your point as atheism is selfish in the sense that all one must do is justify it to oneself, unless one is involved on some form of peer-review.

There are no excuses in the Bible for intolerance for a Christian as this would require evidence of Jesus being intolerant to the point of advocating the use of violence against the person.

I do accept that slavery was perpetrated by Christians however at the time black humans were not considered as humans by slavers.
This is similar to todays position of Christians who support abortion with the argument that it is not a human being.

Maybe you could discuss the involvement of atheism in the abolition of slavery?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are no excuses in the Bible for intolerance for a Christian as this would require evidence of Jesus being intolerant to the point of advocating the use of violence against the person.

Not really. There is plenty of intolerance in the Old Testament, going right up to the level of genocide of neighboring civilizations.

All one requires is to interpret the New Testament as Jesus not specifically outlawing this in specific circumstances. Which doesn't seem that hard.

I agree that there is nothing in atheism that says Do this or says Don't do this, but at least this requires you to justify your own decisions, rather than simply saying God wants this.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Furthermore it is possible that your erroneous assertion with no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions could be declared a statement of dogmatic intolerance.

Erroneous assertion? Are you serious?

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."
United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution"
Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Promoting atheism may not be atheism but it is promoting atheism witht he aim of increasing the number of atheists.

You don't seem to understand what we're trying to say.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in any deities. Thats it, full stop, theres nothing else, nadda.

As soon as I go one step further and say "Atheism is the right choice" then thats no longer atheism because atheism says no such thing. Atheism doesn't say theres no deities, atheism doesn't say its the 'best' system, atheism doesn't say i'm going to heaven/going to hell, atheism doesn't say spread the word, atheism doesn't say anything.

When I open my mouth and say "Religion is evil" or "Atheism is right, religion is wrong" or something like that, that is not atheism, that is anti-theism.

Take myself and wicknight for example, I don't know nor care what he believes or doesn't believe. It means nothing to me. Atheism is a group only in so far as people who don't like a certain type of music are a group.

Atheism cannot be compared to Christianity or other philosophy's/religions because all of these philosophy's and religions make claims and have stances on things.

For example, a christian trying to spread christianity is a christian. Its a christian belief, christianity says 'spread the good news'.

An atheist trying to spread atheism is an anti-theist. Atheism is not a belief, atheism does not say 'spread the word'.

Atheism = not-Christian, not-Muslim, not-Jewish, not-pagan, not-hindu, not-... etc. And thats all it is.

I think your suggestion is flawed as Christianity was not presented as an opposition to atheism. Christianity and atheism are different belief systems, one professing belief in God the other professing a faith in the non-existence of God.

No its not.

Atheism is not a belief, its a lack of belief, an absence of belief.

I don't 'know' there are no gods, I don't 'believe' there are no gods. I simply have no belief in any gods.

I would clarify the question though as "Are atheists as practitioners of atheism more or less intolerant than Christians, the practicioners of Christianity".

What does a practitioner of atheism do ? Theres nothing to do.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

What does a practitioner of atheism do ? Theres nothing to do.

Some go on boards to promote and display intolerance of non-atheistic belief systems.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Some go on boards to promote and display intolerance of non-atheistic belief systems.

Yeah but when they do that they aren't practicing atheism, they are practicing anti-theism.

They are no more doing atheism by posting here than a blonde person is doing being blonde.

Atheist is something you are, not something you do. Anti-theism is something you do if you are an anti-theist

ISAW

a lot of the posts have been along the lines of
"but that isn't atheism...atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief"

I think this point has been dealt with. The point isn't whether or not people insist what atheism or Christianity is. The "anti theists and atheism are different " argument is something to which I will return below.

The point is that the definition has been given of what is "mainstream Christianity". the definition has also been given of "atheistic regime".

