Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
words of truth
Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society
A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more
peaceful place were it not for religion.The top three largest examples
are thought to be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, theSpanish
Inquisition, and the burning of witches. Scholars estimate that the
Crusades ofthe middle ages cost from 58,000 to 133,000 lives. The most
realistic figure for theSpanish Inquisition puts the total killed from
AD1480 to AD1808 at up to 31,912.Finally, records indicate that the
number of witches killed may be over 30,000. Someargue that records
don't tell everything and suggest that maybe even 100,000 were
killed.These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to
be the largest atrocitiesperpetrated by one or another form of
Christendom. As we shall shortly see, however,they pale into
insignificance in comparison to the consequences of atheism.There are
two points to make by way of response. The first point can be made by
asking the question, "Are these activities consistent with what Jesus
taught?" Most people witheven an elementary knowledge of Christ will
admit that such killing is inconsistent with His teachings. People
often try to justify their hatred, actions, and even killing by
appealing to whatever is held in high regard by the population. It
follows that ifChristianity is or was held in high regard by
populations, that certain people with thepower to carry out atrocities
would attempt to justify them in the name of Christianity. Itis a
simple-minded person indeed who reasons, "Joe claims he is a
Christian--Joecommitted an atrocity in the name of
Christianity--therefore Christianity promotesatrocities." The Bible
states that the person who says he loves God, but hates his brother,is
a liar. There are many people through history that have done horrible
things in thename of Christianity, but Jesus' words, "you will know
them by their fruit" tell the realstory regarding their love for God
and whether they follow the commands of Jesus Christ.The second point
to make is that, yes, people who claim to love God do kill, but
nowherenear to the extent that the lack of religion does. According to
University of Hawaiipolitical scientist Rudolph J. Rummel,1the total
number killed in all of human history isestimated to be about
284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during thepast 100
years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far,
atheisticCommunism with a total of 110,000,000 ... over 1/3 of all
people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes
where religion of any sort was stronglydiscouraged, Nazi Germany and
Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000.Almost 50% of all
the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years by
regimes that either actively promoted atheism or strongly discouraged
religion. We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome. When the murders of
history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity. The most effective
restraint onmankind's inherently evil tendencies is faith in God
through Jesus Christ, a faith thatactually follows the teachings and
commands of Jesus Christ as a daily way of
life.1http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
(all stats have come from this site)
Wylie
Maybe less than other causes, maybe more, but don't delude yourself
that hate of those of differing beliefs, be they Moslem vrs Christian,
Hindu vrs Moslem, Catholic vrs Protestant, Shiite vrs Sunni, ad naseum,
has saved more lives than it has taken.
And don't just count the murders. Are more people dying in the Sudan
from religious paramilitaries or from the effects of the displacement?
Uncle Vic
(trut...@lycos.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
> A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
> killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more
> peaceful place were it not for religion.The top three largest examples
> are thought to be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, theSpanish
> Inquisition, and the burning of witches. Scholars estimate that the
> Crusades ofthe middle ages cost from 58,000 to 133,000 lives. The most
> realistic figure for theSpanish Inquisition puts the total killed from
> AD1480 to AD1808 at up to 31,912.Finally, records indicate that the
> number of witches killed may be over 30,000. Someargue that records
> don't tell everything and suggest that maybe even 100,000 were
> killed.These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to
> be the largest atrocitiesperpetrated by one or another form of
> Christendom.
One person killed under religious circumstances would be too many.
Imagine yourself being that person. Imagine being locked into foot stocks
and having your feet burned off. How long would that take? Your vocal
chords would never be the same. How about having your arms and legs
broken and threaded through the spokes of a wheel, where you are left
exposed to the elements to die in horrible agony? How many deaths of this
nature do you think you could write off as insignificant compared to
anything else?
> As we shall shortly see, however,they pale into
> insignificance in comparison to the consequences of atheism.
Uh, no. Atheism itself hasn't killed anyone. You have confused atheism
with political convictions. Typical theist.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Official alt.wisdom HELLBOY
raven1
wrote:
> The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far,
>atheisticCommunism with a total of 110,000,000 ... over 1/3 of all
>people ever killed!
The Communists had better weapons.
> If we add to that number just two other regimes
>where religion of any sort was stronglydiscouraged, Nazi Germany
Religion was strongly encouraged in Nazi Germany.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Les Hellawell
On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
wrote:
>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>
>
>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
>
>Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society
>
>
>
>A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
>killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more
>peaceful place were it not for religion.The top three largest examples
>are thought to be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, theSpanish
>Inquisition, and the burning of witches. Scholars estimate that the
>Crusades ofthe middle ages cost from 58,000 to 133,000 lives. The most
>realistic figure for theSpanish Inquisition puts the total killed from
>AD1480 to AD1808 at up to 31,912.
What about the Portugese inquisition, how many did they kill?
How many Hugenots died. How many catholics and protestants in
England by catholics and protestants?.
How many died in the Hundred year war?
> Finally, records indicate that the
>number of witches killed may be over 30,000. Someargue that records
>don't tell everything and suggest that maybe even 100,000 were
>killed.These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to
>be the largest atrocitiesperpetrated by one or another form of
>Christendom. As we shall shortly see, however,they pale into
>insignificance in comparison to the consequences of atheism.
What consequences of atheism? Nobody died because of atheism.
Atheism does not seek to impose itself on others. Atheist do not
have sects and beliefs to fight over and are happy to ingore religion
(as long as the religious leave us alone) and atheists are politically
neutral (as atheists). This particular atheist happens to be
antifascist and ant-communist two nasty political philosophies that
are probably the worst causes of human misery.(rapidly followed
by US Imperialist uncontrolled religious based capitalism) In Russia
communism almost amounted to a religion in its own right and
fascism was based on religious notions of racial superiority (the
idea that we are specially choosen to dominate the rest)
> There are
>two points to make by way of response. The first point can be made by
>asking the question, "Are these activities consistent with what Jesus
>taught?" Most people witheven an elementary knowledge of Christ will
>admit that such killing is inconsistent with His teachings.
but then there is a major difference between what Jesus taught
and Christianity.
> Peopleo
>often try to justify their hatred, actions, and even killing by
>appealing to whatever is held in high regard by the population. It
>follows that ifChristianity is or was held in high regard by
>populations,
More likely they held religion in low regard but dare not dissent.
Unchallenged Catholicism was corrupt from top to bottom.
Now that the old religions have lost their power to impose
themselves people have deserted them in droves.
There is ample evidence of the hatred between towns and
clergy in Cities where religion was dominant. I suggest you
read the history of Exeter a Cathedral town in south West
England where there was a constant battle with the dominant
clergy in the Middle Ages. The archbishop of Wells was so
detested his palace was surrounded by walls and a moat!
You might also read a history of Portugal and the hatred
felt against the all powerful combination of Jesuits (who controlled
education) and the Inquistion which kept everybody in fear
even to the Kings of the day. They has weekly burning in
what is now Rossio Square in the centre of Lisbon.
When Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury was killed
by thugs the King was forced to do penance to the Pope
and was whipped.
> that certain people with thepower to carry out atrocities
>would attempt to justify them in the name of Christianity. Itis a
>simple-minded person indeed who reasons, "Joe claims he is a
>Christian--Joecommitted an atrocity in the name of
>Christianity--therefore Christianity promotesatrocities."
In the same way Christians claim that Stalin murdered because
he may have been athiest?
The truth is Christians killed people for having the wrong
beliefs. The Hugenots for example were massacred because
of their supposed heresy. A religious killing for religious reasons
and no other. The Romans persecuted Christian because they
were atheist not believing their gods.
Christians have persecuted Jews for religious reasons and
no other ever since they had the ability so to do.
> The Bible
>states that the person who says he loves God, but hates his brother,is
>a liar. There are many people through history that have done horrible
>things in thename of Christianity,
Yes using religion as an excuse of course, but you cannot explain away
things done for religious reasons.
> but Jesus' words, "you will know
>them by their fruit" tell the realstory regarding their love for God
>and whether they follow the commands of Jesus Christ.The second point
>to make is that, yes, people who claim to love God do kill, but
>nowherenear to the extent that the lack of religion does. According to
>University of Hawaiipolitical scientist Rudolph J. Rummel,1the total
>number killed in all of human history isestimated to be about
>284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during thepast 100
>years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far,
>atheisticCommunism
You see. because you think the communists were atheist they were
doing it for athiestic reasons. This contradicts what you said above.
" that certain people with thepower to carry out atrocities
>would attempt to justify them in the name of Christianity. Itis a
>simple-minded person indeed
ditto "in the name of atheism" but Stalin did not kill "in the name
of atheism did he" and if you examine why he killed you will
see it was not because he was atheist (assuming he was atheist
of course)
He killed because he was paranoid, a meglomaniac and wanted
to cling to power at all costs. Atheism had nothing whatsover ever
to do with it in exactly the same way Cortes did not enter South
America to put down the Aztec religion for Christianity (even though
that might have been the claim of the priests that went with him
and did not oppose the killings.
> with a total of 110,000,000 ... over 1/3 of all
>people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes
>where religion of any sort was stronglydiscouraged, Nazi Germany and
>Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000.Almost 50% of all
>the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years by
>regimes that either actively promoted atheism or strongly discouraged
>religion.
During the Great Patriotic war, when most Russians died Stalin
encouraged religion and never supressed it entirely .He was ruthless
then because he thought Russia needed to be ruthless against a
ruthless enemy. He was right, without his firm hand I doubt Russia
would have survived against Hitler. Where would we be now?
> We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
>Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome. When the murders of
>history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
>dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity.
Rubbish. Not one single death has been caused in the name of
atheism and not one can be attributed to atheism as there is no
motive for doing so, whilst the clear link between belief or wrong
belief as a cause for killing is clear.
Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. More
Christians probably have abortions than atheists anyway. You
tell me, what is the ratio of atheists to Christians in the
USA.anyway? No doubt of course you will counter with the
no-true-scotsman fallacy and argue that whatever the aborted
woman might tell you she is not a Christian and an automatic
atheist because she had the abortion. When abortion was
legalised in the UK on a free vote in Parliament the majority
who voted for were Christian to some degree. The present
Prime Minister is a believer, his wife a devout Catholic and
at no time has he attempted to end abortion.
And, as is clear, you argue that all Christian killers killed for
other reasons than Christianity even though they claimed
Christianity as a reason and that all atheist killed for atheistic
reasons even though they did not claim to do it in the name of
atheism. That is hardly a balanced viewpoint!
Sorry but to prove murder you must prove opportunity and
motive. What possible reason, could I, an atheist have for
killing anybody for atheistic reasons? The only possible reason
I can think of is because I am fed up of Christians constantly
pestering me in my home and on the streets and want to shut
out their noise. Even then being driven to insanity by their
endless barrage of nonesense would probably be the reason
I killed and a compassionate judge would probably send me
home. They don't so it is no problem
The truth is a heck more complex than this oversimplistic
black and white view that you present and your conclusion
shows your clear anti-atheist view.
> The most effective
>restraint onmankind's inherently evil tendencies is faith in God
>through Jesus Christ, a faith thatactually follows the teachings and
>commands of Jesus Christ as a daily way of
A faith that very few follow.
>
Enkidu
news:1138301458.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Athe
> ism.pdf.
>
>
> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
For an existing, all-powerful, all-loving god, one innocent death is enough
to invalidate at least one of the premises. So god does not exist, is not
all-powerful, or is not all-loving.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism,
it's an argument against foxholes.
-- James Morrow
Eris
wrote:
Cathars, let's not forget the Cathars.
omare...@aol.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> on 26 Jan 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet words of truth
> (trut...@lycos.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
>
> > A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
> > killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more
> > peaceful place were it not for religion.The top three largest examples
> > are thought to be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, theSpanish
> > Inquisition, and the burning of witches. Scholars estimate that the
> > Crusades ofthe middle ages cost from 58,000 to 133,000 lives. The most
> > realistic figure for theSpanish Inquisition puts the total killed from
> > AD1480 to AD1808 at up to 31,912.Finally, records indicate that the
> > number of witches killed may be over 30,000. Someargue that records
> > don't tell everything and suggest that maybe even 100,000 were
> > killed.These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to
> > be the largest atrocitiesperpetrated by one or another form of
> > Christendom.
