Locke9-05

You have completely failed to understand my argument. It seems maybe you should ask questions about the opposing position instead of blatantly engineering profoundly ridiculous straw men arguments to blast the topic with. My position is that the individuals responsible for the atrocities, so there's no reason to generalize. I'm not the one who made generalizations about people in any one group being "schizophrenic" or "psychopaths" simply for their beliefs... I detest that sort of despicable bigotry. So I would ask that you refrain from misrepresenting other debater's arguments in the future--especially when it's on the textbook defined basis of the "straw man" argument:

Straw man - Wikipedia

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

atheistwoody

Aye that was me that kinda labelled religious folk as schizos or psychos. AND I stand by what I said.

I could stand in the street talking to a wall, you could sit in a church and pray. The outcome in both situations is the same, your still having a onesided conversation with something that will never ever answer you. What I say to the wall makes no difference to anything, just like what you say in prayer makes no difference. Prayer has never helped or achieved anything in this world.

Locke9-05

So you're making a claim that's based on a theory of yours. Now it's time to "put up or shut up." Prove it. Prove that baseless claim of yours. Otherwise, it'll continue to mean what those kind of pointless, bigoted claims always have--absolutely nothing.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

atheistwoody

You want me to prove that prayer doesnt help?

Ill do that if you prove to me that fairies arent real.

Locke9-05

But you are incorrect when you say atheism was not a factor of the communist genocides... Atheism was a factor. It doesn't matter whether atheism wasn't required, it was still a contributing factor--by historical definition. Those communist dictators imprisoned, tortured, or killed anyone who didn't live by the "default" atheist lifestyle you mentioned yourself. It was unquestionably a major factor.
The communist genocides were people being imprisoned, tortured and killed at the order of atheists for not conforming with the "default" atheist lifestyle. It was religious oppression of those not living the atheist lifestyle by those living the atheist lifestyle. It was a major contributing factor.
It would have been appalling, wouldn't it?:
Yes, generalizations about religion are just awful aren't they... I guess we're in agreement there... Or are we? I'm confused...
Yes, you'll leave it at that. You'll define someone else's beliefs by a "literal" definition, whether or not they themselves would agree... That's the only unnecessary ridiculousness here. Here, do some reading, you're into a very abstract area that is not by any means "literally" or "concretely" defined and cannot be considered as a definite part of this topic:

The Wrathful Deities of Buddhism - ReligionFacts
Deities. Gods. Buddhism isn't atheism. Buddhists worship deities which goes completely against all principles and the very definition of atheism.

Gods of Shinto - Religious Tolerance

The Kami are the Gods of Shinto. Not an "atheist" religion. Your claims hold no water.
Sure, the same goes for religion and hatred for other religions. But in the case of the communist genocides, atheism was a major contributing factor. Remember, we're talking about what did happen and what factors were present and contributing, not what associations aren't always hand in hand. Religion isn't always associated with hatred of other religions. Atheism isn't always associated with hatred of religion. In those specific cases, they were contributing factors to the specific scenarios. That's the consistency of logic you're consistently avoiding.
And Stalin was prosecuting those who went against the default lifestyle of atheism... He was a self-professed atheist and made it known. He made sure that people knew that if they weren't atheists or didn't accept the atheist lifestyle, they would suffer. Stalin's atheism was the driving factor behind the communist genocides.
See, that's where your logic reaches a huge paradox, you blame the cause of all negatives on religion... That's inconsistent. Atheism was the driving factor in the communist genocides. Those religious people did nothing negative to contribute to the negative outcome. Stalin's atheism contributed to that negative outcome. As for the Crusades, I'll give you that one--but you're avoiding consistent application of logic.
Right...
Science can prove anyone who believes in a God (something different than you) to be "foolish," a false and judgmental statement, and religious people are schizophrenic and psychopathic. I see.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Locke9-05

Do you understand how debate works? Who made the claims? Who was it that said "prayer doesn't work." Who was it that made the useless and absolutely baseless claim that can't be backed up? Oh that's right you. I know better than to shoot off comments and make claims and statements that I can't at least defend to some extent. I never said "fairies aren't real" But faith isn't something I would have to prove, anyway. Because I know enough to recognize that it can't be proved and it's pointless to make ignorant judgments about it... You're the one who's shooting off statements that you have no means of defending and when you get called out on it, your best defense is to turn it around on me when I didn't make any such claims. I'm not going to take that ridiculous bait. Like I said--"put up or shut up." I didn't make the claims, you did. Unless you prove them, they mean absolutely nothing.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Locke9-05

