Are Atheists the most intolerent group of all?

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: daniel49
Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

People already shot down half your argument by meticulously pointing out that half those poeple were religious (of course you won't admit that since it runs contrary to your argument, but luckily your faulty view can't change facts), so let me take a stab at the rest of it in two different ways.

1. You have to consider why people are athiest - they like to think for themselves, they like to question authority and are not content when questions are answered with "because I said so". When some of those dictators were going after religious poeple, they were doing it so they can set up their own religion. People like Stalin and Mao tried to make themselves demigods and in order for them to succeed, they needed to do away with the opposition and that included everyone from liberal dissidents to conservative priests.

So knowing the above - that ahtiests reject dogma and faith and embrace free thought are the mindless herd that bows down to King Jong Ill? No, the masses were simply forced to switch from worshipping the guy in the sky, to the guy in the kremlin / forbidden palace / whatever.

2. Even if you ignore all of the above by some weird mental controtions (and I have no doubt you will), you have to realize that none of those poeple did anything in the name of atheism itself - they did it either for their own power and their ideology. Saying "atheists killed 100m" is no different from saying "black haired poeple killed 100m". Just because hitler, mao and pol pot had black hair, doesn't mean they killed in the name of black hair. They killed to seize power and futher their ideology, not atheism, black hair, or any other such irrelevant trait they all might have shared.

potato... potahto
If by some chance there is a Muslim country out there that would really want to claim an idi amin as an adherent to thier faith I would be suprised.He was about as much an adherent to the muslim faith as hitler was to christianity.

you really should try to read the whole thread, many of these points were already covered.

Its about the power...well duh.....they were Godless soulless men who fed on oppression and brutalty.
Men who felt there was no greater being in life then themselves, men who worshipped themselves, men who had no hope or faith in anything but themselves.

Just give up, you make no sense at all, so let me get this straight, the opinions of others or feelings of, now dictate to an individual the validity of his religion?

WTF are you smoking because I want some.:disgust:

 

[skooma]

Actually the whole premise of this thread is weak and kind of worthless.

:thumbsup:

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Heres one man that seems to think so.
Text
...The story was appropriately on the Camera's "Faith" page, because their disbelief is nothing other than "faith" that no God exists, and therefore a religion of sorts.

A quick google will produce reams of Atheistic dogma against anyone who believes different then them...


Are they bloodless and more rightous then the rest of us?


Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

Half of those aren't atheists. Certainly not Hitler, Kim Jong Il (he believes in his own divinity), and Ho Chi Minh (the only reason why he turned to communism was because the Americans didn't support him... and i would question whether he was 'evil' or intolerant... if so, you may as well say that those who signed the Declaration of Independence as intolerant too).

As for the others, yeah, they were intolerant. I wouldn't say 'most intolerant group of all'... in order to make that claim, you'll need to list the intolerance of the religious group... something i see you 'forgot' to do. :thumbsup:

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: daniel49
Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

People already shot down half your argument by meticulously pointing out that half those poeple were religious (of course you won't admit that since it runs contrary to your argument, but luckily your faulty view can't change facts), so let me take a stab at the rest of it in two different ways.

1. You have to consider why people are athiest - they like to think for themselves, they like to question authority and are not content when questions are answered with "because I said so". When some of those dictators were going after religious poeple, they were doing it so they can set up their own religion. People like Stalin and Mao tried to make themselves demigods and in order for them to succeed, they needed to do away with the opposition and that included everyone from liberal dissidents to conservative priests.

So knowing the above - that ahtiests reject dogma and faith and embrace free thought are the mindless herd that bows down to King Jong Ill? No, the masses were simply forced to switch from worshipping the guy in the sky, to the guy in the kremlin / forbidden palace / whatever.

2. Even if you ignore all of the above by some weird mental controtions (and I have no doubt you will), you have to realize that none of those poeple did anything in the name of atheism itself - they did it either for their own power and their ideology. Saying "atheists killed 100m" is no different from saying "black haired poeple killed 100m". Just because hitler, mao and pol pot had black hair, doesn't mean they killed in the name of black hair. They killed to seize power and futher their ideology, not atheism, black hair, or any other such irrelevant trait they all might have shared.

potato... potahto
If by some chance there is a Muslim country out there that would really want to claim an idi amin as an adherent to thier faith I would be suprised.
He was about as much an adherent to the muslim faith as hitler was to christianity.

you really should try to read the whole thread, many of these points were already covered.

