Is Atheism A Religion of Love and Peace?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; Atheism is a religion whose god is the same god of Islam, Allah-Satan, and atheism is a religion of deceit, death of the mind, soul, body in Hell.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;Atheism is a religion whose god is the same god of Islam

Oh sure . Like I’m an atheist and I point my arse to the East 4 times every day and fart at Allah.

just_sayin

The amount of people killed by atheistic governments in the 20th century is more than all the religious wars for 2 thousand years.  So, is atheism a religion of peace - the evidence says "no".  Atheism has no objective moral basis.  Therefore it ends up being whatever an individual or group says - and if that happens to violate the rights of another individual or group - well, they don't care.  Most of the people that Mao and Stalin killed where their own citizens.  

"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin  and Mao.…

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!" - quote from Theodore Beale

The good news is that kids see what a pathetic way of life atheism is.  A 2012 Georgetown study found that only 30% of children raised in an atheistic home remain atheists.

Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups

MayCaesar

I do not know if not believing in Santa Claus makes me a loving and peaceful person. The bastard still owes me that toy I asked him for back when I was 8. If I ever see him...

DarthTimon

There's a few things to digest here, not least of all that atheism is not a religion, and that 'atheist' government is misleading. The argument around death tolls from 'atheist' beliefs is also highly misleading.

The most obvious point to be had here is that as time has passed, and the methods and techniques of warfare have advanced, so too has urbanisation, population density, and the overall population itself. If the religious wars that swept across Europe were fought with modern weapons and current population sizes/density, the death tolls from those wars would be catastrophic. Imagine, if you will, those religious combatants had access to nuclear weapons. 

jack

Barnardot said:

Is Atheism A Religion of Love and Peace?

Hello B:

NO!  Hell NO!  

I'm an atheist, and I HATE that this forum has been taken over by nut-ball religious yahoos.  I wanna talk about the world as it IS!  NOT about somebody's crazy fantasy. 

FU*CK you religious bastards.

excon

MayCaesar

jack said:

I'm an atheist, and I HATE that this forum has been taken over by nut-ball religious yahoos.  I wanna talk about the world as it IS!  NOT about somebody's crazy fantasy. 

For once I agree with jack. Every time I come here, 90% of the threads on the front page are on religion. It is a very boring topic for very boring people.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

The amount of people killed by atheistic governments in the 20th century is more than all the religious wars for 2 thousand years.  So, is atheism a religion of peace - the evidence says "no".  Atheism has no objective moral basis.  Therefore it ends up being whatever an individual or group says - and if that happens to violate the rights of another individual or group - well, they don't care.  Most of the people that Mao and Stalin killed where their own citizens.  

"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin  and Mao.…

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!" - quote from Theodore Beale

The good news is that kids see what a pathetic way of life atheism is.  A 2012 Georgetown study found that only 30% of children raised in an atheistic home remain atheists.

Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups

Well now let's give Christianity it's due respect as it was Hitler, arguably the most infamous of 20 century mass murders who followed the blue print straight out of the bible on how to set up and enforce oppressive authoritative merciless rule. The same blue print in use with all the horrible dictators theist and atheist alike. Adolph was totally convinced he was doing gods will and openly denounced atheism. 

From "Mein Kampf": "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." And ...

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In retum, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties — and this against their own nation."

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

It should be noted that I'm not bringing up Hitler as a classic Hitler comparison fallacy because it is germane with the context of Just sayin's deceitful post. While Hitler's actions were done in the name of the Abrahamic god of the bible, atheist dictators never kill in the name of any god, their motives are political, emotional, economical, self serving but never for some imagined atheistic purpose as Just sayin would lie and have people believe. That is so because Non belief and non participation doesn't inspire such movements. If a dictator goes after a church and he happens to be atheist it is consistently discovered later that they did so to destroy political and economic power they may have had in their perspective countries that are perceived threats to their authority.

In closing it generally goes un-noticed if a person is atheist or not in populations while the theist are far more likely to at some point declare their theistic views which often reveals theocracies that have the trappings of religious subjugation or else in some way.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;

Atheism is a religion of fools and socialists and communists and progressives and abortionists and sexual perverts.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;

Atheism is a religion of fools and socialists and communists and progressives and abortionists and sexual perverts.

