Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:25 am

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:39 am

Pol Pot- Inside Evil
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/QxJZS05Md0Y

Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Pol Pot was a Marxist; Pol Pot was an anti-religion atheist. Pol Pot murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Pol Pot murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Pol Pot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion None (atheist)

The Khmer Rouge systematically destroyed food sources that could not be easily subjected to centralized storage and control, cut down fruit trees, forbade fishing, outlawed the planting or harvest of mountain leap rice, abolished medicine and hospitals, forced people to march long distances without access to water, exported food, embarked on foolish economic projects, and refused offers of humanitarian aid, which caused a humanitarian catastrophe: hundreds of thousands died of starvation and brutal government-inflicted overwork in the countryside.

Torture was widespread, thousands of politicians and bureaucrats accused of association with previous governments were executed. Phnom Penh was turned into a ghost city, while people in the countryside were dying of starvation, illnesses, or simply killed.

U.S. officials publicly predicted shortly after the fall of Phnom Penh that more than one million people would be killed by the Khmer Rouge;^[29] President Gerald Ford had warned of "an unbelievable horror story."^[30] Modern research has located 20,000 mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era all over Cambodia. Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.7 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease.^[5] Demographic analysis by Patrick Heuveline suggests that between 1.17 and 3.42 million Cambodians were killed.^[9] Demographer Marek Sliwinski concluded that at least 1.8 million were killed from 1975–9 on the basis of the total population decline, compared to roughly 40,000 killed by the U.S. bombing.^[31] Researcher Craig Etcheson of the Documentation Center of Cambodia suggests that the death toll was between 2 and 2.5 million, with a "most likely" figure of 2.2 million. After five years of researching some 20,000 grave sites, he concludes that, "these mass graves contain the remains of 1,386,734 victims of execution."^[5][32] A U.N. investigation reported 2–3 million dead, while UNICEF estimated 3 million had been killed.^[33] Even the Khmer Rouge acknowledged that 2 million had been killed—though they attributed those deaths to a subsequent Vietnamese invasion.^[34] By late 1979, U.N. and Red Cross officials were warning that another 2.25 million Cambodians faced death by starvation due to "the near destruction of Cambodian society under the regime of ousted Prime Minister Pol Pot,"^[35] who were saved by international aid after the Vietnamese invasion.^[36]

When Cambodian communists rebelled in the eastern zone in May 1978 Pol Pot’s armies could not crush them quickly. On May 10 his radio broadcast a call not only to ‘exterminate the 50 million Vietnamese’ but also to ‘purify the masses of the people’ of Cambodia. Of 1.5 million easterners, branded as ‘Khmer bodies with Vietnamese minds’, at least 100,000 were exterminated in six months.

(Anyone desirous of authenticating sources may do by clicking the citations in the Wikipedia article.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by Shirina Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:41 am

Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Stalin was a Marxist; Stalin was an anti-religion atheist. Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.

This is utter crap, Rock. You know damn well that I have all my ducks in a row when it comes to this time period in history. Stalin did NOT murder in the name of atheism. Stalin was clinically diagnosed as a paranoid, and ironically, the doctor who made that diagnosis was later found dead under mysterious circumstances. Just like Stalin's bestest buddy Sergey Kirov who was also mysteriously murdered when he became a bit too popular. Even Georgy Zhukov was shunted off to "no man's land" when he rode through Red Square on a white horse after the end of the war; it was horse Stalin thought he should be riding. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union even warned the communist party to NOT let Stalin succeed him.

Stalin's over-arching philosophy was actually Biblical - that a man cannot serve two masters. Therefore, religion and the church had to go because there was the risk that Russians would obey their religion over obeying Stalin. He wanted to be their only one and true master. While I don't approve of Stalin's methods, he did have a point. When religious law supercedes secular law - well hell, Rock, just watch the videos to see what happens then. At any rate, this Stalin horse manure is a tired, old argument trotted out every time an atheist accuses religion of its usual asshattery - and it simply doesn't equate. Hammering a round peg into a square hole does not make the peg square or the hole round. Historically, this is a classic case of getting the facts correct and then COMPLETELY misinterpreting and misrepresenting those facts to serve a specific purpose. The truth is that there has NEVER been a terrorist attack in the name of atheism. There has NEVER been a war waged in the name of atheism. No witch has been burned, no child stoned to death, no woman subjugated, no people oppressed in the name of atheism. Ever.