Its about the power...well duh.....they were Godless soulless men who fed on oppression and brutalty.
Men who felt there was no greater being in life then themselves, men who worshipped themselves, men who had no hope or faith in anything but themselves.

So if they weren't Godless men, they would not have been oppressive and brutal? Do you have NO clue of history at all?

And just because Hitler doesn't live up to your expectation of Christianity, doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. I'm sure there are lots of 'Christians' in this world that probably think you're not a true Christian or Christian enough.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daniel49
100% plz prove to me hitler and amin were anywhere near to 1%.

One could easily say the argument is just as strong that they were completely Godless men.

Hitler was born and raised Christian and said he believed in it. Then he did things in God's name. How is that not 100% proof that he was a thiest. So what if he isn't a good thiest, he still was a thiest.

I believe is an action verb not a passive noun.

If Hitler Believed the bible, he would have practiced its teachings...plz show me where Jesus said gas all the jews and take over the world.
The word christian literaly means christ like.
In no wild stretch of the imagination was Hitler either christ like or following the teachings of the scriptures.
If anything the bible teachs that God will bless those that bless Isreal and curse those that don't.
I hate to break it to you, but he didn't bless to many jews.
Hitler was a madman.

How 'christ-like' hitler was has no bearing on whether he was a theist or not.

If your definition of 'religious' is 'good' and anyone bad is an atheist, you have severely hampered your ability to make judgements based on those classifications.

The fact is Hitler thought he was working for some divine purpose; he was not an atheist.

As far as we can tell, Stalin was an atheist; Hitler however was not.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointout out how you're misusing the word "jihadists". What you really meant to say is that most violent extremists seem to be Muslims, at least in your view.

Also, and this is kind of off topic, your phrasing about Muslims and jihad reminded me of a similar conservative quote..."Not all conservatives are assholes, but most assholes seem to be conservative". I find it rather amusing, but tell me that doesn't annoy you just a little bit. After all, while it is in no way suggesting that being a conservative makes you an asshole, that is the unspoken message you get reading between the lines...

there you go again

Fair enough

But on the other hand, do you disagree?

Do I disagree about them being jihadists?
You yourself said there were external and internal jihads.
Would they not consider an external jihad a physical attack against the infidel to defend Islam?
or do I disagree about the in between the lines thing?
I would say there was no between the lines it was pretty blatently saying it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointout out how you're misusing the word "jihadists". What you really meant to say is that most violent extremists seem to be Muslims, at least in your view.

Also, and this is kind of off topic, your phrasing about Muslims and jihad reminded me of a similar conservative quote..."Not all conservatives are assholes, but most assholes seem to be conservative". I find it rather amusing, but tell me that doesn't annoy you just a little bit. After all, while it is in no way suggesting that being a conservative makes you an asshole, that is the unspoken message you get reading between the lines...

there you go again

Fair enough

But on the other hand, do you disagree?

Do I disagree about them being jihadists?
You yourself said there were external and internal jihads.
Would they not consider an external jihad a physical attack against the infidel to defend Islam?
or do I disagree about the in between the lines thing?
I would say there was no between the lines it was pretty blatently saying it.

I'm glad you agree with my command about unspoken messages in all the "Muslim terrorist" comments...although I'm surprised you've come right out and said it.

Edit: Just so there is no confusion, which I think there might be, this is what I mean. IN MY VIEW, you are saying that you believe most violent extremists seem to be Muslims. And the reason your saying this, outside of the fact that you believe it to be true, is that you are also trying to suggest that being a Muslim means you are a violent extremist. Am I wrong about that?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: daniel49
Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

People already shot down half your argument by meticulously pointing out that half those poeple were religious (of course you won't admit that since it runs contrary to your argument, but luckily your faulty view can't change facts), so let me take a stab at the rest of it in two different ways.

