Why political systems based on atheism kill several times more citizens - Page 25

H'ethetheth · 3rd December 2007, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

From Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust
A Catholic who never went to Church or received the sacraments in adulthood, and murdered hundreds of priests and nuns -- Some Catholic! Sounds like he was trying to boost the morale of one Catholic general to me. Hitler was a con man. And I don't understand why you skeptics take him at his word. His words and promises were as worthless as the piece of paper Prime Minister Chamberlin waved in the air on returning from a meeting with Hitler. And as worthless as the German Russian Non-Agression treaty.

I think the point is not that Hitler was or wasn't a Catholic, an atheist, or a Pagan cultist. In my opinion, his crimes couldn't possibly have anything to do with religion or lack thereof, but must be related to insane self-aggrandising ideology and absolute power. Hitler's ideology was not atheism, it was extreme nationalism, anti-semitism, social darwinism, and belligerent imperialism. I do not see how these things get confused.
The fact that that many of the dictatorships of the 20th century have been secular, becomes inconsequential when looking at other examples where absolute power and insane self-aggrandising ideology come together. The result is always the same.

Quote:

"At least three million Catholics were systematically killed in concentration camps.[48]

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

This statement struck me as odd, to say the least. Looking for the source of this statement, I read in the editorial reviews at Amazon:

Quote:

Although an abundance of literature devoted to the lives and deaths of historical martyrs exists, scant attention has been paid to Catholic martyrs of the twentieth century. Estimating that approximately one million of the faithful have been martyred over the past 100 years, Royal attempts to validate and document these contemporary victims...

Emphasis mine.

However, I can believe this number in general, as Catholicism was the largest religion in the parts of Europe that were hit hardest. There will have been a lot of Catholics among the millions of victims, but to imply they were systematically killed for being Catholic seems to be a stretch, especially because the Nazis would have been Catholic themselves, generally.

m_huber · 3rd December 2007, 08:02 AM

When someone says, "I belong to insert religion", I have no grounds to deny the claim. Whether Hitler was a good Catholic or not is another debate; whether or not he was Catholic is indisputable. Note that the Pope was a big fan of Hitler. Also, if you click on the link, you will see the section that talks about Hitler considering the Holocaust a "holy war."

Do you have a more reliable source than Wiki? I recall a few years back being shown the Wiki article on America, and it said all sorts of bizarre things about the country being over 600 years, and something about the reign of King Author in America...

Of course, even if it is true that he killed Catholics, that says nothing about his religion. He believed that he had to do the work of God in cleaning up the dirty population, so he killed races that he thought were inferior... regardless of their religion. Similar basic policy to the Inquisition -- "Convert already so I can kill you!"

Foster Zygote · 3rd December 2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Yes, a person in this thread has argued that Hitler was a Christian. I think the following information that was brought into another thread by someone else, should finally lay that myth to rest.

From Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust

"At least three million Catholics were systematically killed in concentration camps.[48] As for clergy, in the Priester-Block in Dachau there were 2,600 Catholic priests imprisoned, of whom 2,000 were put to death.[49] Over a quarter of the 10,000 total priests in Poland were executed, as were 500 nuns.[50]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

So what? The Catholic church executed Christians too. Are you going to argue that the RCC is an atheist organization?

Quote:

And Jews (or anyone else) who continue to teach that Hitler was a Christian are only "lessening" the pain and importance of the Holocaust.

That's a very dramatic sounding statement, but what does it actually mean? How does stating the documented fact that Hitler held religious beliefs lessen the gravity of the Holocaust?

joobz · 3rd December 2007, 08:50 AM

Ok, DOC. Please follow this argument and directly refute it if you can. If you choose to ignore it or avoid answering the questions it raises, it will only highlight your lack of foundation.

The argument of whether atheism kills more than religion is based upon the premise that "atheism provides no moral center and that you MUST have religion to act morally."

This premise is easily refuted in two ways
1.) By listing horrific crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion
2.) By giving examples of altruism and great works that are done by atheists.

Point 1 demonstrates the fact that religion doesn't prevent horrible actions and a faith in god can make people do great evils. As such, religion as a moral compass is greatly false.
Point 2 demonstrates that a lack of religion doesn't prevent people from being good decent individuals. As such, religion isn't needed for moral guidance.

Examples of point 1.
Tomás de Torquemada, Vlad Tepes, Elizabeth Bathory, Francisco Pizzaro, Queen Mary Tudor, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, H. H. Holmes, Gilles de Rais

Examples of point 2.
Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Paul Nurse, Paul Dirac, Paul Boyer, Richard Feynman, Thomas Paine, Marie Curie, The Humanist Charities Organization, the JREF, Issac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and the three greatest philathropists in american history:Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie.

Now, you may wish to retort by stating the question of numbers, but that would be in itself, an immoral argument. You would be arguing that it's ok that religion killed, becuase it didn't kill as many as stalin or pol pot. Are you saying that killing in the name of religion is ok as long as it is small numbers? And how does that agree with your previous arguments that it is ok for people to act in gods stead and use nuclear weapons on a population of innocents (Another argument you had previously made). I see no connection between religion and moral rightousness.

Remember, the argument you are making is that athiesm provides no moral center and allows for great attrocity. But, the magnitude of the crimes is only determined by the power and influence the person without the moral center possesses. As a counterpoint, the three greatest philathropists (by dollars) were atheists, and they had the power and influence to cause great harm. But rather, they used their resources for good. This was without the religious center you claim is required.

In other words, your raising the question of "does athiesm cuased great harm" highlights the religion's own failings.

