I made a religion (still working on a name)

[Protagonist]

Magic Magnum said 1. Oh yea, Atheism is facing division (Oddly enough, considering atheism simply means without religion. So it should be impossible to divide a non-existent) as a result of Atheism+.Apparently feminism has learned the secret's of dividing 0.

:/2. Though once again, one can be Christian and still a communist. Which granted is suicidal if Stalin or Mao is in charge, could be completely different if a Christian were to made head. The difference between Stalin and Osama is that Stalin did it in the name of Communism/Personal power and authority, political motivation. Osama did it in the same of his religion and anger at America for getting involved in their business. A combination of political and religious motivation. Now, Stalin being an atheist and being responsible for so many deaths does beyond a doubt prove that atheists are capable of great violent crimes (which I was never arguing against btw). But it does not prove that him being an atheist was the reasoning or cause for it, especially considering many atheists were also killed by him.Though everyone being Catholic would not quite solve most problems with religion. Cause people will get personal interpretations of it all the time, which would eventually evolve into a religion of it's own against and then we'd be back where we started.Also I will admit that there are many atheists who claim moral superiority simply on the fact they are atheist, but I am not one of those atheist. I might agree that on average atheists may be more moral simply because their values come from themselves, and not out of a fear in God. But there is nothing that automatically makes one more immoral for being religious, you can be religious and still be one of the most kind, caring and wonderful people in the world. It's like saying "Atheists on average have a higher IQ. Therefore I, an atheists are automatically smarter than you a Christian". An average is strictly that, an average. Not an absolute guarantee/law that holds true 100% of the time.And to answer "Why do people do good things in the name of Religion but not in the name of atheism?". That's because atheism is the lack of a religion, there is nothing to praise, nothing to do anything in the name of. For example, let's take a church and a group of people who all happen to be atheist. But groups see a high amount of homeless people in the area, both groups want to help. The atheist group then goes ahead, makes a charity and works to help feed and shelter the poor. The Church, also being good peoples does the same. But the Church believes in good, part of their religion is spreading Gods word through good deeds, so while they are helping the poor they make sure to advertise their God and Religion. Something the atheists are not doing, because they have no God or Religion to be advertising. It's not a matter of there are no atheist charities because atheists don't volunteer. It's a matter of atheists have no need to spread the word of "I lack a religion" around, so they simply go out and help without bringing religion into it.

1. I like to think of Atheism as a type of belief system. For example, Polytheism, Monotheism, Atheism. It has its own groups that can be divided as Christianity and Islam. I wouldn't say that Atheism itself is a lack of beliefs per say. That would make one an agnostic, not an Atheist. An Atheist has to actively believe in no God. The common counter-argument is that Stamp Collecting isn't a hobby. However, what you do instead of collecting stamps is. If all you do in your free time is lay on the couch, then you still have a hobby that amounts to doing as little as possible. Atheism refers to an umbrella of things that can be called religions that lack a central deity.

2. I'm misusing the term Communist somewhat, I should be using the term "Marxist". Whatever anyone else tells you, it would likely not be heretical to support an economic system where all wealth is controlled by the state, though it might not be intuitive, either. However, being being a Christian Marxist is impossible, for similar reasons that one cannot be a Christian Objectivist. It's an axiom of Marxism that God does not exist,

[So Boerd]

Once against Communism =/= Atheism.
So approximate death per capita between Atheism and Religion is rather one sided.

Hence why I said "Those who lack religion". And those who lack religion, of which Hitler was, have been the prime causes.

Though once again, one can be Christian and still a communist. Which granted is suicidal if Stalin or Mao is in charge, could be completely different if a Christian were to made head. The difference between Stalin and Osama is that Stalin did it in the name of Communism/Personal power and authority, political motivation. Osama did it in the same of his religion and anger at America for getting involved in their business. A combination of political and religious motivation. Now, Stalin being an atheist and being responsible for so many deaths does beyond a doubt prove that atheists are capable of great violent crimes (which I was never arguing against btw). But it does not prove that him being an atheist was the reasoning or cause for it, especially considering many atheists were also killed by him.

So your entire defense of atheism is again based on absurd semantics. Because it is "impossible" to kill in the name of Atheism, Atheism you claim is superior.

Hence, my need to steer the debate somewhere sensible. A society that becomes atheistic or at least governed by Atheists is no less violent, and as proven by Cambodia, China, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and Nazi Germany (Hitler was Deist at best, and so would kill no one "for religion") You would not save a single life if you waved a wand and abolished religion. Leave us alone.

