Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Esquilax]

And I'm saying that what Hitler did wasn't the fault of christianity.

Whether it was or wasn't, it was certainly aided by christianity, in numerous ways.

You're missing my point. I never blamed atheism for persecuting christians. I did say that atheists have persecuted christians.

But if that is your point, then it's not saying much. In fact, specifying them as atheists misattributes their reason for doing so: you might as well be saying that moustachioed people have persecuted christians. The mustache had as much to do with the persecution as the atheism did.

If there were no religions, the acts that were motivated by religion probably would not have occurred, but other atrocities would have happened which would be motivated by other rationale. Like I said in my posts, terrible acts were motivated by numerous influences for many different reasons. Evil people commit evil acts.

This is an incredibly bad argument. Other bad things happen, and therefore we shouldn't care about the ones that happen due to religion? Seriously?

What does one have to do with the other? Do you wave off murders and say they don't matter because rapes happen? It's a complete non-sequitur. So what if other bad things happen? Less bad things would happen without your religion, which would make the world a better place! Your argument basically says that because the world wouldn't be absolutely perfect without religion, then it wouldn't be improved at all without religion. It's a false dichotomy, and it's ridiculous.

[Cyberman]

Religion may or may not be a motivator for obscene acts, just as with any other elitist, divisive ideaology. It certainly serves as a useful umbrella for the psychopath though.

[Lek]

But if that is your point, then it's not saying much. In fact, specifying them as atheists misattributes their reason for doing so: you might as well be saying that moustachioed people have persecuted christians. The mustache had as much to do with the persecution as the atheism did.

You need to follow the argument from the beginning. In the beginning I think I was responding to a statement that christianity was responsible for more atrocities than anything else in history. There's too many pages in this thread to go back and review, but someone made a comment about all the people killed due to christianity or by christians. I then made a comment about all the people that were persecuted and killed by atheists. But follow my posts, you will see that my argument exonerated atheists as well as christians. I was blaming the acts on the individuals not their faith or philosophy.

---

This is an incredibly bad argument. Other bad things happen, and therefore we shouldn't care about the ones that happen due to religion? Seriously?

What does one have to do with the other? Do you wave off murders and say they don't matter because rapes happen? It's a complete non-sequitur. So what if other bad things happen? Less bad things would happen without your religion, which would make the world a better place! Your argument basically says that because the world wouldn't be absolutely perfect without religion, then it wouldn't be improved at all without religion. It's a false dichotomy, and it's ridiculous.

I think that without christianity in the world, there would be more atrocities committed. Take a look at the ancient pagan nations and, of course, communist nations. Take away christianity and the void will be filled with something that's really evil. There's always something there.

[Mudhammam]

I was blaming the acts on the individuals not their faith or philosophy.

You can't separate an individual's actions from their faith or philosophy-Communism and Christianity being endless sources of irrational ideas and horrible subsequent policies.

[Lek]

I was blaming the acts on the individuals not their faith or philosophy.

You can't separate an individual's actions from their faith or philosophy-Communism and Christianity being endless sources of irrational ideas and horrible subsequent policies.

Okay. That means you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. That also means that if a democrat goes out and kills a bunch of republicans because he hates them, it was because he was a democrat, and it would be better if the democrat party was abolished.

[Cyberman]

Except atheism isn't a faith or a philosophy.

[Bibliofagus]

And I'm saying that what Hitler did wasn't the fault of christianity.

It's not a well known fact but when the horrors of the holocaust surfaced many churches apologised for promoting the idea of deicide (the collective guilt of jews for killing jebus) and the idea that the jews had the chance to accept jebus as their savior, and since they didn't they are no longer gods chosen people.

[The Grand Nudger]

Take a look at the ancient pagan nations

Yes, please, take a look at them. Learn something while you're peeping. Peeping, like your christian brethren did oh so long ago before writing the sort of porn they wanted to read into the history of those people. The evil you think existed in those nations is more than likely going to boil down to a fantasy in some missionary's perverted little brain.

[Esquilax]

You need to follow the argument from the beginning. In the beginning I think I was responding to a statement that christianity was responsible for more atrocities than anything else in history. There's too many pages in this thread to go back and review, but someone made a comment about all the people killed due to christianity or by christians. I then made a comment about all the people that were persecuted and killed by atheists. But follow my posts, you will see that my argument exonerated atheists as well as christians. I was blaming the acts on the individuals not their faith or philosophy.

People are big conglomerates of experiences and beliefs and ideas: you can't separate their actions from their motivators and ideals where a direct link can be found. When you've got people actively believing in a divine architect of the universe, and peeking into a holy book to see that, what do you know, they can interpret the scriptures in such a way as to not only justify their chosen course of action, but actually ordain it as the will of the creator, then you've got a set of actions directly attributable to that belief system or religion. You might be tempted to argue that their interpretation was wrong and hence not reflective of the religion itself, and that'd be fine, except that personal experiences and interpretations of scripture are so widespread and encouraged among the believers. You simply cannot have thousands of denominations of christianity, populated by millions of individuals with their own varied spins on what X verse and Y passage really means- and more importantly, why they can ignore every passage that would reflect badly on them or cause society to break down- and then point your finger and say that no, these specific interpretations are incorrect.

Personal interpretation is a cornerstone of modern christianity. Setting up a system whereby one can selectively interpret scripture out of existence, and then disowning people when they do it in a way you don't want them to, is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Don't go there.

I think that without christianity in the world, there would be more atrocities committed. Take a look at the ancient pagan nations and, of course, communist nations. Take away christianity and the void will be filled with something that's really evil. There's always something there.

And again, pointing at someone else and saying "they're worse," doesn't make you any better. The existence of other bad things doesn't transform christianity into a good thing; I actually know that other religions are bad too. I'm an atheist, you know? I think they're all a waste of time and utterly toxic to a certain kind of person. You don't need to keep reminding me.

It's like you're throwing out all these other bad things like they're cover, that's going to distract us from the badness of christianity, or redirect focus. Surprisingly, I'm capable of disliking multiple things at once, and my ability to identify moral evils is not some finite source that I can run out of.

[Ravenshire]

I am for the separation of church and state and I'm for gay civil unions with the same rights and privileges under the law, but not gay marriage. I don't want to change the definition of an institution that is so important to so many.

You want civil unions? Fine. I've got a great idea. Lets replace the legal marriage as a religious institution and replace it with civil unions. We can then relegate "marriage" to a religious ceremony that is not in any way legal or binding. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, asshole.

You fucking christers are soooooo threatened by the idea of two people who love each other committing to their partners that the rest of us can only stand in stupefied amazement of your ignorance and stupidity.

Please, tell me, how, exactly, would it affect your marriage to your wife if my daughter marries another woman?

Or, better yet, go fuck yourself with a cactus.