So what you're trying to say is that Atheist have done more damage to the World than religions? I don't remember a time in history where Atheist did anything, little lone bad things, worse than the Holocaust or Dark Ages. I'm sure there are some bad Atheist seeds as in all other types of people but you're not going to convince anyone they are the problem with the World. If anything it's people like you, pushing blame to the other side. No matter what side it is you will never understand until you have seen that there is more than two sides to everything.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Thoroughly debunked.

I thought reality was awesome?

To debunk the assertion that religion is the root of all evil. All I have to do is show that entities with no religion like the communists have a worse record.

...nobody actually said that religion is the root of all evil
it's a provocative title for a tv series... i don't even think dawkins had a say in that.

and the only reason communist states have more casualties is the modern technology and numbers game
more people and easier ways to kill them

i'm quite sure the crusades would've ended with a mushroom cloud over both mecca and the vatican had the technology been available.

assessing it in terms of raw numbers means nothing...

and it could be argued that communism is a form of state-worshiping religion...

It does not require specific "atheism". Just lack of religious faith.

Although the Peoples Republic of China does officially declare "Atheism" as the state religion, if that makes you happy, then there you go.

...yet they've never claimed to commit a specific act in the name of their state "religion"

[edit on 3/31/08 by madnessinmysoul]

i'm quite sure the crusades would've

The vatican does not represent christianity. JESUS does.
The vatican thinks it represents christianity but it doesn't.
Only JESUS CHRIST can represent christianity.
christians are people. they don't represent christianity either.
JESUS does. without JESUS, christianity is no different than
atheism.

Originally posted by undo
The vatican does not represent christianity. JESUS does.
The vatican thinks it represents christianity but it doesn't.
Only JESUS CHRIST can represent christianity.
christians are people. they don't represent christianity either.
JESUS does. without JESUS, christianity is no different than
atheism.

Stalin does not represent atheism. NOBODY does.
You guys seem to think Stalin represents atheism but he doesn't.
Only NOBODY can represent atheism.
Atheists are people. they don't represent atheism either.
NOBODY does. without NOBODY, atheism is no different than christianity.



(The last line makes sense, too if you think about it...)

Earlier in this thread some of the so-called "tag-team" were trying to say that Atheism was a religion. Communism may also be labeled as such if you think about it. If you look at it that way, religious faith can be blamed for all genocides. But it is not faith alone, it's the faith in your beliefs being superior to that of others. Intolerance is the evil here, and both sides are actually innocent. It's the individuals in question who are guilty.

And as for the "airbrushing" conspiracy...well, not much to say for that. Haven't seen it "exposed" yet. I didn't see Dawkins actually denying the fact that atheists have killed. I'm sure if you asked Dawkins he would be perfectly willing to admit that atheists have killed before. Perhaps you could try that?

[edit on 31/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by an3rkist


NOBODY does.
You guys seem to think Stalin represents atheism but he doesn't.
Only NOBODY can represent atheism.
Atheists are people. they don't represent atheism either.
NOBODY does. without NOBODY, atheism is no different than christianity.

Wrong, When a person is in court does an attorney not "represent" his client? When a person doesn't want the help of legal council, does he then not represent himself? Of course he does.

Everyone of you defending Atheism from any allegations are in fact Representing Atheism. As much as I see Atheists attempt to escape any culpability about anything, they continue to make assertions to denigrate without taking any action or at least not any they would ever admit to.

Earlier in this thread some of the so-called "tag-team" were trying to say that Atheism was a religion.

Atheism IS a religion and has been proven as such in a court of law.
As much as Atheists like to escape any attachment to that fact of case law, the fact still remains that it is in fact,, a religion

Case Closed:

I'm sure if you asked Dawkins he would be perfectly willing to admit that atheists have killed before. Perhaps you could try that?

I believe whammy already proved that beyond any doubt, so asking an avowed religious Atheist like Dawkins isn't necessary regardless of his opinions either way

- Con




[edit on 31-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Everyone of you defending Atheism from any allegations are in fact Representing Atheism. As much as I see Atheists attempt to escape any culpability about anything, they continue to make assertions to denigrate without taking any action or at least not any they would ever admit to.

