Forums - Politics Discussion - How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

Who won?

The Athiest 40 70.18%
 
The creationist 17 29.82%
 
Total:57
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:

Well if this doesnt have anything to do with my point, why the fuck did you quote me in the first place?

Their anti theism did have something to do with the numbr of people they killed. I don know what you tried to say there

That's where you are wrong. Just look at how the regimes justified their killings and that sentance just falls apart. Nobody has ever killed in the name of atheism.

Are you illiterate??? I really dont know if its either because of your extreme hypocrisy or just ignorance that you choose not to understand what am i saying. I seriously cant make this more simple than it already is, but I'll try.

Lets take Soviet Union as an example. It was the biggest, strongest dictatorship country with communist and marxist orgins. All founders of Marxism hated religion. Religion was publicly opressed and persecuted in public. Soivet Union was an open atheist state. Now if someone or something opresses and persecutes religion and religious people, we can logically assume that a) he is an anti theist and b) is thus an atheist. You cant be an anti theist if you arent an atheist. And if someone kills in the name of anti-theism, it is again logical to assume,, they killed in them name of extreme atheism. Now, is your superior, free thinker, scientific, logical and reasonable mind able to comprehend these words so far? Lets take some sentences out of the artciles i linked, just in case it isn't.

''The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.''

Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted.[6]

And theres waaay more where thhis came from...just if you care enough to do some research?.

The following sentence is very very very important , so please take your time to read it as a slowy and carefully as you can.

HOWEVER,  I AM NOT SAYING THAT ATHEISM, AS A BELIEF, PROMOTES KILLING OR PERSECUTION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM !!!!! I WAS MERELY POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT ATHEIST ( AND ANTI THEIST REGIMES) PEOPLE HAVE KILLED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN IN THE PAST. I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE STALIN,POL POT OR ADOLF HITLER.




Around the Network
JoeTheBro said:
kanageddaamen said:
JoeTheBro said:
kanageddaamen said:
JoeTheBro said:
I'm fine with most atheists even if it's a super heated debate.

What pisses me off is when an atheist thinks science=atheism. Um hello, I'm a science guy yet I'm not an atheist. Also I find pastafarianism annoying. It's funny to use it as a joke but using it as an argument against religion just shows how little you know. The video I can laugh at because there are tons of blind and ignorant Jesus freaks just asking for trouble when talking to atheists.


If you applied the scientific method, you would have abandoned the hypothesis "a judeo-christian god exists" a long time ago


Oh thank you for perfectly fitting in to the science=atheism category.


My point is, if you were a "science guy" would have applied your adherence to the scientific method to the belief in god, and drawn the conclusion that it is a false hypothesis.

Naturally science ISN'T atheism (science is the persuit of truth via observation and analysis, atheism is the lack of a belief in a higher power) but 1.) Science dictates claiming nothing to be true without repeatable evidence that it is so (which nullifies any and all "beliefs."  If you are a "science guy" you either have evidence that something is true, or you do not, there is no room for "belief") and 2.) Any intellectually honest, scientific analysis of the question of a supreme being will yield an atheistic result


This is why science=atheism people piss me off. Your argument is on par with a Christian shaking his head saying "nope I'm right, you're wrong, it's in the bible." If you want to debate this then you should present your "scientific analysis of the question" instead of saying it's just science 101. By being vague this argument pushes the theist, in this case me, into arguing against science as a whole which we both know is a dead end.

So please get off your high horse and present your findings instead of doing whatever this is. Oh and don't try and argue that I'm not a science guy. I know this is the internet full of people making stuff up but I'm not one of them. My 2011 Nobel prize in telling the truth proves that. (thought ending on humor would lighten the mood)

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:

Well if this doesnt have anything to do with my point, why the fuck did you quote me in the first place?

Their anti theism did have something to do with the numbr of people they killed. I don know what you tried to say there

That's where you are wrong. Just look at how the regimes justified their killings and that sentance just falls apart. Nobody has ever killed in the name of atheism.

Are you illiterate??? I really dont know if its either because of your extreme hypocrisy or just ignorance that you choose not to understand what am i saying. I seriously cant make this more simple than it already is, but I'll try.

