Shooting at art festival in Texas

[Atreus21]

The religion was ruthlessly persecuted because the religion was a threat to the communist power. It had nothing to do with atheism, as the religious were not the only ones attacked. Any group that was a collective was a threat to power, as they could organize.

An atheist is not anything more than someone who does not believe in religions. You can see this, because you don't believe in the Hindu gods, and yet you don't go around killing them. By all rights you are a Hindu atheist, yet you do not inherently kill Hindu's.

Don't try and make it seem like belief is the same as non belief in the absence of evidence.

It is the same, in the sense that we all categorize ourself according to membership in that group. Atheists adhere to atheism in the same sense that Christians adhere to Christianity. Atheism provides answers to questions about ultimate truth and reality the same way religion does.

So, atheistic regimes didn't persecute the religious because they were religious. They persecuted them, and everyone else, because they were threats to state control. So 100 million dead by atheist states in the course of a single century. That's more damage than religion managed to do, with the crusades, inquisitions, and intifadas, in the previous nineteen.

I'd say that counterbalances bshole's challenge somewhat.

I don't believe that atheists are inherently any more or less violent than anyone else. But I do believe they are just as vulnerable to human nature as everyone else.

 

[CPA]

Nope, it is possible to condemn everyone involved. The people who organized this event are ignorant hateful douche bags who put on a deliberately offensive event. The attackers were also ignorant hateful douche bags and I have no issue with the outcome they are dead and no one else is. A violent attack was never justified regardless of how offensive the event was.

I support the organizer's right to put on the event but also exercise my right to call them ignorant hateful douche bags.

Do you support someone trying to kill them? Because that is the issue, not calling them names.

 

[brycejones]

Do you support someone trying to kill them? Because that is the issue, not calling them names.

WTF do you think this means?

The attackers were also ignorant hateful douche bags and I have no issue with the outcome they are dead and no one else is. A violent attack was never justified regardless of how offensive the event was.

 

[realibrad]

It is the same, in the sense that we all categorize ourself according to membership in that group. Atheists adhere to atheism in the same sense that Christians adhere to Christianity. Atheism provides answers to questions about ultimate truth and reality the same way religion does.

So, atheistic regimes didn't persecute the religious because they were religious. They persecuted them, and everyone else, because they were threats to state control. So 100 million dead by atheist states in the course of a single century. That's more damage than religion managed to do, with the crusades, inquisitions, and intifadas, in the previous nineteen.

I'd say that counterbalances bshole's challenge somewhat.

I don't believe that atheists are inherently any more or less violent than anyone else. But I do believe they are just as vulnerable to human nature as everyone else.

Atheism does not say anything about ultimate truth and reality. That is only for religious belief. Again, not believing in something does not drive you. Your non belief in Hindu gods does not drive you to do anything. Your belief in your religion is what shapes you belief in "ultimate truth".

If you are going to attribute the the total 100 million deaths, then you are including famine. If you do that, then you have to look at China and what the Confucius followers did to China.

Communism did not kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they wanted power. Being an atheist did nothing, as even if the communist leaders were of a religion, the numbers would have been the same. An atheist who takes food from the people to starve them will kill the same amount of people as a religious person. Power drives all people, and it has nothing to do with religion, that is, unless they use religious institutions to obtain power.

 

[realibrad]

...

I should also note that of the 100 million that you used, Mao Zedong was included. Mao Zedong was not an atheist, as he talked of heaven and gods. He is hard to put under one religion, but he was not an atheist. You should then drop about 40 million from your 100 million.

 

[Atreus21]

Atheism does not say anything about ultimate truth and reality. That is only for religious belief. Again, not believing in something does not drive you. Your non belief in Hindu gods does not drive you to do anything. Your belief in your religion is what shapes you belief in "ultimate truth".

I just can't agree with that. An atheist is not simply saying he doesn't believe in one or several particular gods. He says he believes in no gods whatsoever; no intelligence behind all of existence. That carries with it some severe implications about any objective meaning of life.

It's not enough to simply say there is no god. An atheist ought to come to grips, as Nietzsche did, with the implications of such a belief, particularly as it regards morality.

If you are going to attribute the the total 100 million deaths, then you are including famine. If you do that, then you have to look at China and what the Confucius followers did to China.

Or perhaps what Mao's Great Leap Forward did to China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...stimating_the_death_toll_and_sources_of_error

The policies of the Great Leap Forward, the failure of the government to respond quickly and effectively to famine conditions, as well as Mao's insistence on maintaining high grain export quotas in the face of clear evidence of poor crop output were responsible for the famine. There is disagreement over how much, if at all, weather conditions contributed to the famine. Also there is considerable evidence the famine was intentional or due to willful negligence.