Theism is a religion of fools and socialists and communists and progressives and abortionists and sexual perverts.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;  Believing in Jesus is wise and prudent and logical; believing in NOTHING is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;  Believing in Jesus is wise and prudent and logical; believing in NOTHING is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

Believing in Aphrodite is wise and prudent and logical; believing in JESUS is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;  Believing in Jesus is wise and prudent and logical; believing in NOTHING is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

Believing in Aphrodite is wise and prudent and logical; believing in JESUS is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

@Factfinder ; Aphrodite is a impotent as atheism... Aphrodite did not die for you, Jesus did.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;  Believing in Jesus is wise and prudent and logical; believing in NOTHING is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

Believing in Aphrodite is wise and prudent and logical; believing in JESUS is for fools, sexual perverts, liars, deceivers, socialists, communists, progressives, democrats, baby murderers.

@Factfinder ; Aphrodite is a impotent as atheism... Aphrodite did not die for you, Jesus did.

Jesus is as impotent as theism... Jesus did not die for you, Aphrodite lives for you. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; You will give an account for your blasphemy.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; You will give an account for your blasphemy.

Ricky, you will give an account for your blasphemy.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; I will not stand in your judgment...I am redeemed by faith via the blood of Jesus....my Judgement will be the BEMA, not yours...condemnation.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; I will not stand in your judgment...I am redeemed by faith via the blood of Jesus....my Judgement will be the BEMA, not yours...condemnation.

 I will not stand in your judgment...I am redeemed by faith via the fertility of Aphrodite....my Judgement will be the BEMA, not yours...condemnation.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;  One things for sure...we will see.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Come on don't run from this post Just-sayin.... https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181084/#Comment_181084


I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

jack said:

I'm an atheist, and I HATE that this forum has been taken over by nut-ball religious yahoos.  I wanna talk about the world as it IS!  NOT about somebody's crazy fantasy. 

For once I agree with jack. Every time I come here, 90% of the threads on the front page are on religion. It is a very boring topic for very boring people.

I agree that too many of the debates are about religion.  I am OK debating religious topics, but I got to admit @FactFinder s raging against a God he claims he doesn't believe in gets old.  You know you can create your own debate topics, right?  Unfortunately, @Joeseph tends to bomb other people's debates with whatever argument he read on IHateGod.com, no matter what the topic is.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/

“In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”

Bullock, in describing Hitler as a “rationalist and materialist,” quotes him in a wartime conversation with aides as saying:

The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science ... Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left to prove that nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/

“In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”

Bullock, in describing Hitler as a “rationalist and materialist,” quotes him in a wartime conversation with aides as saying:

The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science ... Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left to prove that nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”

Hitler said he was Christian. Others say he wasn't. Christ said he was Christ. Others said he wasn't. If what others claim is true, then Christ isn't Christ. If what the person actually said is true then Hitler was Christian. You can't have it both ways. I proved Hitler was Christian by his own mouth, you haven't even proved the right Jesus was on the cross. 


I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; NO...Hitler was an atheist...you and he will both stand in the same judgment.

Hitler was NOT a Christian. He hated Christianity. If he made any public remarks in support of Christianity, that was because he was in public and would lie or obfuscate to appease a crowd at times. Hitler was opposed to atheism because  he was a spiritual man: “atheism… is a return to the  state of the animal…” (Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59). But opposition to atheism doesn’t make anyone a Christian. Nazism was his religion, an authentic religion of his own creation (yes, life is SO much better when people create their own personal religions in a search for “authenticity,” ha).

Hitler's Table Talk is a compilation of sayings by Hitler in private conversations that were recorded by other Nazis. It is a good source for what Hitler really thought.

