To the Non Believers.

[DeitySlayer]

The Godless heathen leaders of the world have done the same in the name of Man

Do you know what the definition of atheism is? Non-belief in a deity.

It does not mean worshipping Man or murdering people or anything like that. No-one has killed in the name of atheism.

 

[Archer]

Do you know what the definition of atheism is? Non-belief in a deity.

It does not mean worshipping Man or murdering people or anything like that. No-one has killed in the name of atheism.

When I say in the name of man that is what I mean. Self serving with an agenda that has no base in any religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really though if it were up to the christian right abortion would stop (my true feelings follow, though I am against it from a personal perspective), we would have all of these unwanted kids out there potentially causing problems, drugs, crime more teen pregnancies rinse repeat . I say if people want abortions let them have them. Less trouble later. It will cost me money if abortion is stopped.

Are you denying that the pro-death movement is a big thing for Atheists?

I am not saying all Atheists are pro choice, just guilty by association. Just like every person of faith is dangerous, in the eyes of many atheists.

What on Earth are you talking about? Do you think any of this has anything to do with my post that you quoted?

 

[DeitySlayer]

When I say in the name of man that is what I mean. Self serving with an agenda that has no base in any religion.

Exactly; but you are equating atheism with selfishness. Which is a pretty big, and untrue, assumption to make. Religious people can be equally selfish. Atheism has no bearing on this.

 

[Autodidact]

Stop the name calling. Oh wait I am talking to a bunch of mindless baby killers, how many babies have been killed because of this secular Atheist world view?!

Schizophrenia? Two people tying on the same keyboard? Hypocrisy? Poe? What's your guess?

 

[Autodidact]

When I say in the name of man that is what I mean. Self serving with an agenda that has no base in any religion.

Well that's not atheism, so maybe you need to find another word for it. I think you've been told what atheism means a few dozen times. Let me know if you ever grasp it.

 

[Falvlun]

How the hell is this any kind of debate when I need to present opposing evidence. !

Your stance requires two numbers. Why do you not understand that? Let's provide an illustration.

Bob: I have more money than you!
Andy: Prove it!
Bob: Well, I know you have $2,000.
Andy: Ok, how much do you have?
Bob: I'm not telling you! It's your job to present that evidence.
Andy: But you're the one who claimed that you had more money then me!
Bob: Stop asking me to carry your weight! It's your responsibility to find out the amount!
Andy: :help:

 

[Archer]

Exactly; but you are equating atheism with selfishness. Which is a pretty big, and untrue, assumption to make. Religious people can be equally selfish. Atheism has no bearing on this.

No I am not. I am saying that in the name of man is committing atrocities without God.

 

[DeitySlayer]

No I am not. I am saying that in the name of man is committing atrocities without God.

But man commits the selfsame atrocities with God. Atheism is not directly causing the atrocities.

 

[Archer]

But man commits the selfsame atrocities with God. Atheism is not directly causing the atrocities.

Religion is not either. Man is. Religon, faith and God have nothing to do with it. I think it pretty clear that people are the problem.

The Christian Church has caused problems for itself but the people are the problem. I really wish we had data that was Atheist approved but it is hard to find. Every time data or other information is posted it is dismissed. That is a sign that the truth hurts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion is not either. Man is. Religon, faith and God have nothing to do with it. I think it pretty clear that people are the problem.

But you cannot deny that religion has provided justification for many of these people's actions. Again, could you honestly say that Hitler would of triggered the holocaust without any religious justification for his actions? Would the crusades of occurred without the influence of religion? Why would those women in Salem of been burned to death without the beliefs that persecuted them?

The Christian Church has caused problems for itself but the people are the problem. I really wish we had data that was Atheist approved but it is hard to find. Every time data or other information is posted it is dismissed. That is a sign that the truth hurts.

Or it's a sign that the data you're presenting is insufficient as demonstration of your claims.

 

[Archer]

But you cannot deny that religion has provided justification for many of these people's actions. Again, could you honestly say that Hitler would of triggered the holocaust without any religious justification for his actions? Would the crusades of occurred without the influence of religion? Why would those women in Salem of been burned to death without the beliefs that persecuted them?


Or it's a sign that the data you're presenting is insufficient as demonstration of your claims.

It is accepted that the greatest killers in history were Godless. That is an indisputable fact. It is accepted that many things have been done by organized religion that are just as atrocious but on a smaller scale, another indisputable fact.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers or one of you would have debunked it. It is just easier to dismiss. People can claim all they want and say that Atheism is not the cause and that is fine but Atheists can be monsters and have had more blood spilled at their hands than Christians and Muslim's together. Sure you can say it was not in the name of Atheism but they were Atheists and that means that you are guilty by association, just as you claim all religious people are dangerous. Remember weak minded irrational idiotic behavior is a human trait not just a trait of the religious. You can say all that killing in the name of God and I can say all that killing in the name of the state. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, ALL TYPES KILL, MAN IS BLOODTHIRSTY.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is accepted that the greatest killers in history were Godless. That is an indisputable fact.

