How many did God kill vs Satan?

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
How many did God kill vs Satan?

How many people did God kill in the Bible?

It's impossible to say for sure, but plenty. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? There's just no way to count them all. This list doesn't include those figures.

  SAB, Brick Testament Number Killed Cumulative Total
Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, BT 1 2
Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10, BT 1 3
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 3003
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 3005
A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 3006
A man who picked up sticks on the SabbathNum.15:32-36, BT 1 3007
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 3019+
Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35, 26:10, BT 250 3269+
For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 17,969+
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 41,969+
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 131,969+
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 131,974+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 143,974+
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 153,974+
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 153,975+
God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 163,975+
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 283,975+
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,005+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,005+
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 288,005+
"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 313,105+
More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 338,105+
For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19 50,070 388,175+
God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12 20 388,195+
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33 1 388,196+
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 388,197+
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 388,198+
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Sam.12:14-18 1 388,199+
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 388,206+
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 458,206+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 458,207+
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 558,207+
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 585,207+
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 585,208+
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 585,209+
Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 585,311+
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 585,343+
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 585,344+
Jezebel2 Kg.9:33-37 1 585,355+
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 585,358+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 770,358+
Saul 1 Chr.10:14 1 770,359+
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chr.13:15-17 500,000 1,270,359+
Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 1,270,360+
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 2,270,360+
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 2,270,361+
Ezekiel's wife Ezek.24:15-18 1 2,270,362+
Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2,270,364+
Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 2,270,365+


But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

Well SAB can only find ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. Steve's talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job. There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job ... And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. ... And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD ... put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. ... And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house...And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. -- Job 1:1-19 So it seems that both Satan and God share the blame (or the credit) for these killings. If so, then the tally would be:

Lots!

Source/Credit: Steve Wells Skeptics Annotated Bible Check him out:

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: To all

Hambydammit wrote:

To all Christians:  Please refer to Rook's post above.  It is what we call "evidence."

Could you please make with some of your own now if you're going to say that Hitler was an atheist, or would you like to concede the point that theists were responsible for the holocaust?

 

 

I'm confused when I said that athiests were responsible for the holocause?  All I said was that Christians were not.  Just because Hitler said he believed in God doesn't make him a Christian.  Being a Christian not only means believing that Christ came down, died for our sins, and then rose again, but following the teachings and commandments that He laid down.  Hitler, obviously, was not following God. 

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not the "No True Scotsman"

Not the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy again!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
ziggy, I wasn't speaking

ziggy, I wasn't speaking directly to you, sorry. It is a very, very common argument on these threads to say that the holocaust is an example of what happens when you leave god out of morality. My post was a general response to at least a half a dozen people in the last week or so.

Be careful not to do the same thing to me. Even though you quoted me directly, you still put words in my mouth. I said Hitler was a theist, not a Christian.

Hitler may have been following god, if one exists! Maybe god's an asshole. For you to say Hitler wasn't following god, you have to disprove that his god exists, right?

Or, is it that if there is a god, then the people who claim he exists are responsible for providing proof? Hmm...

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: It is

ShaunPhilly wrote:

It is not transcendent because it is derived, bottom up, from observing the nature of our interactions.

It is social, because without other sentient, emotional, preference-having beings, there would be no other will to violate. That is, ethics are social principles and rules derived from our experience as well as built into our bahavior-patterns which are the result of the physical structure of the brain which developed from millions of years of natural selection--they are instinctual for most people.

Would it be a fair characterization of your view then, to say that morals are defined by a given society?  And that if a given member of that society follows those morals they are "good" and if they don't they are "bad"?

If not, then how would you define good and bad?

(Thanks for indulging my questions)

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Hitler

Hambydammit wrote:

Hitler may have been following god, if one exists! Maybe god's an asshole. For you to say Hitler wasn't following god, you have to disprove that his god exists, right?

 

Sorry for the misconceptioin.  I'll agree that Hitler might have been following a god but it wasn't the God from the Bible.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, zig. Now, how about

Thanks, zig.

Now, how about the second part of my statement.  Care to disprove the existence of Hitler's god?  Seems like a pretty important thing to do.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Not really.  I really have

Not really.  I really have no idea what god Hitler believed in.  All the articles and books that I've read about Hitler don't know what god he believed in.  So dissproving it is not really something that I am capable of doing. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote: Not

Ziggyzaz wrote:
Not really.  I really have no idea what god Hitler believed in.  All the articles and books that I've read about Hitler don't know what god he believed in.  So dissproving it is not really something that I am capable of doing. 

 

So I suppose you didn't read the lengthy information posted above that Hitler believed in the Christian god, eh?  Or are you just so dogmatic, that you've already ignored the facts and moved on to your selective delusional reality?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zoonooz wrote: ShaunPhilly

zoonooz wrote:

ShaunPhilly wrote:

It is not transcendent because it is derived, bottom up, from observing the nature of our interactions.

It is social, because without other sentient, emotional, preference-having beings, there would be no other will to violate. That is, ethics are social principles and rules derived from our experience as well as built into our bahavior-patterns which are the result of the physical structure of the brain which developed from millions of years of natural selection--they are instinctual for most people.

