To the Non Believers.

[DeitySlayer]

Bull ***** look a few pages back. If the atrocities committed by atheists and the Godless this century dont count or the murders and other crimes committed by the Godless this century alone then the Athiests are in denial.

Blame killing in the name of God all you want but I have proven without a doubt with irrefutable numbers that many times more have been killed by Atheists and the Godless in this century alone. Probably more than have been killed in the name of God throughout history both recorded and prehistoric.

Again, you have consistently been unable to show that the killing was A RESULT of disbelief in God. Atheists never say 'I don't believe in God' or 'God doesn't exist' as their rationale for murder. Stalin didn't purge the communist party because he was atheist. Mao didn't murder millions because he atheist. They did it; AND they were atheist, but you are unable to show they did it BECAUSE they were atheist.

 

[Archer]

Again, you have consistently been unable to show that the killing was A RESULT of disbelief in God. Atheists never say 'I don't believe in God' or 'God doesn't exist' as their rationale for murder. Stalin didn't purge the communist party because he was atheist. Mao didn't murder millions because he atheist. They did it; AND they were atheist, but you are unable to show they did it BECAUSE they were atheist.

Does not really matter I have shown that Atheists (and Godless) are responsible for more killing than those committed in the name of God. I say that athiests are dangerous because they have no God. And my numbers say so. The numbers you can find will say so.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Does not really matter I have shown that Atheists (and Godless) are responsible for more killing than those committed in the name of God. I say that athiests are dangerous because they have no God. And my numbers say so. The numbers you can find will say so.

:thud:

The numbers also say that people with black hair are more dangerous. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot all had black hair.

Unless you can link the feature with the result, your correlation is worth nothing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does not really matter I have shown that Atheists (and Godless) are responsible for more killing than those committed in the name of God.

Except that you did not, possibly because that is simply not true.

I say that athiests are dangerous because they have no God. And my numbers say so. The numbers you can find will say so.

No,they will not.

 

[Badran]

I'll add my opinion on this Atheists part. Some religionists sometimes kill and claim it was in the name of God, but Atheists never killed in the name of no-God, and if they did kill in the name of no-god, they never said or made it public that this was their motive.(As far as i'm aware)

So if some Atheists did kill in the name of their atheism, their is no proof for that because they never claimed that they did it for that reason. Which is not the case with some religionists or Theists.

I personally think that some Atheists leaders kill out of their hate for religion, but i don't have a proof for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does not really matter I have shown that Atheists (and Godless) are responsible for more killing than those committed in the name of God. I say that athiests are dangerous because they have no God. And my numbers say so. The numbers you can find will say so.

I'm an atheist. I'm also a freethinker. I'm opposed to unquestioningly following all dogma, whether it's religious, communist, fascist or anything else. I'm as opposed to Stalinism as I am to the Inquisition. Exactly what is it in my worldview do you think could lead to murder?

 

[Archer]

:thud:

The numbers also say that people with black hair are more dangerous. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot all had black hair.

Unless you can link the feature with the result, your correlation is worth nothing.

Neither is the one linking Killing to God. If I commit a murder and say I did not does that mean I am innocent? NO. Yet you choose to take the word of mentally disturbed individuals saying they kill for God, in the name God or because God told them too. Look at the damn history! These people were doing anything but serving God. Yet you label faith in God dangerous? Well I do the same and using your logic and all of the historical facts, realizing that these men were not serving any God then I can truly say that almost all killings are done by the truly Godless. Use you friking supposed superior logic! Godlessness kills, As to the supposed Christians, these men of faith were not following any scripture in their Book. They were using their position for their personal agenda.

 

[Archer]

I'm an atheist. I'm also a freethinker. I'm opposed to unquestioningly following all dogma, whether it's religious, communist, fascist or anything else. I'm as opposed to Stalinism as I am to the Inquisition. Exactly what is it in my worldview do you think could lead to murder?

