Also, you're being a major hypocrite. Accusing religious people of being judgmental while at the same time you JUDGE ENTIRE RELIGIONS.

Oh. So it's cool if you spew hatred against entire religions but if someone calls out your homeland then you get angry? There's a saying, "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."

I don't "spew hatred against entire religions", don't be ridiculus now. And i'm not angry, as a matter of fact, i said i was fine with his judgement, really i don't care, and i won't even bother arguing with him as i don't want to give him any credit. Turns out the guy was already on my blacklist, and i don't usually blacklist people, so i'm guessing this is not the first time he makes crazy arguments.

Also, you're being a major hypocrite. Accusing religious people of being judgmental while at the same time you JUDGE ENTIRE RELIGIONS.

First of all, you need to understand the difference between religious people and religions. One is people, the other is ideology. And when i stated that "judging is what religious people do best", this was obvious bigoted generalisation, and i thought it was funny, i was just waiting for your answer :)
You didn't fail to deliver.

If you call judging entire groups consisting of billions of people, getting defensive when a group you belong to gets the same treatment, and then ducking out of the argument as "winning".

Not defensive at all, and i didn't even enter any argument with him. Ridiculus ideas deserves to be ridiculed, and that's all i did. And if you agree, like him, that ISIS is better that the US and France, its fine with me, i think it is sad but i won't bother arguing against it on the internet, that would just be a waste of time.

there's a difference between a religious group and a nationality. you choose to believe in a religion, but you have absolutely no control over where you are born.

but more to the point, i was just being snarky. it's a tedious discussion that should be killed quickly.

if you are a true devout believer then you should not even be entertaining arguments from a heathen. and if you are a rational non believer you should know it is impossible to rationally debate a religious person.

think it is sad but i won't bother arguing against it on the internet, that would just be a waste of time.

But posting entire paragraphs about why you think religion is bad isn't a waste of time?

but more to the point, i was just being snarky. it's a tedious discussion that should be killed quickly.

if you are a true devout believer then you should not even be entertaining arguments from a heathen. and if you are a rational non believer you should know it is impossible to rationally debate a religious person.

I don't consider anyone to be a heathen. Honestly, I really don't care what someones beliefs or lack thereof are. As long as they aren't spiteful towards other viewpoints it doesn't usually bother me. I've never argued with a Jew, or a Hindu, only rarely argued with a Muslim. But it seems I've had more arguments with Atheists that I can count. For some reason it's usually an Atheist who's bringing a judgement hammer down and broadly generalizing everyone and everything regarding religion. It bothers me more because I know Atheists in real life who aren't like that at all, but many I've met online are just as quick to judge as the people they claim to oppose.

I also almost never discuss religion on Warlight unless somebody goes out of their way to make an offensive against it first.

there could be a reason for that. atheism vs religion is a different argument than, say, hinduism vs islam. at least religious people have religion in common (even if the religions are different) whereas atheists and religious people are somewhat alien in the way they think. it's very hard to root religion in logic, or to attach logic to belief without evidence.

i think atheists can be a bit reactionary because we're really not that far removed from a time when atheists were seriously stigmatized (and in some places it's still dangerous to be openly atheist).

think it is sad but i won't bother arguing against it on the internet, that would just be a waste of time.

But posting entire paragraphs about why you think religion is bad isn't a waste of time?

Well i think that religion is worth debating, as it is a major player in our society. As for conspiratcy theorist and extremists, no i don't think they are worth debating, because it would give them credit and i don't think they deserve any.

For some reason it's usually an Atheist who's bringing a judgement hammer down and broadly generalizing everyone and everything regarding religion.