>
> One person killed under religious circumstances would be too many.
> Imagine yourself being that person. Imagine being locked into foot stocks
> and having your feet burned off. How long would that take? Your vocal
> chords would never be the same. How about having your arms and legs
> broken and threaded through the spokes of a wheel, where you are left
> exposed to the elements to die in horrible agony? How many deaths of this
> nature do you think you could write off as insignificant compared to
> anything else?
Temper tantrums aren't valid argumentative points. HTH
Uncle Vic
Agreed. Your point?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011, aw Hellboy #5
duke
>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>
>
>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
None - religion like guns don't kill people, people kill people.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, words of truth poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
> Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society
> A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
> killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more
> peaceful place were it not for religion.
...
> These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to
> be the largest atrocitiesperpetrated by one or another form of
> Christendom.
< chuckle! >
Another dummy who equates religion with christianity.
> As we shall shortly see, however,they pale into
> insignificance in comparison to the consequences of atheism.
Atheism does not prescribe any particular course of action, so atheism
has no consequences.
...
> Itis a
> simple-minded person indeed who reasons, "Joe claims he is a
> Christian--Joecommitted an atrocity in the name of
> Christianity--therefore Christianity promotesatrocities."
Yawwwwn. Straw man.
It is christians who promote atrocities in the name of christianity.
...
> The second point
> to make is that, yes, people who claim to love God do kill, but
> nowherenear to the extent that the lack of religion does.
Argument from Body Count.
How does a religion of "love" justify the killing of even ONE person by
it's adherents?
> According to
> University of Hawaiipolitical scientist Rudolph J. Rummel,1the total
> number killed in all of human history isestimated to be about
> 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during thepast 100
> years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far,
> atheisticCommunism with a total of 110,000,000 ... over 1/3 of all
> people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes
> where religion of any sort was stronglydiscouraged, Nazi Germany and
> Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000.Almost 50% of all
> the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years ...
Yawwwn. Rummel's point, as stated on his page, is that "power kills,
absolute power kills absolutely".
...
> We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
> Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Theists, including christians,
are obviously a major consumer of this service.
> When the murders of
> history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
> dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity.
Atheism is not a philosophy.
> The most effective
> restraint onmankind's inherently evil tendencies is faith in God
> through Jesus Christ, a faith thatactually follows the teachings and
> commands of Jesus Christ as a daily way of
Silly twaddle.
> life.1http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
> (all stats have come from this site)
Regards,
Josef
For good people to do evil things, it takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg
Mark K. Bilbo
truth" <trut...@lycos.com> wrote:
> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>
>
> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
Anything more than zero is an indication religion and gods are just
something humans concocted that have no innate power nor reality.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com> wrote in
> news:1138301458.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Athe
>> ism.pdf.
>>
>>
>> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
> For an existing, all-powerful, all-loving god, one innocent death is
> enough to invalidate at least one of the premises. So god does not exist,
> is not all-powerful, or is not all-loving.
You'd think "almighty god" would have a better excuse than "they did it
more!"
Enkidu
news:MKmdnY4XDNh...@megapath.net:
> In <Xns97579FC3...@130.133.1.4>, Enkidu
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com> wrote in
>> news:1138301458.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20At
>>> he ism.pdf.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>
>> For an existing, all-powerful, all-loving god, one innocent death is
>> enough to invalidate at least one of the premises. So god does not
>> exist, is not all-powerful, or is not all-loving.
>
> You'd think "almighty god" would have a better excuse than "they did
> it more!"
That seems to be the best Christians can come up with. "The Inquisition?
Hitler killed more. Stalin killed more." Even if Hitler had been an
atheist, even if Stalin had been an atheist, and even if atheism had
motivated their crimes, how can that possibly absolve Christians and
their God for the blood on their and His hands?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"The world is full of Laurel and Hardys. I saw them all the time as a boy
at my mother's hotel. There's always the dumb, dumb guy, who never has
anything bad happen to him, and the smart guy who's even dumber than the
dumb guy, only he doesn't know it."
* Oliver Hardy
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Athe
>>ism.pdf.
>>
>>
>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
> None - religion like guns don't kill people, people kill people.
>
Yup. Some people use guns to kill people. And some people use religion
to justify the use of guns to kill people. Natural selection has a voice
here, though. People who successfully avoid religion live to pass on
their genes to the next generation. It would seem religion's days are
numbered.
Heh...
> - religion like guns
Yeah, they do, don't they? And they like gallows, fire, deep water and
sharp axe blades too.
Atheists, OTOH, like peace, quiet, love, harmony, good times and physical
pleasure. Sucks to be you.
Slobbering Skeleton
wrote:
>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>
>
>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
You seem to be saying that religion cannot be blamed for the people
killed and tortured in its name, but atheism _can.
I agree that nothing in Christianity requires mass murder and mass
torture. And yet Christians have done it as -- according to them --
part of their faith. You excuse this as the doings of people who are
not "true" Christians. Who are you to judge their faith?
Likewise, nothing in atheism requires mass murder and mass torture.
And yet some atheists have committed those deeds. (Never mind the
question of whether Hitler himself or Nazis in general were atheists
-- I'll generously grant you that point without agreeing.) But I
don't attempt to excuse such deeds as false atheism. Atheism in
itself does not espouse any kind of action, because it's simply the
lack of belief in any god. No, not logic, and no, not science --
atheism is simply the lack of a belief.
Political ideologies, though, can act very much like religions. At
the very least, they always advocate certain kinds of actions.
Communism, Nazism, some imaginary ideology -- whatever you like -- may
or may not include atheism as a part of their creed, but it can never
be atheism that does the motivating, because there is not enough _to
atheism to motivate anything. Practically every atheist does have
some belief/ethical-system or other, but no such system _follows from
atheism.
My point is not to argue about whether atheists or religious people
have the most kills to their names. It is that any such comparison is
lopsided. Atheism is not even a philosophy, much less a religion or
ideology...
Les Hellawell
>On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>
>>
>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
>None - religion like guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No, you cannot dismiss reason or motivation for killing.
If beliefs in gods never existed the Roman Catholic Church
would never have existed and neither would the Hugenots.
Without strong religious beliefs 8000 Hugenots would not have
been massacred by catholics encouraged by the 'powers that be'
(Pope Gregory was jubilent about the massacre). Stong religious
belief and hatred of people who do not share that belief was the
direct cause. That religious belief at the time motivated the
the killing and was a direct cause is proof that these beliefs
were evil and wrong.
http://www.viljoen.za.org/hist-hug.htm
>
>duke
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect way to waste an hourr."
>Pope Paul VI should have said
Gregory XIII was jubilant when 8000 people, who repudiated
the Mass was massacred. Is the Mass that important that
it justifies killing 8000 people for repudiating it?
Cross posts removed
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
wbarwell
> On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity
%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>
>>
>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
> You seem to be saying that religion cannot be blamed for the people
> killed and tortured in its name, but atheism _can.
>
> I agree that nothing in Christianity requires mass murder and mass
> torture. And yet Christians have done it as -- according to them --
> part of their faith. You excuse this as the doings of people who are
> not "true" Christians. Who are you to judge their faith?
People yabber and jabber about communism, yet Stalin's
worst excesses were in the early 30s. Secret, far away from
the press, and no American Atheist got a vote on it.
Mao's were mostly stupid mistake, the "Great Leap Forward"
was mostly stupidity combined with a massive famine in China.
Not mass murder but a foolish mistake. Google for that one.
And these were long ago, as Christianty's complaint that the
religious wars of Christianity that killed 1/4 of Europe
was long ago. The inquisition was long ago, the crusades
were long ago, the invasion of America by the conqistadors's
were long ago, the war over slavery was long ago.
But let us examine what the christians of America have been
doing for the last 30 years, shall we?
***********************************************************
The Failure of Christianity in America
W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
***********************************************************
Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved to the far right,
taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have fully
supported the GOP as it has moved right to gain support of
christian zealots and conservatives. This started when Nixon
played the racist Southern Strategy card building on civil
rights era resentments by far right Southerners, in a purposeful
plan create by Kevin Phillips, playing on unchristian racist
resentments of the post Jim Crow civil rights era. Kevin Phillips,
architect of the Sourthern strategy, apologized on NPR radio a
few years back for this plan, which he admitted often sunk into
rank racism.
So we now have had a essentially a christian GOP government
for 30 years.
Under Nixon:
Christian Americans supported incompetent and corrupt
Vietnamese politicians. And a senseless war in Vietnam
that accomplished nothing. And a corrupt US military that
mislead us steadily about all of this.
Nixon lied about having a secret plan to end the war.
Christians supported Nixon's having instigated awful and
murderous policies as the Phoenix program.
Supported the secret bombings in Cambodia that killed
hundreds of thousands of innocent Cambodians.
Despite the lies and deceits, few Christian leaders seemed
to care or be disturbed by such things.
Winked at the invasion of East Timur and parts of New
Guinea by our allies, the Indonesions.
The Indonesians killed 1/4 of the East Timurese over several
decades, mass murder, genocide. 2 million dead.
Winked at the Greek far right Junta that overthrew the
Greek government. Today many Greeks still intensely
dislike teh US for support these men who tortured and jailed
many without charges, based on politics.
Supported the murderous far right Brazilian generals who
overthrew that democratically elected government.
Supported the mass murdering Argentinian government and
their terroristic "Dirty War" of torture, mass murder
and disappearances.
Supported the murderous Pinochet of Chile and overthrow
yet another democratically elected goverment.
No Christians respected life here. Or freedom. But supported
Nixon heartily despite the horrors we commited in Vietnam
and Cambodia and Chile and winked at support for other
dictators and right winged coups mentioned above.
The right wingers of both parties supported this, and many
claimed to be christians.
Reagan.
Reagan lead the GOP in support for military aid to the
genocidal Rios Montt of Guatemala, who's armies most purposefully
practiced wholesale torture, rape and genocide on the Mayan
Indians of Guatemala. A war of terror.
Reagan and the GOP supported the mass murdering ex-Somoza
Guards of Nicaragua.
Reagan and the GOP supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq, despite
Saddam's starting a warm, and using poison gas in his war.
Reagan and the GOP supported the murderous Robert
D'Aubisson of El Salavador, a known far right death
squad leader.
The El Salvadoran government was involved in numerous
murders, and massacres, such as the killing of 400
villagers at a small village called El Mezote, most
of them young women and children.
Reagan and the GOP supported Noriega of Panama.
Few christiabs complained, not the leadership of
US denominations.
Reagan and the GOP happily supported Pol Pot's claim
to be the rightful government of Cambodia despite the
genocide committed by the insane Pol Pot's Khmer Regime,
and even had teh CIA send money and supplies to Pol Pot
while ignoring China's reaming Pol Pot without complaint.
Reagan and the GOP supported a number of murdering
far right extremist guerrilla movements in Africa
including the genocidal Renamo in Mozambique.
Reagan fought sanctions to end apartheid in South africa.
The Christian and religous right heavily supported Reagan
and the GOP despite numerous examples of such evils as
listed above. The leaders of the religous right never cared
nor complained, neither did the religous leaders of the
main stream christian denominations.
There was and is no respect for life in American
christianity as these wholesale and repeat failures of
America christianity collectively over 20 years shows.
Then we had Bush.
Bush continued support for the evil dictators above,
including Pinochet, Pol Pot and others. However,
Saddam screwed us and invaded Iraq, mainly because
Bush screwed up and did not warn him to not do so
even though Saddam repeatedly threatened Kuwait for
months, carefully gauguing Bush's lack of reaction
and thinking lack of reaction amounted to de facto
permission or acceptance of an invasion of Kuwait
by the inert Bush.