If mainstream Christianity supported something wrong in the past it can be quantified how many people died because of it. This goes whether the people who were in those regimes were atheist Christian black white or pink. The regime had as a central tenet that it wanted to spread Christianity and do so by killing those who opposed it if necessary. How many people died due to them can be estimated. Similarly the same estimates can be made for atheistic regimes like Pol Pot Mao etc.


Academic historians (such as Rummel) as well as non academic researchers have looked into the figures.

Christians for all their faults did contribute something to society and their death toll is ion the halfpenny place compared to atheistic regimes!


Now to return to the "anti theists and atheism are different" and "atheism is only a lack of belief nothing else"

1. All anti theists are atheists

2. From the get go I referred to fundamentalist militant atheists and atheistic regiumes - it is what the thread is about it is not about all athesits or agnostics who "just dont believe and nothing more than that" Stalin Mao Pol Pot and Hitler did MORE then not believe!!!#

3. Claiming you are an atheist in a public group is doing more then "simply lacking belief in God". If you argue against creationists from an atheist viewpoint, if you criticise the bible and theological reasoning as bunkum, if you support other fundamentalist atheists in their personal attacks on Christians for example them you do MORE than say "I just don't believe and nothing more than that".

Even just coming to a christian discussion group to specifically put forward the position of atheism is doing MORE then simply not believing!

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Even just coming to a christian discussion group to specifically put forward the position of atheism is doing MORE then simply not believing!

Now you are getting, it at last!! Only 519 pages in.:pac:

These people you are complaining about are more than atheists. Their regimes are more than atheist regimes. They are anti-theists, Communists, Facists or what ever.

Reducing it back to atheist is like blaming saying "vegetarian" when you are talking about a violent Peta protest

Peta are more than vegetarians.

StealthRolex

anything is more than atheism because atheism is nothing, is that right?

and active atheism is intolerant of everything else - am I getting it?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

anything is more than atheism because atheism is nothing, is that right?

Atheism is not believing the various supernatural explanations put forward by theism. An atheist is someone who does not believe the claims of theism, like a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat

StealthRolex wrote: »

and active atheism is intolerant of everything else - am I getting it?

Active atheism is actively not believing the claims of theism. I can't imagine a non-active atheist (someone who only from time to time doesn't believe the claims of theists)

Anything other than that is something more than atheism.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Erroneous assertion? Are you serious?

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."
United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution"
Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

"a statement of dogmatic intolerance."? was the original posters words.

Which of the above commentors was involved in a church denomination of mainstream christianity which had a DOGMA of intolerance of slaves?

The history is that one of the most corrupt Pope's ever in the roman church sanctioned slavery for 30 years or so and his successor reversed that decision.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

"a statement of dogmatic intolerance."? was the original posters words.

Which of the above commentors was involved in a church denomination of mainstream christianity which had a DOGMA of intolerance of slaves?

Read the post again. Stealth was accusing me of dogmatic intolerance.

Furthermore it is possible that your erroneous assertion ... could be declared a statement of dogmatic intolerance.

All I was asked for was evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify this. And that is what I provided.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheism is not believing the various supernatural explanations put forward by theism. An atheist is someone who does not believe the claims of theism, like a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat

I don't have a problem with such vegetarians unless they insist everyone should be a vegitarian and go around preaching vegitarianism and starting movements promoting vegitarianism to the extent that they kill people for not becoming vegitarian or converting to their vegitarian views.

However ther is a difference between vegitarians and atheists
Vegitarians have contributed to civilization. they tend to be into what they eat because they care about the planet and/or believe animals have souls. Their belief in vegitarianism extends into making a better world and coming together with people who wish to promote the underlying reasons of why they became vegitarian.

Atheists, whenever they came together to promote their way of seeing the world produced nothing but death and ruin.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I don't have a problem with such vegetarians unless they insist everyone should be a vegitarian and go around preaching vegitarianism and starting movements promoting vegitarianism to the extent that they kill people for not becoming vegitarian or converting to their vegitarian views.

Great. And you shouldn't have a problem with atheists unless they ....