Foster Zygote · 3rd December 2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Now, you may wish to retort by stating the question of numbers, but that would be in itself, an immoral argument.

Not to mention dishonest. In starting this very thread Plumjam ignored highly relevant factors such as the dramatic increase in population and the increased effectiveness of the technology of killing. What I find fascinating is that fundamentally religious authorities including personality cults like the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot seem to be the perpetrators of the greatest repression of those under their control. Secular states in which religion is separate from government, neither promoted or repressed, and left entirely up to the individual are the states with the best overall track record of protecting the rights of citizens.

DOC · 4th December 2007, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

So what? The Catholic church executed Christians too.

I don't know what your referring to, but they certainly didn't kill thousands of priest and nuns in good standing with the church like the Wiki article stated the Nazis did.

____

Quote from DOC
And Jews (or anyone else) who continue to teach that Hitler was a Christian are only "lessening" the pain and importance of the Holocaust.

Quote:

That's a very dramatic sounding statement, but what does it actually mean? How does stating the documented fact that Hitler held religious beliefs lessen the gravity of the Holocaust?

You have to take it in context. If the Nazis did indeed kill thousands of priests and 500 nuns like the Wiki article said they did. Then if Hitler was indeed a Christian then this means he could care less about their religion when he had them killed. If he could care less about killing Christians even though some (misinformed) people say he was Christian then it stands to reason he would have killed a lot of Jews even if they weren't Jewish. This lessens the gravity of the Holocaust as being a mostly Jewish tragedy.

JoeEllison · 4th December 2007, 03:54 AM

Why is lying the "Christian" thing to do, DOC?

linusrichard · 4th December 2007, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You have to take it in context. If the Nazis did indeed kill thousands of priests and 500 nuns like the Wiki article said they did. Then if Hitler was indeed a Christian then this means he could care less about their religion when he had them killed. If he could care less about killing Christians even though some (misinformed) people say he was Christian then it stands to reason he would have killed a lot of Jews even if they weren't Jewish. This lessens the gravity of the Holocaust as being a mostly Jewish tragedy.

Huh? What? I've put the parts that don't make any sense in bold, so it's easy to find them within the rest of what you've written.

First, it is possible to be a Christian and still kill other people because they are Christian. Second, even if the Christians Hitler killed were not killed because of their Christianity, that doesn't mean that the Jews he killed were not killed because of their Judaism. That doesn't "stand to reason" at all. Likewise, Hitler killed millions of heterosexuals. But he didn't kill them because they were heterosexuals. Therefore it stands to reason that he would have killed a lot of homosexuals even if they weren't homosexual? Of course not.

The fact that Hitler intentionally targeted Jews for murder is not something we infer, based on his actions with respect to Christians. It's something we know based on direct historical evidence. There is nothing we could learn about Hitler's murder of non-Jews that would suggest that the Jews he killed were not killed because they were Jews, or that would make the holocaust something other than a "mostly Jewish tragedy," whatever that entails.

Correa Neto · 4th December 2007, 05:34 AM

What about the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil war and Franco's regime?

You know, all the talking and incentives for killing atheists, Jews and Freemansons...

Very consistent with following an everloving god, the source of morals, ethics and goodnes, eh?

Z · 4th December 2007, 05:58 AM

That Wiki article puts NOTHING to rest.

Consider that many Christians don't even consider the RCC to be a Christian church! If, as the years progressed, Hitler found himself believing a variation of Christianity influenced by Aryan morality and myth, then executing Catholics would be comparable to executing Jews. Catholics are considered by many - especially fundamentalists - to be a Satanic church. Certainly many of the core practices are explicitely anti-Christian, depending on how you interpret the Bible.

Not that a bit of that matters - Even if Hitler was a self-professed Catholic, then that's what he was, regardless of what he did in any kind of context.

(Besides, the wiki article didn't say that Hitler, himself, killed all those Catholics; and we have to remember that much of the Holocaust was initiated by Hitler's subordinates (and rubber-stamped through Hitler).

joobz · 4th December 2007, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Z

That Wiki article puts NOTHING to rest.

Consider that many Christians don't even consider the RCC to be a Christian church! If, as the years progressed, Hitler found himself believing a variation of Christianity influenced by Aryan morality and myth, then executing Catholics would be comparable to executing Jews. Catholics are considered by many - especially fundamentalists - to be a Satanic church. Certainly many of the core practices are explicitely anti-Christian, depending on how you interpret the Bible.

Not that a bit of that matters - Even if Hitler was a self-professed Catholic, then that's what he was, regardless of what he did in any kind of context.

(Besides, the wiki article didn't say that Hitler, himself, killed all those Catholics; and we have to remember that much of the Holocaust was initiated by Hitler's subordinates (and rubber-stamped through Hitler).

Yup.
The problem is even if you find a sworn statement by hitler professing his fealty to the RCC, you'll never get DOC or the like to admit it. And even if they did, you'll get some true scottsman like response,
"We'll he wasn't very christian was he"
"He wasn't a TRUE christian"
"WE'll it's clear that christianity doesn't support his actions"

none of which is the point.

I gave what I thought was a very lucid argument explaining why the numbers game played here is a lose-lose for theists. It's a little disappointing to know that it has gone ignored.

Hokulele · 4th December 2007, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

I gave what I thought was a very lucid argument explaining why the numbers game played here is a lose-lose for theists. It's a little disappointing to know that it has gone ignored.

I think I found the problem.

DOC · 4th December 2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Ok, DOC. Please follow this argument and directly refute it if you can. If you choose to ignore it or avoid answering the questions it raises, it will only highlight your lack of foundation.

