The Beauty of Atheism

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It's not ok for someone to kill someone else regardless if they are atheist or not; but if someone DOES kill someone, unless they SPECIFICALLY said they killed them because of atheism, it is a red herring to bring up the fact that he or she is atheist. That is the difference between people in the past killing others in the name of religions versus the atheists of the modern era killing people. How are you not getting this? One is intentionally linked to the person's religion (because the person said so) the other is just a red herring (because the person didn't mention the killings were because of his religion).

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: kellyjay

Did I ever say that atheism was the cause? No, I didn't. True or false: There were men who ruled that were atheist who killed millions of people, is that true of false?

your headline "the beauty of atheism" suggests that you are, yes MEN killed thats where it ends as they didnt kill in the name of atheism...thats like saying 2 of them had moustaches so they killed because of moustaches....

its irrelevant....

Ok, but you just couldn't bring yourself to admit that they were atheist could you?

I simply didnt add it to the equation because its irrelevant.....why you added it to the equation is perplexing unless of course you dont like like atheists and simply tried to attribute those genocides to atheists as their fault? in which case your OP is just reaching

Come on now, of course it's their fault, they were the ones doing the killing, regardless if they did in the name of atheism or not. What then, did they stop being atheist while they were committing these horrifying murders? The point is, these men where atheist and they killed people, I don't understand what so hard about accepting that as a fact.

They all had penises, maybe its penises fault, or maybe its just men that are to blame? that's using your own logic

You still don't get it do you? So basically your saying that atheist have never committed mass murder right? Again all I have said is that men who were atheist committed some horrifying acts. I have never said that atheism in general was the cause. Your just trying to make it seem like I'm saying something which have not said. Nice try though.

uhuh, so then atheism remains untarnished, and religion has actually killed more people in the world.

thanks

Untarnished, lol. So atheist who kill people is irrelevant right?

no, bad men killed people, them being atheist is a moot point, because they didnt kill in the name of atheism remember?

so yes religion has killed more

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: kellyjay

Did I ever say that atheism was the cause? No, I didn't. True or false: There were men who ruled that were atheist who killed millions of people, is that true of false?

your headline "the beauty of atheism" suggests that you are, yes MEN killed thats where it ends as they didnt kill in the name of atheism...thats like saying 2 of them had moustaches so they killed because of moustaches....

its irrelevant....

Ok, but you just couldn't bring yourself to admit that they were atheist could you?

I simply didnt add it to the equation because its irrelevant.....why you added it to the equation is perplexing unless of course you dont like like atheists and simply tried to attribute those genocides to atheists as their fault? in which case your OP is just reaching

Come on now, of course it's their fault, they were the ones doing the killing, regardless if they did in the name of atheism or not. What then, did they stop being atheist while they were committing these horrifying murders? The point is, these men where atheist and they killed people, I don't understand what so hard about accepting that as a fact.

They all had penises, maybe its penises fault, or maybe its just men that are to blame? that's using your own logic

You still don't get it do you? So basically your saying that atheist have never committed mass murder right? Again all I have said is that men who were atheist committed some horrifying acts. I have never said that atheism in general was the cause. Your just trying to make it seem like I'm saying something which have not said. Nice try though.

uhuh, so then atheism remains untarnished, and religion has actually killed more people in the world.

thanks

Untarnished, lol. So atheist who kill people is irrelevant right?

you cant have it both ways, either your claim is atheism is the cause for these genocides in which case atheism is to blame

or

these MEN killed all those people and religion has been a bigger cause of genocides...so which is it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I swear you guys know how slither your way out of anything. Just won't admit the fact that there were atheist who where just as sick in the head as some of the religious.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: kellyjay

Did I ever say that atheism was the cause? No, I didn't. True or false: There were men who ruled that were atheist who killed millions of people, is that true of false?

your headline "the beauty of atheism" suggests that you are, yes MEN killed thats where it ends as they didnt kill in the name of atheism...thats like saying 2 of them had moustaches so they killed because of moustaches....

its irrelevant....

Ok, but you just couldn't bring yourself to admit that they were atheist could you?

I simply didnt add it to the equation because its irrelevant.....why you added it to the equation is perplexing unless of course you dont like like atheists and simply tried to attribute those genocides to atheists as their fault? in which case your OP is just reaching

Come on now, of course it's their fault, they were the ones doing the killing, regardless if they did in the name of atheism or not. What then, did they stop being atheist while they were committing these horrifying murders? The point is, these men where atheist and they killed people, I don't understand what so hard about accepting that as a fact.

