I think this particular debate has strayed a bit (and I don't even mean from the original topic). For a refresher:
Originally posted by psmith81992
Nothing has to be done in the name of atheism for it to look bad. The fact that atheists/secularists have been responsible for far more atrocities than the religious should be telling enough.
Here it would seem that Psmith is arguing that atheism is bad because people who happened to be atheists were mass murderers. If you aren't arguing that, then I have no idea what you were going for, Psmith.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Nothing has to be done in the name of atheism for it to look bad. The fact that atheists/secularists have been responsible for far more atrocities than the religious should be telling enough.
But again you fail to see the difference between being an atheist who commits horrible deeds and being an atheist who commits horrible deeds specifically in the name of their atheism.
When I talk about shady religious stuff, I'm talking about stuff done specifically in the name of religion.
Though you realize there are far more religious people in the world compared to Atheists. So if we did go the route of "any crime committed by an atheist must be due to atheism" that means any crime committed by a religious person is specifically due to their religious beliefs. Which means religion would of caused far far more damage just by the sheer number of religious people over non-religious people on this planet.
Originally posted by Trocity
He has no argument.
Incompetent troll alert 😂
Here it would seem that Psmith is arguing that atheism is bad because people who happened to be atheists were mass murderers. If you aren't arguing that, then I have no idea what you were going for, Psmith.
I've explained the past two pages. I'm not arguing about killing in the name of atheism. I'm claiming that religion and political ideology are interchangeable justifications for mass murder.
Those atheists committed those atrocious acts because they have shit morals via not being religious.
The crusades and all the atrocities committed in the name of religion were done by people who used religion as a smokescreen to further their own agendas, so were not really Christians or true religious followers, and so also had shit morals.
Basically, religious people can do no wrong.
Originally posted by TrocityThat is an incredible rationalization.
Those atheists committed those atrocious acts because they have shit morals via not being religious.The crusades and all the atrocities committed in the name of religion were done by people who used religion as a smokescreen to further their own agendas, so were not really Christians or true religious followers, and so also had shit morals.
Basically, religious people can do no wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If you count Stalin and Mao's atrocities as deaths perpetrated by atheists, then you have to count Hitler's as deaths perpetrated by religious people. Either is pretty silly though, because they weren't inspired by their atheism or theism, but by political ideologies.
If the debate is "all religious people killing others vs all non-religious people killing others", religion wins always. There's just too many religious nations throughout history.
It's hilarious how atheists have to go way back to things that happened 800 or 900 years ago to support their ridiculous claims that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than atheism. They also love to ignore the fact that the Crusades were started because of Muslim aggression against and persecution of Christians.The Crusades started off as defensive in nature. Only later did they go on the offensive and decide to take back Jerusalem from the muslims who were wrong to take it in the first place. I'm sorry that I don't view the Crusades as an evil campaign like most of the morons in this thread seem to think they were. I mean, sure, there were a lot of atrocious things done in the name of religion during the Crusades but there will always be those who act out on their own in cruel ways. Happens in every war but that doesn't mean those that did so had the approval of the Church to do it.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-crusades/the-real-history-of-the-crusades.html
I just find it amusing that atheists have to bring up the Crusades when they argue the morality of the religious vs that of atheists. Only an idiot would think atheists are known for being more moral than Christians. If our country was still as Christian today as it was when it was founded or even just a generation ago you would not be seeing all these acts of mass murder that we are seeing in country nowadays. Back then people had actual values, cared about their fellow man, and you could count on them to keep their word. That's not the case anymore.
Originally posted by Star428
It's hilarious how atheists have to go way back to things that happened 800 or 900 years ago to support their ridiculous claims that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than atheism. They also love to ignore the fact that the Crusades were started because of Muslim aggression against and persecution of Christians.The Crusades started off as defensive in nature. Only later did they go on the offensive and decide to take back Jerusalem from the muslims who were wrong to take it in the first place. I'm sorry that I don't view the Crusades as an evil campaign like most of the morons in this thread seem to think they were. I mean, sure, there were a lot of atrocious things done in the name of religion during the Crusades but there will always be those who act out on their own in cruel ways. Happens in every war but that doesn't mean those that did so had the approval of the Church to do it.http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-crusades/the-real-history-of-the-crusades.html
I just find it amusing that atheists have to bring up the Crusades when they argue the morality of the religious vs that of atheists. Only an idiot would think atheists are known for being more moral than Christians. If our country was still as Christian today as it was when it was founded or even just a generation ago you would not be seeing all these acts of mass murder that we are seeing in country nowadays. Back then people had actual values, cared about their fellow man, and you could count on them to keep their word. That's not the case anymore.