Really? Because I dispute it.

It is accepted that many things have been done by organized religion that are just as atrocious but on a smaller scale, another indisputable fact.

Again, I dispute that.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers or one of you would have debunked it. It is just easier to dismiss. People can claim all they want and say that Atheism is not the cause and that is fine but Atheists can be monsters and have had more blood spilled at their hands than Christians and Muslim's together.

Nobody here has ever said, or probably ever will say, that atheists can't be monsters.

The point is that their monstrocity is not a reflection on atheism and has nothing to do with it.

Sure you can say it was not in the name of Atheism but they were Atheists and that means that you are guilty by association, just as you claim all religious people are dangerous.

Again, nobody here has ever said, or probably ever will say, that all religious people are dangerous. I certainly never said it.

And how come you've gone from "blame people, not god" to "guilty by association"?

Remember weak minded irrational idiotic behavior is a human trait not just a trait of the religious. You can say all that killing in the name of God and I can say all that killing in the name of the state.

Which has nothing to do with atheism.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, ALL TYPES KILL, MAN IS BLOODTHIRSTY.

And religion has, throughout history, provided the means and motive for a lot of that bloodthirst.

Again, do you think any of the examples I gave you would of occurred without the influence of religion?

 

[Sunstone]

It is accepted that the greatest killers in history were Godless. That is an indisputable fact.

Actually, that "fact" is very much in dispute by reputable historians. If you look at the ratio of murders to population, rather than at absolute number of murders, the ages previous to the modern world have the highest ratios of murders to populations. In short, they were more violent than ours. What this suggests is that violence has been dropping as societies have grown more secular.

 

[dogsgod]

Archer, and you wonder why believers get ridiculed?

 

[Tristesse]

It is accepted that the greatest killers in history were Godless. That is an indisputable fact. It is accepted that many things have been done by organized religion that are just as atrocious but on a smaller scale, another indisputable fact.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers or one of you would have debunked it. It is just easier to dismiss. People can claim all they want and say that Atheism is not the cause and that is fine but Atheists can be monsters and have had more blood spilled at their hands than Christians and Muslim's together. Sure you can say it was not in the name of Atheism but they were Atheists and that means that you are guilty by association, just as you claim all religious people are dangerous. Remember weak minded irrational idiotic behavior is a human trait not just a trait of the religious. You can say all that killing in the name of God and I can say all that killing in the name of the state. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, ALL TYPES KILL, MAN IS BLOODTHIRSTY.

I think the problem here is dogma or some fervent ideology. Because in general people who are good usually do good things and people who are bad usually to do bad things, but in order to get an honestly good person who would otherwise do good things, it takes religion or something like religion, some fervent ideology.

 

[McBell]

You freaking people just don't get it. I have had one person post numbers other than myself. I thanked him.

You have only posted HALF the numbers.
You have not posted the number of killings by theists.
Thus your argument falls flat on its face.
Now, if you would like to present a full argument, perhaps we can go from there?

How the hell is this any kind of debate when I need to present opposing evidence.

Who/when was you asked to present evidence for the opposing side?
I know I haven't.
I have merely asked for you to present a FULL argument.

No one has done anything but deny and get defensive. There has been no real defense to my position that it is the people that do these things and it is spread out in an unbalanced way.

Until you provide a full argument...

Yes there have been atrocities carried out by Christian leadership with their lemming followers, same with Islam. The Godless heathen leaders of the world have done the same in the name of Man (greater numbers).

See, it is the "(greater numbers)" part that you have as yet to even present evidence for, let alone prove.

Thus you have not presented a FULL argument.

So we are all guilty by association or we can stop this labeling. Stop the name calling.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to present the rest of your argument so that ther eis actually something to debate?

Truth be told, I suspect that you are afraid of the numbers you refuse to present.

Oh wait I am talking to a bunch of mindless baby killers, how many babies have been killed because of this secular Atheist world view?!

now you are merely being a arse.
A hypocritical arse to boot.

let present your quote to you:

...Stop the name calling.

Then your VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

Oh wait I am talking to a bunch of mindless baby killers...

 

[McBell]

It is accepted that the greatest killers in history were Godless.

Yes. people like you accept it.
However, ther are people who me who dispute it.

That is an indisputable fact.

I do not dispute that people accept all manner of lies as truth.

It is accepted that many things have been done by organized religion that are just as atrocious but on a smaller scale, another indisputable fact.

Just because a lie is accepted as truth by some people...
In fact, everyone believing a lie to be true does not make the lie truth.

So your "it is accepted" speech falls flat.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers or one of you would have debunked it.

There is nothing to debunk until after you present a full argument.
Your inablity or unwillingness to understand this fact reflects on you, not anyone else.

It is just easier to dismiss. People can claim all they want and say that Atheism is not the cause and that is fine but Atheists can be monsters and have had more blood spilled at their hands than Christians and Muslim's together.

I understand that you believe this bull **** with all your might.
However, seeing as you have as yet to present evidence enough to prove it, it is merely wishful thinking on your part.