I assume you have read the entire thread? I am simply making the counter argument that people of faith are no mere dangerous than those who have none. The numbers show that more have been killed by the Godless. Now I am not saying that it could not be the other way around but it is not. Those that did these things were with no God. That means nothing because those that claim to kill in the name of God are not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll add my opinion on this Atheists part. Some religionists sometimes kill and claim it was in the name of God, but Atheists never killed in the name of no-God, and if they did kill in the name of no-god, they never said or made it public that this was their motive.(As far as i'm aware)

So if some Atheists did kill in the name of their atheism, their is no proof for that because they never claimed that they did it for that reason. Which is not the case with some religionists or Theists.

Not only is there no proof, it doesn't make sense in the first place.

"Atheism" is no more a religion than "theism" is. Have you ever seen any theist who's willing to kill for belief in god(s) generally? Was there ever a bloodthirsty, religiously-motivated conqueror who would kill all atheists, but spare all the theists... even those who disbelieved in his God(s)? That's analogous to the idea of an atheist who would kill for atheism.

Many, many people through history slaughtered huge numbers of people to advance their worldviews. Some of these worldviews were theistic; some were atheistic. In all cases, though, the point was to advance the specific worldview, not to advance theism or atheism in a general sense.

Stalin, for instance, didn't just kill the religious. He rounded up freethinkers, political opponents and all sorts of other atheists in his progroms, right along with the religious believers. He was just as opposed to a range of atheistic beliefs as he was to religious beliefs.

I personally think that some Atheists leaders kill out of their hate for religion, but i don't have a proof for that.

In a sense, I'd agree with you. If a tyrant wants to force a belief system on his people, then religions are competing belief systems that would get in the way of this.

Still, though, I'd say that the vast majority of modern atheists are also secularists, humanists, or freethinkers and are opposed to forcing any belief system on people. When people pull out the old "Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/etc. was an atheist" line as if it's supposed to apply to their belief, I think that all it really shows is the person's ignorance of what the atheist he's arguing with actually believes.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Well, it's like we're playing chess, K? And on your move, you turn your bishop into the Pope - it can move like a queen, a knight... and it can teleport. Naturally, the non-believer is gonna go - was up with all that?

Many times, the belief is used to allow the believer a non-logical stance, and this would cause contention, no? Fortunately, I am well-defined... Gwynnie is god, I'm a fool, no conversion necessary. XP

 

[Falvlun]

Does not really matter I have shown that Atheists (and Godless) are responsible for more killing than those committed in the name of God. I say that athiests are dangerous because they have no God. And my numbers say so. The numbers you can find will say so.

By this reasoning, Christianity is responsible for most of the deaths involved in the American Civil War. Afterall, most of the soldiers- on both sides- were likely Christians.

Just because a Christian commits an atrocity does not mean that he did it because he was a Christian. The same goes for an atheist: just because an atheist commits an atrocity does not mean he did he because of his atheism.

However, if a Christian says that he is committing this atrocity in the name of his religion or his God or because of his religion or his God, then you can attribute responsibility to the religion as well. Likewise, for the atheist.

Do you have any examples of the atheist killing in the name of atheism?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Neither is the one linking Killing to God. If I commit a murder and say I did not does that mean I am innocent? NO. Yet you choose to take the word of mentally disturbed individuals saying the kill for God, in the name God or because God told them too. Look at the damn history! These people were doing anything but serving God. Yet you lable faith in God dangerous? Well I do the same and using your logic and all of the historical facts, realizing that these men were not serving any God then I can truly say that almost all killings are done by the truly Godless. Use you friking supposed superior logic! Godlessness kills, As to the supposed Christians, these men of faith were not following any scripture in their Book. They were using their position for their personal agenda.

Profanity gets you nowhere.

I fail to see how the Inquisition was a personal agenda, in terms of the persecution of politically insignificant peasants. I fail to see how 9/11 was a personal agenda, or how the Taleban have a personal agenda. I mean, it's kind of hard to see a motive for killing yourself or holing up in freezing mountains getting pounded by American airstrikes.

Admittedly, some religious killing are covers for personal motives. But the point is, religion is harmful as it can be used as a cover. Atheism cannot.

 

[Badran]

Not only is there no proof, it doesn't make sense in the first place.

"Atheism" is no more a religion than "theism" is. Have you ever seen any theist who's willing to kill for belief in god(s) generally? Was there ever a bloodthirsty, religiously-motivated conqueror who would kill all atheists, but spare all the theists... even those who disbelieved in his God(s)? That's analogous to the idea of an atheist who would kill for atheism.