[Equally-Cynical]

Vortex said
Wait, isnt this already mainstream christianity? What did you even change?The nearly everything in the bible contradicts something else in the bible not to mention common sense and modern .Which is why i don't believe in a two thousand year old book written by a bunch of superstitious desert people who had no idea how the world worked

He changed the fact that God isn't active. And this website isn't the place to start religious argument; for that's what your comment came off as.

[Neobullseye]

So Boerd said
As there is nothing innate in the simple belief in God that says kill the unbelievers. I take it this means you agred with me and repudiate Magic's blanket condemnation of religion?

Aaand I'm done here. If you aren't even willing to reply to my actual response and instead choose to cherry-pick your way to victory, then I'm not going to bother anymore. Good bye, and have a nice day.

Magic Magnum said
<snip> [See, So Boerd? This is how you show that you cut out something that didn't matter.]
Dude, you ignored practically everything she said there.You're not going to win many debates by ignoring the majority of a person's point, only to pull out a single sentence and try to twist it to turn people against one another.

Actually, I'm a he, but thanks for the support anyway :P

[So Boerd]

Neobullseye said
@So BoerdCould you please explain to me how what I said is a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy? I didn't say that communist countries cannot also be atheistic. All I said was that communism and atheism aren't interexchangable by virtue of being about two completely different things. By the definition I have given before, how exactly could one not be both religious and communist (in the sense that everyone should be equal and deserve equal property, chances and whatnot, and that one man should not have more might than any given other) at the same time?Also, for future refernce, please either quote the entire post, or add something like <Snip> to state that you have removed something that wasn't important to your point. Right now the part you have copy-pasted makes it look like I said that atheists would never harm anyone, which is obviously not true. Once again, I am well aware that both communist and atheists have done horrible things. All I am saying is that A: You cannot lump the two groups together.and B: Atheism doesn't have any codes/creeds to follow, meaning that any code that is followed by any given atheist must stem from another source. This might be a personal hate towards religion/religious people, it might be indoctrination/peer pressure by a group; really it could be anything, there's just nothing innate in atheism that dictates that non-nonbelievers should be killed or whatever other horrible thing you can think of.

Your "actual response" was needlessly focused on an accusation directed towards Magnum. I used the salient points.

Now answer the question. What is there innate in belief in God that says kill the unbelievers?

[Gwazi Magnum]

ASTA said Boerd doesn't 'win' any debates. His tried-and-true tactic of bringing up irelevant points and his persistent use of backwards logic only helps to reinforce his established title as an excellent arguer. A debater he is not.

I know. :P
I didn't mean to suggest even that he had won debates before. Just that he wasn't going to be starting anytime soon if he keeps up his current tactics.

Protagonist said
1. I like to think of Atheism as a type of belief system. For example, Polytheism, Monotheism, Atheism. It has its own groups that can be divided as Christianity and Islam. I wouldn't say that Atheism itself is a lack of beliefs per say. That would make one an agnostic, not an Atheist. An Atheist has to actively believe in no God. The common counter-argument is that Stamp Collecting isn't a hobby. However, what you do instead of collecting stamps is. If all you do in your free time is lay on the couch, then you still have a hobby that amounts to doing as little as possible. Atheism refers to an umbrella of things that can be called religions that lack a central deity.

1. This is a point that many (if not the majority) of atheists and christians alike tend to get confused.
Agnostic and Atheist are not separate lack of belief systems. They are separate scales on the same table.

Example

There is a similliar 'table' in a game called D&D, the alignment system. Feel free to skip this first paragraph btw if you're already familiar with it. If not this first paragraph while explain it quickly.
In D&D your alignment is dependant on two different scales, one being Good/Evil (Yes, Morality is subjective in IRL. But this example is strictly to highlight the table system) essentially addressing one's moral values. The other scale is Chaotic/Lawful, addressing one's own discipline, respect for rules, laws and authority. So you can get cases such as Batman (Lawful Good) because he fights for the good of Gotham city (Good), but always takes them in to the police, and has hard codes/guidelines in never killing people (Lawful. Debatebly this can be knocked to Neutral since he is essentially a renegade). Then you get someone like the Joker, clearly evil and messed up (evil) and completely unpredictable and wild (Chaotic). But Lawful =/= Good cause you get cases like Hitler who although seen as the most evil man in history had a system, he followed codes, he didn't kill simply to kill. All deaths were for a purpose, twisted purpose mind you, but there was always cause and reason. And Chaotic =/= Evil cause you can get cases like Robin Hood, good cause he always tries to help the poor, but chaotic in that he does it by outright opposing and rebelling the rich and authority.

