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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 129 by JLB32168]

It makes sense to me to infer such from what you've written on this site. You rail against atheists for killing millions by pointing to [strike]communist[/strike] atheist governments, when I distinctly remember yourself expressing support for God's supposed ordering of the genocide of the Canaanites, stating it accomplished some 'inscrutable' good.
With all this from you, I honestly think that in your head, killing/genocide, if done because the one doing it believes it's an order from God, is not as bad as an atheist doing it.

[JLB32168]

It makes sense to me to infer such from what you've written on this site. You rail against atheists for killing millions by pointing to [strike]communist[/strike] atheist governments, when I distinctly remember yourself expressing support for God's supposed ordering of the genocide of the Canaanites, stating it accomplished some 'inscrutable' good.

It is a perfectly logical conclusion. [p1]Doing God’s will is the measure for “good.� [p2]God, at one time, ordered the deaths of the indigenous peoples of Canaan. [c]The one time order of the death of the indigenous peoples of Canaan was considered “good.�

Reasons given for this command weren’t completely absent. They practiced human sacrifice of infants and had for a long time; therefore, it was determined that their society was evil and deserved to be judged. Furthermore, God said that the Hebrews would pick up this practice. For at least those two reasons (there might have been more) their destruction was ordered.

With all this from you, I honestly think that in your head, killing/genocide, if done because the one doing it believes it's an order from God, is not as bad as an atheist doing it.

Start a thread on it. I’m addressing the sometimes covert but usually overt assertion that if everyone was an atheist we’d have Eden on Earth (since the religious allegedly have the patent and copyright on butchering people in the name of something.)

BTW, the communists who killed these tens millions didn’t just happen to be atheists as well. Atheism and the extermination of the religion (and the religious if they persisted in their error) was solemnized into law.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 131 by JLB32168]

Well, readers, there we have it. God declares Tribe X guilty of some sin, and as such, must be wiped out, down to the last person.
Yeah...it seems to me that JLB just doesn't look in the mirror. For all the harping he's done on atheists for killings, he just doesn't see that he's in a glass house throwing rocks.
Or maybe he does, but refuses to acknowledge it in any way.
Heck, since this is a debate on Christianity...
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

I’m addressing the sometimes covert but usually overt assertion that if everyone was an atheist we’d have Eden on Earth

To my knowledge, this has not been said on this site by any atheist. If you could quote someone that'd be great.
I myself do not assert that or believe it myself. I think it'd be great if we didn't have religions...but that somehow we'd end up in a utopia?
Nope. I'm all too aware of the flaws of humanity to think that.

(since the religious allegedly have the patent and copyright on butchering people in the name of something.)

Not something said by myself or my atheist comrades (deliberately used that word). I just like to point out that for all the good promoters of a religion point to as having been done by their religion, there's just as much, if not more, harm done by the very same religious followers. Which calls into question how and why an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god would found/use/promote religion as a tool to do some 'good'.

BTW, the communists who killed these tens millions didn’t just happen to be atheists as well. Atheism and the extermination of the religion (and the religious if they persisted in their error) was solemnized into law.

By the way, the religious who killed tens of millions didn't just happen to be religious as well. Theism and the extermination of those of other religions/tribes (and anyone who didn't believe and follow in the 'right' god) was solemnized into law. We have laws in your holy mandating the execution of people for picking up sticks, for crying out loud.
Again, motes and beams.

[JLB32168]

Well, readers, there we have it. God declares Tribe X guilty of some sin, and as such, must be wiped out, down to the last person.

Pretty much. I wish that God would declare a war on the stupid, but alas, God is love and sometimes his ways are inscrutable.

Yeah...it seems to me that JLB just doesn't look in the mirror. For all the harping he's done on atheists for killings, he just doesn't see that he's in a glass house throwing rocks.

Except that I’ve never denied that theists have done horrible things in the name of their religion. Thankfully, most of them don’t do horrid things in the name of their religion. Atheists are the same way.

The difference between what I’m saying and what most atheists here say is that the atheist says, “People can’t do bad things in the name of atheism� when clearly atheists have, in the past, stated that they are doing these horrid things solely because they want to promote atheism while promoting the destruction of theism (and theists if they persist in their stubborn ways.)

To my knowledge, this has not been said on this site by any atheist. If you could quote someone that'd be great.

Yes, the words “Atheism will bring about Eden on Earth� have not been said on this site by any atheist. The idea, however, is routinely articulated by atheists – atheists are more altruistic, are smarter, less violent (all of which are debatable) on numerous threads discussing these types of topics with minor tweaking of vocabulary.

