By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - China's One Child Policy is a great policy.

dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.

And how is that ANY diffrent thna what have I said?  He kiled theists for being theists. What he did to other people is absolutely irrelevant to my point, because I didnt even mentioned them



Around the Network
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.

And how is that ANY diffrent thna what have I said?  He kiled theists for being theists. What he did to other people is absolutely irrelevant to my point, because I didnt even mentioned them

Your arguing his motivation, you sadly couldn't solve the syllogism and no matter how plainly I put it you still can't put two and two together. If you cared to bolden and underline the line after that you will note that I said "This was the same reason he killed everyone else..."  in otherwords he killed because of ideologies and that is the plain and no more plainly can that point be made. Actually yes, there is one way to describe it in simpler form:

In Stalin communism it was Stalin's way or the highway. The highway usually involves death.

Your argument is dual part:

Stalin killed theists because he was communist thus Atheist and to repeat the consequence by your logic: Stalin killed theists because they believed in god.

Your logic would be at least accurate if he didn't kill Atheists for holding Atheist friendly ideologies as well.

Anarchism is arguably the best Atheist friendly ideological world view however Stalin made sure to be rid of it first and all those who wanted it.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

HappySqurriel said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.


Isn't that a more agnostic approach?

Atheism would be more along the lines of "Because I haven't seen evidence supporting the existance of Unicorns they could not exist"

No the agnostic approach would be to say that "Unicorns could exist but for all we know they do not but they could."

An Atheist completes the argument in my opinion while an agnostic plays with the point. In the end all secular approaches will sound similar.

A great example would be Richard Dawkins' argument of the flying sphagetti monster, to sum his argument up it would sound similar to the unicorn argument I just gave. Richard Dawkins is also considered an Anti-Theist or New Atheist.  



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.

And how is that ANY diffrent thna what have I said?  He kiled theists for being theists. What he did to other people is absolutely irrelevant to my point, because I didnt even mentioned them

Your arguing his motivation, you sadly couldn't solve the syllogism and no matter how plainly I put it you still can't put two and two together. If you cared to bolden and underline the line after that you will note that I said "This was the same reason he killed everyone else..."  in otherwords he killed because of ideologies and that is the plain and no more plainly can that point be made. Actually yes, there is one way to describe it in simpler form:

In Stalin communism it was Stalin's way or the highway. The highway usually involves death.

Your argument is dual part:

Stalin killed theists because he was communist thus Atheist and to repeat the consequence by your logic: Stalin killed theists because they believed in god.

Your logic would be at least accurate if he didn't kill Atheists for holding Atheist friendly ideologies as well.

Anarchism is arguably the best Atheist friendly ideological world view however Stalin made sure to be rid of it first and all those who wanted it.


He DID that for those EAXCT same reasons. Again, your point?



pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.

And how is that ANY diffrent thna what have I said?  He kiled theists for being theists. What he did to other people is absolutely irrelevant to my point, because I didnt even mentioned them

Your arguing his motivation, you sadly couldn't solve the syllogism and no matter how plainly I put it you still can't put two and two together. If you cared to bolden and underline the line after that you will note that I said "This was the same reason he killed everyone else..."  in otherwords he killed because of ideologies and that is the plain and no more plainly can that point be made. Actually yes, there is one way to describe it in simpler form:

In Stalin communism it was Stalin's way or the highway. The highway usually involves death.

Your argument is dual part:

Stalin killed theists because he was communist thus Atheist and to repeat the consequence by your logic: Stalin killed theists because they believed in god.

Your logic would be at least accurate if he didn't kill Atheists for holding Atheist friendly ideologies as well.

Anarchism is arguably the best Atheist friendly ideological world view however Stalin made sure to be rid of it first and all those who wanted it.


He DID that for those EAXCT same reasons. Again, your point?


Face it guys, Stalin was a nut, very little of what he did made any real sense. He killed Theists because they believed in a god, and athiests because they were anarchists.



"with great power, comes great responsibility."

Around the Network
Tony_Stark said:
pizzahut451 said:

 


Face it guys, Stalin was a nut, very little of what he did made any real sense. He killed Theists because they believed in a god, and athiests because they were anarchists.

I don't get it, maybe I'm not articulating my point correctly? I mean there are only three possibilities here, I'm not articulating my point, he is laboring under a misapprehension or it's just down right denial.

He killed Christians because they held an ideology, he killed Anarchists because they held an ideology, he killed democrats because of their ideology, he killed the farming caste's because of their ideology what is so hard to understand here that it wasn't a matter of Stalin being Atheist or not, he was a despot plain and simple. All that means is that he sees himself as a god, and today some see him as a Saint or political hero.