Bush did not act in case of genocide my Jugoslavia's
Milosevic, and Bush and the GOP's loud and obnoxious
footdragging here allowed Milosevic to kill
hundreds of thousands with near impunity.
The leaders of the GOP, House and Senate, and religous
leaders of the right and mainstream denominations never
cared about any of this, nor made issue of these evils.
In the Desert Storm war, Bush allowed the US air
force to bomb Iraq's water and sewer systems.
A war crime.
They placed sanctions on Iraq that made it impossible
to keep their water supplies safe resulting in numerous
deaths that eventually would total over 2 million dead
Iraqi civilians, mostly children.
Our government coldly calculated that these sanctions would
indeed would cause mass epidemics and mass death, and did
it anyway.
Thomas Nagy, a California college professor used the FOIA
statutes to obtain these documents that were published
in September 2001 in the Progressive Magazine.
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
No Christian leaders of either far right or mainstream
cared nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership of House
and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents.
Clinton
Under Clinton this policy continued. Again, Christians did
not care. All Christians cared about was Clintons
don't-ask-don't-tell gays in military policy and Clinton's
sex life and Whitewater.
$47 million spent investigating whitewater while the Christian
right roared with naked hate. Money spent investigation mass
murder in Iraq caused by our purposeful by our sanctions?
$0. Roars of disaprovable from Christian America over these mass
murders? Few.
What has 30 years or right winged GOP government and right
winger christianity got us? Mass murder, genocide,
Nothing but callousness, disregard for human life,
mass moral failure of religion, Christianity and
the american right.
Not once did religous christian Americans, either
leadership or rank and file ever find any of these
evils unacceptable or punish any who supported any
of this.
Most GOP House and Senate members were people who
did these things claimed to be christians. Not a one
cares, not a christian cares, they did not care or act.
30 years of failure. 30 years of support for
far right genocidal bastards, mass murderers,
and evil.
Total christian failure.
Total lack of any real morality at all
in American christianity.
Christians posture as moral, but American christians have
a very bad track records when it comes to morality, they
will happily support any genocidal monster as long as he's
a right winger, and right winger politicians support
that monster, no matter how murderous or genocidal he
and his evil regime is.
Christianity is evil. The proof here is obvious,
and this is not some atrocity of the middle ages,
or the 1500's,this is here and now and ongoing and
continuing.
Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and rather than being
horrified, the christian far right has applauded this.
The christian failure of christian America is ongoing
and shows no signs of morality. No signs of change.
Thus we see that for the last 30 years in America,
christianity has been an utter and total and complete
moral failure.
(End)
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
Cheerful Charlie
wbarwell
> On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity
%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>
>>
>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
> You seem to be saying that religion cannot be blamed for the people
> killed and tortured in its name, but atheism _can.
>
Modern day Christian genocide...
http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html
The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water
Supply by Thomas J. Nagy
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents
of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond
a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention,
the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions
against Iraq to degrade thecountry's water supply
after the Gulf War. The United States knew the
cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would
pay, and it went ahead anyway.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It
spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from
supplying clean water to its citizens. "Iraq
depends on importing specialized equipment and
some chemicals to purify its water supply, most
of which is heavily mineralized and frequently
brackish to saline," the document states. "With
no domestic sources of both water treatment
replacement parts and some essential chemicals,
Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United
Nations Sanctions to import these vital
commodities. Failing to secure supplies will
result in a shortage of pure drinking water
for much of the population. This could lead to
increased incidences, if not epidemics, of
disease."
The document goes into great technical detail
about the sources and quality of Iraq's water
supply. The quality of untreated water "generally
is poor," and drinking such water "could result
in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that
Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials,
pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless
the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics
of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and
typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of
chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions.
"Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply
is critically low. "Food and medicine will
also be affected, the document states.
"Food processing, electronic, and, particularly,
pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure
water that is free from biological contaminants,"
it says.
The document addresses possible Iraqi counter-
measures to obtain drinkable water despite
sanctions. "Iraq conceivably could truck water
from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas.
But the capability to gain significant quantities
is extremely limited," the document states. "The
amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping
stations would limit laying pipelines to these
reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine
purification, the water still would contain
biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis
could obtain their own minimally adequate
supply of good quality water from Northern
Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be
safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries
requiring large quantities of pure water would
not be able to meet their needs."
The document also discounted the possibility of
Iraqis using rainwater.
"Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter
and spring, but it falls primarily in the
northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains,
sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains.
But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide
adequate pure water. "As an alternative, "Iraq
could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment
supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons,"
the document says. "It probably also is
attempting
to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic
countries as fronts. If such attempts fail,
Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their
national requirements."
In cold language, the document spells out what is
in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages
of purified water because of the lack of required
chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences
of disease, including possible epidemics, will
become probable unless the population were
careful to boil water. "The document gives a
timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment
capability will suffer a slow decline, rather
than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although
Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water
treatment capability, it probably will take
at least six months (to June 1991) before the
system is fully degraded."
This document, which was partially declassified
but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the
Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.
(I disclosed this document last fall. But the
news media showed little interest in it. The only
reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories
on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday
Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and
Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did
a follow-up.)
Recently, I have come across other DIA documents
that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the
degradation of Iraq's water supply. These
documents have not been publicized until now.
The first one in this batch is called "Disease
Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991.
At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing
on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is
blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be
attributable to degradation of normal preventive
medicine, waste disposal, water purification/
distribution, electricity, and decreased ability
to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in
Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will
have similar problems."
The document proceeds to itemize the likely
outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought
on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and
salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which
will affect "particularly children," or by
rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly
children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And
it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera
outbreaks. The document warns that the Iraqi
government may "blame the United States for
public health problems created by the military
conflict." The second DIA document, "Disease
Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990,
but the year is clearly a typo and should be
1991.
It states: "Conditions are favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in
major urban areas affected by coalition bombing."
It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major
Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing
(Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since
the beginning of Desert Storm. . ..
Current public health problems are attributable to
the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste
disposal, water purification and distribution,
electricity, and the decreased ability to control
disease outbreaks."
This document lists the "most likely diseases
during next sixty-ninety days
(descending order): diarrheal diseases
(particularly children); acute respiratory
illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid;
hepatitis A (particularly children); measles,
diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly
children); meningitis, including meningococcal
(particularly children); cholera (possible,
but less likely)."
Like the previous document, this one warns that
the Iraqi government might "propagandize
increases of endemic diseases. "The third
document
in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is
dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable
diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than
usually observed during this time of the year
and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions
(contaminated water supplies and improper sewage
disposal) resulting from the war. According to
a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World
Health Organization report, the quantity of
potable water is less than 5 percent of the
original supply, there are no operational
water and sewage treatment plants, and the
reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above
normal levels. Additionally, respiratory
infections are on the rise. Children particularly
have been affected by these diseases."
Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document
states, "There are indications that the situation
is improving and that the population is coping
with the degraded conditions." But it adds:
"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for
communicable disease outbreaks."
The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee
Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says,
"Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee
camps. Further infectious diseases will spread
due to inadequate water treatment and poor
sanitation." The reason for this outbreak is
clearly stated again. "The main causes of
infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea,
dysentery, and upper respiratory problems,
are poor sanitation and unclean water. These
diseases primarily afflict the old and young
children."
The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq,
June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can
make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess
health conditions and determine the most critical
medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi
medical system was in considerable disarray,
medical facilities had been extensively looted,
and almost all medicines were in critically short
supply."
In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least
80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At
this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera,
hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out.
"The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor
was observed in Iraq "for the first time,"
the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing
children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of
the deaths were children (with the exception
of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were
children)."
The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current
Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated
November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct
damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins:
"Restoration of Iraq's public health services and
shortages of major medical materiel remain
dominant international concerns. Both issues
apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein
in an effort to keep public opinion firmly
against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and
to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."
It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although
current countrywide infectious disease incidence
in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf
War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that
some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will
continue to exploit disease incidence data for
its own political purposes." And it places the
blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's
medical supply shortages are the result of the
central government's stockpiling, selective
distribution, and exploitation of domestic and
international relief medical resources." It adds:
"Resumption of public health programs . . .
depends completely on the Iraqi government."
As these documents illustrate, the United States
knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the
water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what
the consequences would be: increased outbreaks
of disease and high rates of child mortality. And
it was more concerned about the public relations
nightmare for Washington than the actual
nightmare that the sanctions created for
innocent Iraqis.
The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a
1979 protocol relating to the "protection of
victims of international armed conflicts,"
Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to
attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian
population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock,
drinking water installations and supplies, and
irrigation works, for the specific purpose of
denying them for their sustenance value to the
civilian population or to the adverse Party,
whatever the motive, whether in order to starve
out civilians, to cause them to move away, or
for any other motive."
But that is precisely what the U.S. government
did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed,
removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking
water installations and supplies." The sanctions,
imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of
the United States, constitute a violation of the
Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic
effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully
degrade" Iraq's water sources.
At a House hearing on June 7, Representative
Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred
to the document "Iraq Water Treatment
Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi
public drinking water supply flagrantly targets
civilians and is a violation of the Geneva
Convention and of the fundamental laws of
civilized nations."
Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll
by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to
import the few chemicals and items of equipment
it needed in order to clean up its water supply.
Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of
Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright "about the profound effects of the
increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply
and sanitation systems on its children's health."
Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under
five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has
reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike
four times more often than they did in 1990. . . .
Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation
sector are a prime reason for the increases in
sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts,
all but one hold was placed by the U.S.
government. The contracts are for purification
chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps,
water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge
you to weigh your decision against the disease
and death that are the unavoidable result of not
having safe drinking water and minimum levels
of sanitation. "For more than ten years, the
United States has deliberately pursued a policy of
destroying the water treatment system of Iraq,
knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The
United Nations has estimated that more than
500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of
sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue
to die every month for this reason. No one can
say that the United States didn't know
what it was doing.
See for Yourself All the DIA documents mentioned
in this article were found at the Department of
Defense's Gulflink site.
To read or print documents:
1.go to www.gulflink.osd.mil
2.click on "Declassified Documents" on the left
side of the front page
3.the next page is entitled "Browse Recently
Declassified Documents"
4.click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents"
on the left side of that page
5.the next page is entitled "Search Recently
Declassified Documents"
6.enter search terms such as "disease information
effects of bombing"
7.click on the search button
8.the next page is entitled "Data Sources"
9.click on DIA
10.click on one of the titles
Its not the best-organized site on the Internet,
but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be
helpful and responsive.
Thomas J. Nagy
Thomas J. Nagy teaches at the School of Business
and Public Management at George Washington
University.
wbarwell
>
> In a message sent 'round the world, words of truth poured fuel on the
> fire with the following:
>
>
>> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity
%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>
>> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
>> Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society
>
>> A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
>> killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot
>> more peaceful place were it not for religion.
>
>
> Yawwwn. Rummel's point, as stated on his page, is that "power kills,
> absolute power kills absolutely".
>
>
Funny numbers. For example, Mao's Great leap Forward
combined with a massive three year drought killed about
50 millions. But it was a vast error combined with a
massive natural occurance, not a malicious persecution
as per Hitler's holocaust or the religious wars that
killed 1/4 of Europe, though there were some aspects
of that in collectivization of China.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Nationalist
Nationalist Chinese and Japanese also killed millions,
China was just a brutal place for well over a century.
Communism was not the inventor of this.
So when you start subtracting the polemics from the religous
propaganda, we see that the exaggerations on part of religion
here amount to lies.
Which does not excuse Mao's Great Leap Forward.
But also shows us that religion even at this late
date is not capable of intellectually discussing
these things honestly.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm
Try here for a more competent handling of such themes.
