What is your complaint with Christianity?

[Creed of Heresy]

Atheists do not kill in the name of godlessness. Why? Because we have no "commandments" telling us to go butchering people. We have no doctrine of intolerance. We have no doctrine PERIOD, in fact. So you cannot kill in the name of something you do not have to begin with. I cannot even begin to describe what a fallacy it is to say people kill in the name of atheism. "I KILL YOU IN THE NAME OF NOTHING!"?? Is that what you think happens or something?? Fuck, Stalin [actually belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church, by the way] never killed in the name of anything beyond himself and his party's power. He killed in the name of a god, alright: Himself. He viewed himself as the virtual god of state, the head of the communist party...and the communist party was the only entity worthy of "devotion" or "worship" in his eyes. Same with Mao and every other dictator. It was always consolidation of power. None of them ever said "In the name of Nothing, kill these worshipers!"

[Tiberius]

Meaningless wordplay. People kill in the name of their religion and/or their god. Theism as inspiration to kill. Atheists that kill are not inspired to do so by their lack of belief in gods.

I think his point was, theism on its own has never been used to justify the killing of anyone. Just as there are no people who say "there is no god, therefore I will kill people", there are no people who say "there is a god, therefore I will kill people". The reasons for killing in the name of God are always down to religious ideas about God, and whilst theism is often a core tenet of religion, you cannot equate the two.

People who say "there is a God, he/she says this person must die, therefore I will kill this person" are theists, but they are killing in the name of a religious idea of God, and not the idea of God itself.

[Paul the Human]

Meaningless wordplay. People kill in the name of their religion and/or their god. Theism as inspiration to kill. Atheists that kill are not inspired to do so by their lack of belief in gods.

I think his point was, theism on its own has never been used to justify the killing of anyone. Just as there are no people who say "there is no god, therefore I will kill people", there are no people who say "there is a god, therefore I will kill people". The reasons for killing in the name of God are always down to religious ideas about God, and whilst theism is often a core tenet of religion, you cannot equate the two.

People who say "there is a God, he/she says this person must die, therefore I will kill this person" are theists, but they are killing in the name of a religious idea of God, and not the idea of God itself.

So... my point stands and he was engaging in wordplay to obscure that point. Right.

Perhaps my wording allowed him to engage in that wordplay, but you can't tell me he didn't know what I meant.

[Tiberius]

No, he was voicing a valid objection to your comparison of people killing in the name of their Gods to people killing in the name of atheism. The two aren't different sides of the same coin. A more valid comparison would have been:

But people kill in the name of their religion often... In the name of irreligion... Not so much.

[Paul the Human]

No, he was voicing a valid objection to your comparison of people killing in the name of their Gods to people killing in the name of atheism. The two aren't different sides of the same coin. A more valid comparison would have been:

But people kill in the name of their religion often... In the name of irreligion... Not so much.

Wordplay. As I said, my wording allowed that wordplay, but engaging in it is dishonest, as my point was obvious. That kind of thing is an intentionally dishonest attempt to obscure the point being made. Your rewording of the point did not change the point I was making.

[Tiberius]

Knowing what someone meant doesn't necessarily mean the idea was presented correctly and logically. We'll have to agree to disagree on this on I think; I don't think Ryft was being dishonest, just pointing out a bad comparison.

[Paul the Human]

Knowing what someone meant doesn't necessarily mean the idea was presented correctly and logically. We'll have to agree to disagree on this on I think; I don't think Ryft was being dishonest, just pointing out a bad comparison.

Perhaps he wasn't being dishonest, as I know Ryft to be a fair minded person. Perhaps he was simply correcting my wording to educate me. Yep. I bet that was it.

He used it to distract from the point, just as everyone that engages in pedantics does. The spirit of what people say is as important, if not more so, than the wording they use to say it.

So yes... I agree to disagree.

[fuckass365]

I despise all theistic religions equally. The idea of a personal god is beyond silly, it's ludicrous. Personally invested in every single life and action that takes place on Earth and the Universe for billions of years? Listening to and answering billions of a prayers a day while "saving" people and supposedly preforming miracles? If you tell me you're a Pantheist, Pandeist, or Deist then I'll respect your opinion. If there was a god, he wouldn't give a shit about us and we would just be a by-product of the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

People who say "there is a God, he/she says this person must die, therefore I will kill this person" are theists, but they are killing in the name of a religious idea of God, and not the idea of God itself.

Sounds like that is their idea of god. Care to elaborate on the difference between "a religious idea of god" and "the idea of god itself"? How would such a distinction be possible for theistic belief systems?

(I'd have to add here, that there probably is some pyschopath that did the whole "there is no god therefore I will kill people" routine. Wouldn't surprise me at all.)

[Zen Badger]

Well Delirium Trembumums, you ask "what would jesus do?"

Here is your answer.....