So Boerd said
Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values? You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.

Hitler was Hitler. :/
People may have been evil, even worse than Hitler but you don't see that because he's an athiest. He was a weirdo.

So Boerd said
Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values?

I don't think anyone ever said a religious persons morals are less acceptable than a Athiests

So Boerd said
You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.

I highly doubt "Communism" has killed more than religion. When you compare every religious related death, be it war, persecution, or death for heresy to "Communism" and all related deaths, Religion far exceeds the death toll. Communism made the common man worse? Mate do you have any blinking idea what Communism actually stands for? Look if your talking about Stalin, Mao, Pol pot then fair enough because yes they did kill many people but THEY WERE NOT MARXIST, THE ONLY COMMUNIST THING ABOUT THEM WAS THEIR NAME.

It's not really fair to compare all these 20th century killers to ancient religious murderous tyrants, for the modern killers had modern weapons which enabled more death. Think what would have happened if a medieval religious leader got their hands on some tanks?

Also I'm fairly sure I mentioned Hitler was not a Atheist but a devout Catholic.

Vortex said
I don't think anyone ever said a religious persons morals are less acceptable than a AthiestsI "Communism" has killed more than religion. When you compare every religious related death, be it war, persecution, or death for heresy to "Communism" and all related deaths, Religion far exceeds the death toll. Communism made the common man worse? Mate do you have any blinking idea what Communism actually stands for? Look if your talking about Stalin, Mao, Pol pot then fair enough because yes they did kill many people but THEY WERE NOT MARXIST, THE ONLY COMMUNIST THING ABOUT THEM WAS THEIR NAME. It's not really fair to compare all these 20th century killers to ancient religious murderous tyrants, for the modern killers had modern weapons which enabled more death. Think what would have happened if a medieval religious leader got their hands on some tanks?Also I'm fairly sure I mentioned Hitler was not a Atheist but a devout Catholic.

Yikes

You realize that ye old burning times only killed 100,000?-_-
Inquisition lasted centuries, killing somewhere around that many?
All Crusades combined could not reach a fraction of modern deaths by tyrannical regimes including Adolph Hitler, since as i said, he was more like a shapeshifter opportunist than anything.

So Boerd said
The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

That's nonsense on like- fifteen different levels.

I was not putting the burden of proof on the agnostic. The fence-sitters are not party to the debate except when they try to pin the blame on both sides because they don't feel like standing up and being counted. The burden of proof lies on the theist, because they are the one making the claim.

Uhh if someone says they believe in a religion the religion can't say, "Oh no he's not with us," your whole religion is based on the idea that people believe in it, if it wasn't, it'd be a fact or a theory.

Idk if Hitler was atheist or christian or whatever, but if he believed in god, then yeah, he was a christian. If he didn't he was an atheist.

Why are we godwinning this thread anyways?

Turtlicious said
Uhh if someone says they believe in a religion the religion can't say, "Oh no he's not with us," your whole religion is based on the idea that people believe in it, if it wasn't, it'd be a fact or a theory.Idk if Hitler was atheist or christian or whatever, but if he believed in god, then yeah, he was a christian. If he didn't he was an atheist.Why are we godwinning this thread anyways?

I didn't start the Fuhrer.

Also, Jews believe in God. So do Christians, maybe Muslims and Zoroastrians. How many go to the same Church?

ActRaiserTheReturned said
I didn't start the Fuhrer.Also, Jews believe in God. So do Christians, maybe Muslims and Zoroastrians. How many go to the same Church?

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.

e: At least I hope so, I'd hate to find out I'm still over-estimating you. lol

My what a fun topic....I was expecting Separation of Church and state, and we're talking about tyrants and killers. Very well....
Vortex, I love a good debate on Communism, but trying to base one time frame against another doesn't quite do it justice, is like complaining that all Christians are evil. Funny, I didn't wake up evil, I didn't kick any cats, I didn't throw holy water on a demon....But it's kinda hard to ignore 20 million people being killed for their religion....that's Stalin's calling card for the Jews....and that's just him. Chairman Mao, in his efforts to liberate China from Chiang Kai-Shek, killed enough people to force boatloads to flee across the Formosa Strait, and almost led to world war three, with Eisenhower going to bat for Taiwan. Going on down the line, Ho Chi Mann, the leader of the Viet Cong had two simple methods for fighting, kill anyone who resists, and simply outwait armies from a long ways away, and their people will grow tired of fighting. France fell, and the US decided they'd had enough on two fronts....ya, the second front was a lot of liberalism and hippies.
However, you are right on one thing....The USSR didn't practice Communism, because in reality, Communism can't exist in a world with Capitalism. The USSR practiced Extreme Socialism, where you had a few wealthy elite....and a lot of poor people....hmm, sounds like the US. But in Communism, everyone is truly equal, and if you work, you get fed. there is no need for money, but there is also no desire to do better. the USSR did practice War Communism during World War two though, when it had to go on first the defensive, pulling back it's factories and defending cities like Stalingrad and Leningrad....and used lines after lines of unarmed prisoners to run German soldiers out of ammo.

