Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....
Comments
-
You have gone to great pains to point out the difference between fundamentalist and mainstream Christianity, to attempt to get people to stop conflating the two because you do not agree with the behaviour of fundamentalist Christians any more than I do, you don't want to be associated with them and of course because Christianity is not necessarily fundamentalist
But when it comes to atheism you make no such distinction. Why is that?
WRONG! I made the distinction right from the beginning! I didn't say that my comments apply to ALL atheists but to the ones that were involved in spreading atheism and persecuting believers and running such atheistic regimes. If you are an atheist and not one of these then fair enough.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...8&postcount=63In short you are saying all regimes were not atheist.
But I am pointing out to you that:
1. atheistic ones caused mare death then all the others
2. Atheistic regimes contributed less then the others
3. Non atheistic regimes were sometimes benign.
And the FACT is that people like Dawkins for example DO VIEW atheism as a "better way" and want religious people removed from any authority. Maybe some atheists couldnt care less and want to sit on their hands and do nothing, which can be criticised in itself but I am specifically talking here about evangalising fundamental atheists such as those like Dawkins who subscribe to scientism.
If you promote atheism as a better way for society and you promote removing religious believers from positions of authority then you are one of these people.
and message 75:So you admit Dawkins is anti-theist? And the supporters of scientism are? And fundamentalist proselytising atheists are?
And you are not a supporter of any of their positions? Well then having admitted that I don't think mainstream religious people will view you as a danger or a threat. If and when you begin to attack them and try to ridicule them they may however reclassify you and suggest you were dishonest.Would you consider the possibility that what you are doing is the equivalent of insisting that all Christians are creationists and that any "regime" run by Christians would ban the teaching of evolution etc?
If they banned it in science class they would be wrong yes. And if they asked for "equal time" they would also be wrong. Also banning Biblical creationism in religion class might be wrong. But many countries don't teach religion in public schools. As I stated right from the beginning I would oppose ANY FUNDAMENTALISTS Christian Islamic or atheist from imposing their views. I am libertarian in this respect. But as i also poionted out in spite of actaully trying to kill the "others" for centuries Christian regimes (I will refrain from using the work "Only") killed millions. But atheistic ones killed hundreds of millions.0 -
Henry McConville wrote: »Atheist? The Catholic Church killed more people than Hitler! Religion is the greatest cause of suffering on earth, always has and always will.
Henry please read the thread before your ignorance is exposed.
What is your evidence for the claim that "he Catholic Church killed more people than Hitler!"
Or is it just bald assertion and unsupported uninformed ignorant opinion?0 -
Richard Dawkins doesn't want a secular society? news to me
Or were you just calling him a nut bag? I can tell you that if half of the things that I've seen religious people claim about him were true he would be a nut bag. Luckily they're not
Maybe I misunderstood you - it was late
Of course Dawkins wants a secular society and while I am unaware of the veracity of the claims you claim were made I consider him a nut bag. In fact I see nothing in atheism that would convince me that any atheist is not a nut bag.
Atheism is nothing more than a self deluding moral dodge that turns human beings into animals.0 -
-
-
StealthRolex wrote: »Maybe I misunderstood you - it was late
Of course Dawkins wants a secular society and while I am unaware of the veracity of the claims you claim were made I consider him a nut bag. In fact I see nothing in atheism that would convince me that any atheist is not a nut bag.
Atheism is nothing more than a self deluding moral dodge that turns human beings into animals.
Don't worry, you're not just an animal, the whole universe was created specially for you and you're going to live forever in a supernatural paradise and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Oh and yeah atheism is a moral dodge, that's why our prisons are overflowing with them and totally devoid of christians :rolleyes:0 -
Bye now. I told you once more and the conversation was over. Be a bit less rude next time and I mighhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/usercp.phpt just respond
Run away if you like Sam. As you please. You misrepresented me and you were WRONG!
I showed you you were wrong:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66092248&postcount=702
If you think that was a personal attack take it to the moderators. It wasnt a personal attack and you are also WRONG about that! I must laugh at this high moral ground about the word "WRONG" being "rude"0 -
Henry please read the thread before your ignorance is exposed.
What is your evidence for the claim that "he Catholic Church killed more people than Hitler!"
Or is it just bald assertion and unsupported uninformed ignorant opinion?
I read this
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/N1676b.cfm
75 million. Your ignorant.0 -
Hint: What is the difference between an atheist regime and one which isn't atheist?
One that isn't atheist recognized the claims of a particular theistic religion. For example the UK.
They don't say there was no god either.You don't run the country and neither do they thank God.
Perhaps. Perhaps I got tired of you telling me what I should be.Once again you depart from to subject to involve yourself in personal attack.
You can't accept all religions, religions are mutually exclusive.Not endorsing a single religion does not mean saying "no religion" . they clearly accepted all religions.
You think the Albania government thought both God and Zeus existed?
By your definition of atheist (which is really anti-theist) that no one here but you accepts.Ireland does not have an established state endorced religion sine the 1970s but it isn't atheist!
It certainly is when you have been told something over and over that you simply ignore and continue to argue as if you had never heard it in the first place.MY motivation isn't at issue.
Which is your straw man version of athiesm.They were not oppressing religions or atheist as far as I know. they didnt say "no religion" was a superior position justy that they supported no particular religion. They dint say they didnt believe in God and that was not the state position as far as I know.
So I agree entirely that Albiania was not your strawman atheism. But I care very little for your straw man atheism.It seems Zogu was not an atheist!
And? An atheist regime has to have an atheist leader? Why exactly?0 -
WRONG!
I don't predict any more debates any time soon. I don't think it was a personal attack, I just think it's unnecessary and rude. The first time we ever spoke I honestly thought you had some personal problem with me but I soon realised from seeing you talk to others that that's just how you talk to people. Very strange and something I have no interest in partaking in.
All I can say is that I hope for your own safety that in real life you don't scream in someone's face that they're WRONG! every time they say something you think is wrong0 -
Advertisement
-
Henry McConville wrote: »
LOL ! When you are stuck in a hole don't try to dig yourself out.
You do realise that source is a christian fundamentalist conspiracy site?
What next - the UFO watchers saying the Pope is a lizard?
Nevertheless where do you get you "75 million" figure from on that site?
What is the source?0 -
LOL ! When you are stuck in a hole don't try to dig yourself out.
You do realise that source is a christian fundamentalist conspiracy site?
What next - the UFO watchers saying the Pope is a lizard?
Nevertheless where do you get you "75 million" figure from on that site?
What is the source?
It says 75 million a number of time in the article, so clearly you did not read it...
So the church never tortured for confessions, never killed heretics? If they do what they do to children now when they cannot get away with it, can you imagine what they did when they ruled the world?0 -
One that isn't atheist recognized the claims of a particular theistic religion. For example the UK.
so according to you The Us Ireland Canada and similar countries are "atheist" .
According to me they are not. they would only be atheist if the country promoted atheism and didn't support religion in any way. That dies not mean it would be against religion but it would not support or contribute to any religion. It would not recognise the contribution of religion in any place in society or assist any religion in their work be it socisl or educational or whatever.
And? An atheist regime has to have an atheist leader? Why exactly?
It doesnt it had to promote atheism above religion. That does not mean it persecutes religion. The Pope may also be running a religious regime but secretly be atheist but that is also unlikely. Likewise it is unlikely that a group of theists would run an atheist agenda.0 -
There are loads of bad tempered posts being fired around. Unless people can calm down this thread will soon be locked.0
-
Henry McConville wrote: »It says 75 million a number of time in the article, so clearly you did not read it...
