Where are the "atheist" mass murderers in this country?

[bripat9643]

Context
The Fool Says, There is No God
1For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. 2The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.… Psalm 14:1.

Is that quote supposed to prove God exists?

It doesn't

 

[presonorek]

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

5% of the population admit that they are atheist. 90% of the population are atheist constantly try to convince themselves and everyone around them that they truly do believe in God. The other 5% of the population truly does believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, zombies and a magic sky wizard. You can tell the 90% from the 5% that are pure obnoxious delusional lunatics. I become a Pastafarian when one of those nutjob s tell me what God says or what God wants. They can kindly shut the banana split up. I get real pissy when people start using God as a loaded gun pressed firmly to my head. I'll defend myself vehemently.

Wouldn't your explanation violate the principles of Pastafarianism though? Since Pastafarianism is based strongly on Russell's Teapot (the burden of proof lies with the one making scientifically unverifiable claims), your statement that "90% of the population are atheist constantly try to convince themselves and everyone around them that they truly do believe in God" (which actually makes no sense) is scientifically unverifiable because 1) a metric cannot be established that differentiates between true belief and creating appearances and 2) there is no possible way to accurately measure the true beliefs of the entire world population. Thus, your statement is unverifiable which contradicts your Pastafarian argument

Who is arguing? I don't want to solve the world's problems. My only goal is for them to shut the hell up and stop telling me what God wants. If they shut up and go away then nobody really needs to prove anything.

You are right. It would be hard to prove.

On a side note: In what year did you read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Just curious.

 

[presonorek]

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

5% of the population admit that they are atheist. 90% of the population are atheist constantly try to convince themselves and everyone around them that they truly do believe in God. The other 5% of the population truly does believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, zombies and a magic sky wizard. You can tell the 90% from the 5% that are pure obnoxious delusional lunatics. I become a Pastafarian when one of those nutjob s tell me what God says or what God wants. They can kindly shut the banana split up. I get real pissy when people start using God as a loaded gun pressed firmly to my head. I'll defend myself vehemently.

Wouldn't your explanation violate the principles of Pastafarianism though? Since Pastafarianism is based strongly on Russell's Teapot (the burden of proof lies with the one making scientifically unverifiable claims), your statement that "90% of the population are atheist constantly try to convince themselves and everyone around them that they truly do believe in God" (which actually makes no sense) is scientifically unverifiable because 1) a metric cannot be established that differentiates between true belief and creating appearances and 2) there is no possible way to accurately measure the true beliefs of the entire world population. Thus, your statement is unverifiable which contradicts your Pastafarian argument

The Pastafarian religion is chock full of paradoxes, contradictions and inconsistencies. The only difference is that we admit it. If you had read the first page of the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster then you would already know that.

 

[BluePhantom]

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

5% of the population admit that they are atheist. 90% of the population are atheist constantly try to convince themselves and everyone around them that they truly do believe in God. The other 5% of the population truly does believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, zombies and a magic sky wizard. You can tell the 90% from the 5% that are pure obnoxious delusional lunatics. I become a Pastafarian when one of those nutjob s tell me what God says or what God wants. They can kindly shut the banana split up. I get real pissy when people start using God as a loaded gun pressed firmly to my head. I'll defend myself vehemently.

Wouldn't your explanation violate the principles of Pastafarianism though? Since Pastafarianism is based strongly on Russell's Teapot (the burden of proof lies with the one making scientifically unverifiable claims), your statement that "90% of the population are atheist constantly try to convince themselves and everyone around them that they truly do believe in God" (which actually makes no sense) is scientifically unverifiable because 1) a metric cannot be established that differentiates between true belief and creating appearances and 2) there is no possible way to accurately measure the true beliefs of the entire world population. Thus, your statement is unverifiable which contradicts your Pastafarian argument

The Pastafarian religion is chock full of paradoxes, contradictions and inconsistencies. The only difference is that we admit it. If you had read the first page of the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster then you would already know that.

I haven't read it. It has just been used against me multiple times (always unsuccessfully I might add because people who use it tend to overlook the critical flaw in the Russell's Teapot argument) so I know what the main arguments tend to be and the point people are trying to make by using it. It is on my reading list, however.

