-1- wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:52 am
Yes, we've seen how "well-behaving" some Atheists can be. Over 140 million bodies piled up while certain self-declared Atheists were demonstrating their "well-behaving." Human beings...Atheists, as it happens...did it. So why would we start trusting "the goodness in [the human] heart" again?
Don't we already have enough dead bodies piled up to the failure of that
Over 140 million deaths by atheist hands is nothing compared to the approx. over one billion dead bodies by Christian hands. If you want to quote statistics, I can quote them too.
Well, you've got to admit, if you've actually looked it up, that that's a completely phony statistic. You're not even close.
According to the statistics compiled by the authoritative and completely secular source, The Encyclopaedia of Wars
, the worst deed committed by so-called "Christians" (though, of course, they weren't, but I won't challenge you on that point here) was the Spanish Inquisition But even it was far, far less homicidal than Atheism, which is, on an annual basis, precisely 182,716 times worse than that.
So... why blame only the atheists? Because it suits your purpose, my dear Immanuel.
Well, I wouldn't, of course. There are Theists (Islam is an easy case for you) that have killed people out of their creed. But nothing, not even the bloodiest and longest crusades of Islam, ever came close to the record of Atheism.
The truth is, which you said so eloquently, and you forgot the instant you said it, is that we are all human beings... and Christianity or any other religion won't mask it to any degree of significance.
If a "religion" as you call it, could alter human nature, it would. But without altering that factor, there is no chance for any ideology to produce anything but what, historically, it has already been producing.
There are bad atheists... and there was Cortez, the killer. A Christian, a crusader, a conqueror, whose hands killed more people in history in terms of total population available than anyone else's. He was a Christian, a devout Christian.
No, he wasn't. He was a discoverer and military conqueror, with at least a nominal Catholic background. (I'll let the Catholics debate how "Catholic" he really was, because it's of no importance, really.)
Then there were good atheists, and there was Mother Theresa.
There are no "good" people, according to Atheism. There are only people who imagine they are "good." The value "good" is not a real thing, not objectively true, unrelated to any factual assessment of any situation, according to Atheism. It's either merely a personal feeling or a social construct; and in both cases, simply a delusion.
And that's the point. There is absolutely no reason why an Atheist has to choose to be "good" (whatever he takes that to be). He can be a Stalin, a Mao or a Pol Pot, and he's still as "good" an Atheist as anybody else; because "good" isn't real.
You can test me, Immanuel, but please watch the news; the biggest single multiple murder in US history just this week was carried out by a devout Christian. A man who took the belief that the Holy Spirit dwelled in his heart. And then he went and killed I don't know how many people, 80? A good, devout Christian, unparalleled in SIN by atheists.
Like most Atheists, you have no idea what a "Christian" is. But do you mean Timothy McVeigh? You actually think, that he was a "Christian," in some reasonable sense?
Well, let's let him speak. Here's his own explanation of his motives, as given in his own letter. Show me the "Christian" bit, if you can.
"...For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become soldiers (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organisation and mindset) and they were escalating their behaviour.
Therefore this bombing was meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centres within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy. Additionally, borrowing a page from US foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah federal building was morally and strategically equivalent to the US hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations.
Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option...."
Now, you can say he's not being forthcoming. You can argue that he was "secretly" a Christian, if you want. There's no reason to believe it, but I'll play along. If he was, then without doubt, he was an anomaly...an irregular case. Not only do Christians NOT do such stuff, they actively do the opposite...build up society, observe a basic moral lifestyle, follow laws, give more to charity than any other group on earth, and so on. And everybody knows it. Moreover, their fundamental belief forbid what T McV did, so in no sense, even if we try to call him a "Christian," can we say he was acting as one when he did what he did.
But Atheists? There is statistically a 52% chance that the Atheist leader of any state will kill at least 200,000 of his own subjects. That's how common it is. And there is not a thing in Atheism that says he cannot, should not, or is a bad Atheist if he does.
Need to hear more? All, or almost all, people on death row in the USA are Christians.
Do you mean to point out that men who are about to die think about God?
I wouldn't be surprised if they do...even the Atheists. Or are you trying to imply that whatever they did, they did when they were Christians, and for Christian reasons? If that's what you mean, you haven't said that.
Look at the bloody records, for crying out loud, and please look at them without a biassed pre-judged view, trying to prove something you so desperately but without success are trying to prove. Look at the records, and THEN draw your conclusion, and not the other way around, please.
I have, as you can see. I've offered the hard facts, direct quotation, and impartial sources above. I have not relied on any "pro-religious" sources at all.
Do you dare to do the same?