No I didn't where is it? Care to Quote it and the source it gives?So the church never tortured for confessions, never killed heretics?
You claim I stated that the church never tortured or killed people?
Where did I state that?
Tell you what though... they didn't kill 75 million as far as I know and I cant see where your evidence for that is!If they do what they do to children now when they cannot get away with it, can you imagine what they did when they ruled the world?
LOL!
Apparently 200 children died in the hands of the HSE. how many died in the hands of the church?
You really need to look into logical thinking and fallacies. You produce a hand-waving argument about the Church abusing children (abusing mind you not KILLING) and you think that even if this is true ( as it turns out bad and all as it was less then one percent of child sexual abusers were Catholic clerics) you somehow think it PROVES that 754 million people were killed by the Church?
Please go and read something and come back with some actual evidence and not your unsupported opinion. We are not accustomed to taking anti church unsupported opinion and using it as a basis for a logical argument. We prefer to deal with actual facts based on figures in actual history and academic and scholarly research and not ones pulled from conspiracy sites!0 -
so according to you The Us Ireland Canada and similar countries are "atheist" .
I'm happy with that conclusion. I said at the very start (like 30 pages ago) that there is really no difference between a secular state and an atheist one. It is basically the same thing, not recognizing the claims of a particular religion as being true.
They aren't burning babies though so I imagine you won't agree :rolleyes:According to me they are not.
I cannot begin to express how much that means nothing to me.0 -
I'm happy with that conclusion. I said at the very start (like 30 pages ago)
But you didn't BEFORE I defined what I meant!
Care to prove me wrong?
You Cant can you?
In fact I outlined it in message 49 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65543856&postcount=49
You came back and queried it eleven messages later:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65547872&postcount=61
I clarified 2 messages later:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65551438&postcount=63
not alone that but you admitted a weakness in YOUR OWN definition:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65553245&postcount=66Good point, I hadn't considered that.
Such a State would fall in between the secular notions of American and the anti-theist notions of China and the USSR.
A state where say the position is such that in a private school you can teach what ever the fudge you like but in a public school the doctrine is atheism all the way
I gave you a quite comprehensive definition and outline then
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65553592&postcount=68
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65553592&postcount=68that there is really no difference between a secular state and an atheist one. It is basically the same thing, not recognizing the claims of a particular religion as being true.
Fine you may ignore the definition given then if you wish. The point being made is godless atheistic regimes - NOT secular states by your definition and not even and not "atheist states" by mine killed more than Christian regimes did. By more I don' t mean ten more people I mean over a thousand time the death rate! At ehe same time they contributed nothing to civilization and Christianity contributed quite a lot.I cannot begin to express how much that means nothing to me.
The fact that you ignore definitions does not remove the fact that they were given and you can't change what I meant by them into what you think they should mean.
To mix metaphors it with another discussion
"You cant have you cheesecake and eat it! "0 -
I don't predict any more debates any time soon.
A Daniel! A Daniel come to judgement!
and a prophet too no less.I don't think it was a personal attack,
It wasn't. I attack the argument.I just think it's unnecessary and rude. The first time we ever spoke I honestly thought you had some personal problem with me but I soon realised from seeing you talk to others that that's just how you talk to people. Very strange and something I have no interest in partaking in.
Really? When was that?All I can say is that I hope for your own safety that in real life you don't scream in someone's face that they're WRONG! every time they say something you think is wrong
I don't. But I do when they continually repeat something they have been clearly shown is factually wrong.0 -
No I didn't where is it? Care to Quote it and the source it gives?
You claim I stated that the church never tortured or killed people?
Where did I state that?
Tell you what though... they didn't kill 75 million as far as I know and I cant see where your evidence for that is!
LOL!
Apparently 200 children died in the hands of the HSE. how many died in the hands of the church?
You really need to look into logical thinking and fallacies. You produce a hand-waving argument about the Church abusing children (abusing mind you not KILLING) and you think that even if this is true ( as it turns out bad and all as it was less then one percent of child sexual abusers were Catholic clerics) you somehow think it PROVES that 754 million people were killed by the Church?
Please go and read something and come back with some actual evidence and not your unsupported opinion. We are not accustomed to taking anti church unsupported opinion and using it as a basis for a logical argument. We prefer to deal with actual facts based on figures in actual history and academic and scholarly research and not ones pulled from conspiracy sites!
Firstly who do you mean " we " ? Everybody in here hates you!
Here is a direct quote
Since history books have been largely rewritten, few people know specific details of this murderous campaign that lasted over 1,200 years, killing 75 million people. But, once you understand the unprecedented horrors of the Inquisition, you will never look at Roman Catholicism the same way again.
I suggest you actually read it. There is no absolute proof of course, of the 75 mil, the same way the is no absolute proof that it did not happen, but I well believe it after reading that, very detailed. Its a known fact the catholic church tried to wipe out absolutely anyone who did not bow to roman dogma, and a known fact that they seriously abused women. Sure who could stop them from doing what they wanted.
I was raised catholic by the way.
Your point about the HSE, so its ok to abuse them once you dont kill them? Yeah sure. Your arguments are ridiculous.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fine you may ignore the definition given then if you wish. The point being made is godless atheistic regimes - NOT secular states by your definition and not even and not "atheist states" by mine killed more than Christian regimes did. By more I don' t mean ten more people I mean over a thousand time the death rate! At ehe same time they contributed nothing to civilization and Christianity contributed quite a lot.
If by "godless atheist regimes" you mean Communist anti-theist regimes, then I would think that would be a strong reason not to support Communist anti-theism regimes.
Since I don't I'm at a loss as to what point you think you are making.The fact that you ignore definitions does not remove the fact that they were given and you can't change what I meant by them into what you think they should mean.
What you meant by them is irrelevant. You spent half this thread equating atheism to anti-theism.
Since you are not an atheist and I am I think I'm in a better position to tell you what an atheist is.
Would you listen to an atheist telling you what a Christian should be? I doubt it.0 -
I mean this particular forum.Henry McConville wrote: »Firstly who do you mean " we " ?Everybody in here hates you!
And of course you have no evidence for that either! LOL!Here is a direct quote
Since history books have been largely rewritten, few people know specific details of this murderous campaign that lasted over 1,200 years, killing 75 million people. But, once you understand the unprecedented horrors of the Inquisition, you will never look at Roman Catholicism the same way again.
that quote does not appear in the source you gave : http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/N1676b.cfm
Where did you get it?
the closest to the above words is the following:Even though this Inquisisiton lasted 1,200 years, and claimed up to 75 million victims, history books since World War I have been so rewritten that they have largely omitted the true horror of the Inquisition.
This is factually wrong
1. There was no single Inquistion lasting that time
2. Inquisition(S) were plural the most notable being the Spanins one
3. all of them did not last 1,200 years. The span from the earliest to the latest was less than 500 years.
4. the Spanish one which was the longest lasting and most deadly and claimed more then the others put together lasted several centuries and killed about 20,000 people and NOT anywhere near 75 million!I suggest you actually read it.
I suggest yo do some proper research and not believe bigoted quotes from conspiracy theorists and fundamentalist Christians!There is no absolute proof of course, of the 75 mil, the same way the is no absolute proof that it did not happen, but I well believe it after reading that, very detailed.
Read the Weekly World News and you will probably believe Marlyn Monroe is alive again as a lettuce. I suppose you think "Men in Black" was a documentary?Its a known fact the catholic church tried to wipe out absolutely anyone who did not bow to roman dogma,
REally? And how do you KNOW that "FACT"? especially having just admitted you have no evidence to support what you claim.