I think it'd be great if we didn't have religions...but that somehow we'd end up in a utopia? Nope. I'm all too aware of the flaws of humanity to think that.

Well, I think you’re one of the few.

[KenRU]

However, religion (with its sexist and homophobic scriptures) instructs and perpetuates hatred and violence.

And here is the crux of this whole discussion. Religion instructs and perpetuates hatred and violence while atheism brings Eden on Earth. Yes, that’s what you mean and it would be silly to suggest otherwise.

I mean no such thing, and I would ask (kindly for now) that you refrain from phrasing my responses that way.

What atheists don’t like being told is that they’re just as adept at being hateful and violent and history bears that out.

No, you still don’t get it. What atheists don’t like being told is that atheism can inspire people to violence (any more than any other opposing view).

I really wish you could grasp this very simple concept.

The “inspiration� is the scriptures themselves.

Right – theists have a book that tells them to kill. Atheists don’t. They just invent a reason – such as eliminating the opiate of the masses. This is why I don’t see how you can’t see the total lack of value of your point which essentially says, “Yes, we killed tens of millions; however, at least when we killed our tens of millions it wasn’t because a book told us to – we just pulled a reason out of our a$$ets and called it ‘counter-revolutionary’.�

That’s a real stellar argument to bring to the table on how atheism is superior to religion.

You seem to be getting it!

Yay for JLB! Those atheists did indeed pull it out of their collective keisters! Just as a vegan would if inspired to violence.

As for it being a stellar argument, my point, way back in Post #29, was that atheism has no correlation to anything other than a lack of belief. And, on the flip side, religion has a holy book which may be the catalyst for some acts of hatred and violence.

In my Post 42, I said that there is no link from atheism to violence. In your post 43, you said my assertion meritless.

Now, you say that atheism can be an “inspiration� to violence, and admit to no link. This inspiration, you concede, is pulled from an atheist's behind. And I agree with you!

Welcome to the beginning of the conversation, my friend.

Phew, that took a while. Glad we got to the same page.

-all the best

[JLB32168]

What atheists don’t like being told is that atheism can inspire people to violence (any more than any other opposing view).

No one said that atheism inspired people to violence any more than another other opposing view. What was said was that atheism can inspire people to violence and has inspired people to violence.

As for it being a stellar argument, my point, way back in Post #29, was that atheism has no correlation to anything other than a lack of belief.

Yes, and that is rot. “Atheism� and “secular humanism� are essentially interchangeable so as to make delineating between the two quite pointless; however, it is routinely done by atheists who wish to limit “atheism� to “non-belief in deities� so as to distance atheism from the atrocities done in its name.

Oh – I forgot – bad things can’t be done in the name of atheism (even if the
atheists doing those bad things say they’re doing bad things in the name of atheism. They’re just wrong.)

I understand your argument quite plainly and have throughout this whole thread. I think it is meritless. You think the same of mine except yours is founded upon no warrant of evidence but upon the atheist blinders that so many seem to delight in wearing. Sadly, that means you'll most likely repeat them in the future. Hopefully I'll be dead by then.

Have a great day.

[KenRU]

What atheists don’t like being told is that atheism can inspire people to violence (any more than any other opposing view).

No one said that atheism inspired people to violence any more than another other opposing view.

We agree.

As for it being a stellar argument, my point, way back in Post #29, was that atheism has no correlation to anything other than a lack of belief.

Yes, and that is rot. “Atheism� and “secular humanism� are essentially interchangeable so as to make delineating between the two quite pointless;

This would only be true if you wish to ignore definitions and the meanings of words.

I don’t think that is a good idea.

Why do you?

however, it is routinely done by atheists who wish to limit “atheism� to “non-belief in deities� so as to distance atheism from the atrocities done in its name.

Sorry but no. You have already admitted there is no reason to do so.

JLB: No one said that atheism inspired people to violence any more than another other opposing view.

So, now which is it? Are we trying to distance ourselves from something that, by your admission, leads no one to violence any more than any other opposing view? Why would anyone want to do that?

Oh – I forgot – bad things can’t be done in the name of atheism (even if the
atheists doing those bad things say they’re doing bad things in the name of atheism. They’re just wrong.)

Yes, they would be wrong. By your own logic.

I understand your argument quite plainly and have throughout this whole thread. I think it is meritless. You think the same of mine except yours is founded upon no warrant of evidence but upon the atheist blinders that so many seem to delight in wearing. Sadly, that means you'll most likely repeat them in the future. Hopefully I'll be dead by then.

Have a great day.