ISAW wrote: »

However ther is a difference between vegitarians and atheists
Vegitarians have contributed to civilization.

Umm, atheists have not contributed to civilization? Really, that is the claim you want to make?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Read the post again. Stealth was accusing me of dogmatic intolerance.

All I was asked for was evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify this. And that is what I provided.

Lets get this right. I was attacking the post for making a dogmatic statement from a position of intolerance.

Why? because an assertion was made with no supporting evidence thereby making assumptions about the reader.

The poster had the option to post Biblical references but instead chose to post quotes from Christians who themselves failed to quote from the Bible to support their position.

There is much in the Bible to support the freeing of slaves and treating slaves with care and humanity. There is also much in the Bible that supports the position that "man stealing", the form of slavery under discussion, and the manner in which they were treated, is wrong.

Hope that makes is clearer.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Lets get this right. I was attacking the post for making a dogmatic statement from a position of intolerance.

Why? because an assertion was made with no supporting evidence thereby making assumptions about the reader.

The poster had the option to post Biblical references but instead chose to post quotes from Christians who themselves failed to quote from the Bible to support their position.

Yeah, odd that I did that consider that was exactly what was asked for. :rolleyes:

"slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions"

I provided links that they did, you didn't like this, so you ignored it and attacked me again.

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is much in the Bible to support the freeing of slaves and treating slaves with care and humanity.

If you say so Stealth :rolleyes:

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Now you are getting, it at last!! Only 519 pages in.:pac:

These people you are complaining about are more than atheists.

But they are ALL atheists!" NONE of theem are theists! The thing they have in common is atheism and the actions they do stem from that!

Their regimes are more than atheist regimes.

That ARE atheistic regimes who have atheism as a central tenet! They are NOT theistic regimes! they are NOT Christian regimes!

They are anti-theists, Communists, Facists or what ever.

NO! Communists or fascists could be believers. what is common to atheistic regimes is that they are atheists and promote atheism! Other regimes whic DID NOT prompte atheism did kill people but the ones promoting atheism killed far far more people. That is the whole point!

Reducing it back to atheist is like blaming saying "vegetarian" when you are talking about a violent Peta protest

Non vegitarians would not be protesting about eating meat!

Peta are more than vegetarians.

But they arent carnivors! And you cant lump them in with carnivors when it comes to saying how many people PETA killed.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

But they are ALL atheists!" NONE of theem are theists! The thing they have in common is atheism and the actions they do stem from that!

Of course they are all atheists, atheism is a very broad category. Do you believe the claims of theism? Nope? Then you are an atheist.

There are only two types of humans, atheists and theists. If you went any higher you would be arguing they were all humans :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

Non vegitarians would not be protesting about eating meat!

That is the point.

Theists wouldn't be forming anti-theist regimes. Saying these anti-theists were atheists is like point out the obvious.

Seriously, this is like the Simpsons episode with the French waiter .

Lawyer: I intend to prove that Freddy Quimby is totally innocent! First of all, his accuser is a very shady character. That waiter, Mr.
LaCoste, not only wasn't born in Springfield, he wasn't even
born in this country!
[jury gasps, reporters run to phones and dial rapidly]
Hutz: [to LaCoste] From now on, you tell me everything!

Are you seriously expecting us to be shocked that you demonstrated an anti-theist Communist regime were (SHOCK HORROR) atheist?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Great. And you shouldn't have a problem with atheists unless they ....

form into or support atheistic regimes.
It is unlikely that theists wouldf support such regimes just as it is unlikely Christians will support Islamist regimes.

Umm, atheists have not contributed to civilization? Really, that is the claim you want to make?

No! atheism and atheistic regimes in particular ( regimes with atheism as a central tenet) have provided NOTHING to civilization. They haven't lasted and they contributed hundreds of millions of dead bodies, economic ruin and stagnation!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course they are all atheists, atheism is a very broad category.