“…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” –, pg 61

“It’s Christianity that’s the . It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.” –, pg 61

“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” –, pg 6

“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.” –, pg 145

“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.” –, pg 394

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” –, pg 418

“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.” –, pg 75-76

“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” –, pg 145

“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.” –, pg 343-344

“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.” –, pg 146

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.” –, pg 322

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.” –, pg 7

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.” –, pg 144

“It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity.” –, pg 314

“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” –, pg 7

“We must recognise, of course, that, amongst us, Christianity is coloured by Germanism.” –, pg 46

“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.” –, pg 62

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” –, pg 51

“By nature the Duce is a freethinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out—reserving the right to apologise later: “Excuse me, it was a mistake.” But the result would have been, they’d have been outside!” , pg 145

“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.” , pg 59

“But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our peoples by princes who had an alliance of interests with the shavelings. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.” –, pg 143

“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.” –, pg 667 (Talk about Islamo-fascism!)

“The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable.” –, pg 322-323

“One cannot succeed in conceiving how much cruelty, ignominy and falsehood the intrusion of Christianity has spelt for this world of ours. If the misdeeds of Christianity were less serious in Italy, that’s because the people of Rome, having seen them at work, always knew exactly the worth of the Popes before whom Christendom prostrated itself.” –, pg 288

“With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!” –, pg 88

“When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.” –, pg 59

“The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity.” –, pg 393

“This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.” –, pg 393

“It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power…. I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.” , pp. 58-59

“It is to these private customs that peoples owe their present characters. Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.” –, pg 60 https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;

NO...Hitler was an atheist...you and he will both stand in the same judgment.

From your source..."Hitler was opposed to atheism because  he was a spiritual man: “atheism… is a return to the  state of the animal…

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; No, Hitler's religion was Nazism...but in reality, Hitler was no different than you...a godless, defiled, maniac atheist who died and is currently awaiting judgment as he is detained in Hades-Sheol/Torments where you will accompany him subsequent your last exhalation as a belligerent atheist.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; No, Hitler's religion was Nazism...but in reality, Hitler was no different than you...a godless, defiled, maniac atheist who died and is currently awaiting judgment as he is detained in Hades-Sheol/Torments where you will accompany him subsequent your last exhalation as a belligerent atheist.

You lied and just ramble on to the next lie you tell. Now you say he was religious blah blah blah but in reality Christianity and Nazism are birds of the same fascist feather and you know it cause your book orders the death of children the same way...

Your Christian brother:

From "Mein Kampf": "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." And ...

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In retum, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties — and this against their own nation."

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."


I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Once again...you repeat yourself in another debate having nothing to do with the subject at hand but I find it sad and frustrating that atheism has not only robbed you of wisdom and life but also of commonsense discernment. Don't you understand that Hitler was a national socialist politician who was seeking support from a very large Catholic and Protestant population while simultaneously conspiring with Islam's leadership to develop and initiate the "Final Solution" relevant to the extinction of the Jewish population - the very tactic that Satan salivates over? Do you see anything that Hitler did which reflects the teaching and leadership of Jesus? 

 

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Once again...you repeat yourself in another debate having nothing to do with the subject at hand but I find it sad and frustrating that atheism has not only robbed you of wisdom and life but also of commonsense discernment. Don't you understand that Hitler was a national socialist politician who was seeking support from a very large Catholic and Protestant population while simultaneously conspiring with Islam's leadership to develop and initiate the "Final Solution" relevant to the extinction of the Jewish population - the very tactic that Satan salivates over? Do you see anything that Hitler did which reflects the teaching and leadership of Jesus? 

 

Hitler and Ricky, both christian lunatics talking about who has a place in society and who don't. One in the same Atheism spreads love and built America on the other hand. 

MayCaesar

Here is a cool book for those interested in exploring the connection between Hitler's regime and Catholicism:

https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X 

From the Wiki:

Hitler's Pope is a book published in 1999 by the British journalist and author John Cornwell that examines the actions of Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII, before and during the Nazi era, and explores the charge that he assisted in the legitimization of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime in Germany, through the pursuit of a Reichskonkordat in 1933. The book is critical of Pius' conduct during the Second World War, arguing that he did not do enough, or speak out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argues that Pius's entire career as the nuncio to Germany, Cardinal Secretary of State, and Pope, was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argues that Pius was antisemitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.