>
>> When the murders of
>> history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
>> dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity.
>
>
> Atheism is not a philosophy.
Atheism has not been killing people for millenia,
religion has been. The religious wars of Christianity
have been going on 16 centuries and the US has been
involved with some rather nasty ones in Iraq for example.
The destruction of Iraq's water and sewer systems
and subsequent sanctions resukllted in knowing genocidal
epidemics. The scum in the US goverment that sanctioned
that are for the most part, still there.
Nor do religious leaders of the US care, even as they
rant about communist death tolls.
Because the so posture, while Stalin never claimed to
be a great moral leader, their hypocricy is far more
unacceptable.
--------
Here is how today's oh so Christian America does it.
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in
> news:MKmdnY4XDNh...@megapath.net:
>
>> In <Xns97579FC3...@130.133.1.4>, Enkidu
>> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com> wrote in
>>> news:1138301458.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20At
>>>> he ism.pdf.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>>
>>> For an existing, all-powerful, all-loving god, one innocent death is
>>> enough to invalidate at least one of the premises. So god does not
>>> exist, is not all-powerful, or is not all-loving.
>>
>> You'd think "almighty god" would have a better excuse than "they did it
>> more!"
>
> That seems to be the best Christians can come up with. "The Inquisition?
> Hitler killed more. Stalin killed more." Even if Hitler had been an
> atheist, even if Stalin had been an atheist, and even if atheism had
> motivated their crimes, how can that possibly absolve Christians and their
> God for the blood on their and His hands?
It is one of most pathetic things I've ever seen. We keep getting this
rant about "absolute morality" but then they retreat to "not quite as bad
as Stalin?"
What is this?
"33% less evil!"
(I'm underwhelmed)
Martin Edwards
> http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>
>
> Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
>
> Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society
>
murder. This invalidates the indictment not one jot.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
duke
>Yup. Some people use guns to kill people. And some people use religion
>to justify the use of guns to kill people. Natural selection has a voice
>here, though. People who successfully avoid religion live to pass on
>their genes to the next generation. It would seem religion's days are
>numbered.
>Heh...
Uhhhh, actually atheists are the biggest murderers in existence - the nazi,
terrorism, russians and chinese hoards, (oops, sorry little queer yang), Amin,
etc. None of these believe in God.
They butchered innocent people by the millions and millions. Also the US
abortion queens, who definitely aren't Christians, account for 47,000,000
innocent deaths since Roe v Wade.
>> - religion like guns
>Yeah, they do, don't they? And they like gallows, fire, deep water and
>sharp axe blades too.
>Atheists, OTOH, like peace, quiet, love, harmony, good times and physical
>pleasure. Sucks to be you.
Yeah, right - see my words above.
duke
<myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>None - religion like guns don't kill people, people kill people.
>No, you cannot dismiss reason or motivation for killing.
Sorry, but people and their beliefs ARE the motivation for murder. And your lot
are right in the middle.
duke
*****
Malcolm
> That seems to be the best Christians can come up with. "The Inquisition?
> Hitler killed more. Stalin killed more." Even if Hitler had been an
> atheist, even if Stalin had been an atheist, and even if atheism had
> motivated their crimes, how can that possibly absolve Christians and
> their God for the blood on their and His hands?
>
It is quite natural that sins by Catholics, particularly when committed in
the name of the church or by church officials, should bring the faith into
disrepute.
However you also need some perspective.
Most secular rulers need to kill some people to maintain themselves in
power. You might say that this is irredeemably wicked, but then you have
probably never ruled a country yourself.
Numbers do become relevant. The English Queen who burns a few dozen people,
ostensibly for heresy, but really because she is worried about threats to
her throne, is quite different from the Russian dictator who creates a
famine which kills millions, in order to chnage the social structure of his
country.
Malcolm
> Atheism does not prescribe any particular course of action, so atheism
> has no consequences.
>
This has consequences.
>
> It is christians who promote atrocities in the name of christianity.
>
rights, or technological progress. Occasionally in the name of atheism
itself, but not so often. When people cease to believe in God they do not
believe in nothing.
>
> How does a religion of "love" justify the killing of even ONE person by
> it's adherents?
>
>
>> We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
>> Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome.
>
> Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Theists, including christians,
> are obviously a major consumer of this service.
>
these are largely phoney - a healthy white baby has a large commercial
value. In fact abortion is about the rejection of humility. It is feminist
sacrament, by which the woman attains her dignity as the person alone
entitled to make this momentous choice, to kill her own child.
>
>> When the murders of
>> history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
>> dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity.
>
> Atheism is not a philosophy.
>
versed in philosophy.
>
Kurt Nicklas
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11tk4cj...@corp.supernews.com...
> Slobbering Skeleton wrote:
>
>> On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity
> %20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>
>> You seem to be saying that religion cannot be blamed for the people
>> killed and tortured in its name, but atheism _can.
>>
>> I agree that nothing in Christianity requires mass murder and mass
>> torture. And yet Christians have done it as -- according to them --
>> part of their faith. You excuse this as the doings of people who are
>> not "true" Christians. Who are you to judge their faith?
>
> People yabber and jabber about communism, yet Stalin's
> worst excesses were in the early 30s.
They were still going on in the Late 30, Billy.
> Secret, far away from
> the press, and no American Atheist got a vote on it.
You demand a vote on mass murder, Billy?
> But let us examine what the christians of America have been
> doing for the last 30 years, shall we?
What have you been doing, Billy? Trying to prove there is no God?
You can't, you know.
But you are very amusing when you try.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:20:55 -0600, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Yup. Some people use guns to kill people. And some people use
>>religion to justify the use of guns to kill people. Natural selection
>>has a voice here, though. People who successfully avoid religion live
>>to pass on their genes to the next generation. It would seem
>>religion's days are numbered.
>>Heh...
>
> Uhhhh, actually atheists are the biggest murderers in existence - the
> nazi,
Catholic
> terrorism,
Islam
> russians
Orthodox Christians
> and chinese hoards,
Islam
> (oops, sorry little
> queer yang), Amin, etc. None of these believe in God.
You mean your god. The skies are pretty crowded these days, I guess the
Spanish Inquisition wasn't as effective as you would have liked, puke.
>
> They butchered innocent people by the millions and millions. Also the
> US abortion queens, who definitely aren't Christians, account for
> 47,000,000 innocent deaths since Roe v Wade.
More statistics from the hollows of puke's ass.
>
>>> - religion like guns
>
>>Yeah, they do, don't they? And they like gallows, fire, deep water
>>and sharp axe blades too.
>
>>Atheists, OTOH, like peace, quiet, love, harmony, good times and
>>physical pleasure. Sucks to be you.
>
> Yeah, right - see my words above.
>
Nah, already debunked.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:44:11 +0000, Les Hellawell
> <myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>>None - religion like guns don't kill people, people kill people.
>
>>No, you cannot dismiss reason or motivation for killing.
>
> Sorry, but people and their beliefs ARE the motivation for murder.
> And your lot are right in the middle.
>
Since atheists don't have any beliefs, we don't qualify for your little
shit list.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Malcolm poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote
> > Atheism does not prescribe any particular course of action, so atheism
> > has no consequences.
> >
> No, it proscribes certian courses of action - eg offering sacrifices.
> This has consequences.
Do elaborate.
> > It is christians who promote atrocities in the name of christianity.
> >
> And atheists commit atrocities in the name of social equality, or women's
> rights, or technological progress.
But such acts are surely not restricted to atheists.
> Occasionally in the name of atheism
> itself, but not so often. When people cease to believe in God they do not
> believe in nothing.
I haven't suggested it. I was simply pointing out the theist straw man.
As you note, atrocities seldom occur "in the name of atheism".
> > How does a religion of "love" justify the killing of even ONE person by
> > it's adherents?
> >
> Because the person might go on to commit further sins.
According to the mythology EVERYONE is a sinner, and thus will go on to
commit further sins.
> >> We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
> >> Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome.
> >
> > Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Theists, including christians,
> > are obviously a major consumer of this service.
> >
> Abortion is justified on pragmatic grounds - the baby is unwanted. However
> these are largely phoney - a healthy white baby has a large commercial
> value. In fact abortion is about the rejection of humility. It is feminist
> sacrament, by which the woman attains her dignity as the person alone
> entitled to make this momentous choice, to kill her own child.
Whatever. The point being made was that christians are not excluded.
> >> When the murders of
> >> history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
> >> dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity.
> >
> > Atheism is not a philosophy.
> >
> It is a philosophical proposition. However most atheists are not very well
> versed in philosophy.
Do elaborate.
Regards,
Josef
Whoever supermoralizes unmoralizes.
-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Enkidu
news:drefde$ggo$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
And the 'omnipotent god' who lets an innocent child die in terror and
agony is excused because . . . because . . . why *is* the omnipotent
creator excused? He created evil, He set the stage, He launched the
chain of events as surely as one domino knocks down another. The
existence of evil kills the Christian God.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell
Kurt Nicklas
erikc
>On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>
>>
>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>
>None - religion like guns don't kill people, people kill people.
>
>duke
Religion motivates people to do things - like kill.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
erikc
>On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>
>>
>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>
>>
>>Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society
>>
>>
>>
>>A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has
>>killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more
>>peaceful place were it not for religion.The top three largest examples
>>are thought to be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, theSpanish
>>Inquisition, and the burning of witches. Scholars estimate that the
>>Crusades ofthe middle ages cost from 58,000 to 133,000 lives. The most
>>realistic figure for theSpanish Inquisition puts the total killed from
>>AD1480 to AD1808 at up to 31,912.Finally, records indicate that the
>>number of witches killed may be over 30,000. Someargue that records
>>don't tell everything and suggest that maybe even 100,000 were
>>killed.These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to
>>be the largest atrocitiesperpetrated by one or another form of
>>Christendom. As we shall shortly see, however,they pale into
>>insignificance in comparison to the consequences of atheism.There are
>>two points to make by way of response. The first point can be made by
>>asking the question, "Are these activities consistent with what Jesus
>>taught?" Most people witheven an elementary knowledge of Christ will
>>admit that such killing is inconsistent with His teachings. People
>>often try to justify their hatred, actions, and even killing by
>>appealing to whatever is held in high regard by the population. It
>>follows that ifChristianity is or was held in high regard by
>>populations, that certain people with thepower to carry out atrocities
>>would attempt to justify them in the name of Christianity. Itis a
>>simple-minded person indeed who reasons, "Joe claims he is a
>>Christian--Joecommitted an atrocity in the name of
>>Christianity--therefore Christianity promotesatrocities." The Bible
>>states that the person who says he loves God, but hates his brother,is
>>a liar. There are many people through history that have done horrible
>>things in thename of Christianity, but Jesus' words, "you will know
>>them by their fruit" tell the realstory regarding their love for God
>>and whether they follow the commands of Jesus Christ.The second point
>>to make is that, yes, people who claim to love God do kill, but
>>nowherenear to the extent that the lack of religion does. According to
>>University of Hawaiipolitical scientist Rudolph J. Rummel,1the total
>>number killed in all of human history isestimated to be about
>>284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during thepast 100
>>years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far,
>>atheisticCommunism with a total of 110,000,000 ... over 1/3 of all
>>people ever killed! If we add to that number just two other regimes
>>where religion of any sort was stronglydiscouraged, Nazi Germany and
>>Nationalist China, the number rises to 141,160,000.Almost 50% of all
>>the killings in human history were committed in the past 100 years by
>>regimes that either actively promoted atheism or strongly discouraged
>>religion. We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
>>Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome. When the murders of
>>history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
>>dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity. The most effective
>>restraint onmankind's inherently evil tendencies is faith in God
>>through Jesus Christ, a faith thatactually follows the teachings and
>>commands of Jesus Christ as a daily way of
>>
>>
>>life.1http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
>>
>>
>>(all stats have come from this site)
>
>Cathars, let's not forget the Cathars.
