Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?

[AVG-JOE]

Here's how atheists moderate Christianity, if they manage to gain the support of the state:

That's a generalization and you know it. It doesn't take an atheist to beat a Christian... all it takes is another Monkey with another agenda.

Atheist -vs- Christian

Muslim -vs- Atheist

Satanist -vs- Christian

Monkey with agenda -vs- Monkey.


The labels really don't seem to matter.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In response to your repeated, unsubstantiated claims that Christians persecute people willy-nilly and need to be moderated by an atheist state.

Christians don't need to be moderated by an atheist state. Rather, religious people sometimes have to be moderated by a secular state. The state should be secular, and the people should have religious freedom. The moderation should come in only when necessary, for example any time a religious practice DOES interfere with others' freedoms. I think the atheists tend to exaggerate the coercive behavior of Christians, but it does not remove the necessity for a secular government in a free society, nor the necessity for religious freedom.

Forcing an entire nation of Monkeys to live under the codification of the Muslim faith in Sharia Law is wrong. Forcing an entire nation of Monkeys to live under the codification of the Christian morals is also wrong. To restrict the freedoms of all because "the God of the majority says so" is so wrong.


Civil Law, based in substance a hell of a lot thicker than "God says so", MUST trump religious law.

 

[dblack]

Hmm, not sure what you're getting at. I've presented no dichotomy. Just pointing out a glaring logical fallacy. You're calling atheism 'the religion of death' because it was endorsed by despotic regimes. Skipping over the obvious category error (it's not a religion),

ROFL

Right, Richard Dawkins isn't another Oral Roberts or something....

Exactly! To atheists, Dawkins isn't a revered holy man. Just another jackass with an opinion.

We've been down this path a hundred times. I am an Agnostic. I neither accept nor reject the notion of a god. Atheism is the affirmative rejection of the possibility of a god or the supernatural. Their is no evidence to support such a position, ergo Atheism is based on faith.

Well, our disagreement seems to be based on terminology more than anything. I take 'atheism' at face value - it's nothing more (or less) than a lack of theistic belief. I'd also dispute your apparent (mis-)understanding of agnosticism. It isn't a middle ground between accepting or rejecting the existence of god(s). It's a perspective that views "god" as an un-provable proposition. The point of agnosticism is that we can't ever obtain knowledge of the existence, or proof of the non-existence, of gods. The thing is atheism and agnosticism don't contradict. Neither do belief and agnosticism. One can be a true believer in a particular god, and an agnostic - "I believe, but understand that what I believe cannot be proven". Likewise, one can lack faith in any god (atheist) and also be an agnostic. "I don't believe, but understand that I cannot prove gods don't exist."

You should read up on the terms. It might alter your stated positions. And then, it might not. But at least you'd present an informed opinion.

 

[Montrovant]

Hmm, not sure what you're getting at. I've presented no dichotomy. Just pointing out a glaring logical fallacy. You're calling atheism 'the religion of death' because it was endorsed by despotic regimes. Skipping over the obvious category error (it's not a religion),

ROFL

Right, Richard Dawkins isn't another Oral Roberts or something....

Exactly! To atheists, Dawkins isn't a revered holy man. Just another jackass with an opinion.

We've been down this path a hundred times. I am an Agnostic. I neither accept nor reject the notion of a god. Atheism is the affirmative rejection of the possibility of a god or the supernatural. Their is no evidence to support such a position, ergo Atheism is based on faith.

Well, our disagreement seems to be based on terminology more than anything. I take 'atheism' at face value - it's nothing more (or less) than a lack of theistic belief. I'd also dispute your apparent (mis-)understanding of agnosticism. It isn't a middle ground between accepting or rejecting the existence of god(s). It's a perspective that views "god" as an un-provable proposition. The point of agnosticism is that we can't ever obtain knowledge of the existence, or proof of the non-existence, of gods. The thing is atheism and agnosticism don't contradict. Neither do belief and agnosticism. One can be a true believer in a particular god, and an agnostic - "I believe, but understand that what I believe cannot be proven". Likewise, one can lack faith in any god (atheist) and also be an agnostic. "I don't believe, but understand that I cannot prove gods don't exist."