No one is blaming the religious for all the world's woes. psmith seeemed to be saying atheist leaders killed more than religious leaders. We're pointing out that there are, and were, so many religious heads of states/militaries, that you'd have to throw an awful lot of groups together. I'm confident the deaths on the religious side would be greater. You can't discount them simply because they weren't Christian or monotheistic.
Originally posted by Star428
LMAO. BY all means, point it out please.
I think it's silly to blame those deaths on religion too, but I didn't start this. Blame psmith.
Originally posted by StyleTime
You're confusing "religious violence" with "Christian violence". They were including all religious people, not just Christians.
I'm not really "confusing" anything. The point is that they keep bringing up the Crusades to bash Christians/religion just like all atheists pathetically do everytime when a debate like this comes up.
Originally posted by Star428
I'm not really "confusing" anything. The point is that they keep bringing up the Crusades to bash Christians/religion just like all atheists pathetically do everytime when a debate like this comes up.
Because, as I said, the Crusades were just a reaction to Muslim aggression against Christians. All the atrocious acts that were committed during Crusades would've never happened if not for that because there wouldn't have even been any Crusades. If Muslims had been persecuting atheists and/or shown aggression towards them on the same scale that they did to Christians then I"m sure atheists would've taken drastic action as well. I seriously doubt they'd just keep sitting around and continue to take it with a smile on their faces.
Geez, Star, your grasp of history is appalling, The primary target of the First Crusade was Jerusalem- in which case, your idea that it was targeted against aggression against Christians is ridiculous, because the Muslims had held Jerusalem for five centuries beforehand. And incidentally, they took it from the Romans. Who took it from the Jews.
The Byzantines may have sparked the whole thing off by asking for help, but they noone went out there to return their territory (as indeed it was not). The First Crusade were simply an opportunistic move to assert a new Christian authority in the Middle East, and the whole effort of the Crusades failed utterly because they were only interested in outright conquest, which could never be sustained with a hostile population.
You're just blundering here. You don't really know anything about history or culture in that respect so stop pretending you do in a pseudo- intellectual attempt to justify your arguments which rest on emotion alone. If you want to go with a "shit happened in the past" argument, then fine, and that even has merit, but you then mess it up by trying to make it a 'Good Christians were only trying to defend against the evil conquering Muslims' nonsense and it undermines the whole thing. There's only one reason the Christian states weren't doing the invading eastwards in those days- and that's that no single Christian state was strong enough. The Crusades were the opportunity they needed.
It's funny, because the Crusaders later ensured Muslim expansion into Europe by making the death sentence for the Byzantine Empire
Originally posted by StyleTimeThat isn't accurate on any level. With that said, looks like we finished the discussion just at the right time.
He'd also have to count death commited by the American military in the religious category as well.If the debate is "all religious people killing others vs all non-religious people killing others", religion wins always. There's just too many religious nations throughout history.
Classifying violence by substance because it's done by atheists or theists is silly. Religious people can have political agendas using religion as a rallying cause and as excuse, atheism cannot be really used as an agenda because it doesn't represent a particular set of beliefs.
Saying that the "side" that does more attrocities is "worse" makes for a poor argument. Simply put, it isn't much about the evil or good nature of either theism or atheist, but entirely about the population when the conflicts happen. The most recent wars have killed the equivalent of the entire population of Europe in ancient wars, if we go by strict number of deaths, any modern war is inherently more evil. You can see how this is nonsense.
Originally posted by Star428
I'm not really "confusing" anything. The point is that they keep bringing up the Crusades to bash Christians/religion just like all atheists pathetically do everytime when a debate like this comes up.
Don't be revisionist Star.