So nothing about the natives or the alleged book that influenced their destruction. Gotcha. This guy must be a bot. None of his posts actually answer anybody's responses they just change the subject. Sorry, we don't believe you.

Originally posted by borntowatch
I agree, again.....thats the whole premise of the thread

Well it might be the premise of the thread but 20 pages and it still not clear because you are judging. The atheists on this site are not defending the "religious extremists" but are reacting to what looks like you saying their actions are a result of them being atheists.

As for the native americans, I have posted information that shows that their population had fallen by 80% before Darwin was even born so that book that you linked to might be using Darwinism to dismissing those deaths but it does so after the fact.

Originally posted by borntowatch
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

Again, they didn't commit those killings in the name of atheism, it wasn't the driving force.

Religious terrorists on the other hand commit their crimes based on religion. Big difference, and one you have kept on ignoring for pages

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by borntowatch
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

Again, they didn't commit those killings in the name of atheism, it wasn't the driving force.

Religious terrorists on the other hand commit their crimes based on religion. Big difference, and one you have kept on ignoring for pages

edit on 7-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

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

You are religious (atheist) and as I stated I cant be bothered with you.
I just find you blatantly dishonest.

Originally posted by borntowatch
You are religious (atheist) and as I stated I cant be bothered with you

Atheism is not equal to religion.

You can stamp your feet and make childish comments all you want, but you're wrong. Period.

Originally posted by Barcs

"DARWINS BOOK JUSTIFIED THE KILLING OF NATIVE AMERICANS! ATHEISM IS TO BLAME EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DARWIN OR EVOLUTION AND WASN'T WRITTEN UNTIL HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER"

What year did Darwins book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, get published. I will tell you 1859
What year did the Indian wars end in the US, I will tell you this as well, early 1900s.

That means the book was written 50 years before the Indian wars were concluded. Where do you get your information, or are you still at grade school???
Three other people starred your comment, does that mean all atheists know nothing like you???
You embarrass yourself. I was hoping you would dig a deeper hole for yourself by saying more silly things but sadly you pulled your head in.

Just because a social movement doesnt label itself with a religious belief doesnt mean it isnt motivated by one.

Hitler was a catholic and even took the time to paint a quite good mary and baby jesus. The soliders that were raping and murdering native americans saw them as infedels who deserved to be punished just like the jews did to the arabs in the old testament.

Originally posted by Barcs


"DARWINS BOOK JUSTIFIED THE KILLING OF NATIVE AMERICANS! ATHEISM IS TO BLAME EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DARWIN OR EVOLUTION AND WASN'T WRITTEN UNTIL HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER"

What year did Darwins book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, get published. I will tell you 1859
What year did the Indian wars end in the US, I will tell you this as well, early 1900s.

That means the book was written 50 years before the Indian wars were concluded. Where do you get your information, or are you still at grade school???
Three other people starred your comment, does that mean all atheists know nothing like you???
You embarrass yourself. I was hoping you would dig a deeper hole for yourself by saying more silly things but sadly you pulled your head in.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Go find for me where I said it was used to start (basis) and was the cause of the US Indian wars, go on run along. You are boxing shadows. I never (to my memory) said that. I would be surprised if I did, very surprised.
You are making up an argument that was never implied. You are making up arguments becuse the ground you stand on is so soft and baseless. Now run along and find it

Well you did state:

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.

trying to make it seem as if the "starvation and genocide" had occurred after the books publication. Also, implying that before Dawinism people had a hard time killing peaceful people when history shows that they had no problem doing just that. You have since then backtracked so I don't think may arguments are as baseless as you would like them to be.

again just in case you didnt get it

Just a few pages back you said I was one of the few that did get it. I threw it back at you with a different POV and now I must say that it is you that doesn't get it.

Stalin Mao and Pol Pot came along after the fact and killed millions and millions.
What dont you get

And John Wayne Gacy killed young boys and believed in god. That doesn't mean he killed because he believed in god. He killed despite his belief in god. It's that simple. If you can't grasp that then there is not much that I can say.

Originally posted by borntowatch
I just got back from Cambodia, visited the Killing Fields. 9000 bodys have been recovered and I wonder how many more are still left in their graves.
The simple fact is this action was undertaken by religious extremists, atheists.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you have just come back from Cambodia and the killing fields. Why? Because I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could come away, from being here in Cambodia, thinking that religious extremist atheists were responsible for the state sponsored crimes against humanity.

It is common knowledge that those killed were 'enemies of the party'. You are using this tragedy to support your weak thesis. Please don't do this, it is offensive to those that survived, and those that didn't. And, more importantly, you do an injustice to this generation's children.