Atheist terrorists are as bad as any other religious extremist

Originally posted by borntowatch
Now we all know Native Indians are not atheists, dont we??
And we all know the genocide perpetrated on them was due to greed and Eugenics and justified by Darwins writings
www.csustan.edu...

To expect you to read and comprehend that link may well be a stretch

The killing of the natives happened long before Darwin was born, are you kidding me? Social Darwinism, IS NOT evolution and WAS NOT what Darwin wrote about.

Originally posted by borntowatch
I am rocking and reeling with all that valuable evidence and well referenced support you have scraped together, oh wait... you have none...nothing.
Yawn

I guess you don't know how this works. You made a claim and you must provide the proof to back it up not just ask others to provide proof against it.

The answer is YES, they were all atheists when they KILLED millions. That cant be denied.

For starters who's is "all"? Were they really atheists when they killed millions? Did they kill them because they were atheists or was there another reason?

I see you also try to lump atheists with social darwinism. Of course darwinists can be atheists but not all atheists are social darwinists and according to Wikipedia even social darwinism doesn't mean a single thing so maybe you should realize that that label doesn't apply to everyone you are trying to place it on.

Multiple incompatible definitions
As social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
I am rocking and reeling with all that valuable evidence and well referenced support you have scraped together, oh wait... you have none...nothing.
Yawn

I guess you don't know how this works. You made a claim and you must provide the proof to back it up not just ask others to provide proof against it.

The answer is YES, they were all atheists when they KILLED millions. That cant be denied.

For starters who's is "all"? Were they really atheists when they killed millions? Did they kill them because they were atheists or was there another reason?

I see you also try to lump atheists with social darwinism. Of course darwinists can be atheists but not all atheists are social darwinists and according to Wikipedia even social darwinism doesn't mean a single thing so maybe you should realize that that label doesn't apply to everyone you are trying to place it on.

Multiple incompatible definitions
As social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.

I guess for a reasonable understanding of how I describe all, you would have to consider the THREAD TITLE...duh

Surely it cant be that difficult

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by borntowatch
Now we all know Native Indians are not atheists, dont we??
And we all know the genocide perpetrated on them was due to greed and Eugenics and justified by Darwins writings
www.csustan.edu...

To expect you to read and comprehend that link may well be a stretch

The killing of the natives happened long before Darwin was born, are you kidding me? Social Darwinism, IS NOT evolution and WAS NOT what Darwin wrote about.

edit on 3-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

If you read and understood the link I placed in the comment, doesnt matter.
You will never understand

reply to post by borntowatch


Actually we already went over that. Short memory?

I am actually pointing out the last few pages of you asking for proof without having properly refuted the proof against your claims in the the OP. Like the fact that Stalin allowed the church back into the USSR or the fact that the native american populations were decimated long before social Darwinism even existed.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Actually we already went over that. Short memory?

I am actually pointing out the last few pages of you asking for proof without having properly refuted the proof against your claims in the the OP. Like the fact that Stalin allowed the church back into the USSR or the fact that the native american populations were decimated long before social Darwinism even existed.

So the atheist Stalin (we agree on that) killed millions in the name of communism, a political agenda based on atheism not religion (we agree on that), then accepted the Orthodox church to control the population he couldnt.

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[17][18] Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.[19][20]
Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.

Also in 1927 the Russian orthodox church was subjected to communist authority. The atheists allowed the church providing they the atheists became the spiritual leaders. Wikipedia.

Hypocrisy much, atheists controlling the church. Stalin used the church to promote nationalism and the war effort. It was an atheist puppet church.

The Indian population were decimated after Darwin released his book. Check your history. If the Indian population was decimated before the book, why was the war still being fought?
The book was used to justify wholesale slaughter in the Indian wars and then the starvations and genocide. Prior to that their were issues with killing peaceful people. You research it, I have a life and educating you is not part of it
Go read the link, go research.
The same genocide actions happened worldwide after Darwin released his book.

I am not suggesting every atheist is a terrorist
But
Atheist terrorists are as bad as any other religious extremist

reply to post by borntowatch


18 pages of denial. It's comical at best. WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE NOW!?

Originally posted by borntowatch
So the atheist Stalin (we agree on that) killed millions in the name of communism, a political agenda based on atheism not religion (we agree on that), then accepted the Orthodox church to control the population he couldnt.

Or he was an agent of the church placed within the communist regime to ensure the re-installment after the real atheists had been dealt with. This is a conspiracy site after all.

Whatever the case he was only as anti or pro theist as the situation needed so not really acting on his atheist convictions which is why it can be argued that he didn't do it because he was an atheist but for other reasons.

The Indian population were decimated after Darwin released his book. Check your history. If the Indian population was decimated before the book, why was the war still being fought?

Sorry but the native populations include all natives and not just north american tribes and these had been killed by violence and disease since the early 1500s by the Spanish, French and Portuguese. Deaths which numbered in the millions, before the birth of Darwin.

According to the book "American Indian holocaust and survival: a population history since 1492" by the time Darwin published his book (1859) the number of north american natives had fallen from over 5 million to less than 500 thousand. After that it fell a bit more until 1890 to 1900 when it started to rise, so basing the depopulation of north american natives on social dawinism is wrong.

Communist and atheists + Mao Stalin Pol Pot equals hundreds of millions of dead

There is the evidence, nothing to side step or hide.
Atheist terrorists are as bad as any other religious extremist

History proves atheism disguised as communism is as lethal nasty and evil as any and all religions.


History

reply to post by borntowatch


So I guess you have nothing to counter the facts provided. I already accepted that these men that you put up were as bad as their religious counterparts. I don't hold the religious counterparts as being examples of what their particular religions teach so we're back to the flaw in your argument, which is placing the blame on their particular beliefs.