Would it be a fair characterization of your view then, to say that morals are defined by a given society? And that if a given member of that society follows those morals they are "good" and if they don't they are "bad"?

If not, then how would you define good and bad?

(Thanks for indulging my questions)

I would say that much of morality is universally shared because of our similar brain structure, but that different social, environmental, and religious circumstances make them express differently.  

Thus, there is an element where society does formulate what is good and bad.  I wouldn't say that because people follow those morals that they become good, but rather that what we do is a result of our brain (and it's behavior patterns) responding to the cultural and environmental situation it finds itself, and "good" and "bad" are terms we place on the behaviors that have certain results (while keeping in mind things such as intent, fore-knowledge, etc.

I cannot answer these questions easily because they are framed in a way that highlights the dichotomy of relativism versus abbsolutism.  I find this dichotomy to be non-representative of reality and thus not apt.  

I would say that ethics, morals, and concepts such as "good" and "bad" are intersubjective expressions of shared physiological  characteristics.  They are "relative" in that they are expressed differently in different circumstances.  they are absolute (insofar as most humans share a common moral sense) insofar as we have similar senses about moral questions which makes it possible to abstract them into ideals.  They are not relative in that they are not arbitrary.  They are not absolute in that they are dependent upon our emotional and cognitive states; they are particular states of consciousness that are shared through communication, sympathy, and empathy.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Sorry

Hambydammit wrote:

Sorry for the misconceptioin.  I'll agree that Hitler might have been following a god but it wasn't the God from the Bible.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
huh? Those aren't my

huh?

Those aren't my words.

I said:

Be careful not to do the same thing to me. Even though you quoted me directly, you still put words in my mouth. I said Hitler was a theist, not a Christian.

I never said he was or wasn't a Christian, mainly because I didn't want to hear the "no true scotsman" argument.  We were talking about whether or not he was an atheist, and I didn't think it particularly relevant to the conversation which version of theist he was.

Anyway, I have no idea how that quote got attributed to me.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Thise words were from

Thise words were from Ziggy, and incorrectly attributed to you, Hamby.

 I'm assuming it was an honest mistake.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's no sweat.  I'm not

It's no sweat.  I'm not (and wasn't when I posted) mad, but I'm a little twitchy about being misquoted.  It's hard enough as an atheist to have to triple and quadruple proof read stuff to make sure there are no errors, cause Lordy-mercy, if I make a mistake, it proves my whole argument wrong and the god people win, you know?

Just a mild tic from living in the deep south so long.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: It's no

Hambydammit wrote:

It's no sweat.  I'm not (and wasn't when I posted) mad, but I'm a little twitchy about being misquoted.  It's hard enough as an atheist to have to triple and quadruple proof read stuff to make sure there are no errors, cause Lordy-mercy, if I make a mistake, it proves my whole argument wrong and the god people win, you know?

Just a mild tic from living in the deep south so long.

 

 

My apologies.  I did indeed make a mistake on the quoting.  I'll be more careful in the future.

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: So I

Sapient wrote:

So I suppose you didn't read the lengthy information posted above that Hitler believed in the Christian god, eh?  Or are you just so dogmatic, that you've already ignored the facts and moved on to your selective delusional reality?

 

First off I would like to apologize for not responding to this sooner.  Work this week has been a little busy. 

 

Next.  Please don't use words that sound good but have a different meaning then what you intend.  However if you did intend to use the word "dogmatic" to describe me, then what are you?  As I'm sure you know dogmatic means "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles."   While I will agree with you that there is no way to prove a god exists, there is also no way to disprove that a god exists.  Christianity has no way to prove that God exists.  But then all the information you have posted on this website doesn't disprove that God exists.  All your doing is attacking the foundation of Christian beliefs. 

 

Sure there are things in the Bible that don't make sense.  Things that are so outrageous that beleiving them doesn't really mesh with our understanding of things.  So.  The very foundation of the Bible is faith.  To qoute Hebrews 11 v 1 "[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  One verse sums it up for us. 

 

Now on to Hitler.  James 2:24 says "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
So Hitler quite obviously was not working for God.  He might have been saying that he believed in God to rationalize to himself that it was ok to slaughter millions of people.  The Bible teaches us that people will know the follows of Christ by the example that they set to others.  Now, I'll admit that the example set by some Christians is not good.  Sometimes even down right awful.  But true Christians strive to be like Christ and lead the pure and perfect life that He did.  Is it possible for us. No.  Romans 3v23 says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  Thats why Jesus Christ came down to pay the price for our sins.  Thats it.  Hitler was not setting the example and leading a Christ filled life.  Thats the long and the short of it.  Therefore you cannot claim that Hitler was a christian.


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Shaun - I have given your

Shaun -

I have given your comments quite a bit of thought these last few days, which is why I have been slow to respond.

 

When asked “why would violating the will of another be wrong?” the response was “If you really don't understand that you should not violate the will of others, then I'll remember to steer clear of you.”

