• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

Wrong. atheist communists killed more people in the last century (100+ million) than anyone else. :2wave:

The killing wasn't in the name of atheism however. So even if these people turned out to really be atheists, that is nothing more than coincidence. The atheism didn't enable the action, it had nothing to do with it. People were being killed in the name of the State. It was the Communist government which was the enabler. Nothing can challenge the State, so tyrannical Communism (the only one known to exist) adopts militant anti-theism to remove even the supernatural threats to State power.

To be honest, I don't really blame religion for a lot of wars either. Most of the wars fought in the name of some gods aren't fought because those are the mandates of the religion or teachings of the religion. Often times the religion is abused, twisted and warped by the leaders of the region so that they may energize the people into thinking the war is just and grand and needing to be fought. But the root cause is almost always the same; money, power, and/or land. Those are usually the main enablers of war. Human greed, if you want to blame anything blame that. Our greed is immense, and it is all consuming at times, it enables us to do some horrible horrible things.
 
Interesting. Can you point out who these atheists are and that they are indeed atheist rather than anti-theist or anti-theocracy?




Semantic games to avoid taking responsibility for atheists actions. :2wave:


Tell me is slippery slope an atheist or an antitheist?

How about the clowns who put up thier sign?
 
That figure, popularised by the Black Book Of Communism, is a notorious overestimate which the editor and publishers have admitted.




:lol: at slippery slope thanking this banned user.


Anything to ignore reality eh slip? :roll:
 
Semantic games to avoid taking responsibility for atheists actions. :2wave:


Tell me is slippery slope an atheist or an antitheist?

How about the clowns who put up thier sign?

I love how asking you to prove your claim that "atheist communists killed more people in the last century (100+ million) " is a "slippery slope". :2wave:
 
The killing wasn't in the name of atheism however. So even if these people turned out to really be atheists, that is nothing more than coincidence. The atheism didn't enable the action, it had nothing to do with it. People were being killed in the name of the State. It was the Communist government which was the enabler. Nothing can challenge the State, so tyrannical Communism (the only one known to exist) adopts militant anti-theism to remove even the supernatural threats to State power.
It isn't so much of a coincidence as a tenet of communism to eliminate religion, people with no faith are less prone to fight back and settle for being allowed to survive, which is why communism seeks to eliminate faith, it does so by perverting atheism.

To be honest, I don't really blame religion for a lot of wars either. Most of the wars fought in the name of some gods aren't fought because those are the mandates of the religion or teachings of the religion. Often times the religion is abused, twisted and warped by the leaders of the region so that they may energize the people into thinking the war is just and grand and needing to be fought. But the root cause is almost always the same; money, power, and/or land. Those are usually the main enablers of war. Human greed, if you want to blame anything blame that. Our greed is immense, and it is all consuming at times, it enables us to do some horrible horrible things.
Pretty much the way I feel about it as well.
 
It isn't so much of a coincidence as a tenet of communism to eliminate religion, people with no faith are less prone to fight back and settle for being allowed to survive, which is why communism seeks to eliminate faith, it does so by perverting atheism.

It's not atheism, it's anti-theism. The two are very different.
 
It isn't so much of a coincidence as a tenet of communism to eliminate religion, people with no faith are less prone to fight back and settle for being allowed to survive, which is why communism seeks to eliminate faith, it does so by perverting atheism.

Please provide some source to back your claim that people without religion are less likely to fight oppressors then those with a religion.
 
Please provide some source to back your claim that people without religion are less likely to fight oppressors then those with a religion.
It's not my theory, it's written into communist thinking. Ask one of them for a source.
 
Fix your formatting.

It makes baby Jesus cry.
 
So which is Slippery slope and which is these assholes at the capital?

Depends on their ultimate goal. Some in the atheist group merely want inclusion and acceptance; that's fine. There are those whom wish for the destruction of religion as a whole and work for those means. I'd put Dawkins in the anti-theist group (though not a militant anti-theist, I don't think that guy would have a clue as to what to do with a gun). Intent defines, some people bitch because they want people to pay attention and acknowledge their existence (slightly different than a cry for attention, which is attention whoring...though some of that also goes on). Some blame the whole of evil and the wrongdoings of man upon religion and seek to annihilate it from the planet. That's your difference.
 
Because I wasn't responding to Kali, I was responding to your response to Kali. :confused:

And your response had nothing at all to do with my comment being disingenuous. In fact it had nothing to do with my comment at all in context to his remark.

No, my information is factually correct.

As for your assertions being factually correct...

"That's a bit disingenuous to say the least."

As I have shown, this statement is not true at all.

"While religion may not have been the direct cause of those wars it was none the less an important piece of the puzzle."

Please explain how religion had "an important" role in any of the conflicts I mentioned. I am dying to here about religions role or the "killing in Gods name" during WWI and WWII outside of some Muslim units of the SS supported by the Grand Mufti in WWII.

"You neglect the wars mentioned in the OT as well as the myriad of killing the Popes advanced."

Why would I mention wars in the OT? We are dealing with fact, not speculation. We don't even know if they happened or what numbers were involved. Considering the small scale of city to city fighting in the OT, the numbers would be insignificant for comparison even to the losses by US forces in the Iraq war.

As far as Popes go, are you talking about the Crusades? That would be the largest conflict for Christians and even Muslims to date.

The total death toll from the crusades were around one million to two million, even going with the book by Richards it is nine million max. During the inquisition maybe 3000 over 300 years.

Now lets talk about death from natural causes over just 100 years in any time period.