One other thing, a misconception that Americans fall prey to over and over and over. Americans seem completely unable to distinguish between socialism, communism, Marxism, and STALINISM. Communism failed in the Soviet Union not because communism itself is some evil, Satan-inspired philosphy. It failed because a psychopath was at the helm for 20+ years. Badly run communism/socialism is simply badly run, and a capitalistic democracy can be just as evil, just has nasty as Stalin ever was. Remember that Hitler was elected democratically. All it takes for democracy to become evil is to allow two wolves and a sheep to vote on what to have for dinner.

But here's the part that really boggles my mind. You have repeatedly made the claim that you are not religious, so I can't fathom for the life of me why you would lift your voice to defend religion. If anything, you ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder with me in opposition to religion going mad. Why aren't you? Or do you feel that somehow predator priests, acts of terror, the subjugation of women, and assaults on freedom in the name of religion all over the world are all justified because of Stalin?

Think hard before you answer.

by Shirina Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:09 pm

Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Pol Pot was a Marxist; Pol Pot was an anti-religion atheist. Pol Pot murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Pol Pot murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.

Bzzzzt! Oh I'm so sorry, but that isn't the correct answer. Unfortunately, fallacious answers are automatically incorrect, but we do have some nice consolation prizes. Tell him what he's won, Bob!

Certainly! Rock, you have won the definition of the fallacy you just used! In this case, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent which assumes that if A, then B. If B, then A.

Nope. You don't get to imply that Marxism = atheism = Marxism.

Marxists might be atheists, but atheists aren't necessarily Marxists. Marxism is NOT a component of atheism and never has been. Just like evolution is not a component of atheism, nor is the Big Bang, or any other philosophical, political, or economic ideology. Atheism is simply a disbelief in God. NOTHING more than that. Attaching anything to atheism in excess of that basic definition is disingenuous. There is NOTHING in the tenets of atheism that says people should be killed, persecuted, subjugated, discriminated against, stoned, lashed, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, burned at the stake, tried for witchcraft, or otherwise harmed for ANY reason whatsoever. NONE, Rock. In fact, atheism doesn't even HAVE tenets. I can't stress that enough (hence my use of all-caps). I simply CANNOT stress that enough, not if I repeated it in 5,000 posts spammed all across this forum. Atheism does not HAVE tenets. It does not have its own morality, its own holy book, its own instructions on who to kill.

Can religion say the same? Oh no, it certainly can not. Yeah, I can't stress THAT enough, either. Religion of all stripes is replete with instructions on who to kill, persecute, subjugate, discriminate against, stone, lash, imprison, torture, exile, burn at the stake, try for witchcraft, or otherwise harm both physically and emotionally. Those holy books are FILLED with it.

So, see the difference?

Atheism does not have tenets and instructions on how to live. Therefore Marxists killed in the name of MARXISM, not atheism - because atheism doesn't require, demand, or even suggest that atheists spread a lack of belief or to persecute the religious.

Religion, on the other hand, gives its believers very SPECIFIC instructions right out of the mouth of God on who to kill, persecute, subjugate ... etc. etc. You get the idea.

And if I seem just a wee bit annoyed? Well, it's because I am. I simply have no more desire to waste painful keystrokes trying to refute the CONSTANT misrepresentation of what atheism actually is.

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:50 pm

Shirina wrote:
Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Stalin was a Marxist; Stalin was an anti-religion atheist. Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Joseph Stalin murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.
This is utter crap, Rock.

This is irrefutable fact.

Shirina wrote:
Stalin did NOT murder in the name of atheism.

Stalin murdered in the name of Marxism, a core component of which is anti-religious atheism; accordingly, as Stalin murdered in the name of Marxism, Stalin murdered in the name of anti-religious atheism.

Shirina wrote:
… religion and the church had to go because there was the risk that Russians would obey their religion over obeying Stalin.

A very real risk, as obeying Stalin required adhering to anti-religious atheist Marxism in a nation in which being associated with religion put one’s life at extreme risk.

Shirina wrote:
He wanted to be their only one and true master.

No room for YHVH Elohim there; no room for Y’shua bar Yosed there; no room for folks who talk about “Schema Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod” at weekly Shabbat services there. Stalin was an anti-religious atheist Marxist that excelled at exterminating human souls in the name of Marxism and one of its core components, ant-religious atheism.

Shirina wrote:
While I don't approve of Stalin's methods, he did have a point.

Joseph Stalin had a point? If that’s true, then Pol Pot had a point, Adolf Hitler had a point, Papa Doc had a point, Baby Doc had a point, Idi Amin Dada had a point, Robert Mugabe has a point, and a whole shipload of mass murderers who mass murdered/mass murder under color of usurped authority had/have a point.

I disagree (said Booker T); neither Joseph Stalin nor any of his fellow mass murderers has ever had a point.

Shirina wrote:
When religious law supercedes secular law…

Secular law: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Joseph Stalin. Something sure as hell ought to have superseded secular law in that mass murder morass.