What about all the people killed in the name of Allah? That will certainly
inflate the numbers a bit.
Robibnikoff
"Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:drepk...@news3.newsguy.com...
My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Enkidu
@news3.newsguy.com:
There's an articulate answer if never I've heard one.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
-- lapel button
Eris
wrote:
About one million dufus crusaders by Saladin.
Kurt Nicklas
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4409tkF...@individual.net...
Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively or
have you already made up your mind?
Kurt Nicklas
In your case, Anonymous Boy, the Christian God is not "killed" simply
because
you are ignorant.
Les Hellawell
<regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote
>> Atheism does not prescribe any particular course of action, so atheism
>> has no consequences.
>>
>No, it proscribes certian courses of action - eg offering sacrifices.
>This has consequences.
Offering sacrifices to what and for what reason? You need a motive
to prove that case.
>>
>> It is christians who promote atrocities in the name of christianity.
>>
>And atheists commit atrocities in the name of social equality, or women's
>rights,
I have never once promoted the rights of women to become priests
nor opposed them.
> or technological progress.
Which Christians create and benefit from in greater numbers than
atheists (Christians still outnumber atheists by a considerable
margin)
> Occasionally in the name of atheism
>itself, but not so often.
Since atheists are in a minority!
> When people cease to believe in God they do not
>believe in nothing.
That is a double negative.
You believers must have everybody believing something that is
just as or even more ridiculous than your own. Why?
>> How does a religion of "love" justify the killing of even ONE person by
>> it's adherents?
>>
>Because the person might go on to commit further sins.
There you go, justifying killing in the name of religious belief.
Case agaist Christians proved by a Christian.
Thank you, well done!
>>
>>> We havenot considered the over one billion abortions, where
>>> Christianity seems to be particularly unwelcome.
>>
>> Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Theists, including christians,
>> are obviously a major consumer of this service.
>>
>Abortion is justified on pragmatic grounds - the baby is unwanted. However
>these are largely phoney - a healthy white baby has a large commercial
>value. In fact abortion is about the rejection of humility. It is feminist
>sacrament, by which the woman attains her dignity as the person alone
>entitled to make this momentous choice, to kill her own child.
>>
>>> When the murders of
>>> history are tallied up, it is very clear that atheism is themost
>>> dangerous philosophy ever embraced by humanity.
>>
>> Atheism is not a philosophy.pp
>>
>It is a philosophical proposition. However most atheists are not very well
>versed in philosophy.
There is no 'proposition' (we do not propose anything I am not asking
or demanding you become atheist and it is of no concern to me that
you are not one of us) it is simply the absence of belief in the
existence of god or gods as claimed but not substantiated by others.
If you think we should accept your belief just on your say so you will
have to think again. You haven't even told us what your belief is is
apart from using a meaningless label 'god' so we do not even know
what it is we are supposed to believe.
Since it is impossible for a 'god' capable of creating the Universe
out of nothing itself popping out of nothing spontaneously all
evidence points to gods being created by an Intelligent Designer.
Robibnikoff
snip
>>> Nope.
>>
>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>
> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively or
> have you already made up your mind?
Look, if you're encapable of coming up with anything, just say so.
Les Hellawell
I suggest you confine the discussion to *real* religion and what it
does rather than an *imaginery* god which is of dubious existence at
best and has only done what religion claims it has done. It is the
religion that has made a god that created everything including our
flawed earth and the disasters that occur as a result. I guess flawed
humans are only capable of conceiving flawed gods
All evidence points to gods being created by an Intelligent Designer.
Kurt Nicklas
>
> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
> news:drfei...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> news:4409tkF...@individual.net...
>
> snip
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively or
>> have you already made up your mind?
>
> Look, if you're encapable of coming up with anything, just say so.
Why should I 'come up' with anything for someone who's not capable of
objectively
considering it? What sort of evidence for the existance of God could you
objectively
consider?
Mark K. Bilbo
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
Isn't your god omniscient? Then it would know what evidence would be
necessary. Isn't your god omnipotent? Then it could present whatever
evidence is necessary *and without violating this "free will" thing
(whatever *that is).
Robibnikoff
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4417p8F...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
>> news:drfei...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4409tkF...@individual.net...
>>
>> snip
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively or
>>> have you already made up your mind?
>>
>> Look, if you're encapable of coming up with anything, just say so.
>
> Why should I 'come up' with anything for someone who's not capable of
> objectively
> considering it?
What makes you think you can make that sort of judgment about me? You don't
even know me.
What sort of evidence for the existance of God could you
> objectively
> consider?
Objective and verifiable evidence. Not, "well, gee look around you. The
evidence is EVERYWHERE" sorta thing. Not assertions, not conjecture -
Actual objective, verifiable evidence.
No one has been able to produce a shred so far. I was just curious to see
what you'd come up with. Don't bother if you can't or don't want to. I
really don't care - Just mildly curious.
Enkidu
Killed? No, never lived, just like the Grinch and the Easter Bunny.
I post anonymously because of the grief Christians put me through,
calling my home, my work, because they found my free exercise of religion
in my private life a problem. Same as the darwin fish on my car. There
is a subset of Christians that are very nasty.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism,
disbelief call it what you will than all of the counterattractions of
cinema, motor bicycle, and golf course."
Martin Edwards
understanding this because religious belief does not have the actuality
for us that it did for our ancestors, and nobody really believes in
heresy. In a real sense the Middle Ages, and the Tudors come at the end
of the Middle Ages as well as the beginning of the modern age, was a
lunatic asylum run by the inmates.
2237 Dead
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
Objective evidence, you imbecile.
>
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Martin Edwards
Do you have any arguments or not?
Martin Edwards
Tron
"Enkidu" <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns9757CE55...@130.133.1.4...
>
> That seems to be the best Christians can come up with. "The Inquisition?
> Hitler killed more. Stalin killed more." Even if Hitler had been an
> atheist, even if Stalin had been an atheist, and even if atheism had
> motivated their crimes, how can that possibly absolve Christians and
> their God for the blood on their and His hands?
>
Cool. You may have solved a very old metaphysico-theological conundrum,
namely, whether the things God commands are good because God commands them,
or whether the things God commands are simply the good things.
If God commands good things, then he should be doing the same kind of things
in order to be good himself. Now, God is good, hence, he will do good
things. IOW, if God commands us to love our enemies because that is a good
thing, then God, in order to be good, must love his enemies.
Now, obviously God doesn't love his enemies, since he - knowingly, and with
the power to change it - has not only condemned a lot of them to hell, but
some even to _be Satan_. How's that for payback?
If follows that God does not command things because these things are good.
Obviously, God commands things that God needs to get done, i.e. which are
godwisely expedient.
These things are instrumental goods, not intrinsic goods.
I don't know what follows from that. Probably few good things.
T
Enkidu
news:8r6dnczxZ8D...@telenor.com:
>
> "Enkidu" <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> skrev i melding
> news:Xns9757CE55...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> That seems to be the best Christians can come up with. "The
>> Inquisition? Hitler killed more. Stalin killed more." Even if
>> Hitler had been an atheist, even if Stalin had been an atheist, and
>> even if atheism had motivated their crimes, how can that possibly
>> absolve Christians and their God for the blood on their and His
>> hands?
>
> Cool. You may have solved a very old metaphysico-theological
> conundrum, namely, whether the things God commands are good because
> God commands them, or whether the things God commands are simply the
> good things.
Hardly. I learned from the masters.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.
But extending your thoughts:
If God's actions are 'good' because they are God's actions, then it is a
tautalogy to use the word 'good' to describe God or His actions. If man
cannot see God's actions to be 'good', then man cannot tell good from
evil, and again, it is pointless to talk of God as 'good', since we don't
know what good means.
> If God commands good things, then he should be doing the same kind of
> things in order to be good himself. Now, God is good, hence, he will
> do good things. IOW, if God commands us to love our enemies because
> that is a good thing, then God, in order to be good, must love his
> enemies. Now, obviously God doesn't love his enemies, since he -
> knowingly, and with the power to change it - has not only condemned a
> lot of them to hell, but some even to _be Satan_. How's that for
> payback? If follows that God does not command things because these
> things are good.
"Do as I say, not as I do." The true lesson of religion.
> Obviously, God commands things that God needs to get
> done, i.e. which are godwisely expedient.
What does 'expedient' mean when referreing to an all-powerful God? The
easiest means to an end? Easy? For an all-powerful God? He needs to
hit the gym and bulk up!
> These things are instrumental goods, not intrinsic goods.
> I don't know what follows from that. Probably few good things.
The falsification of the Christian concept of God, that's what follows.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
- Benjamin Franklin
Silver Knight
others. The modern theist is exactly like the pharisees of old,
searching far and wide to make one proselyte, and turning him into
twicefold the spawn of satan as themselves.
Malcolm
> In a message sent 'round the world, Malcolm poured fuel on the fire with
> the following:
>
>> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote
>
>> > Atheism does not prescribe any particular course of action, so atheism
>> > has no consequences.
>> >
>> No, it proscribes certian courses of action - eg offering sacrifices.
>> This has consequences.
>
> Do elaborate.
>
billy goat. Every five years, each family has to sacrifice an elephant in a
big feast.
An atheist arrives on the island. "The non-existence of the magic white
billy goat is certain in philosphy, in logic, and in science" he proclaims.
"I don't want to stop anyone worshipping billy goats if they want, but those
who worship the green monkey, who requires a sacrifice of only a few peanuts
a week, must be given equal status, as must I, who worship no god."
The government agrees with the atheist, and abolishes all impediments or
penalties for those who don't sacrifice the elepahants. For a few years,
there is vigorous elephant-sacrificing campaign, but elephants are
expensive, and the non-sacrificers have bigger houses, better education,
more material goods.
Eventually even the elephant sacrificers agree that you can offer a model
elephant, spiritually, to the white billy-goat. the practise disappears.
Twenty years later, after the last elephant has left the island, a terrible
famine strikes. Thousands upon thousands die of starvation, or fight for the
few bits of food left.
Has the magic white billy goat had his revenge?
>
> As you note, atrocities seldom occur "in the name of atheism".
>
As alt.atheism always tells us, atheism is the absence of a belief. You
don't kill people in the name of nothing. You kill people because you think
that the rich are getting in the way of progressive social forces, or
because you think that women have right to choose to terminate their
pregnancies, or because you see people of certain religious groups as
undermining the sort of society you want. Millions of people, or humans who
don't count as people, were killed in the twentieth century for these types
of reasons. But the number of people killed because their religious
practises were incompatible with atheism, with no other reason given, was
relatively small, though not insignificant.
>
>> > Atheism is not a philosophy.
>> >
>> It is a philosophical proposition. However most atheists are not very
>> well
>> versed in philosophy.
>
>
> Do elaborate.
>
Atheism is not a philosophy, like Chistianity or Marxism, both named for
their founders. There are very few things that all atheists agree on. Until
recently most atheists were Marxists, but Ayn Rand was an atheist, and
militantly opposed to them. Most Western atheists believe that traditional
sexual morals are repressive, but that isn't true of most Chinese atheists.
Richard Dawkins is an atheist and decrys superstition, but there are a huge
number of British atheists who beleive in magic and buy magical cures or
foods with magical properties.
However all atheists believe that "there is no God". It might be slightly
nuanced, depending on whether the atheist thinks that God is definitely
disproved or just improbable, but that is a simple, workable defintion of
the word.
This proposition is a philosphical proposition.
However most atheists don't know where their ideas came from, and repeat
platitudes like "religion has killed millions of people" as the only defence
they can offer of their postion. This isn't unique to atheism, it is a
problem with any idea or movement that doesn't have a central body to define
orthodoxy and keep track of intellectual history.
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Malcolm poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote
> > In a message sent 'round the world, Malcolm poured fuel on the fire with
> > the following:
> >
> >> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote
> >
> >> > Atheism does not prescribe any particular course of action, so atheism
> >> > has no consequences.