You should read up on the terms. It might alter your stated positions. And then, it might not. But at least you'd present an informed opinion.

This is often an issue in discussions like these, I've found. The difference between dictionary definition and common use of the terms causes issues. There needs to be an agreement of, at least, how the terms are being used by the posters before the discussion can really go anywhere.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

 

[dblack]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

It sounds like you're pinning a lot of things on atheism that don't have anything to do with it. Despotic governments come in all stripes, with differing attitudes toward religion. Judging all atheists for the actions of North Korea's government is no more valid than holding all Christians accountable for the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Hollie]

For the truly hateful, the sheer hostility, rabid paranoia, and insensate hatred for all things infidel found in religious doctrine is truly staggering. As a means of avoiding any action to improve their own lives, these cultists will invent an external enemy to foist blame upon others for all their self inflicted ills.

I think the good Christians somehow missed the email about religiously inspired hatreds that have caused divisions, caused the splintered sects of christianity to despise one-another and have caused misery and death on a global scale. We see demonstration of this dynamic in terms of the haters who, while claiming Atheism is the root of all evil, are really expressing their hate for anyone who doesn't believe as they do. The insensate rage of the haters is boiling over and it's truly a shame that they allow their religious belief to be the engine that drives their hatreds There was a time when the bodies of the hapless victims of Christian pogroms were sprouting up like summer dandelions all over the globe. Fortunately, it was largely the secular institutions which put a leash around the neck of christianity.

 

[Underhill]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

It's really very simple. It's not about ideology. It's about wealth.

Regimes during bad times need to be brutal to maintain their regimes. This is why christians were brutal during the dark ages, muslims are often brutal now (in the poorest countries primarily) and atheist are brutal in the shit hole of North Korea (less so now in China as they become more wealthy). Christian countries right now are generally the wealthiest in the world. And have been for the last hundred years or so.

Brutality is not part of the ideology in and of itself. It is a means to an end. A tool used in desperate situations.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

It sounds like you're pinning a lot of things on atheism that don't have anything to do with it. Despotic governments come in all stripes, with differing attitudes toward religion. Judging all atheists for the actions of North Korea's government is no more valid than holding all Christians accountable for the Spanish Inquisition.

I don't pin everything on atheism. I pin oppression by atheists on atheists. Meanwhile, you have again repeated the assertion that "despotic govts come in all stripes", the implication being that there are despotic Christian governments (theocracies) right now...and yet AGAIN...NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.

If despotic governments come in all different stripes, then you must be able to roll off a couple of Christian theocracies that are despotic.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

It's really very simple. It's not about ideology. It's about wealth.

Regimes during bad times need to be brutal to maintain their regimes. This is why christians were brutal during the dark ages, muslims are often brutal now (in the poorest countries primarily) and atheist are brutal in the shit hole of North Korea (less so now in China as they become more wealthy). Christian countries right now are generally the wealthiest in the world. And have been for the last hundred years or so.

Brutality is not part of the ideology in and of itself. It is a means to an end. A tool used in desperate situations.

Give me EXAMPLES. I'm so sick of the juvenile method of argument, where these assertions are made with absolutely no detail. What christians were brutal in the dark ages?

I don't buy that it's about money. Poverty and famine follow where totalitarianism leads, though. Christian countries are wealthier because they are freer.

 

[Hollie]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

It's really very simple. It's not about ideology. It's about wealth.

Regimes during bad times need to be brutal to maintain their regimes. This is why christians were brutal during the dark ages, muslims are often brutal now (in the poorest countries primarily) and atheist are brutal in the shit hole of North Korea (less so now in China as they become more wealthy). Christian countries right now are generally the wealthiest in the world. And have been for the last hundred years or so.

Brutality is not part of the ideology in and of itself. It is a means to an end. A tool used in desperate situations.

Give me EXAMPLES. I'm so sick of the juvenile method of argument, where these assertions are made with absolutely no detail. What christians were brutal in the dark ages?

