You simply don’t know what atheism is. It’s a joke at this point. You’re batting at strawmen if you don’t know something as basic as what atheism is. And you’re desperate. Desperate to defend your faith…and it’s not working out for you.

Also, your accusations are false.

I suppose it’s pointless to ask you to go back and read my words, but I said that blaming christianity for all world strife is inaccurate because some terrible massacres were committed by states which were not religious.

Another strawman. I never blamed “all the world’s strife” on christianity, or even religion. But a good deal of it is to be blamed on it.

1. Learn what atheism is.

2. For your argument to work, you need to show how atheism caused those atrocities. You need to show how atheism entails, say, genocide; how atheism can cause one person to harm another.

I said that it would be inaccurate to blame Stalinist violence on atheism, just as it is inaccurate to blame ALL slaughter done by christian states on religion.

I only blame the harm done by christians and christian states in the name of christianity and because of christianity on christianity…what part of that haven’t you understood?

I know Rousseau and Voltaire never counseled murder (Diderot did, though I know it was just hyperbolae),

Rousseah and voltaire and diderot aren’t “atheism”. Do you get it yet? You simply fail to grasp this simple point. That’s like calling the Pope christianity. It’s like talking to a three year old who is special needs… If an atheist counsels harm, it’s not because of their atheism…it cannot be because… There is nothing intrinsic to atheism that entails violence or harm; it cannot given what it means. Some atheists can be bad people because they believe things like that sexism is true, for example, while still being atheist. But their atheism alone is not what causes them to do bad things because….once again…THERE IS NOTHING INTRINSIC TO THE MEANING OF ATHEISM THAT ENTAILS HARM BE DONE TO OTHERS. Do you get it yet? That simply cannot be said of christianity. There are things christians do that they wouldn’t do if they weren’t christian which are horrible. THE END.

There is a lot intrinsic to christianity that entails violence and harm. This is true of other religions, too.

….it’s not true of atheism. Because atheism is not a belief system…it’s not a belief about the world, even…it’s not an ethical system…it’s not a spiritual system…it’s not a economic system or political system…you really need to know what you’re talking about (learn what atheism first) before you can begin to discuss it intelligently.

but their anti-clerical and anti-absolutist theories were used by the republicans and Jacobins to commit mass murder.

Which were not atheism. DO you get it yet?

Because atheism is not a belief system…it’s not a belief about the world, even…it’s not an ethical system…it’s not a spiritual system…it’s not a economic system or political system…you really need to know what you’re talking about (learn what atheism first) before you can begin to discuss it intelligently.

I’ll repeat this from here on out each time you mischaracterize atheism.

The funny thing is I agree with you that most of the oppression in European history WAS done through organized religion. I just think you are ignoring the fact that Christianity is not one monolithic belief.

Of course it is. I don’t think you know monolithic means either. Christians all look to the bible for guidance, and believe it’s the word of god. They are all considered christian for a reason.

And as for branding me a christian… If I said I supported racial equality would you start calling me a black man too?

you are beyond a shadow of doubt a christian fundamentalist. THere isn’t a shred of credibility behind your denials here. This is cheap rhetorical trick. What you’re supporting is not religious tolerance, but religious fundamentalism. You are attacking with every post this equivocated false atheism you’ve contrived, while defending religion…specifically, christianity. You are a christer.

You say “other” belief systems.
Did you just slip up there and admit atheism is a belief of yours?

Also, your accusations are false.

I suppose it’s pointless to ask you to go back and read my words, but I said that blaming christianity for all world strife is inaccurate because some terrible massacres were committed by states which were not religious.

I said that it would be inaccurate to blame Stalinist violence on atheism, just as it is inaccurate to blame ALL slaughter done by christian states on religion.

I know Rousseau and Voltaire never counseled murder (Diderot did, though I know it was just hyperbolae), but their anti-clerical and anti-absolutist theories were used by the republicans and Jacobins to commit mass murder.

The funny thing is I agree with you that most of the oppression in European history WAS done through organized religion. I just think you are ignoring the fact that Christianity is not one monolithic belief.

And as for branding me a christian… If I said I supported racial equality would you start calling me a black man too? Because I can tell you the story of Orpheus and Eurydice would you assume I am in a Dianic cult?

But you are yelling. Perhaps you should take up that yoga I recommended before you burst a blood vessel.