I'm guessing this is directed at me. I didn't "broadly generalize everyone and everything regarding religion". I made the case that religions holds a major responsability in the crimes made in its name, and i subtenciated my case with arguments and facts. You say that religion has nothing to do with it and that if it didn't existed, bad people would find other excuses to do bad things, i disagree and say that religion has a major influence in driving people to do bad things (and i conceded that it can drive people to do good things too). Thats it. I criticized religion as an ideology (wich i've said 3 or 4 times now, but for some reason you keep insisting that i attack religious people). And for the "judgemental" statement, i agreed that it was bigotry to generalize, although i could make a case that the religious doctrine makes people more incline to be judgemental (on what you eat, what you wear, what you think, who you fuck, etc).
I don't think i have been offensive in anyway towards you for being christian. As a matter of fact I am the one that should be offended when you say that "i spew hatred" and when you strawman me by misrepresenting what i say to seem like i am attacking "billions of people".

edit: also, if that wasn't clear, i was only criticizing the religions based on the Bible and the Kuran. It is the teachings of these books that i criticize, i don't think the teachings of Ganesha are that bad (as far as i know, wich is very little)
If you want to find more on this issue, here is a debate from intelligence square:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA (Is the catholic church a force for good in the world)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q (Is islam a religion of peace)

Edited 8/11/2015 22:46:17

i think atheists can be a bit reactionary because we're really not that far removed from a time when atheists were seriously stigmatized (and in some places it's still dangerous to be openly atheist).

Atheism is punished by death in a lot of muslim countries, jail for the most moderate ones.
And polls shows that they are the most hated group in america. There isn't ONE elected official openly secular in the US. That would be instant disqualification. A lot of people in america seem to think that atheism is a synonymous for stalinism, nazism, communism, maoism etc

Atheism is punished by death in a lot of muslim countries

Unfortunately many "communist" nations also forbid religions to exist, some examples:

-China and USSR during decades religions were forbidden and severely repressed,

-Revolutionnary France: Christianism was also prohibited, churches vandalized during years following the downfall of the kingdom, and a new atheistic cult was initiated known as "the cult of Reason".

In these situations, millions of people were killed because they were not atheist.

I think forcing people to become atheist is as bad as nations forcing people to follow a religion. There are fanatics everywhere and they are not only religious, people following an ideology (even if it is atheistic) are as bad as religious fanatics.

Edited 8/11/2015 23:02:17

Unfortunately many "communist" nations also forbid religions to exist, some examples:

-China and USSR during decades religions were forbidden and severely repressed,

-Revolutionnary France: Christianism was also prohibited, churches vandalized during years following the downfall of the kingdom, and a new atheistic cult was initiated known as "the cult of Reason".

In these situations, millions of people were killed because they were not atheist.

I think forcing people to become atheist is as bad as nations forcing people to follow a religion. There are fanatics everywhere and they are not only religious, people following an ideology (even if it is atheistic) are as bad as religious fanatics.

Well i agree, everyone should have the right to be religious or not, as long as they follow the law.

However, "millions of people" were not killed because they were not atheist.

The cult of Reason was a cult that existed for what? 2 years? As far as i know there was no death. And these cults wasn't so much against religion (you could argue that in fact those cults were a kind of religion), but rather a rebellion against the powerful institution of the Church. The cult of reason was in fact quickly replaced by the cult of the supreme being, wich was a deistic cult.

As for the URSS and China, the reason why communist states where against religion is simple. They wanted to install nationalism as religion of state. You should worship your leader, not a god. And still today in North Korea some people think that Kim Jong-un is some knid of God, able to read into people's mind and stuff.
Atheism is not a belief system nor an ideology, so it wouldn't make sense to kill "in the name of atheism". Just like Deism ot theism (belief in a deity) cannot be responsible for the massacres during the inquisition, christian doctrines are responsible for that.
Were there religious people killed because of their beliefs? yes, probably, and forcing people to become atheist is just as bad as forcing people to become religious. But a lot of the religious people that were killed not because they were religious, but simply because they opposed the communist regime. The ideology of communist regimes were responsible for those death, not atheism.
If i start a cult tomorrow for wich the doctrine would be to kill every people that are not vegan, does that mean veganism is to blame? Of course not, the doctrine is to blame

Edited 8/11/2015 23:54:54

I'm guessing this is directed at me.

What I said wasn't a stab at you or directed toward you in any specific way. I apologize if it seemed that way to you. I was merely trying to elaborate on my own personal experiences and explain why I react the way I do. One eventually becomes a bit reactive on the subject after being told dozens and dozens of times that the religion they've followed all their life is evil,vile,backwards,etc.