Umm... Stalin had everyone who wasn't an atheist imprisoned, tortured and/or killed. That wasn't a coincidence, considering he and his regime made it known that those who weren't atheists would suffer such terrible fates. It was the major contributing factor. Atheism can be a factor for hating religion, it can be a factor just like anything can be a factor. No one thing is intrinsically a factor of hating something, and that's what you're suggesting by saying "religion IS a factor in hating religion." That's incorrect. Religion can be a factor in hating religion, just like atheism can be a factor in hating religion. The potential is there, it's up to the individual to act on that potential.
What do you mean is that the "best" I can come up with? Is this some sort of "game" to you? You claimed you've never generalized against religion as a whole... Your posts speak against that, I don't need to do any "better." I was merely showing how your post was false. Also, a "joke" calling or inferring that religious people are schizophrenic and psychopathic is just in poor taste, no matter what your intentions were. You should probably think about what you say before you say it.
Yet it proves that "Buddhism" is not an atheistic "religion" and I would doubt that Buddhists of any sect or division would agree with you and call themselves "atheists" anyway. They believe in principles and ideas that go against the very "default" principle of the atheist belief that you mentioned yourself. That's really all there is to it.
Not really. A religion takes thought outside of the "default" which as we've established is the atheist basis and principle. The "default" is what makes atheism.
You just did. You might want to choose your words more carefully:
That is a statement as fact--grammatically. Religion is what? A factor in hating religion. It is... a factor in hating religion. You just said that religion is always a factor--and therefore associated--with hatred for other religions. If this isn't what you meant so be it. The wording was misleading.
Religion wasn't responsible for anything. You're mixing up responsibility with contribution... Ultimate responsibility lies with the people (the individuals) involved. An abstract ideal cannot cause genocide or war, people acting upon that abstract ideal in an aggressive way can. Religion was no more responsible for the Crusades than atheism was responsible for the communist genocides. Stalin was an atheist who made known that every person who wasn't an atheist would be imprisoned, tortured, or killed (cruelly oppressed for their beliefs).
Oh but he was. Anyone who wasn't an atheist was cruelly oppressed... He made sure everyone knew it too. That's what happened, that's what's in the history books...
You're going to pull that lame crap again? A lot of the Crusaders did too. Hell, a lot of them had beards even. So I guess the association there is just a lot of guys with facial hair--just like Stalin?
No, you never said that, you just do it. If religious people are killed, it's because of religion... If non-religious people are killed, it's because of religion. You told me so far (at various points throughout this debate) in a very circuitous paradoxical sequence of inconsistencies that 9/11 was caused by religion, the Crusades were caused by religion, the Holocaust was caused by religion, and the communist genocides were caused by religion. So when the offenders are religious, it's religion's fault... And when the victims are religious, it's also religion's fault... It doesn't make sense. It's always up to the individual who commits the end act--the act that directly causes the pain and suffering (the negative act), the so called "contributing" factors mean all but nothing in the scheme of things because they are not negatively forcing a resulting negative reaction.

So yes, you've blamed all the negative factors in this debate on religion. You've done it inconsistently and defied standards of logic in the process, but you've still done it.
Sure it was. An atheist who had everyone who wasn't an atheist and didn't accept and live the atheist lifestyle imprisoned, tortured, and killed (cruelly oppressed). He made sure everyone knew he was going to do it, too. Major motive.
The same could be said for the Crusaders. They made the ultimate choice--their choices and follow through actions is what resulted in the actual Crusades (not the religion itself). Their religion contributed to their killings no more than their facial hair did. You haven't maintained consistent logical standards.
Well that's still a generalization against religion, is it not? You denied making that generalization against a religion and therefore were either not aware of your own words or were being dishonest. I was merely bringing that to your attention.

__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

atheistwoody

Why does Locke keep mentioning Stalin?

jaimesal

What I see bad about religion is when it implies, is understood or is practiced with fanatism.

atheistwoody

Ok

I assume he also blames all russians, men and blokes with moustaches for what Stalin did too.

Stalin was atheist yes, but that was not why he had people killed. He banned religion because he wanted to be at the top of the mountain with nobody held with more awe than him. He was an egotystical prick with delusions of granduer.

If religion would have helped him gain more power he would have encouraged it.