But to be honest, I think what most of these leaders feared, from the churches, was people having an open mind....it's what people truly fear, is a person with hope. With a church, the Kremlin figured this was a place people could meet in secret, and for Stalin, this was not right. Stalin, in fact went out of his way, to indoctrinate children, by having them pray for candy...and having it "magically" fall from above, a miracle. But somehow, bibles, and hope, still got through the iron curtain.

Now, for a last fun point....why is it, that the country that used to be a beacon for freedom and rights, hates the church so much? Are atheists that frightened of Christians, they're afraid we're right? Do they fear we'll spread the truth? Are they worried they'll burst into flames? I don't think so....but it does seem odd to me, that if you have a room of 300 Christians, and one atheist, and if the one atheist is offended, the other 300 have to stop praying....where's the logic in that? if it works that good, does that mean if I go to say, California, everyone there has to become Christian? Don't see it happening.*smiles*

So Boerd said Here we go again with that whole making claims without showing evidence. Your priest of science would be proud.Why should that matter? You make decisions with serious, tangible, consequences on much shakier testimony, or testimony that says it has evidence. This decision has no consequences and stronger proof. Go up to a mathematician and say the Riemann hypothesis is false because no one has proven it. Watch them laugh and ask to see your proof.

We've provided many evidence/logical reasoning in this debate, you've brought up none.

Just because when we showed you the evidence the first time and you chose to ignore it doesn't mean we're owed to re-cite the same evidence 10 times over because you just don't want to hear it.
And your example there is terribly flawed, if something has no proof it means just that. No proof, it doesn't exist. We have no more reason to believe it than invisible pink unicorns. And unless you want to argue that people will be laughed at for "not providing proof that the invisible pink unicorn is false" (and if you do, go to a mental hospital... like now) you have nothing to stand on in ridiculing people for needing proof or evidence to believe something.

So Boerd said
Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values? You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.

It's giving people the right to being taught proven fact and be able to think for themselves.
You 'morals' is basically indoctrination/in-slavement of the human mind to raise them to think like you do without ever getting the chance to think for themselves or question outside it.

And the ability to think for one's self... Well let's just say it's kind of an ability you need in order to get by in life.

Also, I can't say if Hitler was Christian, Pagan, Atheist or anything. But there is definitely more proof pointing towards him being religious than non-religious, now may he have been quoting religions just to gain power? Yes, he could of. But many religious people will lie about a religion to gain influence over others, Hitler being caught claiming to be members of several different religions doesn't mean he's atheist, it means he's a con artist.

And we've already addressed your Communism claim, it's a dictatorship where they simply adopted the name Communism.
But I already know you're not listening to that, you haven't listened the past several times. So until you actually start listening to other points I'm listing this as a battle you lost.

Vortex said I don't think anyone ever said a religious persons morals are less acceptable than a AthiestsI highly doubt "Communism" has killed more than religion. When you compare every religious related death, be it war, persecution, or death for heresy to "Communism" and all related deaths, Religion far exceeds the death toll. Communism made the common man worse? Mate do you have any blinking idea what Communism actually stands for? Look if your talking about Stalin, Mao, Pol pot then fair enough because yes they did kill many people but THEY WERE NOT MARXIST, THE ONLY COMMUNIST THING ABOUT THEM WAS THEIR NAME. It's not really fair to compare all these 20th century killers to ancient religious murderous tyrants, for the modern killers had modern weapons which enabled more death. Think what would have happened if a medieval religious leader got their hands on some tanks?Also I'm fairly sure I mentioned Hitler was not a Atheist but a devout Catholic.

Good point, and combine this with the rapidly increasing human population as well with far more being alive today than in the past.
It would probably be more accurate if we looked at the genocides through a population percentage rather than a flat out number.

William Draconius said it does seem odd to me, that if you have a room of 300 Christians, and one atheist, and if the one atheist is offended, the other 300 have to stop praying....where's the logic in that? if it works that good, does that mean if I go to say, California, everyone there has to become Christian? Don't see it happening.*smiles*

If they're praying in an area that's meant for something else such as education, and said pray is either

a) Forcing/Trying to make everyone else pray
b) Halting everyone else from following with the purpose of being there (Such as say, being taught if prayer is in a classroom)

Then it's a problem, it's Religion halting/stopping everyone else's day and routine for their own sake. But no one is going to go around and say "Do not pray around me", they just don't want people forcing it on others and/or stopping everyone else from what they're doing for it.