The argument of whether atheism kills more than religion is based upon the premise that "atheism provides no moral center and that you MUST have religion to act morally."

This premise is easily refuted in two ways
1.) By listing horrific crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion
2.) By giving examples of altruism and great works that are done by atheists.

Point 1 demonstrates the fact that religion doesn't prevent horrible actions and a faith in god can make people do great evils. As such, religion as a moral compass is greatly false.
Point 2 demonstrates that a lack of religion doesn't prevent people from being good decent individuals. As such, religion isn't needed for moral guidance.

Examples of point 1.
Tomás de Torquemada, Vlad Tepes, Elizabeth Bathory, Francisco Pizzaro, Queen Mary Tudor, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, H. H. Holmes, Gilles de Rais

Examples of point 2.
Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Paul Nurse, Paul Dirac, Paul Boyer, Richard Feynman, Thomas Paine, Marie Curie, The Humanist Charities Organization, the JREF, Issac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and the three greatest philathropists in american history:Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie.

Now, you may wish to retort by stating the question of numbers, but that would be in itself, an immoral argument. You would be arguing that it's ok that religion killed, becuase it didn't kill as many as stalin or pol pot. Are you saying that killing in the name of religion is ok as long as it is small numbers? And how does that agree with your previous arguments that it is ok for people to act in gods stead and use nuclear weapons on a population of innocents (Another argument you had previously made). I see no connection between religion and moral rightousness.

Remember, the argument you are making is that athiesm provides no moral center and allows for great attrocity. But, the magnitude of the crimes is only determined by the power and influence the person without the moral center possesses. As a counterpoint, the three greatest philathropists (by dollars) were atheists, and they had the power and influence to cause great harm. But rather, they used their resources for good. This was without the religious center you claim is required.

In other words, your raising the question of "does athiesm cuased great harm" highlights the religion's own failings.

You make statements like these (about me) in another thread:

Originally Posted by joobz

Nice job, troll.

...Just becuase you are too daft too understand what I was talking about doesn't make it any less accurate.

...You are either left with admitting you are wrong or continue to prove yourself a clueless, dishonest troll.

and then you expect to ask long detailed questions of me as if nothing happened. There are consequences to making statements like the above. One is if you want me to respond to your above lengthy detailed post I need an apology either publicly or in a private message.

And if you choose not to apologize, you (and others) can certainly understand why I might be in even less of a hurry to respond to any of your future posts directed at me. Especially posts that would take a long time to properly respond to.

joobz · 4th December 2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

You make statements like these (about me) in another thread:

and then you expect to ask long detailed questions of me as if nothing happened. There are consequences to making statements like the above. One is if you want me to respond to your above lengthy detailed post I need an apology either publicly or in a private message.

And if you choose not to apologize, you (and others) can certainly understand why I might be in even less of a hurry to respond to any of your future posts directed at me. Especially posts that would take a long time to properly respond to.

I have nothing to apologize for. You labeled me a troll long ago along with other insults. Sorry DOC, you are simply avoiding the question and proving to others you are incapable of honest discourse.

It is obvious to me, and likely everyone else here,you have no response to my argument becuase it completely destroys your claim.

ETA: By the way, you never admitted error in that thread either (even though I conclusively proved you wrong). You avoided me because you were wrong. Why should I expect any difference here.

UnrepentantSinner · 4th December 2007, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

You make statements like these (about me) in another thread:

and then you expect to ask long detailed questions of me as if nothing happened. There are consequences to making statements like the above. One is if you want me to respond to your above lengthy detailed post I need an apology either publicly or in a private message.

And if you choose not to apologize, you (and others) can certainly understand why I might be in even less of a hurry to respond to any of your future posts directed at me. Especially posts that would take a long time to properly respond to.

Quit your whining and either answer the post or ignore it. The choice is yours but your overdramatic sense of injury just makes people take you even less seriously than they already do.

Mister Agenda · 28th October 2008, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by plumjam

ok, so if it's impossible to base a society on atheism it should be equally impossible to base a society on theism, would you agree?

Yes. And, in fact, there is no such society. How could you base a society on the mere belief that there is some sort of deity?

Arguably, the Northern European countries are based mostly on a specific philosophy: secular humanism. Agnosticism and atheism are a feature of secular humanism. Iran is based on a specific religion. Theism is a feature of Islam. Saying a country is based on theism isn't very informative, because countries 'founded on theism' are actually founded on specific religions or groups of religions.

Telling someone you're a theist only tells them you're not an atheist. You have to know the person's religion or philosophy to discover what they're actually grounded on.

Foster Zygote · 28th October 2008, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Yes. And, in fact, there is no such society. How could you base a society on the mere belief that there is some sort of deity?

Arguably, the Northern European countries are based mostly on a specific philosophy: secular humanism. Agnosticism and atheism are a feature of secular humanism. Iran is based on a specific religion. Theism is a feature of Islam. Saying a country is based on theism isn't very informative, because countries 'founded on theism' are actually founded on specific religions or groups of religions.

Telling someone you're a theist only tells them you're not an atheist. You have to know the person's religion or philosophy to discover what they're actually grounded on.

My initial reaction to seeing this tread rise from the grave was "Oh crap! Not again!", but that was a good, clear insight. When we examine history we find that highly repressive states with atheism as a declared feature frequently replace theistic religions with state constructs that serve all the same functions. Even the repression of theistic religion (and all other non state-approved philosophies) closely models the behavior of theocratic states from the past.

bpesta22 · 28th October 2008, 07:16 PM

Many claims of religious whackjobs are also empirical questions.