They all had penises, maybe its penises fault, or maybe its just men that are to blame? that's using your own logic

You still don't get it do you? So basically your saying that atheist have never committed mass murder right? Again all I have said is that men who were atheist committed some horrifying acts. I have never said that atheism in general was the cause. Your just trying to make it seem like I'm saying something which have not said. Nice try though.

uhuh, so then atheism remains untarnished, and religion has actually killed more people in the world.

thanks

Untarnished, lol. So atheist who kill people is irrelevant right?

you cant have it both ways, either your claim is atheism is the cause for these genocides in which case atheism is to blame

or

these MEN killed all those people and religion has been a bigger cause of genocides...so which is it?

Seriously, you need go back and read the OP, because apparently you just don't get it.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: kellyjay

Did I ever say that atheism was the cause? No, I didn't. True or false: There were men who ruled that were atheist who killed millions of people, is that true of false?

your headline "the beauty of atheism" suggests that you are, yes MEN killed thats where it ends as they didnt kill in the name of atheism...thats like saying 2 of them had moustaches so they killed because of moustaches....

its irrelevant....

Ok, but you just couldn't bring yourself to admit that they were atheist could you?

I simply didnt add it to the equation because its irrelevant.....why you added it to the equation is perplexing unless of course you dont like like atheists and simply tried to attribute those genocides to atheists as their fault? in which case your OP is just reaching

Come on now, of course it's their fault, they were the ones doing the killing, regardless if they did in the name of atheism or not. What then, did they stop being atheist while they were committing these horrifying murders? The point is, these men where atheist and they killed people, I don't understand what so hard about accepting that as a fact.

They all had penises, maybe its penises fault, or maybe its just men that are to blame? that's using your own logic

You still don't get it do you? So basically your saying that atheist have never committed mass murder right? Again all I have said is that men who were atheist committed some horrifying acts. I have never said that atheism in general was the cause. Your just trying to make it seem like I'm saying something which have not said. Nice try though.

uhuh, so then atheism remains untarnished, and religion has actually killed more people in the world.

thanks

Untarnished, lol. So atheist who kill people is irrelevant right?

so yes religion has killed more

Not in the last 100 years, atheist have that sowed up.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: kellyjay

Did I ever say that atheism was the cause? No, I didn't. True or false: There were men who ruled that were atheist who killed millions of people, is that true of false?

your headline "the beauty of atheism" suggests that you are, yes MEN killed thats where it ends as they didnt kill in the name of atheism...thats like saying 2 of them had moustaches so they killed because of moustaches....

its irrelevant....

Ok, but you just couldn't bring yourself to admit that they were atheist could you?

I simply didnt add it to the equation because its irrelevant.....why you added it to the equation is perplexing unless of course you dont like like atheists and simply tried to attribute those genocides to atheists as their fault? in which case your OP is just reaching

Come on now, of course it's their fault, they were the ones doing the killing, regardless if they did in the name of atheism or not. What then, did they stop being atheist while they were committing these horrifying murders? The point is, these men where atheist and they killed people, I don't understand what so hard about accepting that as a fact.

They all had penises, maybe its penises fault, or maybe its just men that are to blame? that's using your own logic

You still don't get it do you? So basically your saying that atheist have never committed mass murder right? Again all I have said is that men who were atheist committed some horrifying acts. I have never said that atheism in general was the cause. Your just trying to make it seem like I'm saying something which have not said. Nice try though.

uhuh, so then atheism remains untarnished, and religion has actually killed more people in the world.

thanks

Untarnished, lol. So atheist who kill people is irrelevant right?

you cant have it both ways, either your claim is atheism is the cause for these genocides in which case atheism is to blame

or

these MEN killed all those people and religion has been a bigger cause of genocides...so which is it?

Seriously, you need go back and read the OP, because apparently you just don't get it.

oh i get it...your trying to attribute those murders to atheism, but you have been called out on it...

you have said countless times that you did not say atheism was the cause, so if it isnt the cause then religion has killed more because atheism is a moot point seeing as it was not the cause

but then you try and backtrack and attribute atheism again to those genocides....its clear you are confused

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: kellyjay

Did I ever say that atheism was the cause? No, I didn't. True or false: There were men who ruled that were atheist who killed millions of people, is that true of false?

your headline "the beauty of atheism" suggests that you are, yes MEN killed thats where it ends as they didnt kill in the name of atheism...thats like saying 2 of them had moustaches so they killed because of moustaches....

its irrelevant....