 

[Avatar4321]

Prison or a cemetery

 

[BluePhantom]

all the unbelievers put together on this board do not equal the knowledge of one true believer who reads the Word daily and prays daily. The Believer has the Spirit who helps him/her understand God's Word. the unsaved are spiritually BLIND and biblically illiterate.

Normally I don't argue with believers, but I have to take exception to that. My experience is that believers tend to be ignorant and irrational. How can a rational person believe something for which there isn't a shred of credible evidence? The only value in being Biblically literate is so you can point out all the contradictions to believers.

My experience is that extremists tend to be ignorant and irrational whether they are theists or atheists.

 

[NoNukes]

"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
from a church as you can."
-- Frank Zappa --

american terror attacks by atheists - Google Search

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any. I've seen claims that some suicide bombers were atheist, but nothing that backs that up.

What percentage of the population admits to being atheist?

In the tiny minds of the GOP, everything is, pardon the expression, "black or white". They are such binary people. You have atheists who don't believe in God, but believe in spirituality. You have religious people who attend church on a regular basis with the same beliefs.

No you don't. Atheists don't believe in "spirituality." That's pure bullshit.

I know these Republicans will scratch their heads having no clue what I'm talking about. For them, every question is simple, every answer is simple and that's because the vast majority are simpletons.
They feel that if you believe in the right wing Jesus God and go to church, you are religious. Even though, to them, help the poor means tough love - they can learn to help themselves and help the sick means "die quickly". If I did have occult beliefs, it wouldn't be the somewhat Satanic Religion Republicans seem to follow.

Religion and the Unaffiliated Pew Research Center

You realize your post is pure bullshit, don't you? It's not even worth arguing with.

You do not understand spirituality. Why does this not surprise me?

 

[presonorek]

I haven't read it. It has just been used against me multiple times (always unsuccessfully I might add because people who use it tend to overlook the critical flaw in the Russell's Teapot argument) so I know what the main arguments tend to be and the point people are trying to make by using it. It is on my reading list, however.

If you ever purchase Spaghetti Issues I can reimburse you for the cost of the book and shipping. That goes for anybody in here. Up to 10 people.

Spaghetti Issues is sort of a parody of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Spaghetti Issues Devotional is $4.17 plus shipping and handling. The pocket edition of Spaghetti Issues is $5.34 plus shipping and handling. I think that it is around $3.99 for shipping and handling in the continental United States.

 

[presonorek]

How can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be used against you? The religion is nonviolent and nondogmatic. The religion is so adamant about the rejection of dogma they are willing to accept the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. All they ask for is proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

That can't harm you. It's just one of the pillars of their religion.

This song might make it more clear. The last verse touches on the subject.

I haven't read it. It has just been used against me multiple times (always unsuccessfully I might add because people who use it tend to overlook the critical flaw in the Russell's Teapot argument) so I know what the main arguments tend to be and the point people are trying to make by using it. It is on my reading list, however.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any.

Just two, Stalin and Mao, murdered about 100,000,000 between them.

Just sayin'.

 

[presonorek]

Just two, Stalin and Mao, murdered about 100,000,000 between them.

Just sayin'.

That is bad.

 

[Hollie]

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any.

Just two, Stalin and Mao, murdered about 100,000,000 between them.

Just sayin'.

They were both megalomaniacs who killed as a result of their pathology and in furtherance of a political ideology. Their lack of religion was incidental to the mass murder committed as a function of their psychological disorder.

Just sayin'

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So I tried to find out how many atheists commit these mass murderer crimes and couldn't find any.

Just two, Stalin and Mao, murdered about 100,000,000 between them.

Just sayin'.

They were both megalomaniacs who killed as a result of their pathology and in furtherance of a political ideology. Their lack of religion was incidental to the mass murder committed as a function of their psychological disorder.

Just sayin'

Perhaps, though arguable, but not incidental to the OP's opening statement.

 

[presonorek]

It looks like we have concluded that sometimes humans kill people. This doesn't prove God's existence. This doesn't prove his nonexistence. This doesn't prove that religion leads to murder. This doesn't prove that a lack of religion leads to murder. It looks like we need to start all over with this mess and come up with another incident that will prove our point. This OP doesn't prove anyone's point.