Yang Jisheng, a long-time communist party member and a reporter for the official Chinese news agency Xinhua, puts the blame squarely on Maoist policies, such as diverting agricultural workers to steel production instead of growing crops, and exporting grain at the same time.[76][77] During the course of his research, Yang uncovered that some 22 million tons of grain was held in public granaries at the height of the famine, reports of the starvation went up the bureaucracy only to be ignored by top officials, and the authorities ordered that statistics be destroyed in regions where population decline became evident.[78]

Communism did not kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they wanted power. Being an atheist did nothing, as even if the communist leaders were of a religion, the numbers would have been the same. An atheist who takes food from the people to starve them will kill the same amount of people as a religious person. Power drives all people, and it has nothing to do with religion, that is, unless they use religious institutions to obtain power.

Perhaps; that's sort of my point. Atheists are no more immune from power-hunger than the religious; state-atheism is as good a tool as theocracy as an instrument of oppression and mass-murder.

 

[Atreus21]

I should also note that of the 100 million that you used, Mao Zedong was included. Mao Zedong was not an atheist, as he talked of heaven and gods. He is hard to put under one religion, but he was not an atheist. You should then drop about 40 million from your 100 million.

And yet during the Great Leap Forward...

Besides these economic changes the Party implemented major social changes in the countryside including the banishing of all religious and mystic institutions and ceremonies and replacing them with political meetings and propaganda sessions.

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

 

[realibrad]

I just can't agree with that. An atheist is not simply saying he doesn't believe in one or several particular gods. He says he believes in no gods whatsoever; no intelligence behind all of existence. That carries with it some severe implications about any objective meaning of life.

It's not enough to simply say there is no god. An atheist ought to come to grips, as Nietzsche did, with the implications of such a belief, particularly as it regards morality.



Or perhaps what Mao's Great Leap Forward did to China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...stimating_the_death_toll_and_sources_of_error





Perhaps; that's sort of my point. Atheists are no more immune from power-hunger than the religious; state-atheism is as good a tool as theocracy as an instrument of oppression and mass-murder.

You can try and redefine atheism, but its definition is as follows.

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

I lack belief because I do not see evidence for god. I do not believe that, if there is a meaning to life, that we know it. There could be a god(s) and there might be a meaning to life, but I do not believe that any of the religions are based on a real god, and I dont believe they have established the meaning. I simply believe that belief should be based on evidence and should be demonstrable. My lack of belief means I am not limited, but it does not drive me to do anything. Just like you not being hungry does not drive you, but being hungry can.

State-atheism is a contradiction in how you use it. You cannot have a pro con belief.

As for atheist and being immune to power, that part is true. The difference is that an atheist would argue that being rational, you are less likely to be swayed into acts blindly. Further, a religion gives backing to those whom have ambition to do things. People who might otherwise say no to something, may say yes out to religious obligation.

There are many obvious examples where horrible acts did not need religion to back them, but, there are many where it was used. Having a non belief simply means you are not going to use religion as a reason to do anything.

As for Mao, he also said this.

All religions are permitted in China's Liberated Areas, in accordance with the principle of freedom of religious belief. All believers in Protestantism, Catholicism, Islamism, Buddhism and other faiths enjoy the protection of the people's government so long as they are abiding by its laws. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe; neither compulsion nor discrimination is permitted.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

The vast majority of people killed by "atheists" were due to economic policy. If you really want to compare deaths, you would also have to look at what religion has done on that front.

 

[Atreus21]

As for atheist and being immune to power, that part is true. The difference is that an atheist would argue that being rational, you are less likely to be swayed into acts blindly.

I don't agree that being religious equals being irrational.

Secondly, a theist would argue that certain principles have no rational basis, such as the objective value of human life...and to that end atheists might be swayed into horrific ends by strictly rational means.

Further, a religion gives backing to those whom have ambition to do things. People who might otherwise say no to something, may say yes out to religious obligation.

And just as easily, people who might otherwise commit murder, might say no out of religious obligation.

There are many obvious examples where horrible acts did not need religion to back them, but, there are many where it was used. Having a non belief simply means you are not going to use religion as a reason to do anything.

If someone is resolved to do something evil, they will find any pretext necessary, including religion.

As for Mao, he also said this.


https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

The vast majority of people killed by "atheists" were due to economic policy. If you really want to compare deaths, you would also have to look at what religion has done on that front.

Whatever Mao said is irrelevant. What he, and the government he founded, actually did is relevant. The Soviet constitution had protections for freedom of speech, religion, and press. Those provisions were simply ignored.

Thanks for a civil debate, but I'm not pursuing this anymore. Bshole attempted to divert from the original topic, and I fell for it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Atheism does not say anything about ultimate truth and reality. That is only for religious belief. Again, not believing in something does not drive you. Your non belief in Hindu gods does not drive you to do anything. Your belief in your religion is what shapes you belief in "ultimate truth".