Ok, but you just couldn't bring yourself to admit that they were atheist could you?

I simply didnt add it to the equation because its irrelevant.....why you added it to the equation is perplexing unless of course you dont like like atheists and simply tried to attribute those genocides to atheists as their fault? in which case your OP is just reaching

Come on now, of course it's their fault, they were the ones doing the killing, regardless if they did in the name of atheism or not. What then, did they stop being atheist while they were committing these horrifying murders? The point is, these men where atheist and they killed people, I don't understand what so hard about accepting that as a fact.

They all had penises, maybe its penises fault, or maybe its just men that are to blame? that's using your own logic

You still don't get it do you? So basically your saying that atheist have never committed mass murder right? Again all I have said is that men who were atheist committed some horrifying acts. I have never said that atheism in general was the cause. Your just trying to make it seem like I'm saying something which have not said. Nice try though.

uhuh, so then atheism remains untarnished, and religion has actually killed more people in the world.

thanks

Untarnished, lol. So atheist who kill people is irrelevant right?

so yes religion has killed more

Not in the last 100 years, atheist have that sowed up.

do i need to mention the middle east? and islam right now?

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Howdy,

That's a fine list, but not what is necessary to prove a causal link between atheism and genocidal tendencies. You said in your first post...

"These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist." and before that...
"Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

I am specifically asking you for your sources that demonstrate a CAUSAL correlation between atheism and genocidal tendencies. At best, what you provide shows only correlation between genocide and atheism, despite your assertion that these reprehensible murders and killings were not committed "by people who simply happened to be atheist[s]." That is, I kindly asked you to provide me information showing causality, not just (at best) correlation.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Howdy,

Please do read this post of mine, which I have quoted for your convenience, which I left on the front page of this thread. Specifically, note the section where I quote your OP. For your convenience, I will add that below. You appear to be either inconsistent or backpedaling. Either way, you have now changed your argument. You did indeed imply a causal link, and furthermore, you implied that atheism was central to the inspiration of the genocides.

From your OP...
"These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."
"Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

If you feel I am in error, please explain how you are not implying causation or that these genocides were not committed with heavy inspiration from atheism. Please do respond, as I am feeling as though you are avoiding this issue.

Regards,
Hydeman

Well, as this thread goes along we may all come to the conclusion that we are people, and people like to kill other people.
Atheists are killing people for being religious, and religious people are killing them for being atheists.
Atheists or religious, that's just a petty excuse for doing what people do best: killing each other.
Does it really matter what excuse is used?

Pointing fingers is also IMO a form of self justifying so we can keep doing it.
And we are keep doing it; even in this very moment somewhere, someone is killing someone else for some religion or the absence of it.
Is someone keeping the score?

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Not in the last 100 years, atheist have that sowed up.

There exists a very tedious theist argument that keeps popping up, and no matter how many times you kill it, it keeps coming back, in fact its almost akin to a game of whack-a-mole at times. It goes like this …

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were atheists, they all were responsible for terrible mass murder; therefore, atheism is responsible for terrible mass murder.

OK then, the way to really address this is to start by identifying the logical fallacy. Its called “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, and that Latin phrase means “after this, therefore because of this,“. What does this really mean? Well its a way of pointing out that sometimes people make the mistake of thinking that something is responsible for causing something else, when in reality there is no connection at all. For example, if I step out into my yard and cut the grass and it then starts to rain, “Ah ha, evidence … quite clearly cutting grass causes rain”...

Link
Courtesy of WoodCarver from page 2. The difference is that no causality can be shown to atheism, but it CAN be shown to religion. And has been, right in this thread.

a reply to: hydeman11

Love to see the op get out of that one.

OP, unfortunately you and the atheists here are appealing to hypocrisy, which is a fallacy. The easiest way to refute their premise that religion is the cause of the world’s woes is not to claim them to be hypocrites, (doing so does nothing to refute their argument) but to ask by what causal mechanism religion does so, as others have asked you.

