Originally posted by Lord Bullingdon:

Originally posted by Triassic Wee Woo Wagonsaurus:

goal post wasent moved, you just didnt like what i said.

when i say less issues and you say im wrong and only come back with just 1 evil dude like...what did you expect i was going say? oh one dude and his ♥♥♥♥ is def more then centuries of problems presented by religion...

No, you 100% moved the goalposts, just like I knew you would, and lamely tried to worm out of being wrong. I can come back with plenty more examples than Pol Pot but you'll always come back with "b-b-but what about the Crusades and witch hunts and stuff duhhhh?" as if any of that has anything to do with what you said about providing evidence and admitting you were wrong. You got your evidence and you wormed out of it and kept talking as if no one would notice.

only one worming and goal posting is you. You started and ended with pol pot, try to devalue religious conflicts because the cool aid was blue.

but fine you dont like those issues?

Thirty years war

French wars of religion

taiping rebellion

Schmalkaldic War

The Reconquista

Hussite Wars

hows bout the sudanese and lebanese civil wars?

Nigerian conflict?

Partition of India

Yugoslov wars

But i get it, you are gonna devalue and stay mad about anything i said because it seems like pol pot is personal for you and those killing fields are a horrible thing but devaluing things presented by the introduction of religion is disigenious and not fair to yourself and others.

Originally posted by 76561198088409502:

yeah and?
like these quotes literally speak for themselves, there is no other way to interpret these quotes

That isn't promoting slavery.
Only a weird heretic sect condoned slavery meanwhile most christian have opposed slavery.

Originally posted by SerialGoalpostMoverBadFaithasaurus:

No u!

Move on, dude. You're out of your depth LOL

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

I am merely pointing out that you are claiming that all atheists are above criticism and that atheism is morally better than any and all other possibilities.

When have I said all atheists are above criticism? When have I said all atheists are good? You are generalizing. I never made such a claim. You are confusing atheism for atheists. The map for the location.

Atheism is as prone to creating evil in people as any other form of belief system.

No its not. Atheism is not a worldview or a belief system.

If you feel that using Mao as an example means that you are under attack as an atheist, that says more about you because the nature of atheism should mean that no two atheists have the same values correct?

Then why use Mao as an example in the first place when you know there's nothing in atheism that requires atheists to share values? Why generalize in the first place when you know that's a gross misrepresentation of atheists?

I mean Mao was an atheist but he has nothing to do with you as an atheist. I understand that. It's so obvious it doesn't even need to be said. Yet you are the one assuming you're all being tarred with the same brush. Well only you know whether you and Mao deserve the same brush or not. But the fact that you even feel that as an accusation, when there is no indication of it in my words, suggests that you might.

Bro, these are your own words:

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

If you want to claim that atheists are both empathic AND wise, that's a high claim to live up to considering that we've already gone over the failures of Mao and his atheism.

Why can't atheists be both empathetic and wise? Because of Mao?

I'm not comparing you to Hitler, so why are you comparing me to a Chinese communist?

Originally posted by Jololo:

Originally posted by 76561198088409502:

yeah and?
like these quotes literally speak for themselves, there is no other way to interpret these quotes

That isn't promoting slavery.
Only a weird heretic sect condoned slavery meanwhile most christian have opposed slavery.

i would love for your justification and excuse for this quote
"
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
"
you know, you can own a slave, even physically abuse it as long as it doesnt die. im sure this totally WONT get used by white slaveowners to justify their mistreatment of african slaves!

am i saying that most christians supported slavery? no (the white christians in the states definitely did). my claim was that
"christianity literally justifies and glorifies slavery. and this is exactly how it was used in order to justify slavery of africans"
which is still undeniably true, as history attests

Neither.

Originally posted by apathy:

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

I am merely pointing out that you are claiming that all atheists are above criticism and that atheism is morally better than any and all other possibilities.

When have I said all atheists are above criticism? When have I said all atheists are good? You are generalizing. I never made such a claim. You are confusing atheism for atheists. The map for the location.