 

This is circular reasoning.  It's saying “It’s wrong to violate the will of another because it’s obviously wrong.”  But no reason why it’s wrong has been provided.  Nor has a reason been provided why I ought to behave in a particular way, which is the entire thrust of morality and ethics.

 

It was also stated that “I think that we don't need to point to a source of morality.”  But then evolution and society are pointed to as sources of morality.

 

An evolutionary and societal definition of “right and wrong” are by definition relative, because they are based upon changing sources.  So “right and wrong” become temporary and mutable. 

 

An evolutionary and societal definition of “right and wrong” are only descriptive and not prescriptive.  That is, they can only describe what morals are and not prescribe what morals should be.

 

Additionally, there is no way to know which moral precept is correct because there is no inviolate standard.  This renders moral judgments without a basis.  On what basis can one society say another society is wrong?  How can someone judge that what Hitler did is wrong? 

 

Are those with an atheistic worldview willing to say that torturing babies for fun is always wrong, absolutely and without equivocation, regardless of society or what evolution may program into us?  If so, then  morals must transcend man's autonomy.  If not, then perhaps I should steer clear of atheists.

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zoonooz wrote: Shaun - I

zoonooz wrote:

Shaun -

I have given your comments quite a bit of thought these last few days, which is why I have been slow to respond.

It's cool, I've been busy elsewhere. 

Quote:
When asked “why would violating the will of another be wrong?” the response was “If you really don't understand that you should not violate the will of others, then I'll remember to steer clear of you.”

This is circular reasoning. It's saying “It’s wrong to violate the will of another because it’s obviously wrong.” But no reason why it’s wrong has been provided. Nor has a reason been provided why I ought to behave in a particular way, which is the entire thrust of morality and ethics.

That's because morals are not purely rational.  They are partially emotional, mostly instinctual, and any rational justification for why we act a certain way is generally an after-ther-fact rationalization.  Thisis not to say that we cannot be rational about ethics, but that this is not how our ethical behavior arises. 

There is a rational explanation of why you ought to behave in a particular way.  It's just that you don't do it because of those reasons, the reason arises as a result of the instinctual behavior pattern which arises due to the way your brain is put together.  Your brain is that way because the behavior patterns of your ancestors were such that their behaviors allowed to them survive and pass those structures along.

 

Quote:
It was also stated that “I think that we don't need to point to a source of morality.” But then evolution and society are pointed to as sources of morality.

Right, I agree with this.  What I mean is that we don't have to have an origin of rules or laws.  We have an explanation of how behavior patterns that benefit our survival developed, but the rules, laws, mores, etc that we can now articulate don't have a source outside of ourselves.  I'm basically saying that an absolute, objective, god-given morality is not only unnecessary to explain morality but it simply is not there.  The fact that we can abstract from experience and identify a principle for good and bad behavior does not imply an objective source.  It only indicates a brain structure good at recognizing patterns of our behavior and what of it works better and worse.

Quote:
An evolutionary and societal definition of “right and wrong” are by definition relative, because they are based upon changing sources. So “right and wrong” become temporary and mutable.

Yes, this is true.  The changing circumstances mean that we use our moral faculties to come up with answers that cannot be predicted without knowing the circumstances.  That is, we cannot articulate--at least not easily--a principle of identifying right and wrong behavior without knowing every possiblecircumstance.  We cannot make a decision about clonin, for example, before we can even conceive of cloning.  Thus, we cannot just have a rule that says "no cloning."  We can abstract, however, from other values and principles what to do aout it when it comes up.  Ethics is about applying a faculty to a situation, so it is necessarily relative.  

The only thing that's important here is to point out that relative does not mean that anything goes.  That's conflating relativism with nihilism.   

Quote:
An evolutionary and societal definition of “right and wrong” are only descriptive and not prescriptive. That is, they can only describe what morals are and not prescribe what morals should be.

Well, this is mostly true.  Yes, studying evolution and how it carved out our behaviors and judgments of right and wrong is a descriptive process.  At the same time, it helps us to identify the limitations of what will seem right and wrong to us by describing the things that feel good to us because they aid in survival.  

Our emotions are tied to our survival.  Our emotions are tied to our rational faculties.  Our emotions are tied to morality.  All of there things are interconnected in a way that makes what is good for us--in fact, what is good in general because it is our language and conceptual tools that do the defining of all terms-- and thus they are decriptive of what morals are for us as well as help identify what we should do in order to survive, interact, and all the other things we do that are morally relevant.

Quote:
Additionally, there is no way to know which moral precept is correct because there is no inviolate standard. This renders moral judgments without a basis. On what basis can one society say another society is wrong? How can someone judge that what Hitler did is wrong?

This is a fallacy  To say that because there is no absolute standard does not mean there is no standard.  The standard is not absolute, but it is a standard that means something to us; is has import for our survival, ability to socially cohere, etc.  This standard is not important for any absolute or objective reason, it is important to us, and we ar ethe ones asking the questions.  From an objective persective, it doen't matter what the hell we do.  That does not mean that it doesn't matter to us.  

