Atheism is a Fringe Kook Theory Cult

[BillyP]

Atheism is a 'removing-the-block cause' of mass murder.

Next you be claiming that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder!

It is. There is not a single case in which someone has been executed and then committed another crime.

14,000 people were murdered in the US last year. The death penalty cannot be considered a deterrent.

 

[PratchettFan]

Next you be claiming that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder!

It is. There is not a single case in which someone has been executed and then committed another crime.

14,000 people were murdered in the US last year. The death penalty cannot be considered a deterrent.

Were any of them committed by someone who had been previously executed?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You might as well ask the same questions about government. Religion is not some separate entity, it is us. We cause it, it does not cause us. Everything done in the name of religion is done by us, and we do exactly the same thing in the name of other stuff. We kill each other over who wins soccer games.

Killing is entertaining because we like to kill. It isn't religion, or atheism, or government, or sports, or any of the seemingly limitless reasons we use to justify it. It is simply that we like it.

No, religion is not an entity, it is the collective thoughts of people. I agree. The fact that most religions hold ancient writings as there basis for their teachings, is where I see the issue. Yes, this is all done by us. But we (people) are not going to move forward, towards more civilized ways of living by worshiping ancient writings.
I don't believe we will ever come to a period where there is no such thing as murder, assault, bigotry, etc.. Like you said, it is part of our nature. But we are, collectively, more likely to learn how to live and cooperate together with people that have different points of view, without the dogma of religion.

Since I doubt you can point to a single human society in which people are not or have not worshiped ancient writings, I consider your conclusion to be suspect at best. We have seen some fairly rapid moving forward of late and we still worship ancient writings for the most part. I think you are believing your own dogma.

Taking religion as a purely human activity, we must consider that it is universal in human society. All human societies have had it as far back as we have any way of investigating. There are no exceptions. To argue that a particular species would develop a behavior in such a universal manner and that behavior has no beneficial aspect to it is, to me, an absurd claim. It is an unsupported belief which flies in the face of objective evidence.

History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is the rejection (or absence) of the belief that God, or any other deities, exists. Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century – based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] – and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. As a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a small minority.

Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE. Will Durant explains that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.[citation needed] The Vedahs of Ceylon[clarification needed] only admitted the possibility that deities might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.[citation needed]

Atheism has existed for about as long as there have been ancient writings and yes, there are human societies that don't have religions, deities and the other trappings of worship. In Sweden today 80% of the population does not believe in God.

Demographics of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although only one fifth of Swedes in one investigation chose to describe themselves as believing in a god,[27] the majority (67.5%) of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden,[28] the Lutheran church that was disestablished in 2000. This is because until 1996, those who had family members in the church automatically became members at birth.[citation needed]

The new Freedom of Religion Bill was passed in 1951, and former obstacles against Non-Lutherans working in schools and hospitals were removed. Further, that bill made it legal to leave any religious denomination, without entering another

 

[PostmodernProph]

What about the dummy American christians who let Bush lie them into a holy war with the muslims?

good lord, you're ignorant about a lot more things than just religion, aren't you.....

 

[rightwinger]

So your argument here is what?

You want a theocracy?

His argument is that "Our nutjob theory is better than their nutjob theory"

 

[BillyP]

It is. There is not a single case in which someone has been executed and then committed another crime.

14,000 people were murdered in the US last year. The death penalty cannot be considered a deterrent.

Were any of them committed by someone who had been previously executed?

You should look up the word "deterrent". For real.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You DO know the difference between law makers (government) from voters (the people) right? Laws cannot be based on religious beliefs............i.e. lawmakers cannot construct bills on any religious position. The voter, can vote based on whatever they want.

Sure, laws can be based on religious beliefs, why not? I want murder to be illegal and that is because of my religious beliefs.

Are you saying I cant vote for my congresscritter because I want him to keep murder illegal?

My values are what motivate me to do what I do, and a huge chunk of those beliefs are founded on religious beliefs. I cannot yank the religious ones out and just ignore them, nor am I obligated to.

I do have a test I do use and that is to see if there is a secular rational for the religious belief being put into law. If I have any then I vote my religious beliefs, if not then I don't. So I vote to end and/or restrict abortion and do not vote to make church attendance mandatory.




Lol, I explain and explain things but you cant be convinced I understand anything because I disagree with you? roflmao

Your opinion is GOD did it...................GOD is right..................don't question GOD.