Yu do know the Roman empire existed before the church were there?and a known fact that they seriously abused women. Sure who could stop them from doing what they wanted.
what do you mean by "abused"? LOL comne on you are a troll aren't you?I was raised catholic by the way.
so what? You are obviously anti Catholic now.
But dont let ignorance and bias and bigotry get in the way of your lack of actual facts to support your position.Your point about the HSE, so its ok to abuse them once you dont kill them? Yeah sure. Your arguments are ridiculous.
No. My point about the HSE was based on YOUR POINT about sexual abuse and relating that to the fictitious numbers you used about 75 million DEAD PEOPLE. what I said was that the abuse bad and all as it was has NO DEAD PEOPLE listed. at its worst the church in Ireland didnt kill people like Stalin Mao etc.0 -
If by "godless atheist regimes" you mean Communist anti-theist regimes, then I would think that would be a strong reason not to support Communist anti-theism regimes.
which is why at various times in the discussion i included 19th entury NON CHRISTIAN china and feudal china and China from about 2000 years ago before christianity existed and Japan and other non communist non Christian non personal God examples of godless regimes in history killing hundreds of millions.What you meant by them is irrelevant. You spent half this thread equating atheism to anti-theism.
i listed what I claimed and you trying to say I claimed something different wont change what I wrote!" All atheistic regimes were anti theist as far as I know. You havent shown me any that werent. An atheist run regime didnt have to be anti theist but you havent shown me that either. Nor have you shown me a secular regime promoting atheism but not opposing religion.Since you are not an atheist and I am I think I'm in a better position to tell you what an atheist is.
Sine MY particular belief or lack of it is not the subject of debate logical fallacies such as "argument from authority" wont change the definition I supplied. In fact if anything it only convinces people that "I know best" atheists gaining control may rapidly abandon any claims to objective truth secularism has and adopt a "we know best and are in a better position to tell you how to do things now that we are in power " regime just as has happened every time they got in power in the past.Would you listen to an atheist telling you what a Christian should be? I doubt it.
Frequently. The point is not to listen to yourself too much and to be informed from outside yourself. But again what I believe or don't is not the subject of debate.0 -
I mean this particular forum.
And of course you have no evidence for that either! LOL!
that quote does not appear in the source you gave : http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/N1676b.cfm
Where did you get it?
the closest to the above words is the following:
This is factually wrong
1. There was no single Inquistion lasting that time
2. Inquisition(S) were plural the most notable being the Spanins one
3. all of them did not last 1,200 years. The span from the earliest to the latest was less than 500 years.
4. the Spanish one which was the longest lasting and most deadly and claimed more then the others put together lasted several centuries and killed about 20,000 people and NOT anywhere near 75 million!
I suggest yo do some proper research and not believe bigoted quotes from conspiracy theorists and fundamentalist Christians!
Read the Weekly World News and you will probably believe Marlyn Monroe is alive again as a lettuce. I suppose you think "Men in Black" was a documentary?
REally? And how do you KNOW that "FACT"? especially having just admitted you have no evidence to support what you claim.
Yu do know the Roman empire existed before the church were there?
what do you mean by "abused"? LOL comne on you are a troll aren't you?
so what? You are obviously anti Catholic now.
But dont let ignorance and bias and bigotry get in the way of your lack of actual facts to support your position.
No. My point about the HSE was based on YOUR POINT about sexual abuse and relating that to the fictitious numbers you used about 75 million DEAD PEOPLE. what I said was that the abuse bad and all as it was has NO DEAD PEOPLE listed. at its worst the church in Ireland didnt kill people like Stalin Mao etc.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/23/next_catholic_priest_abuse_scandal
They must be liars too! I could post a million articles0 -
Henry McConville wrote: »
Interesting read. Much of what is discussed about sex and the authors concept of sexual obsession at the time of both the inquisitorial and the inquized could be adapted and directed towards the modern day phenomenon of pornography in general and internet pornography in particular.
Question 7 -- "Whether Witches can Sway the Minds of Men to Love or Hatred." http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_I/mm01_07a.html
"The devil is said to tempt men not only visibly but also invisibly; but this would not be true unless he were able to exert some influence over the inner mind. Besides, S. John Damascene says: All evil and all filthiness is devised by the devil. And Dionysius, de Divin. Nom. IV: The multitude of devils is the cause of all evil ... that the devil is the cause of all our sins ... Visibly, when he appears to witches in the form of a man, and speaks to them materially, persuading them to sin. So he tempted our first parents in Paradise in the form of a serpent ... "
"Therefore devils, who have learned from men's acts to which passions they are chiefly subject, incite them to this sort of inordinate love or hatred, impressing their purpose on men's imagination the more strongly and effectively, as they can do so the more easily ... But they work by witchcraft when they do these things, through and at the instance of witches, by reason of a pact entered into with them ... the devil invisibly lures a man to sin, not only by means of persuasion, as has been said, but also by the means of disposition ... "
"Witches can infect the minds of men with an inordinate love of strange women, and so inflame their hearts that by no shame or punishment, by no words or actions can they be forced to desist from such love; and that similarly they can stir up such hatred between married couples that they are unable in any way to perform the procreant functions of marriage; so that, indeed, in the untimely silence of night, they cover great distances in search of mistresses and irregular lovers?"
The last paragraph in particular could be see as a description of modern day sex addiction and the pursuit of prostitutes and one-night-stands evidenced by many celebrities today.0 -
which is why at various times in the discussion i included 19th entury NON CHRISTIAN china and feudal china and China from about 2000 years ago before christianity existed and Japan and other non communist non Christian non personal God examples of godless regimes in history killing hundreds of millions.
I'm not a feudalist either.
That is because you define them as such.All atheistic regimes were anti theist as far as I know.Nor have you shown me a secular regime promoting atheism but not opposing religion.
A secular regime that promotes atheism is not secular by definition so once again you are asking for something that is by definition paradoxical.
An atheist regime does not have to promote atheism. It can, but it is perfectly possible to be secular instead.
It simply has to reject the particular claims of theist religions, which is what a secular regime does by not recognizing any particular one as being true and the others false (which is what the religions themselves claim).
Christianity claims it is the true religion. Islam claims it is the true religion. A secular government says we reject both these claims and as such refuse to recognize either of you as being more important than the other. It is therefore atheist. It does not have to say there is no god, plenty of atheists make no such claim.
Also it is perfectly possible for an atheist to not promote or wish to promote atheism and as such it is perfectly possible for an atheist regime to not promote or wish to promote atheism.Sine MY particular belief or lack of it is not the subject of debate logical fallacies such as "argument from authority" wont change the definition I supplied.
Your belief is central since it is your definition of these terms that you want us all to use.0 -
Advertisement
-
Henry McConville wrote: »http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/23/next_catholic_priest_abuse_scandal
They must be liars too! I could post a million articles
You quoted my entire post and replied to NOTHING in it!
then you posted a link which had nothing to do wuith your claim about the church killing 75 Million people but is in fact about he subject of sexual abuse which is off topic for this thread!
You CLAIM to be able to post a million sources but as yet we have not seen ONE which supports your claim about 75 Million people killed! Well except for a loony conspiracy theory site.
Dig up! Dig up!0 -
I'm not a feudalist either.
so what? You aksed whay i only referred to tcommunist regimes and i showed you i didnt only refer to communist ones. i had pointed to communist non Atheist and to atheistic non communist systems.
