A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Infogrphic of Dictator Death Tolls
...is Here. Note the lack of Christians and the heavy weighting of Atheists.
Hitler, Stalin, etc.. had mustaches therefor by Stan's logic: People with mustaches are evil.
Did it take you 40 years to develop this silver bullet Stan? Correlation does not imply causation. Attributing evil deeds to a trait is pure nonsense. Nobody kills in the name of atheism, while we have countless examples of killing in the name of God.
"Nobody kills in the name of atheism". That's rich. Atheism is one of the common traits of those mass murderers. A precursor, if you will. They worshipped themselves, and ordered those deaths in their own name. Same religious zeal. Same result - but on a much larger scale.
But you atheist apologists will never be convinced that you're religious zealots. So this is for the other folks reading this text.
Nobody kills in the name of atheism. Sure, pal. But they stop by this blog and sling insults, sneers and blarney all the time.
Well, I reckon that means that Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong are NOT evil, since they don't meet the requirement to have a mustache to BE evil. So, I guess we can remove them from the list, thereby reducing the kill count by about 80 million (give or take a few million).
Oh, I'm sorry: I'm confused. I forgot that all of those atheists (who rammed atheism down the gullet of their countrymen and actively eradicated religious practitioners) were prime examples of the poisonous "religious meme."
Hmmm, countless examples of killing in the name of g-d? Surely you can at least come up with an approximate (and laughable) estimate. I'd be willing to entertain (and it would be very entertaining to watch you fumble around the truth) a "lump sum" of the body counts of all religions (for all of recorded history combined) as a comparison to the body count piled up in the 20th century by your "innocent" atheists.
Got any numbers for that, or is it all just hot air?
"Nobody kills in the name of atheism". That's rich. Atheism is one of the common traits of those mass murderers. A precursor, if you will. They worshipped themselves, and ordered those deaths in their own name. Same religious zeal. Same result - but on a much larger scale.
Yes rich indeed they had the similar traits of religious zealots - Blind faith, visions of godhood demanding followers do obey them unquestioned. If anything they took a page out of dogmatic religion which seems to be the real precursor becomming religious themselves abandoning their atheism which is not dogmatic no matter how much Strawman Stan tries to paint it with his diatribes on this foolish blog.
Oh, I'm sorry: I'm confused. I forgot that all of those atheists (who rammed atheism down the gullet of their countrymen and actively eradicated religious practitioners) were prime examples of the poisonous "religious meme."
They also killed atheists as well, whats your point? My above comment applies to you as well fundie.
Got any numbers for that, or is it all just hot air?
Turn on your news channel and watch how the middle east piles up bodies daily.
Jay, You are merely spouting the common web-Atheist excuse for all the Atheist slaughters. Atheism has exactly no (zero) morality attached to it. That glaring lack enables both the Atheist slaughters and the Atheists to excuse the Atheist slaughters as being "religious" as in zealotry. But it is obvious that the Atheist lack of compunction and the Atheist lack of morality were pronounced by the Atheist regimes who went out of their way to kill, kill, kill, kill - including other Atheists. The avowed Atheist states killed wantonly. So you'll not get away with trying to excuse it with false reasoning.
Only a callous and disturbed ideolog would deny that Atheism was a factor in the wholesale slaughter of Atheists and non-Atheists by Atheists.
"Not In The Name Of" is the most ignorant and inapplicable excuse that any juvenile Atheist could ever devise. Atheism was/is a state-declared premise from which they function(ed). It is the philosophical foundation from which they operate(d). It is who they are. To say that it is OK because they didn't do itin the name of Atheism is so intellectually phony that it would not stand up in any Jr. High School History Class.
You are so protective of your ideology that you are forced into silly positions which are rationally indefensible. And your childish name calling indicates that your emotional level is either that of an adolescent, or of an adult stunted at that level.
