Muslims and Israelites killing people

[agnosticatheist]

1. Christians, do you find the killings carried out by muslims to be horrifying and disgusting?

2. Do you find the killings carried out by the israelites to be horrifying and disgusting?

[KenRU]

Then it should be quite easy to show how they are a distraction. Instead of just saying "You're wrong, I'm right." Repeatedly.

I've shown that atheist governments made atheism and the elimination of religion (and the religious if they persisted in their error) official state policy.

And you've yet to show how there is any link to violence or hatred from the word atheism. You've shown no more a link for that then you have for vegans becoming violent in support of their cause.

Despite my repeatedly asking you about it.

After that, I didn't need to say that I was right and you were wrong.

Further clarification would have been appreciated, and dare I say, expected in civil debate. Guess I was wrong to expect that?

The evidence does the talking for me

The only evidence prevalent here is faulty thinking on your part.

and there's no need for me to indulge this conversation any longer.

Lol, alrighty then. Take your bat and glove and head on home.

I've given you ample opportunity to further the conversation. You choose not to. I'm left to wonder why? Not a difficult question to ponder, mind you.

I find the response "your questions are a distraction" (and no further explanation deemed necessary) to be a woeful attempt at an honest and productive debate and discussion.

How sad.

Have a wonderful Thursday.

You as well.

[JLB32168]

And you've yet to show how there is any link to violence or hatred from the word atheism.

Boris: “Leave religion for atheism or you’re going to the gulag.� Fr. Oleg: “I choose the gulag.�

Yup – no link between atheism and violence – once you remove the fact that Fr. Oleg was executed because he was Fr. Oleg – not just “Comrade� Oleg. Your refusal to confuse the issue with facts isn’t my responsibility and is something I can’t fix.

[KenRU]

And you've yet to show how there is any link to violence or hatred from the word atheism.

Boris: “Leave religion for atheism or you’re going to the gulag.� Fr. Oleg: “I choose the gulag.�

Yup – no link between atheism and violence – once you remove the fact that Fr. Oleg was executed because he was Fr. Oleg – not just “Comrade� Oleg. Your refusal to confuse the issue with facts isn’t my responsibility and is something I can’t fix.

That was a quick hiatus.

Is there the same link between a vegan killing a non vegan?

You're refusal to accept that this link you only allude to (and never specify - other than saying that the word atheism is present) is an incredibly weak one at best, is your fault though.

If there is a link from a disbelief in god(s) and violence, then the same link must exist for a vegan to do violence to meat eaters.

If just the sole existence of an opposing view is a link to violence (as you consistently seem purport) then I submit you've said nothing of import, and nothing to further your stance, and nothing of substance. If another link can be shown, then I will await this insightful revelation.

Or, you can just continue to say that I have no meaningful point, and refuse to say why. Just don't consider this stance any sort of victory or moral high ground.

-all the best

[JLB32168]

Is there the same link between a vegan killing a non vegan?

We’re talking past each other. You said, “And you've yet to show how there is any link to violence or hatred from the word atheism.� When did anyone say that “atheism� was linked to “violence� as if being an atheist means one is predisposed to violence? If that’s your argument then it’s your argument because I’ve certainly never said that being an atheist means being violent.

If that’s your argument then it’s your invention and it’s ridiculous of you to demand that I support a non-argument that is your fiction, falsely made and falsely attributed to me.

What I’m saying is that the assertion “Atheism never inspires anyone to violence� is a bovine fecal matter statement as evinced by the facts of history, namely, the butchers of the communist bloc made atheism official state policy that inspired them to eliminate religion, houses of worship, religious art (no matter how many centuries old it was), and millions of clergy and laity if they wouldn’t apostatize.

[KenRU]

Is there the same link between a vegan killing a non vegan?

We’re talking past each other.

It sure seems that way. Read on for why.

You said, “And you've yet to show how there is any link to violence or hatred from the word atheism.� When did anyone say that “atheism� was linked to “violence�

Right above, your last post: Post 111.

as if being an atheist means one is predisposed to violence?

I repeatedly talked about no link existing from atheism to violence or hatred – no more than anyone might have for any opposing viewpoint. Red vs blue. Vegan vs meat eater.

I said there is no other link from atheism to anything other than a non-belief in gods. You clearly said otherwise.

So, I asked (again and again) for you to illuminate that link.

Can you? Or do you agree with my point?