I don't buy that it's about money. Poverty and famine follow where totalitarianism leads, though. Christian countries are wealthier because they are freer.

Where exactly are these "christian countries"? Is there a country somewhere with christianity as the State religion?

Many Western nations are freer vs. Middle Eastern nations because religion is not mandated by theocratic despots. Europe was once under the boot heel of Christian theocratic totalitarianism. It was a period known as the Dark Ages.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's really very simple. It's not about ideology. It's about wealth.

Regimes during bad times need to be brutal to maintain their regimes. This is why christians were brutal during the dark ages, muslims are often brutal now (in the poorest countries primarily) and atheist are brutal in the shit hole of North Korea (less so now in China as they become more wealthy). Christian countries right now are generally the wealthiest in the world. And have been for the last hundred years or so.

Brutality is not part of the ideology in and of itself. It is a means to an end. A tool used in desperate situations.

Give me EXAMPLES. I'm so sick of the juvenile method of argument, where these assertions are made with absolutely no detail. What christians were brutal in the dark ages?

I don't buy that it's about money. Poverty and famine follow where totalitarianism leads, though. Christian countries are wealthier because they are freer.

Where exactly are these "christian countries"? Is there a country somewhere with christianity as the State religion?

Many Western nations are freer vs. Middle Eastern nations because religion is not mandated by theocratic despots. Europe was once under the boot heel of Christian theocratic totalitarianism. It was a period known as the Dark Ages.

Norway is still a theocracy with the King also the head of the Norway Lutheran Church.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you ever met a Muslim who was an asshole?

Does that make all Muslims assholes? Of course not!​

And I've met some Muslims who were not assholes.

Have you ever met a Christian who was an asshole?

Does that make all Christians assholes? Of course not!​

And I've met Christians who were not assholes.

You see a pattern here?

Have you ever met an Atheist who was an asshole?

Does that make all Athiests assholes? Of course not!​

Ooops, pattern broken....

 

[AVG-JOE]

You need to get out more, Brother.

 

[koshergrl]

Have you ever met a Muslim who was an asshole?

Does that make all Muslims assholes? Of course not!
​

And I've met some Muslims who were not assholes.

Have you ever met a Christian who was an asshole?

Does that make all Christians assholes? Of course not!
​

And I've met Christians who were not assholes.

You see a pattern here?

Have you ever met an Atheist who was an asshole?

Does that make all Athiests assholes? Of course not!
​

Ooops, pattern broken....

So true.

 

[Underhill]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

It's really very simple. It's not about ideology. It's about wealth.

Regimes during bad times need to be brutal to maintain their regimes. This is why christians were brutal during the dark ages, muslims are often brutal now (in the poorest countries primarily) and atheist are brutal in the shit hole of North Korea (less so now in China as they become more wealthy). Christian countries right now are generally the wealthiest in the world. And have been for the last hundred years or so.

Brutality is not part of the ideology in and of itself. It is a means to an end. A tool used in desperate situations.

Give me EXAMPLES. I'm so sick of the juvenile method of argument, where these assertions are made with absolutely no detail. What christians were brutal in the dark ages?

I don't buy that it's about money. Poverty and famine follow where totalitarianism leads, though. Christian countries are wealthier because they are freer.

A Brief History of the Inquisition

 

[Hollie]

America's True History of Religious Tolerance | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine


From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation.”

 

[Uncensored2008]

A Brief History of the Inquisition

Which in 500 YEARS killed less people than Atheist champion Mao Tse Tung on a good week....

When it comes to slaughter, there is no ism like Atheism...

 

[koshergrl]

How many hundreds of years ago was the Inquisition?

And it was, of course, a political movement.

Progressives are so stupid. They seem to think Christianity springs from the Catholic Church.

 

[Hollie]

A Brief History of the Inquisition

Which in 500 YEARS killed less people than Atheist champion Mao Tse Tung on a good week....

When it comes to slaughter, there is no ism like Atheism...

And of course, your nonsense has already been refuted by me.

Don't let your ego get in the way of your humiliation.