NO, DINESH, YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW ATHEISM, AND ATHEISM ALONE, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLENCE…AND NOT OTHER BELIEF SYSTEMS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

Nice compact little contradiction there. Well did they or didn’t they?

Make sense.

At this point TANK, I’m actually talking over your head for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this. I don’t actually expect you to acknowledge the validity of anything you don’t believe in, no matter what the evidence.

You claimed that atheism was repsonsible for the september massacres.

THERE IS NOTHING INTRINSIC TO ATHEISM THAT DEMANDS GENOCIDE. ATHEISM IS NOT A POLITICAL BELIEF SYSTEM LIKE THOSE PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. IT IS NOT A ECONOMIC SYSTEM, LIKE CAPITALISM, OR COMMUNISM, OR SOCIALISM.

IF YOU INSIST THAT ATHEISM CAUSES PEOPLE TO COMMIT THESE ATROCTIES, IT IS UP TO YOU TO EXPLICITLY SHOW HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE; HOW ATHEISM IS INTRINSICALLY VIOLENT AND CAUSES PEOPLE TO PERFORM HARMFUL ACTS. THIS IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BASED UPON ITS MEANING, BUT YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THIS WHEN YOU MAKE THE ACCUSATION THAT IT DOES.

THIS IS NOT SO WITH CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS. IF NOT FOR RELIGION, PROPOSITION 8 WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED. IF NOT FOR RELIGION, THE INQUISITION WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO PASS. IF NOT FOR RELIGION, SEPTEMBER 11TH WOULDN’T HAVE OCCURRED. IT IS A PART OF CHRISTIAN BELIEFS TO BE VIOLENT; TO SUBJUGATE OTHERS; TO CAUSE HARM. THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, AND EMBRACED BY MANY CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. RELIGION, AND SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIANITY, CAUSES OTHERWISE GOOD PEOPLE TO DO HORRIBLE THINGS.

I’m not sure if you actually believe this or if you are just playing a game. Because much of your logic doesn’t make sense, when it falls apart you resort to outright lies, insults and trickery, and you avoid any real challenges I make to you to back up false claims (still waiting for that apology).

YOU ARE A LYING DISSEMBLER. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT. YOU ARE A SEEDY AND SCHEMING AS ANY HOLY ROLLER WHO WEISELS OUT OF A FAIR AND HONEST DEBATE. YOU HAVE PLAYED EVERY SINGLE UNSCRUPULOUS HAND YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, TO LIE AND MALIGN ATHEISM AND DEFEND YOUR CHRISTIAN FAITH. IT IS REPULSIVE. YOU HAVEN’T AN HONEST, DECENT BONE IN YOUR BODY.

I just find it astonishing that you might actually believe what you are saying, rather than be playing some long-expired April Fools Joke.

NO SUBSTANCE.

Nice compact little contradiction there. Well did they or didn’t they?

At this point TANK, I’m actually talking over your head for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this. I don’t actually expect you to acknowledge the validity of anything you don’t believe in, no matter what the evidence.

I’m not sure if you actually believe this or if you are just playing a game. Because much of your logic doesn’t make sense, when it falls apart you resort to outright lies, insults and trickery, and you avoid any real challenges I make to you to back up false claims (still waiting for that apology).

I just find it astonishing that you might actually believe what you are saying, rather than be playing some long-expired April Fools Joke.

I don’t think they did. I think that it may have been used as a reason, but that’s simply not why they fought. And what does this have to do with the price of beans?

Are you dodging again? I think I got you dead to rights…and now you’re changing the subject to avoid…defeat. Get used to it. You will never an argument with me because I don’t choose arguments I can lose. Especially not to you.

While I don’t believe Voltaire ever counseled murder, I am sure the fact that priests were among the first slaughtered in the September Massacres was in part due to rabid zealots using his anti-religious and anti-superstitious words to their own ends.

Then you are a bigger nut than I thought if you think voltaire’s work or even hobbes’s work had anything to do with the drop of a clergyman’s blood. You are now in wingnut territory. Don’t you have some batshit conspiracy theories you’d like to pawn off? But who cares? What does this have to do with what we were disagreeing about? What does this have to do with anything at all? This is your fanciful contrivance to evade…LOL!