But you yourself stated atheism is simply a belief there is no god and nothing more than that!

There are only two types of humans, atheists and theists. If you went any higher you would be arguing they were all humans :rolleyes:

No there are those who believe in God and there are those that believe ther is no God. But there are also those agnostics that don't believe or positively disbelieve. And there are those who believe in the supernatural but not in a personal God. Atheists are a tiny minority. Particularly the "science is sufficient for society" atheists.

Theists wouldn't be forming anti-theist regimes. Saying these anti-theists were atheists is like point out the obvious.

So the only regimes which can have anti-theism as a core principle must obviously be atheistic ones because theistic regimes won't be anti theist.

Tyhe fact that it is only a small proportion of theists doesn't stop you claim "religion caused death" irrespective of whether ALL believers follow them. Likewise atheistic regimes caused death irrespective of whether anti theism is a subset of it or not.

Are you seriously expecting us to be shocked that you demonstrated an anti-theist Communist regime were (SHOCK HORROR) atheist?

It is a statement of FACT whether or not it shocks you! The point is that atheistic regimes killed far far more people with atheism at the core of their policy than theistic ones with belief at the core of their policy.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Where are there examples of non-atheist communist regimes?

i already gave two! Modern china and cuba relaxed their rules on official atheism. since then they have prospered in comparison to their religious persecution days.
Actually i cited monasteries too I believe. which are theistic communism.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Read the post again. Stealth was accusing me of dogmatic intolerance.

I cant find it since your reference is wrong. Care to state the number or provide a link?

In
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65969928&postcount=515

You provide this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65969397&postcount=514

whivch does not contain the styatement:
Furthermore it is possible that your erroneous assertion with no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions could be declared a statement of dogmatic intolerance.

Turtwig

ISAW wrote: »

.

No there are those who believe in God

Theist.

there are those that believe ther is no God

Faith based atheism, although atheism doesn't necessarily have to be faith based.

there are also those agnostics that don't believe or positively disbelieve.

Don't believe is the equivalent of lacking belief. If someone lacks belief in a deity they are an atheist. This notion that positively disbelieving is required is ridiculous.

And there are those who believe in the supernatural but not in a personal God

They don't believe in a personal God hence they are Atheists.

Atheists are a minority.

At least you got this bit about atheism right.:)

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Y

"slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions"

I provided links that they did,

The point being that post colonial American slavers justified their actions.
But what you were asked was where the Bible justifies their actions.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

Theist.


Faith based atheism, although atheism doesn't necessarily have to be faith based.


Don't believe is the equivalent of lacking belief. If someone lacks belief in a deity they are an atheist. This notion that positively disbelieving is required is ridiculous.

Been over this before. It is a definition. it is in common use and established.


Her e is a longtitudinal survey
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

The Us survey that I referred to in A&A forum references "nones" about 15 per cent of americans. It further lists agnostics and atheists under "nones"

http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population.html

Look at figure 1.17


here is a pew survey:
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Note Atheist: 1.6 per cent
agnostic 2.4. per cent
?

Lists "unaffiliated" as 16.1 and lists "nothing in particular" and " secular" as part of this.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

The point being that post colonial American slavers justified their actions.
But what you were asked was where the Bible justifies their actions.

No I wasn't asked that. I can quote it again for you if you like

"no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions"

You linked to this yourself, why are asking me for the link?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

i already gave two! Modern china and cuba relaxed their rules on official atheism.

No, they relaxed their rules on anti-theism. They still officially reject the existence of deities

Seriously, are you just going to spend the entire thread confusing atheism with anti-theism.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

I find arguing with you to be very strange. I'm just going to say "OK" to whatever point it is your trying to make here.

You claimed to have supplied sources which are "only a google away" didn't you?
But it turns out you didn't supply them - I did!

As far as I saw Rummel gave deaths caused by communist regimes for a huge variety of reasons.