Quote:
Are those with an atheistic worldview willing to say that torturing babies for fun is always wrong, absolutely and without equivocation, regardless of society or what evolution may program into us? If so, then morals must transcend man's autonomy. If not, then perhaps I should steer clear of atheists.

I'll not speak for anyone but myself.  I wold say that I cannot conceive of a situation where torturing babies for fun is ever ok.  I would go as far to say that it is probably always wrong.  

When I look at my behavior, observe how my brain judges situations, etc I start to realize taht there is a moral principle at work.  The best way I have to describe it--in fact to prescribe it--would be to say something like the following;

  1. Individuals feel that it is important to preserve their health, survival, as well as their ability to act freely.
  2. We recognize that other similar beings surround us and have similar desires and feelings (theory of minds).
  3. The will of others is of equal worth and validity as ours.  (That is, unless you have some argument why your will supercedes that of others)
  4. We must allow others their health, survival, and feedom

In other words, without any justification for valuing your will above others, act such that you don't infringe upon the will of others if you recognize that you desire life, health, and freedom and recognize that others do as well.  

It really is a form of the Golden Rule.  It's held up for so long because it makes sense.  It isn't right because anyone said it, it's right because it accords with out instincts.

If you keep thinking of this as a dichotomy between an absolute standard and nihilism, you will continue to miss the point.  Relative ethics are only relative insofar as the standard is limited to the perspective of those asking the questions.  

 Like i said earlier, good is good for something.  Morals are good for us, thus we are the standard. 

 Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Shaun - I have a question

Shaun -

I have a question I'd like to get an answer to before responding to some of the other points you bring up.

Why won't you commit to saying that torturing babies for fun is always wrong?

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zoonooz wrote: Shaun - I

zoonooz wrote:

Shaun -

I have a question I'd like to get an answer to before responding to some of the other points you bring up.

Why won't you commit to saying that torturing babies for fun is always wrong?

 Is it really that b6thersome? The only thng I was thinking was a very rare situations where one was given an ultimatum where one had to choose between two very bad choices.  The act itself is always a bad thing, but what would you do if I told you you had the choice of tortoring two babies or I was going to send a nuke to New York City?  All you have to do to save New York is torture a couple of babies.  I'll admit that the torturing is in itself always a wrong thing to do, but in a situation such as this, it might be the right choice.

That is, there is a distinction between something being a bad action and it being a bad decision.

Now, what's your question then?

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: The act

ShaunPhilly wrote:

The act itself is always a bad thing, but what would you do if I told you you had the choice of tortoring two babies or I was going to send a nuke to New York City?  All you have to do to save New York is torture a couple of babies.  I'll admit that the torturing is in itself always a wrong thing to do, but in a situation such as this, it might be the right choice.

That is, there is a distinction between something being a bad action and it being a bad decision.

Now, what's your question then?

Shaun 

My question is the same.  Why won't you commit to saying that torturing babies for fun is always wrong?

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


momentimori
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote:   While

Ziggyzaz wrote:

 

While I will agree with you that there is no way to prove a god exists, there is also no way to disprove that a god exists. Christianity has no way to prove that God exists. But then all the information you have posted on this website doesn't disprove that God exists.

This is the fallacy of an argument from ignorance. God must exist because you can't disprove his existance. Using this fallacy I can claim that Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, Thor, the man in the moon exist because it is logically impossible to disprove.

Please can you share any falsifiable evidence for the existance of God. If you can find any I am sure you'll be on the way to Buckingham Palace to claim your Templeton Prize as well as worldwide fame and fortune.


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
See my "Understanding the

See my "Understanding the Salvation History,"

http://dmitrychernikov.com/salvation.htm

for an explanation of the Old Testament violence.

How do you add a link with the new interface?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dchernik wrote: See my

dchernik wrote:

See my "Understanding the Salvation History,"

http://dmitrychernikov.com/salvation.htm

for an explanation of the Old Testament violence.

How do you add a link with the new interface?

 That's not an explanation, it's a rationalization. Rationalization != rational thought

You basically said, "We're all god's toys and he can do whatever he wants"

Why do you feel you need to excuse god for his insanity?  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You basically said,

Quote:
You basically said, "We're all god's toys and he can do whatever he wants"

1. Not "are" and "can" -- "were" and "could," before the election of Israel and the Incarnation.

2. Do not misrepresent me. God stands in no need of "toys." I said humans were God's property, slaves. And, I argue, it could not be otherwise.

Quote:
Why do you feel you need to excuse god for his insanity?

Why is God insane? And who are you to judge how He chose to dispose of His own created property?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
First of all, based on what

First of all, based on what I read, I believe I represented you properly.

If we are all god's chattel, he can use us as he wishes (your claim). If he chooses to use us as toys, then we are his toys (logical following from your claim). I believe that his knowing about the crap (which he created) we all go through in this life and letting us just stumble through without bothering to help (all the while claiming in the bible how much he loves us) is proof of his view of us as playthings.

How does Jesus, who you also claim to be god (and sacrificing himself to himself), change any of that? It seems as those that's just one more head game played on the sheep who believe.