Now, why did I just go D&D there? Because Agnostic and Atheist work on a similliar scaling system. But instead of being one's morality and obedience the scales are one's beliefs, and how firm one is in those beliefs.
Starting with the belief scale, in this case the two ends in question will be Atheist and Theist. Both I'm assuming are fairly obvious by now, one is a lack of a religion/belief in terms of organized worships, church, specific gods etc (atheists are still able to believe in stuff such as ghosts, dragons, mermaids, UFO probing aliens etc) and the other being a set belief/practice of a god, may it be Christian, Muslim etc.

Then we have the scale of how firm one is. Now in the simplest form one side of Agnostic and the other is Gnostic. But in truth there are more inbetweens and variance in this. But we only need the simple version here to get my point across. Agnostic is where one is casual, relaxed and/or questioning. You can have both Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theist. The Agnostic Atheism will tend to be like "I don't know if there's a god or not. But I don't really believe one currently" and is far more likely to avoid religious debates than take part in them, unless if their objective is purely to learn and try to understand both God and a lack of god better. While an Agnostic Theist is basically your casual religious person, they're the kinds who may pray at night but never bring their religion into day to day life. They might not even see the bible was a legitimate source, but they do have a belief in a God regardless of the fact. But it plays a rather small/insignificant role in their lives.

Then there's Gnostic, this is your extremes (which I would probably fall under on the atheist side). Your Gnostic Atheists are going to be your Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagans, Neil Tysons, Bill Nye's etc. You not only don't believe in God but have some sort of problem or issue with it, and will go out of there way to debate it, prove it wrong and try to get it removed from places such as schools. They not only don't believe in a God, they are very sure, firm and vocal about it. While your Gnostic Theists will be those ISIS, Westboro Baptists, Door to door Jehovah witnesses, Or any parent who threatened their child with Hell and/or going to church. These are the ones who try to preach and force their religion on others. Try to declare a "War on God" is taking place, strongly fight for "In God we trust" to stay on the bill. And in more extreme cases, picket funerals and cut off the heads of little children.

Note: Like I said earlier, the table is in fact more complex than this. So cases such as Jehovah Witnesses and ISIS are in fact separated and not treated at the same level of extremism.

So in regards to when you said:

Protagonist said An Atheist has to actively believe in no God.

That would be the case for a Gnostic Atheist, but not an Agnostic Atheist.

Protagonist said 2. I'm misusing the term Communist somewhat, I should be using the term "Marxist". Whatever anyone else tells you, it would likely not be heretical to support an economic system where all wealth is controlled by the state, though it might not be intuitive, either. However, being being a Christian is impossible, for similar reasons that one cannot be a Christian Objectivist. It's an axiom of Marxism that God does not exist,

2. There are cases of Christians who completely dismiss the Bible mind you. So although Christianity and Marxism may be a contradiction, there are contradictions in religion all the time. It's not going to stop someone to adopt a political view that conflicts with their religion. Though granted these are in most cases the Agnostic Theists I described above, this is far less likely to happen with a Gnostic.

Neobullseye said Actually, I'm a he, but thanks for the support anyway :P

Ah, sorry.
The avatar threw me off. :P

[So Boerd]

Magic. Address my point that those who lack religion have killed more in both absolute and proportional terms than those who do.

[Protagonist]

Magic Magnum said 2. There are cases of Christians who completely dismiss the Bible mind you. So although Christianity and Marxism may be a contradiction, there are contradictions in religion all the time. It's not going to stop someone to adopt a political view that conflicts with their religion. Though granted these are in most cases the Agnostic Theists I described above, this is far less likely to happen with a Gnostic.

1. Fair enough. But then, wouldn't it not be the fault of religion, but rather gnosticism?

As for statement 2. though, I would say that completely dismissing the bible would make you more or less non-Christian. Depending on what you mean by dismissing the bible. While it's not quite the core of Christian beliefs, a Christian can more or less be considered someone who basically accepts the bible as (in some fashion) true. If somebody were to believe that the bible should be completely ignored, then they are not Christians by definition. It's not so much that I think you can't be a Communist Christian, but a Christian wouldn't be a Marxist.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So Boerd said Magic. Address my point that those who lack religion have killed more in both absolute and proportional terms than those who do.