Many, many people through history slaughtered huge numbers of people to advance their worldviews. Some of these worldviews were theistic; some were atheistic. In all cases, though, the point was to advance the specific worldview, not to advance theism or atheism in a general sense.

Stalin, for instance, didn't just kill the religious. He rounded up freethinkers, political opponents and all sorts of other atheists in his progroms, right along with the religious believers. He was just as opposed to a range of atheistic beliefs as he was to religious beliefs.

I completely agree.

In a sense, I'd agree with you. If a tyrant wants to force a belief system on his people, then religions are competing belief systems that would get in the way of this.

Still, though, I'd say that the vast majority of modern atheists are also secularists, humanists, or freethinkers and are opposed to forcing any belief system on people. When people pull out the old "Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/etc. was an atheist" line as if it's supposed to apply to their belief, I think that all it really shows is the person's ignorance of what the atheist he's arguing with actually believes.

Of course, especially because if that's the case, then the "enemies" of Atheists would be the entire world with all it's religious beliefs, which are a lot. I do find that hard to believe, i think the only cases in which an atheist would kill for a reason related to his belief, would be out of hatred for religion, or like you said, out of desire to control in general.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I assume you have read the entire thread?

Most, but not all. It's gotten a bit unweildy.

I am simply making the counter argument that people of faith are no mere dangerous than those who have none. The numbers show that more have been killed by the Godless. Now I am not saying that it could not be the other way around but it is not. Those that did these things were with no God. That means nothing because those that claim to kill in the name of God are not.

And my argument is that it's not belief in God(s) that's the problem; it's dogmatic belief.

My beliefs, which are atheistic, are opposed to the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot and any other "atheist" tyrants you mentioned. Are the sort of beliefs that I hold, which are included under the labels you use like "godless", the sort that can lead to the sort of killing you describe?

 

[Archer]

By this reasoning, Christianity is responsible for most of the deaths involved in the American Civil War. Afterall, most of the soldiers- on both sides- were likely Christians.

Just because a Christian commits an atrocity does not mean that he did it because he was a Christian. The same goes for an atheist: just because an atheist commits an atrocity does not mean he did he because of his atheism.

However, if a Christian says that he is committing this atrocity in the name of his religion or his God or because of his religion or his God, then you can attribute responsibility to the religion as well. Likewise, for the atheist.

Do you have any examples of the atheist killing in the name of atheism?

I doubt you will find any. I also know of no new testament text that condones the act of murder and therefore a Christian can not kill in the name of God because there is no support for it.

They kill for their own reasons just like every other killer. If not God then something else.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I doubt you will find any. I also know of no new testament text that condones the act of murder and therefore a Christian can not kill in the name of God because there is no support for it.

They kill for their own reasons just like every other killer. If not God then something else.

The Old Testament is also part of the Bible, you know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I doubt you will find any. I also know of no new testament text that condones the act of murder and therefore a Christian can not kill in the name of God because there is no support for it.

Says you. History has shown that Christians have not had any trouble justifying killing with the Bible, including the New Testament.

And do you know of a New Testament text that says a Christian can't draw inspiration from the Old Testament?

 

[Archer]

Most, but not all. It's gotten a bit unweildy.


And my argument is that it's not belief in God(s) that's the problem; it's dogmatic belief.

My beliefs, which are atheistic, are opposed to the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot and any other "atheist" tyrants you mentioned. Are the sort of beliefs that I hold, which are included under the labels you use like "godless", the sort that can lead to the sort of killing you describe?

I did not say that (kinda), I did say that I would have a better chance of being killed by someone who is Godless.

 

[Badran]

I think what Archer is trying to prove with his argument, is that religion is just another excuse that evil people use to justify their actions.

I would agree with him, except that i'm sure that a few of the religionists through time, have actually thought that they were really doing it in the name of their religion.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I did not say that (kinda), I did say that I would have a better chance of being killed by someone who is Godless.

You also have a better chance of being killed by someone with a moustache. Or with black hair. According to your much-touted statistical evidence.