you know i made a really good observation

[FatAndFaithless]

So God is doing them a favor by killing them?

[dyresand]

So God is doing them a favor by killing them?

in a fucked up way apparently so....

[Huggy Bear]

So God is doing them a favor by killing them?

I'll put it this way, It is far better to die as a child, than die as an atheist.

[FatAndFaithless]

So God is doing them a favor by killing them?

I'll put it this way, It is far better to die as a child, than die as an atheist.

So, yes, God is doing them a favor, as they are guaranteed to return to him.

[TaraJo]

Many Christians and theists will disagree but ill say it anyways.
you need Atheists and agnostics and people in general who have no faith or belief in a god. This is saying a lot, could you imagine how the modern world would look like just imagine that there was no such thing as atheists and agnostics the US during ww2 since you claimed its an christian country would have helped Hitler. Why we didn't do it because we are secular we know that what hitler is doing is wrong but biblically its alright and justified.

Uhm..... I think he's saying that the Nazi's were atheists or that America would have sided with the Nazi's if we were an atheist country.

Fact 1) The Nazi military belt buckles specifically said "God with us" on them. You can fuckin' google it if you don't believe me (although, since it's German it will say "Gott Min Uns," but just punch that into google translate and guess what it tells you). Hitler himself still hasn't been excommunicated by the catholic church, not to mention most racists and anti-semites in the US claim to be Christians. It's not at all true to claim that someone can not believe they have Christ as their personal lord and savior if they're racist. Now, if you want to claim they weren't "real" Christians, that's fine, I can do a no true scottsman argument as well.

Fact 2) No, the US isn't a Christian nation. Specifically, our government isn't and shouldn't be Christian. Shouldn't be atheist, really, either. I see our government as being largely apathetic about religion, letting people believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the rest of society.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you missed the part where I said that children cant "die". The word "death" simply means "separation", those that are "in christ" are not separated from God.

Tripling down on the bullshit as we scatter across topics and away from the last bit of bullshit we got called on. Look, I'll just keep calling heinous BS - no matter how far afield we range. You think that I was going to be with christ had I died as a child? I can tell you that I wouldn't have been with certainty. If that's the criteria for "death" then children can indeed and, assuming I'm not uniquely special amongst all mankind, do die.

Sure, the death of a 5 year old child is sad... for us that remain here. But is it sad to him?

One might hope so. But so what?

If I can illustrate it this way, if we take an unborn child whose only world is it's mothers womb, how can we begin to express what the outside world is like compared to the womb? The process of birth is painful and traumatic for both the mother and child, but after experiencing the outside world, would you want to return to the womb?

Irrelevant as to the matter at hand. That said, I don't remember the womb so I don't have any relevant points of data to consider and make some determination as to which I would prefer. Yourself?

[TheRealJoeFish]

It seems you don't even know your own atheist talking points.

You can't pull out the "no true scotsman" nonsense here because I'm not claiming "no true scotsman", my argument is "never was a scotsman". Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian eating a steak? nope, because he is obviously not a vegetarian.

This is not a logical comparison. You have taken a broad term with a number of competing definitions - "Christian" - and defined it in a way to categorically exclude those who have acted in a certain manner, when that act is not the primary thing upon which that definition is based. Your "Vegetarian" argument is dissimilar because the act of eating meat is excluded by the definition of vegetarianism. You start with the definition, and then see if things fit it. Not the other way around.

What you're saying - One who has murdered is not Christian, because to murder is not Christian - rearranges the definition of Christianity around the act of murder, when this is not a linguistically, definitionally, necessary inference.

This is not like saying "Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian eating a steak? No, because obviously he's not a vegetarian."

This is a lot more like saying "Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian wearing a fur coat? No, because obviously he's not a vegetarian."
Or "Is there a reason to be confused by an animal rights activist eating a steak? No, because obviously he's not an animal rights activist."

The only way for you to get around this - when there are multiple definitions of the term Christian, some of which preclude murders always and some of which don't - is for you to now prove, or at least convince, why your definition is necessary. I suspect that your answer will be "Christian means 'like Christ,' and Christ didn't murder," or, more broadly, reference to scripture, couched in linguistics. When this is the case, the odds of convincing anyone - given that the disagreements about proper biblical interpretation are more numerous than the disagreements about the proper definition of Christian at all - plummet.

Disclaimer: Listen, I know an attempt to get through to the OP is going to be futile. But this is the NTS! We're talking about my favorite fallacy here.

[dyresand]

So God is doing them a favor by killing them?

I'll put it this way, It is far better to die as a child, than die as an atheist.

that is really messed up... and it hurts the families that those children lost.
again god would favor an atheist over a theists for many reasons.
god is doing a favor maybe for 1 individual why hurting many others.

[Huggy Bear]

It seems you don't even know your own atheist talking points.

You can't pull out the "no true scotsman" nonsense here because I'm not claiming "no true scotsman", my argument is "never was a scotsman". Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian eating a steak? nope, because he is obviously not a vegetarian.

This is not a logical comparison. You have taken a broad term with a number of competing definitions - "Christian" - and defined it in a way to categorically exclude those who have acted in a certain manner, when that act is not the primary thing upon which that definition is based. Your "Vegetarian" argument is dissimilar because the act of eating meat is excluded by the definition of vegetarianism. You start with the definition, and then see if things fit it. Not the other way around.

What you're saying - One who has murdered is not Christian, because to murder is not Christian - rearranges the definition of Christianity around the act of murder, when this is not a linguistically, definitionally, necessary inference.

This is not like saying "Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian eating a steak? No, because obviously he's not a vegetarian."

This is a lot more like saying "Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian wearing a fur coat? No, because obviously he's not a vegetarian."
Or "Is there a reason to be confused by an animal rights activist eating a steak? No, because obviously he's not an animal rights activist."

The only way for you to get around this - when there are multiple definitions of the term Christian, some of which preclude murders always and some of which don't - is for you to now prove, or at least convince, why your definition is necessary. I suspect that your answer will be "Christian means 'like Christ,' and Christ didn't murder," or, more broadly, reference to scripture, couched in linguistics. When this is the case, the odds of convincing anyone - given that the disagreements about proper biblical interpretation are more numerous than the disagreements about the proper definition of Christian at all - plummet.

Disclaimer: Listen, I know an attempt to get through to the OP is going to be futile. But this is the NTS! We're talking about my favorite fallacy here.

Let's modify your earlier quote:

I think the point is that if we're trying to argue atheism v. christianity by saying "well, [christian despot] killed 10 million people but [atheist despot] killed 20 million people" then we're missing the point

so you can understand what i'm trying to say.

If we edit the quote like this:

I think the point is that if we're trying to argue omnivores v. herbivores by saying "well, [herbivores] ate 10 pounds of meat but [omnivores] ate 20 pounds of meat" then we're missing the point

then it immediately makes no sense, because herbivores don't eat meat, so therefore it is no longer an herbivore.

Likewise, a Christian does not murder people (in reference to your quote), doing so, proves one is not a Christian.

[FatAndFaithless]

a Christian does not murder people

The No True Scotsman is strong with this one.