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?

[JLB32168]

Pay attention to the pie chart. It says that 41% of the population of Russia is Russian Orthodox. Atheist is estimated to be 13%.

Then my stats are old and the decline of global atheism that was brought to the table on another thread is confirmed again.

Me: No one is saying that atheism leads to violence. Thee: ...is this a poor attempt at a joke?

I have never asserted that being an atheist means being violent. What I have asserted is that atheism has inspired some atheists to commit great crimes in the name of atheism – an fact that atheists routinely deny.

The stated objective of the League of Militant Atheists was the liquidation of everything religious. Atheists routinely say it wasn’t and that they know better why the LoMA did what they did. This revisionism is an effort to distance atheism from the actions of atheists because atheists routinely trot out the Crusades or modern day Muslim terrorism as reasons why religion is allegedly insidious while implying that if everyone was atheist then Earth would be Eden. If atheists 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 the atheist side and that is why they are constantly having to debate the topic. 

The LoMA 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 in the millions proved to be quite efficient in accomplishing their ends. Atheists are as able as calling something a philosophy and rampaging in the name of that self-made philosophy and no amount of atheist spin will change that.

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

JLB posted:

I have never asserted that being an atheist means being violent. What I have asserted is that atheism has inspired some atheists to commit great crimes in the name of atheism – an fact that atheists routinely deny.

QUESTION: Then please state two and provide the evidence for your assertion.

[Willum]

So, 90% of the topic has been a successful diversion to talk about atheists.

So, I would suggest that the majority of atheists were strongly influenced by being raised and formented in a Catholic environment., therefore would imply the crimes of the atheist lie squarely on the feet of their religious background.
Perhaps this will get us back on topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jduMIUt9M3M

[JLB32168]

QUESTION: Then please state two and provide the evidence for your assertion.

Did it already

Ain't doin' it a fourth time. Go back and read my posts on this thread.

[KenRU]

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 might, if it can be shown to be true.

]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.

I am. You seemed to be not understanding my point. Until now.

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?

Exactly my point, this “inspiration� as you call it, is nothing more than an opposing view. It can be applied to anything. And this says nothing, other than some people are tolerant, while others are not.

That is my point. There is nothing inherent in veganism or atheism that should inspire violence other than someone holding an opposing view. And if that is the point you are making, then I assert that it is not much of a point at all.

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.

Apologies if I wasn’t clear. But, when I use "link" I am using it synonymously with "inspiration". This inspiration you cite, is the link from thought to action.

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?

Sure. This “inspiration� is nothing more than someone being faced with an opposing view. Please show it is more than that, if you can.

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.

You’re missing my point. I am not saying that you are arguing that atheism yields violent behavior.

I AM saying that this “inspiration� you cite is nothing more than being confronted with an opposing view.

As you conceded above about vegans and violence.

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.

Once again, this is simply an opposing view. I see you’ve avoided my analogy. I wonder why?

Here it is. Please feel free to fill in the blank:

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. ???? _________????

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.

This is just semantics, and isn’t holding any water. This inspiration, as you say, is the link for the purposes of our conversation. If there is no link, that what are you even talking about? Your “inspiration� is the link.

I understand that you are not arguing a causal relationship. I’m trying to discuss how little weight this “inspiration� you cite has, and how insignificant it is to the discussion at hand. Any opposing thought can “inspire� someone to violence. That is what you seem to be proposing.

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?

Of course. Some people are more tolerant than others. This is human nature. Which seems to be (upon closer examination) all that you have been saying. Atheism is no more relevant to your point then veganism or any other subject.

-all the best

[JLB32168]

Me: 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.

Thee: I might, if it can be shown to be true.

Is it your contention that a group called the League of Militant Athiests who has their won magazine Bebozhnic(the WithoutGods) and who calls for the destruction of all vestiges of religion consists of people inspired by something else other than the desire to spread atheism? If that’s the case then this is yet another case of atheist historical revisionism and the refusal to let a discussion be encumbered by facts and evidence (i.e. “Don’t confuse me with the facts.�)

Exactly my point, this “inspiration� as you call it, is nothing more than an opposing view. It can be applied to anything. And this says nothing, other than some people are tolerant, while others are not.

Okay – and you felt the need to tell me what I already knew because . . . what exactly?
I was addressing your abject refusal to concede that atheists can do monstrous things in the name of atheism, which simply doesn’t jibe with historical fact – not that I think you’ll be dissuaded from your belief by facts against said belief.

But, when I use "link" I am using it synonymously with "inspiration". This inspiration you cite, is the link from thought to action.

Right – the fact that they formed clubs with “Atheist/Atheism� in the name and had a magazine that advertised their non-beliefs and the fact that they culled and killed theists who didn’t embrace their same worldview should in no way lead one to conclude that atheism actually had a role in it. I understand your argument loud and clear.
It’s complimented by calling it outrageously preposterous rot.

I AM saying that this “inspiration� you cite is nothing more than being confronted with an opposing view.

Okay – so you want to clarify a nonpoint that I’ve never made.

Once again, this is simply an opposing view. I see you’ve avoided my analogy. I wonder why?

Your analogy is a distraction that attempts to confuse the issue – namely that atheists can do monstrous things in the name of atheism. The degree of spin you have used to attempt to confuse things is quite impressive – perhaps one of the best I’ve seen.