Well you saw wrong then! Go and read the sources I provided. There are two tables from rummel dealing with genocides in history. They date from about 2500 BC to modern times.
They have about 1,000 entries. Communism constituted less than one of 28 centuries!
Atheistic regimes by FAR outnumber Christianity in terms of dead.

Your claiming something very different and you haven't backed it up.

Actually I have.

Not the church but Christianity was not responsible. Christianity is not responsible, for example, for the Northern Ireland conflict.

Well given the current troubles are between nationalists and a group descended from settlers brought in by a Protestant ruled England then the Cromwellian period cant be blamed on Christianity either nor can the famine! that's about a million less dead for Christianities total then.

Using your idea of responsibility for atheism and applying it to christianity then yes it would be responsible for it as well as WW1/2

No using my criterion puritanical Protestantism as part of Christianity might be regarded as fundamentalist but WOULD be responsible just as fundamentalist Spanish inquisitions are responsible for about 20,000 deaths in 400 years.

and pretty much every conflict/killing any European country has been involved in for the past 1000 years.

Indeed and ALL are listed in rummel. The biggies are the 30 years War and the hundred years war and the Crusades. Total in the millions. it is in rummel. ALL of them not just the atheistic ones! You can take 2000 years of Christianity and theior worst wars and they dont come anywhere near Stalin Mao Pol Pot or Hitler. In fact other pre 20th century non Christian atheistic regimes such as in China (hardly Christian) were also "mega murderers"
As Rummel calls them.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
During the last century in over some fifteen years the Teiping Rebellion possibly cost "tens of millions" of lives,36 maybe even as many as 40,000,000.[reference 37]


HALF of Stalins total was in camps - not famine or war: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
Atheistic communists are the largest cohoirt of killers in 20th centuy china and war or famine.



The French post revolution "Terror" was in fact anti religion and in the Vendee they killed more Catholics in a year then the Inquisition did in five centuries.

China was never atheist, but that of course depends on your definition of a religion which I'm sure you'll disagree/agree with to suit your purpose.

It certainly was NOT Christian and they didn't believe in a single God. i wont get nto a "Buddhism is atheism" row. some of your atheist comrades claim this to be true. the arguments i have been making in this forum are in realation mainly to "mainstream Christiianity" which I have defined.

North Korea is highly religious and is the biggest offender by far proportionally speaking.

North Korea is atheist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism has been defined by David Kowalewski as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practiceDavid Kowalewski, Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review

North Korea's government exercises virtual total control over society and imposes state sanctioned atheism, and the cult of personality of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung have been described as a political religion. There is no way you can compare it to Christianity!

Hang on a second. A few posts ago he was executing believers by the truckload, now hes simply using them ?

Yes he was doing both! He killed all he could. Over half of the deaths under him were in camps. But he couldnt control all of the USSR . it is HUGE! So when he couldnt kill then he tried to encourage the strongest resistors to fight against the Germans. They way they could kill each other. When the Germans were executed he want back to persecuting them.

I've given you several sources now and stop straw manning.

Several sources ? List them all then! List all the sources you supplied on genocieds in history then can you? Where are the ones you supplied about 110 million dead due to Christianity in the US?

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

I provided links that they did, you didn't like this, so you ignored it and attacked me again.



If you say so Stealth :rolleyes:

I take it you don't like this way of playing the game. Well I didn't lick it off the stones mate.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, atheists have not contributed to civilization? Really, that is the claim you want to make?

Some atheists have contributed, some have contributed negatively, and some have instigated and contributed to the worst atrocities in the history of mankind.

Even a genocide is a contribution, albeit negative, as it teaches not to trust an atheist with power.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

No I wasn't asked that. I can quote it again for you if you like

"no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions"

You're missing the point. Saying "it says so in the Bible" is not using the Bible to justify their actions.

They mentioned the Bible but did not refer to it and the reason they did not refer to it is because there is no support in the Bible for the type of slavery they were involved in which was "race based" and " man stealing" - going to Africa and capturing free men to be slaves.


Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/bible-slavery.html

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No I wasn't asked that. I can quote it again for you if you like

"no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions"

You linked to this yourself, why are asking me for the link?

I didnt link it I replied to your reply to it.
And in yout reply it contains a quote beginning "Furthermore..."
I can not find those words in the original message to which you were replying

In this message:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65969928&postcount=515

you make a pojt about the bible was used to justify slavery

You quote Stealthrolex saying
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65969397#post65969397
Originally Posted by StealthRolex View Post
Furthermore it is possible that your erroneous assertion with no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions could be declared a statement of dogmatic intolerance.


But in the message : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65969397&postcount=514

The above words do not appear!

In what message did he write these words? I haven't seen it.

StealthRolex

ISAW wrote: »

You quote Stealthrolex saying
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...7#post65969397
Originally Posted by StealthRolex View Post
Furthermore it is possible that your erroneous assertion with no supporting evidence that slavers and slave traders used the Bible to justify their actions could be declared a statement of dogmatic intolerance.

The above words do not appear!

In what message did he write these words? I haven't seen it.

Apologies ISAW, I had a change of heart about what I wrote and ran an edit. Wicknight picked up a pre-amended post. It all happened in a matter of minutes. I removed the "erroneous assertions" as it was contentious.

I stand by what I said though - the original assertion was erroneous and the best he can do is provide quotes from people who claimed there was biblical support.

My assertion is that whatever there is in the Bible does not support slavery based on race or capture so anyone using the Bible to support British or American slavery is erroneous.

p.s. at least one his citations had a pretty immoral life and it is clear he was not prepared to follow Biblical teachings.

Daemius

I have been an athiest for as long as I can remember. Of course, being Irish, I was raised Catholic in a small town, where the community was very close knit and mostly revolved around the parishes. I attended a CBS highschool aswell, which had some influence on my beliefs. My Physics teacher was amazing.

The point is, it is easy to make drastic assumptions like Athiesm being directly responsible for genocide, yet I am sure in the same manner we can find an equally meaningless link between these people. It is a pity that there is eventual mudslinging in the debate. I think that the OP was maybe looking for this when he decided to post that as the title.

That kind of message only seeks to damage or discredit. It is based on getting emotional leverage over someone, making it easier to influence them to whatever end. I really don't see the relevance in the thread title, considering it has about as much to do with religion as tom and jerry does to animal welfare.

Personally, my main belief (however naive and misguided it is to some people) is that we do not need something external to define our actions. At the end of the day, chemically we are all the same. Sure, religion has some impact on choices we make, for good or for bad, but I do not think it is fair to hold it accountable for all evil actions in the world.

I get frustrated when I see those fundamendalist athiests that suggest this idea. It serves to do nothing but tarnish good hearted Christians.


I never saw Christianity as a bad thing. Sure, people do some really evil things whilst in a position of power, which this country is all too aware of, but in fairness, I do not think that Christian faith had anything to do with it.

Most Christians I know tend to take it as a moral code. That sure, we don't exactly need 10 commandments to tell us that killing is wrong, but considering that we are still animals, it is good to know that we attempt to set ourselves apart. I like that about Christianity, I respect that. It really is progressive and I do find that the people who have faith in those ideas really are amazing people to know, with endless patience.

I think the main reason why I am an athiest is because at the end of the day, I just personally feels science can offer ME solice. But I do still retain what was taught in school about moral principals. Sorry if I derailed this post, but It is my first time posting here. It probably comes across as some amateur that clicked the wrong link, but I couldn't help posting something, however silly it may sound.

Btw, for those that are firing across the trenches at each other, lads, really? The point in this whole exercise is lost on you if you take things personally. No self respecting athiest/ christian takes things too personally, considering that acceptance and understanding are both kinda the point in both of these avenues of belief.