I did, several times. You keep coming back with the same arguments though, so it'd be a waste of breath to keep the cycle going.

Protagonist said
1. Fair enough. But then, wouldn't it not be the fault of religion, but rather gnosticism?As for statement

2. though, I would say that completely dismissing the bible would make you more or less non-Christian. Depending on what you mean by dismissing the bible. While it's not quite the core of Christian beliefs, a Christian can more or less be considered someone who basically accepts the bible as (in some fashion) true. If somebody were to believe that the bible should be completely ignored, then they are not Christians by definition. It's not so much that I think you can't be a Communist Christian, but a Christian wouldn't be a Marxist.

1. Gnosticism is definitely a role in it as far as things such as no science in schools, violence, child molesting etc. is concerned. But it's also an activity that you only see a spike in with Gnostic Theists, not Gnostic Atheists. Gnostic Atheists such as say Richard Dawkins might be seen as very cold and pessimistic people by much of the population mind you (I'm not one of them, but I'm aware that it's a common opinion about him), but are by no means responsible for such barbaric crimes.

But in regards to Agnostic Theism then? Yes, they are pretty much innocent of most of the bigger crimes and accusations of religion. Unless if they start taking stances such as "You can criticize someone's religion", which is what a lot of them have been doing. They use the reasoning that "Most of us aren't murderers, so stop attacking people for their religion and allow religious freedom without criticism" which is a fine idea in theory. But it comes with three main problems:

a) Those Gnostic's are doing it largely because of religion. So by expecting people to stop criticizing the religion they essentially give such extremists a shield/scapegoat. All they need to do is go "We kill these children in the name of God!", and now that they're pulling the religion card they become untouchable as a direct result of the actions done by Agnostic Theists.

b) It makes it so believing something without any evidence is now acceptable. It is essentially no different than someone going "I believe we are all created by a floating teapot owned by a Spaghetti Monster and was born from a virgin invisible pink unicorn" and legally no one would be allowed to step up and say "I find that wrong, and the idea rather silly", which leads me to the third point:

c) It removes freedom of speech/criticism. As soon as you make anything immune to criticism, freedom of speech is lost. Ideas and practices are allowed to spread unchallenged, and the results of such can be disastrous. And I will note, science and atheism is not immune to criticism. It is allowed to critique, questioning, doubt etc. In fact in regards to science students are encouraged to question and doubt things, and to go out and seek more answers and evidence.

2. Personally I do agree, you shouldn't be calling yourself a Christian if you are willing to dismiss the bible. It's contradictory to the religion entirely. However, there are many cases like this (My Mom as an example). They call themselves Christian they hold a belief in Jesus and the Christian God, but will discount the entirety of the Bible for being written by desert people over 2000 years ago. And as long as the only real requirement of being under _______ religion is claiming to be part of it, there are going to be many cases like this.

[So Boerd]

I did, several times. You keep coming back with the same arguments though, so it'd be a waste of breath to keep the cycle going.

You have not and I have not. Your contrived semantic explanation was not sufficient and the moment I changed to "non-religious governments and societies are on the whole more violent" rather than "Killing in the name of atheism" which your sophistical efforts could defend against, you decided to give up. Now answer the question.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
You have not and I have not. Your contrived semantic explanation was not sufficient and the moment I changed to "non-religious governments and societies are on the whole more violent" rather than "Killing in the name of atheism" which your sophistical efforts could defend against, you decided to give up. Now answer the question.

This post represents why debating with you is pointless.

[So Boerd]

ASTA said
This post represents why debating with you is pointless.

Care to be a little less vague?

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
Care to be a little less vague?

You cling desperately to a single point that you perceive as legitimate in an effort to trump the person you're debating. Your Communism Is Violent argument is an excellent example of what I'm talking about; you also use this argument as a way to nullify the negative past-doings of religion (Hindu Persecution by Muslims/Crusades/ect), which I suspect is a knee-jerk reaction initiated by your own strong affiliation with Mormonism and (to a lesser extent) Conservatism. If that Nuke Russia; the United States Cannot Fall thread you made about a month ago is anything to go by, I'd say you're ragging on Communism because it conflicts with your chosen political tribe's pro-capitalist leanings.

As for people in this thread flagging religion as a universal force of evil---I refute that, but I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room either.

[So Boerd]

Because it proves my point. The fault lies not in my repeating the argument but on those who fail to answer.

