As I have stated before, the numbers are irrelevant, it is obvious that these attrocities are way in excess of anything else. The nature of this debate was never how many people had been killed, but whether it was Atheism that was the cause. They have not thrown me in the slightest, they are just not of any real relevance. Even if I concede they are true and that they are in excess of deaths in the name of religion, it still remains for us to decide if it was Atheism that was the cause. This is why I entered into debate with you, not to haggle over numbers.
No one's haggling. The numbers are what they are. And of course they are relevant, as the word "more" in the topic of this debate attests to.
This is incorrect. My statement remains valid until you prove whether they actually claimed that Darwinism lead them to Atheism, something you have yet to do. And even if you do manage to achieve this, you must acknowledge that Atheism is not the reason they killed people as it is nothing more than a denial god exists. All other beliefs, such as 'Jews should be irradicated' are superflous to the definition of Atheism. Your insistance that these different beliefs are inextricably linked is not evidence that they are.
Now I have to prove Hitler wanted to eradicate the "lesser races" based on Darwinism? If I waste my time presenting history to you, we'll never get anything done. I must ackknowledge no such thing. Our beliefs are the cause for everything we do. If I believe chicken tastes better than fish, it will cause me to eat chicken and not fish. If I believe God is real and detests murder, it will cause me not to murder. If I believe God is not real and I am my own boss, I can murder as it suits me. Their atheism opened the door to this thought process, and is a direct cause to their actions. This is quite apparent to those of us who do not need to desperately muddy facts.
I did not mean to infer this as a slur on you, my apologies, although I am unconvinced as of yet, on the historical accuracy.
No worries. And I urge you to look it up for yourself.
I am doing no such thing, I am merely demonstrating that there is the possibility of other factors to consider. If you have no doubt they were corrupt and power hungry, why is it so hard to believe there may have been psychological imbalances present too? I am not claiming there are, I have no proof. I am merely saying the possiblity remains.
Because their actions attest to their being corrupt and power hungry. A psychological imbalance is pure conjecture. Well, the possibility also remains that they were cross-dressers, but as you can see, we don't have much room to work with possibilities.
Of course not, but just because they claim it is so, does not mean that it is. As I have shown by the agreed definition of Atheism, it cannot be the source for other motives.
Your definition showed no such thing. If we go by your logic that simply because actions aren't included in the definition, that it cannot be the cause, then shooting need not be the cause for murder if a man shoots someone. Said man then gets off scott free because Webster made the mistake of not including murder in the definition of shooting.
We can and I am sure you would be the first to say that these Christians were not real Christians at all. I have no problem with this. You stated that Atheism as a code of belief was responsible for death, not that Hitler, Stalin and Mao used Atheism as an excuse for their killing. I would say they are wrong to do so, just as you would say a supposed Christian would be wrong to use his religion as an excuse to kill.
Well, I have proof to back up my statement that murderers who claimed to be Christians before the murder were not, since the rules we all universally adhere to condemn their actions. You, however, have no such clear-cut rules in atheism, so how can you condemn their actions as not being a result of atheism? Simply because atheism has not cause YOU to murder does not mean it can't and hasn't had the effect on people.
As I have explained, there is no double standard here.
Your explanation fails to address the double standard.
And I would say that they were wrong to do so. I shall state again that Atheism is a lack of belief in god, nothing more.
I agree that is what atheism is; however the debate is about what atheism causes.
Please explain your reasoning for this and what danger you mean.
Well, if society wasn't around to "judge", then you and any other atheist would feel quite comfortable killing me if it suited your purposes. That's a danger to me and others.
They do not do any such thing. A moral code is subject to change as the pressures of life and society change. Not as the individual chooses. Anyone that changes his or her moral code based on their own wants is wrong to do so. This is the path to madness and being a monster.
Why are they wrong? Why, aside from you saying so, is a moral code subject to change only when the pressure of life and society change? Why were those three "wrong" and you "right"? Where is your basis for this? Consensus?
I would be thankful to you if you would take this veiled insult back, we should not be in the business of such behaviour. I am neither disillusioned, nor is my threat or lack of it, of any importance in this debate. Thank you.
It was not an insult. It was a pointing out of the fallacy of your stance. I attack the argument, not the person. I apologize if I offended you, though. That has never been my intention.
The presence of a higher authority still does not guarantee adherence to a moral code. People had morals well before Christianity came along and adhered to them. If they did not believe in god, how is it they managed this? What factions of Atheists are you talking about?
It does for me and any other born-again. People had morals, yes, but that is because these morals are universally from God. They did believe in God. They just believed in their twisted version of Him. All atheists, of course.
This is not fact.
History disagrees with you.
Their crimes are horrendous and vast, but the cause was not Atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, nothing more. It cannot be used as justification for murder anymore than religion could.
Why were they horrendous? They said the cause was atheism, I will need more than your opinion. Yes, the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god, however the ramifications of said lack are many. Just like Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God and savior of mankind has many ramifications. They (the big 3) used it for justification, so apparently it can.
Despite agreeing a definition of Atheism, you refuse to adhere to the implications of that definition. It does not stretch to the justification of anything. It is a state of denial.
What implications do you mean? I wasn't aware there were set implications. I agreed to the definition, however, we never agreed to what the definition could result in. It did for them (big 3) so the only denial I see is yours, and it is unfounded when compared to history.
It is the very essence of debate and of utmost importance, as is your opinion. If we did not offer opinion, the facts would speak for themselves and there would be no need for debate.
Actually, the very essence of debate is the presentation of the better and more logical facts. Opinions matter, of course, but more opinions than fact would be more of an argument than a debate.
It is no such thing, I am not my own judge and jury, society and my peers serve this purpose.
Perhaps for you, but not for them.
Clearly is not a word I would use here, you have yet to offer any evidence that Atheism is dangerous. All you have shown so far is that 3 mass murders claimed to be atheists. The two things are not inclusive.
How can you claim to be an atheist? You either are or are not. Unlike Christianity, there are no standards to be met to be considered atheist. Atheism is quite dangerous, when used as justification for murder, as they proved.
The notion of a deterrent is immaterial to this debate. Plenty of people claiming to be Christians have commited murder and they supposedly have a judge and jury to answer to. It does not stop them from committing the crime. It is not the prevention of such things that is important and if you think that, were the whole world to become Christian there would be no murder, you are being naive.
The key word there is 'claiming'. When comparing their actions to the Word of God (as we are told to do, as Christians), they clearly were not Christians. And of course I think if the whole world used Jesus Christ as their model of behavior and strived to emulate Him at all times, there would be no murder. I do not see this as naive.
One cannot claim to be an atheist. One either is or is not. They said they were, so they were.
[/b]
Debate with Darfius 2
14 Mar '05 21:22
Back to Top