… just as many modern (and medieval) Christians perverted passages in the Bible or invented dogma which was not there in the first place, though they continue to claim that they act on biblical authority.

Now, do you have the originals to compare their “perversion” with? I admit that the bible has been edited and reinterpreted and edited again thousands of times…we have absolutely no way of knowing what we have right now reflects anything even remotely similar to the original. And? LOL!

And regarding the books you mentioned, there is actually nothing in the bible which specifically outlines a marriage ceremony, that it must be between one man and one woman,

LOL! This was never my contention…

that it must be done by clergy, nor even that it is an institution given by god.

Never my contention. Opposition to homosexuality is justified by the bible. No amount of soft interpretation and recontexting is going to convince any christian that they’re on that matter…and you know what? They have no reason to doubt their interpretation other than that anyone can disagree with them legitimately with a counter interpretation…and that basically undermines the meaingfulness of the entire book and every interpretation.

There are plenty of words regarding relationships (many of then sexist, and some which have been construed as homophobic), but the notion of marriage as a religious sacrament is a later invention with no biblical foundation.

Wow, you sure got me there…

The entire argument the fundies are making has no biblical source.

No? I think it is. I think they’re saying that since homosexuality is considered sinful by the bible, that same sex marriage and the recognition of homosexuality in the institution (a recent phenomenon) is wrong… I think that’s basically their point. Were you aware of it? Welcome to the show…LOL! you’re awful silly.

Now how about admitting that god is not considered to be a fictional character by christians, and that the bible is largely considered to be the word of god, and not a protracted allegory… Wave the white flag, or I’ll continue to embarass you with your own reasoning.

While I don’t believe Voltaire ever counseled murder, I am sure the fact that priests were among the first slaughtered in the September Massacres was in part due to rabid zealots using his anti-religious and anti-superstitious words to their own ends.

… just as many modern (and medieval) Christians perverted passages in the Bible or invented dogma which was not there in the first place, though they continue to claim that they act on biblical authority.

And regarding the books you mentioned, there is actually nothing in the bible which specifically outlines a marriage ceremony, that it must be between one man and one woman, that it must be done by clergy, nor even that it is an institution given by god.
There are plenty of words regarding relationships (many of then sexist, and some which have been construed as homophobic), but the notion of marriage as a religious sacrament is a later invention with no biblical foundation.
The entire argument the fundies are making has no biblical source.

That is part of the reason why Oliver Cromwell’s Pilgrims (no strangers to religious fascism) did not recognize church ceremonies and instituted an English law of civil ceremonies only.

Yeah, but not because of his atheism, or his interesting position given his thoroughgoing materialism.

Are you comparing Thomas Hobbes to calvin and hobbes? LOL!

Let’s compare the death tolls, though…to this day. How many people are killing because of the ideas of voltaire today as opposed to the qur’an and bible?

But what’s your point? Because it doesn’t address mine…being that people do not treat their religious beliefs and books as allegorical. Christians don’t think of god as a fictional character.

And actually quite a few people murdered in the name of the humanist, anti-christian philosophies of Rousseau Diderot and Voltaire (but especially Roussseau). Funny thing is, once they had done away with most of the popery Robespierre found it necessary to invent God all again with his “festival of the supreme being”.

And to really send this point home…because I’m starting to bore myself and am just beginning to come off like a dickhole…

PEOPLE DO NOT LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR CALVIN AND HOBBES. They do for the qur’an, and to a far lesser extent now than in the past, they do it for the bible.

People don’t bomb abortion clinics because of Pride and Prejudice…

People don’t stage antigay rallies and spend millions of dollars to oppose equal rights for lgbt americans (think prop h8) because of great expectations. They do, however, for the book of mormon and the bible…

Fact is, most christians DO believe that the bible is the word of god, and that god exists. They may think that SOME bible stories are allegories (maybe jonah and hte whale…but many christians believe that’s LITERALLY TRUE, TOO!), but a good chunk of it they believe to be literal, including that it’s the word of god and that it exists for it to be the word of god… UNBELIEVABLE that you’d think of suggesting otherwise…simply unbelievable.

Now that’s a low bar to reach…

But I’m not insisting on literalism. Those who defend the existence of god are, and also those who base their “moral” disagreements with any social policy are basing it on the bible as the word of god. They believe that’s true…literally. And the same sex marriage debate does have a basis in the bible that every fundamentalist relies on. It’s called leviticus…and corinthians, and romans. You’re defending them now, and christianity…because you’re a true believer.