My argument: Homophobia. Your argument: Communist Governments.

Why don’t we add in the price of tea in Beijing v. the price in Shanghai?

I understand that you are not arguing a causal relationship.

Here’s the significance. “Theism makes people violent� is trotted out by atheists ad nauseam – all while they imply that atheism would bring Nirvana – all while ignoring the fact that atheists have demonstrated themselves to be no less susceptible to monstrosities common to all man; therefore, atheism isn't the panacea that you guys make it out to be.
I hope that was crystal clear since that has been my consistent point.

[KenRU]

Me: 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.

Thee: I might, if it can be shown to be true.

Is it your contention that a group called the League of Militant Athiests who has their won magazine
Bebozhnic(the WithoutGods) and who calls for the destruction of all vestiges of religion consists of people inspired by something else other than the desire to spread atheism?

Nope.

If that’s the case then this is yet another case of atheist historical revisionism and the refusal to let a discussion be encumbered by facts and evidence (i.e. “Don’t confuse me with the facts.�)

Well, then. You should be glad it is not that then.

Exactly my point, this “inspiration� as you call it, is nothing more than an opposing view. It can be applied to anything. And this says nothing, other than some people are tolerant, while others are not.

Okay – and you felt the need to tell me what I already knew because . . . what exactly?

Because, as I said multiple times now, this position says nothing because it is the same logic as saying some people become violent when hearing something they disagree with. It has nothing to do with atheism (no more so than it does for veganism, for example). But it does have everything to do with tolerance.

I was addressing your abject refusal to concede that atheists can do monstrous things in the name of atheism, which simply doesn’t jibe with historical fact – not that I think you’ll be dissuaded from your belief by facts against said belief.

Well, then, you are not reading my responses very thoughtfully then are you. I do not dispute this at all. Now what? You are left then to consider my point (hopefully) al ittle more carefully then.

But, when I use "link" I am using it synonymously with "inspiration". This inspiration you cite, is the link from thought to action.

Right – the fact that they formed clubs with “Atheist/Atheism� in the name and had a magazine that advertised their non-beliefs and the fact that they culled and killed theists who didn’t embrace their same worldview should in no way lead one to conclude that atheism actually had a role in it. I understand your argument loud and clear.

I don’t think you do. As evidenced by your posts above.

Try reading my posts again. I can’t make it any more clear than I have been.

It’s complimented by calling it outrageously preposterous rot.

Your misinformed opinion is noted.

I AM saying that this “inspiration� you cite is nothing more than being confronted with an opposing view.

Okay – so you want to clarify a nonpoint that I’ve never made.

You keep waffling between two contradictory points.

Please explain the difference then between a vegan inspied to violence and an atheist inspired to violence.

Since my opinion is “outrageously preposterous rot� it should be very easy to illuminate.

If you can’t then I submit that you are the one in Denmark with the rotten smell.

Once again, this is simply an opposing view. I see you’ve avoided my analogy. I wonder why?

Your analogy is a distraction that attempts to confuse the issue – namely that atheists can do monstrous things in the name of atheism. The degree of spin you have used to attempt to confuse things is quite impressive – perhaps one of the best I’ve seen.

Well gee. It’s the first time I’ve seen the argument that definitions are considered spin. Perhaps this is a pot and kettle analogy?

If it’s such a distraction, again, it should be quite easy for you to explain why. I’ll wait, still, for that explanation.

My argument: Homophobia. Your argument: Communist Governments.

Why don’t we add in the price of tea in Beijing v. the price in Shanghai?

If you can make the analogy fly, go right ahead.

I understand that you are not arguing a causal relationship.

Here’s the significance. “Theism makes people violent� is trotted out by atheists ad nauseam

No! Perhaps you will now see my argument. It is not theism. It is religion. And no one (I’ve seen anyway) says religion makes people violent. I’ve seen them say it CAN make people violent.

– all while they imply that atheism would bring Nirvana

Really? Show me where an atheist on this thread said this please.

– all while ignoring the fact that atheists have demonstrated themselves to be no less susceptible to monstrosities common to all man; therefore, atheism isn't the panacea that you guys make it out to be.

People are fallible creatures. Atheists and theists are all prone to the same human condition – obviously. They are human.

However, religion (with its sexist and homophobic scriptures) instructs and perpetuates hatred and violence. The “inspiration� is the scriptures themselves. This goes beyond just an “inspiration� created by an opposing view. Or, by declaring disbelief. Or by declaring oneself a vegan.

I'm not sure why you won't admit his. It is patently obvious to everyone here, and your denial is fooling now one -as you say : )

This prejudice is a stated position WITHIN THE HOLY BOOKS, and taught to children. And it is perpetuated (sadly) generation after generation.

-all the best

[JLB32168]

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

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.

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

JLB posted:

KenRU wrote:
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. Rolling Eyes

RESPONSE: Are you then saying that killing is less serious if the Bible directs it?

[JLB32168]

RESPONSE: Are you then saying that killing is less serious if the Bible directs it?

I have utterly no idea how one could infer that from anything I said unless one deliberately wanted to infer such nonsense; therefore, I'm not going to form a thoughtful response to the question.