Daemius

"Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/bible-slavery.html"

In this case, I do not think the Bible accounted for economic slavery and just how powerful it could be. I know you researched and mentioned some great examples of how the bible condemned slavery in all it's forms (and in fairness, most of the old testament is widely ignored by the modern vatican concerning views that directly oppose progressive society).

The thing is, I don't think that we need a god to reform our soul from wicked and evil acts. I don't think one has to experience god's grace in order to realise that it is morally wrong to enslave a race. It does help massively though in influencing a culture to that idea, which is fantastic. But the main problem I have is that you cannot label this "salvation" then expect us to believe it is no different from control or reform, considering that the underlying standards are exactly the same.

I honestly believe it is very bad if one takes the bible too literally. It is an amazing guide of how one should treat others in the new testament though.

StealthRolex

The Bible is often times symbolic and describes our relationship with God.

We can server only one master and we are encouraged to take God as our master. If we put anything else as our master, money, love, science, selfisness, technology, or even Satan to name but a few we are lost.

If the Bible was to speak on "slavery" as we know it we could not then interpret what it says about the master slave relationship that is symbolic of our relationship in obedience to God.

Further the concept of "slave" in the Bible is also akin to the concept today of "employee" or previously "serfdom". What was a slave then is todays PAYE worker.

As Daemius mentioned we cannot take the Bible too literally for if we do we will miss the symbolism and the Truth it holds.

ISAW

Daemius wrote: »

SNIP

The bit i snipped out I agree with entirely.

Most Christians I know tend to take it as a moral code. That sure, we don't exactly need 10 commandments to tell us that killing is wrong, but considering that we are still animals, it is good to know that we attempt to set ourselves apart. I like that about Christianity, I respect that. It really is progressive and I do find that the people who have faith in those ideas really are amazing people to know, with endless patience.

This is unusual and possibly represents the opinion of most atheists. However, as I have suggested, it does not represent to opinion of those atheists who ost in internet forums. most of them are more the Dawkins and Hitchens variety than the Michael Martin variety.

I think the main reason why I am an athiest is because at the end of the day, I just personally feels science can offer ME solice.

It offers believers solice too. And i know atheists who think science isnt sufficient. One in particular - a physicist - was the Chair of a national science group and is still a leading scientist and has stated a world run by scientists would be a terrible place.

snip the self effacement. grovelling is such a believers tactic anyway

Btw, for those that are firing across the trenches at each other, lads, really? The point in this whole exercise is lost on you if you take things personally. No self respecting athiest/ christian takes things too personally, considering that acceptance and understanding are both kinda the point in both of these avenues of belief.

Well I can point out plenty of personal attacks on me but that would be off topic for this thread. suffice it to say some atheists whom I have personally met post here and have said they want the world cleansed of believers.

lmaopml

Daemius wrote: »

I have been an athiest for as long as I can remember. Of course, being Irish, I was raised Catholic in a small town, where the community was very close knit and mostly revolved around the parishes. I attended a CBS highschool aswell, which had some influence on my beliefs. My Physics teacher was amazing.

The point is, it is easy to make drastic assumptions like Athiesm being directly responsible for genocide, yet I am sure in the same manner we can find an equally meaningless link between these people. It is a pity that there is eventual mudslinging in the debate. I think that the OP was maybe looking for this when he decided to post that as the title.

That kind of message only seeks to damage or discredit. It is based on getting emotional leverage over someone, making it easier to influence them to whatever end. I really don't see the relevance in the thread title, considering it has about as much to do with religion as tom and jerry does to animal welfare.

Personally, my main belief (however naive and misguided it is to some people) is that we do not need something external to define our actions. At the end of the day, chemically we are all the same. Sure, religion has some impact on choices we make, for good or for bad, but I do not think it is fair to hold it accountable for all evil actions in the world.

I get frustrated when I see those fundamendalist athiests that suggest this idea. It serves to do nothing but tarnish good hearted Christians.