It is the atheistic ones that killed people nbut not all communist ones did and not all religious one did!That is because you define them as such.
Nope i was quite happy to accept the possibility of an atheist system which was not atheistic i.e. suppressing religion just as there might be a religious system which allows people in that country to be atheist or does not suppress atheism.A secular regime that promotes atheism is not secular by definition so once again you are asking for something that is by definition paradoxical.
LOL! You are the one who said an atheist regime and a secular one are not different not me!An atheist regime does not have to promote atheism. It can, but it is perfectly possible to be secular instead.
So you are just arguing about words now. What you call secular I call atheist What you call "atheist" I call "atheistic" i.e. promoting atheism. I don't know of any atheistic ones that didn't suppress religion.Christianity claims it is the true religion. Islam claims it is the true religion. A secular government says we reject both these claims and as such refuse to recognize either of you as being more important than the other. It is therefore atheist. It does not have to say there is no god, plenty of atheists make no such claim.
I have ben ovcer this before "nones" are "no religion" About 15 per cent of the Us are nones. Atheists "there is no god" are about 1.5 per cent.Also it is perfectly possible for an atheist to not promote or wish to promote atheism and as such it is perfectly possible for an atheist regime to not promote or wish to promote atheism.
Exactly! Which I said I didnt have a problem with . aNd even if they promote atheism in principle that is oklay. I only have a problem when they suppress religion. I know of no atheist promoting regimes who did not suppress religion.Your belief is central since it is your definition of these terms that you want us all to use.
No my definition is just done so we both know what I mean. Unlike some atheists i don't try to slip off any hook. I stand by any definition and I don't say "but Im not that sort of atheist" like they do.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Interesting read. Much of what is discussed about sex and the authors concept of sexual obsession at the time of both the inquisitorial and the inquized could be adapted and directed towards the modern day phenomenon of pornography in general and internet pornography in particular.
Question 7 -- "Whether Witches can Sway the Minds of Men to Love or Hatred." http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_I/mm01_07a.html
"The devil is said to tempt men not only visibly but also invisibly; but this would not be true unless he were able to exert some influence over the inner mind. Besides, S. John Damascene says: All evil and all filthiness is devised by the devil. And Dionysius, de Divin. Nom. IV: The multitude of devils is the cause of all evil ... that the devil is the cause of all our sins ... Visibly, when he appears to witches in the form of a man, and speaks to them materially, persuading them to sin. So he tempted our first parents in Paradise in the form of a serpent ... "
"Therefore devils, who have learned from men's acts to which passions they are chiefly subject, incite them to this sort of inordinate love or hatred, impressing their purpose on men's imagination the more strongly and effectively, as they can do so the more easily ... But they work by witchcraft when they do these things, through and at the instance of witches, by reason of a pact entered into with them ... the devil invisibly lures a man to sin, not only by means of persuasion, as has been said, but also by the means of disposition ... "
"Witches can infect the minds of men with an inordinate love of strange women, and so inflame their hearts that by no shame or punishment, by no words or actions can they be forced to desist from such love; and that similarly they can stir up such hatred between married couples that they are unable in any way to perform the procreant functions of marriage; so that, indeed, in the untimely silence of night, they cover great distances in search of mistresses and irregular lovers?"
The last paragraph in particular could be see as a description of modern day sex addiction and the pursuit of prostitutes and one-night-stands evidenced by many celebrities today.
Man is an evil creature, I believe capable of those kind of atrocities if given the free reign the church had at the time.0 -
You quoted my entire post and replied to NOTHING in it!
then you posted a link which had nothing to do wuith your claim about the church killing 75 Million people but is in fact about he subject of sexual abuse which is off topic for this thread!
You CLAIM to be able to post a million sources but as yet we have not seen ONE which supports your claim about 75 Million people killed! Well except for a loony conspiracy theory site.
Dig up! Dig up!
I do not want to argue with a fool so I wont. You back the church after all they have done, I can show you a million articles like that one, but I do not really care what you think about anything at this point, I though if I showed you that horrible article it might make a difference to your stance of defending those pigs, but who really cares what you think?!
Reply to this or do not, I do not care and I am finished with this discussion. I wish to talk to people who wish to discuss things, not fools who cannot accept other peoples views0 -
so what?
So I've no problem with you complaining about deaths in 19th century fedeal Japan.
It means nothing to my beliefs which have nothing in common with 19th century Japan other than us both not being Christians.Nope i was quite happy to accept the possibility of an atheist system which was not atheistic i.e. suppressing religion just as there might be a religious system which allows people in that country to be atheist or does not suppress atheism.
I already gave you them. You rejected them because they weren't oppressive enough for you.
Do you see a pattern here? You just want confirmation of your own beliefs, not actual facts.LOL! You are the one who said an atheist regime and a secular one are not different not me!
Exactly, now you are getting it.
An atheist regime can promote atheism, in which case it is not secular, but it doesn't have to. A secular regime is, by definition, atheist.
We are arguing about you not having a clue what atheism is and refusing to accept that it is not the caricature you think it is.So you are just arguing about words now.What you call secular I call atheist What you call "atheist" I call "atheistic" i.e. promoting atheism.
Considering I'm an atheist and you aren't perhaps you should pause for a second and have a listen to what you are being told. Particularly if you want me to be horrified by you rolling out facts and figures of what people who are supposed to share my beliefs have done.
Would you like an atheist to lecture you on what a Christian really is?I have ben ovcer this before "nones" are "no religion" About 15 per cent of the Us are nones. Atheists "there is no god" are about 1.5 per cent.
Are we talking about population or the State? They are not the same thing. The majority of Russian and Chinese are religious. Would that mean that Russia and China are not atheist States?Exactly! Which I said I didnt have a problem with . aNd even if they promote atheism in principle that is oklay. I only have a problem when they suppress religion. I know of no atheist promoting regimes who did not suppress religion.
That is because atheist promoting regimes are anti-theist and as such by definition suppress religion.
The opposite of this is a secular state which does not promote any religious view point. That is still atheist because it rejects theist claims of the superiority of their religion.
In fact you cannot be a secular State without rejecting these claims, if you didn't reject them you would by definition be supporting one of them
Which is why I said AT THE VERY START that there is no difference between an atheist state that is not anti-theist and a secular state. They mean the same things.
Your gripe, as we have all said all along, is with State anti-theism. Since I don't believe in State anti-theism this has little to do with me, any more than feudal Japan does.No my definition is just done so we both know what I mean.
I've always understood what you mean. I simply reject what you mean as using the wrong words.
You use atheism to mean something else and then expect us atheists to be shocked at what you have uncovered about our belief.
It is like saying Christian means Muslim and then listing off Muslim atrocities and quotes from the Quaran to a Christian expecting them to cower in the face of the reality of what their religion produces. Which of course they don't do because Christian doesn't mean Muslim.
Atheism doesn't mean anti-theist. Whether you wish to define it as such is irrelevant. I don't define it that way, so when I say I'm an atheist this means nothing to what you think atheism is.
If you insist in using this false definition then I'm not, according to you, an atheist, neither is Sam and neither is monosharp. So your beef isn't with us.0 -
Advertisement
-
Henry McConville wrote: »I do not want to argue with a fool so I wont.
Ad hominem isn't argument at all. Run away iof you want but dont claim fallacious reasons for doing so.You back the church after all they have done,
Off topic! Stick to the topic please and if you had bothered reading the thread you would see i back THE TRUTH and am prepared to accept and admit when the church made mistakes. But you don't bother to actually open your eyes and read before you open your mouth to speak do you?