I will admit that some of what I said might of been influenced by anger from previous arguments leaking through a bit.

Atheism is not a belief system nor an ideology

That's a cop-out. Saying, "Oh it's not an ideology" doesn't preclude it from scrutiny. It's the anti-thesis to religion but has more in common than you think. Both religion and Atheism has common ideas/themes, followers who identify themselves by their belief, influential figures who are often quoted and have their teachings generally revered throughout the community. The list really keeps going. Many Atheists express their lack of belief with the same fiery zeal that religious people posses.

The religious and non-religious are more alike than either side would ever admit.

The ideology of communist regimes were responsible for those death, not atheism.

No, it doesn't work that way. If Christianity is to be held responsible for the acts of Christians than Atheism must be held responsible for the acts of Atheists. You can say "It's not a X" but it's still a measurable group and doesn't deserve some magical exemption.

If Christianity is to be held responsible for the acts of Christians than Atheism must be held responsible for the acts of Atheists.

Christianity can only be held responsible if the acts are done in the name of Christianity. Similarly for atheism. In the case of the USSR or the PRC, people weren't killed in the name of atheism - they were killed in the name of communism or nationalism or the cult of Mao.

Similarly, Christianity isn't responsible for any atrocities committed by the regime of Francisco Franco.

However, "millions of people" were not killed because they were not atheist.

millions of people were killed because they were religious, get over it, many studies and researches have been already done about it, I suggest you to start reading them.

The cult of Reason was a cult that existed for what? 2 years? As far as i know there was no death.

Oh, yeah two years, ever heard of the "reign of terror" (la terreur in French)? it lasted less than a year and it was marked by mass executions, until Robespierre was himself sentenced to death, it was during that period that executions were perpetrated against the clergy and christians.
I will give you some figures, a big christian and royalist rebellion happened in Vendée as you may know, it has been estimated that between 100,000 to 500,000 Vendeans were killed. Some historians call these mass killings the first modern genocide, specifically because intent to exterminate the Catholic Vendeans was clearly stated. This was only in Vendée, many other places in France experienced mass massacres.

a lot of the religious people that were killed not because they were religious, but simply because they opposed the communist regime. The ideology of communist regimes were responsible for those death, not atheism.

Under the Khmer rouge regime led by Pol Pot, 25,000 monks were massacred, believing buddhism was a decadent affectation, and promoting again atheism.
In the Soviet Union, the total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million (only counting Christians not Muslims and other religious victims).

It's good to debate but stop neglecting the truth. Forced Atheism is as bad as forced religious movements.

Edited 8/12/2015 00:24:56

Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Based on this, Atheism is an ideology. Atheism has its own set of ideas, the biggest one as God not existing, but it is causing people to become anti-religion, thus influencing political theory.

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

The doctrine that was put forward by the Spanish during the inquisition, and also the colonisation of Africa and America, was actually that the people they were conquering were not as good as themselves, even sub-human. This is not taught anywhere in the Bible, which means that this belief or idea came only through the corruption of man-kind, and not from what they should do. Thus, the Spanish were wrong to do what they did.

Were there religious people killed because of their beliefs? yes, probably, and forcing people to become atheist is just as bad as forcing people to become religious. But a lot of the religious people that were killed not because they were religious, but simply because they opposed the communist regime. The ideology of communist regimes were responsible for those death, not atheism.

Rather than "yes, probably", you could change that to "yes, definitely". In communist regime is not the only place where religions were persecuted. Take the example of Hitler. He wasn't communist; he was anti-communist. However, he did do many things against religions, such as both Jews and Christians.

Oh, yeah two years, ever heard of the "reign of terror" (la terreur in French)? it lasted less than a year and it was marked by mass executions, until Robespierre was himself sentenced to death, it was during that period that executions were perpetrated against the clergy and christians.
I will give you some figures, a big christian and royalist rebellion happened in Vendée as you may know, it has been estimated that between 100,000 to 500,000 Vendeans were killed. Some historians call these mass killings the first modern genocide, specifically because intent to exterminate the Catholic Vendeans was clearly stated. This was only in Vendée, many other places in France experienced mass massacres.