1. You have to consider why people are athiest - they like to think for themselves, they like to question authority and are not content when questions are answered with "because I said so". When some of those dictators were going after religious poeple, they were doing it so they can set up their own religion. People like Stalin and Mao tried to make themselves demigods and in order for them to succeed, they needed to do away with the opposition and that included everyone from liberal dissidents to conservative priests.

So knowing the above - that ahtiests reject dogma and faith and embrace free thought are the mindless herd that bows down to King Jong Ill? No, the masses were simply forced to switch from worshipping the guy in the sky, to the guy in the kremlin / forbidden palace / whatever.

2. Even if you ignore all of the above by some weird mental controtions (and I have no doubt you will), you have to realize that none of those poeple did anything in the name of atheism itself - they did it either for their own power and their ideology. Saying "atheists killed 100m" is no different from saying "black haired poeple killed 100m". Just because hitler, mao and pol pot had black hair, doesn't mean they killed in the name of black hair. They killed to seize power and futher their ideology, not atheism, black hair, or any other such irrelevant trait they all might have shared.

potato... potahto
If by some chance there is a Muslim country out there that would really want to claim an idi amin as an adherent to thier faith I would be suprised.
He was about as much an adherent to the muslim faith as hitler was to christianity.

you really should try to read the whole thread, many of these points were already covered.

Its about the power...well duh.....they were Godless soulless men who fed on oppression and brutalty.
Men who felt there was no greater being in life then themselves, men who worshipped themselves, men who had no hope or faith in anything but themselves.

So if they weren't Godless men, they would not have been oppressive and brutal? Do you have NO clue of history at all?

And just because Hitler doesn't live up to your expectation of Christianity, doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. I'm sure there are lots of 'Christians' in this world that probably think you're not a true Christian or Christian enough.

Hmm , well lets get out the 10 pound American Heritage dictionary and look up a few words and see how far flung I am.

Atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the exsistance of God.
2.Godlessness

Christian:
1rofessing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on his
teachings.
2.Pertaining to or derived from Jesus or his teachings.
3.Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Christ: Christlike.
4. Pertaining to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

Muslim:
1: A believer in or adherent.

theism:
1: Belief in the exsistance of of a God or Gods;
esp belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

I dunno my definitions don't seem so far off. Perhaps your definitions are far too narrow?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Idi Amin was a Muslim, though most agree he was not particularly reverent. But it was lifelong, his father having converted from Catholicism. He had close ties to the PLO as well.

Although Minh was a marxist by political philosophy, he was raised confucian and heavily influenced by buddhism. He maintained a cadre of Catholic advisors and promised a freely religous Vietnam once united. He worked a number of deals with the Vatican in secret regarding protection of catholics and, as far as I know, never once commited an anti-religious atrocity. Furthermore, if you had any knowledge of history you would realize that regardless of his faults he was probably one of the greatest freedom fighters of all time, and is in NO WAY related to the others you list. If ANYONE involved in the Vietnam debacle is to be labelled a monster you need to begin with those in France and the US.

I'm not even bothering to bring up the millions upon millions killed for and by religion, because you have proven two things already: 1. you're too egocentric to accept anything but your narrow views; 2. you're too stupid to comprehend what we'd teach you anyway.

This post get a triple thumbs up from me

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

He forgot one part.

Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

^^ To point out that the OP is stupid for comparing numbers from the last 100 years to past centuries.
Mainly because of this: http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economicsw...in/e_lecture/pop_images/pop_growth.jpg
i.e. the lack of people to BE killed in the previous centuries combined.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Duh!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointout out how you're misusing the word "jihadists". What you really meant to say is that most violent extremists seem to be Muslims, at least in your view.

Also, and this is kind of off topic, your phrasing about Muslims and jihad reminded me of a similar conservative quote..."Not all conservatives are assholes, but most assholes seem to be conservative". I find it rather amusing, but tell me that doesn't annoy you just a little bit. After all, while it is in no way suggesting that being a conservative makes you an asshole, that is the unspoken message you get reading between the lines...

there you go again

Fair enough

But on the other hand, do you disagree?