Im sure you can show a million sources to off topic conspuiracies butI can show you a million articles like that one,
Yo have been asked to show ONE source for your claim about 75 Million deaths .
where is it?but I do not really care what you think about anything at this point,
what you or I care about it is nothing to do with whether we have provided backup evidence.
I have!
You have not!I though if I showed you that horrible article it might make a difference to your stance of defending those pigs, but who really cares what you think?!
Again you haven't shown anything to back up your 75 million claim!Reply to this or do not, I do not care and I am finished with this discussion. I wish to talk to people who wish to discuss things, not fools who cannot accept other peoples views
Run away if you want but if you keep relying on unsupported opinion and resort to name calling and ad hominem you will soon find yourself banned anyway. If you cant support your position keep your bigotry to other groups.0 -
So I've no problem with you complaining about deaths in 19th century fedeal Japan.
It means nothing to my beliefs which have nothing in common with 19th century Japan other than us both not being Christians.
So what? REgimes promoting atheism killed people whether you care about them or not.I already gave you them. You rejected them because they weren't oppressive enough for you.
The USA is NOT an atheist regime.
Abbania under zogo ( whoi believed in god) was a dictatorship but it was not promoting atheism.
countries promoting Christianity can be modern democracies who don'ty kill millions of people by adopting a State religion. I know of know state atheist countries that didnt kill people as part of their regime.Do you see a pattern here? You just want confirmation of your own beliefs, not actual facts.
Facts Chrsitianity 2000 years several million died
atheistic regimes not even two hundred years and over 200 million dead!
FACT!
An atheist regime can promote atheism, in which case it is not secular, but it doesn't have to. A secular regime is, by definition, atheist.
By your definition.
By mine an atheist regime promoting atheism and not persecuting non atheists can exist but none ever have to my knowledge!
All the one that peomoted atheism presecuted those they didnt want and killed hundreds of millions!Considering I'm an atheist and you aren't perhaps you should pause for a second and have a listen to what you are being told.
Give the power to atheists and they tell yo what to think eh?Would you like an atheist to lecture you on what a Christian really is?
Get the stats and compare them!That is because atheist promoting regimes are anti-theist and as such by definition suppress religion.
they dont have to be but all have been Why is that?The opposite of this is a secular state which does not promote any religious view point. That is still atheist because it rejects theist claims of the superiority of their religion.
The USA is not an atheist state!Which is why I said AT THE VERY START that there is no difference between an atheist state that is not anti-theist and a secular state. They mean the same things.
[/quoter]
I made my position clear before and after that and you even doubted what you defined.
If you insist in using this false definition then I'm not, according to you, an atheist, neither is Sam and neither is monosharp. So your beef isn't with us.
Until you tell me how to think!
And if you are not atheistic or fundamentalist atheist as i defined I am happy for you but when you start proscribing how others should behave or think I begin to doubt that you are what you say.0 -
So what? REgimes promoting atheism killed people whether you care about them or not.
Yes but they are no reflection on my atheism, any more than crimes carried out by Muslims is a reflection on your Christianity.The USA is NOT an atheist regime.
Not by your definition of an atheist regime, but then I can't see anyone using that definition but you.
America is an atheist regime under what I consider atheism to be. If that makes it harder for you to rant about how bad atheists are I don't really care.
And?Facts Chrsitianity 2000 years several million died
atheistic regimes not even two hundred years and over 200 million dead!
FACT!
How many people have Scientology killed? A lot less that Christianity. Does that mean it is a better religion?By your definition.
By mine an atheist regime promoting atheism and not persecuting non atheists can exist but none ever have to my knowledge!
How does the State promote atheism while remaining secular?
You have spend this entire thread telling us what to think. :rolleyes:Give the power to atheists and they tell yo what to think eh?
Or how about I tell you that a Christian is someone who believes that you should kill for Jesus, and if you don't believe that then you aren't a Christian.Get the stats and compare them!
I imagine you would just ignore that. So why exactly should I listen to you when you tell me what an atheist is, particularly when you seem so ridiculously bias against non-Christian beliefs?they dont have to be but all have been Why is that?
If you agree they don't have to be you will agree that the USA is an atheist regime. It rejects the claims of theism without elevating atheism to a privileged position.The USA is not an atheist state!
You can keep saying that over and over doesn't make it any more true.
What was that about telling people what to think?0 -
Yes but they are no reflection on my atheism, any more than crimes carried out by Muslims is a reflection on your Christianity.
this isn't all about you! Nor is it about me! it is called an "objective" argument. Im not making personal comments about me or you. I pointing out something which is true and was history before either of us were born. My Christianity or lack of it has nothing to do with it! Atheistic regimes slaughtered hundreds of millions whether or not you care and whether or not you believe your atheism would not get you to do things like going to a public forum and preaching atheism and supporting the spreading of atheism or like telling others how they should think or behave.Not by your definition of an atheist regime, but then I can't see anyone using that definition but you.
Makes no difference what you can and cant see or whether you believe it is true. The point holds that according to what I clearly meant atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions and Christians regimes didn't!America is an atheist regime under what I consider atheism to be. If that makes it harder for you to rant about how bad atheists are I don't really care.
America isn't atheist. it does not preach atheism or claim atheism is superior. about one per cent of Americans are atheist. they are less numerous than Sinn fein or Communist supporters in south Dublin.How many people have Scientology killed? A lot less that Christianity. Does that mean it is a better religion?
Scientology is only about 40 years old and has been accused of several deaths and has adherents in the millions at best. Christianity is a world religion of billions and is around for 2000 years. But Scientolgy is in my opinion a scam and not a real religion. Never the less it hasnt been as bad as atheistic regimes.You have spend this entire thread telling us what to think. :rolleyes:
REally care to supply five examples?
I made claims about Hitler not being Christian and about atheistic regimes killing hundreds of millions. i supported those claims with evidence. I didnt say "you must believe this"
Nor did I say MY beliefs matter or are better than anyone else. In fact i asked my prsonal beliefs not be brought into this!Or how about I tell you that a Christian is someone who believes that you should kill for Jesus, and if you don't believe that then you aren't a Christian.
Then I would say that is your opinion but what is your evidence. mainstream christianity would differ with your opinion. it is clear about whee it stands and has been for at lest 1800 years.I imagine you would just ignore that. So why exactly should I listen to you when you tell me what an atheist is, particularly when you seem so ridiculously bias against non-Christian beliefs?
Well perhaps because the discussion isnt about "atheists defining what Christianity really believes" but about "Mao Polpot and Stalin and other atheistc regimes"If you agree they don't have to be you will agree that the USA is an atheist regime. It rejects the claims of theism without elevating atheism to a privileged position.
Actually it doesn't!
And the constitution was not framed by atheists. It was framed by religious people who didnt want inter denominational fights. In God they trusted.0 -
called an "objective" argument.
Where is the argument? Are you stating statistics or are you making an argument. Are you making an argument by stating statistics?
Correct, they "only" killed tens of millions. WonderfulMakes no difference what you can and cant see or whether you believe it is true. The point holds that according to what I clearly meant atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions and Christians regimes didn't!
That is not a requirement to be atheist.America isn't atheist. it does not preach atheism or claim atheism is superior.
And?about one per cent of Americans are atheist. they are less numerous than Sinn fein or Communist supporters in south Dublin.