Secular law: Cambodia under Pol Pot. Something sure as hell also ought to have superseded secular law in that mass murder morass.

Shirina wrote:
… well hell, Rock, just watch the videos to see what happens then.

In the videos you’ve provided, I’ve seen theocratic law supersede government under God, wherein “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

In the video I’ve provided (reposted immediately following), I’ve seen anti-religious atheist Marxism supersede government under God, wherein “all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Pol Pot- Inside Evil
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/QxJZS05Md0Y

Shirina wrote:
At any rate, this Stalin horse manure is a tired, old argument trotted out every time an atheist accuses religion of its usual asshattery…

I have presented (not “trotted out”) irrefutable facts concerning Joseph Stalin’s mass murders (not “Stalin horse manure”), mass murders ordered by Stalin in the name of Marxism and one of its core components, anti-religious atheism.

Shirina wrote:
Historically, this is a classic case of getting the facts correct and then COMPLETELY misinterpreting and misrepresenting those facts to serve a specific purpose.

Historically, this is an example of correctly presenting historical facts to serve the specific purpose of correctly presenting facts. Unless one refutes the veracity of the Wikipedia article, this is fact.

Shirina wrote:
There has NEVER been a war waged in the name of atheism.

Joseph Stalin waged war on the people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the name of Marxism and one of its core components, anti-religious atheism; accordingly, Joseph Stalin waged war on the people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the name of anti-religious atheism.

Pol Pot waged war on the people of Cambodia in the name of Marxism and one of its core components, anti-religious atheism; accordingly, Pol Pot waged war on the people of Cambodia in the name of anti-religious atheism.

Shirina wrote:
But here's the part that really boggles my mind. You have repeatedly made the claim that you are not religious, so I can't fathom for the life of me why you would lift your voice to defend religion.

I have yet to “lift [my] voice to defend religion” on this forum.

Shirina wrote:
If anything, you ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder with me in opposition to religion going mad.

I am in opposition to anything “going mad.” That includes obscene adulterated, bastardizations of Islam, obscene adulterated, bastardizations of Christianity, obscene adulterated, bastardizations of Judaism, and mass murders committed by anti-religious atheists Marxists Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot.

Shirina wrote:
… do you feel that somehow predator priests, acts of terror, the subjugation of women, and assaults on freedom in the name of religion all over the world are all justified because of Stalin?

No.

Shirina wrote:
Marxism requires anti-religious atheism of its adherents. Pol Pot was a Marxist; Pol Pot was an anti-religion atheist. Pol Pot murdered millions in the name of Marxism; accordingly, Pol Pot murdered millions in the name of anti-religious atheism.
Certainly! Rock, you have won the definition of the fallacy you just used! In this case, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent which assumes that if A, then B. If B, then A.

I have entered no contest; thus, I have won nothing.

Shirina wrote:
Marxists might be atheists…

Marxists must be anti-religious atheists.

Shirina wrote:
… but atheists aren't necessarily Marxists.

Red herring. I have yet to say that atheists are necessarily Marxists on this forum.

Shirina wrote:
Marxism is NOT a component of atheism and never has been.

Red herring. I have yet to say that Marxism is a component of atheism on this forum.

Shirina wrote:
In fact, atheism doesn't even HAVE tenets.

Atheism does in fact have one inviolate tenet: “There is/are no God/god/gods.”

Shirina wrote:
Atheism does not HAVE tenets.

Once again, atheism has one inviolate tenet: “There is/are no God/god/gods.”

Shirina wrote:
So, see the difference?

Yes. I know YHVH Elohim; atheists adhere to the inviolate tenet, “There is no YHVH Elohim.”

Shirina wrote:
Atheism does not have tenets…

Yet again, atheism has one inviolate tenet: “There is/are no God/god/gods.”

Shirina wrote:
Therefore Marxists killed in the name of MARXISM…

Marxism requires anti-religious atheism.

by egginbonce Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:51 pm

Yes. I know YHVH Elohim; atheists adhere to the inviolate tenet, “There is no YHVH Elohim.”

I know Ive been there before, but what is this stuff?.............is that a foreign language for 'God'?.if so, why not use words that I understand?
I can talk to you in Welsh, if you like, but I dont expect youll understand..................... tongue

by Guest Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:18 pm

by boatlady Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:31 pm

Shirina
I looked at the video clips - completely depressed and confirmed in all my negative views about organised religion.
Thanks for taking the trouble to post them

by egginbonce Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:26 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
egginbonce wrote:
Yes. I know YHVH Elohim; atheists adhere to the inviolate tenet, “There is no YHVH Elohim.”
I know Ive been there before, but what is this stuff?...