Obviously because you want an easy target to slam christians, even though many (likely a majority) nowadays believe in evolution and are not literalists.

Not when it comes to matters of “morals” justifed by the bible for them, or the actual existence of god. Then they become literalists. For, once again, if they don’t care about the truth of the bible, and believe it’s just a story…and they don’t worship a god that exists to them, because that, too, is just a story…then they don’t care to defend their religious positions. But they do…so you’re wrong.

With the exception of the pentateuch, I have always seen it as a heavily-revised, poorly translated work written by fallible human beings. It never was the exact truth.

Once again, if you’re at all interested in whether or not god exists, then you’re interested in the truth value of that claim. If the bible is merely allegorical, and people believe that it is ALL just a story, then they don’t care whether or not god exists. THis isn’t true…for most christians don’t believe that the bible is just a story (a fictional tale), but the word of god…and they believe that god exists not as a fictional character, but a 3-O world creator. Is this penetrating your skull at all?

If you’re such a stickler for literalism, you should know that most modern fundamentalist dogma (including the whole question of marriage) has no basis in the bible whatsoever. Why are you insisting on biblical literalism if you don’t believe it is the truth?

Obviously because you want an easy target to slam christians, even though many (likely a majority) nowadays believe in evolution and are not literalists.

With the exception of the pentateuch, I have always seen it as a heavily-revised, poorly translated work written by fallible human beings. It never was the exact truth.

And also, my exacting, literalist sparring opponent, have you yet found that post in which you claim I said that prejean woman was not a bigot? The one you based all your repeated accusations on.

If not, I hope to be getting an apopogy from you.

On that note armageddon tired of how long this page takes to load. I think we’ll pick this up somewhere else.

And you’re like a nazi prison guard who downplays the severity of the abuses that occurred to sa ve his own hide. You think it’s funny or of no consequence that you worship a sadistic pig, and that that sadistic evil that consumes your god renders it nonexistent? You haven’t begun to comprehend the argument advanced, and it’s only one sick sociopathic puppy (who is extremely unethical) to compare, say, the slaughter of aboriginal peoples to “god isn’t here to top off our drinks”, you sicko. Why kind of a monster gives an equally sick monster (and thus a nonexistent one, for that being cannot be ethical, let alone perfectly good with the existence of natural and human evil) as pass like that? You’ve got a few screws loose.

You actually have as much of your ego invested in the myth of the nasty fundamentalist god as the right-wingers do.

Empty. No argument or proof. Another false accusation from the radical religious christer set.

Without that imaginary boogeyman you don’t have a target. That’s why you’re so insistent that is what I believe in, even though it is not true.

What are you talking about, flake? I gave the logical problem of evil. You said that god is under no ethical obligation (however slight) to do something about it, though he could have and knew about it…I think you’re describing not a perfectly ethical being, but an abhorrent beast…a narcissistic infant…this is inconsistent with god’s perfect goodness.

You will just not listen to anything else than the noises in your own head.

You’re a flake. One insult and ad hominem after another. You better get to some substance quick, or else fuck you, jackoff.

Most modern American Christians probably do assume that god is all-knowing and all-powerful, but I think many do not have such a black and white conception (TANK, can you actually understand something that is NOT black and white?).

1. God is defined in christianity as a 3-O world creator. That means that god is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and perfectly good. This isn’t a matter of dispute; this is THE definition of the christian god.

But maybe each christian has a totally different god in their mind than the god of the bible and the god of every single christian faith…maybe that’s true…maybe god is truly nonsensical, for there is no coherent uniform definition of it.

2. If you want to treat the bible as allegorical, and not literal, and thus have no interest in the truth of the matter, then that should extend to the existence of god, too. In other words, if it’s all allegorical, then god doesn’t literally exist…that’s just a story… People unconcerned with the truth of the bible or who don’t believe that it is literal are not concerned with the existence or nonexistence of god, or the truth or falsity of their religion. Thus, they wouldn’t argue for or against its TRUTH either way.

It doesn’t actually say God is all-powerful in the bible, despite the mythical creation story.