Reichskonkordat is an interesting document as well:

The Reichskonkordat is the most controversial of several concordats that the Vatican negotiated during the pontificate of Pius XI. It is frequently discussed in works that deal with the rise of Hitler in the early 1930s and the Holocaust. The concordat has been described by some as giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired quasi-dictatorial powers through the Enabling Act of 1933, an Act itself facilitated through the support of the Catholic Centre Party.

maxx

no matter how you look at it, atheism is not a religion. i suggest everyone who thinks as such; to look up the definition. An atheist does not believe in any deity, be it a god or a devil. I do not know when religious people decided to call atheism a religion, however they are wrong. @just_sayin

just_sayin

maxx said:

no matter how you look at it, atheism is not a religion. i suggest everyone who thinks as such; to look up the definition. An atheist does not believe in any deity, be it a god or a devil. I do not know when religious people decided to call atheism a religion, however they are wrong. @just_sayin

The belief that there is no god is a a religious belief.  In fact 501(c)(3) recognized religion, the Church of Satan, formed by Anton LaVey, has a core tenet that there is no god.   It is a classic example of an atheistic religious group - Satanism is a faith that has no belief in God.  Any belief for or against god or religion is a religious belief.  That's why the Supreme Court deemed humanism be considered as a religion in some instances. 

Maxx, you realize that several religions do not believe in God.  Some nontheistic religions are Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Jainism.  Belief in God is not a prerequisite to be called a religion.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;The amount of people killed by atheistic governments in the 20th century is more than all the religious wars for 2 thousand years.

I know what your trying to say there but it’s to easy to say like. Derrr Stalin was an atheist so he knocked off heaps of believers and burnt down heaps of churches and mosques in the name of atheism. But in realty he did that in the name of Communism and he said so just the same as Mao de Dung. They happened to be atheists just like they both have a doolie but that doesn’t give any one the right to say they killed peoples just because they happen to had a dicke between there legs. 

So for all in tense and purpose s Communism is a religion because it runs people s lives with loopy ideals and the people neal down a worship there master.

Hitler was religious and killed all those yids and Russians and what’s more the Church supported him and paid him to do it. So that’s what I mean that Religious groups all ways cause wars in the name of God. 

Atheists are honest and descent and I challenge you to name any one who has ever caused an atrocity in the name of atheism. Like derr we’re going to knock off all those religious nits because we’re atheists. Never happened has it.

But like. Derr we’re going to knock off all those atheists and other religions and gays because we’re religious and God told us to do it. Happens all the time doesn’t it. All in the name of God.

Joeseph

@just_sayin

Totally not true, you made references to slavery in the Bible,  I merely corrected yourself and Rickets and put you both in your place ( as usual) you of course fled and Rickets wisely .

 Lying seems to be your go to tactic when whipped , pretty childish really but I think we expect to much considering your intellect.

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin

Totally not true, you made references to slavery in the Bible,  I merely corrected yourself and Rickets and put you both in your place ( as usual) you of course fled and Rickets wisely .

 Lying seems to be your go to tactic when whipped , pretty childish really but I think we expect to much considering your intellect.

The only reason anyone made a 'reference' to slavery in the Bible, was in response to your allegation.  You bombed the debate topic with an off topic issue.  Create a debate on the issue if that is what you wish to debate.  Debating slavery in the Bible in a debate on if rape is inherently good debate is an off topic discussion.  And as typical, you are going off topic here too.  You have added nothing to the discussion of is atheism a religion of love and peace.  

Joeseph

@just_sayin


You have added nothing to the discussion of is atheism a religion of love and peace.  

Thats not a topic or " discussion " it's just you and Rickets preaching  , its meaningless nonsense,  you really need to look up the term " religion".

You were challenged with Rickey to debate biblical slavery,   you claimed many months ago you would but as usual lied , when challenged you kept running and its no wonder why as your complete capitulation on the topic demonstrated your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject.

To reiterate I will post where I want and when I want you and Rickets have absolutely no say in the matter.

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin


You have added nothing to the discussion of is atheism a religion of love and peace.  

Thats not a topic or " discussion " it's just you and Rickets preaching  , its meaningless nonsense,  you really need to look up the term " religion".