Once again:

RockOnBrother wrote:
Hebrew YHVH Elohim, English LORD¹ God²; Hebrew YHVH, English I AM WHO/THAT I AM¹;

YHVH, eternal, self-existent, indeclinable cause; eternal, self-existent, indeclinable who (gender nonspecific) that causes.

Elohim, power, plural of Eloah, power; thus, immeasurable, incomprehensible power.

Thats fine,Rock..............now its in English, I understand and see the point;I didnt see why it was in another lingo that neither of us speak;anyway,,,,,namaste, and jai satchit anand;also.....................llongyfarchiadau!

by snowyflake Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Stalin was an anti-religious atheist Marxist that excelled at exterminating human souls in the name of Marxism and one of its core components, ant-religious atheism.

Marxism may be anti-religious but religion is not the reason Stalin was murdering his own people. And I think you know this Rock. Repeating something over and over again in a mantra like chant does not make it more true.

Atheism does in fact have one inviolate tenet: “There is/are no God/god/gods.”

Atheism doesn't have a tenet. It has a definition only. Nowhere are any tenets written in the name of atheism. No stone tablets, no written declaration. No tenet. An atheist by definition does not believe in god/gods/God.

by snowyflake Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:32 pm

Joseph Stalin was also an atheist; as such, his life’s work belies the implied claim that atrocities are not committed by atheists.

That wasn't what was claimed. Atheists do not murder in the name of atheism. Of course atheists can commit atrocities but they don't commit them in the name of atheism. Only believers in God kill in the name of God. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler all murdered for political gain and political reasons. None of them killed in the name of atheism. To say so is a misrepresentation Rock.

With or without religion you would have good men doing good deeds and evil men doing evil deeds. But for a good man to do an evil deed, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:33 pm

egginbonce wrote:....

This logic is fun to play with, but does have its holes..................eg:
Proof of staticity(is that aproper word?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis

by Jsmythe Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:31 am

With or without religion you would have good men doing good deeds and evil men doing evil deeds. But for a good man to do an evil deed, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg

Yes quite true Snowy,I would also add- A good man can also do evil deeds by misguided duty or honour. Speaking of such mentioned for example;followers of Stalin and Polpot or even known by family loyalties and like the movies - certain military sectors to enemy agents or spies.

Evil you could point out at, is the architects of these manipulative persuasive ideas,at its very beginings.

by Jsmythe Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:33 am

Thankyou Boat lady (in reply to your greeting.)

How are you doing? Well I hope!

Best wishes to you (et al)
Smile

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:15 am

Marxism is anti-religious, no “may be” to it. That’s well known to anyone who has read The Communist Manifesto. Stalin was a Marxist, an anti-religious atheist, and a madman that mass murdered his own people for whatever reasons he chose, including murdering those that were associated with religions.

Since Stalin committed these mass murders in the name of Marxism, he also murdered in the name of anti-religious atheism, a core component of Marxism. I’ve restated this fact only as many times (or less) as this fact has been refuted hereon.

Atheism’s tenet: “An atheist does not believe in god/gods/God.” This tenet renders atheists believers, as this carries exactly the same meaning as “An atheist believes not in god/gods/God.”

The vast preponderance of atheists do not murder in the name of atheism, but some do. Stalin, Pol Pot? Some do.

Joseph Stalin was also an atheist; as such, his life’s work belies the implied claim that atrocities are not committed by atheists.

It has been stated that Christians, Muslims, and other religious folks commit atrocities in the name of religion, and atheists don’t do that.

YHVH Elohim said “hear Y’shua”, and Y’shua said “love your enemies”, “treat others as you want others to treat you”, and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Those who believe and know YHVH Elohim follow Y’shua’s teachings; thus, they do not and cannot murder in the name of HVH Elohim. However, if by “name of God” you do not mean “name of YHVH Elohim”, in that case I don’t know what you do mean by that phrase, and I’ve insufficient information about who you do mean to intelligently comment.

snowyflake wrote:
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler all murdered for political gain and political reasons.

With or without religion you would have good men doing good deeds and evil men doing evil deeds. But for a good man to do an evil deed, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg

Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin Dada and all the rest all used whatever excuses they chose to use for selfish purposes.My goal here is cutting through this “believers vs. atheists” false dichotomy and focusing on the real dichotomy. The only portion of that paragraph that is off target: Good men do not do evil deeds.

by Shirina Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:25 am

In the videos you’ve provided, I’ve seen theocratic law supersede government under God

In the video I’ve provided (reposted immediately following), I’ve seen anti-religious atheist Marxism supersede government under God

The "under God" part is irrelevant because, once more, there is no evidence or proof that "God" had anything to do with government. I never saw God running for office or signing documents or making speeches. In America, there is NO mention of ANY God(s) or ANY religion(s) or ANY holy books in our Constitution. The best one can dig out is the signatory section where it is signed "In the Year of Our Lord," but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of a quasi-theocratic government. Nor, I might add, does the Bible (you know, where Genesis 1:1 comes from?) address anything within the US Constitution. In fact, in one major way, the Constitution contradicts the Bible by granting us freedom OF and FROM religion - something the Bible obviously doesn't do.