State data here-- 50 USA states and murder rates on y.

On x, religiosity (how strongly members of the state endorse statements like "mine is the one true god" and "my prayers are answered at least weekly")

r = .48

On x = percentage of godless people in the state

r=-.39

On x = percentage of evangelical xtians in the state

r=.40

Someone will complain that correlation doesn't imply cause, but that's not the issue here. IF you believe that atheism leads to murder, then in this sample (50 US states) you got lots of explaining to do. You have to explain not just no association, but the reverse of what you actually predicted.

If you're wondering, the correlations become slightly stronger when controlling for state income levels...

angelsaramark · 28th October 2008, 07:51 PM

If a person has no authority other than self and believes no ramifications, what's to stop anything? Ever heard of Jeff Dahmer? Religion is the opiate of the masses. Marx was quite the psychopolitician and I'll take his word for it.

Safe-Keeper · 28th October 2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

My initial reaction to seeing this tread rise from the grave was "Oh crap! Not again!"

Yeah, that.

deverett · 28th October 2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Par

With respect, it seems like rather fuzzy speculation. Personally, I would imagine that the horrors of Nazi Germany generally stemmed from the Nazism and that those of the Soviet Union and China, from the communism.

I wouldn't have considered the Soviet Union or China as communist. Both were closer to dictatorships. Nazi Germany too was more a dictatorship as was Italy at the time. All those countries were ruled by leaders with unbridled power with virtually no checks.

Dave Everett

six7s · 28th October 2008, 09:58 PM

Please excuse me whilst I interrupt this thread, it's just that the thread title makes me curious to know (without reading the 981-post b*ckl*g):

which political systems are based on atheism?

which political nations are goverened by such systems?

this killing that is mentioned in the OP... am I right to infer that it's murder?

Thank you in advance

UnrepentantSinner · 29th October 2008, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by six7s

which political systems are based on atheism?

None. Plumjams just being a naught boy. He doesn't support his position in the OP nor in the rest of the thread. Neither do other contributors like DOC, etc.

Originally Posted by six7s

which political nations are goverened by such systems?

It's the usual Soviet Union, Communist China, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. etc. tripe.

Originally Posted by six7s

this killing that is mentioned in the OP... am I right to infer that it's murder?

One of the few things Plumjam got correct was referring to state organized murder and genocide correctly. He, etc. are off base as to why those terrible things occured though.

There's a reason this thead lay dormant for almost a year.

six7s · 29th October 2008, 12:34 AM

Thanks US!

For me, that was a whole bunch easier than wading through 980+ posts!

arthwollipot · 29th October 2008, 12:43 AM

Agreed. Has there been anything of substance posted in this thread?

six7s · 29th October 2008, 12:47 AM

I used please and thank you, does that count?

Foster Zygote · 29th October 2008, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by six7s

Thanks US!

For me, that was a whole bunch easier than wading through 980+ posts!

The first few pages cover most of it. Especially the No True Scotsman bit about Hitler's theistic beliefs.

Foster Zygote · 29th October 2008, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by angelsaramark

If a person has no authority other than self and believes no ramifications, what's to stop anything? Ever heard of Jeff Dahmer?

Nice straw-man, did you make it yourself? Atheism is perfectly compatible with recognition of the value of other people's lives. Theism, on the other hand, is no guarantor of the recognition of the value of human life.

Foster Zygote · 29th October 2008, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Agreed. Has there been anything of substance posted in this thread?

Well, not in defense of the argument presented in the OP. But the opposing arguments have yielded much of substance.

Dr Adequate · 29th October 2008, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by angelsaramark

If a person has no authority other than self and believes no ramifications, what's to stop anything?

God. He can smite down the evil-doers in his wrath.

Quote:

Ever heard of Jeff Dahmer?

Yes: one of the many people whom God neglected to smite. He was Born Again and is now presumably in Heaven, unlike his ungodly sodomite victims.

You see, God has this mysterious plan whereby everything works out for the best in the end.

Foster Zygote · 29th October 2008, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yes: one of the many people whom God neglected to smite. He was Born Again and is now presumably in Heaven, unlike his ungodly sodomite victims.

You see, God has this mysterious plan whereby everything works out for the best in the end.

An interesting aside: A friend of mine once briefly met Jeff Dahmer while she was living in Chicago. She shared an apartment with a couple of gay male friends of hers. She and a couple of other friends came home one evening to find one of her room-mates watching TV with someone he'd met. He introduced him as "Lucky". The presence of a few more people in the room seemed to make "Lucky" rather uncomfortable, and after about five minutes he made an excuse and left. A couple of months later my friend was sitting in a tavern having a bite when a breaking news story about a cannibalistic serial killer came on the TV behind the bar. "Oh my God!" she shouted. "It's that 'Lucky' guy!"

Mister Agenda · 29th October 2008, 02:40 PM

I confess I've only gotten throught the first 15 pages, but I aim to read the whole thing now that I have so much invested. I recommend newcomers can save themselves a lot of time just reading the first three pages and this one. As far as I could tell before I lost patience, no one had made the particular point I wanted to make about naked theism, in fact, not being anything you can base a country on.

Arguing that communist regimes reflect badly on atheism is on a par with arguing that militant, terrorist-sponsoring Islamic regimes reflect badly on theism.