Why do I question God's sanity? I looked at the same evidence you used to defend it.  If a human being committed any of the crimes god pulled off in the bible he'd be locked up without question and god would condemn him to eternal punishment just as quickly.

Again, why do you defend God's insanity as well as his breaking of his own rules? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I believe that his

Quote:
I believe that his knowing about the crap (which he created) we all go through in this life and letting us just stumble through without bothering to help (all the while claiming in the bible how much he loves us) is proof of his view of us as playthings.

I remember a long time ago I thought something similar. Actually, He does help (why don't you ask Him), but you are required to think for yourself and do your own work without a trace of self-pity. God won't live your life for you.

Quote:
How does Jesus, who you also claim to be god (and sacrificing himself to himself), change any of that?

By assuming humanity into Himself and either by removing some of the consequesnces of the Original Sin (namely, privation of the beatific vision) or by earning the right from the Father to forgive actual sins, depending on how you view it.

Quote:
Why do I question God's sanity? I looked at the same evidence you used to defend it.  If a human being committed any of the crimes god pulled off in the bible he'd be locked up without question and god would condemn him to eternal punishment just as quickly.

But the very point is that God had the "legal" right to give life and take it at will. Apparently, it suited His ends to exercise the latter right several times. As to whether it was well-advised, I'd like see you argue that it was not. But you'll just have to imagine yourself omniscient and capable of calculating the consequences of your actions for billions of years.

Quote:
Again, why do you defend God's insanity as well as his breaking of his own rules?

You did not read my article, did you? The whole point is that the rules changed twice: first, after Abraham, and second, after Christ.


mdean1979
mdean1979's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-07-30
User is offlineOffline
smparker21 wrote:    I

smparker21 wrote:

  

I happen to concern myself much more with what will happen to me after my (physical) death than my shortass life in this world.  I am not suicidal nor do I believe that there is no purpose for my life or existence.  I am here to do what I can with what I have been given.

You honestly concern yourself "much more with what will happen to me after my (physical death) than my shortass life in this world."

 If this is indeed the case, you are not truly living. You are merely preparing yourself for the grandest disappointment that any theist can imagine... THERE IS NO GOD.

 Atheists, at the very least, live this life for all it's worth. Can you say the same thing? Judging by your earlier statement, i'd say not.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dchernik wrote: Quote: I

dchernik wrote:

Quote:
I believe that his knowing about the crap (which he created) we all go through in this life and letting us just stumble through without bothering to help (all the while claiming in the bible how much he loves us) is proof of his view of us as playthings.

I remember a long time ago I thought something similar. Actually, He does help (why don't you ask Him), but you are required to think for yourself and do your own work without a trace of self-pity. God won't live your life for you.

Quote:
How does Jesus, who you also claim to be god (and sacrificing himself to himself), change any of that?

By assuming humanity into Himself and either by removing some of the consequesnces of the Original Sin (namely, privation of the beatific vision) or by earning the right from the Father to forgive actual sins, depending on how you view it.

Quote:
Why do I question God's sanity? I looked at the same evidence you used to defend it. If a human being committed any of the crimes god pulled off in the bible he'd be locked up without question and god would condemn him to eternal punishment just as quickly.

But the very point is that God had the "legal" right to give life and take it at will. Apparently, it suited His ends to exercise the latter right several times. As to whether it was well-advised, I'd like see you argue that it was not. But you'll just have to imagine yourself omniscient and capable of calculating the consequences of your actions for billions of years.

Quote:
Again, why do you defend God's insanity as well as his breaking of his own rules?

You did not read my article, did you? The whole point is that the rules changed twice: first, after Abraham, and second, after Christ.

 The rules changed? God has given us sanction to disregard his commands because Jesus came and died?

But wait..

1) You also claim Jesus is God, don't you? So Jesus (God) offered himself to the Father (God) so the Father (God) could change a rule he made? Redundant.

2) If the rules changed, all of the Mosaic commadments no longer apply (not just the ceremonial laws). But that goes against what your Jesus (God) says. Your idea is illogical by your own standards.  

 It still doesn't make a lot of sense to me when a religion could condemn a person to eternal punishment for breaking a rule created by the god of that religion while that god doesn't feel the need to observe the rule himself.

 As for my omniscience - I am exactly as omniscient as your God is. The creation (God) cannot exceed the creator (man).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


UberBob
UberBob's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2006-04-20
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to append this

I'd like to append this list, if I may. 

 

This is something I found on the Net sometime ago and saved it.  I can't remember the original URL

-----------------------------------------------------------

Victims of the Christian Faith
How many people have been killed by Christians since biblical times? What your church does not want you to know.

Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans

* As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
* Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
* Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
* Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
* Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
* Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
* In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
* In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
* The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

Mission

* Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
* Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
* Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
* 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
* 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)

* First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
* Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
* 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
* Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
* after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
* Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
* Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude&quotEye-wink
* The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
* Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
* Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
* Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
* Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]

Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics

* Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
* Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
* Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
* Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
* subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
* After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
* Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
* Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
* Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
* John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
* University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
* Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Witches

* from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
* in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
* incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars

* 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
* 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
* 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
* 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
* 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
* 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
* 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews

* Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
* In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
* 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
* The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
* First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
* Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
* Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
* Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
* 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
* 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
* 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
* 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
* 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
* 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
* 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
* 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
* 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.