Your use of the Middle East as an attack on religion is another indicator that your hatred has severely clouded your intellect. The use of False Association in order to condemn all parties is both a logic fallacy and a childish attempt to smear, and nothing more. You'll have to do far better than that, until you can find children to attempt to influence. But here, it doesn't work.
And BTW, they did exhibit the traits which you claim:
"Blind faith, visions of godhood demanding followers do obey them unquestioned."
These are not necessary and sufficient conditions for theism; however, they do represent the AtheoLeftist Progressive movement today, where they had blind faith in Obama's stupid "hope and change"; visions of messiahism as they create Victim Classes and Oppressor Classes in order to foment class war; and their drive to force their programs down the throats of all citizens (which even the SCOTUS has knocked down, with 100% agreement).
It is the AtheoLeft which is the zealot, totalitarian, amoral, elitist and intolerant attack group; not theists, at least in the west. And it is Christianity which you hate the most, isn't it?
You cannot bear the Light that Shineth. You'd rather stay in the dark all your life. You've developed a taste for it, even defend it with claims of moral and intellectual superiority.
But all of that is smoke and mirrors, dust and ashes. You know at bottom what the Truth is. All your insults, all your mockery, all your confused attempts at 'logic' that are self-contradicting... all of that is denial of what you know to be True.
If you were a better teen, you would admit it and then depart.
This is yet another play at words atheists hope will relieve them from the bllod on their hands.
It goes something like this:Because no atheist has explicitly stated "I am now killing you in the name of atheism" ,therefore no atheist has killed in the name of atheism
Killing in the name of a cause,is when you kill to advance that cause. Communists killed to advance atheism,therefore communists killed in the name of atheism.
"They also killed atheists as well, whats your point? My above comment applies to you as well fundie."
First, I'm just crumbled at being called a "fundie." N-O-T. Now, if I were a PC adherent, I might be intimidated (a little) by being called a "rasciss." On second thought, N-O-T.
Second, the illogic of claiming that they did not kill "in the name of atheism" simply because they also killed SOME atheists is astoundingly ignorant (but expected). Please try to see the point: they DID kill "the Other" because they were atheists, following their atheist ideology. That there was some collateral damage to other atheists: well, no true Progressive is going to cry over the sacrifice of a few fellow atheists along the way to the ultimate Utopia.It was just their contribution to the "greater good."
Third, as expected, you made no attempt to quantify the total numbers killed in ALL "religious wars," in order to juxtapose that body count against the numbers killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century alone.
Let me assist you in eliminating at least some insignificant portion of your cosmic ignorance. Check out that atheist bastion of 100% "truth"-Wikipedia.
First, an impartial definition of "religious war":
"A religious war (or "Holy War", Latin bellum sacrum) is a war caused by, or justified by, differences in religion."
EXCERPT: "In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict.[3] William T. Cavanaugh in his Myth of Religious Violence (2009) argues that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy", arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[4] Similar opinions were expressed as early as the 1760s, during the Seven Years' War, widely recognized to be "religious" in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests."
Hmmm; that 7% figure doesn't go very far in supporting the assertion that "religions" are behind all wars and that "religious wars" have killed more people (including atheists) than atheist regimes. But I digress; shall we look at actual numbers?
Second, a listing of the body counts (or a range of estimates) for each known war:
Shall we agree (merely for the sake of civil discussion) to avoid the disingenuous "atheism is simply and solely an absence of belief in a deity" trope, and concurrently avoid the totally unfounded "all wars are religious wars-by MY definition" trope?
Jay is here to troll, not engage in anything that requires reason, logic or proof. It's just a bit of ranting by a teenager with parental rejection issues. It'll pass.
Just thought I would get that out of the way for those of you who think this fellow is here for the reasoned discourse.
Mengistu Haile (up above) - an atheist - burned down church after church and killed people. He also killed the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox church.
Surely one's worldview informs their actions. It is disingenuous to think otherwise.