As it has been pointed out, more than a few times, they were acting with other ends in mind. They used whatever moved the masses without feeling that there personal convictions were compromised. These type of people are called psychopaths. At the end of the day that is all they were regardless of their professed beliefs.

Originally posted by daskakik
I don't hold the religious counterparts as being examples of what their particular religions teach so we're back to the flaw in your argument, which is placing the blame on their particular beliefs.

Well congratulations to you, you seem to be one of the THE unique atheists with a brain.
Thats not the flaw in My argument, thats the FLAW in the atheist argument when they attack all religions. How can you not get that.
Obviously this thread is not relevant to you

Originally posted by daskakik
As it has been pointed out, more than a few times, they were acting with other ends in mind. They used whatever moved the masses without feeling that there personal convictions were compromised. These type of people are called psychopaths. At the end of the day that is all they were regardless of their professed beliefs.

Well congratulations to you again, you seem to be one of THE unique atheist with a brain.
So please explain why every other brain dead atheist who uses the argument that "All Religion are Evil" use that argument yet ignore my point. Its not religion its psychopaths...
My point again "Atheist terrorists are as bad as any other religious extremist" My point that you seem to agree with

Your argument to defend atheism is my argument defending Christianity, though I accept Christians will fail. You on the other hand wont acknowledge the failures of your atheist brothers...hypocrisy.

lol you're being attacked by non believers? It's confusing, eh?

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by borntowatch
Now we all know Native Indians are not atheists, dont we??
And we all know the genocide perpetrated on them was due to greed and Eugenics and justified by Darwins writings
www.csustan.edu...

To expect you to read and comprehend that link may well be a stretch

The killing of the natives happened long before Darwin was born, are you kidding me? Social Darwinism, IS NOT evolution and WAS NOT what Darwin wrote about.

edit on 3-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

If you read and understood the link I placed in the comment, doesnt matter.
You will never understand

The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Your argument to defend atheism is my argument defending Christianity, though I accept Christians will fail. You on the other hand wont acknowledge the failures of your atheist brothers...hypocrisy.

That is what I see as the flaw. I am not defending atheists but I am also not judging christians (religious persons) because I realize that the actions of evil persons isn't because they are one or the other.

So while I understand your premise I disagree with applying the same failed logic of painting all religious people with the same brush to atheists. It is wrong in both instances.

ETA: Sorry, I also understand that the label isn't for everyone but that is the way it is taken when someone points out a tyrant's belief or lack thereof because it seems to be pointed out as an association or underlying cause.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by borntowatch
Your argument to defend atheism is my argument defending Christianity, though I accept Christians will fail. You on the other hand wont acknowledge the failures of your atheist brothers...hypocrisy.

That is what I see as the flaw. I am not defending atheists but I am also not judging christians (religious persons) because I realize that the actions of evil persons isn't because they are one or the other.

So while I understand your premise I disagree with applying the same failed logic of painting all religious people with the same brush to atheists. It is wrong in both instances.

ETA: Sorry, I also understand that the label isn't for everyone but that is the way it is taken when someone points out a tyrant's belief or lack thereof because it seems to be pointed out as an association or underlying cause.

edit on 4-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

I agree, again.....thats the whole premise of the thread

Originally posted by Barcs


The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.

I new you wouldnt read it, probably beyond you, to suggest Its about Germany though, thats very ignorant
The essay is about
Progress through Racial Extermination:
Social Darwinism,
Eugenics,
Pacifism in Germany, between 1860-1918

The main theme as the title suggests is "Progress through Racial Extermination:" the rest of the headings are how those other headings effected racial extermination.
You havnt a clue, that much is evident

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Barcs


The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.

I new you wouldnt read it, probably beyond you, to suggest Its about Germany though, thats very ignorant
The essay is about
Progress through Racial Extermination:
Social Darwinism,
Eugenics,
Pacifism in Germany, between 1860-1918

The main theme as the title suggests is "Progress through Racial Extermination:" the rest of the headings are how those other headings effected racial extermination.
You havnt a clue, that much is evident

Please direct me to the part about the natives. Thanks.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Barcs


The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.

I new you wouldnt read it, probably beyond you, to suggest Its about Germany though, thats very ignorant
The essay is about
Progress through Racial Extermination:
Social Darwinism,
Eugenics,
Pacifism in Germany, between 1860-1918

The main theme as the title suggests is "Progress through Racial Extermination:" the rest of the headings are how those other headings effected racial extermination.
You havnt a clue, that much is evident

Please direct me to the part about the natives. Thanks.

Ahhm, this is getting boring now, very tiring
The esay is about. PROGRESS THROUGH RACIAL EXTERMINATION.
The native American Indians were a nation who were exterminated, the book was used to justify their extermination
1 + 1 = 2
I am over this. My children all under 14 understand it, you are probably to young to comprehend it.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Ahhm, this is getting boring now, very tiring
The esay is about. PROGRESS THROUGH RACIAL EXTERMINATION.
The native American Indians were a nation who were exterminated, the book was used to justify their extermination
1 + 1 = 2
I am over this. My children all under 14 understand it, you are probably to young to comprehend it.

What book are you talking about? You aren't explaining anything at all about your position. You're only being condescending. I asked specific questions and they were flat out ignored. I feel bad for your children, hopefully they grow up to actually think for themselves instead of being another victim in a long cycle of religious indoctrination.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1] In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[2]
State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[3] State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practiced during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[4] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[5][6][7] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[8]........
en.wikipedia.org...

State atheism imposed.

The book I was referring to was Noddy and Big Ears go to the Circus, obviously