3rd December 2007, 08:02 AM	#962
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	When someone says, "I belong to insert religion", I have no grounds to deny the claim. Whether Hitler was a good Catholic or not is another debate; whether or not he was Catholic is indisputable. Note that the Pope was a big fan of Hitler. Also, if you click on the link, you will see the section that talks about Hitler considering the Holocaust a "holy war." Do you have a more reliable source than Wiki? I recall a few years back being shown the Wiki article on America, and it said all sorts of bizarre things about the country being over 600 years, and something about the reign of King Author in America... Of course, even if it is true that he killed Catholics, that says nothing about his religion. He believed that he had to do the work of God in cleaning up the dirty population, so he killed races that he thought were inferior... regardless of their religion. Similar basic policy to the Inquisition -- "Convert already so I can kill you!"
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828

3rd December 2007, 08:41 AM	#963
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by DOC Yes, a person in this thread has argued that Hitler was a Christian. I think the following information that was brought into another thread by someone else, should finally lay that myth to rest. From Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust "At least three million Catholics were systematically killed in concentration camps.[48] As for clergy, in the Priester-Block in Dachau there were 2,600 Catholic priests imprisoned, of whom 2,000 were put to death.[49] Over a quarter of the 10,000 total priests in Poland were executed, as were 500 nuns.[50]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust So what? The Catholic church executed Christians too. Are you going to argue that the RCC is an atheist organization? Quote: And Jews (or anyone else) who continue to teach that Hitler was a Christian are only "lessening" the pain and importance of the Holocaust. That's a very dramatic sounding statement, but what does it actually mean? How does stating the documented fact that Hitler held religious beliefs lessen the gravity of the Holocaust?
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

3rd December 2007, 08:50 AM	#964
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,492	Ok, DOC. Please follow this argument and directly refute it if you can. If you choose to ignore it or avoid answering the questions it raises, it will only highlight your lack of foundation. The argument of whether atheism kills more than religion is based upon the premise that "atheism provides no moral center and that you MUST have religion to act morally." This premise is easily refuted in two ways 1.) By listing horrific crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion 2.) By giving examples of altruism and great works that are done by atheists. Point 1 demonstrates the fact that religion doesn't prevent horrible actions and a faith in god can make people do great evils. As such, religion as a moral compass is greatly false. Point 2 demonstrates that a lack of religion doesn't prevent people from being good decent individuals. As such, religion isn't needed for moral guidance. Examples of point 1. Tomás de Torquemada, Vlad Tepes, Elizabeth Bathory, Francisco Pizzaro, Queen Mary Tudor, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, H. H. Holmes, Gilles de Rais Examples of point 2. Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Paul Nurse, Paul Dirac, Paul Boyer, Richard Feynman, Thomas Paine, Marie Curie, The Humanist Charities Organization, the JREF, Issac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and the three greatest philathropists in american history:Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie. Now, you may wish to retort by stating the question of numbers, but that would be in itself, an immoral argument. You would be arguing that it's ok that religion killed, becuase it didn't kill as many as stalin or pol pot. Are you saying that killing in the name of religion is ok as long as it is small numbers? And how does that agree with your previous arguments that it is ok for people to act in gods stead and use nuclear weapons on a population of innocents (Another argument you had previously made). I see no connection between religion and moral rightousness. Remember, the argument you are making is that athiesm provides no moral center and allows for great attrocity. But, the magnitude of the crimes is only determined by the power and influence the person without the moral center possesses. As a counterpoint, the three greatest philathropists (by dollars) were atheists, and they had the power and influence to cause great harm. But rather, they used their resources for good. This was without the religious center you claim is required. In other words, your raising the question of "does athiesm cuased great harm" highlights the religion's own failings.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

3rd December 2007, 12:45 PM	#965
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by joobz Now, you may wish to retort by stating the question of numbers, but that would be in itself, an immoral argument. Not to mention dishonest. In starting this very thread Plumjam ignored highly relevant factors such as the dramatic increase in population and the increased effectiveness of the technology of killing. What I find fascinating is that fundamentally religious authorities including personality cults like the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot seem to be the perpetrators of the greatest repression of those under their control. Secular states in which religion is separate from government, neither promoted or repressed, and left entirely up to the individual are the states with the best overall track record of protecting the rights of citizens.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

4th December 2007, 05:34 AM	#969
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,167	What about the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil war and Franco's regime? You know, all the talking and incentives for killing atheists, Jews and Freemansons... Very consistent with following an everloving god, the source of morals, ethics and goodnes, eh?
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too… Last edited by Correa Neto; 4th December 2007 at 05:36 AM.

3rd December 2007, 04:29 AM	#961
H'ethetheth fishy rocket scientist Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: among the machines Posts: 2,340	Originally Posted by DOC From Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust A Catholic who never went to Church or received the sacraments in adulthood, and murdered hundreds of priests and nuns -- Some Catholic! Sounds like he was trying to boost the morale of one Catholic general to me. Hitler was a con man. And I don't understand why you skeptics take him at his word. His words and promises were as worthless as the piece of paper Prime Minister Chamberlin waved in the air on returning from a meeting with Hitler. And as worthless as the German Russian Non-Agression treaty. I think the point is not that Hitler was or wasn't a Catholic, an atheist, or a Pagan cultist. In my opinion, his crimes couldn't possibly have anything to do with religion or lack thereof, but must be related to insane self-aggrandising ideology and absolute power. Hitler's ideology was not atheism, it was extreme nationalism, anti-semitism, social darwinism, and belligerent imperialism. I do not see how these things get confused. The fact that that many of the dictatorships of the 20th century have been secular, becomes inconsequential when looking at other examples where absolute power and insane self-aggrandising ideology come together. The result is always the same. Quote: "At least three million Catholics were systematically killed in concentration camps.[48] [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust This statement struck me as odd, to say the least. Looking for the source of this statement, I read in the editorial reviews at Amazon: Quote: Although an abundance of literature devoted to the lives and deaths of historical martyrs exists, scant attention has been paid to Catholic martyrs of the twentieth century. Estimating that approximately one million of the faithful have been martyred over the past 100 years, Royal attempts to validate and document these contemporary victims... Emphasis mine. However, I can believe this number in general, as Catholicism was the largest religion in the parts of Europe that were hit hardest. There will have been a lot of Catholics among the millions of victims, but to imply they were systematically killed for being Catholic seems to be a stretch, especially because the Nazis would have been Catholic themselves, generally.