You said this:

Originally posted by apathy:

You're arguing we atheists would happily split the infant in two in this story?

Which shows that in your mind - there are no atheists that would split the baby in two. Which is simply untrue. I can guarantee that it is possible to find an atheist who would happily split the baby in two. In your mind, all atheists are above criticism for an accusation I hadn't even made.

It's not me who is treating atheism as a monolithic belief. You are.

Originally posted by apathy:

Atheism is as prone to creating evil in people as any other form of belief system.

No its not. Atheism is not a worldview or a belief system.

This has already been dealt with. By Chesterton. I posted the quote earlier, here it is again.

G.K. Chesterton
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

Now you don't have to agree with this. But the fact is, it is applicable in many cases. Atheism is like when you have a beautiful garden and you take a JCB and rip it out to a crater. You might get some wildflowers growing back, but most likely you will get nettles. Regardless, it's still an area with plants.

Originally posted by apathy:

If you feel that using Mao as an example means that you are under attack as an atheist, that says more about you because the nature of atheism should mean that no two atheists have the same values correct?

Then why use Mao as an example in the first place when you know there's nothing in atheism when it comes to sharing values? Why generalize in the first place when you know that's a gross misrepresentation of atheists?

I didn't generalise. I pointed out that Mao used atheism as a justification for evil. Which is something you directly said was impossible. You're moving the goalposts to claim I'm generalising. I was answering your direct and incorrect point.

Originally posted by apathy:

I mean Mao was an atheist but he has nothing to do with you as an atheist. I understand that. It's so obvious it doesn't even need to be said. Yet you are the one assuming you're all being tarred with the same brush. Well only you know whether you and Mao deserve the same brush or not. But the fact that you even feel that as an accusation, when there is no indication of it in my words, suggests that you might.

Bro, these are your own words:

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

If you want to claim that atheists are both empathic AND wise, that's a high claim to live up to considering that we've already gone over the failures of Mao and his atheism.

Why can't atheists be both empathetic and wise? Because of Mao?

No. It's because I'm still waiting for you to show any evidence of wisdom. Or indeed empathy come to that.

Zen Buddhism.

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

Which shows that in your mind

I asked you a question. You instead gave me some mental gymnastics. Are you saying atheists would split the infant in two, yes or no?

It's not me who is treating atheism as a monolithic belief. You are.

You're being intellectually dishonest. I've told you several times atheism is not a worldview. Its not a belief system, like a religion is. Its a response, a rejection, towards a single question on whether a god or gods exist. There is no need for you to overcomplicate something so easy to understand.

G.K. Chesterton

Absolutely absurd that you'd quote that Christian apologist. I feel like you're not taking this discussion seriously at all.

A rejection of god is not a leap into credulity, irrational, or "cult-like" ideologies. A rejection of god is a move towards skepticism. Atheists are known to be skeptists.

Rejecting the existence of an unevidenced magical god leads to the rejection of other unevidenced or magical claims, not the acceptance of "anything". Atheists don't usually reject a god so they can believe something more fantastical. I'm not even sure what can be considered a more extraordinary claim than a magical reality-warping creator being.

The rejection of a god is usually done with a desire for a higher standard of evidence for other beliefs. This makes atheists less likely to believe in other myths or cults.

I didn't generalise. I pointed out that Mao used atheism as a justification for evil.

Mao and the CCP were communists and anti-theists and wanted to destroy traditional power structures, eliminate ideological rivals, and consolidate total state control.

Anti-theism (anti-religion) is not the same thing as atheism (no belief in a god). You have conflated the two.

No. It's because I'm still waiting for you to show any evidence of wisdom. Or indeed empathy come to that.

You are being as ridiculous as that Steam user who once claimed atheists don't give to charity (not that all charities were ever good or showed value for money). Atheists are human and are capable of showing empathy and wisdom.

You are demanding evidence that atheists are human, which is an irrational, paradoxical, and meaningless demand.