If that’s your argument then it’s your argument because I’ve certainly never said that being an atheist means being violent.

My point is (once again) that there is no logical link from atheism to violence or hatred, with the exception that any opposing view might inspire. I’ve tried repeatedly to get you to explain why you disagree with this point. Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree, please explain why.

If that’s your argument then it’s your invention

It’s not.

and it’s ridiculous of you to demand that I support a non-argument that is your fiction, falsely made and falsely attributed to me.

I refer you to your own Post 111. What is your “argument� then? If it is not exactly as I read it in Post 111?

JLB:" Yup – no link between atheism and violence – once you remove the fact that Fr. Oleg was executed because he was Fr. Oleg – not just “Comrade� Oleg. Your refusal to confuse the issue with facts isn’t my responsibility and is something I can’t fix."

What I’m saying is that the assertion “Atheism never inspires anyone to violence� is a bovine fecal matter statement as evinced by the facts of history, namely, the butchers of the communist bloc made atheism official state policy that inspired them to eliminate religion, houses of worship, religious art (no matter how many centuries old it was), and millions of clergy and laity if they wouldn’t apostatize.

Yes, you’ve said that repeatedly, but that is the result, that is the action taken by those heinous individuals, but it does not explain what the link is. It does not give us the why.

Religion can be shown to have a direct link to homophobia. That link can be easily exposed by referencing/reading any of the many passages from nearly every holy book condemning homosexuality (rightly or wrongly is IRRELEVANT). The WHY can be shown – it is there.

Please show a link that explains why (as you say) that the sentence “"Atheism never inspires anyone to violence� is a bovine fecal matter statement�. You’ve shown how these governments behaved towards religious institutions. But not the why, not the link.

I still await the why.

Is it just because they were religious? If so, then the same link must exist for (by this argument) anyone who ever disagrees with you. Such as vegans and meat-eaters, or Star Wars fans vs Star Trek fans. Anyone who disagrees with another must then have this same link, correct? You seem to be arguing that any opposing view may inspire anyone to violence.

If not, what makes the atheism to violence explanation of why more substantive than the vegan to meat-eater one?

Our "talking past one another" has nothing to do with me ignoring facts or links. You simply have yet to show the why of your argument. Showing the behavior (the effect) does not explain the why.

Otherwise, if you can't show this why, then I am left to conclude that your view that there is such a link from atheism to violence is nothing more than a rather large load of stinking horse-pucky (I, too, can also use colorful metaphors).

-all the best

[JLB32168]

I said there is no other link from atheism to anything other than a non-belief in gods. You clearly said otherwise.

Why are “links� and “linking� a part of this discussion?

An officially atheist government solemnized atheism into law and targeted specific groups of people with one of those groups being the religious of any faith – Orthodox Christians bearing the brunt of their wrath. The destruction of religious houses of worship, monasteries (Buddhist and Christian), seminaries, art – all fell under their boot. They referred to themselves as militant atheists, set up their own club called the League of Militant Atheists, started their own magazine Bezbozhnic (lit. “the Withoutgods�).

Atheism was their inspiration and destruction of all vestiges of religion was their objective. In the process of spreading atheism, they butchered a million or so believers in all religions – again, the Orthodox hierarchy, clergy, and laity bearing the brunt.

Is it just because they were religious? If so, then the same link must exist for (by this argument) anyone who ever disagrees with you.

That is complimented by calling it “absurd.� They’re stated objective was the liquidation of everything religious. Now you’re saying it wasn’t and that you know better why they did what they did and it’s all in an effort to distance their atheism from their actions because atheists routinely cite the Crusades or modern day Muslim terrorism as reasons why religion is allegedly insidious and if they can cast the atheist marauders of the former Communist bloc as monsters that were informed by anything other than atheism, then they escape falling under their own two-edged sword. Evidence/Facts simply aren’t on your side.

They were atheists. Their stated raison d'etre was the spread of atheism and the destruction of religion. They excelled at their job as evidenced by the fact that they “unevangelized Russia� quite well in thirty years. Culling and summarily executing the religious proved to be quite efficient in accomplishing their ends – most of Russia still remains atheist today.

If not, what makes the atheism to violence explanation of why more substantive than the vegan to meat-eater one?