If my argument is specious as you claim, then simply indict it as such with some helpful evidence. Come up with over 140,000,000 deaths since 1700 caused by the religious. In fact, you may begin with 140,000,000 deaths period and proceed from there.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
Come up with over 140,000,000 deaths since 1700 caused by the religious. In fact, you may begin with 140,000,000 deaths period and proceed from there.

Why exactly 140,000,000?

[So Boerd]

A rough head estimation from WW2 (80 megadeaths) by Deist/Atheist Hitler, Mao's Great Leap Forward (25 million), Chinese Civil war (30 million) and the Holodomor (5 million). Estimates vary wildly of course, but I think you'll find that the post 1700 world (when the enlightenment made Atheism more acceptable) those without religion have been responsible for far more death than those with in absolute terms. Far worse in proportional terms.

[Protagonist]

Magic Magnum said
1. Gnosticism is definitely a role in it as far as things such as no science in schools, violence, child molesting etc. is concerned. But it's also an activity that you only see a spike in with Gnostic Theists, not Gnostic Atheists. Gnostic Atheists such as say Richard Dawkins might be seen as very cold and pessimistic people by much of the population mind you (I'm not one of them, but I'm aware that it's a common opinion about them), but are by no means responsible for such barbaric crimes.But in regards to Agnostic Theism then? Yes, they are pretty much innocent of most of the bigger crimes and accusations of religion. Unless if they start taking stances such as "You can criticize someone's religion", which is what a lot of them have been doing. They use the reasoning that "Most of us aren't murderers, so stop attacking people for their religion and allow religious freedom with criticism" which is a fine idea in theory. But it comes with three main problems:
a) Those Gnostic's are doing it largely because of religion. So by expecting people to stop criticizing the religion they essentially give such extremists a shield/scapegoat. All they need to do is go "We kill these child in the name of God!", and now that they're pulling the religion card they become untouchable and a direct result of the actions done by Agnostic Theists.
b) It makes it so believing something without any evidence is now acceptable. It is essentially no different than someone going "I believe we are all created by a floating teapot owned by a Spaghetti Monster and was born from a virgin invisible pink unicorn" and legally no one would be allowed to step up and say "I find that wrong, and the idea rather silly", which leads me to the third point:
c) It removes freedom of speech/criticism. As soon as you make anything immune to criticism, freedom of speech is lost. Ideas and practices are allowed to spread unchallenged, and the results of such can be disastrous. And I will note, science and atheism is not immune to criticism. It is allowed to critique, questioning, doubt etc. In fact in regards to science students are encouraged to question and doubt things, and to go out and seek more answers and evidence.

Richard Dawkins is a bit of a milder example of what I'm talking about when I say that Atheists (of a certain stripe, namely those that believe religion is harmful outside of just being incorrect) tend to fall into the same traps as Religious "Fundamentalists" (technically not a correct usage of the term. But religious extremists of varying levels of aggressiveness). He's not the Atheist Westburo (He has yet to picket a funeral, for example), though he comes pretty close to what they would sound like in theory.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Protagonist said
Richard Dawkins is a bit of a milder example of what I'm talking about when I say that Atheists (of a certain stripe, namely those that believe religion is harmful outside of just being incorrect) tend to fall into the same traps as Religious "Fundamentalists" (technically not a correct usage of the term. But religious extremists of varying levels of aggressiveness). He's not the Atheist Westburo (He has yet to picket a funeral, for example), though he comes pretty close to what they would sound like in theory.

What exactly would you consider as an example of an extreme atheist/atheist westboro then?

[So Boerd]

Magic Magnum said
What exactly would you consider as an example of an extreme atheist/atheist westboro then?

I wait with bated breath.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
Deist/Atheist Hitler

Still currently under debate by historians; Hitler's religious views were obscured and not completely known. One side mentions that the man never left the church completely (his mother was a stern Catholic and Hitler himself was baptized at an early age), while others state that Hitler was a full-blown atheist through-and-through. His habit of remaining politically-correct in the face of his Christian German supporters only makes Hitler's Nazi Germany a poor backing for your argument because of this (had the man followed in Warlord Atheist Stalin's footsteps and actually had a raging hate-boner for religion, he would have murdered every Jew, Christian and anything not denouncing the Almighty ASAP and with horrifying efficiency).

And, I don't think the Holocaust was strictly over religion, but was rather a violent socioeconomic-driven backlash against the Jewish people at the hands of the German masses. Needed someone to blame for the disaster that was WWI after all. Made Hitler look good too in the eyes of disgruntled Germans.

Let's bump your figure down to approximately 50 million then.