Axiom: Christian God exists and the Bible is true. page 4

Have you seen many atheist organizations acting outside the law to burn churches, buildings, kill people for being religious, etc?

How about the Red Guard? Or the Khmer Rouge? I suppose technically not outside the law. But an example of deeply fanatical atheists systematically attacking and destroying religions.

Also, just to make sure that i won’t heat that ridiculous argument, no, communism and the crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

You seem to be hiding behind umbrellas. If I start some atheist boot stomping program and called it a “nationalist” front, does that mean it no longer posses any atheist ideology? Of course not. Many Communist political organizations had specific, hostile relationships to religion. Were they encompassed in a broader range of beliefs? Certainly. The Red Guard burned churches and slaughtered priests on the specific basis of their religion and cleansing China of their beliefs and influence.

Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic.

I’ve seen a couple of atheists here who would rather see all Christians dead. In these forums.

crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

Quite a bold claim. If I have understood correctly, Lenin and Stalin were highly ideological persons and they genuinely thought that religion is “an opiate of the people that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society.”

I’m a deist – who is well aware of the irrationality of the belief, thank you – and I did indeed come here to debate the bible within the confines of the AX. You see, unlike you, I try to put aside my prejudices with organized religion so I can debate with Christians without unnecessarily ridiculing their beliefs. Doesn’t always work, of course, and the first page of the thread is a good example of how I screwed the pooch on that. I was raised a Catholic and I still have a healthy respect for Christian institutions, but no belief in their ability to intercede for god.

However, it doesn’t much matter if i’m a deist or a muslim, or whatever. I could’ve easily been an atheist. I know many, both here, and in real life, who would similarly have objections to your unbalanced attacks on religion, mainly because it dims the impression Christian come to have for non-believers…it reduces their ability to discuss theology without it leading to a shit show. Case in point, the other active religion thread. Both mild criticisms and harsh attacks of Christianity were taken by the Christians there as the words of intolerant bigots. How’d it come to that? Were they always so over-sensitive? I doubt that. I posit it’s something they learn over time. They learn to mistake criticism for neo-atheist slurs because they’ve become accustomed to hearing the latter, so they become so thin-skinned that gentle critiques are treated as the same category of opinion.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Have you seen many atheist organizations acting outside the law to burn churches, buildings, kill people for being religious, etc?

How about the Red Guard? Or the Khmer Rouge? I suppose technically not outside the law. But an example of deeply fanatical atheists systematically attacking and destroying religions.

Also, just to make sure that i won’t heat that ridiculous argument, no, communism and the crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

You seem to be hiding behind umbrellas. If I start some atheist boot stomping program and called it a “nationalist” front, does that mean it no longer posses any atheist ideology? Of course not. Many Communist political organizations had specific, hostile relationships to religion. Were they encompassed in a broader range of beliefs? Certainly. The Red Guard burned churches and slaughtered priests on the specific basis of their religion and cleansing China of their beliefs and influence.

Originally posted by TuJe:

Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic.

I’ve seen a couple of atheists here who would rather see all Christians dead. In these forums.

crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

Quite a bold claim. If I have understood correctly, Lenin and Stalin were highly ideological persons and they genuinely thought that religion is “an opiate of the people that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society.”

Communists killed people in order for their political parties to stay in power. The fact that they had anti-theistic views is besides the point. Same kind of logic could suggest that “Stallin had a moustache, therefore people with moustache’s are mass murderers”. They killed for their tyranical regimes to remain in power. Now, let’s take the Crusades. The Crusades were wars to prove that the Jesus was better than Allah. I am aware that those wars took place for wealth and land. But what did the soldiers? They were told that they were fighting and dying for Jesus. Not for the kings’ and priests’ pockets. See the difference?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I’m a deist – who is well aware of the irrationality of the belief, thank you – and I did indeed come here to debate the bible within the confines of the AX. You see, unlike you, I try to put aside my prejudices with organized religion so I can debate with Christians without unnecessarily ridiculing their beliefs. Doesn’t always work, of course, and the first page of the thread is a good example of how I screwed the pooch on that. I was raised a Catholic and I still have a healthy respect for Christian institutions, but no belief in their ability to intercede for god.

However, it doesn’t much matter if i’m a deist or a muslim, or whatever. I could’ve easily been an atheist. I know many, both here, and in real life, who would similarly have objections to your unbalanced attacks on religion, mainly because it dims the impression Christian come to have for non-believers…it reduces their ability to discuss theology without it leading to a shit show. Case in point, the other active religion thread. Both mild criticisms and harsh attacks of Christianity were taken by the Christians there as the words of intolerant bigots. How’d it come to that? Were they always so over-sensitive? I doubt that. I posit it’s something they learn over time. They learn to mistake criticism for neo-atheist slurs because they’ve become accustomed to hearing the latter, so they become so thin-skinned that gentle critiques are treated as the same category of opinion.