Lets take Soviet Union as an example. It was the biggest, strongest dictatorship country with communist and marxist orgins. All founders of Marxism hated religion. Religion was publicly opressed and persecuted in public. Soivet Union was an open atheist state. Now if someone or something opresses and persecutes religion and religious people, we can logically assume that a) he is an anti theist and b) is thus an atheist. You cant be an anti theist if you arent an atheist. And if someone kills in the name of anti-theism, it is again logical to assume,, they killed in them name of extreme atheism. Now, is your superior, free thinker, scientific, logical and reasonable mind able to comprehend these words so far? Lets take some sentences out of the artciles i linked, just in case it isn't.

''The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.''

Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted.[6]

And theres waaay more where thhis came from...just if you care enough to do some research?.

The following sentence is very very very important , so please take your time to read it as a slowy and carefully as you can.

HOWEVER,  I AM NOT SAYING THAT ATHEISM, AS A BELIEF, PROMOTES KILLING OR PERSECUTION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM !!!!! I WAS MERELY POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT ATHEIST ( AND ANTI THEIST REGIMES) PEOPLE HAVE KILLED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN IN THE PAST. I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE STALIN,POL POT OR ADOLF HITLER.


Fine, I'll give you those 1200 people and maybe some others who were killed by the soviets desire to eliminate religion.

But then don't EVER menton the total death toll of the Soviet Union and try to pin THAT on atheism again. Use the relevant numbers or you are deliberately misleading people.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:

Fine, I'll give you those 1200 people and maybe some others who were killed by the soviets desire to eliminate religion.

But then don't EVER menton the total death toll of the Soviet Union and try to pin THAT on atheism again. Use the relevant numbers or you are deliberately misleading people.

I've only been here a few weeks and I can already tell Player1x3 or whatever his name is has a raging hateboner for Atheism and will do anything he can to disparge the (lack of) belief as best he can.  I've seen him arguing that being atheist is as bad as or in some cases worse than religious fundamentalism due to needing faith and being extremists, and he often cites 'atheists who killed people' as 'people who killed in the name of atheism.'

He's kind of delusional.  Best to not respond to him. 

User was warned for this post - Kantor



Alara317 said:
KungKras said:

Fine, I'll give you those 1200 people and maybe some others who were killed by the soviets desire to eliminate religion.

But then don't EVER menton the total death toll of the Soviet Union and try to pin THAT on atheism again. Use the relevant numbers or you are deliberately misleading people.

I've only been here a few weeks and I can already tell Player1x3 or whatever his name is has a raging hateboner for Atheism and will do anything he can to disparge the (lack of) belief as best he can.  I've seen him arguing that being atheist is as bad as or in some cases worse than religious fundamentalism due to needing faith and being extremists, and he often cites 'atheists who killed people' as 'people who killed in the name of atheism.'

He's kind of delusional.  Best to not respond to him. 

Yea, I've noticed that as well. But it's so tempting to point out when someone is blatantly wrong, it's like an addiction xD

People who say "of" instead of have and confuse "your" with "you're" used to drive me nuts, but I learned to tolerate it eventually. I guess this might be similar?



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
KungKras said:
Alara317 said:
KungKras said:

Fine, I'll give you those 1200 people and maybe some others who were killed by the soviets desire to eliminate religion.

But then don't EVER menton the total death toll of the Soviet Union and try to pin THAT on atheism again. Use the relevant numbers or you are deliberately misleading people.

I've only been here a few weeks and I can already tell Player1x3 or whatever his name is has a raging hateboner for Atheism and will do anything he can to disparge the (lack of) belief as best he can.  I've seen him arguing that being atheist is as bad as or in some cases worse than religious fundamentalism due to needing faith and being extremists, and he often cites 'atheists who killed people' as 'people who killed in the name of atheism.'

He's kind of delusional.  Best to not respond to him. 

Yea, I've noticed that as well. But it's so tempting to point out when someone is blatantly wrong, it's like an addiction xD

People who say "of" instead of have and confuse "your" with "you're" used to drive me nuts, but I learned to tolerate it eventually. I guess this might be similar?

It's funny that, on a game website, someone makes claims like he does.  Saying "Atheism killed people" is like saying "Games killed people" becuase one psycho who just happened to be atheist/played games also killed someone.  they say correlation is not the same as causation, and this is true, but there isn't even a correlation here.  