 

[presonorek]

Why did they shut the camera off before he told him that he was a delusional lunatic? They should have let us see that conversation.

 

[BluePhantom]

How can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be used against you? The religion is nonviolent and nondogmatic. The religion is so adamant about the rejection of dogma they are willing to accept the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. All they ask for is proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

That can't harm you. It's just one of the pillars of their religion.

This song might make it more clear. The last verse touches on the subject.

I haven't read it. It has just been used against me multiple times (always unsuccessfully I might add because people who use it tend to overlook the critical flaw in the Russell's Teapot argument) so I know what the main arguments tend to be and the point people are trying to make by using it. It is on my reading list, however.

I understand it's a parody. The argument is usually used by an atheist and goes something like this (and I am putting it much better than they usually do): "You can't prove God exists any more than you can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Therefore, God has about as much validity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So, if they have the same validity and we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made-up, then God must be made up too. Since Russell's Teapot says that the burden of proof lies with the one making scientifically unverifiable claims, then a believer in God must provide scientific proof or admit that God is a myth."

Of course there are so many problems with this argument it would be hard to list them all, but specific to Russell's Teapot, they overlook that when you draw it to its logical conclusion all it really says is that the one who makes the initial claim about the existence of God bears the burden of proof. Consider the following:

Person A (a theist) says, "Jesus died for the sins of the world". According to Russell's Teapot this person is making a clam that science cannot verify. Science may be able to determine that Jesus died, but science cannot determine whether Jesus died for the sins of the world. That's a theological question that science has no answer for because it is impossible to measure, test, or observe. That does not mean it is right or wrong, only that it lacks the ability to be tested by science and thus cannot be addressed by science.

BUT.....

Person B (an atheist) says, "Jesus did not die for the sins of the world". The exact same principle applies. The person is making a claim that science cannot verify for the exact same reason as person A's statement. So the burden of proof lies with him.

Both these statements can nullify Russell's Teapot by simply starting their statement with "I believe that.....". because then they are not making a statement of fact, they are making a statement of opinion or personal belief. So, what it really all boils down to is that the burden of proof lies with the first person to make a statement of absolutes whether it is the theist or the atheist. In other words, it's not nearly the devastating weapon atheists seem to think it is.

 

[turzovka]

I become a Pastafarian when one of those nutjob s tell me what God says or what God wants. They can kindly shut the banana split up. I get real pissy when people start using God as a loaded gun pressed firmly to my head. I'll defend myself vehemently.

You can put your loaded gun of your beliefs to my head and I won't get ruffled over it, much less pissy. We may talk out loud, but I am fine with you being in our midst.

 

[Hollie]

It looks like we have concluded that sometimes humans kill people. This doesn't prove God's existence. This doesn't prove his nonexistence. This doesn't prove that religion leads to murder. This doesn't prove that a lack of religion leads to murder. It looks like we need to start all over with this mess and come up with another incident that will prove our point. This OP doesn't prove anyone's point.

My impression is that the OP was making a point that religions (and notably Christianity), can be ruthless and dangerous. A review of history bears that out. If you tally the score, religion "wins" in the total human destruction business.

I did the homework to show that.

Understanding Religious Fanatics...


Historically speaking, today's examples serve as well. The conflict in the middle east is about land and power and wealth but also its source is that it is of a divine nature that calls to die and kill for the ongoing survival of the warring nations. The general populace as a rule is less likely to die or kill for the idea that they may get more land or power or wealth-- but if they believe their gods are at stake, they gladly go into the swirling flames of perdition.


Individuals may act one way, and groups of them act another. This statistic doesn't take into consideration what the larger group approves of. Not all people have to actually commit a particular act to approve of it. This sort of argumentation is merely an attempt to divest oneself of any responsibility from the consequences of the action of the ideology. Just because "not all Spaniards killed Incans" doesn't mean the social acceptance of the Conquistadors in Spain was in anyway mitigated. Religion has been the cause of whole civilizations plundering and slaughtering other civilizations, and theists do themselves no favors by dismissing or making excuses for the very history of their belief systems. That they have still not evolved away from this behavior is appalling, and the blatant refusal to admit the flaws of theistic belief is wearying. Take responsibility for what your religions have wrought.