13 comments:
Hitler, Stalin, etc.. had mustaches therefor by Stan's logic: People with mustaches are evil.
Did it take you 40 years to develop this silver bullet Stan? Correlation does not imply causation. Attributing evil deeds to a trait is pure nonsense. Nobody kills in the name of atheism, while we have countless examples of killing in the name of God.
"Nobody kills in the name of atheism". That's rich. Atheism is one of the common traits of those mass murderers. A precursor, if you will. They worshipped themselves, and ordered those deaths in their own name. Same religious zeal. Same result - but on a much larger scale.
But you atheist apologists will never be convinced that you're religious zealots. So this is for the other folks reading this text.
Nobody kills in the name of atheism. Sure, pal. But they stop by this blog and sling insults, sneers and blarney all the time.
Well, I reckon that means that Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong are NOT evil, since they don't meet the requirement to have a mustache to BE evil. So, I guess we can remove them from the list, thereby reducing the kill count by about 80 million (give or take a few million).
Oh, I'm sorry: I'm confused. I forgot that all of those atheists (who rammed atheism down the gullet of their countrymen and actively eradicated religious practitioners) were prime examples of the poisonous "religious meme."
Hmmm, countless examples of killing in the name of g-d? Surely you can at least come up with an approximate (and laughable) estimate. I'd be willing to entertain (and it would be very entertaining to watch you fumble around the truth) a "lump sum" of the body counts of all religions (for all of recorded history combined) as a comparison to the body count piled up in the 20th century by your "innocent" atheists.
Got any numbers for that, or is it all just hot air?
"Nobody kills in the name of atheism". That's rich. Atheism is one of the common traits of those mass murderers. A precursor, if you will. They worshipped themselves, and ordered those deaths in their own name. Same religious zeal. Same result - but on a much larger scale.
Yes rich indeed they had the similar traits of religious zealots - Blind faith, visions of godhood demanding followers do obey them unquestioned. If anything they took a page out of dogmatic religion which seems to be the real precursor becomming religious themselves abandoning their atheism which is not dogmatic no matter how much Strawman Stan tries to paint it with his diatribes on this foolish blog.
Oh, I'm sorry: I'm confused. I forgot that all of those atheists (who rammed atheism down the gullet of their countrymen and actively eradicated religious practitioners) were prime examples of the poisonous "religious meme."
They also killed atheists as well, whats your point? My above comment applies to you as well fundie.
Got any numbers for that, or is it all just hot air?
Turn on your news channel and watch how the middle east piles up bodies daily.
Jay,
You are merely spouting the common web-Atheist excuse for all the Atheist slaughters. Atheism has exactly no (zero) morality attached to it. That glaring lack enables both the Atheist slaughters and the Atheists to excuse the Atheist slaughters as being "religious" as in zealotry. But it is obvious that the Atheist lack of compunction and the Atheist lack of morality were pronounced by the Atheist regimes who went out of their way to kill, kill, kill, kill - including other Atheists. The avowed Atheist states killed wantonly. So you'll not get away with trying to excuse it with false reasoning.
Only a callous and disturbed ideolog would deny that Atheism was a factor in the wholesale slaughter of Atheists and non-Atheists by Atheists.
"Not In The Name Of" is the most ignorant and inapplicable excuse that any juvenile Atheist could ever devise. Atheism was/is a state-declared premise from which they function(ed). It is the philosophical foundation from which they operate(d). It is who they are. To say that it is OK because they didn't do itin the name of Atheism is so intellectually phony that it would not stand up in any Jr. High School History Class.
You are so protective of your ideology that you are forced into silly positions which are rationally indefensible. And your childish name calling indicates that your emotional level is either that of an adolescent, or of an adult stunted at that level.
Your use of the Middle East as an attack on religion is another indicator that your hatred has severely clouded your intellect. The use of False Association in order to condemn all parties is both a logic fallacy and a childish attempt to smear, and nothing more. You'll have to do far better than that, until you can find children to attempt to influence. But here, it doesn't work.