Also not praying doesn't mean being an atheist.

So your example of expecting 300 people in California to become Christian doesn't match at all.

We've provided many evidence

No, you haven't.

It's giving people the right to being taught proven fact and be able to think for themselves.
You 'morals' is basically indoctrination/in-slavement of the human mind to raise them to think like you do without ever getting the chance to think for themselves or question outside it.

Are you not going to teach your children? Going to hold off on "Jimmy, don't murder" until they are grown? Famously, morality is opinion. Just simply going to let Little Jimmy run around in the halls doing whatever he wants?

And we've already addressed your Religion claim, it's a dictatorship where they simply adopted the name Religion.
But I already know you're not listening to that, you haven't listened the past several times. So until you actually start listening to other points I'm listing this as a battle you lost.

Fixed.

When a dictator says "I do this for God!" you automatically put him in the religious category even if he contradicts himself in private, but if he says "I do this for Marx!" Nooooo, suddenly he has to do it accurately.

And screw it, I don't need to defend Islam and stuff. Let's you and me tally up all deaths caused by Protestants, of which I am one, and all deaths caused by atheists, see which number is bigger. I don't need to defend all religions, as I believe most are false.

So Boerd said Fixed.When a dictator says "I do this for God!" you automatically put him in the religious category even if he contradicts himself in private, but if he says "I do this for Marx!" Nooooo, suddenly he has to do it accurately. And screw it, I don't need to defend Islam and stuff. Let's you and me tally up all deaths caused by Protestants, of which I am one, and all deaths caused by atheists, see which number is bigger. I don't need to defend all religions, as I believe most are false.

Zero. They didn't kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of state power and control.

Hitler: Fascism, regardless of whether or not he was a catholic.
Stalin: State control, regardless of whether or not you would call it communist.
Mao: State control, regardless of whether or not you would call it communist.

How the fuck would you even kill in the name of atheism? Atheism doesn't have principles, or rules, or guidelines beyond one simple premise: You don't believe in God.

People generally don't get genocidal over that. It's just "I don't think there's a God." It's not like Christianity where it has a book that explicitly tells you to murder people who work on Sunday. We don't have a book. We don't have doctrines.

But then you're apparently incapable of basic mathematics, when you would like to compare the death toll caused by people who had access to modern day mass murder methods with a much greater population density, to ancient people stabbing each other with sharp bits of metal in a much lower population density. (A big part of it being disease and rampant murder back then which kept population levels down.) It's an invalid comparison. Do you really, sincerely believe, that if the Pope had access to nuclear weapons back during the era of the Crusades, that he wouldn't have used them to turn the middle east to glass because the voice in his head told him all the evil people were there? Or that Crusaders--who rampantly murdered and raped innocent people, often out of boredom--wouldn't have gone on rampant killing sprees against defenseless women and children if they had access to machine guns and tanks?

When I stated that over a billion people died due to religion, that's counting every single religion on the planet, and every single murder justified with religion on the planet. From the Salem witch trials to the Crusades to Tokugawa's order to mass execute the Christians in Japan, to the purification movements in Tibet, to the mass exterminations of genocidal rage and hatred between Hindus and Buddhists in India, to the Nanjing Rebellion, to the rape and slaughter of the Native Americans to try and indoctrinate them into protestant and catholic religions... The list goes on, and on, and on....

I'm not exaggerating. Over a billion people have died in the name of one god or another, as a victim or as a perpetrator, whether that's Vikings, Crusaders, Romans, or terrorists from the middle east blowing up skyscrapers with airplanes.

And yet, as I've also said before to your illiterate ass, I don't want religion banned. I've never wanted religion banned. There are millions of good and decent people who believe there is a deity, in one form or another. I just don't want it in my government, because it'll either be scapegoated for heinous crimes or make the people holding the keys to the nuclear weapons think that the voices in their head aren't their own insanity or paranoia, but God telling them to go glass the middle east. We started a fucking war in Afghanistan and Iraq not only for revenge, but because President Bush literally thought he was doing God's Will in starting those wars. Do you know how many American soldiers have died? At this point, for no fucking reason?

All because your president thought he was totally justified in knocking over the primarily secular government of Iraq because God put him in charge and God cannot be wrong.