I never saw Christianity as a bad thing. Sure, people do some really evil things whilst in a position of power, which this country is all too aware of, but in fairness, I do not think that Christian faith had anything to do with it.

Most Christians I know tend to take it as a moral code. That sure, we don't exactly need 10 commandments to tell us that killing is wrong, but considering that we are still animals, it is good to know that we attempt to set ourselves apart. I like that about Christianity, I respect that. It really is progressive and I do find that the people who have faith in those ideas really are amazing people to know, with endless patience.

I think the main reason why I am an athiest is because at the end of the day, I just personally feels science can offer ME solice. But I do still retain what was taught in school about moral principals. Sorry if I derailed this post, but It is my first time posting here. It probably comes across as some amateur that clicked the wrong link, but I couldn't help posting something, however silly it may sound.

Btw, for those that are firing across the trenches at each other, lads, really? The point in this whole exercise is lost on you if you take things personally. No self respecting athiest/ christian takes things too personally, considering that acceptance and understanding are both kinda the point in both of these avenues of belief.

Great first few posts! I agree with you.

...and very insightful and honest too imo. I think the thread title is something that had to be 'bashed' out, and while I haven't contributed until now, I think it was a good exercise, with some very matched debaters..and it has been a pleasure reading through...

The whole issue is perhaps as a direct result of the 'charge' made by Dawkins in the 'God Delusion' about 'religion', and the counter challenge by various other authors...which is rather obvious when you step back a bit.

What's the lesson? Don't get taken in too easy by anybody on either side; we're all only 'human' and we ain't that different to eachother....

Good job Daemius!

Christians would believe that all humans are made in the 'image' of God, and that's why we would expect to see people from other denominations or none as good or indeed even better than ourselves...We believe man has a divine 'purpose'...

Atheists believe that it's down to natural selection and survival instincts to have a common brotherhood of humanity...

On the surface they look very different; the 'goal' however is the same...

I just hope it all works out in the future, and human rights are adherred to...

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

a lot of the posts have been along the lines of
"but that isn't atheism...atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief"

Atheism is nothing more then a lack of belief. Thats the definition of atheism.

Similarly the same estimates can be made for atheistic regimes like Pol Pot Mao etc.

No it can't.

Christianity is a philosophy, it is promoting something.
Atheism is not promoting anything.

Atheism is a short-hand for 'not-christian, not-muslim, not-buddhist, not-hindu etc etc'.

Academic historians (such as Rummel) as well as non academic researchers have looked into the figures.

Where does his figures say these were atheist regimes ?

Now to return to the "anti theists and atheism are different" and "atheism is only a lack of belief nothing else"

1. All anti theists are atheists

Yes.

2. From the get go I referred to fundamentalist militant atheists and atheistic regiumes - it is what the thread is about it is not about all athesits or agnostics who "just dont believe and nothing more than that" Stalin Mao Pol Pot and Hitler did MORE then not believe!!!#

Yes, they were anti-theists.

3. Claiming you are an atheist in a public group is doing more then "simply lacking belief in God".

Wow, I mean wow. It only took how long ? :pac:

If you argue against creationists from an atheist viewpoint,

How is it possible to argue against creationists from an atheist viewpoint ? And Atheist viewpoint says 'I don't believe in any gods'. An atheist viewpoint doesn't necessarily say there are no gods, nor does it say creationism is wrong. I don't understand how you think anyone can argue anything from an atheist standpoint except for their own personal non-belief.

I'm an atheist, I'm also an anti-theist and I still can't argue against creationists from an atheist standpoint. I argue against them from a common sense and scientific standpoint.

if you criticise the bible and theological reasoning as bunkum, if you support other fundamentalist atheists in their personal attacks on Christians for example them you do MORE than say "I just don't believe and nothing more than that".

Yes people who do that are more then atheists, they are anti-theist. We've been telling you this for days.

Even just coming to a christian discussion group to specifically put forward the position of atheism is doing MORE then simply not believing!

Yes. Whats your point ?