And BTW, they did exhibit the traits which you claim:
"Blind faith, visions of godhood demanding followers do obey them unquestioned."
These are not necessary and sufficient conditions for theism; however, they do represent the AtheoLeftist Progressive movement today, where they had blind faith in Obama's stupid "hope and change"; visions of messiahism as they create Victim Classes and Oppressor Classes in order to foment class war; and their drive to force their programs down the throats of all citizens (which even the SCOTUS has knocked down, with 100% agreement).
It is the AtheoLeft which is the zealot, totalitarian, amoral, elitist and intolerant attack group; not theists, at least in the west. And it is Christianity which you hate the most, isn't it?
It's true, isn't it, Jay?
You cannot bear the Light that Shineth. You'd rather stay in the dark all your life. You've developed a taste for it, even defend it with claims of moral and intellectual superiority.
But all of that is smoke and mirrors, dust and ashes. You know at bottom what the Truth is. All your insults, all your mockery, all your confused attempts at 'logic' that are self-contradicting... all of that is denial of what you know to be True.
If you were a better teen, you would admit it and then depart.
So... are you?
Jay said"Nobody kills in the name of atheism
This is yet another play at words atheists hope will relieve them from the bllod on their hands.
It goes something like this:Because no atheist has explicitly stated "I am now killing you in the name of atheism" ,therefore no atheist has killed in the name of atheism
Killing in the name of a cause,is when you kill to advance that cause.
Communists killed to advance atheism,therefore communists killed in the name of atheism.
"They also killed atheists as well, whats your point? My above comment applies to you as well fundie."
First, I'm just crumbled at being called a "fundie." N-O-T. Now, if I were a PC adherent, I might be intimidated (a little) by being called a "rasciss." On second thought, N-O-T.
Second, the illogic of claiming that they did not kill "in the name of atheism" simply because they also killed SOME atheists is astoundingly ignorant (but expected). Please try to see the point: they DID kill "the Other" because they were atheists, following their atheist ideology. That there was some collateral damage to other atheists: well, no true Progressive is going to cry over the sacrifice of a few fellow atheists along the way to the ultimate Utopia.It was just their contribution to the "greater good."
Third, as expected, you made no attempt to quantify the total numbers killed in ALL "religious wars," in order to juxtapose that body count against the numbers killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century alone.
Let me assist you in eliminating at least some insignificant portion of your cosmic ignorance. Check out that atheist bastion of 100% "truth"-Wikipedia.
First, an impartial definition of "religious war":
"A religious war (or "Holy War", Latin bellum sacrum) is a war caused by, or justified by, differences in religion."
Religious war
EXCERPT:
"In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict.[3] William T. Cavanaugh in his Myth of Religious Violence (2009) argues that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy", arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[4] Similar opinions were expressed as early as the 1760s, during the Seven Years' War, widely recognized to be "religious" in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests."
Hmmm; that 7% figure doesn't go very far in supporting the assertion that "religions" are behind all wars and that "religious wars" have killed more people (including atheists) than atheist regimes. But I digress; shall we look at actual numbers?
Second, a listing of the body counts (or a range of estimates) for each known war:
List of wars by death toll
Shall we agree (merely for the sake of civil discussion) to avoid the disingenuous "atheism is simply and solely an absence of belief in a deity" trope, and concurrently avoid the totally unfounded "all wars are religious wars-by MY definition" trope?
Jay is here to troll, not engage in anything that requires reason, logic or proof. It's just a bit of ranting by a teenager with parental rejection issues. It'll pass.
Just thought I would get that out of the way for those of you who think this fellow is here for the reasoned discourse.
Hope springs eternal...
Mengistu Haile (up above) - an atheist - burned down church after church and killed people. He also killed the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox church.
Surely one's worldview informs their actions. It is disingenuous to think otherwise.
~ Raj
Post a Comment