MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[Dan From Smithville]

One need not be in this forum very long to learn that the atheists here, for the most part, are in full attack mode when it comes to Christianity.

One of their favorite lines of attack is to cite the historical violence of some Christians as a brand on all Christians, with the inference that Christianity is itself a failed endeavor.

Actually, there is a bit of truth to this, when the Church and government became one with Constantine, the greed for money and power superseded the Christian sensibilities of many who claimed to be Christians, and in the name of Christianity, murder and genocide occurred. The hybrid monster of the church and state, or the state and church working together for the same goals corrupted the church.

However, for every brutal leader supported by the church, there were many Christians with no government association who lived the Christian lifestyle and followed in the footsteps of Christ.

What was done in the name of Christianity by a corrupt church and government must be recognized, and cannot be defended.

Since atheists like to put the burning tire of murder and genocide on the neck of most any Christian, I thought a look at the atheist track record in this regard would be worthwhile.

I have pages of specific citations, so, if in the following you feel you need a citation for a sentence or paragraph, I will happily supply it.

According to an article by Christian apologist Gregory Koukl, with citations; " The assertion is that religion has caused most of the bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false, this is one of them"According to Le Monde, atheist regimes killed 100 million people in the 20th century, via genocide.

The reign of terror in France, whose leaders were influenced by Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists.,The details of their torture and their slaughter are revolting.

Koukl summarizes by stating that " It is true that religion can possibly produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail, it produces evil because the individual people are living in rejection of Christianity and the God that they are supposed to be following.n so it can produce evil but the historical fact is that the outright rejection of God and institutionalizing atheism actually does produce evil at incredible levels"

Nice job keeping the hate alive. Not the testimony I would want to promote.

That is about all I have to contribute to this tantrum.

 

[Audie]

Nice job keeping the hate alive. Not the testimony I would want to promote.

That is about all I have to contribute to this tantrum.

Not even one example of a atheist in full attack mode?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not even one example of a atheist in full attack mode?

I haven't seen it. All I have seen are posts just like this from those claiming to embrace the Love of Jesus.

I am surprised that more atheists are not swarming here asking to hear more about that Love.

 

[Audie]

I haven't seen it. All I have seen are posts just like this from those claiming to embrace the Love of Jesus.

I am surprised that more atheists are not swarming here asking to hear more about that Love.

Maybe the rancid stench?

 

[JJ50]

I haven't seen it. All I have seen are posts just like this from those claiming to embrace the Love of Jesus.

I am surprised that more atheists are not swarming here asking to hear more about that Love.

What love?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What love?

You have to look very hard to see it. Really, really, really, really, really, really hard.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe the rancid stench?

It could be. Creationist love is not like the love a of a square. It has odor.

 

[JJ50]

You have to look very hard to see it. Really, really, really, really, really, really hard.

So in other words it doesn't exist, besides which the guy died 2000 years ago.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So in other words it doesn't exist, besides which the guy died 2000 years ago.

Yes. I was being satirical.

I differ in my views and beliefs from the fundamentalist model and I have no problem with people that are atheists.

I have no problem with the myriad beliefs that are held by so many different people.

However, when those beliefs reach out into the world in the form of claims and actions, then there is something that can be questioned, criticized and challenged.

I really have nothing else to say about the OP than what I have. What else is there to say about a post that is a reactionary, angry and emotional response to manufactured perceptions of reality?

 

[Kk4mds]

One need not be in this forum very long to learn that the atheists here, for the most part, are in full attack mode when it comes to Christianity.

One of their favorite lines of attack is to cite the historical violence of some Christians as a brand on all Christians, with the inference that Christianity is itself a failed endeavor.

Actually, there is a bit of truth to this, when the Church and government became one with Constantine, the greed for money and power superseded the Christian sensibilities of many who claimed to be Christians, and in the name of Christianity, murder and genocide occurred. The hybrid monster of the church and state, or the state and church working together for the same goals corrupted the church.

However, for every brutal leader supported by the church, there were many Christians with no government association who lived the Christian lifestyle and followed in the footsteps of Christ.

What was done in the name of Christianity by a corrupt church and government must be recognized, and cannot be defended.

Since atheists like to put the burning tire of murder and genocide on the neck of most any Christian, I thought a look at the atheist track record in this regard would be worthwhile.

I have pages of specific citations, so, if in the following you feel you need a citation for a sentence or paragraph, I will happily supply it.

According to an article by Christian apologist Gregory Koukl, with citations; " The assertion is that religion has caused most of the bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false, this is one of them"According to Le Monde, atheist regimes killed 100 million people in the 20th century, via genocide.