You know, I don't get you guys. I agree with undo on something, and then say the logic applies to atheists also, and you all say I'm wrong! In other words, you're admitting that the Vatican represents Christianity. I don't think it does. I think undo was right. But I think you're all wrong for suggesting that I'm wrong based on the opposite logic that undo used. Then again, apparently "right" and "wrong" are relative terms. Do I represent atheism? NO! I represent me and nobody else! Do you represent Christianity? NO! You represent yourself. I agree with undo, Christ represents Christianity for you guys, and nobody represents atheism as a whole.

Atheism IS a religion and has been proven as such in a court of law.
As much as Atheists like to escape any attachment to that fact of case law, the fact still remains that it is in fact,, a religion

Case Closed:

Wow, some court makes a ruling and you decide it's fact. Great logic. The Supreme Court once ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional, but look how that turned out. If you think courts are the end all be all and what they say is written in stone, well...I'll bite my tongue. And anyway, did you even read that case? The court made that decision to make sure that a prisoner was allowed the same rights as others, not so that the whole world would say, "Oh, Atheism's a religion!"

And most importantly, I don't know why you're arguing it, I agree it's become a religion, (to some extent.) Read my previous posts somewhere in these seventy pages to see that I was one of the people who agreed with that idea...

I believe whammy already proved that beyond any doubt, so asking an avowed religious Atheist like Dawkins isn't necessary regardless of his opinions either way

Have you completely forgotten the point in this thread? Whammy proved that atheists have killed before: wow. I haven't seen anyone denying that, not even Dawkins. That's why asking him could be considered relevant to his THEORY. You can't prove a conspiracy exists without...proving the conspiracy exists. So whammy proved that atheists have killed, but he has yet to prove that Dawkins has tried to deny that.

[edit on 31/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by an3rkist



Wow, some court makes a ruling and you decide it's fact. Great logic. The Supreme Court once ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional, but look how that turned out.

The same way I have to oblige separation of church and state, I have to observe the laws whether I agree with them or not. So your argument isn't with me,,

It's with the courts

If you think courts are the end all be all and what they say is written in stone, well...I'll bite my tongue. And anyway, did you even read that case? The court made that decision to make sure that a prisoner was allowed the same rights as others, not so that the whole world would say, "Oh, Atheism's a religion!"

Please,, I only deal in US law what they say about it in other parts of the world doesn't concern us here in the U.S. The case WAS brought by a prisoner but was decided on earlier case law by the Supreme Court. His being a prisoner was his own doing but taking the law from the where it applies outside of prison ie; regarding religion, had to be argued the same way religion is defined inside prison. Once decided Atheism is a religion makes no distinction between Atheism religion inside prison or outside prison. It is a religion no different than Catholicism is religion inside prison and outside Prison.

Have you completely forgotten the point in this thread? Whammy proved that atheists have killed before: wow. I haven't seen anyone denying that, not even Dawkins. That's why asking him could be considered relevant to his THEORY.

I believe you are misunderstanding Whammy's argument or misrepresenting it, posing the question on an individual basis. Personally, I believe that is how one can look at it but the fact is Groups who commit a good or bad have a common good (at least they all think so) . Having said that Christians are quite candid that we are a very flawed people and don't deny a common belief attached to a name. Atheist are hiding behind a name they make no attachments with as a group yet all have that same name. They all seem to have strong opinions about a particular people (religious) yet we are either to believe they only go as far as writing blistering books about why they must be stopped OR they actually do something about them.

It isn't JUST a coincidence Hitler burned all the churches or Stalin killed every religious thing, he could get his hands on. Of course he didn't do it all by himself but those that did are complicit in his actions AND motives.

In that case you would be right but it has been said in books

You can't prove a conspiracy exists without...proving the conspiracy exists. So whammy proved that atheists have killed, but he has yet to prove that Dawkins has tried to deny that.

He doesn't have to prove he denied it on a case by case basis because Dawkins Uses Generalisations to convict he also is to be judged by the same standard he judges others. He has published the same logical comparisons that now can be used against him. He simply can't have it both ways. Don't think for a second the book he published wouldn't be used against him because if the scenario were to come up, Dawkins would wish he never wrote that book.


- Con





[edit on 31-3-2008 by Conspiriology]