Do I disagree about them being jihadists?
You yourself said there were external and internal jihads.
Would they not consider an external jihad a physical attack against the infidel to defend Islam?
or do I disagree about the in between the lines thing?
I would say there was no between the lines it was pretty blatently saying it.

I'm glad you agree with my command about unspoken messages in all the "Muslim terrorist" comments...although I'm surprised you've come right out and said it.

Edit: Just so there is no confusion, which I think there might be, this is what I mean. IN MY VIEW, you are saying that you believe most violent extremists seem to be Muslims. And the reason your saying this, outside of the fact that you believe it to be true, is that you are also trying to suggest that being a Muslim means you are a violent extremist. Am I wrong about that?

You are wrong about that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointout out how you're misusing the word "jihadists". What you really meant to say is that most violent extremists seem to be Muslims, at least in your view.

Also, and this is kind of off topic, your phrasing about Muslims and jihad reminded me of a similar conservative quote..."Not all conservatives are assholes, but most assholes seem to be conservative". I find it rather amusing, but tell me that doesn't annoy you just a little bit. After all, while it is in no way suggesting that being a conservative makes you an asshole, that is the unspoken message you get reading between the lines...

there you go again

Fair enough

But on the other hand, do you disagree?

Do I disagree about them being jihadists?
You yourself said there were external and internal jihads.
Would they not consider an external jihad a physical attack against the infidel to defend Islam?
or do I disagree about the in between the lines thing?
I would say there was no between the lines it was pretty blatently saying it.

I'm glad you agree with my command about unspoken messages in all the "Muslim terrorist" comments...although I'm surprised you've come right out and said it.

Edit: Just so there is no confusion, which I think there might be, this is what I mean. IN MY VIEW, you are saying that you believe most violent extremists seem to be Muslims. And the reason your saying this, outside of the fact that you believe it to be true, is that you are also trying to suggest that being a Muslim means you are a violent extremist. Am I wrong about that?

You are wrong about that.

I don't think so...but at the very least, you DO seem to hold all Muslims somewhat responsible for the actions of a few.

 

[Polish3d]

Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

Its not a leap faith for a blindingly simple reason. There is no evidence (ie: no reason) to believe that any supernatural being exists! Furthermore, there will never be evidence that one exists because it is "supernatural". Another example would be that I didn't "know" that the armageddon wasn't going to happen on 6/6/06, however I was positively certain (and justifiably so) that it was not.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointout out how you're misusing the word "jihadists". What you really meant to say is that most violent extremists seem to be Muslims, at least in your view.

Also, and this is kind of off topic, your phrasing about Muslims and jihad reminded me of a similar conservative quote..."Not all conservatives are assholes, but most assholes seem to be conservative". I find it rather amusing, but tell me that doesn't annoy you just a little bit. After all, while it is in no way suggesting that being a conservative makes you an asshole, that is the unspoken message you get reading between the lines...

there you go again

Fair enough

But on the other hand, do you disagree?

Do I disagree about them being jihadists?
You yourself said there were external and internal jihads.
Would they not consider an external jihad a physical attack against the infidel to defend Islam?
or do I disagree about the in between the lines thing?
I would say there was no between the lines it was pretty blatently saying it.

I'm glad you agree with my command about unspoken messages in all the "Muslim terrorist" comments...although I'm surprised you've come right out and said it.

Edit: Just so there is no confusion, which I think there might be, this is what I mean. IN MY VIEW, you are saying that you believe most violent extremists seem to be Muslims. And the reason your saying this, outside of the fact that you believe it to be true, is that you are also trying to suggest that being a Muslim means you are a violent extremist. Am I wrong about that?

You are wrong about that.

I don't think so...but at the very least, you DO seem to hold all Muslims somewhat responsible for the actions of a few.

I do believe they have an obligation to speak up and denounce such acts.


I especially was impressed with a recent blurb I heard on the radio where the imam of the mosque in Canada ,where 6 of those terrorists attended. Among other things said We (muslims) need to do a better job of teaching our children that these actions are wrong.(paraprased)

In the same way I believe that when a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, because he believes that to be i defense of the unborn being murdered.
I believe the Christian community has an obligation to denounce such actions.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: daniel49
I especially was impressed with a recent blurb I heard on the radio where the imam of the mosque in Canada ,where 6 of those terrorists attended. Among other things said We (muslims) need to do a better job of teaching our children that these actions are wrong.(paraprased)

In the same way I believe that when a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, because he believes that to be i defense of the unborn being murdered.
I believe the Christian community has an obligation to denounce such actions.