Native Peoples

* Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
* Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
* On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]

* Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
* In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
* On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
* The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
* As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
* The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
* What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
* The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
* "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
* Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
* "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

* Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
* In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
* On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
* When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
* So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
* Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
* Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
* Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
* The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
* Other tribes were to follow the same path.
* Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
* Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
* In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
* In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
* To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
* All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
* A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
* In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious events in US history

* Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
* Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore&quotEye-wink had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.
* By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities

* Catholic extermination camps
Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
* Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
o "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.
* Christianity kills the cat
On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Wrzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Wrzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]
* Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
o "Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
* As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end.

If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick.

-------------------------------------------------------- 

"Sometimes even the wisest of man or machine can make an error."

-Optimus Prime


OreosTheTrombone
OreosTheTrombone's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Adding onto my free will

Adding onto my free will thing... (sorry it's been a while, classes, finals and such tend to get in the way)

Why would God even allow satan to exist in the first place if he is all powerful and all knowing? Not only that but as far as the great flood goes, adding to the "God creates to destroy" wouldn't he be aware that humanity was going to mess up? So why did he make us flawed only to destroy us? Also if he made us in his own image wouldn't that mean he could be tempted and flawed as well if such a God exsisted.

Just looking at stories from the bible the stories seem to be too human error-prone (like a poorly written fiction book, taught and preached, to keep certain... types... of people in power/control over others) for such a perfect deity's word.

 

*adding on* it also surprises me that no one on the side of religion is telling us to interperet the bible in a more figurative sense...(sorry if I'm wrong, I'm not going to lie, I haven't read every post word-for-word)  like... "satan isn't nessasarly a real creature, the bible just uses that character to describe the temptation/badness in all of us" just thought I'd throw that out there...

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. - Thomas Jefferson


brainstormsguy
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
OK, I haven't read all the

OK, I haven't read all the posts to this one, but I have just one question.  Why does someone who doesn't believe in God go through all the work counting up how many people he (who is believed not to exist) killed???  And then compare it to a being, that being satan (who is believed not to exist) and how many people he has killed.  If God does not exist...then this doesn't mean crap.  Even to say that, "If you believe in God then you have to believe that a good God killed people..." then the argument turns from there not being a God, to there being a God but he isn't essentially good.  Hardly a good atheist position for debate...you just walked out of the "athiest" world into the I'm a believer in an "unjust God" world.

This is hillarious that this post is even on here. Smiling


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why does someone who

Quote:
Why does someone who doesn't believe in God go through all the work counting up how many people he (who is believed not to exist) killed???

Check first post 

Quote:
And then compare it to a being, that being satan (who is believed not to exist) and how many people he has killed.

 Check first post

Quote:
then the argument turns from there not being a God, to there being a God but he isn't essentially good.
 

 Hahaha, No! The argument at first wasn't "there is no god!" It was "If this god was real, here is what whom he killed!"

In other words, read the first post. 

 

PS First post, read it.

 

 

PPS read first post. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


brainstormsguy
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Howdy again,And....I did

Howdy again,

And....I did check the first post...and I did check the first post and...yes, again, I did check the first post....haha.

 Here's my point.  I've talked to a lot of Athiests in my lifetime.  Some are athiests because they simply do not believe and have never believed.  The others became an athiest because they were mad at God or didn't figure out the Master Plan or whatever.

 The "First Post" seems to fall into the second.  And to me, if someone is an athiest, the argument shouldn't matter.  Now, I'm guessing that the comeback for you here would be, "I'm trying to show how "mean" or "unloving" God is vs. Satan....thus showing how innaccurate the Bible really is.  Thus proving that God really isn't loving and should not be believed."  Well, there again...trying to show that there is innacuracy or unloviness in the Bible is like trying to prove that God isn't who he said he is...thus moving to the argument that God is not a loving God.

If God didn't exist, then the killings didn't exist...and why should you care...you don't believe in God/Satan or any of the killings....right?

 I'm just trying to follow your argument correctly to see where you're coming from.  You say:

So it seems that both Satan and God share the blame (or the credit) for these killings...

Are you saying that since God has "killings" in resume, that He doesn't exist?  Are you saying that since God has death on his record, that he really isn't loving?  Are you saying that since there is a record of death in the Bible, that God isn't "just?"  Let me know so I can see where you're coming from.

Sorry...trying to figure out how to use the highlighting too....lol


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: And....I did check

Quote:
And....I did check the first post...and I did check the first post and...yes, again, I did check the first post....haha.
 

 *Sigh*

Quote:
Are you saying that since God has "killings" in resume, that He doesn't exist?

No the argument here is, god killed all these people, so he's not this all round nice guy that a lot of christians point him out to be. 

Quote:
Are you saying that since God has death on his record, that he really isn't loving?

Yep, can't be all that loving when you decide to kill instead of umm... I don't know, slap everyone on the face and tell them to cut it out. Like the story of Noah's ark, instead of telling those evil people to stop doing all this stuff, he just kills them off.