If you atheist libtards didn't have straw men you wouldn't ever win an argument.

lol

No. I don't think you understand because you contradict yourself.

You are for church/state separation, yet you have no problem with religious beliefs being legislated!?
Those two things are in violent contradiction.

And please tell me..............what was my straw man argument?

those on the left have no problem with their beliefs being legislated.....they only object when its the beliefs of those on the right......

 

[PostmodernProph]

. What happened in the 20th century to affect the rate of killing wasn't Atheism, it was technology.

I have to disagree.....the purges brought on by the Communists were aimed at eliminating those who had beliefs and ideals which the Party believed were contradictory to the growth of communism......that included the middle and upper class, but it also included religion.....atheism was a significant goal of the leadership.....that's why Mao attacked the Buddhists and Catholic Church in China and why Stalin attacked Jews and the Eastern Orthodox......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Right!
And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 9/11 a faith based initiative? Religious fanatics martyred themselves, by killing themselves along with 3000 others because they believed god would reward them for it?

Only on the surface. Religion is not a cause of violence and neither is Atheism. People don't need a cause to kill each other, we just like having an excuse.

I partially disagree.
Many religious beliefs influence separation. Just creating an "us" and "them" is enough to spark conflict.
Would you agree with that?

a phenomena that did not originate with religions......moreso politics, if I'm not mistaken.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

What about the stupid Catholic sheep Germans who went along with Hitler? What about the dummy American christians who let Bush lie them into a holy war with the muslims? Hell even I fell for that one after 9-11 but then again I was a believer in 2001. Not anymore.

Well since I said 'Communist China and the Soviet Union had the highest totals of all other nations combined' Catholic Germans and other groups don't really add in to that, do they dumbass?

And as bad as Hitler was, his twelve million is not even one tenth that of Red China and the USSR. You atheists are without peer in at least one thing; mass murder.

And yet they all were raised as Christians!

were you raised as a Christian?......does that mean everything you do now that you're an atheist is the act of a Christian?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

You DO know the difference between law makers (government) from voters (the people) right? Laws cannot be based on religious beliefs............i.e. lawmakers cannot construct bills on any religious position. The voter, can vote based on whatever they want.

Sure, laws can be based on religious beliefs, why not? I want murder to be illegal and that is because of my religious beliefs.

Are you saying I cant vote for my congresscritter because I want him to keep murder illegal?

My values are what motivate me to do what I do, and a huge chunk of those beliefs are founded on religious beliefs. I cannot yank the religious ones out and just ignore them, nor am I obligated to.

I do have a test I do use and that is to see if there is a secular rational for the religious belief being put into law. If I have any then I vote my religious beliefs, if not then I don't. So I vote to end and/or restrict abortion and do not vote to make church attendance mandatory.




Lol, I explain and explain things but you cant be convinced I understand anything because I disagree with you? roflmao

Your opinion is GOD did it...................GOD is right..................don't question GOD.

If you atheist libtards didn't have straw men you wouldn't ever win an argument.

lol

Those "religious values" of yours motivate you to call other posters vulgar names?

mine certainly do......have you ever read what some of the OT prophets called people when they acted like fools?.......

 

[PratchettFan]

No, religion is not an entity, it is the collective thoughts of people. I agree. The fact that most religions hold ancient writings as there basis for their teachings, is where I see the issue. Yes, this is all done by us. But we (people) are not going to move forward, towards more civilized ways of living by worshiping ancient writings.
I don't believe we will ever come to a period where there is no such thing as murder, assault, bigotry, etc.. Like you said, it is part of our nature. But we are, collectively, more likely to learn how to live and cooperate together with people that have different points of view, without the dogma of religion.

Since I doubt you can point to a single human society in which people are not or have not worshiped ancient writings, I consider your conclusion to be suspect at best. We have seen some fairly rapid moving forward of late and we still worship ancient writings for the most part. I think you are believing your own dogma.

Taking religion as a purely human activity, we must consider that it is universal in human society. All human societies have had it as far back as we have any way of investigating. There are no exceptions. To argue that a particular species would develop a behavior in such a universal manner and that behavior has no beneficial aspect to it is, to me, an absurd claim. It is an unsupported belief which flies in the face of objective evidence.

History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is the rejection (or absence) of the belief that God, or any other deities, exists. Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century – based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] – and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. As a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a small minority.

Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE. Will Durant explains that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.[citation needed] The Vedahs of Ceylon[clarification needed] only admitted the possibility that deities might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.[citation needed]

Atheism has existed for about as long as there have been ancient writings and yes, there are human societies that don't have religions, deities and the other trappings of worship. In Sweden today 80% of the population does not believe in God.

Demographics of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although only one fifth of Swedes in one investigation chose to describe themselves as believing in a god,[27] the majority (67.5%) of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden,[28] the Lutheran church that was disestablished in 2000. This is because until 1996, those who had family members in the church automatically became members at birth.[citation needed]

The new Freedom of Religion Bill was passed in 1951, and former obstacles against Non-Lutherans working in schools and hospitals were removed. Further, that bill made it legal to leave any religious denomination, without entering another

Once again, a definition is provided which is to be taken on faith. Dogma. When examined it is simply untrue. I have never met a single person who held no God beliefs. Only people who strongly believed they held no such beliefs. A belief is a belief, whether negative or positive.

You confuse religion with God. They are not the same thing. Religion is a human social construct and there have been no human societies, despite your claim, in which religion did not play a central role. Sweden is no exception. Which, btw, is not 80% Atheist. In 2013 it was 13% Atheist with 57% of the country identifying themselves with one religion or another.

 

[PratchettFan]

14,000 people were murdered in the US last year. The death penalty cannot be considered a deterrent.

Were any of them committed by someone who had been previously executed?

You should look up the word "deterrent". For real.

de·ter
verb \di-ˈtər, dē-\

: to cause (someone) to decide not to do something

: to prevent (something) from happening

Are you saying someone who has been executed has not been prevented from committing another crime?

 

[PratchettFan]

. What happened in the 20th century to affect the rate of killing wasn't Atheism, it was technology.

I have to disagree.....the purges brought on by the Communists were aimed at eliminating those who had beliefs and ideals which the Party believed were contradictory to the growth of communism......that included the middle and upper class, but it also included religion.....atheism was a significant goal of the leadership.....that's why Mao attacked the Buddhists and Catholic Church in China and why Stalin attacked Jews and the Eastern Orthodox......

We were talking numbers, not excuses. If the Catholic Church of the middle ages had air transport and machine guns, the Inquisition would have been a very interesting period indeed.

I will point out, once more, that the people who did the killings were almost certainly religious. Mao and Stalin gave orders, they did not pull triggers. Giving an order means nothing unless there is someone willing to follow the order.

 

[PratchettFan]

Only on the surface. Religion is not a cause of violence and neither is Atheism. People don't need a cause to kill each other, we just like having an excuse.

I partially disagree.
Many religious beliefs influence separation. Just creating an "us" and "them" is enough to spark conflict.
Would you agree with that?

a phenomena that did not originate with religions......moreso politics, if I'm not mistaken.....

Religion and politics are the same thing.

 

[PostmodernProph]

. What happened in the 20th century to affect the rate of killing wasn't Atheism, it was technology.

I have to disagree.....the purges brought on by the Communists were aimed at eliminating those who had beliefs and ideals which the Party believed were contradictory to the growth of communism......that included the middle and upper class, but it also included religion.....atheism was a significant goal of the leadership.....that's why Mao attacked the Buddhists and Catholic Church in China and why Stalin attacked Jews and the Eastern Orthodox......

We were talking numbers, not excuses. If the Catholic Church of the middle ages had air transport and machine guns, the Inquisition would have been a very interesting period indeed.

I will point out, once more, that the people who did the killings were almost certainly religious. Mao and Stalin gave orders, they did not pull triggers. Giving an order means nothing unless there is someone willing to follow the order.

I disagree.....particularly in places like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia you will find people willing to follow orders simply because they don't want to be the next one martyred.....people always overplay the Inquisition....if I recall there were less than a thousand people who were put to death during the Inquisition, over a five hundred year period.....Hitler did worse than that in a day in Warsaw......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I partially disagree.
Many religious beliefs influence separation. Just creating an "us" and "them" is enough to spark conflict.
Would you agree with that?

a phenomena that did not originate with religions......moreso politics, if I'm not mistaken.....

Religion and politics are the same thing.

lol.....liberals tend to believe that crap.....until you accuse them of being religious....then its all denial.....

