[Timezone Detection]
X
Really Fast Registration - Join in seconds!

User Name: Email Address: Over 13 and agree
to Forum Rules?  
Human Verification


Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 327

Thread: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

  1. #1

    Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    But I challenge them to top the 100+ million killed by atheist leaders like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao since 1920.

  2. #2

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Good point. When governments take any official stance on being religious or atheist, people are harmed. All governments should do is say "listen, worship or don't worship how you please. As long as you're not harming anyone, you have our protection." There's a reason the establishment clause is literally the first thing mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
    You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

  3. #3

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Hitler was a Catholic. He on many occasions claimed he was doing the lords work. The Catholic church supported him. The SS had Catholic priests as Chaplains.

    Why do some Christians still spout a blatant lie claiming he was an Atheist?

  4. #4

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    Hitler was a Catholic. He on many occasions claimed he was doing the lords work. The Catholic church supported him. The SS had Catholic priests as Chaplains.

    Why do some Christians still spout a blatant lie claiming he was an Atheist?
    Eh, he was kind of all over the place, letting one side label him as the opposite. Hitler killed lots of Catholics in addition to anyone that pissed him off at any moment in time...
    You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

  5. #5
    Administrator FSU_Jeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Tallahassee Florida
    Posts
    2,091

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    True Atheists couldn't care what you do or what you believe in as long as you are not trying to push your beliefs on them.

  6. #6

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    It is not the religions that kill people. Some folks just use religion to justify killing other people
    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

    -- Richard P. Feynman.

  7. #7

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    I've seen both the religious and non religious argue these points.

    As to the beliefs of the leaders themselves, I have read that Mao and Stalin were atheists. Of course, some people argue that government was their religion, so maybe they weren't real atheists if that's the standard. For the record, I have never found that angle convincing. Everyone believes in something, so if that's the standard, then 100% of people are religious. Such a broad definition renders the word "religious" meaningless.

    On the other hand, I have never seen any evidence that Hitler was an atheist. He invoked God and Christianity. Hitler also targeted many atheist groups. Maybe he did these things for political reasons and not for any religious reasons, but again, that's something that we'd have to separate out.

    And what about the millions of people who carried out the orders and actually performed the atrocities perpetrated under these leaders? What were the beliefs of the soldiers and the people who supported these regimes? If Germany had been populated by agnostics rather than Christians, would it have been more difficult for Hitler to vilify Jewish people with only secular rhetoric?

    Additionally, what percentage of the agendas of these regimes can be attributed to belief or lack of belief in a god or in a religion? It's a very tough thing to measure.

    One thing is for sure: both the religious or non religious can be tyrants. Both can support horrible things based upon hatred, fear or a quest for power.

  8. #8

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    Hitler was a Catholic. He on many occasions claimed he was doing the lords work. The Catholic church supported him. The SS had Catholic priests as Chaplains.

    Why do some Christians still spout a blatant lie claiming he was an Atheist?
    he was no catholic

  9. #9

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    They were just borrowing a lesson from the religious fanatics they read about in history books. Kill everyone not like you.

  10. #10

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by michael222
    I've seen both the religious and non religious argue these points.

    As to the beliefs of the leaders themselves, I have read that Mao and Stalin were atheists. Of course, some people argue that government was their religion, so maybe they weren't real atheists if that's the standard. For the record, I have never found that angle convincing. Everyone believes in something, so if that's the standard, then 100% of people are religious. Such a broad definition renders the word "religious" meaningless.

    On the other hand, I have never seen any evidence that Hitler was an atheist. He invoked God and Christianity. Hitler also targeted many atheist groups. Maybe he did these things for political reasons and not for any religious reasons, but again, that's something that we'd have to separate out.

    And what about the millions of people who carried out the orders and actually performed the atrocities perpetrated under these leaders? What were the beliefs of the soldiers and the people who supported these regimes? If Germany had been populated by agnostics rather than Christians, would it have been more difficult for Hitler to vilify Jewish people with only secular rhetoric?

    Additionally, what percentage of the agendas of these regimes can be attributed to belief or lack of belief in a god or in a religion? It's a very tough thing to measure.

    One thing is for sure: both the religious or non religious can be tyrants. Both can support horrible things based upon hatred, fear or a quest for power.
    Good to see you found your way over here, Michael.
    You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

  11. #11

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    religion is the greatest plague on mankind, bar none...
    http://www.bigdelivery.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=31&dateline=142444635  1

  12. #12

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by noles2952
    religion is the greatest plague on mankind, bar none...
    101 million victims of atheism since 1920 would disagree

  13. #13

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    Hitler was a Catholic. He on many occasions claimed he was doing the lords work. The Catholic church supported him. The SS had Catholic priests as Chaplains.

    Why do some Christians still spout a blatant lie claiming he was an Atheist?
    While there have been documented instances of Christians killing Jews, no real Christian would have wanted to commit genocide against the Jews. Unless you are practicing replacement theology, the Jews are God's chosen people and those who favor the Jews will receive favor and those against the Jews have fallen by the wayside. History documents that very well.

  14. #14

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by noles2952
    religion is the greatest plague on mankind, bar none...
    Pretty much. It's funny when the religious decide to pick on atheist for being violent.