While I know you REALLY want all "good" governments to be under God and all "bad" governments to be, well ... not under God (thus trying to stack the deck with statistical manipulation), that simply isn't true. Our American government was just as much "under God" during slavery, Jim Crow, the conquest and assimilation of the Native-Americans, and during the women's suffrage movement as it is now. And just where WAS God as your own people were bought and sold like cattle, Rock? What's the point of having a government "under God" if that God does not enforce and protect the rights you claim he gave us? It only took, what, 500 years for the chains to finally fall free?

At any rate, once we dispense with begging the question and evoking the No True Scotsman fallacy, we are simply left with a) theocratic law superseding government and b) anti-religious Marxism superseding government. Except that really doesn't make sense because the government makes the laws. So, filtering away more of the non-sequiturs, we now have a) theocratic government and b) Marxist government. Now it starts to get a bit confusing. The first (theocratic government) is the most important to look at because, throughout the history of humanity, NO theocratic government has been all that kind to its people nor has ANY theocratic government granted very many freedoms. I've already explained why - it's because the holy books of the two major world religions explicitly instruct its followers as to who to hate, who to kill, who to blame, and who to oppress and subjugate.

The second, an anti-religion Marxist government misrepresents atheism. It is the Marxism, not the atheism, that has caused the persecution of believers in Marxist and communist states. Yeah, I'm saying it again because it is rather important. UNLIKE religion, which has specific instructions on who to attack, atheism does NOT advocate genocide, slaughter, persecution, exile, torture, enslavement, or the oppression of ANYONE. Therefore, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with the atrocities of Pol Pot, Stalin, or any other atheist leader or atheistic government policy. But instead of going further, at this point, I'm going to bring in some of your other quotes which need to be refuted - and, in so doing, will further this line of thinking.

Atheism does in fact have one inviolate tenet: “There is/are no God/god/gods.”

This is probably the most egregious error you've made in this whole discussion. In fact, it is SO egregious that it borders on argumentum ad absurdum. As Snowy pointed out, what you just gave was the definition of atheism, not a tenet of atheism. To say that a tenet of atheism is to not believe in God/god/gods is like saying a tenet of a cookie is being a small, sweet cake that is usually round, flat, and crisp. This is a VERY important distinction, especially when placed within the context of "anti-religious Marxism."

First of all, atheism is not necessarily "anti-religion." Yes, there are militant atheists out there who ARE anti-religion, but atheism does not instruct us to be that way. There are no rules except that you can't be an atheist and believe in God/god/gods any more than a television can be a cookie. If you believe in God, then you can't be an atheist because that would be fouling up the definition of what an atheist is - and we ALL know how much you like definitions, Rock.

Now, secondly, BECAUSE atheism is simply defined as not believing in God/gods/god, the default position or defintion of that stance is "atheism." You'd be surprised, Rock, how many atheists are out there who do not even realize they are atheists. Therefore, if Marxism endorses a lack of religion and/or a belief in God, all you're really doing is defining the default position that is opposite to religiosity and god worship. It's a binary formula - either you believe in God/god/gods or you don't. Atheism is not at all complicated - it does not have 20,000 denominations, sects, cults, factions, covens, or cabals. It is simply the state of non-belief. Atheism doesn't tell you how to live, what is moral, who your enemies are, or to spread atheism. It does not tell you how to run a government, who to vote for, what the state's economic policies should be, or what kind of laws and punishments that should be enforced upon non-atheists. Oh, and here's the most important part - atheism does not tell anyone to be a Marxist, a communist, or a socialist, and it CERTAINLY does not tell anyone to go out and stamp out religious belief.

Therefore, atheism CANNOT be blamed for any atrocities committed under an atheist government. Doing so is committing a colossal causality error. The reason is that the atrocities are caused by the politics, the policies, and the leaders of those states. Marxism caused the atrocities, not atheism because atheism doesn't tell atheists to commit atrocities.