The reign of terror in France, whose leaders were influenced by Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists.,The details of their torture and their slaughter are revolting.

Koukl summarizes by stating that " It is true that religion can possibly produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail, it produces evil because the individual people are living in rejection of Christianity and the God that they are supposed to be following.n so it can produce evil but the historical fact is that the outright rejection of God and institutionalizing atheism actually does produce evil at incredible levels"

The wars between various Christian groups has killed millions. Remember, the first Crusade was launched to destroy the Cathars. While you can talk about the politics of religious wars, the politics was based on gaining power over religious groups who practiced and believed differently. Catholics and Protestants killed each other with reckless abandon. And, while atheists have been attacked and executed as heretics, I’ve not heard of the opposite being true.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One need not be in this forum very long to learn that the atheists here, for the most part, are in full attack mode when it comes to Christianity.

I am sorry to hear that has been your experience. While this is a debate forum, and all sorts of debates between Christians, atheists, and all other sorts of people are expected, for that to devolve into “full attack mode” would be a shame.

I have not caught up on all the posts in this thread yet so I apologize for that, and I apologize for this post which is too long, in advance.

I wanted to say that I commend you for acknowledging that Christians are responsible for a number of atrocities throughout history. As an atheist, I want to acknowledge that atheists are also responsible for atrocities throughout history.

I particularly agree with what you and another poster said, that the corruption of religion by mixing it with the state, and similarly institutionalized atheism Imposed by the state, have lead to violence and oppression.

What I have come to believe from my (admittedly imperfect, incomplete) understanding of history, is that the diversity of human belief systems is so vast, and complex, and in many cases utterly nonsensical, that categories like “Christian” and “atheist” are far too broad to make any kind of sense of it. How are we to make sense of a category like “Christian” that contains both the defenders and critics of slavery; or “atheist” which could describe Joseph Stalin or a lawyer for the ACLU. And what do we do with figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, who were neither Christians nor (probably) quite atheists, but who are today revered by many Christians and atheists?

To me, the exercise of going through history and adding up lists of victims from religion or irreligion, and debating which list is greater, is not really constructive. Because at the end of the day, even if Christianity caused a lot of violent conflict, it would not make Christianity untrue; and similarly for atheism. Furthermore, what separates liberty from oppression is not so much religion or lack thereof, but democratic government, human rights, and separation of church and state / freedom of worship and expression. These are political ideas, and not necessarily affixed to one religion or lack thereof - certainly not in practice.

In my mind, what is so important about those political ideas is connected to what is so important about the scientific method: it is a political method of testing, refining, and updating ideas, being open-minded and allowing a non-arbitrary process to select which ideas “win”.

Personally I do not think religion is very compatible with the methods of reason and empiricism that underly both the scientific method, and the democratic method. Because the same tools which are so useful in assessing how the universe was formed or how a society ought to be governed, it seems to me, are abandoned when assessing whether or not a miraculous Resurrection occurred in First Century Jerusalem.

So that is a critique of religion, which Christians and others have to answer - clearly, it makes sense in their minds, and they are able to keep the reason and empiricism that governs questions of science and politics separate, to some degree, from the faith and revelation that governs questions of ancient miracles.

But I also think it’s fair to say that atheists have critiques they need to answer for. Namely, why should we believe in a higher purpose? And why should that higher purpose be things like human rights or democratic government? If you are an atheist, all your work is still ahead of you to argue for and stand up for those things (if you believe in them). And religious people are right to wonder what is the reasoning behind it.

I for one would freely admit that reason is as imperfect a guide as the humans who wield it. It is not easy to use reason to convince a slaveholder that slavery is wrong, or a tyrant that tyranny is wrong. Religion, it must be said, is a powerful convincer and motivator - but one that can as easily short-circuit Reason in the service of senseless atrocity, as it can in the service of human progress.

 

[osgart]

Religion or no religion, both are used by insincere people to start wars for power and gain. They are vehicles used by people who have no sincerity invested in those causes. It's a masquerade unjust war is. Most wars masquerade these ideologies for power and gain.

Militant religiousity, and militant atheism are both barbaric. Of course I am not denying the contrary mindsets of the religious and the atheist. But it's just plain wrong to forcefully make people conform to opposing standards unless those standards are squeaky clean of harmfulness. You can't pound the religious into atheism, nor an atheist into a religious box.

If one desires to live a personal conscience that differs from the majority then they should feel free to do so, so long as no harm is done and it's in accord with human rights.

Surely there are universals of moral conscience. And living according to one's own volition is acceptable so long as there is no abuse ,nor murder, nor coercion.

List of religious populations - Wikipedia