If I were prone to attack your character (as you have done to me repeatedly), I might reply “right back at ya my friend.�

But I won’t.

The laughable part of this reply is that you say I have no evidence, when I can simply point to the many sexist and homophobic passages in the bible, while all you can do is point to some amorphous “inspiration� and blur the definitions of Atheism and Secular Humanism (which, as far as I know, does not call for any violence either, so I’m not sure how that furthers your point, but that is the least of your problems, lol).

And you say I have no evidence.

While our conversation was clearly a frustrating one, I don’t think I ever resorted to abusing your character or being disrespectful (if I did, point it out and I will sincerely apologize immediately – as I try very hard to not be disrespectful).

Too bad you can’t say the same.

I guess this atheist's standards are higher than the theist's in this case?

Despite our differences, JLB, I do wish you all the best.

[JLB32168]

This would only be true if you wish to ignore definitions and the meanings of words. I don’t think that is a good idea. Why do you?

The distinctions between being an atheist and being a secular humanist are insignificant, R. Atheists have a worldview because they simply cannot go through not having a philosophy of life and that philosophy when articulated in ten points give or take a few jibes with that of secular humanism as though they’re mirror images. I see no reason to delineate between the two and think that it is unreasonable for atheists to make the demand and I don’t accommodate unreasonableness.

So, now which is it? Are we trying to distance ourselves from something that, by your admission, leads no one to violence any more than any other opposing view? Why would anyone want to do that?

Atheism doesn’t lead one to violence any more than any other opposing view, but atheism has led some to violence – very extreme violence – on multiple occasions. People would want to distance themselves from that because it makes the trotting out of the Crusades as the quintessential example of the danger of religion seem less effective since clearly people w/o religion are capable of behaving just as badly as the Crusaders.

Yes, they would be wrong.

Is it your logic that atheists whose stated purpose was the wiping of religion from the face of the earth (and the religious if they persisted in their error) weren’t acting in the name of their atheism? Do you know their motives better than they knew their motives? That certainly seems to be what you’re suggesting.

If I were prone to attack your character (as you have done to me repeatedly), I might reply “right back at ya my friend.�

I wasn’t addressing you personally. I was addressing the mindset of denial – one that always leads to a repeat of previous mistakes. In this case the assertion “Atheism doesn’t inspire people to violence� is juxtaposed against the image of a group of atheists who form a national organization called the League of Militant Atheists, who start a magazine called Bezbozhnik“Withoutgod� and who specifically target religious houses of worship for destruction or conversion into anti-religious museums, and who kill theists en masse to the tune of tens of millions if they don’t apostatize.

“But atheism had no part in it� seems to be the typical atheist, mind-numbing response. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. It's a mindset of “Let’s not confuse the issue with facts� and it always leads to a repeat of past mistakes.

I guess this atheist's standards are higher than the theist's in this case?

I apologize if you were offended personally. I thought my intent was clear that I was addressing a general mindset. If you feel that you have this mindset then I can’t be responsible for that.

Have a good evening.

[KenRU]

This would only be true if you wish to ignore definitions and the meanings of words. I don’t think that is a good idea. Why do you?

The distinctions between being an atheist and being a secular humanist are insignificant, R.

To you, they are insignificant. Is the distinction between a theist and a Catholic insignificant, as well? Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and others are very reasonable worldviews.

Atheists have a worldview because they simply cannot go through not having a philosophy of life and that philosophy when articulated in ten points give or take a few jibes with that of secular humanism as though they’re mirror images. I see no reason to delineate between the two and think that it is unreasonable for atheists to make the demand and I don’t accommodate unreasonableness.

Well, then this seems to be your problem then. Please don’t make it someone else’s by telling them they are wrong. You know not what my worldview is, and so saying that my worldview is atheism says nothing of substance about my morals, beliefs and sense of right or wrong.

Atheism would be the opposite side of the coin to theism (and Deism, if you want to be picky). That is it. By definition. Anything else is brought to the definition by YOU.

So, now which is it? Are we trying to distance ourselves from something that, by your admission, leads no one to violence any more than any other opposing view? Why would anyone want to do that?

Atheism doesn’t lead one to violence any more than any other opposing view, but atheism has led some to violence – very extreme violence – on multiple occasions. People would want to distance themselves from that because it makes the trotting out of the Crusades as the quintessential example of the danger of religion seem less effective since clearly people w/o religion are capable of behaving just as badly as the Crusaders.

Is there a call to violence (slaying the infidels, for example) in the crusaders holy books? Isn’t there an outright intolerance to homosexuality in these holy books and religion by extension? Doesn’t this factor into this “blame game� you cite?