Saying atheism is a cause of genocide is about the same as saying theism is the cause of genocide. It is a non-sequitur. Obviously there are non-genocidal atheists and theists. In fact, the vast majority of atheists and theists are non-genocidal. One could make a better argument arguing the opposite. The same goes with blaming religion for our woes, which is an apparent atheist trump card. Of course, one willing to believe people commit evil in the name of religion, must also admit people commit good in the name of religion, as people also give to charity, help others, and avoid overindulgence in the name of their religion.

Though I cannot think of any other principle besides atheism and irreligion that would compel any ideology to promote and enforce atheism among its populace, and thus allowing religious persecution to be committed, it is at least interesting to note the sheer sophistry one is willing to commit to defend something that, according to them, isn’t an ideology, religion or “ism”.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: hydeman11

Love to see the op get out of that one.

doubt it, he has done a dissapearing act

a reply to: hydeman11
An excellent post. Food for thought, on both ends of the spectrum.

a reply to: hydeman11

I wasn't ignoring your post, I was little tired last night and your post were kind of long so I thought I'd wait till today to respond.

Your right, I did say "atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration" what do I mean when I say that? It simply means that the view they were holding were in fact the views of atheism, although it might be better to say atheist in nature. What are those views they were holding you might ask? Well Stalin said "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." Do atheist not hold this same view? Stalin also adopted the Russian Communist Party’s stance on religion, claiming atheism and continuing the tradition of teaching atheism in schools and propagating the idea that religion was only damaging to a perfect communist society.

Stalin and others like him wanted a world without religion one where God is not needed. In short he wanted a world full of atheist. Does this mean that atheism is to blame? Not really. But it does show the sick mind of this atheist. Do you disagree with that.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: hydeman11

Love to see the op get out of that one.

doubt it, he has done a dissapearing act

Puff, I'm back. I'm at work right now so I really can't make long post without getting caught. But I'm loving the bullets being fired so I plan to stick around as long as possible.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: hydeman11

I wasn't ignoring your post, I was little tired last night and your post were kind of long so I thought I'd wait till today to respond.

Your right, I did say "atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration" what do I mean when I say that? It simply means that the view they were holding were in fact the views of atheism, although it might be better to say atheist in nature. What are those views they were holding you might ask? Well Stalin said "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." Do atheist not hold this same view? Stalin also adopted the Russian Communist Party’s stance on religion, claiming atheism and continuing the tradition of teaching atheism in schools and propagating the idea that religion was only damaging to a perfect communist society.

Stalin and others like him wanted a world without religion one where God is not needed. In short he wanted a world full of atheist. Does this mean that atheism is to blame? Not really. But it does show the sick mind of this atheist. Do you disagree with that.

That is a more reasonable point, but I would add that Stalin was more than an atheist. He was also an anti-theist, and anti-religionist. An atheist holds to a lack of belief in deities. Nothing else defines the atheist. Anti-theists on the other hand, are similar to what you describe Stalin to be. He was a twisted man though, and even anti-theists would distance themselves from him.

I see no reason whatsoever to rid the earth of personal faith and spirituality. It is when religion becomes legalistic and theocratic in its theology that the problems arise. It is when religion threatens, forces, and/or coerces others, as well as influencing government/laws that we see major issues. Religion is a personal walk of faith. It has no business dictating the lives of others. Especially those who do not subscribe to said religion. By the same token, the non-religious have no business trying to rid the earth of the faithful. We CAN find a middle ground, if both sides agree to do so.
Unfortunately, the theology of the big three have made that near impossible. That is why this battle rages on, and will continue to become even more prevalent in the 21rst century. The non-believing population is growing, and becoming more vocal about the things they once remained silent about, often for fear of reprisal.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People kill people but religion can make a good man do bad things.
In the name of their religion.
I'm not sure If an atheist or anti theist will kill because they lack religion or God.
I dunno.
But at the end of the day killing other people is still part of the human condition and will continue until we evolve.
Yeah kinda depressing

a reply to: boymonkey74

People kill people but religion can make a good man do bad things.
In the name of their religion.
I'm not sure If an atheist or anti theist will kill because they lack religion or God.
I dunno.
But at the end of the day killing other people is still part of the human condition and will continue until we evolve.
Yeah kinda depressing

I don't think that is the case, nor do I think there is any evidence for such an argument. I find it an excuse to blame the religion. Surely you know a believer or two? Are they bad people?