> >> >
> >> No, it proscribes certian courses of action - eg offering sacrifices.
> >> This has consequences.
> >
> > Do elaborate.
> "I don't want to stop anyone worshipping billy goats if they want, but those
> who worship the green monkey, who requires a sacrifice of only a few peanuts
> a week, must be given equal status, as must I, who worship no god."
Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. Atheism makes no other
claim. Specifically, atheism does not demand "equal time" for all the
various flavours of theism.
Next?
...
> > As you note, atrocities seldom occur "in the name of atheism".
...
> But the number of people killed because their religious
> practises were incompatible with atheism, with no other reason given, was
> relatively small, though not insignificant.
Ummmm, yeah. That's basically what I said.
> >> > Atheism is not a philosophy.
> >> >
> >> It is a philosophical proposition. However most atheists are not very
> >> well
> >> versed in philosophy.
> >
> >
> > Do elaborate.
...
> However all atheists believe that "there is no God". It might be slightly
> nuanced, depending on whether the atheist thinks that God is definitely
> disproved or just improbable, but that is a simple, workable defintion of
> the word.
>
> This proposition is a philosphical proposition.
Unsupported assertion.
> However most atheists don't know where their ideas came from, and repeat
> platitudes like "religion has killed millions of people" as the only defence
> they can offer of their postion. This isn't unique to atheism, it is a
> problem with any idea or movement that doesn't have a central body to define
> orthodoxy and keep track of intellectual history.
Irrelevant. I challenge you to show that "most" atheists have no other
defence. Also, what you have illustrated is an ideological position, not
a philosophical one. Nor is this claim exclusive to atheists. Theists
routinely have to acknowledge that such atrocities have occurred.
Regards,
Josef
I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the
madness of people.
-- Isaac Newton
Kurt Nicklas
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pJCdnV-ig-1...@megapath.net...
> In <drfrt...@news2.newsguy.com>, "Kurt Nicklas"
> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> news:4417p8F...@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
>>> news:drfei...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4409tkF...@individual.net...
>>>
>>> snip
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>>>>
>>>> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively
>>>> or have you already made up your mind?
>>>
>>> Look, if you're encapable of coming up with anything, just say so.
>>
>> Why should I 'come up' with anything for someone who's not capable of
>> objectively
>> considering it? What sort of evidence for the existance of God could you
>> objectively
>> consider?
>
> Isn't your god omniscient? Then it would know what evidence would be
> necessary. Isn't your god omnipotent? Then it could present whatever
> evidence is necessary *and without violating this "free will" thing
> (whatever *that is).
What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
considering it?
VtSkier
I'm about as capable of objectively considering your evidence as
you are capable of objectively considering the refutation of such
evidence. The only thing which renders the existence of God, as
presented by the Judeo/Christian tradition, true is faith. There is
no evidence for the existence of God.
Kurt Nicklas
Are you capable of being objective enough to consider it?
By the way, do you refuse to believe in anything unless you can first see
such "objective,
verifiable evidence"?
> No one has been able to produce a shred so far.
Nonsense. Logically, you can't say that simply because you have not heard or
read
all the evidence presented throughout history and in every part of the
world.
So all you have, at best, is a probability.
Kurt Nicklas
"VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:444vdh...@individual.net...
You can't know that, of course. Why would you assert something which,
logically,
you cannot know?
>The only thing which renders the existence of God, as
> presented by the Judeo/Christian tradition, true is faith. There is
> no evidence for the existence of God.
You've just stated a logical fallacy. Just because YOU have not seen
any evidence does not mean it does not exist:
argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved
false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true.
A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to
the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim.
(Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike
contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and
"Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are contrary
claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones
was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at
the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim is proved true if its
contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an
Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it
cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator
prove that it isn't.
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
Robibnikoff
Objective verifiable evidence and I am capable of objectively considering
it.
So, where is it?
Robibnikoff
Absolutely. Bring it on.
>
> By the way, do you refuse to believe in anything unless you can first see
> such "objective,
> verifiable evidence"?
>
>> No one has been able to produce a shred so far.
>
> Nonsense. Logically, you can't say that simply because you have not heard
> or read
> all the evidence presented throughout history and in every part of the
> world.
True, but I have yet to see any objective, veriable evidence. If you have
some, please present it.
> So all you have, at best, is a probability.
See above.
>> I was just curious to see what you'd come up with. Don't bother if you
>> can't or don't want to. I really don't care - Just mildly curious.
Guess you don't have any objective, verifiable evidence. Color me
unsurprised.
VtSkier
>>>
>>>What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>>considering it?
>>
>>I'm about as capable of objectively considering your evidence as
>>you are capable of objectively considering the refutation of such
>>evidence.
>
> You can't know that, of course. Why would you assert something which,
> logically, you cannot know?
By the way you phrased YOUR question. You are NOT capable of providing
any evidence where none exists, yet you appear to offer to provide
"evidence".
>
>>The only thing which renders the existence of God, as
>>presented by the Judeo/Christian tradition, true is faith. There is
>>no evidence for the existence of God.
>
> You've just stated a logical fallacy. Just because YOU have not seen
> any evidence does not mean it does not exist:
> argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
> The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
> when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved
> false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true.
> A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to
> the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim.
> (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike
> contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and
> "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are contrary
> claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones
> was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at
> the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim is proved true if its
> contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
No evidence exists for the existence of God. My statement may be
logically false as it is impossible to prove a negative, but it is
patently true. My statement is NOT argumentum ad ignorantiam, though
it is a negative statement. Only faith can make the existence of God true.
That truth, then becomes subjective for the believer and is therefore
not a fact. It is, however, true for the believer.
> The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an
> Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it
> cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator
> prove that it isn't.
>
> http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
There is certainly evidence that the universe was NOT designed by an
Intelligent Creator, because so much of the universe is so obviously
not designed at all, or if it is, it certainly is not intelligent.
Mark K. Bilbo
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
Your god doesn't know?
alanm...@yahoo.com
Uncle Vic wrote:
> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet duke (duckg...@cox.net)
> made the light shine upon us with this:> >>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Athe
> >>ism.pdf.
> >>
> >>
> >>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
> >
> >
>
> Yup. Some people use guns to kill people. And some people use religion
> to justify the use of guns to kill people. Natural selection has a voice
> here, though. People who successfully avoid religion live to pass on
> their genes to the next generation. It would seem religion's days are
> numbered.
>
People originated as small tribal units, where everyone knew
everyone else, and just about everyone was related to everyone else.
It was both moral and profitable to kill, rob, or rape total strangers
if you could do so without much risk.
Formal religion and patriotism originated as the glue to hold nation
states together, despite being made up of total strangers. Without
them, violence and anarchy would quickly tear apart any organized
group larger than a small tribe. Religious or ideological wars are the
negative side effect of the national glue.
I doubt that religion's days are numbered. True, western Europe is
non religious, but the Muslim population is growing while the
non-Muslim population is declining.
- A.McIntire
Slobbering Skeleton
wrote:
>Slobbering Skeleton wrote:
>
>> On 26 Jan 2006 10:50:58 -0800, "words of truth" <trut...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity
>%20and%20Atheism.pdf.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just How Many People Has Religion Killed?
>>
>> You seem to be saying that religion cannot be blamed for the people
>> killed and tortured in its name, but atheism _can.
>>
>> I agree that nothing in Christianity requires mass murder and mass
>> torture. And yet Christians have done it as -- according to them --
>> part of their faith. You excuse this as the doings of people who are
>> not "true" Christians. Who are you to judge their faith?
>
>People yabber and jabber about communism, yet Stalin's
>worst excesses were in the early 30s. Secret, far away from
>the press, and no American Atheist got a vote on it.
>Mao's were mostly stupid mistake, the "Great Leap Forward"
>was mostly stupidity combined with a massive famine in China.
>Not mass murder but a foolish mistake. Google for that one.
>And these were long ago, as Christianty's complaint that the
>religious wars of Christianity that killed 1/4 of Europe
>was long ago. The inquisition was long ago, the crusades
>were long ago, the invasion of America by the conqistadors's
>were long ago, the war over slavery was long ago.
>
>But let us examine what the christians of America have been
>doing for the last 30 years, shall we?
>
>
>***********************************************************
> The Failure of Christianity in America
> W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
>***********************************************************
>
>Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved to the far right,
>taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have fully
>supported the GOP as it has moved right to gain support of
>christian zealots and conservatives. This started when Nixon
>played the racist Southern Strategy card building on civil
>rights era resentments by far right Southerners, in a purposeful
>plan create by Kevin Phillips, playing on unchristian racist
>resentments of the post Jim Crow civil rights era. Kevin Phillips,
>architect of the Sourthern strategy, apologized on NPR radio a
>few years back for this plan, which he admitted often sunk into
>rank racism.
etc.
Where's the slack?
Kurt Nicklas
I doubt you are as you seem to have made up your mind already. I realize you
pretend to pose, like most atheists in these groups, as an objective
observer using
the scientific method to examine the truth of all things but, judging from
your long posting
history, I doubt you are when it comes to things religious.
Kurt Nicklas
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>> What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>> considering it?
>
> Your god doesn't know?
I certainly don't.
Do you?
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> "VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>>>considering it?
>>>
>>>I'm about as capable of objectively considering your evidence as
>>>you are capable of objectively considering the refutation of such
>>>evidence.
>>
>> You can't know that, of course. Why would you assert something which,
>> logically, you cannot know?
>
> By the way you phrased YOUR question. You are NOT capable of providing
> any evidence where none exists, yet you appear to offer to provide
> "evidence".
Firstly, you cannot know what I am capable of doing and secondly you cannot
state
that no evidence exist for reasons you'll find below.
>>
>>>The only thing which renders the existence of God, as
>>>presented by the Judeo/Christian tradition, true is faith. There is
>>>no evidence for the existence of God.
>>
>> You've just stated a logical fallacy. Just because YOU have not seen
>> any evidence does not mean it does not exist:
>> argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
>> The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
>> when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved
>> false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved
>> true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting
>> evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or
>> contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be
>> false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of
>> the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are
>> contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or
>> 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones
>> was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim
>> is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
>
> No evidence exists for the existence of God. My statement may be
> logically false as it is impossible to prove a negative, but it is
> patently true. My statement is NOT argumentum ad ignorantiam, though
> it is a negative statement. Only faith can make the existence of God true.
As you are not omniscient you can only be stating what you, personally, know
to
be true. It IS argumentum ad ignorantium because you're stating something
doesn't
exist simply because YOU have never seen any evidence. All you have - at
best -
is a probability. You can only state that you, personally, have never seen
any convincing
evidence but you cannot say that no such evidence exists. Really, you can't.
Robibnikoff
Instead of all this flowerly language, why don't you just post your
objective, verifiable evidence. Why do you keep avoiding doing so?
BTW, kindly do not speak for me. I do not "pose".
If you have evidence, please post it and let me judge it for myself.
Otherwise, go away. Your avoidance of this doesn't impress anyone and makes
you look the fool.
Robibnikoff
Objective, verifable evidence.
Do you have any or not?
duke
>Since atheists don't have any beliefs, we don't qualify for your little
>shit list.
Walking and talking zombies.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kurt Nicklas
Because I'm not convinced you can neither tell me what you consider to be
objective, verifiable
evidence for the existance of God nor can you consider it objectively.
> BTW, kindly do not speak for me. I do not "pose".
> If you have evidence, please post it and let me judge it for myself.
>
> Otherwise, go away. Your avoidance of this doesn't impress anyone and
> makes you look the fool.
Actually, it is YOU who is avoiding things.
Kurt Nicklas
>
> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
> news:drkpp...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>> news:Kb2dnbt2LIb...@megapath.net...
>>> In <drjfa...@news1.newsguy.com>, "Kurt Nicklas"
>>> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>>
>>>> What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>>> considering it?