If you are going to attribute the the total 100 million deaths, then you are including famine. If you do that, then you have to look at China and what the Confucius followers did to China.

Communism did not kill people because they were atheists. They killed people because they wanted power. Being an atheist did nothing, as even if the communist leaders were of a religion, the numbers would have been the same. An atheist who takes food from the people to starve them will kill the same amount of people as a religious person. Power drives all people, and it has nothing to do with religion, that is, unless they use religious institutions to obtain power.

Clearly then those who have religion and those who don't may both have no idea who God is. The difference is that those who believe in God got Him wrong and those who don't didn't get anything. The religious believe in a God that doesn't exist and the atheists simply knows that their erroneous god doesn't exist. Both groups have missed the point. To see them argue is funny.

 

[realibrad]

And a theist would argue that certain principles have no rational basis, such as the objective value of human life...and to that end atheists might be swayed into horrific ends by strictly rational means.

Human life does have value, and you can explain it through many secular ways. Religion is not needed to explain human value. Utility is a great start, but by no means is it the end.

I would also point out that in your example, atheists are simply not held back to do things, and are not driven to do things because of their non belief.

And just as easily, people who might otherwise commit murder, might say no out of religious obligation.

And an atheist might say no because they do not have a religious obligation. I don't see the point of this though.

If someone is resolved to do something evil, they will find any pretext necessary, including religion.

Right, and being a non believer is not a pretext to do anything. Its the absence of pretext. If you want to do something, you will need to find justification from something other than not believing.

Whatever Mao said is irrelevant. What he, and the government he founded, actually did is relevant. The Soviet constitution had protections for freedom of speech, religion, and press. Those provisions were simply ignored.

You are the one who brought up the 100 million deaths by atheists. I have countered that argument pretty well with facts. The implication you made was that atheists have done more harm to the world in terms of death an theists, which is empirically wrong

Thanks for a civil debate, but I'm not pursuing this anymore. Bshole attempted to divert from the original topic, and I fell for it.

Fair enough. You seem rational enough, and I would enjoy talking further. Feel free to PM me about this if you wish to continue.

Bshole is as Bshole does.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It is the same, in the sense that we all categorize ourself according to membership in that group. Atheists adhere to atheism in the same sense that Christians adhere to Christianity. Atheism provides answers to questions about ultimate truth and reality the same way religion does.

So, atheistic regimes didn't persecute the religious because they were religious. They persecuted them, and everyone else, because they were threats to state control. So 100 million dead by atheist states in the course of a single century. That's more damage than religion managed to do, with the crusades, inquisitions, and intifadas, in the previous nineteen.

I'd say that counterbalances bshole's challenge somewhat.

I don't believe that atheists are inherently any more or less violent than anyone else. But I do believe they are just as vulnerable to human nature as everyone else.

You are mistaken in calling them Atheist, it is just a substitution of Radical Political Philosophy for Religion. Just one true believer killing a heritic. An Atheist won't kill you unless your door to door attempt to convert them gets too annoying. Which could be considered a Public Service.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I have to say the cop that took on and killed the two terrorists with just a handgun is my new hero. Both BG's had rifles and body armor and should have had a huge advantage against a street cop armed with only a Glock 45. The cop had a bullet proof vest as well, but that wouldn't have done much against rifle fire whereas the BG's with body armor would have been protected from the cops 45 pistol fire -- except the cop must have used head shots.

Think about it, the BG's had the more powerful weapons, outnumbered the cop 2:1, had relatively more effective body armor, had the advantage of surprise and yet the cop took them both out with precise fire.

Skill wins!


Brian

 

[SlickSnake]

I have to say the cop that took on and killed the two terrorists with just a handgun is my new hero. Both BG's had rifles and body armor and should have had a huge advantage against a street cop armed with only a Glock 45. The cop had a bullet proof vest as well, but that wouldn't have done much against rifle fire whereas the BG's with body armor would have been protected from the cops 45 pistol fire -- except the cop must have used head shots.

Think about it, the BG's had the more powerful weapons, outnumbered the cop 2:1, had relatively more effective body armor, had the advantage of surprise and yet the cop took them both out with precise fire.

Skill wins!


Brian

And crazy, stupid, religious fanatics lose their worthless lives for nothing.

And you made an excellent point, which I had somewhat thought about at the time when I saw it unfolding.

 

[1prophet]

Women should wear burqas because otherwise they are just provoking men.

You on the left are reaching new levels of stupidity when it comes to defending Muslim terrorists.

I never said such things but then again, you are the dumbest poster on P&N so I don't expect you to understand anything anyone posts.

you may not have said so but he does bring up a valid point, there are quite a few religious types, Islam just being the most extreme in today's world, that would find the woman in the picture provacative and blame her for whatever crime may befall her.