You were challenged with Rickey to debate biblical slavery,   you claimed many months ago you would but as usual lied , when challenged you kept running and its no wonder why as your complete capitulation on the topic demonstrated your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject.

To reiterate I will post where I want and when I want you and Rickets have absolutely no say in the matter.

I did not create this debate.  I have been happy to contribute my argument to it.  

I've posted my comments about biblical slavery in response to yours already - on multiple debate pages.  If you want to debate the topic further, then take the initiative and create the debate  that you want to debate.  

I agree with @Jack on the point that atheism is not a religion of love and peace.  Atheism, if it is consistent, and does not borrow the morals of religions such as Christianity, has a morality that is either based on what the individual thinks is best for himself, or what the group thinks is best for themselves.  This implies that other individuals or groups, who have differing interests, can, and even will be, the victims of the stronger individual or group.  Morality in such a world view is subjective - therefore it can be unloving and result in immense conflict.

Joeseph

@just_sayin


I did not create this debate.  I have been happy to contribute my argument to it.  

Well done , do you want a pat on the back?

I've posted my comments about biblical slavery in response to yours already - on multiple debate pages.  If you want to debate the topic further, then take the initiative and create the debate  that you want to debate.  

My last post on the topic finished you off as you had no comeback that wouldn't make you look more intellectuayl impaired than you already demonstrated.

Remember your final " killer point" where you compared the life of a biblical slave with that of Raymone Le Bron......now that was funny.

I agree with @Jack on the point that atheism is not a religion of love and peace.

Do you indeed maybe you could open a mutual agreement club .......Rickey could be president.

Atheism is still not a religion , why are you lying about what J said?

  Atheism, if it is consistent, and does not borrow the morals of religions such as Christianity, has a morality that is either based on what the individual thinks is best for himself, or what the group thinks is best for themselves

Christian morality is arbitrary which is why your god said owning people as property is fine you agree of course but most that identify as Christian certainly don't,  you were asked before a list of moral absolutes as defined by God you couldn't answer coherently  ,  we know he's against wearing cotton and eating shellfish what else an you add?

.  This implies that other individuals or groups, who have differing interests, can, and even will be, the victims of the stronger individual or group.  Morality in such a world view is subjective - therefore it can be unloving and result in immense conflict.

Well your buddy Rickey branded fellow christians as in catholics as evil blasphermers so tell me how this christian morality is in any way not subjective?

Your christian ancestors used the good book and gods law to justify slavery was that a bit " unloving" and did it result in " conflict"?

jack

Just_sain said:  Morality in such a world view is subjective - therefore it can be unloving and result in immense conflict.

Hello J:

Nahh..  When I was religious Jew, I KNEW killing was wrong.  When I was a rampant atheist, I KNEW that killing was wrong.  My conclusion???  Religion has NOTHING to do with it.  For me, I NEVER had to look outward to seek the "moral" thing to do.. It just came with the equipment...

excon

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin


You have added nothing to the discussion of is atheism a religion of love and peace.  

Thats not a topic or " discussion " it's just you and Rickets preaching  , its meaningless nonsense,  you really need to look up the term " religion".

You were challenged with Rickey to debate biblical slavery,   you claimed many months ago you would but as usual lied , when challenged you kept running and its no wonder why as your complete capitulation on the topic demonstrated your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject.

To reiterate I will post where I want and when I want you and Rickets have absolutely no say in the matter.

I did not create this debate.  I have been happy to contribute my argument to it.  

I've posted my comments about biblical slavery in response to yours already - on multiple debate pages.  If you want to debate the topic further, then take the initiative and create the debate  that you want to debate.  

I agree with @Jack on the point that atheism is not a religion of love and peace.  Atheism, if it is consistent, and does not borrow the morals of religions such as Christianity, has a morality that is either based on what the individual thinks is best for himself, or what the group thinks is best for themselves.  This implies that other individuals or groups, who have differing interests, can, and even will be, the victims of the stronger individual or group.  Morality in such a world view is subjective - therefore it can be unloving and result in immense conflict.