Only 10% of Chinese are atheist. Does that mean it isn't an atheist state?Scientology is only about 40 years old and has been accused of several deaths and has adherents in the millions at best. Christianity is a world religion of billions and is around for 2000 years. But Scientolgy is in my opinion a scam and not a real religion. Never the less it hasnt been as bad as atheistic regimes.
So Scientology has been around for 40 years and killed what, 2 people.
And Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and killed tens of millions.
So, what? Scientology is better than Christianity which is better than atheism? Is that your argument?REally care to supply five examples?
You just told me in this post what an atheist regime is. :rolleyes:
I'm an atheist I think I would know what an atheist regime is, I don't need to be "informed" by you.Then I would say that is your opinion but what is your evidence. mainstream christianity would differ with your opinion. it is clear about whee it stands and has been for at lest 1800 years.
Ah, so you guys don't care about outsiders telling what is or isn't a Christian.
Interesting. But you still think you can tell me what is or isn't an atheist.Actually it doesn't!
Pretty sure it does, scan the US laws and tell me which bits acknowledge the correctness of a particular religion.And the constitution was not framed by atheists. It was framed by religious people who didnt want inter denominational fights. In God they trusted.
In God We Trust was added in the 50s. The Founding Fathers motto was E pluribus unum0 -
Where is the argument? Are you stating statistics or are you making an argument. Are you making an argument by stating statistics?
It has been made.
Stalin Pol pot etc.
1. was atheism central to their regimes = yes
2. did christianity have atheism central to their regimes - yes
3. did atheixctic regimes oppose non atheists - yes
4. did Christian regimes oppose non christians - yes
5. Can you produce stats on how many were killed because of their direct actions - yes
6. What are the numbers - Chrsitianity several million ib more then two thousand years years, Atheism several hundred million in less than two hundred years.Correct, they "only" killed tens of millions. Wonderful
i didnt use the word "only" and it wasnt "tens" it was several millions! Over twenty centuries as compared to hundreds of millions over a century and a bit.Only 10% of Chinese are atheist. Does that mean it isn't an atheist state?
Source?
I referred to non Christian and non monotheists there and not to spititualists. I also referred to china 200 years ago certainly before Christianity.So Scientology has been around for 40 years and killed what, 2 people.
Maybe yeah. which is why I dont view scientology as one of the greatest threats to civilization.And Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and killed tens of millions.
No! Not tens of millions. Just millions unless yo consider wars between Christians themselves. i would not consider a war between Russia and china as a war for atheism if both were atheistic.So, what? Scientology is better than Christianity which is better than atheism? Is that your argument?
I thinkk the argument is clear. Any world force which kills millions and contributes nothing
can be criticised. The church certainly can. But atheist regimes did far far worse and peopole like dawkins still preach atheism as a superiour way. scientology is neither a religion or has the numbers of adherents to be compared.You just told me in this post what an atheist regime is. :rolleyes:
I defined what I view as an atheistic regime. Just as i defined "mainstream christian"
It is a definition for the debate. so I can claim it is something else later. I cant just say "this is what I think it is" at some point because you know itn advance exactly what I mean by the terminology.I'm an atheist I think I would know what an atheist regime is, I don't need to be "informed" by you.
You already admitted early on your definition was not sufficient and you "hadnt thought of" some aspects of it!Ah, so you guys don't care about outsiders telling what is or isn't a Christian.
What I personally believe or dont does not come intio it!
i defined what mainstrream christian is as well! It is defined for the last 1800 years in creeds!Interesting. But you still think you can tell me what is or isn't an atheist.
What official reports by Pew and others use to define "atheist" yes.Pretty sure it does, scan the US laws and tell me which bits acknowledge the correctness of a particular religion.
Backing a particular religion isnt promoting atheism .Nor is refusing to back one!
REfusing to back a particular religion is NOT actively promoting atheism!
The Irish state does not endorce any particular religion but it isnt pro atheism either!In God We Trust was added in the 50s. The Founding Fathers motto was E pluribus unum
WRONG! constitution of Maine
http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
...acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment,...
Maryland also has similar and got rid of slavery BEFORE the US had a constitution!0 -
That isn't an argument, that is a series of facts.It has been made.
Stalin Pol pot etc.
1. was atheism central to their regimes = yes
2. did christianity have atheism central to their regimes - yes
3. did atheixctic regimes oppose non atheists - yes
4. did Christian regimes oppose non christians - yes
5. Can you produce stats on how many were killed because of their direct actions - yes
6. What are the numbers - Chrsitianity several million ib more then two thousand years years, Atheism several hundred million in less than two hundred years.
What is your actual argument? That we should worry about totalitarian regimes? Great, I agree with you.
Or is it that Christianity is better than atheism because it only killed tens of millions of people (including its own people)?Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China
which references
O'Brien, Joanne, and Palmer, Martin. "The Atlas of Religion". University of California Press (Berkely, 1993) in Zuckerman, pg. 53Maybe yeah. which is why I dont view scientology as one of the greatest threats to civilization.
But you do consider Christianity more of a threat to civilization than Scientology?
So should we all become Scientologists? Are you planning on becoming a Scientologist?No! Not tens of millions. Just millions unless yo consider wars between Christians themselves.
Why would I not consider wars between Christians themselves? Why would I not consider famines started by Christian rulers if you consider famines started by atheist rulers?
It doesn't count if you kill your own people? Ok, so how many non-Cambodians did Pol Pot kill? How many non-Russians did Stalin kill?
This is just more shifting the goal posts nonsense. You make up all the rules and then go Everyone look at how much worse atheism is than Christianity
Nonsense propaganda.i would not consider a war between Russia and china as a war for atheism if both were atheistic.
Some how I doubt that. If that ever happened I'm pretty sure you would drag up the 10% atheist statistic and use it to show that when Russian and China were fighting each other they were actually killing soliders who weren't atheists, and count them all together.Any world force which kills millions and contributes nothing
can be criticised.
But killing millions while you contribute something is ok is it?But atheist regimes did far far worse and peopole like dawkins still preach atheism as a superiour way. scientology is neither a religion or has the numbers of adherents to be compared.
So by that logic Scientology is superior to Christianity which is superior to Atheism.
So you are going to be a Scientologist now. Correct? Thought not.
This is the nonsense of your central point, that if we look at numbers Christianity is clearly superior way to atheism because it contributed more while killing less.
But of course this is just Christian propaganda.
You aren't seriously interested in finding the best way, there are plenty of religions other than Christianity that contributed more while killing less but you aren't signing up to them, oh no!
Your argument itself betrays the bankruptcy of your position. It is good to know that nonsense propaganda isn't just found with atheist Communists.0 -
That isn't an argument, that is a series of facts.
Leading up top point 6.
That the most damaging and least beneficial of all regimes have been atheistic ones.What is your actual argument? That we should worry about totalitarian regimes? Great, I agree with you.Or is it that Christianity is better than atheism because it only killed tens of millions of people (including its own people)?
Wher is your source for tens of millions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China
which references
O'Brien, Joanne, and Palmer, Martin. "The Atlas of Religion". University of California Press (Berkely, 1993) in Zuckerman, pg. 53
That isnt a source that Christianity killed tens of millions!
It suggests china in 1993 was 10-15 per cent atheist.
Bu it is immediately followed by the words "The accuracy of the religious data in China from census sources is questioned. "
Not alone that but Bhuddists are not monotheist and some people consider them atheist in the sense that they dont believe in a God.
