Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Believers’ responses to the 1937 and 1939 soviet censuses - Felix Corley

View attachment 22208

Oh! Yet *another* religiously biased opinion-piece, likely devoid of facts.

You just can't seem to find a single credible source for your wild and inaccurate claims....

That makes? 6? Something like that, opportunities to point to credible links.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are whining ...

Whining? no. I'm simply pointing out how disingenuous you continue to be... and you do not seem to appreciate all the effort it has been, either. I almost had to think about what you were attempting to say...


All you'd have had to do, to actually show me up, would be point to a credible University site, or something similar..... instead? (in addition to thinly veiled insults)

You "quote" a "book" that nobody can seem to link to.

Then you point to an obscene page using a fake link-title.

Then? You reference religious propaganda on a religious website.... !

Hmmmmmm.... the credibility index keeps going down, here.

 

[Augustus]

Whining? no. I'm simply pointing out how disingenuous you continue to be... and you do not seem to appreciate all the effort it has been, either. I almost had to think about what you were attempting to say...

Perhaps next time you could *actually* start to think and engage your critical thinking capabilities instead of basking in a wilful ignorance.

We all live in hope.

Instead of actual arguments, you are trying to spin someone referencing multiple, peer reviewed academic journal as some kind of devious, underhand trick.

Another one of Bob's trademark "schoolings" no doubt

You "quote" a "book" that nobody can seem to link to.

It's a journal not a "book". It can be found by googling the title and author that I provided you with. Primary school children have no problem doing this, so I can't see why it seems to be such an overwhelming challenge to yourself.

Then? You reference religious propaganda on a religious website.... !

The "religious propaganda" is verbatim data from the 1937 Soviet Census as reported in a interdisciplinary, secular, peer reviewed academic journal.

All you'd have had to do, to actually show me up, would be point to a credible University site, or something similar..... instead?

Instead?

Instead of a website I linked to multiple, peer reviewed academic journals, generally considered the highest standard of scholarly resource. I assume you understand what these are, but if not Google is still your friend.

University websites tend not to publish a wide range of scholarship, and are certainly not the usual place you would start researching something.

Hmmmmmm.... the credibility index keeps going down, here.

Nothing damages one's credibility more than citing multiple, peer reviewed academic journals in support of an argument

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Perhaps next time you could *actually* start to think and engage your critical thinking capabilities instead of basking in a wilful ignorance.

We all live in hope.

Except for your continued use of propaganda.

Instead of actual arguments, you are trying to spin someone referencing multiple, peer reviewed academic journal as some kind of devious, underhand trick.

So YOU keep saying. So YOU keep failing to provide... you think we are going to take your condescending and insulting "word" for things? You can't seem to post without being either condescending or insulting...

Why is that?

Another one of Bob's trademark "schoolings" no doubt

See?

It's a journal not a "book". It can be found by googling the title and author that I provided you with. Primary school children have no problem doing this, so I can't see why it seems to be such an overwhelming challenge to yourself.

Whatever. One "source" that you cannot -- after multiple opportunities to do so-- seem to point to an actual, real-world thing...

You keep describing this "thing" in the same way that theists keep describing their equally not-existent "god"....

The "religious propaganda" is verbatim data from the 1937 Soviet Census as reported in a interdisciplinary, secular, peer reviewed academic journal.

So you say. We've already established you have zero credibility...

Instead?

Instead of a website I linked to multiple, peer reviewed academic journals, generally considered the highest standard of scholarly resource. I assume you understand what these are, but if not Google is still your friend.

Not really. Else you'd have bombed the page with links in support. You refereed to one.... which you claim to have "quoted"....

University websites tend not to publish a wide range of scholarship, and are certainly not the usual place you would start researching something.

How would YOU know?

Nothing damages one's credibility more than citing multiple, peer reviewed academic journals in support of an argument

Except that you didn't.... you "quoted" from a single "book" (or whatever-- it seems to change from post to post... )

Then you point to a religious website....

 

[Augustus]

How would YOU know?

Because it's common knowledge?

Not really. Else you'd have bombed the page with links in support. You refereed to one.... which you claim to have "quoted"....

I didn't claim to have "quoted" anything otherwise there would have been "quotation marks"

Whatever. One "source" that you cannot -- after multiple opportunities to do so-- seem to point to an actual, real-world thing...

Aside from a link and the actual screenshot...

That's the other article link:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716286483001012

 

[paarsurrey]

Ponder This said: ↑
Indeed.
Moreover, anyone who comes onto this thread and simply posts:
'I am an atheist and I disagree with killing people' has not done anything particularly productive or illuminating, imo.

I agree with one here, please.
Regards

I believe, since Atheism is not an organized faith/no-faith, every individual speaks only about himself, and cannot become a spokesperson of Atheism and absolve itself of any wrongs done by others non-believers. Right,please?

Regards

 

[Ponder This]

I don't care how they (or you) tried to justify it and make excuses.

 

[Ponder This]

I can see from reading through the thread that you've been given plenty of reasons why Mao and Pol Pot did what they did, that had little to do directly with their atheism. It appears to that very few people seem to agree with you that Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism, or because they were atheists. Yet you still seem to be pushing that line. If what you provided in that last post was an attempt at a justification on your part, then I'd have to say you've failed.

Everyone says they have their reason (or lack thereof). I asked the harder questions that people were avoiding. I think there were two people in the thread that really addressed those questions. It was a very frustrating conversation. I am, however, satisfied with the results.

You are free to call it a 'failure'. Is there anything else of substance you would like to add?

 

[LuisDantas]

Ponder This said: ↑
Indeed.
Moreover, anyone who comes onto this thread and simply posts:
'I am an atheist and I disagree with killing people' has not done anything particularly productive or illuminating, imo.

I believe, since Atheism is not an organized faith/no-faith, every individual speaks only about himself, and cannot become a spokesperson of Atheism and absolve itself of any wrongs done by others non-believers. Right,please?

Regards

It seems to me that you are taking a different stance in another thread right now, attributing to atheism a motivational and ideological power that it just can't have.