This is why putting up Stalin or Pol Pot as a counterpoint to runaway religion is really a monumental epic fail. Religion CANNOT make the same claim as atheism. Religion is stone-faced guilty as charged when atrocities are committed under religion. The reason is because, for every atrocity, for every execution, for every lash of the whip, for every right denied, for every shackle locked, there is a verse in a holy book that tells believers to do all of those things. YOU, personally, may ignore them, cherry pick around them, and rationalize your way out of adhering to them, but the verses are still THERE. Religious atrocities are RELIGIOUS atrocities for a reason. There is no such thing as an atheist atrocity because atheists aren't instructed by either books, gods, or priests to do a damn thing.

And here's the point you miss entirely. Even if an atheist believed that religion should be eradicated. Even if an atheist rose to power and massacred 3 billion believers, guess what - that atrocity is on HIM, not atheism. Because an atheist can't point to a holy book or recite the words of a priest or even claim to have been commanded by god to commit that crime. Atheism CANNOT be used as a justification for atrocity because atheism doesn't command anyone to commit one. To suggest otherwise, well ... one may as well say that Charles Manson killed Sharon Tate because he believed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is the best food on earth. Why not? The PB&J sandwich didn't order Manson to commit murder, either, but he still believed those sandwiches reign supreme. Maybe it was his PB&J beliefs caused him to commit those murders.

Stalin was a Marxist, an anti-religious atheist, and a madman that mass murdered his own people

Yep, he may have been an atheist - but he was also a madman, and it was his madness that caused him to murder his own people. He murdered ANYONE (including his own best friend) if he thought someone saw a power greater than himself. It wasn't just confined to believers. His almost indiscriminate killing reveals his madness, not his atheism, and it nearly cost him the Great Patriotic War.

Since Stalin committed these mass murders in the name of Marxism, he also murdered in the name of anti-religious atheism

No! There is no such thing as "in the name of atheism" because of what I've already said. He murdered in the name of Marxism because Marxism demanded that Marxists be atheists. Atheism doesn't demand that anyone be an atheist. If you took the Marxism out of it, there would be no justification to persecute believers. None. This is how the "confirming the consequent" fallacy comes into play.

The claim has been implied in that it has been stated that Christians, Muslims, and other religious folks commit atrocities in the name of religion, and atheists don’t do that.

They don't, and unless you can show me an Atheism Bible that tells atheists to commit atrocities, I stand firm in that position.

Joseph Stalin had a point? If that’s true, then Pol Pot had a point, Adolf Hitler had a point, Papa Doc had a point

There is an informal fallacy called the "Hitler ad Nazium" fallacy that you're falling prey to here. There is this belief, especially among non-historians, that a person like Hitler is pure evil. Every action he took, every thought in his head, every concept he realized, every thing he touched was evil. This fallacy can be applied to any infamous person. In Hitler's case, it would mean not smoking or drinking, loving animals, and giving the people free health care should also be seen as evil. Hence the fallacy.

Yes, Stalin had a point in believing that a person cannot readily serve two masters. That's even in the Bible - No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24). Unfortunately, Stalin took this idea to its utter extremes, but that does not invalidate the point. Now, take Stalin out of the picture and, instead, substitute in the US Constitution. There are a lot of loud and well-funded Christians in this country that would happily take Biblical law over Constitutional law as people like Ben Stein and other Dominionists have said. All of this oppressive anti-gay legislation is a case in point. Constitutional law is not divine law. It is not "under God." It is not Biblical law. So when one conflicts with the other, a dangerous number of people would pick Biblical law.

And now that we are back to discussing "governments under God," we've come full circle and, therefore, I will leave it at that.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:18 am

May I make a suggestion that would probably increase others enjoyment of the forum, Rock. When copying and pasting from Wikipedia, I think it is acceptable to just post the link to the page as your source rather than posting the entire Wikipedia Terms of Use on the forum. It takes away from what you are saying and I've been skipping over it and it takes up too much space. Thanks.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:26 am

YHVH Elohim said “hear Y’shua”, and Y’shua said “love your enemies”, “treat others as you want others to treat you”, and “love your neighbor as yourself.” Those who believe and know YHVH Elohim follow Y’shua’s teachings; thus, they do not and cannot murder in the name of HVH Elohim. However, if by “name of God” you do not mean “name of YHVH Elohim”, in that case I don’t know what you do mean by that phrase, and I’ve insufficient information about who you do mean to intelligently comment.

Yes and many Christians follow his teachings. When people are discussing God they are also referring to YHVH. It is the same thing. The distinction is only important to you so you can separate yourself from those Christians who don't follow God/YHVH to your satisfaction. Many muslims have said that the muslims that flew into the Twin Towers were not muslims. But the fact that they thought they were muslims and following Allah's teachings to the letter means they are just as much muslim as you think you are christian following Christ's teachings. This is the danger of religion and belief in invisible pretend superheroes. This is what upsets atheists who want to live in a peaceful, tolerant society. When your belief is delusional any number of interpretations can arise and it is out of control. When you are using reason, your thought processes are based on facts and evidence which reduces the amount of craziness that can occur.