The point is that Atheism had nothing to do with that he killed Theists, the man was a megalomaniac. That's the point I've been repeating over and over, and the difference maker of your argument. It's the argument that non-believers are some how morally depraved without god or the insinuation there of.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

I hate to point this outl but 1 child per couple is a method of reducing your population, not stabilising it. 1 child/couple or 1 child/woman halves the population of each successive generation, assuming that the amount of people having twins/triplets etc balances out the forever alone types.

 

No, what we need is a good ol' 2 child policy.



pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.

And how is that ANY diffrent thna what have I said?  He kiled theists for being theists. What he did to other people is absolutely irrelevant to my point, because I didnt even mentioned them

Your arguing his motivation, you sadly couldn't solve the syllogism and no matter how plainly I put it you still can't put two and two together. If you cared to bolden and underline the line after that you will note that I said "This was the same reason he killed everyone else..."  in otherwords he killed because of ideologies and that is the plain and no more plainly can that point be made. Actually yes, there is one way to describe it in simpler form:

In Stalin communism it was Stalin's way or the highway. The highway usually involves death.

Your argument is dual part:

Stalin killed theists because he was communist thus Atheist and to repeat the consequence by your logic: Stalin killed theists because they believed in god.

Your logic would be at least accurate if he didn't kill Atheists for holding Atheist friendly ideologies as well.

Anarchism is arguably the best Atheist friendly ideological world view however Stalin made sure to be rid of it first and all those who wanted it.


He DID that for those EAXCT same reasons. Again, your point?

You do realize that the part you underlined was me simplifying the part of your argument that I've been addressing. That all the information around that goes to combat that line of logic with a better logic; or at least a line of logic that takes into account more than just what I want to hear or see,



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

1 child policy is excellent. The world is over populated and non-renewable resources are running out. With a one child policy the gender of the child can be selected. Males out number females in China by a wide margin and the gap is expected to widen over time as most families select male child ahead of female child. 

Human population is controlled by One child policy, non renewable resources can last longer and the damage caused to the environment can be slowed down by controlling human populations. Plant and animal numbers are declining every day, 1000s of species or flora and fauna become extinct every day primarily due to the consequences of human activities. 



dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

So your whole point: Atheist belief system >>> Theist belief system. Yeah, ok, cool story

 

Still doesnt disprove what I said in the first place. You try to explain stuff that doesnt matter.

I'm not sure if you even read my post, I didn't compare the two points. Your actually incorrect their as well, Atheism isn't a belief system that is comparible to Theist belief systems. Apples and oranges.

The crux of a theist belief system is found through faith, in otherwords drawing conclusions for things in the absence of evidence, the reason it isn't comparible is because Atheists can't make the assumption nor it's opposite. Instead Atheists say and this is a quote, Unicorns could exist but for all that we know they do not and life goes on regardless of believing in them or not.

Again, I didn't compare them I keep saying this and this will be my last time saying it.

Stalin did kill theists for their beliefs so far as their beliefs were with effect on the ideology of the people he wished to subjugate. This was the same reason he killed everyone else which throws out the shock of value by saying he gunned down Theists because they believed in god. In the end Stalin became an arguable saint of the Russian orthodoxy so with that said it's clear he didn't care what ideology propped him up so long as he remained in power.

And how is that ANY diffrent thna what have I said?  He kiled theists for being theists. What he did to other people is absolutely irrelevant to my point, because I didnt even mentioned them

Your arguing his motivation, you sadly couldn't solve the syllogism and no matter how plainly I put it you still can't put two and two together. If you cared to bolden and underline the line after that you will note that I said "This was the same reason he killed everyone else..."  in otherwords he killed because of ideologies and that is the plain and no more plainly can that point be made. Actually yes, there is one way to describe it in simpler form:

In Stalin communism it was Stalin's way or the highway. The highway usually involves death.

Your argument is dual part:

Stalin killed theists because he was communist thus Atheist and to repeat the consequence by your logic: Stalin killed theists because they believed in god.

Your logic would be at least accurate if he didn't kill Atheists for holding Atheist friendly ideologies as well.

Anarchism is arguably the best Atheist friendly ideological world view however Stalin made sure to be rid of it first and all those who wanted it.


He DID that for those EAXCT same reasons. Again, your point?

You do realize that the part you underlined was me simplifying the part of your argument that I've been addressing. That all the information around that goes to combat that line of logic with a better logic; or at least a line of logic that takes into account more than just what I want to hear or see,

How were you adressing my point? I said Stalin was an atheist who killed theists with his atheism supported regime. You than said (as far as i understood) that it didnt matter he was an atheist who killed theist because he also killed other people who werent theists because he is simply a dictator. How does that in any way ''adress'' my point I'll never know