Convince Atheists

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Religious intelligence:

And many millions times that have been killed in the name of god/Jesus.

No... That's false. In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus. So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.

Now with THAT said, in just the last century alone, the Ideological Left has, IN PEACE TIME: murdered OVER 100 million people, in the name of Social-Justice and Secular-Humanism.

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million
African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.

So your ‘defense’ of killing in the name of religion is a failed attempt to deflect by citing the numbers of those killed by secular entities for reasons other than religion.

"We theists murder millions but so do the other guys."

Pathetic.

Theism is the bane of humankind, it always has been and it always will be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And many millions times that have been killed in the name of god/Jesus.

No... That's false. In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus. So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.

Now with THAT said, in just the last century alone, the Ideological Left has, IN PEACE TIME: murdered OVER 100 million people, in the name of Social-Justice and Secular-Humanism.

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million
African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.

So your ‘defense’ of killing in the name of religion is a failed attempt to deflect by citing the numbers of those killed by secular entities for reasons other than religion.

"We theists murder millions but so do the other guys."

Pathetic.

Theism is the bane of humankind, it always has been and it always will be.

SOOoooo... your need to dismiss the standing points at issue, remove them from your equation and simply insert a set of points which you fabricated from intellectual straw?

Have you actually had any success come from that?

 

[Tuatara]

African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.

Start with the easy one first. Most people killed in these revolutions were the leftist by American armed and trained death squads. CIA backed coups and American puppet regimes did most of the killings here. Also don't forget it was the christian nation of America that supported apartheid in South Africa. Please look at the history surrounding military intervention in regards to Chile, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Brazil.

ROFL! Howard Zinn is that YOU?

So, it was America that MADE the socialists bad?

LOL... that is ADORABLE!

America are the terrorists when it comes to the bulk of the killings in south and cental america. I have yet to see one piece of evidence refuted that Howard Zinn has brought up and thousands of others.

 

[Tuatara]

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million

I'm not going to back these regimes which not one person who considers themselves liberal ever has either yet these numbers are so overblown by propaganda it's ridiculous. These over inflated numbers also include deaths attributed to civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, prisoner executions, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. Some have even stated mass killings in communist states are a natural consequence of the failure of the rule of law, seen commonly during periods of social upheaval. During moments of extreme social crisis genocide occurs through both communists and non-communist movements. Iraq right now is going through an extreme social upheaval. Nobody is killing anyone in the name of atheism.

When she says that she's 'not going to back any of these regimes', she is actually telling you that she's not going 'to admit that these collectives were leftist'; thus representative of her own 'feelings'.

A marvelous demonstration of a deep seated psychosis, presenting in stark, impenetrable as delusion.

Thank you... .

They are as leftist as Hitler is right. A totalitarian state is still a totalitarian state whether it is right or left and neither get much support from either side of the political scale. Who is the she.

 

[Tuatara]

No... That's false. In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus. So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.

This part is laughable. Break open a history book and do some research on the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Anti-balaka Christian militants of Africa, and the Inquisition to name a few. Way too many to name all.

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Killings for Christianity
Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades

The CRUSADES?

They began as a result of a lunatic pedophile (sexual deviant, adherent to what is OKA: Sexual abnormality, demonstrating a tendency toward sociopathy) named Muhammad, who died in the late 7th century... but who had built a reputation for murdering anyone who disagreed with him... just as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbullah, were all proponents of stringent social regimentation, enforced from a strong centralized government, setting their own needs, to which they deceitfully referred, as "the needs of the people..." over the rights of the individual.

The Crusades lasted for 500 years. And best estimates are that 200,000 - 500,000 people were killed as a result of those endless WARS, caused by the sociopathy common to Islam. With the Christian's simply defending themselves from the manifest evil of the early Ideological Left, OKA: Islam. Today, those infected with this sociopathy NEVER let themselves, let alone anyone else 'know' of the CENTURIES of Islamic attack upon Christians. Preferring instead, to fraudulently advance the deceit that the defensive actions taken by the Christians was THE OFFENSE known entirely as "The Crusades", and they do so a means to influence the ignorant.

The only ignorance I'm seeing is your twisted and absolutley innacurate details of what actually happened. I would love to see you write a paper on the Crusades and hand it in to any university professor. I guarantee you would recieve a failing grade or the professor would expire after laughing themself to death.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Start with the easy one first. Most people killed in these revolutions were the leftist by American armed and trained death squads. CIA backed coups and American puppet regimes did most of the killings here. Also don't forget it was the christian nation of America that supported apartheid in South Africa. Please look at the history surrounding military intervention in regards to Chile, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Brazil.

ROFL! Howard Zinn is that YOU?

So, it was America that MADE the socialists bad?

LOL... that is ADORABLE!

America are the terrorists when it comes to the bulk of the killings in south and cental america. I have yet to see one piece of evidence refuted that Howard Zinn has brought up and thousands of others.