KungKras said:
JoeTheBro said:
kanageddaamen said:
JoeTheBro said:
kanageddaamen said:
JoeTheBro said:
I'm fine with most atheists even if it's a super heated debate.

What pisses me off is when an atheist thinks science=atheism. Um hello, I'm a science guy yet I'm not an atheist. Also I find pastafarianism annoying. It's funny to use it as a joke but using it as an argument against religion just shows how little you know. The video I can laugh at because there are tons of blind and ignorant Jesus freaks just asking for trouble when talking to atheists.


If you applied the scientific method, you would have abandoned the hypothesis "a judeo-christian god exists" a long time ago


Oh thank you for perfectly fitting in to the science=atheism category.


My point is, if you were a "science guy" would have applied your adherence to the scientific method to the belief in god, and drawn the conclusion that it is a false hypothesis.

Naturally science ISN'T atheism (science is the persuit of truth via observation and analysis, atheism is the lack of a belief in a higher power) but 1.) Science dictates claiming nothing to be true without repeatable evidence that it is so (which nullifies any and all "beliefs."  If you are a "science guy" you either have evidence that something is true, or you do not, there is no room for "belief") and 2.) Any intellectually honest, scientific analysis of the question of a supreme being will yield an atheistic result


This is why science=atheism people piss me off. Your argument is on par with a Christian shaking his head saying "nope I'm right, you're wrong, it's in the bible." If you want to debate this then you should present your "scientific analysis of the question" instead of saying it's just science 101. By being vague this argument pushes the theist, in this case me, into arguing against science as a whole which we both know is a dead end.

So please get off your high horse and present your findings instead of doing whatever this is. Oh and don't try and argue that I'm not a science guy. I know this is the internet full of people making stuff up but I'm not one of them. My 2011 Nobel prize in telling the truth proves that. (thought ending on humor would lighten the mood)

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.

The bible says generally to love everyone, and to forgive everyone, are saying that the real world doesn't subscribe to this type of thinking?



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Player1x3 said:
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

 there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

  • Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
  • Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
  • Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead
  • Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead
  • Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
  • Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
  • Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead

          (all in time span of max 70 years)
Vs.

  • Catholic Inqusition: (time span: 500+ years) 20-30.000 dead
  • The Crusades :  (time span:200+ years) 1.5-2 million dead

Atheist dictators killed millions of people over the past century, and caused more death in a much shorter time span than almost any other catastrophe that has happened in the civilized world, and imprisoned  or murdered hundreds of thousands in an effort to eradicate religion itself, because, you know, mass murder is the inevitable result when a community becomes too intolerant of outlandish dogmas and too fond of critical thinking. Oh the irony!

I just have to bring this up. First, Hitler was a Christian at least as late as 1944*, though he may have changed after that (not likely though). Second, everyone on your list was a Statist, which is a secular religion.

 

Also, you're not using relative numbers. Relative to total population size, the Holocaust/WW2 and other atrocities aren't nearly as bad as you think they would be, and the Crusades and Inquisition are much worse. Comparing pre-industrial revilution massacres to post-industrial revolution massacres is just fallacious.

*I've examined the claims on both sides, and still am convinced that he was a Christian. That or he was the lunatic that he was and didn't have a cohesive belief system. I'm gonna go with that one.



Alara317 said:
DaRev said:

Proviso: I’m only speaking about Christianity in the following.

 Regarding you first paragraph, John 3:16 is probably the most well know verse in the Bible, “For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If you know anything about Christianity, as you claim you do, you would know that the whole of Christianity is based on God’s love for us, in that we cannot save ourselves because of human nature, that he sent his Son Jesus out of love to help bring us salvation from ourselves. Analogy, some people use knives to kill, some people use knives to cook, but that doesn’t change what a knife is. Similarly Christianity is love, no matter how people use it. It’s the people that are wrong not Christianity.

But that's the issue, dude, the 'for god so loved the world' stuff is only the new testament.  Half of the bible.  the revisionist edition.  There's a whole series of books about judgement and hellfire and sodom and floods and all this stuff about burning people and sleeping with animals.  I respect and appreciate that you chose to believe the parts that are about love and unity, but let's be honest here, you can't honestly think that's all there is.  That's one of the reaosns I dismiss religion:  its members tend to pick and chose what they want to believe in, explaining away what doesn't coincide with their own beliefs.  