4th December 2007, 03:44 AM	#966
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,739	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote So what? The Catholic church executed Christians too. I don't know what your referring to, but they certainly didn't kill thousands of priest and nuns in good standing with the church like the Wiki article stated the Nazis did. ____ Quote from DOC And Jews (or anyone else) who continue to teach that Hitler was a Christian are only "lessening" the pain and importance of the Holocaust. Quote: That's a very dramatic sounding statement, but what does it actually mean? How does stating the documented fact that Hitler held religious beliefs lessen the gravity of the Holocaust? You have to take it in context. If the Nazis did indeed kill thousands of priests and 500 nuns like the Wiki article said they did. Then if Hitler was indeed a Christian then this means he could care less about their religion when he had them killed. If he could care less about killing Christians even though some (misinformed) people say he was Christian then it stands to reason he would have killed a lot of Jews even if they weren't Jewish. This lessens the gravity of the Holocaust as being a mostly Jewish tragedy.

4th December 2007, 03:54 AM	#967
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Why is lying the "Christian" thing to do, DOC?

4th December 2007, 04:01 AM	#968
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,663	Originally Posted by DOC You have to take it in context. If the Nazis did indeed kill thousands of priests and 500 nuns like the Wiki article said they did. Then if Hitler was indeed a Christian then this means he could care less about their religion when he had them killed. If he could care less about killing Christians even though some (misinformed) people say he was Christian then it stands to reason he would have killed a lot of Jews even if they weren't Jewish. This lessens the gravity of the Holocaust as being a mostly Jewish tragedy. Huh? What? I've put the parts that don't make any sense in bold, so it's easy to find them within the rest of what you've written. First, it is possible to be a Christian and still kill other people because they are Christian. Second, even if the Christians Hitler killed were not killed because of their Christianity, that doesn't mean that the Jews he killed were not killed because of their Judaism. That doesn't "stand to reason" at all. Likewise, Hitler killed millions of heterosexuals. But he didn't kill them because they were heterosexuals. Therefore it stands to reason that he would have killed a lot of homosexuals even if they weren't homosexual? Of course not. The fact that Hitler intentionally targeted Jews for murder is not something we infer, based on his actions with respect to Christians. It's something we know based on direct historical evidence. There is nothing we could learn about Hitler's murder of non-Jews that would suggest that the Jews he killed were not killed because they were Jews, or that would make the holocaust something other than a "mostly Jewish tragedy," whatever that entails.

4th December 2007, 05:58 AM	#970
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	That Wiki article puts NOTHING to rest. Consider that many Christians don't even consider the RCC to be a Christian church! If, as the years progressed, Hitler found himself believing a variation of Christianity influenced by Aryan morality and myth, then executing Catholics would be comparable to executing Jews. Catholics are considered by many - especially fundamentalists - to be a Satanic church. Certainly many of the core practices are explicitely anti-Christian, depending on how you interpret the Bible. Not that a bit of that matters - Even if Hitler was a self-professed Catholic, then that's what he was, regardless of what he did in any kind of context. (Besides, the wiki article didn't say that Hitler, himself, killed all those Catholics; and we have to remember that much of the Holocaust was initiated by Hitler's subordinates (and rubber-stamped through Hitler).
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

4th December 2007, 06:35 AM	#971
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,492	Originally Posted by Z That Wiki article puts NOTHING to rest. Consider that many Christians don't even consider the RCC to be a Christian church! If, as the years progressed, Hitler found himself believing a variation of Christianity influenced by Aryan morality and myth, then executing Catholics would be comparable to executing Jews. Catholics are considered by many - especially fundamentalists - to be a Satanic church. Certainly many of the core practices are explicitely anti-Christian, depending on how you interpret the Bible. Not that a bit of that matters - Even if Hitler was a self-professed Catholic, then that's what he was, regardless of what he did in any kind of context. (Besides, the wiki article didn't say that Hitler, himself, killed all those Catholics; and we have to remember that much of the Holocaust was initiated by Hitler's subordinates (and rubber-stamped through Hitler). Yup. The problem is even if you find a sworn statement by hitler professing his fealty to the RCC, you'll never get DOC or the like to admit it. And even if they did, you'll get some true scottsman like response, "We'll he wasn't very christian was he" "He wasn't a TRUE christian" "WE'll it's clear that christianity doesn't support his actions" none of which is the point. I gave what I thought was a very lucid argument explaining why the numbers game played here is a lose-lose for theists. It's a little disappointing to know that it has gone ignored.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

4th December 2007, 12:13 PM	#972
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,265	Originally Posted by joobz I gave what I thought was a very lucid argument explaining why the numbers game played here is a lose-lose for theists. It's a little disappointing to know that it has gone ignored. I think I found the problem.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