Quote:
Are you saying that since there is a record of death in the Bible, that God isn't "just?"

There are other ways to prove god unjust besides death count.

But I digress, This whole post just started out as an thought of, who killed more, this "Good" god, or theis "Evil" satan.

And to be frank, I'm not suprised about the total, In fact to my knowledge, god is one of the most murdures gods in the history of... well, gods! (I would say he's the most, but he's close.)

 

Now I'm curious as to how he stacks against other gods. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


brainstormsguy
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Here's a funny: On your

Here's a funny: On your site, right above where I'm typing as of right now...is an add via "Ads by Google" for people to go for Missionary Training and Church Plant Training.

Anyways....I digress....

So you're saying that God does not exist based on the amount of people that were killed. First, those people, if you are a true athiest weren't killed...so you can't prove he doesn't exist from that. You can only bring to surface the question of whether God is loving or just or anything..you fill in the blank. All you're doing with this list is struggling with something that seems to stand in opposition to what "a lot of christians point him out to be." (your words)

That doesn't prove anything about existence or not. Just brings up questions. I say that it is OK to question, therefore, in that sense your list if valid. To disprove God though, it doesn't fit.

Second question for you. In the Nightline segment...it was said that the goal of the movement was to "end Christianity." That's what I gathered. Maybe that's not it...let me know. If it is, are you only against the Christian God? Or the Jewish God, Islam God...Buddha, Indian Spirit Gods, Greek Gods, Egyptian Gods (some of those are old news), Gods that people from untouched tribes worship...etc? Just curious if this is an "anti Christian" movement, or a total "there is no truth to anything spiritual" movement.

Thanks


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
brainstormsguy

brainstormsguy wrote:
Here's a funny: On your site, right above where I'm typing as of right now...is an add via "Ads by Google" for people to go for Missionary Training and Church Plant Training.

Anyways....I digress....

So you're saying that God does not exist based on the amount of people that were killed. First, those people, if you are a true athiest weren't killed...so you can't prove he doesn't exist from that. You can only bring to surface the question of whether God is loving or just or anything..you fill in the blank. All you're doing with this list is struggling with something that seems to stand in opposition to what "a lot of christians point him out to be." (your words)

That doesn't prove anything about existence or not. Just brings up questions. I say that it is OK to question, therefore, in that sense your list if valid. To disprove God though, it doesn't fit.

Not the point. If I read this body count correctly, it's to show that if such a being as God actually existed, he's a mass murdering thug who doesn't deserve anyone's worship and is not the all loving entity the Christians claim he is.

Quote:
Second question for you. In the Nightline segment...it was said that the goal of the movement was to "end Christianity." That's what I gathered. Maybe that's not it...let me know. If it is, are you only against the Christian God? Or the Jewish God, Islam God...Buddha, Indian Spirit Gods, Greek Gods, Egyptian Gods (some of those are old news), Gods that people from untouched tribes worship...etc? Just curious if this is an "anti Christian" movement, or a total "there is no truth to anything spiritual" movement.

Thanks

I think that's a misstatement on Nightline's part. I don't have the banner up (accessibility issues - no graphics makes things easier to read) but I believe it says "to end the mind disorder known as theism". That pretty much covers all the gods you list. It's just that the Christian God lists blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin. Gets more people's attention to go against that one.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


brainstormsguy
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
thanks for the reply....more

thanks for the reply....more questions to follow, but dinner is now on the table....gotta eat


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
brainstormsguy

brainstormsguy wrote:
thanks for the reply....more questions to follow, but dinner is now on the table....gotta eat

Yay for eating!

Don't look to me as speaking for the staff here. I'm just giving you what I see.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Aren't you skewing your own issue

If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything. It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance. Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta wrote: If the

Bodhitharta wrote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything.

*SIGH* 

Are you saying that it's not irrational for God to kill people? One of the commandments says "thou shall not kill", yet he kills people. He's a hypocrite. That's the point.

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance. Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

I don't want to pick the wrong god, so I might as well not worship one at all. Laughing out loud


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and instead of

Oh, and instead of Bodhitharta having that "Theist Spotting" badge, I think he deserves the "Troll Spotting" one.

If there isn't a badge like that, well, there should be. Eye-wink


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If the whole point

Quote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything

 

WE aren't saying, THE BIBLE is saying. This is to show that the xians all loving god, is a a bit a murdering thug. How many times must this be said?

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance.
 

What? Bod, I suggest you go back on the drugs, your getting very paranoid. 

 

Quote:
Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

Do you have anything relevent to say, or are you going to troll around with emotions, lies, hatred, hypocricy, and ego? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

Bodhitharta wrote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything.

*SIGH* 

Are you saying that it's not irrational for God to kill people? One of the commandments says "thou shall not kill", yet he kills people. He's a hypocrite. That's the point.

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance. Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

I don't want to pick the wrong god, so I might as well not worship one at all. Laughing out loud

 

If God doesn't exist then HE didn't kill anyone, right!

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:

Oh, and instead of Bodhitharta having that "Theist Spotting" badge, I think he deserves the "Troll Spotting" one.