 

I'd love to meet your challenge, but there is no challenge in place.  Your one thing about 'we believe things are created, so why can't we be?' argument is flawed right out of the gate.  it's a return to that faith thing, faith that what you believe is true despite there being no evidence.  we have evidence buildigns are created, we see them being created.  There is no actual argument for human creation beyond "Well, we might have been created, we don't know."  Yeah, and a giant might have molded mountains from rock and dirtbecuase he was bored, we don't know, but that's certainly not significant evidence to claim that it is the truth.  

it is nice, however, to speak with someone who is capable of writing something that can actually be deciphered, so thanks for that. 

OK, sorry for the late reply, but I'm just going to deal with the points above, but let me just point out tthat the whole of your response is rebuttable.

Firstly, I maintain that not only the New Testiment of the Bible has love as its basis.  I submit to you that the 10 Commandments recorded in the Old Testiment at Exodus 20, is all about LOVE. Commandments 1 to 4 LOVE God, Commandments 5 to 10 LOVE your fellow man (I've made this argument before in other threads).  For example, commadnment six says essentially 'You shall not murder' - I think that leads ultimately to loving your fellow man. Moreover, in Genesis 2 when Adam and Eve sinned and disobeyed God, it is his love for not only Adma and Eve, but for the whole of Humanity to come, that devised a plan so even though we sin, he will not just destroy the world and start all over again. This plan of LOVE for all humanity lead to John 3:16 and ultimately Jesus' death on the Cross. So I submit that from begining to end, the Bible is a story about LOVE.

Lastly, my faith argument is not flawed, in fact, I think it is very logical. Remember I gave you the definition of FAITH from the bible, that it contains evidence and substance. So logically, if look around my room as I type this, I can see my Wii U, my Speakers, my Rug, and my Window just to name a few. Logic tells me that EVERYTHING I see was Created. Well, if that is true, I can also see the water in the sink with some dirty dishes. I know where the dishes came from and that someone created them - I didn't see that someone do it, but it's logical to believe so. But where did the water come from? To cut a long story short, I must logically ask where did the elements H2O come from? Which man on Earth created them? If all the other things I can see around me like my Wii U were created, then who created the elements in H2O? For if Wii Us don't magically appear, so must also the elements in H2O, logically.

Note that even if Science can explain where the elements in H2O came from, the next logical question would be, so where did that thing come from? Science will always hit such a wall, where it simply cannot explain eveything without coming to one of two conclusions (1) that a Creator/God exists (2) Magic exists. Assuming the Atheist position that a Creator doesn't exist, Science must conclude that Magic exists, that things just appear, magically - for the Big Bang Theory, for example, does sound a bit like a magic show, doesn't it? But as commical as that sounds, the next logical question would be, where did the Magic come from - does Magic/Big Bangs come from nowhere? I think it is then, ultimately, logical to believe, that EVERYTHING must have a Creator, whether you talking about Wii Us and the elements in H2O.

Now, I'm not saying that Science is in any wrong or even that there was no Big Bang - in fact I accept the Big Bang Theory. What I'm saying is that Science ULTIMATELY can't explain everything. At some point you must apply  FAITH (remember evidence and substance). Faith that accepts Science which leads to the logical conclusion that the is a creator. Many Scientists have already come to this conclusion.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

DaRev said:

Note that even if Science can explain where the elements in H2O came from, the next logical question would be, so where did that thing come from? Science will always hit such a wall, where it simply cannot explain eveything without coming to one of two conclusions (1) that a Creator/God exists (2) Magic exists. Assuming the Atheist position that a Creator doesn't exist, Science must conclude that Magic exists, that things just appear, magically - for the Big Bang Theory, for example, does sound a bit like a magic show, doesn't it? But as commical as that sounds, the next logical question would be, where did the Magic come from - does Magic/Big Bangs come from nowhere? I think it is then, ultimately, logical to believe, that EVERYTHING must have a Creator, whether you talking about Wii Us and the elements in H2O.


You say every entity must be created. Something must come from something else...so why does God get a free pass? If you assume God doesn't have to be created, then why can't you say the same for the universe? 

Also, you're a Christian right? It's one thing to believe in a creator. But what leads you to believing in a single (rather than multiple) invisible, omnipotent, omnibeloved, omnipresent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless, absolute, and perfect creator?