And the reality is your faith based morals are thrown into the same mix of might makes right. Get enough Christians together and your perception of morals begin to dominate. Only thing is you BELEIVE your concept is objective when actually you're just in another group of subjective morals. That is why me as an atheist can have some but not all of the same identical morals as you a theist. But that doesn't mean I borrow from your concept no more than you borrow from atheism for say believing murder is immoral. 

MayCaesar

Just in case someone is confused about the terminology, an analogy may help: atheism being a religion makes as much sense as:

• "None" being one's favorite book.
• Eating whatever one wants whenever he wants being one's diet.
• Laying on a couch being one's sport.
• Unemployment being one's job.

It is quite telling though that religious people call atheism a religion when criticizing it. Even they understand that religion is a negative label. Reminds me of the joke about the Flat Earth's Society: "We have members all around the globe".

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Just in case someone is confused about the terminology, an analogy may help: atheism being a religion makes as much sense as:

• "None" being one's favorite book.
• Eating whatever one wants whenever he wants being one's diet.
• Laying on a couch being one's sport.
• Unemployment being one's job.

It is quite telling though that religious people call atheism a religion when criticizing it. Even they understand that religion is a negative label. Reminds me of the joke about the Flat Earth's Society: "We have members all around the globe".

May you are creating a strawman.  I'm not saying you go to a church or temple - unless your a Satanist.  They are an atheistic religion that does have temple 'events'. I am not saying you have an organized religion - it is definitely disorganized.  I am pointing out that you cling to a set of beliefs even when there is good evidence to show those beliefs are false.  Your lack of faith behaves like faith in that respect.  I'm sure you knew that but chose to misrepresent it anyway.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I was not talking to you or about you.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@jack ; Atheism is religion based in the demonic...religion is nothing of relevance. We know murder is wrong because our Creator has written His moral laws upon heart at conception; this, for due process at adjudication and for the sustainability of human kind.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

And the reality is your faith based morals are thrown into the same mix of might makes right. Get enough Christians together and your perception of morals begin to dominate. Only thing is you BELEIVE your concept is objective when actually you're just in another group of subjective morals. That is why me as an atheist can have some but not all of the same identical morals as you a theist. But that doesn't mean I borrow from your concept no more than you borrow from atheism for say believing murder is immoral. 

According to Google, there are over 45,000 Christian denominations in the world. We are all drowning in Christian objectivity.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

Even they understand that religion is a negative label


Spot on , I always laughed at the fact they use that line of bull fully knowing how rational agents percieve that label , strange , funny people.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ;  There is one faith...and you atheists need to get your story straight.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

o appar­ently this par­tic­u­lar reader thinks Dr. Peo­ples needs to be taken to school — and I am just the one to do that — and shown that there really are 33,000 denom­i­na­tions; or what­ever the num­ber has esca­lated to today — possibly 51,314 as of this writ­ing. (For there is a for­mula to cal­cu­late these things.)

I regret to say that is not going to hap­pen here. There are not — repeat with me — there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33-000-protestant-denominations

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ;  There is one faith...and you atheists need to get your story straight.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

o appar­ently this par­tic­u­lar reader thinks Dr. Peo­ples needs to be taken to school — and I am just the one to do that — and shown that there really are 33,000 denom­i­na­tions; or what­ever the num­ber has esca­lated to today — possibly 51,314 as of this writ­ing. (For there is a for­mula to cal­cu­late these things.)

I regret to say that is not going to hap­pen here. There are not — repeat with me — there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33-000-protestant-denominations

The same force of repetition surrounding the myth "Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so"

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Jesus loved me sufficiently to suffer and die for me that I can receive life in His Name by faith...I trust Him.

Joeseph

ARGUMENT TOPIC : RICKEY IS NOW WITH THE CENTER F9R THE STUDY OF GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY

Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. So why does Christianity have so many branches? 

A cursory look shows that differences in belief, power grabs and corruption all had a part to play. 

But on some level, differentiation and variety have been markers of Christianity since the very beginning, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor emeritus of church history at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "There's never been a united Christianity," he told Live Science

YOU LOSE AGAIN 


. @RickeyHoltsclaw