I understand the point you're making, but I feel its generally assumed that religious communities as a whole do not support radical murders/attacks such as those.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Frackal
Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

Its not a leap faith for a blindingly simple reason. There is no evidence (ie: no reason) to believe that any supernatural being exists! Furthermore, there will never be evidence that one exists because it is "supernatural". Another example would be that I didn't "know" that the armageddon wasn't going to happen on 6/6/06, however I was positively certain (and justifiably so) that it was not.

Not really a valid argument, since it depends on the definition of various terms, which do not always have to be read in the way you say they are.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Frackal
Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

Its not a leap faith for a blindingly simple reason. There is no evidence (ie: no reason) to believe that any supernatural being exists! Furthermore, there will never be evidence that one exists because it is "supernatural". Another example would be that I didn't "know" that the armageddon wasn't going to happen on 6/6/06, however I was positively certain (and justifiably so) that it was not.

Not really a valid argument, since it depends on the definition of various terms, which do not always have to be read in the way you say they are.

Thanks for not explaining anything

 

[Kerouactivist]

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?" commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

That is all I have to add for now

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: daniel49


Since you are still confused let me capsulate my thoughts for you on muslims.
Muslim Jihadists are and should be a serious concern to all.
All Jihadists are Muslim, but not all muslims are Jihadists.
My only concern with the "moderate" muslim community is they seem more willing to keep quite on the jihadists then take a stand.
The Canadian Muslim community so far is bucking that trend and I applauded the Imam in this forum earlier this week for his statements.
So plz stop putting words into my mouth rainsford.

Their really is no difference in a jihadist and someone who is willing to fly a fighter for a bombing run into a area known to have AA. Would you die for your country? A country is really nothing less then a idea and a border drawn on a piece of land, a religion kinda.

Difference is one country has money, one does not. Either way it is people will to make the ultimate sacrafice for what he sees as just in the firm belief that he will better his familys life or country, or religion or whatever.

Self preservation takes a back seat when you are dirt poor, kinda like would empty your bank account for a cause? Some people are willing to take it to the next step and their life is all they have to give.

Jihad is nothing new or islamic, if you are willing to give your life for a cause you are a jihadist yourself in a sense.

That really is nonsense, but I will respect your right to believe it.

Good job on totally avoiding the issue.

Do you really want me to debate with him on whether Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi is equivilant to the men dropping bombs on him?
If you feel thats a worthy topic go for it. I think its a slap in the face of men and women who died to give him the freedom to say that.

It would be a slap in the face to call them equivalent, but thats not what he did.

"Their really is no difference in a jihadist and someone who is willing to fly a fighter for a bombing run ...."

most people would say equivilant and no difference are the same.

I would say that they are roughly equilient.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Idi Amin was a Muslim, though most agree he was not particularly reverent. But it was lifelong, his father having converted from Catholicism. He had close ties to the PLO as well.

Although Minh was a marxist by political philosophy, he was raised confucian and heavily influenced by buddhism. He maintained a cadre of Catholic advisors and promised a freely religous Vietnam once united. He worked a number of deals with the Vatican in secret regarding protection of catholics and, as far as I know, never once commited an anti-religious atrocity. Furthermore, if you had any knowledge of history you would realize that regardless of his faults he was probably one of the greatest freedom fighters of all time, and is in NO WAY related to the others you list. If ANYONE involved in the Vietnam debacle is to be labelled a monster you need to begin with those in France and the US.

I'm not even bothering to bring up the millions upon millions killed for and by religion, because you have proven two things already: 1. you're too egocentric to accept anything but your narrow views; 2. you're too stupid to comprehend what we'd teach you anyway.

This post get a triple thumbs up from me

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

He forgot one part.

Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

^^ To point out that the OP is stupid for comparing numbers from the last 100 years to past centuries.
Mainly because of this: http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economicsw...in/e_lecture/pop_images/pop_growth.jpg
i.e. the lack of people to BE killed in the previous centuries combined.

and the means to do the killing as well.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Looney


So if they weren't Godless men, they would not have been oppressive and brutal? Do you have NO clue of history at all?

And just because Hitler doesn't live up to your expectation of Christianity, doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. I'm sure there are lots of 'Christians' in this world that probably think you're not a true Christian or Christian enough.

Hmm , well lets get out the 10 pound American Heritage dictionary and look up a few words and see how far flung I am.

Atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the exsistance of God.
2.Godlessness

Christian:
1rofessing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on his
teachings.
2.Pertaining to or derived from Jesus or his teachings.
3.Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Christ: Christlike.
4. Pertaining to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

Muslim:
1: A believer in or adherent.

theism:
1: Belief in the exsistance of of a God or Gods;
esp belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

I dunno my definitions don't seem so far off. Perhaps your definitions are far too narrow?

so any Christian who does something bad is not a Christian then; how convenient. But please don't lump them with atheists either because they obviously still believe in something which is contradictory to atheism.

It really annoys me that the religious always hint at how us "godless" types are somehow morally corrupt because of it. Real morality comes from within, from society, etc. If one needs a book and the threat of eternal suffering to refrain from hurting another, he/she is a despictable individual regardless of belief. I think history and current events show very clearly that the faithful can just as easily commit atrocities, often with terrifying devotion and perceived righteousness. I doubt religion would be of any hindrance to mad men.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Looney


So if they weren't Godless men, they would not have been oppressive and brutal? Do you have NO clue of history at all?

And just because Hitler doesn't live up to your expectation of Christianity, doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. I'm sure there are lots of 'Christians' in this world that probably think you're not a true Christian or Christian enough.

Hmm , well lets get out the 10 pound American Heritage dictionary and look up a few words and see how far flung I am.

Atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the exsistance of God.
2.Godlessness

Christian:
1rofessing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on his
teachings.
2.Pertaining to or derived from Jesus or his teachings.
3.Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Christ: Christlike.
4. Pertaining to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

Muslim:
1: A believer in or adherent.

theism:
1: Belief in the exsistance of of a God or Gods;
esp belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

I dunno my definitions don't seem so far off. Perhaps your definitions are far too narrow?

so any Christian who does something bad is not a Christian then; how convenient. But please don't lump them with atheists either because they obviously still believe in something which is contradictory to atheism.

It really annoys me that the religious always hint at how us "godless" types are somehow morally corrupt because of it. Real morality comes from within, from society, etc. If one needs a book and the threat of eternal suffering to refrain from hurting another, he/she is a despictable individual regardless of belief. I think history and current events show very clearly that the faithful can just as easily commit atrocities, often with terrifying devotion and perceived righteousness. I doubt religion would be of any hindrance to mad men.

:thumbsup:

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Frackal
Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

Its not a leap faith for a blindingly simple reason. There is no evidence (ie: no reason) to believe that any supernatural being exists! Furthermore, there will never be evidence that one exists because it is "supernatural". Another example would be that I didn't "know" that the armageddon wasn't going to happen on 6/6/06, however I was positively certain (and justifiably so) that it was not.

To say you know for sure there is no evidence for God is to say that you have seen everything in the universe.

What you mean to say, is that you have never seen any evidence for God, at least, any evidence that you consider convincing.

God made us to know him, and he's not the one who is hiding in this world...

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Frackal
Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

Its not a leap faith for a blindingly simple reason. There is no evidence (ie: no reason) to believe that any supernatural being exists! Furthermore, there will never be evidence that one exists because it is "supernatural". Another example would be that I didn't "know" that the armageddon wasn't going to happen on 6/6/06, however I was positively certain (and justifiably so) that it was not.

To say you know for sure there is no evidence for God is to say that you have seen everything in the universe.

What you mean to say, is that you have never seen any evidence for God, at least, any evidence that you consider convincing.

God made us to know him, and he's not the one who is hiding in this world...

Yeah like the teapot see above......
If I followed your logic, belief in anything is possible....unicorns, santa clause, the easter bunny.....