 

[presonorek]

How can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be used against you? The religion is nonviolent and nondogmatic. The religion is so adamant about the rejection of dogma they are willing to accept the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. All they ask for is proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

That can't harm you. It's just one of the pillars of their religion.

This song might make it more clear. The last verse touches on the subject.

I haven't read it. It has just been used against me multiple times (always unsuccessfully I might add because people who use it tend to overlook the critical flaw in the Russell's Teapot argument) so I know what the main arguments tend to be and the point people are trying to make by using it. It is on my reading list, however.

I understand it's a parody. The argument is usually used by an atheist and goes something like this (and I am putting it much better than they usually do): "You can't prove God exists any more than you can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Therefore, God has about as much validity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So, if they have the same validity and we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made-up, then God must be made up too. Since Russell's Teapot says that the burden of proof lies with the one making scientifically unverifiable claims, then a believer in God must provide scientific proof or admit that God is a myth."

Of course there are so many problems with this argument it would be hard to list them all, but specific to Russell's Teapot, they overlook that when you draw it to its logical conclusion all it really says is that the one who makes the initial claim about the existence of God bears the burden of proof. Consider the following:

Person A (a theist) says, "Jesus died for the sins of the world". According to Russell's Teapot this person is making a clam that science cannot verify. Science may be able to determine that Jesus died, but science cannot determine whether Jesus died for the sins of the world. That's a theological question that science has no answer for because it is impossible to measure, test, or observe. That does not mean it is right or wrong, only that it lacks the ability to be tested by science and thus cannot be addressed by science.

BUT.....

Person B (an atheist) says, "Jesus did not die for the sins of the world". The exact same principle applies. The person is making a claim that science cannot verify for the exact same reason as person A's statement. So the burden of proof lies with him.

Both these statements can nullify Russell's Teapot by simply starting their statement with "I believe that.....". because then they are not making a statement of fact, they are making a statement of opinion or personal belief. So, what it really all boils down to is that the burden of proof lies with the first person to make a statement of absolutes whether it is the theist or the atheist. In other words, it's not nearly the devastating weapon atheists seem to think it is.

Person A says, "Allah created the Universe."

Person B says, "the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe." Person B has rejected atheism because of the fallacy that you have described.

Person A says, "You are full of crap. The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."

Person A and Person B are on equal footing because neither one can prove that neither Allah nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe.

Person A has opened his mouth to declare that Person A is 'full of crap'. Now person A is stuck with the burden of proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Some people are turning to the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it stacks the deck against theistic claims. It's kind of a check mate. If you accuse me of attacking your god then I will create a more realistic god and accuse you of attacking my god. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is way more realistic than the concept of Allah. The Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is way superior to Russell's Flying Teapot.

I hate the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as literature. I believe it could have been much better but it makes a strong point that can't be ignored. It can be laughed at but it can't be ignored. Muslims don't stand a chance against the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[BluePhantom]

Person A says, "Allah created the Universe."

Person B says, "the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe." Person B has rejected atheism because of the fallacy that you have described.

Person A says, "You are full of crap. The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."

Person A and Person B are on equal footing because neither one can prove that neither Allah nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe.

Person A has opened his mouth to declare that Person A is 'full of crap'. Now person A is stuck with the burden of proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Correct, but had person B made the charge of "You are full of crap, Allah does not exist" then he would bear the burden of proof. So it doesn't really do anything other than establish that anyone who makes a claim of absolutes for or against the existence of God bears the burden of proving it. Well big deal. It's expected that if someone makes a claim about anything they are expected to support their claim so it's just a cute and fancy way of stating the obvious. We see it on these boards every day. Someone starts a thread that basically says "God does/does not exist" and within the first page someone says "prove it". Well the OP can't,regardless of what position they take, so it's pretty much over except for the heckling.

Some people are turning to the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it stacks the deck against theistic claims. It's kind of a check mate. If you accuse me of attacking your god then I will create a more realistic god and accuse you of attacking my god. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is way more realistic than the concept of Allah. The Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is way superior to Russell's Flying Teapot.

But it's not a check mate. At best it's a stalemate. Once you cut it down to the bare bones, it still boils down to "you can't prove it and neither can I, so we're stuck". It's the same impasse that theists and atheists have been at for the last several centuries. It's just a cutsier way of saying the same thing that has been said for years.