>>>
>>> Your god doesn't know?
>>
>> I certainly don't.
>>
>> Do you?
>
> Objective, verifable evidence.
>
> Do you have any or not?
I believe that your own hardened options in this matter would prevent you
from considering ANY evidence objectively.
Examine your premises.
Christopher A. Lee
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>>>>> What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>>>> considering it?
>>>>
>>>> Your god doesn't know?
>>>
>>> I certainly don't.
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>> Objective, verifable evidence.
>>
>> Do you have any or not?
>
>I believe that your own hardened options in this matter would prevent you
>from considering ANY evidence objectively.
Liar.
>Examine your premises.
You fucking hypocrite.
The standard, personally nasty lies used by the theist who is too
stupid to realise that all they do, is confirm he has none.
VtSkier
> "VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:44532p...@individual.net...
>
>>Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>
>>>"VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>>>What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>>>>considering it?
>>>>
>>>>I'm about as capable of objectively considering your evidence as
>>>>you are capable of objectively considering the refutation of such
>>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>You can't know that, of course. Why would you assert something which,
>>>logically, you cannot know?
>>
>>By the way you phrased YOUR question. You are NOT capable of providing
>>any evidence where none exists, yet you appear to offer to provide
>>"evidence".
>
>
> Firstly, you cannot know what I am capable of doing and secondly you cannot
> state
> that no evidence exist for reasons you'll find below.
You are blowing pretty hard here. Provide evidence of the existence
of God as presented by the Jewish/Christian tradition. Just do it.
Make my statements false by something other than some esoteric
logical argument. So far you haven't done that. Prove me wrong.
Not logically false... wrong.
Talk about the rest of what I have said, don't just try to refute
my statements by logical argument. Talk about truth and fact and
subjective faith. Something other than a pedant's whine about something
being not logical. You've worn that one out.
Robibnikoff
snip
>> Instead of all this flowerly language, why don't you just post your
>> objective, verifiable evidence. Why do you keep avoiding doing so?
>
> Because I'm not convinced you can neither tell me what you consider to be
> objective, verifiable
> evidence for the existance of God nor can you consider it objectively.
Yeah, right. Avoidance noted.
>> BTW, kindly do not speak for me. I do not "pose".
>
>> If you have evidence, please post it and let me judge it for myself.
>>
>> Otherwise, go away. Your avoidance of this doesn't impress anyone and
>> makes you look the fool.
>
> Actually, it is YOU who is avoiding things.
What am *I* avoiding? All I've been doing is asking you to present your
evidence. Funny, but you haven't done so?
Why is that? If you just say again that you don't feel that I can consider
it objectively, then I can only assume that you don't actually have any
evidence.
Robibnikoff
Sorry, but your personal issues on the matter aren't my problem.
> Examine your premises.
Present your evidence so that I may judge it. Failure to do so only proves
that you don't actually have any.
Mark K. Bilbo
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
> news:Kb2dnbt2LIb...@megapath.net...
>> In <drjfa...@news1.newsguy.com>, "Kurt Nicklas"
>> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
>>> What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>> considering it?
>>
>> Your god doesn't know?
>
> I certainly don't.
>
> Do you?
How should I know what your god knows?
Mark K. Bilbo
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4469s2...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
>> news:drkpp...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>>> news:Kb2dnbt2LIb...@megapath.net...
>>>> In <drjfa...@news1.newsguy.com>, "Kurt Nicklas"
>>>> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of
>>>>> objectively considering it?
>>>>
>>>> Your god doesn't know?
>>>
>>> I certainly don't.
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>> Objective, verifable evidence.
>>
>> Do you have any or not?
>
> I believe that your own hardened options in this matter would prevent you
> from considering ANY evidence objectively.
I believe that your own hardened opinions in the matter would prevent you
from considering ANY evidence objectively.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
<kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
Boy, that's a lotta words to use to say "I ain't got none."
Martin Edwards
Admittedly at the start I just drifted away because there was other
stuff on. Over time I came to realize that there was indeed no
evidence. I had believed something because I had been taught it, and
taught it, moreover, by Oxford and Cambridge men who should have
realized how dodgy it was.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
Malcolm
>> "I don't want to stop anyone worshipping billy goats if they want, but
>> those
>> who worship the green monkey, who requires a sacrifice of only a few
>> peanuts
>> a week, must be given equal status, as must I, who worship no god."
>
>
> Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. Atheism makes no other
> claim. Specifically, atheism does not demand "equal time" for all the
> various flavours of theism.
>
OK, I call that the "Wicca argument", which is what atheists commonly use,
but snip that clause if you are one of the superior atheists who recognises
that not all propositions you happen to disagree with have equal status.
The weakness with your position is that atheism is not a religion, so when
you say that "atheism does not demand equal time for all the various
flavours of theism" then of course you will find a few atheists who agree.
Similarly you will find a few atheists who demand that the government
immediately ban the futile worship of the magic white billy goat and execute
any offenders, a few who are prepared to see the cult continue, even to
sacrifice elephants themselves, but sadly don't believe in it, and a few who
will sacrifice elephants to a billy goat but draw the line at giving good
peanuts to the green monkey.
My story was a deliberately facetious morality tale, and must be read in
that light.
>
>> But the number of people killed because their religious
>> practises were incompatible with atheism, with no other reason given, was
>> relatively small, though not insignificant.
>
> Ummmm, yeah. That's basically what I said.
>
Sure. Being atheist prevents people killing for religious reasons, but not
for ideological reasons.
>
>> However all atheists believe that "there is no God". It might be slightly
>> nuanced, depending on whether the atheist thinks that God is definitely
>> disproved or just improbable, but that is a simple, workable defintion of
>> the word.
>>
>> This proposition is a philosphical proposition.
>
>
> Unsupported assertion.
>
You need to learn what the term "philosphical" means. There's not much
point trying to support an assertion about the way a word is used. Recourse
to a dictionary is a good first step, but usually frowned on in professional
circles, because dictionaries aren't good at defining the meanings of
ideologically loaded words.
>
> Irrelevant. I challenge you to show that "most" atheists have no other
> defence. Also, what you have illustrated is an ideological position, not
> a philosophical one. Nor is this claim exclusive to atheists. Theists
> routinely have to acknowledge that such atrocities have occurred.
>
There's not a sharp distinction between the two.
"There is no God" isn't necessarily an "ideological" position.
Etymologically it is an "idea", but the atheist doesn't necessarily draw any
political conclusions from his disbelief in God. It is however necessarily a
"philosophical" proposition, because it involves deep thinking about the
fundamentals of reality.
>
> Nor is this claim exclusive to atheists. Theists
> routinely have to acknowledge that such atrocities have occurred.
>
Sensible theists do acknowledge that atrocities have occurred in the name of
Jesus. The church doesn't claim to be impeccable, or to be infallible except
when promulgating dogma. Political decisions, such as how to fund the
construction of churches or how to deal with heretics, are not dogma.
The argument that "religion must be wrong because people have been killed in
the name of it" has some force, however the numbers must be kept in
perspective. The French Revolution killed far more than the Inquisition, and
the Communist regimes orders of magnitude more. Most governments, including
Catholic ones, have to kill some people to maintain themselves in power.
Claims that a particularly large number of people were killed by Catholics
are simply false.
wbarwell
This is a world without Slack as prophecied in
Stangeronomy 6:66. Sorry. Until the UFOs come
and blast the pinks and glorps we will just have
to struggle along.
When you see a king killed by his own jesters you will
know, the end-end times are upon us.
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
Cheerful Charlie
wbarwell
>>>> And the 'omnipotent god' who lets an innocent child die in terror
>>>> and agony is excused because . . . because . . . why *is* the
>>>> omnipotent
>>>> creator excused? He created evil, He set the stage, He launched the
>>>> chain of events as surely as one domino knocks down another. The
>>>> existence of evil kills the Christian God.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>
> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively
> or have you already made up your mind?
I would doubt you can make any sort of real argument
that is not easily debunked. Would you consider
counter arguments honestly and logically?
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
***********************************************************
wbarwell
>
> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:4417p8F...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
>> news:drfei...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4409tkF...@individual.net...
>>
>> snip
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively
>>> or have you already made up your mind?
>>
>> Look, if you're encapable of coming up with anything, just say so.
>
> Why should I 'come up' with anything for someone who's not capable of
> objectively
> considering it? What sort of evidence for the existance of God could
> you objectively
> consider?
You begging off then?
First of all, you have to actually have an argument.
I think you probably realized, you don't actually.
Now you are just making noises rather than admit it.
--
wbarwell
>> By the way you phrased YOUR question. You are NOT capable of providing
>> any evidence where none exists, yet you appear to offer to provide
>> "evidence".
>
> Firstly, you cannot know what I am capable of doing and secondly you
> cannot state
> that no evidence exist for reasons you'll find below.
>
Since I know why moral and natural evil are all god's
doing, I know you cannot present a capable argument.
You so far, hem and haw and present little.
*****************8
>>
>> No evidence exists for the existence of God. My statement may be
>> logically false as it is impossible to prove a negative, but it is
>> patently true. My statement is NOT argumentum ad ignorantiam, though
>> it is a negative statement. Only faith can make the existence of God
>> true.
>
> As you are not omniscient you can only be stating what you, personally,
> know to
> be true. It IS argumentum ad ignorantium because you're stating
> something doesn't
> exist simply because YOU have never seen any evidence. All you have -
> at best -
> is a probability. You can only state that you, personally, have never
> seen any convincing
> evidence but you cannot say that no such evidence exists. Really, you
> can't.
>
It goes deeper. There is no evidence, only assertions. But the
assertions create impossible contradictiions. The god asserted by
religions, the personal, creator of all, omni-everything god cannot
exist, it self debunks.
And a god that is creator of all and omniscience dooms any claims
man can have free will. God decides all, all moral evil that exists is
god's decision all natural evil, by god's design.
There is no escaping this and it would not help if you could explain
it away. If man had free will, there are still gotchas that doom god.
>> That truth, then becomes subjective for the believer and is therefore
>> not a fact. It is, however, true for the believer.
>
>>> The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed
>>> by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the
>>> fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an
>>> Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't.
>>>
>>> http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
>>
>> There is certainly evidence that the universe was NOT designed by an
>> Intelligent Creator, because so much of the universe is so obviously
>> not designed at all, or if it is, it certainly is not intelligent.
--
wbarwell
*******
> I doubt you are as you seem to have made up your mind already. I
> realize you pretend to pose, like most atheists in these groups, as an
> objective observer using
> the scientific method to examine the truth of all things but, judging
> from your long posting
> history, I doubt you are when it comes to things religious.
About once a week in AA, some glorp charges in here, braying
about how god exists. We ask for evidence and the glorp does
the silly glorp avoidance of evidence dance, just like you are
doing here.
Its gotten to the point its a tired joke here.
Week in and week out, month after month, this is
so predictable.
None of your type for all the frantic running
around in circles blathering manuveurs ever even
attempts to present any thing at all except rants.
Much less evidence.
What you do not know is, we are all laughing at you.
Because you all do this to the point you might as well
be reading a script. Its almost like a Monty Python
sketch.
I can almost here the hysterical ranting of
John Cleese, "Why bother! You would't believe
anything I say, you have already made your minds
up, HAVEN'T YOU!"
And in the end, no evidence is produced.
This has been regular fare here for years now.
So if you hear every regular of AA laughing,
you know why. We are betting you will scurry
off soon, you all do.
wbarwell
>
> "Enkidu" <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9758D380...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in news:drepkb0tu7
>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>
>>>
---------------
> In your case, Anonymous Boy, the Christian God is not "killed" simply
> because
> you are ignorant.
If you hadn't of nailed him to the perch he'd be
pushing up the daisies.
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> "VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:44532p...@individual.net...