 

[Derideo_Te]

Since I doubt you can point to a single human society in which people are not or have not worshiped ancient writings, I consider your conclusion to be suspect at best. We have seen some fairly rapid moving forward of late and we still worship ancient writings for the most part. I think you are believing your own dogma.

Taking religion as a purely human activity, we must consider that it is universal in human society. All human societies have had it as far back as we have any way of investigating. There are no exceptions. To argue that a particular species would develop a behavior in such a universal manner and that behavior has no beneficial aspect to it is, to me, an absurd claim. It is an unsupported belief which flies in the face of objective evidence.

History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Atheism has existed for about as long as there have been ancient writings and yes, there are human societies that don't have religions, deities and the other trappings of worship. In Sweden today 80% of the population does not believe in God.

Demographics of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although only one fifth of Swedes in one investigation chose to describe themselves as believing in a god,[27] the majority (67.5%) of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden,[28] the Lutheran church that was disestablished in 2000. This is because until 1996, those who had family members in the church automatically became members at birth.[citation needed]

The new Freedom of Religion Bill was passed in 1951, and former obstacles against Non-Lutherans working in schools and hospitals were removed. Further, that bill made it legal to leave any religious denomination, without entering another

Once again, a definition is provided which is to be taken on faith. Dogma. When examined it is simply untrue. I have never met a single person who held no God beliefs. Only people who strongly believed they held no such beliefs. A belief is a belief, whether negative or positive.

You confuse religion with God. They are not the same thing. Religion is a human social construct and there have been no human societies, despite your claim, in which religion did not play a central role. Sweden is no exception. Which, btw, is not 80% Atheist. In 2013 it was 13% Atheist with 57% of the country identifying themselves with one religion or another.

Although only one fifth of Swedes in one investigation chose to describe themselves as believing in a god

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

80% of Swedes are either atheists or agnostics even though they may technically be counted as "belonging" to a religion simply because that was the religion their parents had when they were born.

Yes, religion is a social tool to control society. But to exercise that control there needs to be a risk/reward mechanism that will motivate desired behavior and punish undesirable behavior. The invention of a deity that can see everything and administer punishment and rewards is essential to the functioning of the religion itself. There are a couple of minor religions that don't use deities but all of the major religions have them and belief in them is part of the control mechanism.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have to disagree.....the purges brought on by the Communists were aimed at eliminating those who had beliefs and ideals which the Party believed were contradictory to the growth of communism......that included the middle and upper class, but it also included religion.....atheism was a significant goal of the leadership.....that's why Mao attacked the Buddhists and Catholic Church in China and why Stalin attacked Jews and the Eastern Orthodox......

We were talking numbers, not excuses. If the Catholic Church of the middle ages had air transport and machine guns, the Inquisition would have been a very interesting period indeed.

I will point out, once more, that the people who did the killings were almost certainly religious. Mao and Stalin gave orders, they did not pull triggers. Giving an order means nothing unless there is someone willing to follow the order.

I disagree.....particularly in places like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia you will find people willing to follow orders simply because they don't want to be the next one martyred.....people always overplay the Inquisition....if I recall there were less than a thousand people who were put to death during the Inquisition, over a five hundred year period.....Hitler did worse than that in a day in Warsaw......

Hitler did worse because the technology allowed him to do worse. I think your number is a tad low. Estimates are about 135,000 died just under Torquemada. Of course, that would include people who died during interrogation or in prison. Now compare that to the population of Spain at the time (7 million) and that meant 1.9% of the population died under the Inquisition. Hitler had a bigger theater. 6 million died in the camps, the population was 500 million, which is 1.2% of the population. So while Torquemada had far less resources, he actually did a better job than Hitler. All in the name of Jesus.

You think killing an innocent person is ok so long as you are afraid you might be killed yourself? That absolves the person of responsibility for their own actions?

There is an excellent book called "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning. You might want to give it a read. It gives a wonderful look into the true face of evil.

 

[BillyP]

Were any of them committed by someone who had been previously executed?

You should look up the word "deterrent". For real.

de·ter
verb \di-ˈtər, dē-\

: to cause (someone) to decide not to do something

: to prevent (something) from happening

Are you saying someone who has been executed has not been prevented from committing another crime?

You can't prevent a dead person from doing something, that makes no sense, they're dead. Prevent suggests to stop something from happening, dead people aren't happening.