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:57 am

e]uote="oftenwrong"]
egginbonce wrote:....

This logic is fun to play with, but does have its holes..................eg:
Proof of staticity(is that aproper word?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis

[/quote]

staticness????...............'the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our education, but in ourselves ,that we are igronant'....................(Will Spokeshave)

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:07 pm

YHVH Elohim said “hear Y’shua”, and Y’shua said “love your enemies”, “treat others as you want others to treat you”, and “love your neighbor as yours

e

Another odd facet of religion, is the apparent necessity for using either antiquated,obsolete, or foreign languages to express things........muslims think(In think...), that Allah only speaks Arabic;Christians, that God speaks in ancient English,or Latin,and Im not sure what language youre using there, Rock, but its not your native tongue.
Maybe it seems that being mysterious lends authority to what might otherwise be a banal or daft pronouncement? Or makes us seem 'educated in some way (we all like to trot out a Latin quote or two, dont we?).
As I remember from one of our more pretentious (but tongue in cheek) lecturers, he'd preceed any Greek or Latin that he used,with "for those of you who have a classical education......"
verily, verily ,I say unto you......Yahweh,, Elohim, Allah,,....sounds better than God, dunnit;after all, 'God' is prone to all sorts of misunderstandings, so I hear.................... Very Happy

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:25 pm

Which goes a long way towards explaining why the "King James" version is much more often quoted than subsequent versions of The Holy Bible essaying contemporary English.

It just SOUNDS more religious somehow.

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:54 pm

It does!....it SOUNDS more religious,aand the more religious it sounds, the more impressive it is for those who go there...............
Wasnt christianity first in aramaic(whatever that is), and once Paul had met the Thessalonians(who were Greek), done in Greek,and then borrowed by the Romans, and done in Latin,where it was stuck for ages, till someone was anti-establishment enough to put it into middle english, which is the lingo we all think that God speaks,and that christianityy isnt an eastern religion.
Its definitely very important what lingo one does ones religion in;after all, Hells awaiting for those of us who do it wrong.the eternal bonfire that God allows, despite being all- merciful and omnipotent...

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:57 pm

Some folk of an evil tapster tell,
and daub His visage with the smoke of Hell;
they talk of some strict testing of us-
pish!- He's a good fellow, and 'twill all be well.

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:59 pm

Oh cynical me..........................what

will

become of me.... Very Happy

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:08 pm

Its definitely very important what lingo one does ones religion in;after all, Hells awaiting for those of us who do it wrong.the eternal bonfire that God allows, despite being all- merciful and omnipotent...

God is not all merciful.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/merciful.html

by Tosh Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:13 pm

The central tenet of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism or Communism is the value of labour not atheism, it is a socio-economic philosophy that attacks all institutions who maintain the capitalist status quo. Religious institutions were common bed fellows with the elite in maintaining inequality, Lenin in particular objected to religions political influence.

Communism is anti-religion only if religion has political power or influence, little to do whether one believes in a God or not.

In this same light one could consider the separation of church and state( secularism) as anti-religious but not atheistic.

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:40 pm

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:44 pm

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:34 pm

Removed because it is offensive to my friend.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:54 pm

YHVH Elohim is all merciful. Whoever or whatever it is you speak of when you say “God is not all merciful”, it isn’t YHVH Elohim.

YHVH Elohim is not all merciful. Just for the sake of argument, Rock, let's just assume that you and I are speaking about the same thing. God=YHVH Elohim. If there is another God in the hebrew/Greek/Jewish/Latin/Coptic/Martian bible, please let me know. For all intents and purposes we are speaking about the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God who you say is YHVH Elohim/Allah/God. There is no difference. Ok? And he is not all-merciful as the evidence from the bible (in the link I posted) clearly shows.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:58 pm

Atheists do not kill in the name of atheism. I defy you to show me one example of an atheist killing someone in the name of atheism. Be careful here, because the atrocities done in the name of YHVH Elohim/God/Allah=God from this point forward, far outnumber atrocities committed by atheists. The point being that the people murdering in the name of God do so thinking they are obeying God's commands whereas an atheist committing atrocities is NOT doing so for the sake of atheism. To even suggest it, Rock, is ludicrous.

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:02 pm

snowyflake wrote:
YHVH Elohim is all merciful. Whoever or whatever it is you speak of when you say “God is not all merciful”, it isn’t YHVH Elohim.