Are you trying to claim that defending US principle by killing socialist insurgents in neighboring countries is not soundly justified?

What are ya basing this on Howard?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This part is laughable. Break open a history book and do some research on the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Anti-balaka Christian militants of Africa, and the Inquisition to name a few. Way too many to name all.

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Killings for Christianity
Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades

The CRUSADES?

They began as a result of a lunatic pedophile (sexual deviant, adherent to what is OKA: Sexual abnormality, demonstrating a tendency toward sociopathy) named Muhammad, who died in the late 7th century... but who had built a reputation for murdering anyone who disagreed with him... just as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbullah, were all proponents of stringent social regimentation, enforced from a strong centralized government, setting their own needs, to which they deceitfully referred, as "the needs of the people..." over the rights of the individual.

The Crusades lasted for 500 years. And best estimates are that 200,000 - 500,000 people were killed as a result of those endless WARS, caused by the sociopathy common to Islam. With the Christian's simply defending themselves from the manifest evil of the early Ideological Left, OKA: Islam. Today, those infected with this sociopathy NEVER let themselves, let alone anyone else 'know' of the CENTURIES of Islamic attack upon Christians. Preferring instead, to fraudulently advance the deceit that the defensive actions taken by the Christians was THE OFFENSE known entirely as "The Crusades", and they do so a means to influence the ignorant.

The only ignorance I'm seeing is your twisted and absolutley innacurate details of what actually happened. I would love to see you write a paper on the Crusades and hand it in to any university professor. I guarantee you would recieve a failing grade or the professor would expire after laughing themself to death.

I'd love to see the a university professor contest my position.

Tell ya what, you go find as many prof's as you can get here and we'll debate it. Bring the entire US University system if ya like.

It won't help ya get any closer to a valid argument, nor prevail in this debate, but you will have some comrades with whom ya can commensurate.

And I think that would be nice for ya.

In the means time, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm not going to back these regimes which not one person who considers themselves liberal ever has either yet these numbers are so overblown by propaganda it's ridiculous. These over inflated numbers also include deaths attributed to civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, prisoner executions, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. Some have even stated mass killings in communist states are a natural consequence of the failure of the rule of law, seen commonly during periods of social upheaval. During moments of extreme social crisis genocide occurs through both communists and non-communist movements. Iraq right now is going through an extreme social upheaval. Nobody is killing anyone in the name of atheism.

When she says that she's 'not going to back any of these regimes', she is actually telling you that she's not going 'to admit that these collectives were leftist'; thus representative of her own 'feelings'.

A marvelous demonstration of a deep seated psychosis, presenting in stark, impenetrable as delusion.

Thank you... .

They are as leftist as Hitler is right. A totalitarian state is still a totalitarian state whether it is right or left and neither get much support from either side of the political scale. Who is the she.

Hitler was many thing, but 'right' as never one of 'em. Not in any sense of the word. Histler was a fascist, OKA: a national socialist. Which is little more than socialism with a nationalist bent. It differs from international socialist only by its recognition that revolutionary socialism is unobtainable, thus seeks to progress toward international socialism one nation at a time.

It's the same manifest evil as any other variation of Left-think.

And FYI: There is no such thing as a right-wing totalitarian state.

 

[Mathbud1]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

 

[Mathbud1]

You could also break down Theism into Positive Theism and Negative Theism where Positive Theism would be the assertion that there is a deity and Negative Theism would be belief that there is a deity but lack of the positive assertion that there is one.

In that case, Agnosticism would encompass both Negative Atheism and Negative Theism while excluding Positive Theism and Positive Atheism.

 

[dblack]

I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Can you understand the statement "There is no Santa Claus"? or "There are no such thing as ghosts"? Because each of those takes the same form, and by your reckoning would imply full knowledge of the universe.

 

[Mathbud1]

Can you understand the statement "There is no Santa Claus"? or "There are no such thing as ghosts"? Because each of those takes the same form, and by your reckoning would imply full knowledge of the universe.

I agree. They are of the same form, and I feel the same about them. I believe there is no Santa Claus and I believe there are no such things as ghosts. I do not claim perfect knowledge of either. There very well may be Santa Claus or ghost-like entities somewhere in existence of which I am unaware.

There is a level of distinction that should be brought out here though. The legend of Santa Claus is pretty specific about who and what Santa Claus is and details specific physical interactions that should be present if he were to exist (presents under the tree not placed there by anyone else.) A strong disbelief in Santa Claus is pretty justifiable given the actual lack of the expected evidence.

Given very specific details of a deity it is entirely possible to strongly disbelieve in that deity without disbelieving in all deities. If a specific conception of a deity predicts physical evidence and we find a total lack of that evidence we can be justified in strongly believing that that deity does not exist. However, If the prediction does not state that the evidence will be present everywhere, given the fact that I cannot look everywhere for evidence I cannot rule out the possibility that evidence exists in a place I have not looked. I can strongly believe, but cannot know that that deity does not exist. Please note that this does not mean that I should wait for more evidence or suspend my disbelief. I should act in the way that most conforms with what I believe to be true. If evidence comes to light later that refutes my belief, I will reexamine at that point.

Do you have a logical argument that definitively proves that no deity can exist? I will certainly give it consideration if you do.

For example, the God of classical theism is often considered to be a personal supreme being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, caring about humans and human affairs. One might be a positive atheist for such a deity (see problem of evil), while being a negative atheist with respect to a deistic conception of God by rejecting belief in such a deity but not explicitly asserting it to be false.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

I agree. They are of the same form, and I feel the same about them. I believe there is no Santa Claus and I believe there are no such things as ghosts. I do not claim perfect knowledge of either. There very well may be Santa Claus or ghost-like entities somewhere in existence of which I am unaware.

There is a level of distinction that should be brought out here though. The legend of Santa Claus is pretty specific about who and what Santa Claus is and details specific physical interactions that should be present if he were to exist (presents under the tree not placed there by anyone else.) A strong disbelief in Santa Claus is pretty justifiable given the actual lack of the expected evidence.

Given very specific details of a deity it is entirely possible to strongly disbelieve in that deity without disbelieving in all deities. If a specific conception of a deity predicts physical evidence and we find a total lack of that evidence we can be justified in strongly believing that that deity does not exist. However, If the prediction does not state that the evidence will be present everywhere, given the fact that I cannot look everywhere for evidence I cannot rule out the possibility that evidence exists in a place I have not looked. I can strongly believe, but cannot know that that deity does not exist. Please note that this does not mean that I should wait for more evidence or suspend my disbelief. I should act in the way that most conforms with what I believe to be true. If evidence comes to light later that refutes my belief, I will reexamine at that point.

Do you have a logical argument that definitively proves that no deity can exist? I will certainly give it consideration if you do.

Of course not. My point is that the atheist position - even the 'strong' atheist position - is no more "faith-based" than the claim that there are no such thing as ghosts, yet despite your claim above, it seems many religious people DO feel differently about them. Even to the point of claiming that atheism is, itself, a religion.

It's as if they want to "level the playing field" and equate the convictions of atheists to their own religious beliefs. Which never made much sense to me, honestly, because it seems to me the core spiritual power of religious faith its extra-rational quality. Why would they want to compare it mundane rational doubt?

 

[Mathbud1]

Of course not. My point is that the atheist position - even the 'strong' atheist position - is no more "faith-based" than the claim that there are no such thing as ghosts, yet despite your claim above, it seems many religious people DO feel differently about them. Even to the point of claiming that atheism is, itself, a religion.

It's as if they want to "level the playing field" and equate the convictions of atheists to their own religious beliefs. Which never made much sense to me, honestly, because it seems to me the core spiritual power of religious faith its extra-rational quality. Why would they want to compare it mundane rational doubt?

I definitely wouldn't call Atheism faith. I can understand in some ways why some people consider Atheism as kind of a religion based solely on how dedicated some Atheists seem to their belief system and try to convince others of that system. I don't personally see it that way, but I can understand that perspective in some ways.

Personally, I will fault nobody who believes there is no God. I do take exception to those who claim that such is an incontrovertible fact. You can't prove that something does not exist. It just isn't possible to do that. That doesn't mean you have to accept that God does exist or that there is even anything more than the remotest possibility that there is a God. You should absolutely live your life in accordance to your belief that there is no such thing as God. Doing otherwise would be betraying what you believe to be reality. No sane person can act against what they actually believe to be true. However, claiming to know for a fact that there is no God just makes people look ignorant in my opinion.

 

[Moonglow]

I definitely wouldn't call Atheism faith. I can understand in some ways why some people consider Atheism as kind of a religion based solely on how dedicated some Atheists seem to their belief system and try to convince others of that system. I don't personally see it that way, but I can understand that perspective in some ways.

Personally, I will fault nobody who believes there is no God. I do take exception to those who claim that such is an incontrovertible fact. You can't prove that something does not exist. It just isn't possible to do that. That doesn't mean you have to accept that God does exist or that there is even anything more than the remotest possibility that there is a God. You should absolutely live your life in accordance to your belief that there is no such thing as God. Doing otherwise would be betraying what you believe to be reality. No sane person can act against what they actually believe to be true. However, claiming to know for a fact that there is no God just makes people look ignorant in my opinion.

Atheism is considered a religion by jurisprudence...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Well said...

 

[oldfart]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion. For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism. The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means. For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God". The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way. Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists". My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion. For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism. The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means. For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God". The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way. Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists". My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

God is the force of nature. One nature, one God. Simple stuff.