I acknowledge that the violent behavior by militant atheists is equally deplorable (given your comparison). I am NOT condoning or excusing any bad behavior.

I am examining the why. I think it is very telling and revelatory.

Yes, they would be wrong.

Is it your logic that atheists whose stated purpose was the wiping of religion from the face of the earth (and the religious if they persisted in their error) weren’t acting in the name of their atheism?

I do not presume to say someone is lying, so if they state that is their reason, I agree then that is their reason. It doesn’t mean I agree it is a cohesive one. Or that it even makes sense. I can kill people for wearing the color blue. It doesn’t mean that my logic is sound.

Do you know their motives better than they knew their motives? That certainly seems to be what you’re suggesting.

This shows you are not reading thoughtfully my responses. I have said repeatedly that I agree that say that, yes, and that is the reasons they are doing what they do.

Let me put it this way: If (when I was a Catholic) I killed people who didn’t believe in Christ or take him as their savior, would that be the fault in any way of Christianity? After all, as you say, Christ, would be my “inspiration�. But this “inspiration� has no basis in the teachings of Christ, correct? So, my violence says nothing about Christianity or Christ, correct?

So, the same logic applies to atheism. If someone says they are killing in the name of atheism, then this violence says nothing of atheism, as the word atheism does not call for any violence.

However, if someone says they are killing homosexuals in the name of god, well, we can point to multiple verses of the Quran and the Bible for reasons why. That is an important factor that should not be ignored.

“But atheism had no part in it� seems to be the typical atheist, mind-numbing response. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. It's a mindset of “Let’s not confuse the issue with facts� and it always leads to a repeat of past mistakes.

I agree, denial is a powerful tool employed by many people, and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Like denying that an “inspiration� (which you admit is pulled out of one’s behind) is equally as powerful an “inspiration� as the "divinely-inspired" written holy books with passages that can be reasonably interpreted as a call for intolerance, sexism and violence.

If it is ok (which I agree it is) to say atheism has nothing to say on good or right behavior, then it is equally correct (which I also agree with) to say that it also says nothing on bad or violent behavior.

I guess this atheist's standards are higher than the theist's in this case?

I apologize if you were offended personally. I thought my intent was clear that I was addressing a general mindset. If you feel that you have this mindset then I can’t be responsible for that.

That’s one whopper of a condition you tacked on to your apology, JLB. You’ll forgive me if I find myself calling it’s sincerity into question.

-all the best

[JLB32168]

To you, they are insignificant. Is the distinction between a theist and a Catholic insignificant, as well?

You’re implying that the distinctions between an animist and observant RC are the same as a secular humanist and that of an atheist. A secular-humanist is one whose worldview entails the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God. Atheists believe that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment w/o belief in God – a tenet routinely articulated here on this website as well as hundreds more by atheists. Therefore, an Atheist is a Secular Humanist. One may describe “Naturalism� as distinct but it’s defined as a philosophical viewpoint where everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted and certainly delving into naturalist websites one finds the same thing – that man is capable of achieving morality and self-fulfillment w/o belief in God.

Is there a call to violence (slaying the infidels, for example) in the crusaders holy books?

Yes. How does it change the fact that atheism and interpretations of texts such as the Manifesto of the Communist Party have led some to violence – very extreme violence – on multiple occasions? It doesn’t.

I acknowledge that the violent behavior by militant atheists is equally deplorable (given your comparison). I am NOT condoning or excusing any bad behavior.

Yes, but you’re not acknowledging that atheism and it’s spread was the purpose – even when they specifically said that atheism was the impetus for their actions. I asked you earlier, “Do you know their motivations better than they did?�

I do not presume to say someone is lying, so if they state that is their reason, I agree then that is their reason. It doesn’t mean I agree it is a cohesive one. Or that it even makes sense. I can kill people for wearing the color blue. It doesn’t mean that my logic is sound.

Those are all ancillary issues. They killed people and did it in the name of atheism; therefore, atheism can inspire people to violence and challenges to that simply aren’t based upon fact.

Let me put it this way: If (when I was a Catholic) I killed people who didn’t believe in Christ or take him as their savior, would that be the fault in any way of Christianity?

Fault has nothing to do with it. If Catholics did this and said that Catholicism was their inspiration then it was. Now, whether or not they were following the tenets of their faith is different.

That’s one whopper of a condition you tacked on to your apology, JLB. You’ll forgive me if I find myself calling it’s sincerity into question.

My conscience is clear as to whether or not I was attacking you personally. I wasn’t.