Now you may say she wasn't intentionally trying to be provocative, but what if she was, would you blame her then?

but how about a more extreme example,


Gay protesters in Spain greet Pope Benedict with massive 'kiss-in' to signal defiance to church laws

they are purposely trying to offend against a religious leader with millions of followers just like Mohammed was, would you then blame them if any violence was to ensue?

 

[MongGrel]

Terrorist trolling/baiting must be a new game in Texas, start a intentionally provocative "Art" comtest, hire 40 or so cops and SWAT guys, and see if anyone shows up to retaliate.

Someone should be charged for even being allowed to do that IMHO, what if those guys had made it inside the place and went on a spree.

Was a bit of reckless endangerment I'd think, but that's just me maybe, they were trying to intentionally get a rise out of someone.

Surprised it was allowed to happen to begin with.

 

[realibrad]

you may not have said so but he does bring up a valid point, there are quite a few religious types, Islam just being the most extreme in today's world, that would find the woman in the picture provacative and blame her for whatever crime may befall her.

Now you may say she wasn't intentionally trying to be provocative, but what if she was, would you blame her then?

but how about a more extreme example,


Gay protesters in Spain greet Pope Benedict with massive 'kiss-in' to signal defiance to church laws


they are purposely trying to offend against a religious leader with millions of followers just like Mohammed was, would you then blame them if any violence was to ensue?

I think the purpose is actually to show defiance, and not only to offend. I think the goal is partly to stick it to people, but also to show they are willing to stand up for something they believe in.

Sometimes people want to hurt the feelings of others, and using freedom of speech is an easy way to do it. The reason we allow people to get their feelings hurt, is freedom of speech is an important part in how people are able to balance power.

Its almost impossible to tell when someone is trying to counter ideas vs when someone just wants to piss other off. I personally think both are important and both should be protected.

Provoking people through free speech should not lessen the punishment for those who react to the provocation. Unless you are doing something like going to a persons house and yelling at their front door, the person has no legal recourse. There is a point where people exercising free speech can appear as aggression, and that is where the law can step in.

 

[TechBoyJK]

BOOM HEADSHOT

That said.. where they headshots?

 

[MongGrel]

How is Atheism even a belief.

Didn't read the whole thing, not sure how it got in here.

I've never figured that one out, seems to me if someone was born and never was exposed to a religion and never had someone else try to shove one down their throat they would be that way, always seemed like a tag religious people coined just to describe people who didn't give a crap about guys in the sky IMHO.

 

[realibrad]

Terrorist trolling/baiting must be a new game in Texas, start a intentionally provocative "Art" comtest, hire 40 or so cops and SWAT guys, and see if anyone shows up to retaliate.

Someone should be charged for even being allowed to do that IMHO, what if those guys had made it inside the place and went on a spree.

Was a bit of reckless endangerment I'd think, but that's just me maybe, they were trying to intentionally get a rise out of someone.

Surprised it was allowed to happen to begin with.

Sounds like a great excuse to ban anything that anyone has ever died for.

Abortion doctor died because of a crazy christian who thought abortions were murder. Now, any abortion clinic should be responsible when/if someone else gets killed by a crazy person.

 

[ivwshane]

you may not have said so but he does bring up a valid point, there are quite a few religious types, Islam just being the most extreme in today's world, that would find the woman in the picture provacative and blame her for whatever crime may befall her.

Now you may say she wasn't intentionally trying to be provocative, but what if she was, would you blame her then?

but how about a more extreme example,


Gay protesters in Spain greet Pope Benedict with massive 'kiss-in' to signal defiance to church laws

they are purposely trying to offend against a religious leader with millions of followers just like Mohammed was, would you then blame them if any violence was to ensue?

You, like Michael1980, missed the point.

 

[MongGrel]

Sounds like a great excuse to ban anything that anyone has ever died for.

Abortion doctor died because of a crazy christian who thought abortions were murder. Now, any abortion clinic should be responsible when/if someone else gets killed by a crazy person.

So you're equating a random "art contest" to a medical choice.

Something seems a bit skewed there, I can see your point to a certain extent.

Seems a bit out of context.

 

[michal1980]

You, like Michael1980, missed the point.

Seems like you are missing the point. But we all know liberals are just fine with double standards.

 

[MongGrel]

Seems like you are missing the point. But we all know liberals are just fine with double standards.

You still seem like you want to put people in two little boxes and haven't grown up yet.

Life is a lot more complex than that.

 

[marincounty]

Just think what would happen in Texas if I were to announce the creation of a huge "Socialist Abortion Center" to be located in Texas. And got a ton of publicity about it.
Want to bet whether it would be attacked by gun-toting Americans?