  15. #15

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacedog
    Quote Originally Posted by noles2952
    religion is the greatest plague on mankind, bar none...
    101 million victims of atheism since 1920 would disagree
    First....Hitler WASN'T an atheist. Second, most of the rest were killed for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with religion. So your point is pointless.
    "The transition from democracy to tyranny is most easily brought about by a popular leader who knows how to exploit the class antagonism between the rich and the poor within the democratic state, and who succeeds in building up a bodyguard of a private army of his own. The people who have hailed him first as the champion of freedom are soon enslaved."

    -From Things Plato Never Said

  16. #16

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacedog
    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    Hitler was a Catholic. He on many occasions claimed he was doing the lords work. The Catholic church supported him. The SS had Catholic priests as Chaplains.

    Why do some Christians still spout a blatant lie claiming he was an Atheist?
    he was no catholic
    He was a baptised and confirmed Catholic. Never did he renounce Catholisim and he was never excommunicated. Bishops and Cardinals frequently participated in his rallies and gave him blessings. He both wrote and spoke of his religion and claimed he was doing gods work all the up till the end. There is one single questionable source that claims he disagreed with the church and a mountain range of well documented and verified evidence that he was a member of the Catholic church in good standing.

    If you'd like I can post about a hundred pictures of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals participating in Nazi functions.

  17. #17

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.” In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.


    At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

    For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

    But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.” In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

    The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position. Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All . For centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

    Fitzgerald is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people interesting, accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

    More academic arguments in support of the Jesus Myth theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history uses the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast, writes from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest debunkers of fringe Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who tries to argue that the Romans invented Jesus) are from serious Mythicists like Fitzgerald, Carrier and Price.

    The arguments on both sides of this question—mythologized history or historicized mythology—fill volumes, and if anything the debate seems to be heating up rather than resolving. A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against Jesus’ historicity. Since many people, both Christian and not, find it surprising that this debate even exists—that credible scholars might think Jesus never existed—here are some of the key points that keep the doubts alive:

    1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef. In the words of Bart Ehrman: “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

    2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts. Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul” on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

    Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. “Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.”

    3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are “signed” by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, “I was there.” Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

    4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other. If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quiz at ExChristian.net.

    The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing “life of Jesus,” and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

    5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons. They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer list assembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), “The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.” John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.”

    For David Fitzgerald, these issues and more lead to a conclusion that he finds inescapable:

    Jesus appears to be an effect, not a cause, of Christianity. Paul and the rest of the first generation of Christians searched the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures to create a Mystery Faith for the Jews, complete with pagan rituals like a Lord’s Supper, Gnostic terms in his letters, and a personal savior god to rival those in their neighbors’ longstanding Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions.

    In a soon-to-be-released follow up to Nailed, entitled Jesus: Mything in Action, Fitzgerald argues that the many competing versions proposed by secular scholars are just as problematic as any “Jesus of Faith:” Even if one accepts that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, the question has little practical meaning: Regardless of whether or not a first century rabbi called Yeshua ben Yosef lived, the “historical Jesus” figures so patiently excavated and re-assembled by secular scholars are themselves fictions.

    We may never know for certain what put Christian history in motion. Only time (or perhaps time travel) will tell.


    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/d ... -think-so/
    http://www.bigdelivery.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=31&dateline=142444635  1

  18. #18

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    He was a baptised and confirmed Catholic. Never did he renounce Catholisim and he was never excommunicated. Bishops and Cardinals frequently participated in his rallies and gave him blessings. He both wrote and spoke of his religion and claimed he was doing gods work all the up till the end. There is one single questionable source that claims he disagreed with the church and a mountain range of well documented and verified evidence that he was a member of the Catholic church in good standing.

    If you'd like I can post about a hundred pictures of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals participating in Nazi functions.
    Just a thought, but with a regime like that running the country who in their right mind was going to publicly condemn Hitler for anything? I am guessing that if someone did they would find themselves with the Jews in Auschwitz.

    I am also guessing Hitler was not a practicing Catholic.

  19. #19

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill From Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    He was a baptised and confirmed Catholic. Never did he renounce Catholisim and he was never excommunicated. Bishops and Cardinals frequently participated in his rallies and gave him blessings. He both wrote and spoke of his religion and claimed he was doing gods work all the up till the end. There is one single questionable source that claims he disagreed with the church and a mountain range of well documented and verified evidence that he was a member of the Catholic church in good standing.

    If you'd like I can post about a hundred pictures of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals participating in Nazi functions.
    Just a thought, but with a regime like that running the country who in their right mind was going to publicly condemn Hitler for anything? I am guessing that if someone did they would find themselves with the Jews in Auschwitz.
    Maybe, maybe not, but isn't that the concept on which Christianity itself is founded upon anyway?

  20. #20

    Re: Atheists often tout that religion has killed more people

    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill From Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by KitingHigh
    He was a baptised and confirmed Catholic. Never did he renounce Catholisim and he was never excommunicated. Bishops and Cardinals frequently participated in his rallies and gave him blessings. He both wrote and spoke of his religion and claimed he was doing gods work all the up till the end. There is one single questionable source that claims he disagreed with the church and a mountain range of well documented and verified evidence that he was a member of the Catholic church in good standing.

    If you'd like I can post about a hundred pictures of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals participating in Nazi functions.
    Be that as it may, there were also clergymen that were seriously persecuted and killed by the Nazis. Like I said, Hitler was all over the place with Catholicism.
    You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2013 www.BigDelivery.com - All Rights Reserved - Copyright © 2014 www.TheDailyNole.com - All Rights Reserved
This website is an independently operated source of news and information not affiliated with any school or team.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO