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

Forums - Politics - 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
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!


While I appreciate that you're pointing out that the often used argument is baseless...

These statistics don't really deal with the real problem.

And people will claim that Hitler was a Christian.



Around the Network
Dr.Grass said:
kanageddaamen said:
How is claiming that religion enables justification (and prompts) violence towards people based on their beliefs on gods while atheism is agnostic to peoples' beliefs on gods relative to whom violence should be directed a stupid argument?

 


Firstly, that is indeed what he was claiming, but he doesn't seem to know it. (EDIT: I was wrong about that one)

Secondly, it IS a stupid argument. Saying "religion enables justification (for) violence" is not the views of someone with a little wisdom. Surely you can see that the,

race, nationality, religion, language, culture...etc. al

Over which wars have been fought, and over which we all constantly fight every day (on a smaller scale and less successfully than Hitler for instance), are all just designations for the exact same principle.

No my friends. If you were to actually think about this properly, and just leave the anger that is manifesting due to Mr.Dawkins aside, you might just be able to spot the self-evident truth in the face.

Now, can anyone spot what links all those bolded things together? Because all of them have the same origin, and ALL of them have caused wars. Religion has just been a better excuse than any of the others. Come on, use the grey matter.

I suppose the very fact that all religions attempt to instill an implicit non-violence in the practitioner is not even a factor for most of you all.

Is it so difficult to actually think for yourselves?


It isn't making the claim that religion is the ONLY thing that causes violence, just that it IS a justification for violence, while absense of religion is not.



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

Dr.Grass said:
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!


While I appreciate that you're pointing out that the often used argument is baseless...

These statistics don't really deal with the real problem.

And people will claim that Hitler was a Christian.

I know...i just wanted to point out the ever so huuge hypocracy and double standards  among internet atheist coummunity

The wars and killing argument can go both ways...its just that the argument itself is weak



kanageddaamen said:
Dr.Grass said:
kanageddaamen said:
How is claiming that religion enables justification (and prompts) violence towards people based on their beliefs on gods while atheism is agnostic to peoples' beliefs on gods relative to whom violence should be directed a stupid argument?

 


Firstly, that is indeed what he was claiming, but he doesn't seem to know it. (EDIT: I was wrong about that one)

Secondly, it IS a stupid argument. Saying "religion enables justification (for) violence" is not the views of someone with a little wisdom. Surely you can see that the,

race, nationality, religion, language, culture...etc. al

Over which wars have been fought, and over which we all constantly fight every day (on a smaller scale and less successfully than Hitler for instance), are all just designations for the exact same principle.

No my friends. If you were to actually think about this properly, and just leave the anger that is manifesting due to Mr.Dawkins aside, you might just be able to spot the self-evident truth in the face.

Now, can anyone spot what links all those bolded things together? Because all of them have the same origin, and ALL of them have caused wars. Religion has just been a better excuse than any of the others. Come on, use the grey matter.

I suppose the very fact that all religions attempt to instill an implicit non-violence in the practitioner is not even a factor for most of you all.

Is it so difficult to actually think for yourselves?


It isn't making the claim that religion is the ONLY thing that causes violence, just that it IS a justification for violence, while absense of religion is not.


It's a justification, but not a cause.

So therefore it's not a problem, because another justification would've been found had it not been there.



Dr.Grass said:

Dr.Grass 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.

 

 What did I not understand, genius? 

That (3rd underlined part) is not appreciated.


What? You just called the guy stupid. You think he appreciated that? WTF

If you don't appreciate people calling you out for being condescending, then don't condescend.



Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
  • 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!


Hitler was not an atheist. 

 

"Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Crusades estimates are quite poor, it varies between 1 and 9 million. You are on the low end. 

Your argument is a poor one, comparing the acts of a few to anyone sharing their views.

EDIT: The religious wars are based upon religion, the wars from those leaders you presented do not stem from atheism. It's entirely irrelevant. HUGE difference.

 



Arguing that you can't disprove something is not a valid argument for believing in something.

The most prominent atheist such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris will not say there is not god but rather that the odds of a god existing are incredibly low and therefore they recommend acting as if there were no god.

Also many of the people forget that proving the existence of god is different to proving the existence of a specific god such as the Christian or Jewish god. The theist who claim one specific god's existence are easy to disprove as there are so many of them contradicting things that science can prove today and the religious debate is a constant flow of science discovering a contradiction and religions either denying the truth or adapting there religions around it.

Science does not have all the answers right now, but let's not make up our own and play them off as truth please.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Dr.Grass said:
Player1x3 said:
Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
  • Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead

 


And people will claim that Hitler was a Christian.

Because he was:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."  –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."  –Adolf Hitler, 1922

 "But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord…  Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed.  Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men."  -Adolf Hitler, 1938.

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.  We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, 1933

There are plenty others



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

Dr.Grass said:
kanageddaamen said:
It isn't making the claim that religion is the ONLY thing that causes violence, just that it IS a justification for violence, while absense of religion is not.


It's a justification, but not a cause.

So therefore it's not a problem, because another justification would've been found had it not been there.

Nonsense, the crusades, for example, were entirely religion oriented.  The majority of the violence in the middle east is religiosly motivated.  Just look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it is entirely rooted in religion



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

Dr.Grass said:

"it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist."

That's NOT the goal of that statement. Moreover, the statement is fuzzy, because it could imply (and I took it as such, but have now realised what you meant) that a theist needn't be threatened by an atheist (not in terms of wars, but on a singular - argumentative level).

 

You are correct, the Gervais quote is not meant to imply that atheists have never threatened those with religious beliefs.  I shouldn't have said "no need to feel threatened" as a blanket statement as if all atheists are peaceful and incapable of causing harm to others.