I can have civil discussions with Christians. All my friends are Christians, none is atheist or anything else. Never had any problem with them. I can have a good discussion and argument as long as the person opposing me understands the limitations of his/her believes. I don’t ask them to ridicule their believes. I don’t ask them to forsake them. I don’t even care for them to say i am right. What i want them is to understand that what their believes are based on is faith and NOT evidence and facts. When someone comes and tells me “Jesus is the one true god” and i ask “how do you know?” and they respond “because the Bible says so” then for me it’s open season for making fun of them because they take that book which divides them in so many denominations and make it an absolute. If they say “i don’t know, i just feel like that”, then i can’t make fun of them. And i don’t want to either. I will question them to see what exactly they feel and that’s that.

Those soldiers also pillaged Byzantine, only due to its riches.

Originally posted by TuJe:

Those soldiers also pillaged Byzantine, only due to its riches.

I know, i am not denying history. That is what proves the real purpose of the Crusades. That being said, the argument that they used the idea of Jesus as a front isn’t debunked just because they pillaged Constantinopole.

Originally posted by TuJe:

Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic.

I’ve seen a couple of atheists here who would rather see all Christians dead. In these forums.

You’re thinking of the one who still drops by occasionally, but was damn proud of having torn down all the public christmas decorations in his hometown, and forced the school to cancel christmas celebrations last year, because it was an “oppressive tool of religion”?

Communists killed people in order for their political parties to stay in power. The fact that they had anti-theistic views is besides the point. Same kind of logic could suggest that “Stallin had a moustache, therefore people with moustache’s are mass murderers”. They killed for their tyranical regimes to remain in power. Now, let’s take the Crusades. The Crusades were wars to prove that the Jesus was better than Allah. I am aware that those wars took place for wealth and land. But what did the soldiers? They were told that they were fighting and dying for Jesus. Not for the kings’ and priests’ pockets. See the difference?

Once again you are hiding behind valid but irrelevant claims. Did, “Communists kill people so their party could stay in power”? Why, yes, certainly. Does that mean that /all/ people communists killed were part of some power quo? Expressly not. Further, let us abandon “communists” as a description. Let us look at specific political movements/idealogies within select regions and cultures. Looking at, or calling on, all Communists will do nothing but diffuse and muddy things.

So, no, the fact they had anti-theistic views was not besides the point. It was expressly the point. The Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Red Guard specifically murdered religious people, and destroyed religious objects, on the basis of wiping out religious ideology. Do you disagree with that statement? They were atheistic zealots set upon wiping out religious through force and violence.

No, the same sort of logic would not suggest your claims at all. They pursued specifically anti religious crusades that were violent and extreme in character. It is not over identifying sweeping universal violence with the specific groups it encounters but violence that was targeted since inception against those groups.

Also your understanding of “the Crusades” could use a little brushing up. The reasons and motives for the Crusades themselves varied from crusade to crusade. You’re already guilty of over generalizing the myriad of reasons into one sweeping claim. I would suggest the first Crusade as an example, was less over ‘Jesus is better the Allah’, and far more that ‘a large, organized and foreign culture is invading us successfully. We need to unify to make a stronger military front, and therefor appeal to common and powerful cultural precepts.’

As for wealth and land, they have their fair claim to any war. Although it is wrong to suggest that the soldiers themselves had no stake in that. Part of the appeal of the Crusades to the common foot soldiers was the tremendous amount of spoils and land that was up for grabs by everyone. It really was not the existing Kings or Priests that stood to gain very much from the spoil. They were quite far away and only had desperate soldiers as intermediaries. The entire area was quite open to forming new kings, new priests, a separate socio economic military force. The most notable example of that in effect was the rise of the Templars.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

So, no, the fact they had anti-theistic views was not besides the point. It was expressly the point. The Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Red Guard specifically murdered religious people, and destroyed religious objects, on the basis of wiping out religious ideology. Do you disagree with that statement? They were atheistic zealots set upon wiping out religious through force and violence.

No, the same sort of logic would not suggest your claims at all. They pursued specifically anti religious crusades that were violent and extreme in character. It is not over identifying sweeping universal violence with the specific groups it encounters but violence that was targeted since inception against those groups.

I would disagree with the above. As far as the Khmers go(i don´t know enough about the red guard). They themselves were influenced heavily by Buddhism and thus calling them Atheist is at least technically false.
But especially there where noticeable differences in how different religions where prosecuted. Looking at the differences reveals the motives behind the prosecution.
In case of Buddhism(i am generalizing a bit here since some types of Buddhism fared worse) the normal believers got away relatively well as long as they integrated into the programs. The problems the Khmer had where with Buddhist organizations(which did not fit the concept of the agrarian revolution), Buddhist religion that was seen as foreign and with individuals(intellectuals, people who because of their religion refused to follow their orders and etc.).