4th December 2007, 02:08 PM	#973
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,739	Originally Posted by joobz Ok, DOC. Please follow this argument and directly refute it if you can. If you choose to ignore it or avoid answering the questions it raises, it will only highlight your lack of foundation. The argument of whether atheism kills more than religion is based upon the premise that "atheism provides no moral center and that you MUST have religion to act morally." This premise is easily refuted in two ways 1.) By listing horrific crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion 2.) By giving examples of altruism and great works that are done by atheists. Point 1 demonstrates the fact that religion doesn't prevent horrible actions and a faith in god can make people do great evils. As such, religion as a moral compass is greatly false. Point 2 demonstrates that a lack of religion doesn't prevent people from being good decent individuals. As such, religion isn't needed for moral guidance. Examples of point 1. Tomás de Torquemada, Vlad Tepes, Elizabeth Bathory, Francisco Pizzaro, Queen Mary Tudor, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, H. H. Holmes, Gilles de Rais Examples of point 2. Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Paul Nurse, Paul Dirac, Paul Boyer, Richard Feynman, Thomas Paine, Marie Curie, The Humanist Charities Organization, the JREF, Issac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and the three greatest philathropists in american history:Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie. Now, you may wish to retort by stating the question of numbers, but that would be in itself, an immoral argument. You would be arguing that it's ok that religion killed, becuase it didn't kill as many as stalin or pol pot. Are you saying that killing in the name of religion is ok as long as it is small numbers? And how does that agree with your previous arguments that it is ok for people to act in gods stead and use nuclear weapons on a population of innocents (Another argument you had previously made). I see no connection between religion and moral rightousness. Remember, the argument you are making is that athiesm provides no moral center and allows for great attrocity. But, the magnitude of the crimes is only determined by the power and influence the person without the moral center possesses. As a counterpoint, the three greatest philathropists (by dollars) were atheists, and they had the power and influence to cause great harm. But rather, they used their resources for good. This was without the religious center you claim is required. In other words, your raising the question of "does athiesm cuased great harm" highlights the religion's own failings. You make statements like these (about me) in another thread: Originally Posted by joobz Nice job, troll. ...Just becuase you are too daft too understand what I was talking about doesn't make it any less accurate. ...You are either left with admitting you are wrong or continue to prove yourself a clueless, dishonest troll. and then you expect to ask long detailed questions of me as if nothing happened. There are consequences to making statements like the above. One is if you want me to respond to your above lengthy detailed post I need an apology either publicly or in a private message. And if you choose not to apologize, you (and others) can certainly understand why I might be in even less of a hurry to respond to any of your future posts directed at me. Especially posts that would take a long time to properly respond to.
	Last edited by DOC; 4th December 2007 at 02:16 PM.

4th December 2007, 02:22 PM	#974
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,492	Originally Posted by DOC You make statements like these (about me) in another thread: and then you expect to ask long detailed questions of me as if nothing happened. There are consequences to making statements like the above. One is if you want me to respond to your above lengthy detailed post I need an apology either publicly or in a private message. And if you choose not to apologize, you (and others) can certainly understand why I might be in even less of a hurry to respond to any of your future posts directed at me. Especially posts that would take a long time to properly respond to. I have nothing to apologize for. You labeled me a troll long ago along with other insults. Sorry DOC, you are simply avoiding the question and proving to others you are incapable of honest discourse. It is obvious to me, and likely everyone else here,you have no response to my argument becuase it completely destroys your claim. ETA: By the way, you never admitted error in that thread either (even though I conclusively proved you wrong). You avoided me because you were wrong. Why should I expect any difference here.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser Last edited by joobz; 4th December 2007 at 02:24 PM.

4th December 2007, 09:38 PM	#975
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,349	Originally Posted by DOC You make statements like these (about me) in another thread: and then you expect to ask long detailed questions of me as if nothing happened. There are consequences to making statements like the above. One is if you want me to respond to your above lengthy detailed post I need an apology either publicly or in a private message. And if you choose not to apologize, you (and others) can certainly understand why I might be in even less of a hurry to respond to any of your future posts directed at me. Especially posts that would take a long time to properly respond to. Quit your whining and either answer the post or ignore it. The choice is yours but your overdramatic sense of injury just makes people take you even less seriously than they already do.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

28th October 2008, 08:56 AM	#976
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	Originally Posted by plumjam ok, so if it's impossible to base a society on atheism it should be equally impossible to base a society on theism, would you agree? Yes. And, in fact, there is no such society. How could you base a society on the mere belief that there is some sort of deity? Arguably, the Northern European countries are based mostly on a specific philosophy: secular humanism. Agnosticism and atheism are a feature of secular humanism. Iran is based on a specific religion. Theism is a feature of Islam. Saying a country is based on theism isn't very informative, because countries 'founded on theism' are actually founded on specific religions or groups of religions. Telling someone you're a theist only tells them you're not an atheist. You have to know the person's religion or philosophy to discover what they're actually grounded on.

28th October 2008, 01:07 PM	#977
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda Yes. And, in fact, there is no such society. How could you base a society on the mere belief that there is some sort of deity? Arguably, the Northern European countries are based mostly on a specific philosophy: secular humanism. Agnosticism and atheism are a feature of secular humanism. Iran is based on a specific religion. Theism is a feature of Islam. Saying a country is based on theism isn't very informative, because countries 'founded on theism' are actually founded on specific religions or groups of religions. Telling someone you're a theist only tells them you're not an atheist. You have to know the person's religion or philosophy to discover what they're actually grounded on. My initial reaction to seeing this tread rise from the grave was "Oh crap! Not again!", but that was a good, clear insight. When we examine history we find that highly repressive states with atheism as a declared feature frequently replace theistic religions with state constructs that serve all the same functions. Even the repression of theistic religion (and all other non state-approved philosophies) closely models the behavior of theocratic states from the past.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