Sure you can say it was not in the name of Atheism but they were Atheists and that means that you are guilty by association, just as you claim all religious people are dangerous.

I have never once claimed that all religious people are dangerous.
Nor have I attempted any guilt by association.

Remember weak minded irrational idiotic behavior is a human trait not just a trait of the religious.

Agreed.
Though some people abuse the fact.

You can say all that killing in the name of God and I can say all that killing in the name of the state. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, ALL TYPES KILL, MAN IS BLOODTHIRSTY.

what the hell are you going on about now?
The part of your argument that I dispute is your claim that you have presented enough evidence to support your claim.

The fat is that you have not.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It is accepted that the greatest killers in history were Godless. That is an indisputable fact. It is accepted that many things have been done by organized religion that are just as atrocious but on a smaller scale, another indisputable fact.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers or one of you would have debunked it. It is just easier to dismiss. People can claim all they want and say that Atheism is not the cause and that is fine but Atheists can be monsters and have had more blood spilled at their hands than Christians and Muslim's together. Sure you can say it was not in the name of Atheism but they were Atheists and that means that you are guilty by association, just as you claim all religious people are dangerous. Remember weak minded irrational idiotic behavior is a human trait not just a trait of the religious. You can say all that killing in the name of God and I can say all that killing in the name of the state. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, ALL TYPES KILL, MAN IS BLOODTHIRSTY.

You really must be kidding me... It isn't accepted by anyone but you and a few other religious nuts on here that most of history's biggest killers were atheists. They might not have prayed to the same god you do, but most of history's famous killers followed some sort of religion that they used to justify their actions. Atheist killings don't even start to amount to the number of murders committed by religious followers. You can only name three people you claim killed in the name of atheism, one of which was a Catholic. You really think that even if you included Hitler, who wasn't an atheist, that these three people have killed more than all the religious murderers combined? These three haven't even killed as many people as Christianity, let alone every religion.

 

[Archer]

Really? Because I dispute it.


Again, I dispute that.


Nobody here has ever said, or probably ever will say, that atheists can't be monsters.

The point is that their monstrocity is not a reflection on atheism and has nothing to do with it.


Again, nobody here has ever said, or probably ever will say, that all religious people are dangerous. I certainly never said it.

And how come you've gone from "blame people, not god" to "guilty by association"?


Which has nothing to do with atheism.


And religion has, throughout history, provided the means and motive for a lot of that bloodthirst.

Again, do you think any of the examples I gave you would of occurred without the influence of religion?

Actually, that "fact" is very much in dispute by reputable historians. If you look at the ratio of murders to population, rather than at absolute number of murders, the ages previous to the modern world have the highest ratios of murders to populations. In short, they were more violent than ours. What this suggests is that violence has been dropping as societies have grown more secular.

Archer, and you wonder why believers get ridiculed?

You have only posted HALF the numbers.
You have not posted the number of killings by theists.
Thus your argument falls flat on its face.
Now, if you would like to present a full argument, perhaps we can go from there?


Who/when was you asked to present evidence for the opposing side?
I know I haven't.
I have merely asked for you to present a FULL argument.


Until you provide a full argument...


See, it is the "(greater numbers)" part that you have as yet to even present evidence for, let alone prove.

Thus you have not presented a FULL argument.


Perhaps you would be kind enough to present the rest of your argument so that ther eis actually something to debate?

Truth be told, I suspect that you are afraid of the numbers you refuse to present.


now you are merely being a arse.
A hypocritical arse to boot.

let present your quote to you:Then your VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

Yes. people like you accept it.
However, ther are people who me who dispute it.


I do not dispute that people accept all manner of lies as truth.


Just because a lie is accepted as truth by some people...
In fact, everyone believing a lie to be true does not make the lie truth.

So your "it is accepted" speech falls flat.


There is nothing to debunk until after you present a full argument.
Your inablity or unwillingness to understand this fact reflects on you, not anyone else.


I understand that you believe this bull **** with all your might.
However, seeing as you have as yet to present evidence enough to prove it, it is merely wishful thinking on your part.


I have never once claimed that all religious people are dangerous.
Nor have I attempted any guilt by association.


Agreed.
Though some people abuse the fact.


what the hell are you going on about now?
The part of your argument that I dispute is your claim that you have presented enough evidence to support your claim.

The fat is that you have not.

You really must be kidding me... It isn't accepted by anyone but you and a few other religious nuts on here that most of history's biggest killers were atheists. They might not have prayed to the same god you do, but most of history's famous killers followed some sort of religion that they used to justify their actions. Atheist killings don't even start to amount to the number of murders committed by religious followers. You can only name three people you claim killed in the name of atheism, one of which was a Catholic. You really think that even if you included Hitler, who wasn't an atheist, that these three people have killed more than all the religious murderers combined? These three haven't even killed as many people as Christianity, let alone every religion.

Then show me another source that has done the same type of comparison my source did. The like has quite a bit of information none of which I have seen refuted with a link. Yes numbers were posted in a response but they still support me so is anyone going to refute my claim with aome sort of evidence or are you just going to discount and deny as usual.