Originally Posted by
gut
> Mao and Stalin were communists. That they were atheists is largely coincidental
I somehow doubt that was a condolence to the religious people they murdered.
> --their interest wasn't in stamping out religion per se,
I seem to recall the phrase 'religion is poison', but again, different books.
Stalin and Mao killed lots of people. I don't deny that. Attributing these atrocities to atheism is rather far-fetched. It is more accurate to attribute their actions to their belief in communism.
Originally Posted by
gut
> Hilter was a devout Roman Catholic.
I don't know much of catholocism, but I doubt many catholics would repeat
the above statement.
Probably not. Again, simply because Hilter was Catholic does not mean that it is correct to attribute his actions to Catholicism. Hilter's driving motivation was his belief in fascism and the superiority of the German race. That and he was probably crazy as a loon.
Originally Posted by
gut
> doubt that had that [they?] the opportunity, resources, and a modern military,
> that Islamic nations wouldn't be just as brutal?
If memory serves, iran has never launched a pre-emptive strike against any nation.
I'm not sure what that proves. Some of their neighbours have proved to be rather unstable from time to time.
Originally Posted by
gut
The point of that section of the article was to prove that bad deeds
have been perpetrated by believers and non. You agree that the believer's
bad deeds are valid, yet claim the bad deeds of non-believers aren't
valid, as they didn't previously declare that they were acting in the
name of non-believing.
I'm not arguing that non-believers can't do bad things. I'm arguing that non-belief is not, generally speaking, a motivation for doing bad things (or good things). Religion, by comparison, is a very good motivator for actions, both good and bad. The problem is that bad things tend to have a much bigger impact, on global or historical timescale, than good things. There's a reason that we remember people like Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, and not some equivalently great philanthropists.
Originally Posted by
gut
There is plenty of blame to be distributed. I place more blame for the afghani
deaths upon vengence seekers. I remember no cries for 'justice' coming from
any religious organizations. Quite the contrary from secular sources.
I'll assume the reason you believe this is that you didn't watch TV at the time either.
Originally Posted by
gut
Hogwash. The push for Iraq war was from uncle sam, not churches. Do not
equate the fed with religion, regardless of what they spout.
The Republican Party has been in bed with the evangelicals since the Reagan years.
Originally Posted by
gut
> they believe that the only thing that matters is what happens in the next
> life, and are prepared to sacrifice anyone
You quote an extreme. The counter would be an athiest that says it's OK to
eat humans, as they're just animals... but you would call that invalid, as
he didn't first proclaim he was eating in the name of atheism.
The statement "I do not believe in God" does not compell you to take any action.
The statement "I believe in God" can compell you to take action.
A lack of belief in something generally does not obligate you to do anything. There are lots of things that a given person doesn't believe in, and these things have no impact on their lives to speak of. It is what you believe in that makes a difference in how you behave. Atheism is not a real philosophy in that sense. It makes no claims about how you ought to behave or what you ought to do with your life. It is simply the absence of beliefs about anything supernatural.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.