28th October 2008, 07:16 PM	#978
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Many claims of religious whackjobs are also empirical questions. State data here-- 50 USA states and murder rates on y. On x, religiosity (how strongly members of the state endorse statements like "mine is the one true god" and "my prayers are answered at least weekly") r = .48 On x = percentage of godless people in the state r=-.39 On x = percentage of evangelical xtians in the state r=.40 Someone will complain that correlation doesn't imply cause, but that's not the issue here. IF you believe that atheism leads to murder, then in this sample (50 US states) you got lots of explaining to do. You have to explain not just no association, but the reverse of what you actually predicted. If you're wondering, the correlations become slightly stronger when controlling for state income levels...
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

28th October 2008, 07:51 PM	#979
angelsaramark Scholar Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 59	If a person has no authority other than self and believes no ramifications, what's to stop anything? Ever heard of Jeff Dahmer? Religion is the opiate of the masses. Marx was quite the psychopolitician and I'll take his word for it.
angelsaramark Scholar Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 59

28th October 2008, 07:52 PM	#980
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,120	Quote: My initial reaction to seeing this tread rise from the grave was "Oh crap! Not again!" Yeah, that.

28th October 2008, 08:04 PM	#981
deverett Student Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 30	Originally Posted by Par With respect, it seems like rather fuzzy speculation. Personally, I would imagine that the horrors of Nazi Germany generally stemmed from the Nazism and that those of the Soviet Union and China, from the communism. I wouldn't have considered the Soviet Union or China as communist. Both were closer to dictatorships. Nazi Germany too was more a dictatorship as was Italy at the time. All those countries were ruled by leaders with unbridled power with virtually no checks. Dave Everett
deverett Student Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 30

28th October 2008, 09:58 PM	#982
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Please excuse me whilst I interrupt this thread, it's just that the thread title makes me curious to know (without reading the 981-post bcklg): which political systems are based on atheism? which political nations are goverened by such systems? this killing that is mentioned in the OP... am I right to infer that it's murder? Thank you in advance
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

29th October 2008, 12:17 AM	#983
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,349	Originally Posted by six7s which political systems are based on atheism? None. Plumjams just being a naught boy. He doesn't support his position in the OP nor in the rest of the thread. Neither do other contributors like DOC, etc. Originally Posted by six7s which political nations are goverened by such systems? It's the usual Soviet Union, Communist China, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. etc. tripe. Originally Posted by six7s this killing that is mentioned in the OP... am I right to infer that it's murder? One of the few things Plumjam got correct was referring to state organized murder and genocide correctly. He, etc. are off base as to why those terrible things occured though. There's a reason this thead lay dormant for almost a year.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

29th October 2008, 12:34 AM	#984
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Thanks US! For me, that was a whole bunch easier than wading through 980+ posts!
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

29th October 2008, 12:43 AM	#985
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,956	Agreed. Has there been anything of substance posted in this thread?
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

29th October 2008, 12:47 AM	#986
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	I used please and thank you, does that count?
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

29th October 2008, 05:26 AM	#987
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by six7s Thanks US! For me, that was a whole bunch easier than wading through 980+ posts! The first few pages cover most of it. Especially the No True Scotsman bit about Hitler's theistic beliefs.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

29th October 2008, 05:38 AM	#988
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by angelsaramark If a person has no authority other than self and believes no ramifications, what's to stop anything? Ever heard of Jeff Dahmer? Nice straw-man, did you make it yourself? Atheism is perfectly compatible with recognition of the value of other people's lives. Theism, on the other hand, is no guarantor of the recognition of the value of human life.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

29th October 2008, 05:40 AM	#989
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Agreed. Has there been anything of substance posted in this thread? Well, not in defense of the argument presented in the OP. But the opposing arguments have yielded much of substance.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

29th October 2008, 06:28 AM	#990
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by angelsaramark If a person has no authority other than self and believes no ramifications, what's to stop anything? God. He can smite down the evil-doers in his wrath. Quote: Ever heard of Jeff Dahmer? Yes: one of the many people whom God neglected to smite. He was Born Again and is now presumably in Heaven, unlike his ungodly sodomite victims. You see, God has this mysterious plan whereby everything works out for the best in the end.

29th October 2008, 06:50 AM	#991
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,378	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Yes: one of the many people whom God neglected to smite. He was Born Again and is now presumably in Heaven, unlike his ungodly sodomite victims. You see, God has this mysterious plan whereby everything works out for the best in the end. An interesting aside: A friend of mine once briefly met Jeff Dahmer while she was living in Chicago. She shared an apartment with a couple of gay male friends of hers. She and a couple of other friends came home one evening to find one of her room-mates watching TV with someone he'd met. He introduced him as "Lucky". The presence of a few more people in the room seemed to make "Lucky" rather uncomfortable, and after about five minutes he made an excuse and left. A couple of months later my friend was sitting in a tavern having a bite when a breaking news story about a cannibalistic serial killer came on the TV behind the bar. "Oh my God!" she shouted. "It's that 'Lucky' guy!"
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

29th October 2008, 02:40 PM	#992
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	I confess I've only gotten throught the first 15 pages, but I aim to read the whole thing now that I have so much invested. I recommend newcomers can save themselves a lot of time just reading the first three pages and this one. As far as I could tell before I lost patience, no one had made the particular point I wanted to make about naked theism, in fact, not being anything you can base a country on. Arguing that communist regimes reflect badly on atheism is on a par with arguing that militant, terrorist-sponsoring Islamic regimes reflect badly on theism.