No one is saying that atheism leads to violence. What you can’t say is that atheism wasn’t the inspiration of people who specifically targeted the religious and that atheism is wholly incapable of inspiring violence. Indeed veganism has inspired violence in some PETA terrorists. Thankfully, it doesn’t inspire most vegans to resort to terrorist acts. Such is the case with atheism. Most atheists aren’t inspired to violence against atheists but indeed atheism has inspired violence against theists in the past and your refusal to acknowledge that only evinces the atheist affinity towards historical revisionism. It ranks up there with American Christian revisionism of the faith of the US Founding Fathers – how they were born-again Christians in spite of the bulk of evidence that suggests that they were confirmed Deists.

[KenRU]

I said there is no other link from atheism to anything other than a non-belief in gods. You clearly said otherwise.

Why are “links� and “linking� a part of this discussion?

Because it is relevant. It elevates your argument from insignificance to having weight. If the link (or the why) is not important, then what is your point?

An officially atheist government solemnized atheism into law and targeted specific groups of people with one of those groups being the religious of any faith – Orthodox Christians bearing the brunt of their wrath. The destruction of religious houses of worship, monasteries (Buddhist and Christian), seminaries, art – all fell under their boot. They referred to themselves as militant atheists, set up their own club called the League of Militant Atheists, started their own magazine Bezbozhnic (lit. “the Withoutgods�).

Atheism was their inspiration and destruction of all vestiges of religion was their objective. In the process of spreading atheism, they butchered a million or so believers in all religions – again, the Orthodox hierarchy, clergy, and laity bearing the brunt.

I'll rephrase, changing atheism to veganism and let's see how it holds up:

An officially vegan government solemnized veganism into law and targeted specific groups of people with one of those groups being the meat eaters – devout carnivores and their establishments bearing the brunt of their wrath. The destruction of burger restaurants and other meat selling establishments – all fell under their boot. They referred to themselves as militant vegans, set up their own club called the League of Militant Vegans, started their own magazine.

Veganism was their inspiration and destruction of all vestiges of meat-eating organizations was their objective. In the process of spreading veganism, they butchered a million or so meat-eaters in all regions – again, butchers, beef entrepreneurs, customers, and beef purveyors bearing the brunt.

What is the link for the vegans in this case?

Again, you cite the intended target. Not what the link is. Not the relationship.

Is it just because they were religious? If so, then the same link must exist for (by this argument) anyone who ever disagrees with you.

That is complimented by calling it “absurd.� They’re stated objective was the liquidation of everything religious.

Great, now show the link from atheism to this stated goal?

Please, I’ll wait patiently while you prove my concern is absurd, lol.

Now you’re saying it wasn’t and that you know better why they did what they did and it’s all in an effort to distance their atheism from their actions because atheists routinely cite the Crusades or modern day Muslim terrorism as reasons why religion is allegedly insidious and if they can cast the atheist marauders of the former Communist bloc as monsters that were informed by anything other than atheism, then they escape falling under their own two-edged sword. Evidence/Facts simply aren’t on your side.

False. The facts are not on your side. You can say otherwise when you establish a link. You still haven’t.

We can identify the villain in both cases:
My argument: Homophobia. Your argument: Communist Governments.

We can identify victims:
Homosexuals. The religious.

But we only get one why/link:
Deuteronomy. ???? _________????

Please do fill in the blank above. If you wish to say atheism, then you need to show how that word links to violence or hatred. Deuteronomy clearly shows animosity to homosexual activity. The definition of atheism does not show animosity to anything.

They were atheists. Their stated raison d'etre was the spread of atheism and the destruction of religion.

Awesome. Now please show how the word atheism says it needs to be spread and calls for the destruction of religion.

If you can do that, you can also show how veganism calls for the destruction and elimination of all meat-eaters.

If not, what makes the atheism to violence explanation of why more substantive than the vegan to meat-eater one?

No one is saying that atheism leads to violence.

Than what are you saying????? This sounds like you agree that there is no logical link from atheism to violence, like there is from religion to homophobia.

What you can’t say is that atheism wasn’t the inspiration of people who specifically targeted the religious and that atheism is wholly incapable of inspiring violence.

As long as you agree that this same reasoning applies to veganism. Or any other opposing view. This "inspiration" you refer to is about as meaningless as it gets. I can say this same inspiration causes bald people to want to cause harm to people with full heads of hair.

If not, please explain WHY!