Well, you can take it up with the every christian faith under the sun. Take your case to them. Prove to them that the bible doesn’t indicate that god is a 3-O world creator, because they’re on all board, and have been since before Aquinas was an itch in his father’s pants… LOL! You’re a jackass and a half. And you’d argue for the sake of it. This is truly one of the most desperate moves. In any event…the 3-O god doesn’t exist, and the problem of evil proves it. If you insist that’s not the god of christianity, that’s your business, not christianity’s or mine.

You’re playing the definition game, when cornered. “oh, that’s not what I Meant, this is…nothing at all” IN reality, you don’t mean anything at all.

There are many places, particularly in the old testament, where god has very human attributes – jealousy, vengance. S/he also changed his/her mind on numberous occasions – convinced by Lot to not destroy Sodom, and by Moses to not destroy the Israelites (in the original text, god has no specific gender).

Yes, a cranky infant. But the god of the new testament, and the god that is worshipped by christians and jews and muslims is what they consider a worthy entity of worship, not a cranky toddler. And that, as it says in the bible, is an entity that is, once again because you’re awfully slow on the uptake here…OMNISCIENT (all KNOWING), OMNIPOTENT (all powerful), and perfectly good or OMNIBENEVOLENT…do you follow yet, or do you need more reading material than the bible to prove that case? YOu’re a desperate, angry, delusional fool who is arguing simply for the sake of it as this point.

You actually have as much of your ego invested in the myth of the nasty fundamentalist god as the right-wingers do. Without that imaginary boogeyman you don’t have a target. That’s why you’re so insistent that is what I believe in, even though it is not true.

You will just not listen to anything else than the noises in your own head.

Most modern American Christians probably do assume that god is all-knowing and all-powerful, but I think many do not have such a black and white conception (TANK, can you actually understand something that is NOT black and white?).

It doesn’t actually say God is all-powerful in the bible, despite the mythical creation story.
There are many places, particularly in the old testament, where god has very human attributes – jealousy, vengance. S/he also changed his/her mind on numberous occasions – convinced by Lot to not destroy Sodom, and by Moses to not destroy the Israelites (in the original text, god has no specific gender).
God also tested Abraham, and accepted a wager with the devil over Job’s faith; clearly s/he may be a little less omniscient than you make out.
And Jacob wrestling an angel into submission (though he broke his hip in the process) shows that divine messengers were not considered all-powerful.

But don’t let the facts or me telling you that I am an agnostic get in the way of your delusions. You seem determined to win this discussion, and apparently in the locked room of your own mind you have.

THE SKY IS FALLING AND NON-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ALL TO BLAME!

Life is so much better for us religionists! We are all happy and content now that we have dumped the oppression of reality off our backs. We are liberated!

Plagiarized and edited. Thanks! Hope you are as amused by this version, GETREAL.

No one said that religion is responsible for all the bad things that occur in the world…no one said that…just enough to know we can do a whole lot better than religion.

THE SKY IS FALLING AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ALL TO BLAME!

Life is so much better for us atheists! We are all happy and content now that we have dumped the oppression of religion off our backs. We are liberated!!!

I don’t think you’re directly responsible, no. Indirectly? Of course–you support them publically. But you should take responsibility for the label you claim and religion you support. That’s called maturity. Of course, I’ve backed up my “opinion” with an argument you’ve tried and failed to dismantle, which makes it not an opinion at all. You can’t defend your own, however.

Your words in that last post about yourself (No. 424) are so pretty and sweet and considerate, you paint yourself as the Mother Teresa of gay christianity.

Unfortunately for you, your nastiness toward gay atheists on this board — for example, your refusal to even acknowledge that you choose to continually disrespect atheists in almost every single one of you many posts by using religious language to describe what they say and do — let alone your refusal to cease and desist using that language, which is closely related to language used by evangelical christians in “discussions” with gay people, will demonstrate your disrespect amply.

I’ll stand by everything I’ve said here, I’ve not tried to convince anyone to quit their religion, and I’ll trust that rational people can tell the difference between respecting others and whatever it is you are up to.

Regarding the photos, etc., I’m just sharing some of my stash.

I guess not. More strawman arguments and ad hominems and false accusations…

Now this will be the umpteenth time that atheism has been defined for you. Are you going to continue to dissemble and ridicule, mischaracterize and deflect or try to engage in the discussion honestly and productively?