MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[shmogie]

and a theist is a theist, right? Christian, Muslim, Hindu... all peas in a pod?

Trying to lump atheists together is like trying to lump people who don't collect stamps together. It's nonsensical.

Fine, separate them out and tell me the differences in the beliefs of the groups you have come up with and how these beliefs effect their behavior.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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is a bit of truth to this, when the Church and government became one with Constantine, the greed for money and power superseded the Christian sensibilities of many who claimed to be Christians, and in the name of Christianity, murder and genocide occurred.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"

It’s about time the truth came out on this one.

The Religion Of God which teaches love and harmony I am firmly convinced, has never caused wars. It is disobedience to the laws and teachings of religion I believe, which causes wars. The Religion Of God teaches Thou shalt not kill and to love thy neighbour as thyself and even thine enemy so I believe war is absolutely impossible if these counsels are adhered to. The Bible does not support wars such as the Crusades nor the Inquisition. By its very nature, it condemns all unprovoked wars. The Quran only permits self defense see Sura 2:190. The Hindu religion believes in ahimsa and Buddhism - in non violence. Religion teaches to wage war against the SELF. For instance Buddha said ,
One may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle but he is the true conquerer who conquers his own self(Dhamapadda)

And Baha’u’llah says to free ourselves from the prison of self.

Aggressive offensive wars against innocents involving religionists have ALL been instigated by either clergy, priests, popes, Mullas or politicians but never by the Manifestations of God Who have only taught love, compassion and kindness to all living beings.

 

[shmogie]

The truth does not make me sad, but your warped view of history does. Again and again Robespierre was not an atheist.

I wasn';t talking to you and I couldn't care less as to how you feel. So ol' Robie was a deist, my mistake,.Unlike you, I sometimes make a mistake.

So a simple error warps my entire view of history,

'Do you know what hyperbole means ?

 

[siti]

I did respond, those 300,000 were all murdered by deists, atheists had nothing to do with it ?

I think you might mean 17,000 (approx.) - and nobody said they were all murdered by deists - but Robespierre was a deist and was a murderous tyrant responsible for some of the murders (aka executions) during the "Reign of Terror". And some were murdered under the influence of people like Jacques Hebert and his followers who were atheists and set out to replace religion - especially Catholicism - with a "Cult of Reason". But by far the most of those who died in the Reign of Terror were those who were political opponents - religion was a big part of the issue because the Catholic Church was so corrupt and so politically powerful - but Robespierre would have gladly executed fellow deists - like Thomas Paine - because Paine supported the less radical Girondin political faction. Paine's life was apparently spared by an oversight on the part of the guards in the jail where he was imprisoned.

 

[siti]

Do you know what hyperbole means ?

Is it like when something happens to 17,000 people and someone says it was 300,000?

 

[icehorse]

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 regimes being referred to here were not atheist regimes. For the most part they were regimes led by people who wanted to create themselves as demigods.

 

[siti]

There ya go. Lay that atheist moral code on me.

Thou shalt (or at least should'st) think carefully before posting BS on RF.

 

[David1967]

Do you want to take off to the Insult thread with me or do wish to slum it here with this dumpster fire of a pisshole thread? Has far as I am concern @shmogie can go...himself. This person is so odious I wouldn't even waste a curse word on him.

This is fun but now I'm on date night with the wife, so till tomorrow.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You should have seen the opening round of this dumpster fire

 

[shunyadragon]

I wasn';t talking to you and I couldn't care less as to how you feel. So ol' Robie was a deist, my mistake,.Unlike you, I sometimes make a mistake.

I like others are responding to posts, How you feel? It sounds like, emotional, arrogant, and aggressively rewriting history to suit your agenda.

So a simple error warps my entire view of history,

One of many based on an emotional agenda.

'Do you know what hyperbole means ?

Of course, so what?

The problem is your exaggerated statements are intended to be taken literally.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

This is fun but now I'm on date night with the wife, so till tomorrow.

Give her a smooch for me and tell her I will always remember Paris

 

[shunyadragon]

You should have seen the opening round of this dumpster fire

Turkey roast?

 

[Audie]

What is really me that bothers you ? Stating facts about atheists ? How sad do you get when atheists mock, jeer, and and make statements like Christians murder, kill, etc. the latest title being "Christians have a dark history, have they changed ? " Did that make you sad ?

My Christian brothers and sisters patently endure this derogatory pap, I do not.