Modern warfare killed more people because of technology.

Stalin purged the Russian republics prior to and continuing after World War II and killed roughly 40 to 60 million people; nearly wiping out every Christian church under Stalin's domain.

China saw to the end of more than 24 million lives during the first ten years of Mao's takeover 4, another 25 million killed or intentionally starved between 1959 and 1962 5, plus an additional 22 million killings in the 1970's Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution.

Cambodia suffered more than 2 million killed in its own bloody transition to anti-religious communism after United States forces suffered the fall of what was called Saigon and then largely withdrew from the region.

Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan, and Iraq have each killed, systematically starved, or chemically or biologically poisoned hundreds of thousands of their own citizens.

So technology has very little to do with the numbers we are talking about.

"The engine brought more people to the war and the bullet killed at a greater distance. If those wars had been fought with swords and bows they would have produced far less death.

That would depend on the rate of infections and medical science. Far fewer people also die in modern wars due to the much higher medical care for the wounded. Death from infection (a major cause of combat related death throughout history) is pretty much a thing of the past.

"Korea and Vietnam were fought because our xians had too keep communism from spreading godlessness. Remember?"

This is so silly it is not even worth responding to. Keep reaching.

"That's why we had to put "in god we trust" on our money and and "one nation under god" in our pledge. The problems with the Monarchy (and it's religious control of government) was one of a couple reasons for the American revolution. Similarly with the French revolution."

Read above comment.

"The Civil war was over slavery and the southern xians used the bible to justify slavery."

Just like the Northern and Southern abolitionist used it to condemn slavery.

Are you that blinded by bigotry? It makes you look really stupid.

The civil war was about states rights and had literally nothing to do with anyone dying in the name of any God.

"WWI, here's a xian fundy talking"

Ummm... OK. :beam:

PS Still waiting for a responce to this...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057852589-post706.html

Please show us all that "religious favoritism" in the US.
 
Last edited:
What you quoted was me responding to Rev, not to you. Are you off your meds or something? That's 2x now that you've directed posts at me in error. Maybe you got confused between your user name and the Revs... maybe you're the same person. :shock:

I know full well who you were responding to. Now outside of your silly accusations, please respond to my posts or again don't respond at all.
 
I think it is ok for them to put out there sign, but the way they did it seems to be an all out attack on religion. There free to state there views, there free to put that sign up, but what there doing is... Well we here on DP have a term fo this kind of action, "Trolling" it all comes down to respect. State your beleifes, but show some respect and tollerance of others.
 
I think it is ok for them to put out there sign, but the way they did it seems to be an all out attack on religion. There free to state there views, there free to put that sign up, but what there doing is... Well we here on DP have a term fo this kind of action, "Trolling" it all comes down to respect. State your beleifes, but show some respect and tollerance of others.

While I agree that it's over the top, the problem is that ****tards like O'Reilly want this sign removed.
 
While I agree that it's over the top, the problem is that ****tards like O'Reilly want this sign removed.
It should be removed because of the sentiment behind it. If it wouldn't have a time, place, and manner violation I wouldn't see a problem. For instance, if it wouldn't be christmastime, near a manger, and derogatory it would be fine. Heck if it would be christmastime, in an alley, and derogatory it would be better.
 
It should be removed because of the sentiment behind it. If it wouldn't have a time, place, and manner violation I wouldn't see a problem. For instance, if it wouldn't be christmastime, near a manger, and derogatory it would be fine. Heck if it would be christmastime, in an alley, and derogatory it would be better.

Again, the Constitution would beg to differ with you. Just becuase you don't like the setting for freedom of speech, does not mean it should be removed. This has been discussed ad Nauseum.
 
Again, the Constitution would beg to differ with you. This has been discussed ad Nauseum.
Actually, no it wouldn't. I have already covered why this isn't fully protected by the first amendment and could be considered fighting words as applied to the standard of Choplinski v New Hampshire. Time, place, and manner of this sign are all insulting to specific people who believe differently, and the specific nature of the sign could induce violence from the average, common sense christian, that it is allowed isn't the point, that it isn't questioned isn't the point, it isn't protected, as some people like to claim.
 
Actually, no it wouldn't. I have already covered why this isn't fully protected by the first amendment and could be considered fighting words as applied to the standard of Choplinski v New Hampshire. Time, place, and manner of this sign are all insulting to specific people who believe differently, and the specific nature of the sign could induce violence from the average, common sense christian, that it is allowed isn't the point, that it isn't questioned isn't the point, it isn't protected, as some people like to claim.

That would not be a common sense Christian.
 
Actually, no it wouldn't. I have already covered why this isn't fully protected by the first amendment and could be considered fighting words as applied to the standard of Choplinski v New Hampshire. Time, place, and manner of this sign are all insulting to specific people who believe differently, and the specific nature of the sign could induce violence from the average, common sense christian, that it is allowed isn't the point, that it isn't questioned isn't the point, it isn't protected, as some people like to claim.

Or the Christians could try being Christ-like... That may be a stretch, though.
 
Or the Christians could try being Christ-like... That may be a stretch, though.
Turn the other cheek huh? Yeah, that doesn't work against people like the ones who put the sign up.

That would not be a common sense Christian.
Depends, the manner was very condescending and stated in a way designed to make people who believe other than atheist look or feel stupid, people could be drawn to violence in the context of being called stupid, or having their beliefs attacked so virulently whereas they would otherwise "turn the other cheek" had the content been a little more civil.
 
Back
Top Bottom