Indeed veganism has inspired violence in some PETA terrorists. Thankfully, it doesn’t inspire most vegans to resort to terrorist acts. Such is the case with atheism. Most atheists aren’t inspired to violence against atheists but indeed atheism has inspired violence against theists in the past and your refusal to acknowledge that only evinces the atheist affinity towards historical revisionism.

I have repeatedly said that the link/inspiration (etc) from atheism to violence is no more apparent than the link from veganism to violence. I stand by this. No revisionism required. I have NEVER said that atheists do not commit crimes in the name of atheism. You will not find me saying that anywhere.

You, however, have yet to substantiate that when an atheist commits violence in the name of atheism why this is simply not “you’re not like me, I therefore have to kill you�.

Which can be said about anything and any topic. And all it basically says is that man can be intolerant in the extreme.

That was my whole point – then entire time.

It ranks up there with American Christian revisionism of the faith of the US Founding Fathers – how they were born-again Christians in spite of the bulk of evidence that suggests that they were confirmed Deists.

Lol, glad to see that you acknowledge that they were deists.

You can say that I am guilty of revisionism when you show the link to be any more substantive then hating someone who has a differing view (unlike the obvious link which can be shown with Deuteronomy to homophobia).

-all the best

[JLB32168]

If the link (or the why) is not important, then what is your point?

I’m arguing a specific point – that atheism can inspire some people to commit human atrocities – just like theists. You apparently find that unsettling since you believe that for good people to do evil things that takes religion. The idea that atheism, in which you’ve invested so much, can do the same thing is disquieting.

I'll rephrase, changing atheism to veganism and let's see how it holds up. [. . .]. What is the link for the vegans in this case?

Address my arguments as I present them. If vegans butcher carnivores because they’re carnivores then the vegans’ veganism has inspired them to violence. What do you think inspired these vegans to kill carnivores?

Again, you cite the intended target. Not what the link is. Not the relationship.

I’m discussing inspiration. “We’re killing you because you’re theists and won’t accept the state atheism� – the inspiration for their actions is their atheism. I don’t know why you’re avoiding the word “inspiration� here but you’ve consistently refrained from using it and that means you’re not addressing my arguments.

False. The facts are not on your side. You can say otherwise when you establish a link. You still haven’t.

I’m establishing inspiration for actions. Do you care to comment on that?

If you wish to say atheism, then you need to show how that word links to violence or hatred.

No – I need to show that atheism can inspire people to do violent things. Your consistent avoidance of my argument – you’re constant attempt to change it to a general link between being an atheist and being violent as if I’ve suggested such nonsense – is probably not fooling anyone.

Now please show how the word atheism says it needs to be spread and calls for the destruction of religion.

I’m not arguing the definition of atheism. I’m arguing if atheism has inspired people to violence in the past. You say it hasn’t. I disagree and as evidence I’ve provided examples where atheists killed theists simply for being theists.

I have repeatedly said that the link/inspiration (etc) from atheism to violence is no more apparent than the link from veganism to violence.

No one is arguing that there’s a link between veganism and violence or atheism and violence. What I’m arguing is that either can inspire people to violence. “Linkage� suggests an causal relationship between two things or situations especially where one thing affects the other. You’re arguing an argument of your own making and trying to attribute your fiction to me and it’s not working.

I have NEVER said that atheists do not commit crimes in the name of atheism.

So, can atheists commit crimes in the name of atheism – just to clarify?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 115 by JLB32168]

most of Russia still remains atheist today.

*Coughs*
Now I know the following is Wikipedia, but remember, Wikipedia is a collection of sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia

Pay attention to the pie chart. It says that 41% of the population of Russia is Russian Orthodox. Atheist is estimated to be 13%.
So I'm wondering where you got that "most of Russia is atheist today" from.

No one is saying that atheism leads to violence.

...is this a poor attempt at a joke?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 115 by JLB32168]

"An officially atheist government solemnized atheism into law and targeted specific groups of people with one of those groups being the religious of any faith – Orthodox Christians bearing the brunt of their wrath. The destruction of religious houses of worship, monasteries (Buddhist and Christian), seminaries, art – all fell under their boot. They referred to themselves as militant atheists, set up their own club called the League of Militant Atheists, started their own magazine Bezbozhnic (lit. “the Withoutgods�). "

Thank you JLB for enlarging our much lacking knowledge of the history of Russia and other countries under Communism.
We need to be informed so history does not repeat itself.