The foreign Religions or those that where deemed foreign (including Christianity, Islam and some types of Buddhism) where prosecuted because they were foreign and everything foreign was bad imperial influence. The Khmer were very nationalistic, racist and xenophobic.

And the above is part of the reason why 95% of the people in Cambodia are Buddhist today and not Atheist.

I would disagree with the above. As far as the Khmers go(i don´t know enough about the red guard). They themselves were influenced heavily by Buddhism and thus calling them Atheist is at least technically false.

What? The Khmer Rouge tried to wipe out Buddhism in Cambodia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Cambodia

“By the time of the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, nearly every monk and religious intellectual had been either murdered or driven into exile, and nearly every temple and Buddhist temple and library had been destroyed.
The Khmer Rouge policies towards Buddhism- which included the forcible disrobing of monks, the destruction of monasteries, and, ultimately, the execution of uncooperative monks effectively destroyed Cambodia’s Buddhist institutions.¹⁰ Monks who did not flee and avoided execution lived among the laity”

But especially there where noticeable differences in how different religions where prosecuted. Looking at the differences reveals the motives behind the prosecution. In case of Buddhism(i am generalizing a bit here since some types of Buddhism fared worse) the normal believers got away relatively well as long as they integrated into the programs. The problems the Khmer had where with Buddhist organizations(which did not fit the concept of the agrarian revolution), Buddhist religion that was seen as foreign and with individuals(intellectuals, people who because of their religion refused to follow their orders and etc.).

The Khmer Rouge were systematically trying to destroy all religion within Cambodia. Those who were Buddhist and submitted to dismantling tended not to get summarily executed. All religions were officially banned by the Khmer and it is virtually the only period in Cambodian history where it was not the recognized state religion.

Do you have any citations what so ever? What you are saying has no grounds.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

I would disagree with the above. As far as the Khmers go(i don´t know enough about the red guard). They themselves were influenced heavily by Buddhism and thus calling them Atheist is at least technically false.

What? The Khmer Rouge tried to wipe out Buddhism in Cambodia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Cambodia

“By the time of the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, nearly every monk and religious intellectual had been either murdered or driven into exile, and nearly every temple and Buddhist temple and library had been destroyed.
The Khmer Rouge policies towards Buddhism- which included the forcible disrobing of monks, the destruction of monasteries, and, ultimately, the execution of uncooperative monks effectively destroyed Cambodia’s Buddhist institutions.¹⁰ Monks who did not flee and avoided execution lived among the laity”

But especially there where noticeable differences in how different religions where prosecuted. Looking at the differences reveals the motives behind the prosecution. In case of Buddhism(i am generalizing a bit here since some types of Buddhism fared worse) the normal believers got away relatively well as long as they integrated into the programs. The problems the Khmer had where with Buddhist organizations(which did not fit the concept of the agrarian revolution), Buddhist religion that was seen as foreign and with individuals(intellectuals, people who because of their religion refused to follow their orders and etc.).

The Khmer Rouge were systematically trying to destroy all religion within Cambodia. Those who were Buddhist and submitted to dismantling tended not to get summarily executed. All religions were officially banned by the Khmer and it is virtually the only period in Cambodian history where it was not the recognized state religion.

Do you have any citations what so ever? What you are saying has no grounds.

If you take the time to step back and read what I wrote and what you sourced very carefully you might notice something. I will give you a hint there is a difference between personal belief and organized religion.

For the sources i will have to dig a bit more(later need sleep now its 2Am here). Don´t have the original sources i used to have anymore, tried looking for some online before posting the previous post and to reassure myself that i was not talking bulshit(i was writing from memory). While i did find Reassurance on the wiki pages i looked up, thats only because i can read it between the lines.

Axiom means I can’t say otherwise right?

Originally posted by Rpoman2009:

Axiom means I can’t say otherwise right?

About the only way around that is with a reductio ad absurdum. Use with EXTREME caution, and have your best freind and a random troll double check your argument for flaws.

Anyways…
My favorite interpretation of the book of revelation is that the beast was the roman papacy. Which, in turn, is quite compatible with “the crusades were wrong”.

Ancient isreal (after 40 years in the desert)….well, while they had direct orders from God sometimes, they did a terrible job remembering that those orders included injunctions that changed from fight to fight. I think one place was “let the women live” and another was “don’t take ANYTHING from the place. Burn it.” not sure about the first one, but pretty sure the second happened and they broke it.

And I think these two are pretty appropriate quotes:
“Go ye to ALL the world”.
“The meek shall inherit the earth”.