Originally posted by apathy:

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

Which shows that in your mind

I asked you a question. You instead gave me some mental gymnastics. Are you saying atheists would split the infant in two, yes or no?

I'm saying that you're saying they would not. Because you have a belief about how atheists are. I never made any indication that atheists would do anything. You're attempting to get me to confess to an accusation that you made on my behalf. All of that is your interpretation.

Originally posted by apathy:

It's not me who is treating atheism as a monolithic belief. You are.

You're being intellectually dishonest. I've told you several times atheism is not a worldview. Its not a belief system, like a religion is. Its a response, a rejection, towards a single question on whether a god or gods exist. There is no need for you to overcomplicate something so easy to understand.

In your opinion.

My opinion is different.

You don't have to agree with my opinion. But it is an entirely valid opinion. Which you cannot disprove.

Originally posted by apathy:

G.K. Chesterton

Absolutely absurd that you'd quote that Christian apologist. I feel like you're not taking this discussion seriously at all.

A rejection of god is not a leap into credulity, irrational, or "cult-like" ideologies. A rejection of god is a move towards skepticism. Atheists are known to be skeptists.

Rejecting the existence of an unevidenced magical god leads to the rejection of other unevidenced or magical claims, not the acceptance of "anything". Atheists don't usually reject a god so they can believe something more fantastical. I'm not even sure what can be considered a more extraordinary claim than a magical reality-warping creator being.

The rejection of a god is usually done with a desire for a higher standard of evidence for other beliefs. This makes atheists less likely to believe in other myths or cults.

On the contrary. Every word out of your keyboard appears to be proving Chesterton correct.

Originally posted by apathy:

I didn't generalise. I pointed out that Mao used atheism as a justification for evil.

Mao and the CCP were communists and anti-theists and wanted to destroy traditional power structures, eliminate ideological rivals, and consolidate total state control.

Anti-theism (anti-religion) is not the same thing as atheism (no belief in a god). You have conflated the two.

So you're saying that Mao believed in God?

Because I'm pretty sure that he did not. Therefore he was an atheist. Unless there are ways to not believe in God while not being an atheist that I am previously unaware of?

Originally posted by apathy:

No. It's because I'm still waiting for you to show any evidence of wisdom. Or indeed empathy come to that.

You are being as ridiculous as that Steam user who once claimed atheists don't give to charity (not that all charities were ever good or showed value for money). Atheists are human and are capable of showing empathy and wisdom.

I am not that steam user and I am not being ridiculous. I am making perfectly good points that you are failing to refute, instead choosing to throw accusations.

Originally posted by apathy:

You are demanding evidence that atheists are human, which is an irrational, paradoxical, and meaningless demand.

I haven't demanded anything.

Are you saying that it's impossible for you to prove that you are human?

You seem to be directing a lot of anger and frustration at me for things I haven't said and haven't done, but that are purely a figment of your imagination...

Originally posted by Fajita Jim:

Originally posted by Lobster Moth:

No it doesn't. Your morality might come from empathy but you cannot speak for any other atheist.

And let's ask - empathy for whom?

Let's go back to King David. Two women and a baby were brought before him. Both women claimed top be the mother. After they bickered, David ordered the baby be split in two and half given to each woman. The first woman was happy. The second burst into tears and said 'give her the baby rather than kill it'. The second woman was the true mother. David's very cruel and non empathetic order uncovered the truth of the situation and resolved it. How would the morals of an empathetic person have resolved that situation? Assuming you don't have access to any other information like genetic testing.

If an atheist possess any morality (not all do, but not all religious people do, either) then it by necessity rises from empathy.

Otherwise it's not morality, it's imposition.

Atheist empathy is performative and proven imposition.

Originally posted by volusat:

even scientology is better than islam

As a Christian I think scientology is just dumb. The Christian religion has thousands of years of history, It's practiced world wide and there is proof of Jesus Christ. scientology is just made up nonsense by rice people.