Well you probably know more on that than me, but from what you've just say, seems like the thousands of people were dead because they were Catholic, not because they were believing in God. The whole thing was a rebellion against the catholic church.
But anyway, i agree with you, of course, that forced atheism is as bad as fundamentalist religious movement (as i said before)
All i am saying is that atheism is just the lack of belief in any deity, and there is no doctrine attached to it. Just like Theism is the belief in at least one deity, without necessarily any doctrine attached to it. So Atheism could not have been the cause for these killing. It is as simple as that. A certain form of atheistic communism is what is responsible for the massacres. And a certain form of religious theism is what is responsible for other massacres.
I'm not neglecting "the truth", i'm just saying that there is more to it than just "they killed because they were atheist". If a racist white guy kills a black guy, the cause is not that he is white, the cause is that he follows a white supremacist doctrine.

Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Based on this, Atheism is an ideology. Atheism has its own set of ideas, the biggest one as God not existing, but it is causing people to become anti-religion, thus influencing political theory.

Atheism can mean from "i know there is no gods", to "i don't believe there is any god", if you want to call that a "set of ideas" thats fine as long as we know the meaning of the word. Anti-theism would better fit in the definition of ideology though.

The doctrine that was put forward by the Spanish during the inquisition, and also the colonisation of Africa and America, was actually that the people they were conquering were not as good as themselves, even sub-human. This is not taught anywhere in the Bible, which means that this belief or idea came only through the corruption of man-kind, and not from what they should do. Thus, the Spanish were wrong to do what they did.

what are you talking about?
"The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges. Wikipedia

In communist regime is not the only place where religions were persecuted. Take the example of Hitler. He wasn't communist; he was anti-communist. However, he did do many things against religions, such as both Jews and Christians.

Oh boy. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. He persecuted the jews, true enough, but he was not atheist at all. All the nazi had "God with us" on the buckle of their belts for one. And here is a few quote from Hitler:

The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)
was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.
[Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

video footage of Hitler invoking God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StaPF5qqFDk

There is a long list of Hitler quote here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/23/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-q/

I haven't verified all the quote in their context so there might be a bit of quotemining, i don't know, but i think the picture here is quite clear. Hitler was not an atheist.

Edited 8/12/2015 02:47:59

There is evidence that Hitler was not really Christian and just used Christianity as a convenient rallying point for his cause. Nazism, which is a religion in itself, that Hitler created.

Anywho 125ch, you are really doing no benefit to your cause. Your arguments are scrambled and interweave and contradict.

Your arguments are scrambled and interweave and contradict.

Just like the bible.

http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Crimson,source:sab

There is evidence that Hitler was not really Christian and just used Christianity as a convenient rallying point for his cause. Nazism, which is a religion in itself, that Hitler created.

Haha i just fucking link a ton of quotes and a video, and you are telling me "the evidence shows that he just "used" christianity. That's it? Where is the evidence? I'm not saying you are wrong, but please if you are gonna make a claim like that, at least give me some evidences...

Anywho 125ch, you are really doing no benefit to your cause. Your arguments are scrambled and interweave and contradict.

care to elaborate? Seems to me you are really good at saying random things, not so much as supporting them with argument and evidences though

Edited 8/12/2015 02:53:07

I say random things and don't support them with "argument and evidences" because I don't need to argue with people like you.

Edit : typo

Edited 8/12/2015 03:03:47

Christianity can only be held responsible if the acts are done in the name of Christianity. Similarly for atheism. In the case of the USSR or the PRC, people weren't killed in the name of atheism - they were killed in the name of communism or nationalism or the cult of Mao.

Similarly, Christianity isn't responsible for any atrocities committed by the regime of Francisco Franco.

THIS

I say random things and don't support them with "argument and evidences" because I don't need to argue with people like you.

OK

Edited 8/12/2015 03:06:41

Benjamin, what do you want me to do about that link? If you give us an example, then we can talk over it.

125ch209, no one is ever going to look at these quotes. If you want someone to know what they say, actually say it rather than resorting to giving us links to look through.