If there isn't a badge like that, well, there should be. Eye-wink

 

Why is it when someone questions your beliefs you call them trolls? Can you belief withstand questioning? Is it forbidden for you to use your own mind?

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Quote: If

Ophios wrote:

Quote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything

 

WE aren't saying, THE BIBLE is saying. This is to show that the xians all loving god, is a a bit a murdering thug. How many times must this be said?

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance.
 

What? Bod, I suggest you go back on the drugs, your getting very paranoid. 

 

Quote:
Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

Do you have anything relevent to say, or are you going to troll around with emotions, lies, hatred, hypocricy, and ego? 

 

As soon as someone becomes an atheist they would immediately drop the whole idea that God did or did not do anything, in other words the Holy Bible should be irrelevent. If it is spoken of with relevance then there is something else going on here and not atheism.

 

 

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta

Bodhitharta wrote:
American Atheist wrote:

Bodhitharta wrote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything.

*SIGH*

Are you saying that it's not irrational for God to kill people? One of the commandments says "thou shall not kill", yet he kills people. He's a hypocrite. That's the point.

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance. Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

I don't want to pick the wrong god, so I might as well not worship one at all. Laughing out loud

 

If God doesn't exist then HE didn't kill anyone, right!

Is that supposed to be a question? If so, where's the question mark?

 

Anyway, we already talked about this before. We're trying to show that the god of the bible has killed more people than Satan.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta

Bodhitharta wrote:
American Atheist wrote:

Oh, and instead of Bodhitharta having that "Theist Spotting" badge, I think he deserves the "Troll Spotting" one.

If there isn't a badge like that, well, there should be. Eye-wink

 

Why is it when someone questions your beliefs you call them trolls? Can you belief withstand questioning? Is it forbidden for you to use your own mind?

 Simple: You're trolling.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta wrote: Ophios

Bodhitharta wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Quote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything

 

WE aren't saying, THE BIBLE is saying. This is to show that the xians all loving god, is a a bit a murdering thug. How many times must this be said?

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance.

What? Bod, I suggest you go back on the drugs, your getting very paranoid.

Quote:
Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

Do you have anything relevent to say, or are you going to troll around with emotions, lies, hatred, hypocricy, and ego?

 

As soon as someone becomes an atheist they would immediately drop the whole idea that God did or did not do anything, in other words the Holy Bible should be irrelevent. If it is spoken of with relevance then there is something else going on here and not atheism. 

Are you saying that someone is not an atheist if they talk about the Bible?  Some of us have read the bible and became atheists because of it.


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Quote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything

 

WE aren't saying, THE BIBLE is saying. This is to show that the xians all loving god, is a a bit a murdering thug. How many times must this be said?

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance.

What? Bod, I suggest you go back on the drugs, your getting very paranoid.

Quote:
Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

Do you have anything relevent to say, or are you going to troll around with emotions, lies, hatred, hypocricy, and ego?

 

As soon as someone becomes an atheist they would immediately drop the whole idea that God did or did not do anything, in other words the Holy Bible should be irrelevent. If it is spoken of with relevance then there is something else going on here and not atheism. 

Are you saying that someone is not an atheist if they talk about the Bible?  Some of us have read the bible and became atheists because of it.

 

Yes, if you discuss the Bible as relevant you are not truly an atheist. If you have become an atheist from reading the Bible then you have chose death over life and there is nothing wrong with that. Atheism was obviously not the solution to a better life otherwise you wouldn't be so bitter, you would be happy like me.

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Bodhitharta

Bodhitharta wrote:
American Atheist wrote:
Bodhitharta wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Quote:
If the whole point of the RRS is to be rational, how rational is it to make a post that says God did anything

 

WE aren't saying, THE BIBLE is saying. This is to show that the xians all loving god, is a a bit a murdering thug. How many times must this be said?

 

Quote:
It seems to me that you are trying to use a brainwashing technique maybe cognitive dissonance.

What? Bod, I suggest you go back on the drugs, your getting very paranoid.

Quote:
Do you believe in God even a little deep inside when you have those moments of anxiety. Did you really purge yourself of God? If you did please tell me why it was necessary?

Do you have anything relevent to say, or are you going to troll around with emotions, lies, hatred, hypocricy, and ego?

 

As soon as someone becomes an atheist they would immediately drop the whole idea that God did or did not do anything, in other words the Holy Bible should be irrelevent. If it is spoken of with relevance then there is something else going on here and not atheism.

Are you saying that someone is not an atheist if they talk about the Bible? Some of us have read the bible and became atheists because of it.

 

Yes, if you discuss the Bible as relevant you are not truly an atheist. If you have become an atheist from reading the Bible then you have chose death over life and there is nothing wrong with that. Atheism was obviously not the solution to a better life otherwise you wouldn't be so bitter, you would be happy like me.

 

We're debating about the Bible, and I'm an atheist.

I haven't chosen death over life, I'm still alive, what's wrong with you? I simply chose not to believe in a god. 

Atheism is much better. I'm not even bitter.

 What are you happy about? Puzzled