And this isn't even state and religion going hand in hand. This is just a religious person who is mildly deranged in charge of shit and using it to scapegoat his absurd, murderous actions.

When I stated that over a billion people died due to religion

A number I have seen no evidence for. According to you, that means it's false.

But then you're apparently incapable of basic mathematics, when you would like to compare the death toll caused by people who had access to modern day mass murder methods with a much greater population density,

As if religious people don't exist nowadays? Count the modern era too.

aAll because your president thought he was totally justified in knocking over the primarily secular government of Iraq because God put him in charge and God cannot be wrong.

Nothing to do with the UN security council, including atheists like China, voting unanimously that Iraq was in violation of its disarmament obligations and the ceasefire? Have some evidence. UN security council resolution 1441. You're the most dogmatic person I have ever met. I haven't seen so much as a Reddit link from you in terms of any evidence ever.

At any rate, certainly in the modern era, having a leader whose morality was formed by a non-Islamic religion (No aspersions on Islam, just looking at the numbers and statistics) seems to be the best way to prevent ridiculous loss of life. There have been more religious national leaders, but the atheist leaders are disproportionately represented by factors of thousands in the number of people killed.

So Boerd said A number I have seen no evidence for. According to you, that means it's false.

So Boerd said As if religious people don't exist nowadays? Count the modern era too.

In the modern era, the vast majority of the first world is secular in government, that is, it has little to no religious influence whatsoever...

...And we're now actually pretty damned reasonable peaceful now that our leaders don't think they're talking to God.

So Boerd said Nothing to do with the UN security council, including atheists like China, voting unanimously that Iraq was in violation of its disarmament obligations and the ceasefire? Have some evidence. UN security council resolution 1441. You're the most dogmatic person I have ever met. I haven't seen so much as a Reddit link from you in terms of any evidence ever.

Why the hell would I use Reddit as a credible source unless it used other, more credible sources? It's a bronze level citation at best. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that Bush thought he was in office because God wanted him there. Here, silver level citation, a news source. It's a slanted source that tends to go with centre-left leanings, so, take it with a grain of salt.

Also...

So Boerd said including atheists like China

Your American education is failing you. Hard.

The Chinese government is atheist.

In the modern era, the vast majority of the first world is secular in government, that is, it has little to no religious influence whatsoever...

...And we're now actually pretty damned reasonable peaceful now that our leaders don't think they're talking to God.

They still use their religiously derived morality in decision-making. The only wholesale butchers in these days the order of millions have been atheists.

Still no source on that 1 billion number. Now who is being irrational? Magic, tell him that number is false because it has no evidence.

So Boerd said The Chinese government is atheist.

Communist* not atheist, and even then, they aren't actually communist. They've been letting capitalism in, private enterprise, and so on. They're just a heavily left leaning nation at this point. You could almost compare them to Sweden with less civil liberties.

So Boerd said They still use their religiously derived morality in decision-making.

Actually, morality has been around before most religions, like code of laws. In fact, there are plenty of sources of morality that are not religiously derived. You don't need a religious morality to tell you not to kill someone, for example.

You know that... Right?...

So Boerd said The only wholesale butchers in these days the order of millions have been atheists.

Wrong again. You've been told numerous times and numerous reasons why but as always you just repeat yourself. You aren't here to discuss anything you're just here to stuff your opinion down people's throats in a desperate attempt to reinforce your own silly fantasies of a black and white universe.

So Boerd said Still no source on that 1 billion number. Now who is being irrational? Magic, tell him that number is false because it has no evidence.

Gave you plenty. You're just ignoring all of them because lolfucklogic. Oh well.

So Boerd said
The only wholesale butchers in these days the order of millions have been atheists.

Only atheists eh? Well friend let me take you to a place called Africa, where religious militants and theocratic warlords kill opposing members of another religion without a pause to think. Not enough for you friend? Then let's go to the Middle East where much of the same thing happens but mostly between rivalling Muslim sects.

So in other words, we may be blood thirsty demonic heretics but hey! So are the rest of you!

the order of millions

Reading helps, Vortex.

Oops! Looks like I missed a crucial point in the argument! Sorry about that just following your example... Friend

Gave you plenty. You're just ignoring all of them because lolfucklogic. Oh well.

No, you haven't. QUOTE to me where you posted an authoritative link with numbers.

Actually, morality has been around before most religions, like code of laws. In fact, there are plenty of sources of morality that are not religiously derived. You don't need a religious morality to tell you not to kill someone, for example.

You are right. However, if you were raised Catholic, and are a practicing Catholic in good standing with your church, I can safely say you have a Catholic inspired morality.