>>
>>>Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>>>"VtSkier" <VtS...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>>>What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of
>>>>>>objectively considering it?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm about as capable of objectively considering your evidence as
>>>>>you are capable of objectively considering the refutation of such
>>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>>You can't know that, of course. Why would you assert something which,
>>>>logically, you cannot know?
>>>
>>>By the way you phrased YOUR question. You are NOT capable of providing
>>>any evidence where none exists, yet you appear to offer to provide
>>>"evidence".
>>
>>
>> Firstly, you cannot know what I am capable of doing and secondly you
>> cannot state
>> that no evidence exist for reasons you'll find below.
>
> You are blowing pretty hard here. Provide evidence of the existence
> of God as presented by the Jewish/Christian tradition. Just do it.
You've already made the blanket statement that no such evidence exists and
NOW
you want me to provide it to you? And you say *I* am "blowing hard"!
> Make my statements false by something other than some esoteric
> logical argument. So far you haven't done that. Prove me wrong.
> Not logically false... wrong.
So you've abandoned logic then! It's interesting because that what atheists
so
often accuse theists of doing.
You need to start out by learning something of logical fallacies.
Maybe your momma can help?
{snickers}
Kurt Nicklas
"wbarwell" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ttav4...@corp.supernews.com...
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
> *******
>
>> I doubt you are as you seem to have made up your mind already. I
>> realize you pretend to pose, like most atheists in these groups, as an
>> objective observer using
>> the scientific method to examine the truth of all things but, judging
>> from your long posting
>> history, I doubt you are when it comes to things religious.
>
> About once a week in AA, some glorp charges in here, braying
> about how god exists. We ask for evidence
In you case, Billy, you (and others) insist that no such evidence exists
thereby proving both your incapability of dealing with this matter
objectively
and also you ignorance of logic.
Come on, Billy: Isn't it one of the prime pretensions of atheists that they
take
a logical, scientific approach to EVERYTHING?
Kurt Nicklas
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
And that's only a few words to say "All I got are strawmen".
Kurt Nicklas
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5g1st15v8ksma41no...@4ax.com...
Well, now here is a true scientist, dedicated to logic and the objective
search for truth!!
Run along, junior...
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>
>>> By the way you phrased YOUR question. You are NOT capable of providing
>>> any evidence where none exists, yet you appear to offer to provide
>>> "evidence".
>>
>> Firstly, you cannot know what I am capable of doing and secondly you
>> cannot state
>> that no evidence exist for reasons you'll find below.
>>
>
> Since I know why moral and natural evil are all god's
> doing, I know you cannot present a capable argument.
> You so far, hem and haw and present little.
You can't know that, Billy. I'm sorry for you. I really am.
>
> *****************8
>>>
>>> No evidence exists for the existence of God. My statement may be
>>> logically false as it is impossible to prove a negative, but it is
>>> patently true. My statement is NOT argumentum ad ignorantiam, though
>>> it is a negative statement. Only faith can make the existence of God
>>> true.
>>
>> As you are not omniscient you can only be stating what you, personally,
>> know to
>> be true. It IS argumentum ad ignorantium because you're stating
>> something doesn't
>> exist simply because YOU have never seen any evidence. All you have -
>> at best -
>> is a probability. You can only state that you, personally, have never
>> seen any convincing
>> evidence but you cannot say that no such evidence exists. Really, you
>> can't.
>>
>
>
> It goes deeper. There is no evidence, only assertions.
You cannot know that, Billy. Just because you know of no evidence of the
existance of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You need to read up on argumentum ad ignorantium if you want to be
considered as anything other than the crackpot I consider you to be.
> But the
> assertions create impossible contradictiions. The god asserted by
> religions, the personal, creator of all, omni-everything god cannot
> exist, it self debunks.
You have heard neither all the possible evidence for God NOR all of the
assertions hence you can't logically say that God does not exist. You simply
can't.
> And a god that is creator of all and omniscience dooms any claims
> man can have free will. God decides all, all moral evil that exists is
> god's decision all natural evil, by god's design.
>
> There is no escaping this and it would not help if you could explain
> it away. If man had free will, there are still gotchas that doom god.
You're a crackpot, Billy. I laugh at you.
Kurt Nicklas
>
> "Kurt Nicklas" <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
> news:drkv4...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> news:4469r5...@individual.net...
>
> snip
>>> Instead of all this flowerly language, why don't you just post your
>>> objective, verifiable evidence. Why do you keep avoiding doing so?
>>
>> Because I'm not convinced you can neither tell me what you consider to be
>> objective, verifiable
>> evidence for the existance of God nor can you consider it objectively.
>
> Yeah, right. Avoidance noted.
You note in error.
>>> BTW, kindly do not speak for me. I do not "pose".
>>
>>> If you have evidence, please post it and let me judge it for myself.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, go away. Your avoidance of this doesn't impress anyone and
>>> makes you look the fool.
>>
>> Actually, it is YOU who is avoiding things.
>
> What am *I* avoiding? All I've been doing is asking you to present your
> evidence. Funny, but you haven't done so?
> Why is that? If you just say again that you don't feel that I can
> consider it objectively, then I can only assume that you don't actually
> have any evidence.
You've stated elsewhere in this group on at least one (and I suspect
multiple)
occasion(s) that no evidence exists for the existance of God. Note you did
not
merely say "I have not seen" the evidence.
More evidence that you have made up your mind and you are not capable of
objectivity in this matter.
Or do you now believe that God *may* exist?
Kurt Nicklas
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
> In <drkpp...@news1.newsguy.com>, "Kurt Nicklas"
> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>> news:Kb2dnbt2LIb...@megapath.net...
>>> In <drjfa...@news1.newsguy.com>, "Kurt Nicklas"
>>> <kurt_n...@aport2000.ru> wrote:
>>
>>>> What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
>>>> considering it?
>>>
>>> Your god doesn't know?
>>
>> I certainly don't.
>>
>> Do you?
>
> How should I know what your god knows?
I understand that you are literacy-challenged, so I will make allowances and
repeat
what I said just above:
What "evidence" is necessary for you and are you capable of objectively
considering it?
Re-read, re-think(as difficult as that may be) and repost.
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>> And the 'omnipotent god' who lets an innocent child die in terror
>>>>> and agony is excused because . . . because . . . why *is* the
>>>>> omnipotent
>>>>> creator excused? He created evil, He set the stage, He launched the
>>>>> chain of events as surely as one domino knocks down another. The
>>>>> existence of evil kills the Christian God.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> My, what a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Are you capable of considering any arguments I might make objectively
>> or have you already made up your mind?
>
> I would doubt you can make any sort of real argument
> that is not easily debunked. Would you consider
> counter arguments honestly and logically?
If you want to argue that no evidence exists for the existance of God then
I would only laugh at you, Billy.
Do you still believe that logical fallacy?
Kurt Nicklas
> Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
No, all it does is invent things like WMDs and lets others do the burning.
VtSkier
Yeah, so do it, you have been challenged.
>>Make my statements false by something other than some esoteric
>>logical argument. So far you haven't done that. Prove me wrong.
>>Not logically false... wrong.
>
>
> So you've abandoned logic then! It's interesting because that what atheists
> so
> often accuse theists of doing.
Just prove me wrong. I dare you. I'll not use logic
as a whip to shout you down as you are trying to do
with me. Just prove me wrong, that's all I ask.
You need to learn to make an argument instead of a bunch of
unproven and unprovable assertions. All I ask is that you prove
me wrong in my single assertion. No logic is necessary, just
produce some evidence contrary to my assertion and I will go
home with my tail between my legs. Just do it.
Uncle Vic
made the light shine upon us with this:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:02:51 -0600, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Since atheists don't have any beliefs, we don't qualify for your
>>little shit list.
>
> Walking and talking zombies.
>
That you are.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011, aw Hellboy #5
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Malcolm poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote
> >> "I don't want to stop anyone worshipping billy goats if they want, but
> >> those
> >> who worship the green monkey, who requires a sacrifice of only a few
> >> peanuts
> >> a week, must be given equal status, as must I, who worship no god."
> >
> >
> > Atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. Atheism makes no other
> > claim. Specifically, atheism does not demand "equal time" for all the
> > various flavours of theism.
> >
> OK, I call that the "Wicca argument", which is what atheists commonly use,
> but snip that clause if you are one of the superior atheists who recognises
> that not all propositions you happen to disagree with have equal status.
Atheists, like any other group, hold opinions that cover the spectrum.
But the "tenets" of atheism, such as they are, do not demand "equal
time" for all religions.
> The weakness with your position is that atheism is not a religion, so when
> you say that "atheism does not demand equal time for all the various
> flavours of theism" then of course you will find a few atheists who agree.
> Similarly you will find a few atheists who demand that the government
> immediately ban the futile worship of the magic white billy goat and execute
> any offenders, a few who are prepared to see the cult continue, even to
> sacrifice elephants themselves, but sadly don't believe in it, and a few who
> will sacrifice elephants to a billy goat but draw the line at giving good
> peanuts to the green monkey.
I don't see how this establishes that there is a weakness in my
position, since none of your examples show a demand for "equal time".
> My story was a deliberately facetious morality tale, and must be read in
> that light.
I recognized that the argument was contrived, but then again I DID ask
you to support your claim that atheism has consequences.
> >> But the number of people killed because their religious
> >> practises were incompatible with atheism, with no other reason given, was
> >> relatively small, though not insignificant.
> >
> > Ummmm, yeah. That's basically what I said.
> >
> Sure. Being atheist prevents people killing for religious reasons, but not
> for ideological reasons.
If you are making the point that atheists sometimes kill people, then I
won't disagree. But the point of discussion was that theists have killed
in the name of their deity or religion, while atheists seldom kill to
further the cause of atheism, as you have agreed.
> >> However all atheists believe that "there is no God". It might be slightly
> >> nuanced, depending on whether the atheist thinks that God is definitely
> >> disproved or just improbable, but that is a simple, workable defintion of
> >> the word.
> >>
> >> This proposition is a philosphical proposition.
> >
> >
> > Unsupported assertion.
> >
> You need to learn what the term "philosphical" means.
As do you.
> There's not much
> point trying to support an assertion about the way a word is used. Recourse
> to a dictionary is a good first step, but usually frowned on in professional
> circles, because dictionaries aren't good at defining the meanings of
> ideologically loaded words.
So basically you are saying that atheism is a philosophy because you
have chosen to define it that way. For my part, I do not accept your
definition.
> > Irrelevant. I challenge you to show that "most" atheists have no other
> > defence.
No response?
> > Also, what you have illustrated is an ideological position, not
> > a philosophical one. Nor is this claim exclusive to atheists. Theists
> > routinely have to acknowledge that such atrocities have occurred.
> There's not a sharp distinction between the two.
I see a definite distinction.
> "There is no God" isn't necessarily an "ideological" position.
That was not the platitude that I was referring to. The statement that
"religion has killed millions of people" is an ideological position, or
at least part of one.
...
> > Nor is this claim exclusive to atheists. Theists
> > routinely have to acknowledge that such atrocities have occurred.
> >
> Sensible theists do acknowledge that atrocities have occurred in the name of
> Jesus. The church doesn't claim to be impeccable, or to be infallible except
> when promulgating dogma. Political decisions, such as how to fund the
> construction of churches or how to deal with heretics, are not dogma.
My point being that the claim that "religion has killed millions of
people" is not exclusive to atheists. As such, it would be a rather
dubious "argument" for atheism. Theists routinely shrug off this
problem, as you have done below, thus illustrating that the argument has
little force in swaying people to atheism.
> The argument that "religion must be wrong because people have been killed in
> the name of it" has some force, however the numbers must be kept in
> perspective. The French Revolution killed far more than the Inquisition, and
> the Communist regimes orders of magnitude more. Most governments, including
> Catholic ones, have to kill some people to maintain themselves in power.
> Claims that a particularly large number of people were killed by Catholics
> are simply false.
Regards,
Josef
Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing
away from it all that is not gold.
-- Leo Tolstoy