YHVH Elohim is not all merciful. Just for the sake of argument, Rock, let's just assume that you and I are speaking about the same thing. God=YHVH Elohim. If there is another God in the hebrew/Greek/Jewish/Latin/Coptic/Martian bible, please let me know. For all intents and purposes we are speaking about the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God who you say is YHVH Elohim/Allah/God. There is no difference. Ok? And he is not all-merciful as the evidence from the bible (in the link I posted) clearly shows.

ah- snowy.............its not just me, then?...............this IS about using unfamiliar languages to describe god, for reasons unknown? Rock disagreed when I pointed that out, but then I was lost, as it seemed obvious to me!
If someone says grass is purple with red spots, and thats that, then theres nowhere to go with the conversation ;all u can do is say"I see...."

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:06 pm

the biblical god, I think Ive noticed is vengeful, moralising,petty,and cruel,and for some reason, is often described as 'merciful, etc '.............this I dont understand; Im not that bright, but not that thick, either, and I dont get it...
Allah is the same,Ive n oticed; in the Koran, theres scarcely a page where it doesnt list the punishments for denying Allah, then describes allah as all-merciful........tis there,as in the bible, in black and white............whats THAT about?

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:08 pm

The United States Constitution makes no mention of “granting us freedom… FROM religion.”

They should have. The religiosity in America is an international joke, Rock. On the one hand, you have 1/2 the population believing that the world is only 7000 years old, that dinosaurs roamed at the same time as humans, that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime (now) and on the other hand you have a country that is quite quick to invade other countries for oil, goes rabid at the word socialism, doesn't look after its poor, elderly, hungry or disadvantaged and still suffers the ravages of racism. For a country to move forward, religion can play no part in government. A neutral declaration of human rights is all that is needed. Governments under God are not needed. Then Everyone is accepted as a citizen regardless of their race, creed, colour, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Then those interpreting the bible to suit them cannot discriminate against anyone. And anyone lobbying government for special status based on religion can go and pound salt.

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:09 pm

The point being that the people murdering in the name of God do so thinking they are obeying God's commands

Nah.they have just convinced themselves thats what theyre doing to justify their ignorance..............

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:16 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Atheists do not kill in the name of atheism. I defy you to show me one example of an atheist killing someone in the name of atheism.

I’ve shown you more than one; Joseph Stalin and his cohorts; Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

snowyflake wrote:
Be careful here, because the atrocities done in the name of YHVH Elohim…

There are no atrocities done in the onoma of YHVH Elohim. There are numerous righteous acts done in the onoma of Y’shua Moshiach, and thus in the onoma of YHVH Elohim, including the numerous righteous acts Y’shua teaches to his disciples recorded in Matthew 5-7. As evidence thereof, view Y’shua’s teachings recorded in Matthew 5-7:

Greek Bible, Matthew 5-7

Chapter 5:

When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. He opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.”

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.’

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court, and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

“Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.”

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you, for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you, for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

“It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’, but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Chapter 6:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”

“So when yougive to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.”

“Pray, then, in this way:
‘Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
‘Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
‘Give us this day our daily bread.
‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’”

“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.”

“Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal, for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink, nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”

“So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Chapter 7:

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged, and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite: first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

“Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and the door shall be opened unto you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him?”

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

“Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.”

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house, and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house, and it fell, and great was its fall.”

When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching, for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

Matthew 5-7

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:21 pm

Hi Eggy

The God of the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran is the most malicious, vengeful, spiteful, petty, jealous God by all accounts. Anyone that says otherwise is not reading the words or chooses to ignore them or interprets them to suit their own belief (that God is all-merciful-loving). What the bible says, to many Christians, is not what it means! And this is where belief is on dangerous ground. Some believers will take all of the horror in the OT and turn it into something else more palatable. Like The Life of Pi where Pi suffered an horrific ordeal and to cope he made up a story that suited him better and was easier to stomach. This is what Christians do with the more distasteful aspects of God's character.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:23 pm

I’ve shown you more than one; Joseph Stalin and his cohorts; Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Nope. Not done in the name of atheism. Done in the name of Marxism which is political.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:28 pm

Nah.they have just convinced themselves thats what theyre doing to justify their ignorance..............

Believers that commit atrocities do so thinking they are obeying God. Of course, it's ignorance. It's delusional and sick. And no amount of greek/hebrew/latin alters that fact. Calling God in his hebrew name doesn't change who he is in the bible. It's the same character.

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:33 pm

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:37 pm

snowyflake wrote:
The United States Constitution makes no mention of “granting us freedom… FROM religion.”
They should have.

It’s just fine just as it is.

by Sponsored content