The same wiki states in the following paragtraph:
However, some surveys suggest that the cultural adherents or even outright religious adherents of Buddhism could number as high as 50% to 80% of the population, or about 660 million to over 1 billion
As for Zukerman three [paragraphs later we have:
According to the surveys of Phil Zuckerman on Adherents.com in 1993; there was 59% (over 700 million)[31] of the Chinese population was irreligious and 8% - 14% was atheist (from over 100 to 180 million) as of 2005.[7] There are intrinsic logistical difficulties in trying to count the number of religious people anywhere, as well as difficulties peculiar to China. According to Phil Zuckerman, "low response rates," "non-random samples," and "adverse political/cultural climates" are all persistent problems in establishing accurate numbers of religious believers in a given locality.
So the origin of the source you give points out a problem with it.But you do consider Christianity more of a threat to civilization than Scientology?
Given that I just pointed out Scientology cant be a threath to all of civilization you are comparing apples and oranges. All people (or billions at lkeast) could technically become christian or Atheist. That even ten million become Scientoloigists is unlikely. uty if ther was ten or a hundred million of them I would consider them a threat yes.So should we all become Scientologists? Are you planning on becoming a Scientologist?
On the basis that they kill less people? There are less of them to begin with But if they had as many adherents as Christianity I would suggest you would find their regimes would kill more people. But vegitarians kill less people maybe that isnt a reason to reject religion and become vegitarian.
And Im comparing atheism and Christianity in history here based on facts and not indulging in hyperbole or speculation into "what ifs" about miniscule movements.Why would I not consider wars between Christians themselves?
Because they are not about spreading the central doctrine.Why would I not consider famines started by Christian rulers if you consider famines started by atheist rulers?
You should consider them if they are done by a regime in the name of converting more to their side or in punishing those that oppose them. In such a case they are using famine as a weapon just as stalin and Mao did.It doesn't count if you kill your own people?
Only when you do it on purpose. Or anyone else for that matter.Ok, so how many non-Cambodians did Pol Pot kill? How many non-Russians did Stalin kill?
Millions. But they also killed their own on purpose.This is just more shifting the goal posts nonsense. You make up all the rules and then go Everyone look at how much worse atheism is than Christianity
Nonsense propaganda.
Nope defined from the beginning and using the SAME criteria for christianity and atheism.Some how I doubt that. If that ever happened I'm pretty sure you would drag up the 10% atheist statistic and use it to show that when Russian and China were fighting each other they were actually killing soliders who weren't atheists, and count them all together.
As i stated it makes not difference iof the soldiers wher atheist or not or the leaders were. All that matters is that the regime had a central goal of spreading atheism. Just like a so called "Christian" might not even believe on god but did things in the name of Christianity. I cant excuse them by saying they werent "real true " christians. Juat like you cant excuse
those who did things in the name of spreading atheism.
One atheistic regime attacking another one would not be done to spread atheism.But killing millions while you contribute something is ok is it?
Nope. But killing hundreds of millions in one century is a thousand times worse.So by that logic Scientology is superior to Christianity which is superior to Atheism.
If scientology was a world religion with say a hundred million adherents and controlled countries and nobody died because of them well I suppose then you can say in body counts at least they are less damaging. But scientology contributs nothing to society either and it isnt a world religion it is a scam. But it is still comparing apples and oranges.So you are going to be a Scientologist now. Correct? Thought not.
If scientology controlled whole countries and nobody was persecuted or died because of them then it probably would be worth considering. But if you look you will see they arent like that.This is the nonsense of your central point, that if we look at numbers Christianity is clearly superior way to atheism because it contributed more while killing less.
It contributed more- yes
It killed less- yes more than a thousand times lessBut of course this is just Christian propaganda.
Which above you call "fact"?You aren't seriously interested in finding the best way, there are plenty of religions other than Christianity that contributed more while killing less but you aren't signing up to them, oh no!
Really? - care to name religions with say a hundred million plus which didnt result in people being killed in their name?
Name five such religions?
Anyway this isnt about which religion is better it is about what atheism contributed as distince from belief. I picked christianity because this is the Christianity forum and I am more conversant with figures for them but you can go and post the same in the Islam forum if you want and Im sure they will inform you Islam in spoite of Crusades killed more than a thousand times less then atheists.
In fact Im even willing to admit that while Orthodox christians were not so bad the Roman Catholics were much much worse than Islam and Islam was much fairer to people in the Crusades. But even given that the total is about a million over centuries - as i said stalin etc. killed this many in a matter of weeks.Your argument itself betrays the bankruptcy of your position. It is good to know that nonsense propaganda isn't just found with atheist Communists.
I am happy to admit Islam wasn't as bad as some Christians were at times and to admit Christian regimes killed millions over 2000 years and it was wrong. But atheistic ones killed hundreds of millions in a little over a century!0 -
It has been made.
Stalin Pol pot etc.
1. was atheism central to their regimes = yes
2. did christianity have atheism central to their regimes - yes
3. did atheixctic regimes oppose non atheists - yes
4. did Christian regimes oppose non christians - yes
5. Can you produce stats on how many were killed because of their direct actions - yes
6. What are the numbers - Chrsitianity several million ib more then two thousand years years, Atheism several hundred million in less than two hundred years.
This is almost on par with a Glenn Beck style argument - If you subscribe to an idea then you subscribe to every possible negative consequence of that idea no matter how remote it may be.
Firstly you have clearly confused atheism with anti-theism. Atheism is a simple concept : the lack of belief in a deity. It does not require any ideological motivation. To say these regimes were atheistic is completely missing the point. They were political ideologies. Dawkins (who I'm not the biggest fan of) has said that he vehemently oppose a darwinian like view on society, yet you claim he want's to promote that?
You also blurred the line on Christianity. To say the regime was Christian is taking the ignorant point of view that it was the an influencing factor in the regime. Usually social and economic factors conspire first to create the conditions and then the mob needs some sort of rationalised justification from a well known source.
Take the case of the suicide bomber. It is far too easy to claim that it's because of his religion that he blew himself up. In reality though, that's not what the science is showing. Social and economic factors have a much bigger bearing on the likelihood of whether or not an individual becomes a fundamentalist terrorist. His religion plays a tiny part. Although as it turns out it will be the facet that he uses to self justify his actions. Throughout history Humanity has used the a plethora of crap, be it some weird aspect of newly found science, astrology, religion or inspired literature to self justify their own beliefs.
What I find most depressing about all this is that you feel the need necesssary to compare the number of people killed by other humans just to prove a point that somehow one regime was better than the other : Any oppressive and violent regime is not worthy of any complements or praise.0 -
This is almost on par with a Glenn Beck style argument - If you subscribe to an idea then you subscribe to every possible negative consequence of that idea no matter how remote it may be.
Christians don't subscribe to every possible negative consequence of christian regimes but that won't stop fundamentalist atheists from going on about witch-hunts the Crusades and Inquisitions.Firstly you have clearly confused atheism with anti-theism. Atheism is a simple concept : the lack of belief in a deity.
and Theism is too! In this case monotheism - the belief in a single God.It does not require any ideological motivation. To say these regimes were atheistic is completely missing the point. They were political ideologies.
But the Crusades , Thirty Years War, Inquistions etc. noad nothingat all to do with politics?
LOL!Dawkins (who I'm not the biggest fan of) has said that he vehemently oppose a darwinian like view on society, yet you claim he want's to promote that?
I claim he want's to promote the end of religion and removing religion from all parts of society. He looks forward to a world where all are atheists.You also blurred the line on Christianity. To say the regime was Christian is taking the ignorant point of view that it was the an influencing factor in the regime. Usually social and economic factors conspire first to create the conditions and then the mob needs some sort of rationalised justification from a well known source.