It is time for the sneering atheists to learn about their fellow believers in history, and to ponder why their fellow atheists in positions of power resort to genocide, more genocide than the world has ever seen.

Use history to blanket condemn Christianity and Christians, learn the sword cuts both ways, and a blanket condemnation of atheists is a much, much heavier burden to bear.

I have exempted you from the condemnation !

No, you did not.

 

[Woberts]

Up yours too, buddy.

 

[Curious George]

You can't isolate anything in complex systems like human society, but when others use the term 'religious war' as opposed to 'war of geography' or 'war of economics' or 'war of culture' or 'war of language' or 'war of history' or 'war of human nature' or whatever other countless variables were at play then it's fair enough to reply on their terms.

Do you believe the term 'religious war' has any meaning?

I believe most wars are religious in nature because why else would you kill so many people? Only for some zealotry of one flavor or another. I think that people of all religious or "irreligious" backgrounds are capable of the same sort of thinking and extemist ideology. Whatever story was told or justification that was used it does not surprise me that religious thought is a central motivating force to do harm on a mass scale.

So yes, i think religious war has meaning. I just think that meaning is broader than the many would like to acknowledge.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am not here for all theists, I am here for all Christians.

You shall not murder,

There ya go. Lay that atheist moral code on me.

Theist or atheist, humans are innately empathetic, social creatures driven by both reason and compassion (unless conditioned otherwise by religion/culture/ideology or simply sociopathic.) We care about others and possess a sense of fairness by nature and prefer the security that order provides. We treat others the way we hope to be treated in return. "The Golden Rule" is common sense and universal, not some magical, profound, ground-breaking revelation.
Civilization is built upon order, and most behave out of both mutual benefit and rational self interest, social repercussions serving as incentive and deterrence.
I can elaborate further, but currently on mobile and typing lengthy posts is a pain in the ***.

 

[Skreeper]

I am not here for all theists, I am here for all Christians.

You shall not murder,

There ya go. Lay that atheist moral code on me.

Weird how a couple pages after that God commands his chosen people to commit some murder. Not even simply murder, but genocide.

It seems even the one who made up 'you shall not murder' can't be bothered to follow his own rules.

But I do appreciate this thread. Threads like these help convert people to atheism by simply showing people how incredibly BS and flawed some fundagelicals 'arguments' are.

 

[JJ50]

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 Biblical god character was a very violent entity according to the not so good book.

 

[Augustus]

I believe most wars are religious in nature because why else would you kill so many people?

Human nature: we evolved to be violent towards those outside our group. We don't see chimps fighting as 'religious in nature' though. The reason they involve 'so many' deaths is that we kept on expanding the size of groups we lived in (religion did play a major role in this process).

Also: because technology enables it, because it makes sense tactically/strategically, because they are trying to kill you, because you are worried they will try to kill you in future, because they didn't surrender so you want to make an example out of them so others will surrender, because they don't want to let you exploit them and you want to make an example out of them, etc., etc.

Only for some zealotry of one flavor or another. I think that people of all religious or "irreligious" backgrounds are capable of the same sort of thinking and extemist ideology. Whatever story was told or justification that was used it does not surprise me that religious thought is a central motivating force to do harm on a mass scale.

In the pre-modern world you generally needed to be strong because if you weren't, then you might well be a victim. It was rational/evolutionarily advantageous to be good at war, and being good at war required practice, people and resources.

Also, doesn't take zealotry. Can just be an unfortunate series of events that ends up with a situation no one really wants.

Violence is human nature, not a corruption of human nature.

So yes, i think religious war has meaning. I just think that meaning is broader than the many would like to acknowledge.

Are you using religion as synonymous with culture? Why can you isolate religion/culture from geography, economy, technology, agriculture, language, history, etc.?

Wars are driven by culture, culture develops from human nature, geography, technology, experience, the need to survive, etc. culture, human nature, geography, technology, experience, the need to survive, etc creates religions, religions shape culture, and so forth.

 

[Augustus]

The extreme movements within those supporting the Monarchy, and the church, equally made it unlikely to lead to a reformed constitutional monarchy.

That's a bit like saying the opposition to the Romanovs in Russia could only have led to a totalitarian communist state (even though few people wanted it).

The choice wasn't ancien regime or Reign of Terror, the Committee for Public Safety, dechristianisation, etc. but revolutions never really produce what the masses want, just a different type of elite.