Im not talking about a "mob" Im talking about leaders who controlled countries. I do not excuse someone who caused the deaths of people in a cause he claimed was Christian.Take the case of the suicide bomber. It is far too easy to claim that it's because of his religion that he blew himself up.
Too bloody right! Considering the world record holders in suicide bombing with MORE suicide bombers than any other group are the Tamil Tigers - a secular group!In reality though, that's not what the science is showing. Social and economic factors have a much bigger bearing on the likelihood of whether or not an individual becomes a fundamentalist terrorist. His religion plays a tiny part. Although as it turns out it will be the facet that he uses to self justify his actions. Throughout history Humanity has used the a plethora of crap, be it some weird aspect of newly found science, astrology, religion or inspired literature to self justify their own beliefs.
And Christianity was used by some and millions died. But as it happens atheism was used to justify regimes which killed much much more than those using so called Christian reasons. Isnt that curious?What I find most depressing about all this is that you feel the need necesssary to compare the number of people killed by other humans just to prove a point that somehow one regime was better than the other : Any oppressive and violent regime is not worthy of any complements or praise.
I didn't praise any regimes for killing people. i only pointed out that the worst of them were atheistic ones.0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »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.
I find this very interesting too. Even people that would have a problem with the line regarding taking science as our master.
I think it is all down to how science is applied. The exact same way as religion. Of course abuse would feed a negative opinion on scientific development, but at the same time, it is important to look at it subjectively.
Hitler was an athiest. Germany also had some of the most advanced technology in the world at the time.
However, the crusades ended up being genocide too.
I think it is fair to say that in both cases, it was just evil people with no respect for creed, using to further their own machinations.0 -
Leading up top point 6.
Point six isn't an argument, it is just a summary of the other points.
You already admit that you aren't personally going to change to a less damaging religion, so what is your argument here?
Your concern over the damage of atheism rings hollow as you seem to have little concern over the damage of Christianity beyond making a some what incoherent point that atheists have killed more people (itself despited since you continuously shift the goal posts to arrive at this conclusion)
You seem to have no problem being a member of a very damaging religion so taking the moral high ground seems a bit silly?
Do you really take the position that if a Christian kills a million people and an atheist kills a million and one you can sleep well knowing you are a Christian?0 -
Christians don't subscribe to every possible negative consequence of christian regimes but that won't stop fundamentalist atheists from going on about witch-hunts the Crusades and Inquisitions.
and Theism is too! In this case monotheism - the belief in a single God.
But the Crusades , Thirty Years War, Inquistions etc. noad nothingat all to do with politics?
LOL!
I claim he want's to promote the end of religion and removing religion from all parts of society. He looks forward to a world where all are atheists.
Im not talking about a "mob" Im talking about leaders who controlled countries. I do not excuse someone who caused the deaths of people in a cause he claimed was Christian.
Too bloody right! Considering the world record holders in suicide bombing with MORE suicide bombers than any other group are the Tamil Tigers - a secular group!
And Christianity was used by some and millions died. But as it happens atheism was used to justify regimes which killed much much more than those using so called Christian reasons. Isnt that curious?
I didn't praise any regimes for killing people. i only pointed out that the worst of them where atheistic ones.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm0 -
"I didn't praise any regimes for killing people. i only pointed out that the worst of them where atheistic ones."
Wait wait....what?
Atheism is not a regime. I think you are extremely misinformed here sir.
No regime is atheist. Can you add some proof to this theory?
Atom bomb. America. Not atheist "regime" at the time. Hmm?0 -
Point six isn't an argument, it is just a summary of the other points.
Ill refer you to the Monty Python definition:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Proposition = 6You already admit that you aren't personally going to change to a less damaging religion,
No I didn't!
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htmYour concern over the damage of atheism rings hollow as you seem to have little concern over the damage of Christianity beyond making a some what incoherent point that atheists have killed more people (itself despited since you continuously shift the goal posts to arrive at this conclusion)
I'm not arguing about the damage caused by christian regimes. But as it happens i did not condone the damage caused by them as well.You seem to have no problem being a member of a very damaging religion so taking the moral high ground seems a bit silly?
You seem to think I claimed to be a member of such religion when in fact i made it quite clear that my personal beliefs have nothing to do with the argument.Do you really take the position that if a Christian kills a million people and an atheist kills a million and one you can sleep well knowing you are a Christian?
No . and I dealt with that as well. there is a whole load of difference between a million in 2000 years and two hundred million in a century. If a banker takes a thousand from the funds over twenty years that is wrong but taking a hundred thousand over six months
would not be regarded as the exact same would it?0 -
If a banker takes a thousand from the funds over twenty years that is wrong but taking a hundred thousand over six months
You sound like Stalin, kill one person it is a tragedy kill a million it is a statistic.
I think it doesn't matter if you kill a million people over a year a week or a day. You still end up with a million dead people.
The idea that it is better to kill a million people over a century than over a decade is rather bizarre. You still end up with a million dead people.0 -
Henry McConville wrote: »
Henry you posted that link before!
It is a conspiracy site and it has no credibility at all.
A post which you copied in its entirety and you only just pasted an already debunked link and nothing else.
If you are going to behave ike this Ill have to complain about you and you will probably end up getting banned.
Please at least try to debate and don't employ "me too" posts or ad hominem.0 -
You sound like Stalin, kill one person it is a tragedy kill a million it is a statistic.
Yes . which is why academics write books about democidal regimes and individual murderers though infamous like Jack the ripper and the Dussleldorf monster never got anywhere near the totals of atheistic regimes.I think it doesn't matter if you kill a million people over a year a week or a day. You still end up with a million dead people.
Cars kill say 500 people a year on irish roads north and south. At that rate it would take 2000 years to kill a million people. Abiou the same as the Church. If a million people were killed by cars in one year that would be more like Stalin and Mao. It think people would think a million road deaths in one year would be fairly different.The idea that it is better to kill a million people over a century than over a decade is rather bizarre. You still end up with a million dead people.
So you think we should ban cars then? or should we only do something when a million people are killed by them in a year in Ireland?0 -
"I didn't praise any regimes for killing people. i only pointed out that the worst of them where atheistic ones."
Wait wait....what?
Atheism is not a regime. I think you are extremely misinformed here sir.
Look up my definition of "atheistic" i.e. promoting atheism as a core value.No regime is atheist. Can you add some proof to this theory?
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- LeninAtom bomb. America. Not atheist "regime" at the time. Hmm?
50,000 deaths not atheistic but also not Christian.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes . which is why academics write books about democidal regimes and individual murderers though infamous like Jack the ripper and the Dussleldorf monster never got anywhere near the totals of atheistic regimes.
Cars kill say 500 people a year on irish roads north and south. At that rate it would take 2000 years to kill a million people. Abiou the same as the Church. If a million people were killed by cars in one year that would be more like Stalin and Mao. It think people would think a million road deaths in one year would be fairly different.
So you think we should ban cars then? or should we only do something when a million people are killed by them in a year in Ireland?
I think we should have a road safety program to try and limit road deaths.
This is my problem with your arguments, you seem to have no issue with Christianity despite its atrocities. You only seem interested in proving atheism is worse as a way of deflecting from the atrocities of Christianity.
What ever you think about atheists no atheist here is actually an anti-theist Communist, nor are they trying to excuse anti-theist regimes by trying to find regimes that were even worse, which is what you appear to be doing with Christianity.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement