Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?
Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems. All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking.
If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment.
It started with the murder of the gnostics, then the crusades. The inquisition comes to mind, as does witch burning. More recent times see the murder of Jews and now we still see an occasional gay killing.
Radicals are not totally sane, and will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them.Could not agree more, wilderness. The whole thing is disturbing.
Could not DISAGREE with you more. Fundamentalist Christians are no way similar to Radical Islamist. How many people do you know that will sacrifice their own lives for a greater glory?
You mean like Jonestown, Guyana, 1978?
Or do we just say that such Christian whackos aren't Christian, but Muslim whackos are are still Muslim?
If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism.
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist pol pot? 3 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist joseph stalin? 50 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist mao zedong? 50 million?
We are not talking about military campaigns a - thousand years ago - in a response to muslim conquests.......mass murdering atheist dictators killed a hundred million human beings in the last approx 75 years.
Over 100 million human beings in the last 75 -80 years....
The whole thing is disturbing.Phoenix, I didn't consider the pathetically sensational and leading OP or like minded post worthy of response, but if they were, then yours was appropriate. Thank you.
You've created multiple logical fallacies with this post. Way to much to go into right now, however did these people order the murder of people for religious reasons?
This was your response to Phoenix's first post, I believe. My question on this is, why *would* Mao, Pol Pot, or Stalin order the murder of people for religious reasons? Fair question though I suppose.
The answer is telling. They did it for non religious reasons. That has been my point, all along.Okay so you finally admit that those buffoons and their atrocities had nothing to do with religion or lack thereof? Thanks. Their supposed Atheism was incidental to their atrocities, unlike Hitler...
So do you think atheism is a religion? I hadn't realized that if so. Ok. Most atheists I come across do not think that. Most think its a lack of belief, and want nothing to do with religion.
Yes, those atrocities were from a lack of religion, lack of belief. Many atheists like in the OP, like to link the worst atrocities in the world like ISIS, with religion, especially Christianity it seems. She likely was either forgetting, or didn't know about the secular (aka non religious) incidents Phoenix brought up.
In this thread, through historical fact, it was shown how many problems from those leaders/dictators those that have no religion, or a lack of belief, can cause, In just the last approx 80 years.In the OP's mind, if she has the similar belief of many atheists and atheist supporters, she was likely already lumping Hitler in with her ISIS charge in her title and OP. I don't claim to know that for sure.
The point of bringing up the secular, non religious mass murderers, is there are so many of them in recent history, and they killed so many. It shows the illogic of the belief she and many others may hold, seem to hold. That is, that religion causes so many problems. As if, religion alone causes so many problems.
Non religious people, can also cause a ton of problems, as we all just saw.Right, bingo, we have a winner. That's exactly what I was getting at in my first response to the OP. Why then would you give the plus one to someone who posts nonsense about another group? If you had been listening to me you would have understood that from the beginning, but instead you get behind someone who says people with none belief and kill are somehow worse than people with belief? You seem to think it's only hate speech if it is against fundamental Christians.
Will you finally admit that Atheist are no worse than any other people?
+1
Thank you for reminding us of relatively recent events in the not too distant past, of examples of secular belief systems that are far better comparisons to ISIS than Christianity (even Radical Christianity.)
I know some don't want reminders of what people can do to millions, in modern history even, if they lack a belief in god and religion. In other words, the common belief held by so many here on HubPages that Christianity causes such things and is to be compared to such things, is put back in perspective with simple facts and logic. Their personally held beliefs about Christianity and even hatred for it, won't ever trump the facts.In case some don't know about these mass murdering fellows like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, here are some links to just Wikipedia that show their Lenin Marxist leanings/ Communist, etc.... (even very liberal Wikpedia shows this isn't being made up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
Please everyone, learn about these guys, and don't just believe everything you hear. This is recent history comparatively speaking. I think we need to all really look inward for the greater benefit to all free people everywhere, no matter what we believe, so we can all live peaceably. Lying about people matters, propaganda matters, because true evil has desires that can't have such killing so easily accomplished without the deception and lies that create the right climate for it. If you think it can't happen again, that the religious can't be targeted again to that same degree, then you may be being very naive, sadly. Religious OR non religious need not ever be targeted again like that! It happened not that long ago really. It can, and we need to not be so naive, if we are.
Interesting. You said, "If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment." Who wouldn't hesitate a moment? Those who 'CALL' themselves Christian? Because 'calling oneself by a particular title does not make that title true. Therefore, the proper etiquette would be to give a name to those you have simply called, 'they'. 'They' could be any group of people. Who are 'they'?
You then say:
It started with the murder of the gnostics, then the crusades. The inquisition comes to mind, as does witch burning. More recent times see the murder of Jews and now we still see an occasional gay killing.
Who exactly are you referring to? Christians? Or those who use the title in order to defame the ones who follow JESUS? You see, the word 'Christian' was actually formed in mockery of those who follow JESUS. The usage of this title by those who 'kill, steal life from, or destroy' anyone belongs to the 'prince of darkness' not to TRUE followers of JESUS CHRIST.
You finish by saying:
Radicals are not totally sane, and will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them.
I consider some of the first part of this statement reasonable: "radicals (MAY) not (be) totally sane, and (SOME) will stop at nothing to ..."
...here is where the schism in thought is created. Let me explain.
When you say, 'some will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them'... if you are trying to articulate that their 'god' has given them the instruction to do indescribable damage, then I hope you are not referring to the God Christians follow, because the God I follow WOULD NOT GIVE such instructions. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the 'god' (small 'g' differentiates correctly) of hatred, whatever god that might be... (depending on the person's faith base) then this might be a fair assumption. Except... please...please tell me you are not referring to The God of The Bible, because to do so would be defamation of character.
JESUS DIED to SAVE us from humanity's destructions. You may not agree. You may not believe the same. However, this is TRUTH. Those who have done what you say, DID NOT FOLLOW JESUS' TEACHINGS as presented in The Holy Bible.
The 'god' who promotes such hatred has nothing to do with Christians (TRUE followers of JESUS). Therefore, while the 'radicals' you mentioned have committed heinous crimes, NONE of those should be truly called, 'Christian'. Those who participated in the murder of humans because the numbers on their side were greater, or the money they made murdering was a blinding temptation, or the position desired came at the price of human bloodshed, were NOT TRUE FOLLOWERS of JESUS, THE MESSIAH.
Though many leaders have hidden behind political and religious garments, the right to destroy lives in order to keep the position, status or power never belonged to those leaders. In fact, those individuals who have scattered blood in rivers like water, in order to maintain what should never have been theirs, have that blood on their hands now. Imagine.
Just, please, be kind enough not to call them, "Christian'. Evil undergirded by torturous murder is not according to the instruction of THE LIVING GOD. Such evil is birthed in hell and shall remain there for all eternity.Would you be so kind to define what a true Christian is? What do they look like? How can one differentiate between a True Christian and a fake one? Do True Christians never kill?
Forgive me for stepping in here, but I've given this much thought and in the light of what this conversation has taught me there seems to be a very easy answer to your question. Real Christians are those that do their very best to follow the words of Christ, which means they are the ones who when confronted simply turn the other cheek to allow the other side to be slapped as well. Which is unlike those that started to slandering Atheism in order to draw attention away from their lack of ability to turn the other cheek. Unfortunately there seems to be very few examples of real Christians, but the best example I can give is of the true Christian Ghandi and perhaps Mo who is dearly missed in these forums because she turned the other cheek and took a slap from those who think they are real Christians.
Yes, according to that definition I agree there are very, very few True Christians. I'll admit I fail the test.
well, you seem to very humble and you've been away from here for sometime now, I don't know why but perhaps you've turned the other cheek and are a real Christian.
Sadly by your definition, still no. I'll work on it though
I thought you were saying Hitler was a Christian? Are Melissa and Hitler Christians or not?
By his definition neither Hitler nor I are. Are you?
I'm pretty sure I said he was a fundy rather than a real Christian. He like you stated he was a Christian.
I have no problem admitting that by my definition both Hitler and myself are Christians. So if you are trying to corner him with that, he need not worry
That's good. It's nice to see that you understand that just because one member of your family is a nut-case that doesn't mean he's no longer a member of your family. It's convenient to dismiss such people to avoid embarrassment, but it's very dishonest. Don't you agree?
You misunderstand. I just agree with the rationale, not the conclusion.
That was the rationale. Did you mean to say you agree with the conclusion but not the rationale?
And were you planning on answering the question I asked way back? If not could you tell me why not? I thought it was a perfectly topic-worthy question.
Well, I usually simply go by what people say of themselves. Hitler said he was a Christian, but didn't behave very Christ like so I'll have to say he was like you, a fundy. Melissa seems humble and says she is a Christian so I'll have to go by her word.
Now all that being said, we have established that you and a few others are not interesting in logical fallacies so I've been using your logic against you. So when you say Jones was a Atheist murderer when in fact he was a religious leader who talked several hundred into committing mass suicide, I have the same right to say that Hitler was an admitted Christian who murdered mover 6 million people because of his fundy beliefs. If you however start admitting that logical fallacies are useful, I'll have to stop and agree with you.Did you just coin a new informal fallacy? The Radman Category Error?
LOL, I've admitted when I'm wrong and apologized in this very forum to you specifically.
In my belief system me and Hitler and melissa gonna be in front of God at Judgement Day and even you Radman will be there, in my belief system that is. Do you think God ( in my belief system anyways) is going to give any more consideration to who you think belongs in your personal made up categories any more than I?
That's what I believe as well... however I believe that everyone is going to be judge on their effort, not their success. None of us will ever come close to being Jesus. I have to assume that all of us are trying on some level to be as good as possible. Even Hitler, although he had a pretty skewed definition of good.
Would you ever consider apologizing for your at least 4 ISIS comparison comments to us, and the 9-10 comments about cult leaders/followers/kool aide comments?
Or were you right, in those?Have you consider apologizing for giving the thumbs up and the plus one to someone who spewed hatred to Atheism and said he wanted to warn humanity against Atheists? I've apologized when I was in error, here is your chance to do the same.
Ok then.
As for the other, we disagree on what showing the history means. You seem take the history to mean that if it shows something bad that atheists did, then its slandering atheism, that its hateful to atheism, or some similar idea. Is that correct? See, I disagree with that as an idea. I think we all can learn from all history, even if it happens to disagree with our personally held views/beliefs.
To act like the secular in the world, are innocent or so much better compared to ISIS and Christians, was something that needed to be answered. Especially since an atheist brought up ISIS and Christians, and the idea of not hesitating to kill, and history. The opened the door wide open, for all history to be discussed.So because he said bad things, it made it OK for you to say them? I know you aren't answering questions, but ponder that one.
It's slanderous if it's against Christianity, but it's something we can learn from if it's again any other group. That's a sad double standard.
Atheism wan't the intended target in the OP, Christianity was. You seem to keep forgetting the premise, the REASON, the need for the response that was given. The OP wasn't true, wasn't fair, it was lopsided cherry picking of history and current events. You kind of keep acting like Phoenix's response, was the start of a thread, that needed to be responded to. It was the response. He didn't go and make a forum thread comparing ISIS and atheism, no one did, and no one would or could. They wouldn't be posting right now if they had.
As for slander, my understanding is that it would be slander if it wasn't true. She sure seems to have some strange beliefs about Christianity, like many do here on HP. Double standards occur, where they occur.We are only supposed to respond to the OP? Some else come along and makes a more outlandish claim in an attempt to defend his position was we are not allowed to respond to that claim?
No, of course not, and I would never say so. The OP was in error. With HP allowing it to remain after multiple reports asking it to come down, it sure could seem like fair game to give a historical, factual response after a couple of days. It was fair game to respond with some actual facts that line up with reality. Its funny, someone so bold behind a screen and keyboard, can't come and rebut any of it either.
Anyone can just post such a thing whose conscience would allow them to. Not everyone that would post such, can actually back up their claims and debate fairly and reasonably after doing so.But they are not facts, Using a bunch of fallacies to make a point doesn't lead to facts. He's claimed the Atheism has lead to atrocities and even lied about the atrocities. He hasn't addressed the OP as I've done and so has a few others. His point is nullified. It's like claiming Hitler's faith is what lead him to killing 6 million Jewish people.
Atheism - Since 1900
In addition, state atheism emerged in Eastern Europe and Asia during that period, particularly in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and in Communist China under Mao Zedong. Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Since_1900
The loss of life was staggering.Did that make everything that Christians ever did OK? Again, is there a scorecard?
My Grandmother was born in 1899. The horror of having to live through that. The horror.
So many died they cant even estimate the loss of life. 50-60 100 million?That's horrible. Does it excuse everything that Christians have ever done? I'm just not seeing your point.
My grandfather fought the Christian nazi regime during WW2, the horror. My Jewish friend lost most of his relatives to that Christian nazi regime, the horror.
Do you not see that double standard that I keep pointing out?So do did all mine and my uncle and everyone else in my family. At least now, no one can live in a fantasy world or in denial land of how state sponsored atheism, atheist dictators and assorted atheist-Marxist cult leaders, were responsible for over a 100 million deaths in the last 80 years.
So, we have to warn our children and grandchildren how state sponsored atheism, atheist dictators and assorted atheist-Marxist cult leaders, were responsible for approx 100 million deaths in the last 80 years.
Before they killed around 100 million people, they used anti-religious propaganda and labeled innocent people as the enemy. The thread title and OP compares Christians, based purely on their beliefs, as being comparable to a ruthless terrorist organization. I feel that equals hate speech and feel it is similar to the tactics used by mass murdering atheistic regimes in the last few decades.I need to warn my children of no such thing. I will likely teach them that dictators killed people, but the fact they were atheists is just about as important as the fact that they were all men. I could argue that women were superior based on your reasoning.
I'm not trying to make my children hate a specific religion/non-religion because it makes me feel better to have another person on earth that feels the same way as I do.
Bad people do things because they are bad people. Some of those bad people are Christians, Some are Atheists. Some are Hindu. Whatever. Are the people any less dead if a Christian kills them than if an atheist does?
Yes, ISIS members share some characteristics to fundie Christians. Denying that just means that fundie Christians continue to get away with being extremists. While one is defending the purity of Christianity, one is allowing it devolve. I'd rather face problems than deny they exist.-
Well that is your prerogative, but I feel it is encouraging a willful ignorance of history. Here is the proof and refutation of your "the fact they were atheists is just about as important as the fact that they were all men " claim. In my opinion, you are either going to have to deal with reality or be considered intellectually dishonest.
Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism
Feuerbach wanted to destroy all religious commitments and to encourage an intensive hatred towards the old God. All religious institutions needed to be eradicated from the earth......" It was this thinking that the young Karl Marx was deeply attracted by, and Marx adopted much of Feuerbach’s thought into his own philosophical worldview. Marx considered that the higher goals of humanity would justify any radicalism, both intellectual as well as social/political radicalism in order to achieve its ends.
Lenin’s unequivocal hostile intolerance towards religious belief became a distinctive feature of ideological Soviet atheism, which was contrasted with milder antireligious views of Marxists outside the USSR. His hostility to religion allowed no compromises"...." Attacking religion became far more important for Lenin than it had been for Marx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2 … st_atheism
Then they carried that ideology out: And here is just a sample:
Marxist–Leninist atheism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_set … ersecutionDo you seriously think that Marx would have been a happy loving sweet guy if he was a Christian? Do you think a change in his faith would have meant a change in his personality?
Is it more important to point the fingers at a certain group rather than combat the actual problem? Would it have been more acceptable to kill people if he was a Christian?-
I am not a psychic (not that it would change history anyway) nor tolerant of equivocation and intellectual dishonesty.Which answers none of the questions. My personal opinion is that we should be focusing on personalities that would aspire to kill large amounts of people. There are such people among all faiths and none. Pointing out the faith of each one is useless and obscures the real issue. Extremism is the problem and extremists of all faiths look exactly alike.
Is there a reason you think Atheist murderers are worse than Christian murderers?Your questions were irrelevant hypotheticals and equivocation. You stand refuted by historical fact. What your opinions are, of what is useless and what obscures, has no merit, considering you offer no legitimate rebuttal. In other words, you have to be serious (consistent), to be taken seriously.
When you can stop using numerous logical fallacies to make your point, perhaps you will be taken seriously.
Allegorically, she is in checkmate, and refuses to see it. Instead, she conveniently wants us all to debate her jump rope skills. Considering her abilities at chess, I have no desire to be entangled in a bunch of rope.
I don't even know what that means... does it have some bearing on the conversation? I don't jumprope and I very rarely play chess, I certainly would never do both at the same time and I've never done either with you. Could we please stick to the conversation?
Allegory:
As a literary device, an allegory in its most general sense is an extended metaphor.Yes, I am aware of that. (Although allegories tend to be longer works, not sound bites) However what you used was a mixed metaphor that didn't seem to make any sense. I am more than willing to hear your explanation of it though.
Uhm that is what I am doing.
Atheist Karl Marx
We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.Would you like me to quote something from fundy christian Hitler? Would it somehow make a point? Hitler seemed to have problems with people unlike himself as well? Is that part of your plan?
Seriously, could YOU tell me what his point is?
I believe his point is to inflame and draw attention away from Christianity. Which to be fair is at the present time nothing like ISIS, he could have simply made that argument, it's what I had done on one of the first few pages.
Have you ever meet a Marxist Leninist atheist. They sound really bad, we should round them up and keep and eye on all two of them.Actually no. But I am related, by marriage, to one of the few living members of the SS.
I can go along with the inflame thing... Would YOU have a conversation with me about this? I seem to be having difficulties having a real discussion. You seem pretty open... so lets go
You do realize that isn't Karl Marx... right? Please explain what exactly your point is. Are you saying that Marx killed people? I agree. Are you saying he was an atheist? I also agree. Again, so what? What does that prove? If you are going to say something, please say it. I'm not understanding non-answers, pictures of actors and random quotes. This is not how conversations happen. Honestly, it just seems like spam.
How is that an extended metaphor? Was it a reference to chess or jump rope?
I take it you are unable to make your point without the use of several fallacies. That must make you angry.
If you show how what he said, is an actual logical fallacy, rather than accusing him of numerous logical fallacies numerous times, it will have more merit when you say it.
I've done this numerous times and every time you pretend that are not pertinent. But they are and I've even given you links to them to show that they are not fictitious.
The tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacy on numerous occasions. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism. Example. Yea, well Jim Jones was an Atheist therefore atheists are worse than Hitler… Look it up, it's the logical fallacy you started with “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot?"
False Analogy Fallacy - in this fallacy you've assumed the belief in God is similar to the non-belief in God. For you to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour.
False Cause Fallacy - This occurs whenever the link between premise and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
Example:
Stalin and Pol Pot were poor tennis player. Therefore we can conclude that not being a poor tennis causes a person to commit atrocities. Without any written or unwritten atheist doctrines, you must show that a lack of belief in god was a causal factor in the atrocities committed, but to do so, they must conversely demonstrate that had these tyrants believed in a god, they wouldn’t have committed such crimes against humanity, which brings us right back to our Christian Inquisitions, Holy Crusades, missionary atrocities and all of the other dirt directly derived from religion that this fallacy attempts to quietly sweep under the rug.
Poisoning the Well Fallacy - When you present adverse information about, or associates unfavourable characters, characteristics or qualities with, a targeted person, or in this case, worldview (atheism), with the intention of undermining it, this is known as poisoning the well. “Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheism is dangerous.”
Slippery Slope Fallacy - The slippery slope fallacy is a species of the false cause fallacy that seeks to present a conclusion of an argument that is dependent upon an unlikely chain of events. In other words you are saying that the more secular we become the more our society will erode when in fact what we see is the opposite. Would you rather live in Uganda, Saudi Arabia or North America?
5 logical fallacies directly related to your arguments. Please feel free to look them up.Ok, lets start with the first one and start there, to see if you have anything here.
Radman said- "The tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacy on numerous occasions. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism. Example. Yea, well Jim Jones was an Atheist therefore atheists are worse than Hitler… Look it up, it's the logical fallacy you started with “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot?""
Can you link to where he said that, that example? Because I don't think he ever said that, lol. See, this is my point, that you are not making up an argument he isn't making, and then going after that.
When I mentioned and gave links to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, so what? What is illogical about that? The point of that, as I have repeated, is to show the OP wrong about how her beliefs that Christians are more like ISIS than their secular counterparts, is not true. You do have to explain exactly how my bringing up those facts, is illogical. I will go through each of these supposed logical fallacies with you, but do not say, that you provided what I asked for in links to the posts where it was said. This is fair to all of us, we can't take your word, because you misquoted, and mischaracterized when you said, "Yea, well Jim Jones was an Atheist therefore atheists are worse than Hitler." That is a ridiculous thing to say about anyone here, no one said that. You said that.
So unless you can provide the direct link, I just showed how you actually used a logical fallacy of a strawman, instead of you showing how the tu quoque fallacy was in play. I have pointed this out numerous times also.You are kidding right?
Phoenix -"If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism.
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist pol pot? 3 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist joseph stalin? 50 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist mao zedong? 50 million?
We are not talking about military campaigns a - thousand years ago - in a response to muslim conquests.......mass murdering atheist dictators killed a hundred million human beings in the last approx 75 years.
Over 100 million human beings in the last 75 -80 years....
The whole thing is disturbing."
Phoenix -If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism.
The tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacy on numerous occasions. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism. Example. "If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism." that's an example of avoiding criticism with criticism. And guess what I told him that in a reply to his first post.
Okay that takes care of the first logical fallacy. Can we move to the False Analogy Fallacy? - in this fallacy you've assumed the belief in God is similar to the non-belief in God. For you to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour.Add in current history too.
Like Marxism-Leninism, Juche ideology espouses state atheism.
Persecution of Christians and Buddhists
According to NGOs North Korea is amongst the countries where persecution of Christians is the worst.
There are numerous reports of people sent to prison camps and subjected to torture and inhuman treatment because of their faith. It is estimated that 50,000–70,000 Christians are held in North Korean prison camps.There are reports of public executions of Christians,[
It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners are detained in concentration camps, where they perform forced labour and risk summary beatings, torture and execution -wiki -wikiDo I need to give you that list of fallacies again?
But to your point, do you know any Marxism-Leninism atheists? Cause I don't. How do we know when we've found one?I think it might be genuinely good for all of us, not just you, to do some research on Marxism-Leninism atheists. See what they have in common perhaps.
Not so fast. Let us look at this. You say this is a logical fallacy, "If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism."
Pam said "Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking."
Wilderness said, "If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment."
Phoenix said, "If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism."
Then he showed his facts to back that up, from just the last approx 80 years. So that doesn't work Radman, sorry. Now I will look at the next supposed logical fallacy in a new post.What does what anyone said have to do with what he said? If they used logical fallacies you should tell them as part of your argument. Now, he avoided criticism with criticism, therefore he used the first logical fallacy.
Now, False Analogy Fallacy? - in this fallacy you've assumed the belief in God is similar to the non-belief in God. For you to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour.
One of you has to prove is a religion with a atheistic bible.
Could you explain exactly which of my viewpoints is refuted by historical fact? Could you also explain exactly what it is I should be rebutting? Can you also explain where I have been inconsistent? I felt my questions were extremely relevant, could you explain-in more detail- exactly what makes them equivocation? I was fairly sure my language was straight-forward and I wasn't attempting to conceal anything. Are you sure you are using "equivocation" correctly? Can you also explain why my questions were hypothetical? What hypothesis were they supporting?
That doesn't seem to answer my question. Are you sure you reading it correctly? Which of my points does it refute? Are you avoiding a direct answer?
I'm not interested in scoring points, I'm trying to have a conversation. Are you avoiding that for some reason? These non-answers don't mean anything and I don't see them as anything but bickering. I am truly interested in the topic, if you don't wish to discuss it, why are you here?Since you cannot except the historical fact of Marxist Leninist atheism and what it directly did, there is no point in discussing your hypothetical stuff or anything else. Please stop posting to me and stop the petty bickering thanks
I never denied that Marx was an atheist or that his regime killed people. You are arguing a point I never made. Perhaps thats why I didn't understand.
I asked you politely to stop posting to me. Thanks.
I take it your line of questioning was about to bring him to a point where he didn't want to be. As I said before I believe he knows what he's doing is nonsensical and illogical, but he's aware that it can fool or upset some. Sadly, Oceans has been fooled because well she likes what he's saying, it's another example of the dangers of indoctrination and it's desire to force people to stop thinking.
My line of questioning was more because I honestly didn't understand a damn thing he was saying. The words by themselves were completely understandable, but put together they didn't MEAN anything to me.
This is what always happens, after a person stops talking to certain people here. That they must have felt too intimidated to continue, not wanting to lose, or something like that. It isn't. Never wonder, why I don't speak to some, as its an effort to silence ultimately. The one defense, is ignoring and staying far away from these people and discussing with those that want to discuss. I have been very close for days, to stopping communication with you again, but I also know I may want to say one more thing. I find you to be unfair, and using strawmen too much, in your discussions, which muddies the waters too much for real discussion to be had.
Too much time spent having explain what wasn't ever even said. This is why I stop talking to some, to not feed that behavior. You are simply wrong, that showing facts that prove the OP wrong, is illogical, no matter how many times you say it, and no matter how much you may not personally like it.
You think I am indoctrinated, and have stopped thinking, but I don't think so at all. I think facts are good for all of us, as is good reasoning, logic and morals. Correctly applying where people make actual logical fallacies, is a good place to start.
As for the others, when too much dishonesty, tactics, and boldly admitting things like going after people and bragging about it and training their friends to do the same, like its a big nasty game, is not something I want to be a part of. Being accused, of making it all about me, when just defending myself, and tons of other things, that show a deeper intent. With some, the level of dishonesty knows no bounds. If we aren't all on the same page of being here to want to talk, and be honest in doing so, then I have to end it. Its too maddening. This is not to single out one person, this is currently in play for 4 people, total that I can think of. Its a personal choice for me, and all that I have when people want to win at all costs, and not discuss fairly. Some used to be that way, but change over time. I barely have time for this as it is, but certainly no time for that.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Do you know any? Do you know any that are of some kind of threat to any society right now and what if so can we do about it. These Marxist Leninist atheists seem like that have in the past had some very bad ideas, you know like when Christians were burning people alive that they thought were witches or these ISIS people who are beheading people and catching it on film. Horrible stuff, what's your plan, if it's good, what can I do to help. How do we know if we have found one? Do we just ask them?
Maybe I can help make it more clear, though Phoenix has been more than clear I think despite people saying it is illogical.
The statistics he has been sharing from history in the last 75-80 years, is fact.
If you go back and reread the OP, and where non Christians are included in that, you will see how these historical facts prove her wrong. That is all this is really is in a broader sense. Correct me if I am wrong Phoenix. Logical, rational, reasonable. Much more so than what the OP was trying to attempt.Oh I agree that the OP was in error, what does that have to do with his logical fallacies and lies. Did you check his facts and numbers. Did you check wether Atheism had anything to do with the atrocities. Did you line them up with the horrors that have come out of christianity. Did you find that they are any worse than the horrors of Christianity?
You seem to have completely missed the point of defending your position. You're supposed to show the good that Christianity has done and how non-violent it has become rather that using logical fallacies in an attempt to make another group look bad.
Do you know any Marxist Leninist atheists?Would the good that Christians have done somehow excuse the bad? I personally think such listings would be cop outs. Kinda like "Yeah, I killed a person, but I feed the homeless. Doesn't the latter make the former OK?"
As far a Christianity becoming less violent, I think as a whole Christians in first-world countries have become less violent. There is still a considerable amount of violence by Christians in third-world countries (particularly in the African continent) I'm guessing that it is more a study of violence in general than any particular religion. Extremists come to power more easily in third world countries because the general population lacks the education to form reasonable objections to their fundamentalism.What lies did he tell? What did he say, that was a logical fallacy exactly? I am not unfamiliar with the history he has been sharing here, but some seem to be, and I understand it might be a bit unsettling.
Defending my "position?" You have spoken of this a few times now. My "position" is that of a Christian, who is actually nothing like ISIS. So you need to understand something very important here Radman. No Christian, none here, NEED to defend that position, that the OP put them in. Pam did seem to express some of her own beliefs however, about secular, or non Christian people in that OP. Wilderness and some others, have defended it, and brought up history first.
Its actually perfect to rebut Pam in her OP with facts that show her beliefs to be in very great error.
You miss the point, and then wonder why you can't show the logical fallacies that aren't being made. You are doing a form of strawman, I believe.
Doing a study of State Sponsored Atheism could be a good place to start.
What do you think the root of the problem is? Do you think it's a specific philosopy or do you think it's a type of philosophy... in short do you think the problem lies in a belief or in the methods that one is willing to use to enforce that belief? Do you think it is a problem with groups being led to atrocities by a charismatic leader? Or a problem with individuals who have violent tendencies seeking out each other?
.
Did you really not know about recent history and even today about various types of state sponsored atheism?
Like Marxism-Leninism, Juche ideology espouses state atheism.
Persecution of Christians and Buddhists
According to NGOs North Korea is amongst the countries where persecution of Christians is the worst.
There are numerous reports of people sent to prison camps and subjected to torture and inhuman treatment because of their faith. It is estimated that 50,000–70,000 Christians are held in North Korean prison camps.There are reports of public executions of Christians,[
It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners are detained in concentration camps, where they perform forced labour and risk summary beatings, torture and execution -wiki -wiki
Marxist–Leninist atheists Wow, the Soviet Union was a mess. I'm not even sure if Russia is much better, with their laws on homosexuality and all. We do need to learn from that mess. If any Marxist–Leninist atheists get in power be sure to let us all know. BTW, do you know any Marxist–Leninist atheists? I don't, never even meet one.
Yes, if there is any faint glimmer of anything here, it is that. I am thinking that many may really not have known about a lot of the historical things we discussed over the last several pages. I did, and I even learned a lot more details in all of this.
As for all that served that have been mentioned, thanks to them for their service. Their service and that of our ancestors, fought in part to keep us all free from the kinds of things that steal freedom. I am assuming those reading, are living in free countries. I sure hope so.
OK, I'll ask you... Is there a reason that no one actually wants to discuss anything? Is this a conversation or should I be keeping score? What does the winner get?
It's my opinion that these two don't want to answer questions because they are only interested in attacking those who disagree with them, which seems to be the reason they keep walking into so many logical fallacies. For example Phoenix seems to mistakenly think and has admited to thinking that if he doesn't address Hitler, Hitler doesn't exist. Incase you have missed it, I've been attempting to show them that saying Atheists are bad because of the likes of Jones one has to use multiple fallacies to get there. I've decided to use their own logic and bring in Hitler as someone who has said he was a Christian and committed atrocities in the name of Christianity. Now I am aware that that using all kinds of fallacies I'm told by these few that these fallacies do not apply.
In other words I'm using their own logic against them.So basically you're saying that if bad people do bad things because they are atheist, they must also do bad things because they are Christian?
OK, I'll flow with that.
My opinion is people do bad things because they are asses. Their ass-ness is neither inspired or prevented by religion... nor does it exclude or include them in any particular faith.
Now, asses might use their religion to excuse the things they do... and other's might use their non-religion for the same reason... but deep down they are who they are... no religion, or lack thereof, required.
Take for example a homophobe. That homophobe may use the Bible to explain away his homophobia, and may even be attracted to Christianity for that reason, but he would be a homophobe even if he was an atheist. His explanation for his views might change, but his views wouldn't.
Same thing for blowing stuff up. If you are the kind of person who blows stuff up, then you are going to be that type of person regardless. The only thing that changes is your excuse.
The fundies of ISIS are much like the fundies of Christianity, not because of their faith but because of their personalities. They would be fundies even if there was no religion ever. Extremists can believe in Christ, Allah or Newton... they are still fundies.Right, I think that if the Christian fundies were born in Iran or Saudi Arabia they'd simply be fundy Muslims.
And Mo, was considered one.
You and I didn't fare so well, many times over, according to Radman. Its why I said earlier, I am glad he isn't god.
It does make me scratch my chin some though...Again, why the fixation on Radman? And yes, IMHO Mo is a true Christian by any definition.
Petitio Principii. You are assuming atheism ever had a good name to begin with, to slander.
It does to atheists. Like Christianity does to Christians and Islam does to Muslims.
Welcome back Melissa. You mostly stayed away from the forums weeks longer than I expected. Same question, same answer: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2484031
Other than answering your OP in that thread, I barely said a word...but it is a good resource for your perspective as you participated heavily for 47 pages, so if anyone wonders that's a good place to look. I was going to go into detail or repost my response here, but it isn't really what the OP was about, which I hate to even dignify with a response, (and haven't).Thank you bBerean.
I've come to the conclusion that none of us were ever/ever will be True Christians. I figure I'll laugh at everyone's judgments and occasionally pluck the log from my own eye.
This thread has made me giggle a lot. I'm under the impression that everyone is so busy trying to figure out who is best that the fact that thousands of people are being killed daily has escaped them. It would be horrible if any of us were of the sort that we would actually do anything about it anyway... but since there are no world-changers to be found in these pages, it's just a fine example of why the world is the way it is.
I'm sure all the dead people are relieved that someone is fighting on a writer's forum somewhere about the faith of the person that killed them. They are hanging on the edge of their graves waiting to see who wins the giant stuffed bear that show that they are the best on the internet.
Meanwhile, crazy people continue doing crazy things. No one will take responsibility for them and no one actually wants to lift a finger to do anything but point it at someone else. The world marches on and so forth.
... I would truly love to be able to give you a definition of a TRUE Christian... or more simply said, 'a true follower of Christ', but there is a chance my definition may not satisfy. You see, in my estimation, a true follower of CHRIST JESUS is a 'work in progress', continually learning from experience, from life lessons, from betrayals imposed by those closest to them, from anguish that is born in the pits of pain, from despair that can only be met with the hope of THE ONE WHO PROMISES... and in time KEEPS those PROMISES, and from being faithful to the commitment to learn, no matter how much learning HIS TRUTH may cost... no matter how deeply learning may cut.
... I have been away from this Forum for a very long time too, Melissa. During this season, the heart of me has been exposed to many intricate life lessons... so that my eyes have been opened to the travesties failure to "be" the person JESUS asks HIS Followers to be have the power to cause. Nevertheless, the many failure(s) I have witnessed/experienced, being proof of the fact that a 'TRUE follower' is a WORK IN PROGRESS, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second... especially today, considering the evidence of our living in the last days.
There has never been greater temptation to be a failure for a True follower of CHRIST JESUS. That is the challenge. However, I have also learned, through experiential anguish and deep-seated joy that when I am weakest, my LORD and KING is STRONG and IS ABLE to keep that which I have dedicated to HIM.
TRUE Believers in CHRIST do exist; however, every breath has the potential to take such a person in one of two directions. ONLY BY THE GRACE of GOD, and continued hunger for what is good, noble, true, faithful, just and loving can such a person continue to exist. The enemy works 24/7 to kill, steal and destroy. Those who fall for the tactics of overpowering evil, or submit to using tactics that are evil, will never have justification, no matter what name they use to cover their wickedness.
This may not be an exhaustive definition, by any means; but this is the definition of a TRUE Believer that might be considered fair... GOD's work-in-progress...
To be fair there is a rather stark contrast between radical Islam and fundamental Christians. Radical/fundamental Christians are not called to kill those who leave the faith or kill anyone who speaks poorly of the religion or even draws a cartoon. Those are simply bad ideas, where as Christians are called to turn the other cheek. Which of course they don't do, but at least the idea isn't there.
Christianity has grown and developed in the last thousand years, while Islam hasn't. But the radicals of either religion have not - they remain stuck in the past and refuse to grow. Because Christianity HAS grown, though, there are far fewer radicals willing to murder (or commit other atrocities) for God.
+1
Radman, in your comment here you attempt fairness, and I greatly appreciate it. I haven't yet read your other comments, and lest they make me change my mind, I have to say this is VERY fair of you. Thank you for that, truly. That is cool you spoke out against it at least here.Well thanks Oceans. I don't think it's a fair comparison. I find Phoenix's comments without merit as well, I just wonder why none of the Christians have told him that. If I have the time I'll show him his logical fallacies and why he is saying things that are equally as hatful and ignorant as the original post.
Right now I'm just waiting to see if someone like yourself will tell him it would have been better to show us why the OP was wrong (as I did) rather than creating more hate speech?How exactly do you think he created more hate speech? He seemed to be responding with examples from history as Wilderness did, only Phoenix gave more details of who exactly he was talking about, and wasn't lumping them with a whole group as I saw Wilderness do. Wilderness seemed to be chiming in with the OP and her tone in general. I was totally shocked.
I am not caught up yet, but perhaps you chided Wilderness for that. If so, my apologies, I just didn't see it yet.
Edit: If you personally believe that Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were not atheists, and did actually believe in a god or gods, that is a first for me to even hear of such a thing. That is not part of history that I know of whatsoever.
Requesting all Hubbers and visitors to HubPages to please report this hate speech thread. We need your help, as many reports of this thread have not had it removed as of yet.
Please don't just report the hubber who posted this thread, but ask in your request, to have the thread completely removed.
Ideas matter, and ideas like these help to breed more hatred among those that do not seem to care about conscience, facts, or morals. When that hatred is bred, we see more momentum grow for all kinds of things, and it needs to end. I am doing this publicly, in hopes that maybe the leadership of HubPages is not aware of how their moderators seem to be boldly ignoring repeated attempts at reporting such hate speech.
There are three little blue links underneath the first post in the thread, one says report. Please help, because it could be your own group that is targeted next. I am asking atheists, Gnostics, Christians, Islamists, Jewish people, and anyone else of any faith or non-faith to help. Thank you. Keep in mind, I and many others have been on HubPages for years, and what you might think of as a "radical" Christian, is not what many of these hubbers in this and the other religious threads think of as radical. That is why I take it to mean mainstream, especially as the example is those that believe in an afterlife that might include hell. That seems to be the definition, and something God himself would do, not any Christian. ISIS takes Judgement into their own hands without any mercy, and well we know just some of their stories.
Edit: I want to make it clear, that any group short of ISIS itself, compared to ISIS, that equally doesn't do what ISIS does, should get similar treatment/protection from such horrible comments. I am not just out to protect Christianity here. This is a human problem. So far, I have reported this thread, and asked it to be removed twice, before even answering it publicly. Since its been ignored, I had to speak out here. That is it allowed to go on unanswered is truly appalling.Yes they are exactly the same. Every day in the news we see examples of Christian Fundamentalists in America and abroad, cutting the heads off of unbelievers, parading up and down the streets shouting anti American and antisemitic propaganda, threatening death to all who insult them, stoning infidels in the streets, beating , mutilating, and torturing women and children, and executing homosexuals.
Here is a video of some of the latest violence that occurred in a Christian community in Bozeman, Montana. They are actually shooting at a small boy and his sister for not converting to their prescribed brand of Fundamentalist Christianity. You can actually hear the shooters proclaiming; "Jesus says it's okay for us to shoot you!" It's in Arabic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgtbjcd9OfkWhile I was initially a little bit slow to realize, thank you for taking the time to make the points that its not Christian fundies doing these things. Its so serious a thing, that I didn't see the irony of Iowa and Montana thrown in there.
You make great points in a different way and I appreciate it.I'm glad to see that you agree. I have seen several other videos of violent Christians, but I can't understand a single word they are saying. It's all in Arabic.
Have you seen what the Muslims have done to Uganda? It's awful, they have put laws in place that will put homosexuals in prison for life. There leader Scott Lively spear headed this agenda because he lost his fight in his own country so he brought it to third would countries because he new they would be easer to win over. If you don't know this guy, he's the guys who blames the Nazi movement on homosexuality "Everything that we think about when we think about Nazis actually comes from the minds and perverted ideas of homosexuals". Wait that doesn't sound like a Muslim name, I'll have to look that up…. Oh dear.
not sure if you'll be able to see the video but i'll post the link anyways...
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10 … mp;theater
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
or
Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS)
quite interesting to know that a number of Islamic fanatics you see on TV turning out to be Jews.
please watch the whole thing if you can.Be careful arksys, those first few photos were clearly photoshoped. Check your sources and check any biases you have for Jews at the door.
i have no biases at all against any religions. I understand, this information coming from a muslim makes it more suspicious ... its something i came across recently ... will do some more research as you have suggested.
I do not think they are the same; but I believe evil is evil, and evil has nothing to do with religion
I believe evil is evil too. Fair point.
I think "evil" does target the good, and to be successful, uses a lot of untruth and delusion.
There has to be something terribly wrong with the thought process that considers the warning of eternal judgment equal with the vicious slaughter of human beings that do not agree with a particular stance. To read the words, 'in common', then to reflect on what ISIS stands for, and fulfills in a mandate of murderous crimes that has no mercy, sheds no light on truth and is bent on fear mongering of the most traumatic and terrorizing sort, renders the premise of a 'common' factor null and void.
No matter how radical a Christian may be, if the person you are speaking about is a TRUE CHRISTIAN then equating a verbal warning (for a TRUE CHRISTIAN would not go farther than to verbalize a warning ) based on a platform promoting life to the fullest, is not only incongruous, such a comparison is ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous. In fact, thinking like this 'is evil', because this type of thought process promotes hatred against the 'general title, 'Christian' in this context.
Saying Christianity and ISIS have anything in common is without foundation. In fact, such a statement should be analyzed more seriously, because the general title Christian could be misconstrued by those who hate religion, or want nothing to do (in general) with the idea of moral boundaries and are looking for more reasons to 'hate the title and those who call themselves such'. You see, the title 'Christian' is defined as one who 'follows Jesus Christ or is a member of a Christian denominational Church'. The title ISIS speaks of members who live to slaughter anyone and everyone who will not become a member of their radical group and follow their religious doctrines. This statement is evidenced by the slaughters of innocent individuals in a visual display of beheading for public notice.
Christianity has been misrepresented on many fronts across the annals of time by people like Hitler, who used the title to brainwash his countrymen, leading them to believe they had a man of conscience at the helm (which was as far from the truth as hell is from heaven) ; however, no one who has ever lived upon this earth that teaches hatred at any level SHOULD CALL themselves a 'Christian'. No one who is a TRUE FOLLOWERS of CHRIST JESUS has an agenda to 'kill' those who will not follow Jesus of their own free will. This position is the opposite of what THE LORD JESUS CHRIST taught HIS followers.
If you refer to persons who live nominal Christian lives, many are distant enough from caring about whether or not there is such a thing as a real hell, so as not to even bother cleaning up their own lives, to their own detriment, let alone to plot the death of someone else for 'not following'. If the persons you refer to, are calling themselves 'Christian' in order to tarnish the 'title' (on purpose or by default)... then you are not speaking about 'Christians' in the applicable sense of the word. A true Christian is one who follows THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and LIVES by HIS WORD, which does not teach violence, but teaches LOVE, even for an enemy, even at the threat of one's own safety, or loss of life.
Big difference. BIG difference. So big as to not fit in the same Universe for concept, precept or fact. That is the truth. Propagating the idea that Christianity and ISIS have anything in common seems much more dangerous and evil than warning someone of the threat of hell faced as a consequence for committing crimes of evil against oneself, or against others, especially since, people are free to ignore such warnings and continue living just as they please under the more correct Christian banner.+
Wow, thank you for sharing that EmVeeT. Very well said.Thank you for that most excellent argument as to why Christianly is nothing like ISIS. It's exactly what I was attempting to say in my first post.
@ EmVeeT
I want to bring you up to speed EmVeeT. Radman made a sort of disclaimer similar to this after people were posting that they were going to report the thread.
Since then he has said this (about Christians on this thread) among other types of things, so give his sort of "disclaimer" the weight it deservesYou missed this one from Radman also
" I've defended my position just fine, but you guys are unable to see the double standard, reason or logic, which I'm sad to say puts you guys just as ignorant of others as groups like ISIS are."
Which of course has been shown untrue, as he defines what the points of showing the history as something other than what they were. No matter, even if he was right, there is nothing that justifies comparing members of HP, even in ignorance, to ISIS.Then the often played, (paraphrased) but I defended yall at first - I guess a disclaimer, I may not be using the word disclaimer correctly. Immediately followed up by comparisons of us to ISIS.
I have noticed that disclaimer or tactic also.
Here is another comparison to ISIS he gave of us, from Radman. "But I'm done. No sense attempting to reason with groups like ISIS either."I've noticed that several of your posts are about Radman but don't address him directly... Is there a reason that you seem so focused on him? Is there a reason that you feel the need to tell other people what he has said when they are capable of reading it themselves?
Are you saying that even if such comparisons are correct, he is wrong in stating them? Why is that?
My cousin was killed in the 9/11 attacks, after which I learned all I could about Islam in order to understand. It'll be time consuming, but here's what you should do (better to learn for yourself than have others explain it):
Read the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sira. You need to learn about Muhammad and how it all started.
Leran about the Muslim Brotherhood and their organizational structure.
Learn about Halal meat (how it's produced and sold).
Read the Muslim Brotherhood document "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America", dated 5/22/91
Read the Muslim Brotherhood document "The Project", dated 1/12/82
Read about the "Battle of the Trench" (627 AD I believe).
Visit WikiIslam to see some Islamic words and what they mean.
After all that, I learned that Muhammad and Jesus are total opposites, that Christianity and Islam are also total opposites. I learned that Islam is much more than a religion; it's a form of government. I learned there is no such thing as "radical" Islam. I learned that there is no possibility of coexistence with Islam, and that Islam will, unless action is taken, one day dominate the world (Europe will be Islamic in less than 50 years…my opinion). See what's happening in France, Sweden, England, Germany; even Australia and America.
Good luck!I am so sorry about your cousin.
Thank you for your very clear and concise post.
It is very helpful and positive.Clear and concise? Sure.
Helpful and positive? Not to the millions of secular Muslims who may now have a target on their back.That's exactly it. That's why the supreme court has ruled it illegal... like "you will be jailed for this" illegal.
Legally, that statement is known as a call to arms or a call to action. It encourages others to "take up arms" against another group. Such statements are dangerous and have been interpreted by the Supreme Court as presenting an imminent threat. We throw the words "hate-speech" around to define racist or bigoted speech, but that statement right there is the true legal definition.
I too am so sorry about your cousin. I still can't believe what happened that day on 9/11. Its such a tragedy.
I think that it is good you share your experience, and encourage people to do thoughtful research. Terrorism seems to believe that might makes right, that morality can take a back seat.
I was horrified there was another beheading days ago, and my heart goes out to that family. Its a tough time for sure, to be in positions of power over people you have sworn to protect, world over.
If history is any guide, the mentality and its goals are not really so hidden. I am speaking of the extremist terrorists that do this kind of thing.I am sorry that your cousin was killed in the 9/11 attacks.
Islam is a religion, but I think I understand what you mean by form of government as well. Unlike the thread title that actually specifies people or a group, and hence the claims of hate speech, Islam is a religion, worldview or set of beliefs. Islam is not a person or group. I am American and if need be, to protect the safety of American citizens, I believe all lawful "action should be taken" to protect them and the sovereignty of the United States from any threat.
Source Koran: This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion...
I reported this thread as hate speech. This is the msg. I sent HPs staff. I don't know if anything will come of it, but you should know that you were reported and by whom.
"I want to report this thread. The OP is comparing a large portion of HPs contributors and readers (not that the size of the audience matters) to Isis. We all know the atrocities going on in Iraq right now. I consider this hate speech. To suggest that any of us would bury children alive, behead ppl of different faiths, or sell women and children into sex slavery is an insult of the most offensive kind. I am going to post this msg. in the forum so they will know who reported them and why. Thank you for your time."The only hate speech here is yours and your attempt to shut down the truth of the founding of Christianity and what any belief in a god has the potential to accomplish.
I find your tone insulting to intelligent inquiry and hateful towards free speech. I would suggest you read up on the history of Christianity and learn of it's savagery in the name of the lord jesus.Does your condescending answer indicate an inability to respond or that you agree with me?
CJ, it would seem the OP was pandering for the reactions and responses given. History is history and cannot be erased though there is room for discussion. The question not answered by the OP is "What is radical Christianity?" One need only read the tabloids, liberal and conservative, to understand what is meant by radical islum but where do we find this comparative, sizable "radical" Christianity today.
And, yes, even though I grit my teeth at times, it is an open forum for thought and input. The rules set by the censor police seem arbitrary to the point of being applied depended on the first cup of coffee for that day, but, like congress, we are stuck with it. Its their ball field.Wow, Cj.
Insultig to intelligent inquiry? Do you know of actual Christians that really could be compared to ISIS? You would have to be, to be so up in arms as that post exhibits.
Since you are so about the intelligence, and care about others insulting, can you please educate me on what you think the truth of the founding of Christianity is? I thought it was Christ. Christ, his teachings, and the followers of those teachings. I have an idea where your actual distaste might be coming from, but don't want to assume. It may be with the first true distortions of Christ and his teachings, but I will have to see you define Christianity that makes it so easy for you attack it. (Something anyone can do, but not with intellectual integrity.)
She is speaking of Christians and ISIS, Jihadi merchants, and radical Islam. I KNOW the news would have shared if Christians were beheading, like yesterday in the news was a beheading by a group that actually does that.
Why don't you get rid of the bible then? The bible support all these and you say that is your moral compass. So why do you blame the OP?
+1
So far, I have reported it twice. I originally posted right away, then removed my comment. I thought surely it would be gone by now, and didn't want to dignify the Original Post with any response or bump. Ideas matter, and you make excellent points in your report there to HP. Thanks for sharing it.I honestly thought this reply was an attempt at a spoof when I first read it. Perhaps I was right. I hope I was right, in fact.
I guess that means you only read that post and none of the others? If you had read all of the other posts, you would surely know it was not a spoof.
There are few groups... possibly no groups I can think of that wouldn't be greatly insulted at being compared to ISIS. They are murderers and heinous villains. I would be very surprised if this had not occurred to you.You seem to have interpreted the OP as statements fact. The reality is, these are questions, not pronouncements.
If I said that I wondered if all ppl from Manchester weren't terrible thugs, based on the brutality of certain Manchester City fans, I would imagine you would be slightly insulted and you might also wonder what kind of bubble I was living in to base a large group of ppl on the actions of a few crazies. I mean, ppl have been stabbed in parking lots over the wins and losses of these games.
Now imagine being compared to monsters, who kill off, not only whole groups of ppl based on their origin and faith, but also behead children and the old... and sell little girls as sex slaves. Do you not see this as an unbelievably offensive comparison?Oh no, they see no problem with the smear. Now if you were to compare philosophical materialism to a mud pie, then the gloves come off. It becomes a Kantian Vs Descartes fistfight. How dare we insult Materialism. The imagery of a mud pie is just plain outrageously nasty and derogatory.
The gloves come of like someone politely referring to it revealing your lack of respect for that philosophy, as it clearly does?
Hardly bare knuckle boxing.
I didn't see it as fact, because facts mean something that is actual, and factual. Pam, you didn't provide any facts. I saw it for what it is, and now we know that all the questions from the title to the end, were intended to be the means you thought to get away with what you said. People aren't stupid. I think you know that though. That you bring this up now, after the thread had actually quieted down, after days proving you wrong with facts and reasoning, all points to what is clearly obvious.
A couple of Atheists here even felt the need to show how they defended Christians against your OP, if they defended it at all, and they were here to do that alone, while the person that made that mess hid for the most part. Nice.
I had already clarified with Sed-me, when I +1'd her post, and she clarified her intention with her original post.
This all doesn't take a rocket scientist.
May I ask, what is your own personal view, Pam?Yeah, this is all really bad actually. I'm sorry you decided to post what you did in your OP, and still not apologize after all these days, as well as not ask HP to please take it down if you can't yourself.
I tried the silent approach first, for days first.
Edit: When I read your OP, I still cringe, as have many others. They don't even know if they should response like I didn't, because it would almost dignify such post.
- SirDentposted 9 years ago
0I see this thread is still up so I may as well say what is on my mind.
The OP has things wrong in her assertion. Isis has more in common with atheists than anyone else. You see, atheists want to get rid of Christians, even though many say they don't. It is the belief in God that bothers them the most, therefore the constant badgering, poking fun at, mocking and downright nastiness at times is pointed towards Christians.
Isis also wants to get rid of all Christians. By persecution and beheading or any others means possible for them.Too bad cartoon reality does not equate to actual reality.
Graphic Images Warning:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Pol+Pot+Genocide
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Mao%20%20Genocide
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Sta … 20Genocide
Marxist–Leninist atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2 … st_atheismAll the above three are believers, the only difference is instead of god they chose communist ideology to worship. It's simply one set of believers killing another for the primacy of their belief. The communist leaders mostly embrace atheism because they can direct the god worship to idea worship and gain more power and money that was earlier given to church. They perceived the god idea as a threat to communist (and not atheist) idea.
By your argument, Bush's attack is the latest christian atrocity (more recent than Mao and Polpot), how many died? We have Hitler and Mussolini before. It is not the numbers that matter but the willingness to kill and the high numbers is only because of the technology that was not available to earlier church leaders and because of the increased population. Religious ideology can justify killing while atheism is just a rejection the idea of god (for various reasons) which neither justify nor condemn human killings.
I am against all these blind believers including Christianity and atheism.Other than equivocating, improper transposition and non sequitur, you do MASS MURDERING ATHEIST REGIME apologetics pretty good. Some of Fundamental Christianity's core tenets are turn the other cheek and love your enemy. Atheism has no such intrinsic tenet. It's darwinism of survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, kill or be killed, with no concept of absolute justice or absolute objective morality: Hence MASS MURDERING ATHEIST REGIMES.
One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. - Joseph StalinNo need to shout, atheism is not communism nor Darwinism. They were communist regimes who incidently modeled themselves on christian politics.
If Christianity's fundamental core was turning the other cheek, christians wouldn't have killed, burned witches, tortured to convert and turn papal palaces into brothels. Atheism has no tenets except that there is no god, it's a-theism and its opposite is theism not christianity. Just like theism consists of a myriad of religions, atheism have different forms. Atheism has no take on morality/immorality.
And there is no absolute morality as exemplified by christians. All these advocacy of love didn't prevent them from killing the vast majority of humans in the last two millennium.
PS: "Other than equivocating, improper transposition and non sequitur, you do MASS MURDERING CHRISTIAN REGIME apologetics pretty good."
The same fallacies you used, how do you see it now?There is absolute morality exemplified in Christ. The point of bringing up those regimes is in response to the OP, and the first response that said if history is any guide....... and all the rest. Christians follow Christ, or are supposed to. Those that don't, make a bold point of how much they go against it, because its SO black and white, so clear, how to BE as a Christian.
IF history is any guide, then we do need to look at all history, and stop excusing things like the OP, which turns out to not only be not true, but we have recent examples that are telling. Its not that all atheists are like these regimes, far from it. (Hopefully they don't want to make certain groups out to be enemies of humanity and freedom, when they are not, and terminate them....) That is the point. But the point about history brings up all points in history, including recent.
You cannot be so far removed from the idea of what has happened in history, that you don't want to see it, and only see the 'heretics" of Christianity and judge only them. ISIS is worse than even the normal extremists we see in Islam, they are a whole new step up, a whole new level of evil.
Christianity makes the point long before others, that Christians are to be like Christ but will struggle with the same human problem we all do, Sin. Until we don't struggle anymore, its said how we are to deal with it. We are therefore all hypocrites, unfortunately, at least to some degree, but the striving to do right ought to be there. (as another poster pointed out.) Pointing out those that strive to mass murder or steal peace and freedom and life from others, emboldens the point of the Christian's values in that Christianity teaches what Phoenix was saying about Christ. Its very opposite of what feels natural to do, but its right.
Terror makes a HUGE difference in ALL of our discussions, because its the only thing that is the truest threat to our very lives if not answered. It isn't open to reason, logic, dialogue, or morality. It must be answered, and great care must be taken when being so flippant like the OP and those that echoed her. There is great, unexplained, irrational hatred for Christianity in particular held by many. It seems to be growing and not warranted, as seen in OP's like this and all the other threads. This thread, being allowed to remain up, keeps the idea up and open that its OK to attack like this, in light of the actual facts of matters. This is why I was so bold in my request to all people of all faiths and non faiths to please help for the sake of freedom and to avoid further stirring up of hatred. Its not nothing. Its the kind of thing that terrorists feed on. I am incredibly disheartened by the fact this is still even up.Jesus is a myth and sincerely hope that he remains so as I don't see any morality in him.
Islam and Christianity are twins, only one is 600 years younger and now has an acquired inferiority complex owing to the poverty and lack of military capabilities that followed shortly after a world domination. The ISIS is no more evil than the European colonizers of America and Australia/New Zealand. It appear more evil only because of the proximity and deadliness due to the superior technology.
The problems with religion is that they see human sins but that is just the wrong headed way. Humans are just another sort of animals that behave just like an animal in our particular situation behaves. The only difference is our rational brain which can help as deliberately analyse and change our behavior but most humans are driven by ideologies instead of reason. But irrespective of the ideologies we are basically good not saints but humans. There are aberrations but neither religion nor atheism can correct it. Unless we see it as it is neither are we going to come up with any solution.
Terroism is the fight by the underdog, the ones without ground support or minimal support. They know they cannot win and they have nothing to loose.
It is not the irrational fear of Christianity but the lack of fear of Christianity and the proximity of Christianity. For most Isis is only a news. Islam is still a religion of the poor in middle east and Africa that can never threaten the west now nor in future. There is a demographic collapse that is happening there and terrorists understand that. They have nothing to loose but only the heaven they hope to get.I appreciate you sharing your views and personal beliefs on these things. If you don't see any morality in Jesus and no real threat from the terrorists like ISIS or otherwise, in our own lives and areas, then I'm not sure what to say. Your beliefs about Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Christianity, and Islam, etc. show we are poles apart.
Something made me wonder at your very fist line...."Jesus is a myth and sincerely hope that he remains so...."
Anyway, my greater point here (not the greatest of all points to be made, to be clear), is that people with diametrically opposing views ought to be able to still live peaceably side by side in our societies, and ought to look out for each other. I believe there is high value to be placed on life and living, and freedom for all.
The things that chip away at those things in the ways they do, are enemies of the same. We have to have life first, to even begin to protect freedoms. We are getting into territories where we have to choose life/survival first, and then can get back to the business of living in freedom. My heart breaks as this world and the people in it seem to be choosing the opposite. Even when we disagree on that, the effect of death and loss of freedoms is being seen, and is undeniable. Yes, we aren't hopefully close yet, but people ought to care more. Current events in news shows that those warning of these things in the past, weren't wrong at all. Everyone thought they were all so crazy.If you are an American, how many terrorists activities you experienced from islamic terrorists in the last twenty years? I am from a nation where it happened almost ever year. Isis is no different from Taliban, created and nourished by the west (directly or indirectly), especially US, but has now turned against them. But these threats are minor ones in the global context, we have more major threats against which we are not prepared. Hitler Mao .... all fell. Isis too will mean while it will try to take as many as possible along with it but it can't threaten the west.
Jesus story is a rehash of OT mixed with Homer and Romulus. But if he were a real man his morality was abysmal. He was intolerant and intolerance is the major problem irrespective of whether they are atheists, communists, christians or muslims. People should understand that words (of ideology) can't hurt but only actions can.
Exactly, hence it is not "hate" speeches but actions that are to be curbed.
I have only your words, terrorists are irrational they don't listen. But when we fail to instill reasoning in our kids and ask blind obedience, we have only ourselves to blame.Jomine, you mention that Jesus was intolerant. (Not agreeing nor disagreeing here, but curious what you mean exactly.)
What is your definition of intolerance?
I hadn't realized you lived in a place where there was yearly attacks, wow. That must give you some perspective, at least. I don't envy that.
As for Hitler, Mao and Isis.... I hope it falls too. I don't know that I disagree that the US didn't have any part, only to realize later how messed it all is. If we look to history, to the Muslim conquests/crusades and what their goal was, they got pretty far actually. It wasn't easy to stop them, but it is good they did or our world's societies would look very different. My concern is, more recent presidents and ideologies, don't seem as tough against our enemies as in the past. Just for attempting to do what is right, the people freak out and blame game, armchair quarterbacking as if there is some easier way.
I don't know that they do have newer strategies, while realizing their ways are not acceptable to much of the free world. The desire is not gone I don't believe....it is still there, and its there at a time when people in the US and around the world seem more clueless than ever. This is a perfect recipe for other superpowers, besides ISIS types of grops and other radical ones to figure out how to take advantage. This is not the America I remember, and remember studying. All that to say, I also think ISIS will try to take down much as they can with them, but that they threaten the West. They already have, and the ideas are slowly growing here on our own soil in certain crimes, idealogies, etc. I think its perfect for them, if they have us thinking they can't really threaten us here. I hope i am wrong.
People here know full well what ISIS is all about and what they have done. The desire to lump so many together with them is alarming and truly sickening to me. Its very dangerous, as ideas have consequences so often, and we have seen what propaganda against a group has done in history. .
The supporting of such a strongly held belief and delusion is so outright obvious and alarming, it should startle people into action everywhere. That this delusion is sided with and propagated and not setting off alarms in other atheists about some other atheist's beliefs, is heartbreaking, because it shows that what Jesus said was so true about some people. If I was an atheist, I have to think that stuff like this would totally shake me awake out of a deep delusion/slumber like nothing else. Enough to ask, "WTH am I really believing in and why?"
- Rad Manposted 9 years ago0
What's most interesting here is that someone asked a question about the similarities between radical Muslims and Christian. The first Christian called it hate speech and the next two turned the hate speech onto Atheists rather than defending your own religion as I have just done for you.
Ditto as to defending Christians as a group - like you I defended them. The two atheists to contribute so far.
Makes you wonder sometimes where the problem really lies, doesn't it? The OP was about a small, select group of madmen which the Christian base turned into a rant about atheists.Did you ever call the OP,hate speech? Or is it just hate speech when Christians are pointing out the examples in history that proved the OP wrong?
Appeal to hypocrisy. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism.
Is there a reason you are responding to his posts but haven't answered my question? Do you have an agenda other than open conversation?
I wondered about that, with the response of appeal to hypocrisy, and avoiding a criticism with a criticism....
and I almost said, "at least you are honest...." Because it doesn't apply to what i asked, a legitimate question about the OP and his responses in the thread.
If anything, the response is a red herring, at least. Point was made, he didn't call the OP hate speech.Again, does that mean that other hate speech is acceptable? Why are you so focused on what Radman does rather than hate speech itself? Is it OK if he doesn't point it out? Or is it OK if he does? Does his opinion influence whether YOU think something is hatespeech? Does it make it acceptable to you?
Because the OP wasn't hate speech, it was a question. but I most certainly did voice my opinion that Christianity was better than that.
I didn't think the OP was hate speech either. It seemed like a reasonable question... but by my observation people don't like questions around here. I wonder why that is.
They seem to like asking them, but refuse to answer any and when they do it's usually accompanied with a logical fallacy that they claim to not understand.
Give them the benefit of the doubt. It's entirely possible that they really don't understand.
Radman, you haven't been showing the logical fallacies accurately. I have noticed you are trying to include them more, like I asked, so thanks for that. I don't think the fallacy applies like you think it does, very often.
I am going back and responding to lots of things, before I leave from this thread. I will say this one thing to Melissa, as I see she is here, and you are talking about how questions aren't answered. I have had to stop reading and answering from a couple of people on HP, and she is one of them. I think its fair to mention it, so she doesn't waste her time on me, in hopes I will answer. Its like a self blocking, and is better for all involved. This isn't new, and I believe once she asked me to stop talking to her anyway, and it stuck from way back then. Same with McFarland. She asked me to never speak to her again, and I have not, nor do I read her posts either. So often, I am doing a self blocking thing, when I am not responding, that is all.
Edit: This is a peacemaking tool I think, actually. I certainly don't mean it to sound as harsh as it might, and I am sorry I have to do it. People can judge me all they want for it.
Second Edit: I found that if I respond , and I am not technically sure if i am or am not supposed to answer certain people.... then at a certain point if you think its safe, it can be said, "I told you to stop talking to me!", and I have seen this with Cat, or Genaea, or someone else..... So its just easier on a few fronts, and not so personal, truly.
Does him not pointing out one type of hate speech (if such a thing happened) make other hate speech more acceptable?
Both the conservative and liberal press have "defined" radical islum. Could someone define radical Christianity?
The whackos that wish harm (and usually do it themselves) to others simply because they don't conform to the right religion.
Same as the Islamic radicals.That is rather generic. What groups are we looking at here?
The thread title states fundamental Christians. The Op goes on to say radical christians.
I am a fundamental Christian. I believe in the basic teachings of Jesus as shown in the Bible.
This thread is actually only one more attempt to ridicule believers.Any Christian that adheres to the main and most commonly held beliefs and doctrines of the NT is also a a fundamental Christian, so yes the thread does in fact LABEL Christians and compares them to ISIS and Jihadists. This is dangerous speech and it does have precedents in history.
Atheist Pol Pot and - The Khmer Rouge also classified people by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general. -wiki
The Khmer Rouge
Modern research has located 20,000 mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era all over Cambodia. Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease
In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from all foreign influences, closing schools, hospitals, and factories, abolishing banking, finance, and currency, outlawing all religions....-wiki
All religion was banned by the Khmer Rouge. Any people seen taking part in religious rituals or services would be executed. Several Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were killed for exercising their beliefs -wiki
Atheist Stalin
."....Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the anti-religious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s, it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.." -wiki
Atheist Mao
The worst of the famine was steered towards enemies of the state.As Jasper Becker explains:
"The most vulnerable section of China's population, around five per cent, were those whom Mao called 'enemies of the people'. Anyone who had in previous campaigns of repression been labeled a 'black element' was given the lowest priority in the allocation of food. Landlords, rich peasants, former members of the nationalist regime, religious leaders, rightists, counter-revolutionaries and the families of such individuals died in the greatest numbers-wiki
You will notice in bold that Stalin used anti-religious propaganda and Mao labeled people "black element' and enemies of the people. <--> Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?
All in all over 100 million human beings were tortured, starved to death and or murdered by three Atheists and their tactics included anti-religion propaganda and labeling peopleI'll try to keep this short.
I see you used the atheist atrocities fallacy as a defence rather than defending your religion.
STALIN, was a confirmed atheist. Stalin was raised Christian under the religious influence of his mother and attended seminary school and decided upon himself to study for the priesthood. It was teachings like Romans 13:1-2 that lead the Russian Orthodox church to justify this new Tsar.
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."
POL POT, was a Buddhist and most likely not an Atheist.
Alexander Laban Hinton
"This [Pol Pot’s regime’s] line of thinking about revolutionary consciousness directly parallels Buddhist thought, with the “Party line” and “collective stand” being substituted for dhamma…One could certainly push this argument further , contending that the Khmer Rouge attempted to assume the monk’s traditional role as moral instructor (teaching their new brand of “mindfulness”) and that DK regime’s glorification of asceticism, detachment, the elimination of attachment and desire, renunciation (of material goods and personal behaviors, sentiments, and attitudes), and purity paralleled prominent Buddhist themes…"
In summery...
Michael Sherlock
"The atheist atrocities fallacy is a multifaceted and multidimensional monster, comprised of a cocktail of illogically contrived arguments. It is, at its core, a tu quoque fallacy, employed to deflect justified charges of religious violence, by erroneously charging atheism with similar, if not worse, conduct. But it is much more than this, for within its tangled and mangled edifice can be found the false analogy fallacy, the poisoning of the well fallacy, the false cause fallacy, and even an implied slippery slope fallacy."-
You realize that a "made up fallacy" by an atheist with a wordpress blog is: 1 Not a real logical fallacy and 2. does not make them an authority on squat, especially HISTORICAL FACT.
They all subscribed to Marxist-Leninist ideology and they did not believe in God and targeted the religious.
The Marxism–Leninist worldview promotes atheism as a fundamental tenet.[29][30] Marxist–Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Marx, and Lenin.[31] Materialism, the philosophical standpoint that the universe exists independently of human consciousness consisting of only atoms and physical forces, is central to the worldview of Marxism–Leninism in the form of dialectical materialism. Vitaly Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."[32] Therefore, many Marxist–Leninist states, historically and currently, are also atheist states.[33] Under these regimes, several religions and their adherents were targeted to be "stamped out."[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2 … heologicalInstead of copy pasting from some goofball atheist site, why don't you go fetch your atheist blogger and I will educate you both on regimes that adhered to Marxist/Leninist ideology, and how they and their regimes and their state sponsored atheism carried out that ideology by targeting religion and the religious to the tune of over 100 million human beings.
LOL,
Romans 13:1-2
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."
What does that say about your God or your Book?
I have to say this has been an eye opener. Someone says extreme Christianity is not dislike extreme Islam and some demand the whole thread is removed, but when someone says Atheism is worse than extreme Islam all the Christian seem to agree.
Anyhow I attempted to defend Christianity and Atheism. I'm done.I am an Atheist and I am always willing to take a lesson or give one. To start, I believe it is important to define positions. What exactly do you stand for? I am an American, politically and philosophically an Atheist. I believe in the individual and individual freedom. As an Atheist, I have no value for the belief in any described deity, whether of a religious or secular nature, as all deities are defined by Man. I believe that you have a right to believe in whatever god you choose and that I possess the right to say that you are wrong.
Your turn.I am a Christian and a hypocrite because one cannot be the first without the second, as is easily apparent. I believe the Bible in its entirety.
I converse with CJ on occasion off line and we have pleasant exchanges. But he is a thinking man unlike like many of the malcontents found here in the forums so exchanges are not and need not be of the childish nature of some here. As I have said to him, I believe him to be an agnostic as he is always searching for truth. He, of course denies it.
Like him, I am an American and proud to be such. I do not support certain tenets and life styles, but as long as they are legal, and do not encroach upon my freedoms, I will abide them. I do no take kindly to non-Americans telling us what we should do to make things better here. Its those thought processes that are dragging us toward 3rd world country status, which is usually their status.
Again, I am a Christian. My faith is based on reasoning and study. I make no excuses for my beliefs. Your response may tighten my jaw initially, but God is my schoolmaster and judge.Appreciate the honesty.
I do not agree with what you say, nor I'll defend to the death your right to say it, though.You seem pretty cool, and fair, Mishpat.
I like what you said there and am on the same page in so many regards. I am an American also, and feel so lucky to have been born here. We don't get to pick those kinds of things, but I am grateful. As for thinking people, those are among my favorites to discuss with, and I think its great that you have those discussions with someone and that they are pleasant. My faith is also based on reasoning and study. I am trying to catch up on some posts.
I appreciate your input that I have seen.
I am an American too, Mr. Cjhunsinger It's ironic to me that you say you are politically an atheist. I bet I see a half dozen people saying that Christians and their beliefs should not even be spoken in public or politics, on a daily basis. As usually the case they will make a crude reference to a male body part and how it should not be out in public. Crude references seems to be their forte, from my experience. Yet you want to be politically atheist. Political atheism did not play out too well in China, Russia and SE Asia.
What do you want to discuss exactly? Are you going to do some Mass Murdering Atheist Regime apologetics too?I find it ironic that you claim that the people you mentioned were Mass Murdering Atheist's, but fail to make the same connection with any of the other Christian leaders. Someone above said you are a thinking person, but I just don't see it. Rather than attacking Atheists with logical fallacies you could have defended your religion and turned the other cheek. It's what you religion asks of you, but you simply fail to follow what your own faith tells you to do. Much like the Bush's. W. even when so fare as to say he was under God's direction. Did he find what God told him they would? No. Look at the mess he's left that place. Should we call him a Mass Murdering Christian and should we call his Regime and Mass Murdering Christian Regime?
You yet to establish that the men you used to Attack rather than turn the other cheek were Atheists, with the exception of Stalin who unfortunately received his lessons in ethics from the bible. Your logic is riddled with logical fallacies and your ethical view seems to be immature and without understanding. If you have not taken to attack people with logical fallacies we would have already established that fundamental Christians are not the threat that groups like ISIS is, that would have been an easy argument. This you would have known if your friend was correct about your intellect.Mass murdering Atheist Regimes tortured, starved to death and murdered over 100 million beings in the last 80 years. That is more death than plagues. We need to warn our children and our great grandchildren about the horrific amount of death caused by ATHEIST regimes.
That's hate speech. Not going to turn the other cheek as you are directed and simply defend your own faith then. So much for being a thinking person.
Let's not forget the largest war in human history was caused by a professed Christian which caused 85,000,000 deaths. WW1, same thing 65,000,000.
Holocaust, between 5 and 17 millions killed by a Christian because of his Christianity.
I of course am not so crude as to spew hate speech to defend my lack of faith however.
Edit, I'm still waiting to see your evidence that Pol Pot was an atheist and I'd like to see where those numbers came from.That is history partner.
I think that mass murdering atheist regimes, murdering over 100 million human beings in the last 80 years is alarmingly paramount information. That was their idealogy, that was their philospohy: target religious people and rationailizing it. Nobody should ever forget what these mass murdering atheistic regimes, did in the last several decades. I haven't even mentioned Enver Hoxha of Albania of the world's first atheist state. And what happened? They immediately start targeting religion, and killing religious people around 1967. Religious people's chances might be better off with a deadly plague than state sponsored atheism of atheistic regimes because the chances of survival would probably be better. I want children to be safe from Mass Murdering Atheist regimes in the future, don't you?Personally, I prefer our secular societies to those run by religion like ISIS or Europe during the middle ages. You do understand that both our countries are secular right?
If you learn of our secular society, it was and is great for a while longer, due to the beliefs that shaped by Christians. Jefferson wasn't there for the signing of it though he had some impact from afar. He was in France at the time of the signing. Of the 55 that were there for the signing, there were only a couple that weren't sworn Christians. You actually have Christians to thank for this amazing secular country. It was Christianity that it was born from, and it wasn't ever meant to be a Theocracy, as many believe it would be if left up to Christians. They were sworn, and open Christians. Of the 55 signers at the Constitutional convention, 93% percent were sworn, confessed Christians, not deists.
So when a majority of Christians were at the helm, like 93%, we got our Constitutional Convention, WHILE they were sworn and open Christians. They had different denominations, a couple Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. so what we have are beliefs of some being repeated over and over AS fact, when the truth of actual history shows otherwise. We need to be more careful and clear for the benefit of all, and it would avoid a lot of conflict I think. The not so secretly alluding to the Middle Ages or ISIS types of control, isn't reflective of the reality, not in the history of USA for example when Christians had a chance to start fresh. Their protections they put in place, protect all, not just Christians. They knew the troubles they had seen. If you disagree, please research this for yourself, and don't take my word for it. (This is to all, not just you RM)
That is why their religion causes so many conflicts. lol
I didn't even mention that in 1978 Jim Jones poisoned and murdered 909 of its members, 303 which were children.
Jim Jones:
Off the record, I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist...
I felt somewhat hypocritical for the last years as I became uh, an atheist, uh, I have become uh, you— you feel uh, tainted, uh, by being in the church situation. But of course, everyone knows where I’m at. My bishop knows that I’m an atheist..Wow...I totally forgot about Jim Jones, profession even.....
I had forgotten about Enver Hoxha of Albania, and the first atheist state......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_HoxhaReferences to Mao in that link, and this quote under the religion section.....
"The Party focused on atheist education in schools. This tactic was effective, primarily due to the high birthrate policy encouraged after the war. During holy periods such as Lent and Ramadan many forbidden foods (dairy products, meat, etc.) were distributed in schools and factories, and people who refused to eat those foods were denounced. Starting on 6 February 1967, the Party began a new offensive against religion. Hoxha, who had declared a "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" after being partly inspired by China's Cultural Revolution, encouraged communist students and workers to use more forceful tactics to promote atheism, although violence was initially condemned.[96]
According to Hoxha, the surge in anti-religious activity began with the youth. The result of this "spontaneous, unprovoked movement" was the closing of all 2,169 churches and mosques in Albania. State atheism became official policy, and Albania was declared the world's first atheist state. Religiously-based town and city names were changed, as well as personal names. During this period religiously-based names were also made illegal. The Dictionary of People's Names, published in 1982, contained 3,000 approved, secular names. In 1992, Monsignor Dias, the Papal Nuncio for Albania appointed by Pope John Paul II, said that of the three hundred Catholic priests present in Albania prior to the Communists coming to power, only thirty survived.[97] All religious practices and all clergymen were outlawed and those religious figures who refused to give up their positions were arrested or forced into hiding.[98]"Oh dear. You were so upset that someone spoke out against Christianity and wanted it stopped, yet you don't see the irony in spreading hate speech against Atheists.
Then you strangely consider history on Wikipedia hate speech? This is defamation of character on your part, sorry. That response there, was to a copy paste from Wikipedia. Many here seem so intent on the hate speech against Christians, they can't even bear to read an admitted copy paste from Wikipedia? Its history, Radman. I am sorry that it conflicts with your personally held negative views of Christianity, and your rose colored views of atheism in recent history. Now you are just getting mad at facts, and I don't know how to help you with that, other than to encourage you to honestly face them, because its the best path to peace I think for all people involved.
I would never say you are spreading hate speech if you posted something about the Middle Ages and the crusades, for example. It wouldn't make sense for me to think so.
Your really going to use a guy who studied religion and power enough to know he could take advantage of the gullibility of Christians. BTW, he talked them into drinking the cool aid, he didn't shoot them or put a gun to their heads. What can we learn from this, well one this is that Christians can be taken advantage of because they already have formed delusions of immortality. Try to get a bunch of Atheists to drink the cool aid. LOL.
He formed a communists cult under the disguise of religion so that he could take advantage of them financially and sexually and they were gullible to let that happen (men included) and then drink the cool aid. Reminds me of when Bush got his people behind his war on Iraq by telling them God was behind him. Number of casualties from the coalition 4,809. Number of Iraqi deaths over 200,000.
I guess Bush didn't want to turn the other cheek and look at the mess his christian regime has caused. I guess this is why your religion causes so many wars.--
Interesting rationalization. @ "BTW, he talked them into drinking the cool aid, he didn't shoot them or put a gun to their heads" and .........." LOL"
So, you see a difference there do ya? Slipping poison in their flavor aid has less culpability? Is that what you are saying? Humorous situation is it?Slipping? They discussed it and understood what that they were committing mass suicide. Humorous that it happened no. Humorous that you attempting to make Atheists look bad with it, sure.
Let's not forget about notable other mass suicides, Solar Temple (1994–97) 74 deaths, Heaven's Gate (1997) 39 deaths.
All three are example of documented indisputable religious mass suicides.
303 children were among those that drank poisoned flavor aid under the direction of self professed Atheist Jim Jones.
Right, and those children's parents gave them the cool aid. Sad really.
This is an example of not wanting to see what you don't want to see, without considering all the details, or holding responsible, the responsible party. I give kudos to Phoenix for relentlessly trying to provide the actual facts, when the wrong people kept being blamed. Similar to my experience, it feels like it was all for naught. Some won't be swayed by the facts, when their beliefs are set firmly in place.
Causal reductionism, fallacy of "fallacy ad nauseam" and Radman "real fundy" ontological error.
I thought you were joking at first, and realized wait, those are some of the most often used logical fallacy errors, like the category error, and they go by other names like the ontological error. I was lol at the "real fundy" part though, lol.
You are right on the money on those though, uncanny like.....
-
Meanwhile......
Interfaith Encounter Association, Israel
The Interfaith Encounter Association is dedicated to promoting peace in the Middle East through interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural study. We believe that, rather than being a cause of the problem, religion can and should be a source of the solution for conflicts that exist in the region and beyond.
http://interfaithencounter.wordpress.com/
The Interfaith Center For Sustainable Development
The Interfaith Center for Sustainable Development (ICSD) accesses the collective wisdom of the world's religions to promote co-existence, peace, and sustainability through education and activism.
http://www.interfaithsustain.com/
OneVoice To End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
OneVoice is an international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution. The movement works to forge consensus for conflict resolution and build a human infrastructure capable of mobilizing the people toward a negotiated, comprehensive and permanent agreement between Israel and Palestine that ends the occupation, ensures security and peace for both sides, and solves all final-status issues in accordance with international law and previous bilateral agreements. The 1967 borders form the basis for the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state, with permanent borders and any modifications to be agreed upon by both parties. The movement recognizes that violence by either side will never be a means to end the conflict.
http://www.onevoicemovement.org/
Adventist Peace Fellowship
The Adventist Peace Fellowship (APF) emerged out of informal discussions begun in October 2001 about the meaning of the Adventist commitment to "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ" for peacemaking in a world rent by violence. Their mission is to offer resources for exploring the significance of Adventist beliefs and heritage for peacemaking in a violent world; provide a forum for interchange and advocacy on how Adventist faith speaks to current issues of peace and peacemaking; and connect Adventists with other peacemaking resources and organizations.
http://www.adventistpeace.org/
Disciples Peace Fellowship
Disciples Peace Fellowship is dedicated to the elimination of war and the Biblical principles of peace and justice. We serve as a voice for members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) who long for peace and justice to be at the forefront of our teachings and learnings.
http://dpfweb.org/home
Christian Peacemaker Teams
Partnering with nonviolent movements around the world, CPT seeks to embody an inclusive, ecumenical and diverse community of God's love. We believe we can transform war and occupation, our own lives, and the wider Christian world through: the nonviolent power of God's truth, partnership with local peacemakers and bold action.
http://www.cpt.org/
Presbyterian Peace Fellowship
The Presbyterian Peace Fellowship is all about taking action to reduce violence in the world. The people who get involved in our work need to be ready to follow Jesus into the same kind of risk, daring, and potentially life-threatening work that got his earliest followers into so much trouble. We're about a positive, gospel-centered vision of peace. When genuine peace seems distant, we're called to increase our faithfulness. When weariness seems to overtake us, we're called to lift one another up and to continue our quest for the elusive reign of God.
http://presbypeacefellowship.org/
Pentecostals And Charismatics For Peace And Justice
We work within our own traditions and heritages to promote the peace and justice of Christ while also cooperating with fellow believers from other parts of the body and concerned folks from other (and no) faith(s).
http://www.pcpj.org/
Orthodox Peace Fellowship
The Orthodox Peace Fellowship of the Protection of the Mother of God is an association of Orthodox Christian believers seeking to bear witness to the peace of Christ by applying the principles of the Gospel to situations of division and conflict, whether in the home, the parish, the community we live, the work place, within our particular nations, and between nations. We work for the conservation of God's creation and especially of human life. We are not a political association and support no political parties or candidates.
http://www.incommunion.org/
Episcopal Peace Fellowship
The Episcopal Peace Fellowship (EPF) is a national organization connecting all who seek a deliberate response to injustice and violence and want to pray, study and take action for justice and peace in our communities, our church, and the world. We are called to do justice, dismantle violence, and strive to be peacemakers.
www.epfnational.org/
Fellowship of Reconciliation
The Fellowship of Reconciliation is composed of women and men who recognize the essential unity of all creation and have joined together to explore the power of love and truth for resolving human conflict. While it has always been vigorous in its opposition to war, FOR has insisted equally that this effort must be based on a commitment to the achieving of a just and peaceful world community, with full dignity and freedom for every human being.
http://forusa.org/
Muslim Peace Coalition USA
Muslim Peace Coalition is composed of Muslim Americans in 15 states who are committed to the principle of standing up and speaking for justice (Quran 4:135) not only because of their desire to uphold the principles of their faith, but also out of deep concern and commitment to our country.
http://muslimpeacecoalition.org/
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
The Buddhist Peace Fellowship works for peace from diverse Buddhist perspectives.
Buddhist Peace Fellowship embraces a triple treasure of compassionate action -- learning, speaking, and doing.
Speaking/ Communication: Our public voice brings Buddhist teachings into conversation with situations in the world, inspiring and informing action for peace.
Learning/ Community: Our trainings strengthen Buddhist leadership for peace, and build socially engaged Buddhist communities.
Doing/ Collaboration: As part of the mandala of social change, we act in collaboration with other organizations and individuals, working together to cultivate the conditions for peace.
http://www.bpf.org/
United Religions Initiative
URI is a global grassroots interfaith network that cultivates peace and justice by engaging people to bridge religious and cultural differences and work together for the good of their communities and the world.
http://www.uri.org/
The World Peace Prayer Society
To spread the Universal Peace Message and Prayer, May Peace Prevail On Earth, far and wide to embrace the lands and people of this Earth.
http://www.worldpeace.org/
Religions for Peace
Religions for Peace is the largest international coalition of representatives from the world's great religions dedicated to promoting peace.
Respecting religious differences while celebrating our common humanity, Religions for Peace is active on every continent and in some of the most troubled areas of the world, creating multi-religious partnerships to confront our most dire issues: stopping war, ending poverty, and protecting the earth.
http://www.religionsforpeace.org/
Global Peace Initiatives
Global Peace Initiatives mission is to create transformational opportunities for individuals and communities through food growing and service initiatives that promote sustainability and peace.
http://www.globalpeaceinitiatives.net/
The Religious Society of Friends
Religious witnesses for peace since 1660
www.quaker.org
Pax Christi International
Pax Christi International is a non-profit, non-governmental Catholic peace movement working on a global scale on a wide variety of issues in the fields of human rights, human security, disarmament and demilitarisation, just world order and religion and violent conflict.
http://www.paxchristi.net/international/eng/index.php
The Catholic Worker Movement
The aim of the Catholic Worker movement is to live in accordance with the justice and charity of Jesus Christ. Our sources are the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as handed down in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, with our inspiration coming from the lives of the saints, "men and women outstanding in holiness, living witnesses to Your unchanging love."
www.catholicworker.org
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a dynamic, international revival movement within Islam. Founded in 1889, the Community spans over 200 countries with its USA chapter, established in 1920, being among the first and oldest American-Muslim organizations. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was created with the objective to rejuvenate Islamic moral and spiritual values. It encourages interfaith dialogue and diligently tries to correct misunderstandings about Islam in the West. It advocates peace, tolerance, love and understanding among followers of all faiths. Recognizing a state of disharmony, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community launched a grassroots education initiative called Muslims for Peace (www.MuslimsForPeace.org), which aims to spread the message of peace and tolerance. The Muslims for Peace initiative seeks to debunk the myth that Muslims do not stand up against terrorism or that Islam promotes violence instead of peace. It is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s simple way to spread the message of peace one person at a time. We believe that peace and respect can only be established through mutual understanding and knowledge.
www.alislam.org
Mennonite Central Committee
Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), a worldwide ministry of Anabaptist churches, shares God's love and compassion for all in the name of Christ by responding to basic human needs and working for peace and justice. MCC envisions communities worldwide in right relationship with God, one another and creation
http://www.mcc.org/
On Earth Peace
On Earth Peace answers Jesus Christ's call for peace and justice through its ministries; builds thriving families, congregations, and communities; and provides the skills, support, and spiritual foundation to face violence with active nonviolence.
http://www.onearthpeace.org/
Do you know of any religious or interfaith organizations working for peace that we failed to include in this list? If so, email us at religion@huffingtonpost.com, with the name and mission statement of the organization, and we'll consider including it in this list.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 … 02435.htmlI never responded to this, or looked at that list. Kudos to the groups that try so hard to bring peace and understanding, and try hard with others.
One of Ivan the Terrible's mistakes was to overlook the five great feudal families. If he had annihilated those five families, there would definitely have been no Time of Troubles. But Ivan the Terrible would execute someone and then spend a long time repenting and praying. God got in his way in this matter. He ought to have been still more decisive! - Stalin
There is no God. - Joseph Stalin
Death solves all problems - no man, no problem. - Joseph Stalin
Well that's just a lovely philosophy Joe, but self-appointed contemporary historical experts and apologists, claim that what you said, just don't count.LOL, your using Ivan the Terrible's repenting after killing people and Stalin's disgust in that as an example of how bad Atheists are?
And Hitler kills 6 million Jewish people attempting to give his God justice and that's okay?I think its a lot more simple than that. He is showing that Stalin is what Stalin was, not what Atheists want or seem to need him to be. Using his own quotes. You can't override a person's own words about their own beliefs, just because you don't want them to be true or for whatever reason that would be done. That would be illogical at least.
The example he shows, clearly points out how its a struggle for one, and not the other, and he the one that struggled with his killings, was mocked for it. Stalin is suggesting a better way.
I worry, that your and others struggle isn't with Christians as you might think, but with these facts and quotes from the people themselves.
He simply pointed out that people here think Joseph Stalin himself must be wrong about his own beliefs. Its not funny. He didn't say "and this is an example of how bad atheists are." That isn't true, pls. stop that.Oh for crying out loud, I never said he wasn't an Atheist or wasn't really an Atheist, perhaps you think that because that's what you probably think about Hitler?
Is it not fair for me to bring up Hitler's Christianity when you bring up Stalin's Atheism. Hitler confesses he killed the Jews because of his faith, can you find somewhere where Stalin does the same?
I am showing with Stalin's own words that his lack of belief in God was a contributing factor in his conscienceless deeds, thereby, refuting the "made up" notion that "atheism had nothing to do with his tyranny".
Where again does he say his lack of belief was responsible for killing people? Would you like to see Hitlers own words that describe why he murdered 6 million Jews, gays and JW's?
Well I will have to "paraphrase it or oversimplify it" then I guess.
According to Stalin: Ivan made the mistake of letting his God and conscience get in the way of murder. Stalin won't make that mistake when he causes the deaths of 60 million human beings. Your attempt at a tu quoque argument is an admission on your part that you equate mass murdering atheist regimes to Hitler. Only, unfortunately for the victims, you can factor the deaths by 20.He murdered Christians also, and not just the JW ones. The ones that tried to protect Jews in their homes, and even saved some. See Corrie Ten Boom Story for more. Their family, non Jewish Christians, died for saving the Jews they could. Only Corrie survived to tell the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom
She has spoken publicly about this and a book has also been written.Stalin killed atheists too, does that absolve him of the crime?
Atheism per se will not kill, atheism has nothing to do with morality. Stalin killed because of communism and Polpot also was a communist (we don't have any idea about his personal beliefs or the lack of it).
The percentage of people killed by atheist communist are still far less than the people killed by believers. Atheism cannot prevent murder nor it advocate it can. But religion do, one argument for religion is that it can make saints out of people.That was not the point of my saying that. There was a list of those he did kill, and non Jewish Christians were left off that list. It was a simple point that some Christians fought hard and lost in this life, and would do so again, against Hitler.
I agree with you when you say atheism has nothing to do with morality. Christianity itself doesn't kill either, but Christs teachings teach opposite. Anyone can say anything and they sure do. The method of measurement needs to be a more sure tool than one's mere words. I can think of a better measurement.
That isn't Oztinato, by the way. I know who you are talking about though.
It's right here oceans, this is what you are defending. This you somehow don't see as hate speech however I'd be willing to bet that if I changed a few words you'd be reporting me for hate speech.
So if I changed it to this…
Mass murdering CHRISTIAN Regimes tortured, starved to death and murdered over 100 million beings in the last 80 years. That is more death than plagues. We need to warn our children and our great grandchildren about the horrific amount of death caused by CHRISTIAN regimes.
Then I'll bring the Christian Nazi regime to the table as an example.
You don't notice that he is deliberately trying to inflame and I'm sure he wasn't expecting anyone gullible enough to follow him, but guess what along you came.
Now, I use the term fundies as to not put real Christians in the same bundle as the fundamentalists.
Why you shouted out to have me banned and reported while you look past the hatred in the about post is beyond my comprehension.Please, continue to make any case you like and see if it carries weight. I still will never compare uou to the same as the OP, as you have multiple times now. It not only isn't true and is a sign of a weak position, it's not safe idea to keep regurgitating on HP as you have done now.
I'm against all mass murdering regimes and always have been. I'm against propaganda also that enables it to be done. I will continue to study history and the reasons why but will never compare you to the same thing you have of some of us.I have defended my position that we can't blame religion for the actions of a mad man several times and I given Hitler's Christianity as a prime example.
You already have compared me to the likes of Pol Pot several times when you defended that Atheistic murdering regime nonsense. Go back and read through your own posts. What you are not able to understand is that those regimes didn't target any specific religious groups as Hitler and his regime has done and yet I still don't blame Christianity for the slaughter of millions of Jews and JW's. You even defending Phoenix when he said Jim Jones committed mass murder. He was a religious leader who lead a bunch of gullible people into committing mass murder. Thanks to you I have learned how to differentiate the fundies from the real Christians.
You, my dear, played right into the hands of Phoenix, following his nonsense every step of the way, just as the followers of Jim Jones did, don't drink the cool aid. Don't you think it's time to say that you will not drink the cool aid and it's wrong to blame faith or lack of faith on the actions of a made man.Is this the kind of thing that produces the "Christians are being persecuted" reaction we see so much of?
Your first response in this thread basically agreeing with the OP, and saying that history is the guide, and not standing up to RM's recent personal attacks , after leaving him to discuss the history alone, doesn't help.
More of the mentality exhibited. It seems it's ok to do to Christians, what no one could say about any other group here. Prove me wrong please Wilderness, and tell me which other group of people here on hub-pages I can compare to ISIS, AND get away with it? Not that I would want to as my views and beliefs and conscience wouldn't allow for it unless someone started acting like ISIS, or sympathizing with them actually. Did you really want to make that point in this thread?From my first post:
"Radicals are not totally sane, and will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them."
From the second post:
"Christianity has grown and developed in the last thousand years, while Islam hasn't. But the radicals of either religion have not - they remain stuck in the past and refuse to grow."
Did you fail to read those sentences, or conveniently skip over them to find something to complain about? The topic is and was a select handful of radicals in both religions that have continued the old ways of violence in the name of their god, NOT the general Christian population (or even the general Muslim population). That the Christians complaining here ignore that simple fact and claim persecution and hate speech is telling, I think. The "chip on the shoulder syndrome".I was referring to even earlier in the thread, where the OP asked,
"Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking."
The part you left off, was this, as you said, "If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment.
It started with the murder of the gnostics, then the crusades. The inquisition comes to mind, as does witch burning. More recent times see the murder of Jews and now we still see an occasional gay killing.:
Edit: I appreciate (I guess..) that you "give" Christians Hitler, and the occasional gay killing as your best examples of that the rad Christians wouldn't hesitate for a moment, if it served their interests. I don't believe that Hitler's words in the same way many atheists seem to. I think he was a propagandist and a madman. To me, it makes more sense he was using Christianity as a means to a greater end, because people see (or saw) Christianity as a good thing.
Its true those things were said. Its true that some of us (or at least I) reported and waited for this thread to be removed. Then, I thought it best to look into the history you brought up, and we found some very current examples. Its true we discussed those examples and you weren't part of that that I recall.
Its true I often experience that when some atheists come up against hard to stand behind ideas or beliefs, they lash out like we have seen here, boldly lying and comparing to the worst possible examples we can even know of in humanity. This makes the point for you, that you were trying to mock when you said,' "Is this the kind of thing that produces the "Christians are being persecuted" reaction we see so much of?'
I appreciate that you think its the radicals, but according to radman, I am a fundy now, not one of the real christians anyway. So it isn't just about what you say it is now. Many other Christians here that likewise have NOT nor would not kill, have been labeled as radical or fundies, and some are silenced currently. It isn't ok to say, no matter what. It just isn't.
So I repeat my bigger question. "It seems it's ok to do to Christians, what no one could say about any other group here. Prove me wrong please Wilderness, and tell me which other group of people here on hub-pages I can compare to ISIS, AND get away with it? Not that I would want to as my views and beliefs and conscience wouldn't allow for it unless someone started acting like ISIS, or sympathizing with them actually."
To this quote from you, ""Christianity has grown and developed in the last thousand years, while Islam hasn't. But the radicals of either religion have not - they remain stuck in the past and refuse to grow."'
I thank you for pointing that out to me. I had not seen that. The ones that still do that, still do that. It doesn't change though, that you said prior, and kind of contradicts it. Is history then not a guide, that they wouldn't hesitate to kill for a moment if it served their interests?The thread title is inflammatory and the OP includes anyone that believes in common tenets and alludes to them being comparable to ISIS. Wilderness chimed in saying "If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment".
In my opinion it feels like hate speech and harassment and Hubpages is allowing it. Christians have every right to defend themselves in proportional manner to a thread such as this. I did not start this thread, you did not start this thread and many of us have been reporting it to no avail. Hubpages assumes liability.Thread title: "Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?" (bolding added)
See that bolded part? Did you forget to read that, or ignore it on purpose?
From the OP: "Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity..." and "Would the rad Christians..."
Did you ignore this, too? While the OP may have erred in considering "fundamental" as "radical" it is an understandable error, something someone not of the faith and not knowing the jargon commonly used by believers might easily do. Other than that, how did the specific, tiny subgroup turn into Christians as a whole except by those looking for an excuse to be offended and spinning the OP into something it was never intended to be?
You say you are defending Christians; do you really intend to defend that tiny minority that commit atrocities and murders in God's name? Or are you "defending" mainstream Christianity from something never said or even insinuated?Dent said he was a fundy, a fundamentalist. Now Rad says I am and Phoenix is. Dent I think might have meant he believes in the fundamentals of Christianity to be fair.
Have you seen others that have gone quiet, not be called Fundies on here? Cat and Genaea...... It takes next to nothing to be called a fundy or radical here.
Edit again:
I actually was very careful to observe that part that you highlighted, when I first read it. I still had the same response, because I can't currently think of any truly fundie and radical Christians that would be like ISIS. (Not at the moment.) Can you think of any radical Christians that have buried children alive, or chopping off people's heads?. So i called all to help report. For the attempt at respecting the particulars and finer details when we so often don't see that here, I do thank you. I still wanted to make the above points.And which one seems to say that means they are of the "radical" group doing the harm?
I assure you it isn't Dent, Rad or even Phoenix (although he doesn't seem to have picked up on the difference yet)? Are YOU accepting the label? Do YOU classify yourself in the "radical" group murdering people?
Why don't you consider that the OP never had that in mind (or anyone else) and graciously "turn the other cheek" and just assume (until proven wrong) that "fundamentalist" does not mean "murdering radical"? You know as well as anyone that those people exist, that they do great harm - there is no reason to pretend that anyone here is putting those events on Christians as a group (although there have been posters that have made it very plain they are willing to do so with atheists as a group).THIS IS WHY
The Khmer Rouge regime targeted various ethnic groups during the genocide, forcibly relocating minority groups, and banned the use of minority languages. Religion was also banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism was extensive. And according to Kiernan, the "fiercest extermination campaign was directed at the ethnic Cham Muslim minority"
Exterminate the 50 million Vietnamese and purify the masses of the people. -Pol Pot
Thanks for sharing Mr. Pot.
Let us all never forget.THIS IS WHY
"The most vulnerable section of China's population, around five per cent, were those whom Mao called 'enemies of the people'. Anyone who had in previous campaigns of repression been labeled a 'black element' was given the lowest priority in the allocation of food. Landlords, rich peasants, former members of the nationalist regime, religious leaders, rightists, counter-revolutionaries and the families of such individuals died in the greatest numbers
Stalin used anti-religious propaganda and Mao LABELED targets as enemies and black element. Now people are labeling Christians that acknowledge a common tenet of Christianity as comparable to ISIS and Jihadists.
Let us all never forget the atrocities committed just a few years ago.-
If it were me I would pick a better belief system, than anti-religion or atheism. Agnosticism is a much more intellectual stance, if one does not believe in a Creator of reality. I do not know of any state sponsored agnosticism, offhand, that committed mass murder on a horrific scale.You won't consider that the OP had in mind a small minority of (Christian or Muslim) people because Mao was an (atheist) monster? Very odd logic, I must say. Unless, of course, you just want an argument because you actively look for offense whether intended or not - something I try to avoid.
Agnosticism: I thought for years and years that agnosticism was the only rational concept. An admitted ignorance as no one knows if there is a god or not. I've since been corrected in that such ignorance is now considered atheism and have tried to adjust my vocabulary to match in order to promote communication. While I still rather disagree, if it encourages understanding and better communication I'll go along with the change.
Sounds like you might want to think about doing the same with "fundamentalist". If others are commonly using it to indicate "radical" you might want to follow along outside your own group using your own jargon.2 Billion people that acknowledge a basic tenet is not a small minority, even if I was a mind reader.
The tenet I believe you are talking about is in the OP, when she said,
"All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it? "
I recall commenting on that too, as I had a couple days to sit and ponder my response before wanting to make sure I had to dignify the thread with any response at all.
SHE made that distinction, and those are many that believe in hell. Yikes.I thought you were leaving again? If you do not know what you are talking about regarding fallacies, probably best you don't attempt to use them.
wilderness wrote:
You won't consider that the OP had in mind a small minority of (Christian
2 Billion people that acknowledge a basic tenet is not a small minority, even if I was a mind reader.You have to first show one logical fallacy to claim a person is showing another one.
You don't think a lot of Christians believe in hell, suddenly? All of a sudden, just like that? In order to try and prove someone wrong? What about Catholics, aren't they and the Pope pretty clear on their hell belief? I don't believe you, if you are disagreeing that most or many Christians suddenly stopped believing in the hell they do believe in, just so you can have Phoenix be wrong. Poor form......
No one accepts the label that I know of, certainly not me. Are you purposely missing my point? The point is, that you are trying to defend the post and thread, saying its only for Radicals and fundies, and I point out that is nice, but even people on here are being called that, so according to the definitions allowed to be thrown out, it actually fits in the eyes of the people making the smear, does it not? Radman has basically said he is sorry he defended Christians like me in the first place against such a comparison and changed his mind!
Now more than ever HP effort to continually ignore, has a member on here calling two particular people out in particular comparing them to the groups name I don't even like repeating. I explained all this earlier on actually, in the thread. Speaking of the radical and fundy thing.
Whether a person accepts or doesn't accept any such label doesn't excuse its being said. If you know what ISIS is and what they do, that is the distinction being made. ISIS is something very particular. That is what the fundy radical Christians were being compared to. There isn't any other level of ISIS, like infant stage ISIS, or wannabe pansy ISIS groups that I am aware of. ISIS means something. It was an intent to smear. People asked for clarification and got none from the OP.
I see your point, that I am "balking," instead of just taking the insults from the OP, and Radman, etc. It would be so much better if this mentality went unchallenged, is that right?
In John 18:23 Jesus said:
"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"
Even Jesus asked for what reason did they strike him? He challenged his challengers often before that point, that wanted him dead and had to flee them for his very life on a few different occasions. They tried to trip him up, entrap him with his own beliefs and words by distortions. This was often responded to with words of truth and facts, which often angered them even more to do more of the same. He showed them how to answer such accusations and attacks, and tried to illuminate the truth for whoever might see it.
There may be a time to be quiet. For now, the answer is that ideas matter, and have consequences. Bad ideas held onto tightly, even when shown wrong (like after instigating discussion), leaves the person with the bad ideas, a choice to make. They can examine the poor idea(s), like the OP and realize they are wrong and amend. Or push them on through, and then in anger and frustration, lash out at a targeted group even more for not just taking it. I am proud that some stand up to the mentality that can cause great harm. I know this is protected behavior here, I am pretty convinced now, but while i am still free and able to voice and stand up against being called the things RM has called me, I certainly will.
I am not the kind of fundie or radical Christian I think the OP was implying, but have been called such even today here a few times by a person that knows exactly what they mean by that. My goal really, is to point out how there seems to be something very strong at work in the world, that is fooling a lot of people and people are being hurt, and more are being targeted. ISIS has crucified people, beheaded them, buried alive, etc. How come some are so amazed that I and others have spoken out against this thread, especially now?OK. I told myself to stay from this argument, but then came back to try and spread some oil on the water. You and Phoenix want to be offended, you want to strike back over nothing; go for it. I will not again address the matter.
Yea, I tried to do that this morning as well, and thought I'd give it one more shot. But it gets us nowhere. One admits to only be trying to inflame and the other follows behind not being able to see the hypocrisy.
Sorry you missed or didn't want to address all my points. I don't want to be offended actually, I think it is really wrong, as is the defending it. You want people to not be offended by something very offensive like being compared to ISIS, then blame them again for wanting to be offended. All people that believe in hell, are by the OP's words, within her own parameters. She calls them evil as she compares them to such a great evil.
THIS is that same mentality I am trying so hard to combat. Its dangerous
Yes, I was defending Christians until you came out with "+1
Thank you for reminding us of relatively recent events in the not too distant past, of examples of secular belief systems that are far better comparisons to ISIS than Christianity (even Radical Christianity.)
I know some don't want reminders of what people can do to millions, in modern history even, if they lack a belief in god and religion.
Then Prove me wrong please Wilderness, and tell me which other group of people here on hub-pages I can compare to ISIS, AND get away with it?
You claim secular belief systems are a better comparison to ISIS than Christianity and then claim you have not compared any group to ISIS.
So, wanting to be fair to real Christians I've lumped you in with the fundies, as none of the real Christians I know would say that secular people compare closely with ISIS.Oh Radman, I see the extreme desperation, to keep missing the word "comparisons", and I posted them again for you, and many have over and over. Yet you say I can't get the simple points.
You defended, then retracted, and multiple times used the word itself in comparisons to us three different times as have been quoted.
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
We gave links to pictures and shared two other stories with similar problems, from non religious of the three people listed above. I said COMPARISONS, its BOLDED up there right with the rest. Stop needing to find fault with me, to this degree. They
I actually wanted to help with your problem of seeing the examples, and through facts, links, and quotes from the people themselves, proved the points over and over. This angers and frustrates a person that wants to hold onto poor ideas that work out and are illogical. So you are seeming to try and distort other things to make them fit, and not fixing what needs to be fixed. You have to work this out on your own, and I am limited to being able to dedicate this amount of time to trying to kindly help you see the error of your ways. You have to want to see where you could possibly be wrong first. Its not any horrific thing I am doing. Sorry.
The examples he gave and then I gave again, ARE are fair comparisons to ISIS. If you disagree so much with this, you need to now show how those examples are not like ISIS, and how I and the others here that HAVE been compared, are. You don't get to try to put this all back on me like this, when you were the one making the outright comparisons of two of us to ISIS. I don't even know how its morally possible you are still posting. You have given your examples (horrifying as that is and they have been reported), and I have given mine. You lose this one, and you lose it fair and square.
Karl Marx
When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.Wow, you really don't see it?
You were so upset that someone compared fundamentalist to ISIS and said it was hate speech and should banned, then you say secular people are comparable to ISIS, then you said you never said such a thing and now… "The examples he gave and then I gave again, ARE are fair comparisons to ISIS."
Shall we discuss Hitler's Christian regime again?
I've already gone through all the people he's mention and showed you why one has to employ multiple logical fallacies to make the argument that these people committed atrocities in the name of Atheism. He probably knows that, but is attempting to inflame and you are drinking the cool aid.
Why do you feel it's hate speech to connect fundies with ISIS but not to connect secular people with ISIS? I mean really, in many cases he out and out lied about facts in order to cause people to fear secular people. Jim Jones was a religious leader who talked gullible people into committed mass suicide. Anyhow you are not doing the fundies any favours by making statements such as these and I'll not allow you to pull the real Christians down with you.In the OP, she said fundie Christians, and her more detailed specification was those that believe in hell and called that evil, something that God would execute if true, not any person.
Here is her OP again. You need this reminder, because she says "secular belief systems" herself, and says they don't have as much in common with the radical Christianity..
"Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems. All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking."
Then, Phoenix showed 5 examples from more recent history. He gave links and I did later, to links with warnings of graphic images for 3 of them. This bears repeating over and over because you keep repeating your same errors THOSE examples ARE closer to ISIS, than the example she gave of Christians that believe in hell have things in common with ISIS. IF you disagree with me on this, ,as you are seeming to do, you have no basis, and that would be why you have provided none.
So you ditched the bolded quote from me now as it supports me in what I am saying here, but the COMPARISONS of those 3 are better examples of things more in common with ISIS than Christians that believe in hell are to be compared with ISIS. If you still don't get this very simple point, I will repeat it as many times as you need, as long as you keep trying to imply I have done wrong as you suggest. I still didn't compare YOU to ISIS. I still haven't ever made a thread comparing anyone to ISIS. Yet you are so going after me. This is incredible, and very turned around morally.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I guess you will continue to distort facts and promote hate speech is you feel they benefit your beliefs. More lies for Jesus I suppose. I guess it's why your religion causes so many fights. I guess it leaves you unable to see opposing view points. Well, I guess your loss in America has been Uganda's downfall. They have gone there, spread their money around and then spread their hate. Homosexuality is now illegal there and punishable with 14 years in prison. Happy?My original post, my second in this thread actually, is found above.
Radman, you are well known for twisting words, as others have likewise done, when posting in the religion forums. especially when posting to Christians. You then go on to say that it is our fault and we are the ones twisting words.
You have been asked to explain a fallacy that you claimed was made by Phoenix but have yet to do so.
I can see you as a follower of Mark Knowles, AKA Righteous Atheist. Same mind set, same one-liners.
Being able to see opposing viewpoints does not mean we need to adopt them and believe them to be true. Trash is trash no matter how you try to dress it up. You can put it in a bag and put wrapping paper around it, with a pretty pink bow, but it is still trash.
This whole thread was only meant to fan the flames of the differences between Christianity and atheism. Calling others liars for Jesus, that is also a well known phrase of Mark Knowles. Follow him if you want but know that he will lead you the wrong way.
One more thing, I seem to recall you stating that the only reason you post on these forums is for entertainment. Is that true?I've twisted no words. I've copied and pasted what people have actually said.
I don't believe I've ever said I'm here for entertainment. I'm here because I've been interested in understanding what makes you fundies click. In this case I'm trying to understand why one can think associating fundies with ISIS is hate speech while associating Atheists with ISIS is not. Can you explain that to me, because Oceans can't seem to be able?
Oh, yea, I've explained his fallacies a few times now. I'm not an educator.Here is where you nonsensically misapply a fallacy,.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674008The only one LOL, that's either a lie or you have some memory issues. I'll assume it's memory issues.
The details I saw when attempting to explain a fallacy, included errors along the way. He seems to assume the error is with the person he is in disagreement with, not with actual factual errors he maintains.
I have found, as I have spent now probably thousands of words here on it, that in my attempts to dissect what he is saying, the facts are sometimes in error. Rather than give into the frustration, I took great pains to patiently point them out. This doesn't seem to be satisfactory to him, because it seems the belief about whatever it is at that moment, is esteemed, and what must fall by the way side are any idea or fact that would contradict the upheld belief. This is my take and observation here.
If I were in eternity, then perhaps I could spend that kind of time, but even then only with a person that is on the same basic page that logic, reason and facts and morals are things that tip the scales toward a win in any point.
I am going to take you at your word. Thanks for letting me know. It must have been someone else.
You have to show how someone is distorting facts, not just keep on repeatedly accusing them of all kinds of things. Then I have to take the time to carefully correct all the errors you make yourself about me and others. I don't promote hate speech. Do you really forget what you said to me earlier this morning, your ISIS comments? Again, its not right or fair to turn around what you are doing yourself, and putting that onto me.
It makes even less sense to point out something random about a loss in America is Uganda's downfall? And you ask if I am happy? How is homosexuals getting imprisoned for 14 years in Uganda my fault, and what does that have to do with all the true hate speech and true personal attacks in this thread exactly? Who is "they?" Your repeated assertion that my religion causes fights is quite strange, considering who created this thread, who waited for two days before responding as did others admittedly, in hopes it would just go away, rightly so?
Please consider that your frustration is coming from within for holding so tightly to ideas and beliefs that don't carry enough truth or reason to stand on their own. If they did, they wouldn't be so easy to show invalid with logical arguments or facts. You have chosen those particular ideas and beliefs for yourself, no one else has. The frustration comes from having to defend them, but if you choose indefensible ideas to defend for whatever reasons, the frustration is your own, I know you want so badly for me to be the bad guy here, but I am not actually. I would bet not many take this amount of time and effort to work through things to this degree, especially in light of the treatment.I stopped reading after the first sentence. Distort facts… Jim Jones was not a mass murder, he was a religious leader who convince his gullible followers to kill themselves and their children. Claiming his Atheism made him a mass murderer is a distortion of the facts. His followers were so gullible he convinced some of the males to have sex with him and claimed he didn't like it wanted them to bond with him. You've been lied to by Phoenix about the facts. Don't drink the cool aid.
This is not the first time this has been explained to you.According to the survivors he was a mass murderer. His armed guards even killed Congressman Leo Ryan. Jim Jones was a communist/atheist that infiltrated the church scene. wiki- Jones in which he asked himself, "how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church" . By saying they were all just gullible is to blame, minimize and marginalize Jim Jones' victims and deeds. People on the tapes were screaming and becoming hysterical, others were afraid they would be shot by the guards.
LOL, he didn't start our as an Atheist, he studied the bible. Studying the bible leads to Atheism. Look up it. He allowed people to leave when they wanted to. As you know he studied Hitler and his Christian Regime extensively. I'm not at all defending him, he was a master manipulator who wanted to move to the Soviet Union. But one has to be clear with the facts. You should be clear with the facts. Convincing a bunch of gullible fundies that they should kill themselves rather than submit to and be apart of a democracy is pitiful, but drinking the cool aid with your children is pathetic.
Ocean might have the patience to dissect this, but I don't. It's 99% equivocation and non sequitur but mostly in my opinion , it is a rambling incoherent story. How can anyone debate it? If I scrambled and paraphrased the sentences it wouldn't really make it more incoherent, for me anyway, than it already is.
I have to be clear with the facts. You should be clear with the facts. Studying the Bible leads to atheism EUREKA! Gullible Fundys! Look it up-
In June 1978, escaped Temple member Deborah Layton provided the group with a further affidavit detailing alleged crimes by the Peoples Temple and substandard living conditions in Jonestown.
..." defecting members, they suspected that Jones would send a search party to look for them.Their fears proved to be correct when Jones employed multiple search parties, including one scanning highways from a rented airplane -wikiLook at you and your fact finding and sharing, and spoiling everyone's fun!
On a serious note....You know, this thread has proven to be rather educational, at the very least. Learning a lot more details about all kinds of things, even if they are sad and depressing like what Jim Jones did when people tried to leave. Makes me realize that no one can just assume someone is right, because so often it turns out to be so wrong. Too often, it is belief only or opinion being expressed.
You stop reading for obvious reasons. The facts are not seeming to satisfy you. I have stood by every quote you gave of me, even explained what the word comparison means. You just said to Dent that I haven't been able to explain things, yet I have several times.
It seems your belief reigns supreme in the Jones case and others. Phoenix went to great pains to show the data from the tape, to explain why he said what he said. I don't know how to be more patient with you than I have been, considering everything. I am getting close to the point where I will need to be done responding to you at all, even reading your posts, because this happens every time. A literal lifetime could be spent sharing facts with you and reasoning and logic but I don't think it would matter if these exchanges are any indicator.You do understand the difference between mass murder and mass suicide right? Do we call the holocaust a mass suicide?
As for fallacies you guys have employed.
The tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacy on numerous occasions. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism. Example. Yea, well Jim Jones was an Atheist therefore atheists are worse than Hitler… Look it up, it's the logical fallacy you started with “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot?"
False Analogy Fallacy - in this fallacy you've assumed the belief in God is similar to the non-belief in God. For you to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour.
False Cause Fallacy - This occurs whenever the link between premise and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.
Example:
Stalin and Pol Pot were poor tennis player. Therefore we can conclude that not being a poor tennis causes a person to commit atrocities. Without any written or unwritten atheist doctrines, you must show that a lack of belief in god was a causal factor in the atrocities committed, but to do so, they must conversely demonstrate that had these tyrants believed in a god, they wouldn’t have committed such crimes against humanity, which brings us right back to our Christian Inquisitions, Holy Crusades, missionary atrocities and all of the other dirt directly derived from religion that this fallacy attempts to quietly sweep under the rug.
Poisoning the Well Fallacy - When you present adverse information about, or associates unfavourable characters, characteristics or qualities with, a targeted person, or in this case, worldview (atheism), with the intention of undermining it, this is known as poisoning the well. “Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheism is dangerous.”
Slippery Slope Fallacy - The slippery slope fallacy is a species of the false cause fallacy that seeks to present a conclusion of an argument that is dependent upon an unlikely chain of events. In other words you are saying that the more secular we become the more our society will erode when in fact what we see is the opposite. Would you rather live in Uganda, Saudi Arabia or North America?
5 logical fallacies directly related to your arguments. Please feel free to look them up.Thank you for the tutorial on fallacies.
Please feel free to share when you see people making any such fallacies. I have done this with you, and pointed out your lack of logic when you employ it to make your points, every step along the way. I am careful when I do this, and don't take it lightly, because if I am wrong you could easily show how. You are always open to show me how if I say something is illogical, that I am wrong, with reasoning, facts and logic. No need for fallacies when yous stick to those, that is what I have found.
The comparisons to ISIS last night (3 times to be exact), for example is illogical, as was Pam's OP and that has been shown how its illogical and immoral both.So now that I've shown you your logical errors you will stop spouting that the likes of Pol Pot and Stalin are good examples of Atheism and why we should be afraid of Atheists as which you have been directed to do by your leader Phoenix? And in doing so I will no longer need to bring up Hitler as an example of your hypocrisy. Right?
Will you now contend that I have shown you the logical fallacies that the two of you have been using to create illogical arguments of which have no bearing or legitimacy against Atheism?Copying and pasting a list of fallacies is proof of a list of fallacies. Thanks, But I can search Google fine.
This is the second time at least, you have alluded to me being part of a cult, and this time added the "leader" Phoenix. This is uncalled for, personal attacks again. Please never do that again.
Your repeating that you have shown logical fallacies, does not make it so. Here is how it works. I say something, and if you think it is illogical, you say so, and show how. Its really that easy! If you are right that I have been using logical fallacies to create illogical arguments, then it should be easy for you to prove. I have no reason to employ logical fallacies, because they can be so easily shown. I would be here to simply embarrass myself then. I am not here for that, but for sincere discussion about things that really matter.You must have missed the list. scroll back a few places. I've listed them and then showed how they apply to you and your leaders arguments.
I am my own person, and make my own arguments. When I agree with Phoenix, I say so, and or may make a similar comment. Please stop with you continued insults of this vein, Radman, Phoenix is not my leader. It doesn't even make any sense, and makes you lose points in credibility. Your comment to him asking him to not tell me to drink the kool aid, and the other one, shows you are not here to seriously discuss anything.
It seems repeated attempts at smearing, and personal attacks. You then want to talk of others logical fallacies in a general list. Please point out with a link, the post from me you charge has an logical error, and we can start there. OR, just wait, because if it as you say, then I am bound to make another logical fallacy at any time, right? If/when I do, I will gladly answer. You have to make a case. That is how cases are made.You want me to do a google search for each of the 5 logical fallacies I have listed your leader and you have used because it's to difficult for you to do it yourself?
Tu quoque (“You Too”) Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
False Analogy Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
False Cause Fallacy
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html
Poisoning the Well Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Slippery Slope Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeShe has asked you politely to stop that, so now it just seems harassment.
All this leader stuff and cult stuff and drink the cool aid stuff - directed at her or I, as if the people that died in Jonestown is some sick joke for you to use, is a pretty sick tactic if you ask me.
It is disgusting considering we have been reading over the accounts you shared from witnesses to the atrocities in Jonestown, hearing about that last day. The real story, the real flavor-aid, the real very real death, makes these repeated, lame attempts by him to me, to be all the more disgusting and pathetic.
Politely, I have asked him to stop 5 times now.And politely I've asked you several times to stop using logical fallacies to spread hated towards Atheists. So I continue to ask you to not drink the cool aid, meaning don't blindly follow those that can and will take advantage of you. Your leader has admitted that he is simply attempting to inflame and attack and to do this he has to use logical fallacies. He's aware of what he's doing so my concern if for you. Do you see how hate speech can cause harm to both the attacked and the followers?
The historical facts of the atrocities committed by self professed atheists and or state sponsored atheism is just that, historical fact. Wallow in that legacy. I did not open that door, I was invited in when the thread was posted, So please don't come crying foul to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you think it advantageous to your position to constantly remind everyone, by referencing, to a self-professed atheist that poisoned over 900 people including 300 children and then repeatedly and personally direct it at Oceans?
You'd rather her drink the cool aid? You've already poured it for her, but asking her to spew hate speech along with you and making a bunch of logical fallacies to do so. So I ask her not to follow a religious leader who asks people to do things that go against humanities well being.
I saw he made another reference to that last night. I asked him to stop about 8 or 9 times, and its about 10 or 11 now, lost count. Thanks for sharing why its not funny to keep saying it, and not just because its the obvious put down he keeps wanting to do it for whatever reason. Its not cool in light of the conversation about that history, how so many really died.
All simply because I agreed it was good for us to know our history, agreeing with the idea that these historical accounts needed to be shared. People really didn't know about them, or if they did, don't want to consider it wasn't Christianity or any religion that had anything to do with it. Its so often alleged about religion, that this counter measure to prove and show that a lack of it, is't an answer either.
When religion is removed, as is desired for so many, we don't automatically get a utopia. We get the opposite. Beliefs don't trump reality. Yet I really think some are convinced by those with poorly crafted arguments, that if we just removed religion, and even target the religious like was often the case in these recent mass murdering histories.
To make it more clear, you are: : Reminding everyone, by reference, constantly refreshing everyone's memory, that a self professed "atheist", who procured the cyanide and incorporated it into flavor aid, who used coercion and that led to the deaths of over 900 people including 300 kids. Then use it as a harassing tactic, while claiming other people are painting atheists in a bad light? Really? Did you give that much thought? Why should I debate you? You sabotage your own position and character, without any help from me.
LOL, how many logical fallacies did it take you to come to that conclusion? If anything, you are no longer calling him a mass murderer. It was in fact a mass suicide. He was a religious leader of a religious cult, I urge people not to be taken advantage of religious leaders. I certainly don't mind talking about the dangers of religion, do you? I think however it may be more advantageous to discuss the horrors of what the Fundy Christian Nazi regime has done, I take it that's open season now that you don't seem to understand what logical fallacies are? Or how about the Fundy Christian regime that Bush put together to kill Muslims in Iraq? He's on the record stating God told him to attack Iraq therefore we can state Fundy Christians are dangerous and should be watched carefully?
You know this would have been much easier if you had just done what Wilderness and myself had done in the beginning and defended Fundy Christianity rather that using multiple fallacies to attack others. You've gone and opened a door you may have not wanted opened. I know, I'd like it shut.
I hope I'm not offending any real Christians out there, I've attempted to explain the logical errors in this Fundamentalist's hate speech repeatedly, but he seems unable to grasp any of it.You think it funny? Survivors call it mass murder and I agree. Jones made a deliberate choice to procure cyanide. Jones got it in their flavor aid. His armed killers used coercion. Jim Jones called himself an atheist. He was a fledgling wanna-be Marxist along with the Marxist-Leninist atheist ideology that comes with that, he infiltrated the church scene by his own admission and since he was an admitted atheist of the Marxist kind, running some kind of socialist cult under a guise of religion it was a recipe for disaster. Some kind of quasi Marxist–Leninist atheism eradicates religion, not embrace it.
In the documentary Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, former member Stanley Clayton refused to "use the term 'suicide'" because "that man [Jones] was killing us"; another member, Tim Carter, said that the victims were "expletive" slaughtered" and that their deaths had nothing to do with "revolutionary suicide."
So who am I to believe? Radman the HP forum atheist or the written testimony of survivors and common sense?If it wasn't for self-professed Atheist Jim Jones, no reasonable, rational person would deny that those men, women and children would still be alive.
If it wasn't for self-professed Fundy Christian Hitler and his Fundy Christian nazi regime, no reasonable, rational person would deny that those millions of Jewish men, women and children would have lived long prosperous lives. Wow, the logical fallacies I had to use to get that out is outrageous.
What lesson can we learn from the likes of religious leaders like Jim Jones the Fundy Christian Hitler?
Don't trust people who spout religious nonsense.
I find your attempt to minimize self professed marxist, Atheist Jim Jones' accountability alarming. It marginalizes the deaths of over 900 men, women and children, by poison. Atheist Jim Jones made premeditated, deliberate choices to get the cyanide and had the armed killer guards to coerce the people.
You portray it as being ...."taken advantage of"....
-What a soulless, callous, cold blooded, mentality, that uhm Jim Jones had to to that.I find your attempt to minimize the self professed nazi, Christian Hitlers' accountability alarming. It marginalizes the death of over 6 million targeted Jewish men, women and children, by gas. Christian Hitler made a premeditated, deliberate choice to build compounds with gas chamber and herd millions of innocent people to their deaths.
-What a soulless, callous, cold blooded, mentality, that uhm Hitler had to to that.
I mean are you really ready to compare Jim Jones talking people into committing suicide to Hitlers extermination of over 6 million people and attempted extermination of every Jewish person alive?I would have to actually speak to it or make an actual comment about it. But I haven't, unlike your comments on Atheist Jim Jones. See the difference? It seems like just desperation now.
You don't speak to the Fundy Christian Hitler because you have no argument.
You want me to debate Adolf Hitler's religious views with you? I would rather discuss Neurosurgery with the cast of The Little Rascals.
What I will discuss or mention is if the OP had used Jews in the title instead of Christians, the site would be dealing with the ADL. But Christians are a softer target.I thought I still had a copy of the 12 year Reich, but I may have misplaced it and It's been over 30 years since I read (either) The Rise and Fall, bout a 1000 page book and my memory has faded from a misspent youth. Ever read em Radman?
You wanna talk about the Christian men that gave their lives on the Beaches of Normandy?You wanna talk about the Atheist men who gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy?
My father didn't storm Normandy, but he was wounded three times during the Vietnam War (he was in two of the Coronado operations)... yet kept reenlisting.
He did so as an atheist. Did that change anything? If so, what and why?
No need as you have used Jones words to establish him an Atheist, we can just use Hitler's word to establish he is a Christian.
It has seemed like that to me for a little while now.
Write a book. I will look for it in the fiction section authored by hubpages forum atheist historians.
You want Saddam Hussein still in Iraq? Do you sympathize with Saddam Hussein? He liked to poison people on a mass scale too, just like Atheist Jim Jones.
Graphic Images Warning
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Dujail%20Massacre
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Ha … cal+attackSo you justify the Fundy Christian G.W. Bush and his war on a Muslim nation that killed hundreds of thousands and has ultimately lead to the opening of the area up for ISIS and found no weapons of mass destruction by asking me if I liked Hussein?
This must be way your faith causes so much destruction.Would you choose to be old Saddam Hussein's drinking buddy or roomie and yall could discuss the topic of Saddam and Atheist Jim Jones' "how to" easily take adavantage of people, to death, by poison?
That doesn't make sense. This will be at least the fourth time I have asked you to stop with the very juvenile "leader" cult thing. Even with all the patience extended your way and the not giving back the treatment, you can't seem to stop yourself.
This also shows me, that your insistence that I have used logical fallacies is probably just continued hot air, because you would have produced an example by now.Oh well then, just ignore all the logical fallacies. Don't address them.
As I have said, when I make a logical fallacy, I welcome your posting which fallacy I have made. OR, we can revisit that actual past part of the conversation with a link to the actual post. I think this is the most fair for all and clear for all , including onlookers. Less can be misunderstood or misconstrued. I try to do it with others because it makes the most logical sense to bring it up at that time, when its just been said.
Hope this makes it more clear.The only thing I can assume is that you are not understanding the logical fallacies I've shown you that you are making by saying Atheists are like ISIS. I've listed 5 logical fallacies that show you that your argument is bogus, I've shown you how they apply to this situation and I've provided links to verify each one.
These are the things you've asked for so I've supplied them, now that I do you ask for them again. Don't drink he cool aid.Is it funny to you, to make a reference to an atheist that poisoned over 300 children and direct it at a woman on Hubpages? Is that the best debate you can muster? I wonder if it is economically viable to Hubpages, that the site dwindles down to you and the couple of "that's why your beliefs cause so much conflict" accounts? While every Christian leaves, not because they can't take it, but out of pure disgust and begin boycotting the site? Meanwhile the website earns a reputation of being an Anti-Christian site, that subjectively protects forum atheists, whose only ambition is to make inflammatory posts and remarks?
Inflammatory posts and remarks? Oh dear me. Please don't ask your religious followers to drink the cool aid. They are gullible and can be taken advantage of, but you know that.
Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacyThe problem there is, if I am understanding or extracting your point is: I did not create, what I and others have publicly stated: that they considered this a hate speech thread. I just defended proportionally with historical fact, admittedly to my advantage. And unlike you and others, I do not live on the forum 24/7/365 making "don't drink the cool aid" posts or comments like "that's why your beliefs etc" well over thousands of times.
I think you have touched on what is really going on here.
People lashing out and getting away with it, often do so after they can't rebut actual arguments made against their poorly held views or beliefs, or if they are believing something that isn't actually true. (We saw a fair amount of that this go around)
You are right. Undeniable, historical facts. Good reasoning was given. Logic was used. It all makes sense. When someone's held beliefs, must reign supreme in their minds, but don't line up with logic, reason, facts and morals, they can make a choice of what to do with that. We see a playing out again, of what some have chosen to do.
The reasons people latch onto bad views, side with bad thinking, and believe in things that aren't true, in the first place, are likely the reasons they won't see it when its laid out, plain for all to see.For your leader to make his and your argument, that Atheists are evil as seen in recent events he must use at least 5 logical fallacies that I've listed at least three times. By you agreeing with him you are doing the same. So I will take it that you are not apposed to anyone making these logical fallacies to form an argument of hatred. Shall I do the same and claim that in recent time the Christian Regime caused the death of millions during WW1 and WW2? In particular the Christian nazi regime based at least 6 million targeted Jews.
You are re-expressing your lack of understanding of what has transpired from the OP, to the posts from Phoenix, and what happened there. You're personally taking it one way. Here is what actually happened.
Pam in her Original post, seemed to be concerned with ISIS.
She also spoke of Fundamentalist Radical Christians, using the belief in hell as evil, as the only description offered.
She said, "Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems."
She asked, "what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests?"
To which Wilderness an atheist agreed and said, "If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment (and more in the following paragraphs.)"
Phoenix showed undeniable historical examples from approx. the last 80 years, posting quotes, links w/ warnings to graphic photos, & articles showing how some have mass murdered that were not Christians, and targeted the religious.
So we have proof of multiple instances of millions of religious being targeted by non Christians, killing Pam's smears of Christians being more like ISIS than the more secular counterparts.
So your premise (s) are wrong of what the point was. This trickles down into all your other misunderstandings, and perceived logical fallacies. Pam in her OP, Wilderness, and you with your ISIS comments (at least), were proven wrong, very logically so.No nothing was proven, this is what I've been trying to tell you. All he did was use a bunch of logical fallacies to attack another group with lies and deceit. I was attempting to make the argument against the OP's assertions when Phoenix began his campaign attempting to show that their are worse groups than Fundamental Christians rather than attempting to show that fundamental Christians are nothing like fundamental Muslims.
When you first came to this thread you wanted it closed down because you said it was clearly hate speech targeting Fundamental Christian, when that same zeal is used against any other group your suddenly giving it the +1 sign. Don't you see the double standard.
The moment you guys say that the fallacies don't exist I can bring Hitler and his Christianity into the conversation.
You have used the fallacy of proof by assertion many times, and in that post again. It is also known as argument by repetition, or argumentum ad nauseum. I saw this definition - nagging occurs when a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. It is done when someone simply repeats a conclusion when asked to supply some premise that would support the conclusion, like I have done with you now countless times.
Its a shame you are pretending to pass off links to Wikipedia as proof of my own logical fallacies. My actual supposed logical fallacies which is what I asked for, and explained. Worse, that you can't stop accusing me of saying things I didn't say, and using the cool aid/cult references, 5th time now.
Edit: Radman, See how I posted the fallacy you committed, just after the post in which you actually did it? I don't make up that you made fallacies 10 pages or 3 days from now, for this actual logical fallacy you employed.It's a pointless discussion from the git-go considering the claims don't resemble actual statements made.
Ocean's: wrote:
I like brown cats
Well known forum atheist contributor:
You said everyone on the planet likes brown cats! Argumentum ad populum! Argumentum ad populum!It's funny because you keep asking for me to show you which fallacies you and your leader have used and I've done so each and every time. You even claimed that you want to know if you are making a logical error. You ask, I show. You ask, I show. You ask, I show and then you claim I keep repeating myself.
That being said you've created another logical fallacy with this one. The tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) fallacy. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism.These repeated tactics you employ, one can't help but wonder if the goal is to drive someone so crazy, they lash out and THEN get banned for saying something under absolute frustration.
My efforts to not return the same, and attempt you to reason instead of using tactics, shows I am trying hard.
Logical fallacy of proof by repeated assertion. See your post above.
Repeating what you want to be true, isn't what ever makes a thing true. I have been kind enough to give you the best tips I have at my disposal to make an actual case against me! Yet you won't go and find where I actually made a logical fallacy in this thread. I doubt it is because of laziness, because you are very tenacious in other ways with these tactics. I don't believe you, that you don't get this, and I see your posturing, hoping no one else will notice that you have no argument.
My supposed criticisms of you, are simple observations of your very poor and negative behavior. Looks like 6 times now, you are continuing with something I have asked you to stop. Please level a real criticism of me, and don't get mad when I hold up a mirror when your behavior is as it is, for you to see.
Wow, the real Christians warned me that you guys would ignore all of the logical fallacies and attempt to move the goal posts but I stood against them and supported you fundies. I've listed the fallacies and how they pertain to your arguments and have even posted the definitons as you have asked, yet you somehow pretend they don't exist. So sad. This must be why your faith causes so many fights.
It must be a rude awaking to find out the reality of the recent history of atheism. You must have thought it was just online youtube atheists and forum atheists and lived in a black and white world of "fundys bad, photos of cats good". Then the cold hard reality of the legacy of atheism come home to roost, leaving you bereft of hope in an illusion you had fostered and the realization it came at the expense of good people.
This is an example of how you misconstrue the facts, because you provided what I actually did not ask for. So let me rephrase, and say it a couple different ways. Please post a link to the arguments I made, and show which fallacy you think I made. This way, we can get the full context the quote being accused of employing a fallacy. I can't just trust you to rephrase my supposed logical fallacy of an argument off the top of your head, not when you have gotten so much incredibly wrong, and we don't value the same facts, logic and reasoning on a core level. If you and I had that as a base that would be start, but you seem to side with what you just want to be true, over what often is, and what is most reasonable, and logical, etc. I have pointed those things out along the way, as I am asking you to do with me.
It makes no sense that you keep pretending to have defended anyone here other than that first "to be fair" post. The opposite is true since then, and no one can hold a candle to what you said since, especially with the ISIS comparison comments. I counted three times, in two or three separate posts where you compared me and or Phoenix to the same name as in the OP. If anyone ought to be getting up in arms about anything, it would be me demanding you answer for those gross and exaggerated comments, that are totally baseless. No one here is even thinking about the kinds of things ISIS does. Yet the name was thrown around like it was nothing. Don't think this "logical fallacy avoidance game" you are harping on will make that other go away, or the OP, or all the other problems where your ideas didn't work out to be what you hoped they would.
Finally, I will take God as my judge over you any day, thank you. He will be neither too lenient nor too harsh. You have found me to not be a fitting Christian, many times over now, by at least alluding to the other real Christians. You have spoken of them, then of ones like me. As for moving goal posts, and avoiding supposed logical fallacies, those are tactics I avoid and don't like to see others do. If I see it done, I will point it out when I see it. If you wait, you don't get some benefit of the doubt that we take your word that I said or did anything for obvious reasons. I think this is fair.
What is it so far ISIS, Jihadists, Fundys and now Cult? They do this with impunity here. Welcome to Hubpages.
Meanwhile I have never beheaded anyone, never flew a plane into a building, never poisoned anyone, never told anyone they are going to hell in my life, never even thought anyone was just a sinner besides myself.
I find the written testimony of a survivor of Jonestown more credible than "what you want it to be".
Mass murder/suicide at Jonestown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Te … al_commune
Radman:
LOL, {sic he didn't start our as an Atheist, he studied the bible. Studying the bible leads to Atheism. Look up it.
PhoenixV:
I didn't start out as a river boat captain. I studied Huckleberry Finn. Studying Huckleberry Finn leads to river boat cap'nin. Look it up
As you know he studied Mahatma Gandhi extensively, so much for that.
Shall I go on?Its more reasonable, rational, and logical to take the testimony of a survivor as a more credible witness in that case, I agree, lol.
It is not my problem that the OP is ignorant of Christian fundamentalism. In my opinion, I think they crafted it that way on purpose to smear Christians with a label of FUNDY, which is even currently being used on these last few posts, directed at several of us, that is a oh so common tactic by intellectually dishonest debaters: see regardless below
- Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th- and early 20th-century among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism.-wiki
REGARDLESS The OP also included anyone that believes in a common tenet of Christianity and alluded to them being comparable to ISIS to Jihadists.No it is not understandable and here is why: The OP has had ample opportunity to clarify the alleged error and instead has chose to jump on the bandwagon. So it makes more sense to me, the term was chosen specifically - since the original post includes and/or alludes to, that the roughly 2 billion Christians that acknowledge basic tenets as being comparable to ISIS and Jihadists.
In other words: Sell it somewhere else.
Oceans, I'll attempt to lay this out for you, okay?
OP - Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?
RAD - To be fair there is a rather stark contrast between radical Islam and fundamental Christians. Radical/fundamental Christians are not called to kill those who leave the faith or kill anyone who speaks poorly of the religion or even draws a cartoon. Those are simply bad ideas, where as Christians are called to turn the other cheek. Which of course they don't do, but at least the idea isn't there.
OCEANS'S RESPONSE TO THE OP - Requesting all Hubbers and visitors to HubPages to please report this hate speech thread. We need your help, as many reports of this thread have not had it removed as of yet… Ideas matter, and ideas like these help to breed more hatred among those that do not seem to care about conscience, facts, or morals…
PHOENIX'S RESPONSE TO THE OP - If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism.
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist pol pot? 3 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist joseph stalin? 50 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist mao zedong? 50 million?
We are not talking about military campaigns a - thousand years ago - in a response to muslim conquests.......mass murdering atheist dictators killed a hundred million human beings in the last approx 75 years.
Over 100 million human beings in the last 75 -80 years....
The whole thing is disturbing.
OCEANS'S RESPONSE TO THE PHOENIX'S POST - +1
Thank you for reminding us of relatively recent events in the not too distant past, of examples of secular belief systems that are far better comparisons to ISIS than Christianity (even Radical Christianity.)
I know some don't want reminders of what people can do to millions, in modern history even, if they lack a belief in god and religion. In other words, the common belief held by so many here on HubPages that Christianity causes such things and is to be compared to such things, is put back in perspective with simple facts and logic. Their personally held beliefs about Christianity and even hatred for it, won't ever trump the facts.
OCEANS'S RESPONSE TO THE PHOENIX'S WILDERNESS - Prove me wrong please Wilderness, and tell me which other group of people here on hub-pages I can compare to ISIS, AND get away with it?
Ahhh, look up dear. "Thank you for reminding us of relatively recent events in the not too distant past, of examples of secular belief systems that are far better comparisons to ISIS than Christianity (even Radical Christianity.)"
You don't see that I spoke up for Christianity. You demand the hate speech be taken down comparing fundies to ISIS. You thank someone for attempting to point out that Atheists are a far better comparison to ISIS? And you don't see the double standard. You are shocked at the hate speech against Christians and then join in when it's against Atheists.
Nice job! Don't drink the cool aid.Not so fast. Nice twist and spin, reminiscent of others, hmmm
Edit: I would request the same again. You left out the part where I said thank you initially for attempting fairness. I am fair.
Let us all assume for a moment we are not unclear what ISIS has done currently. Ok, we know those atrocities. Now, we see in recent history, examples of other atrocities like these, and sorry, but I am using the graphic warnings as Phoenix did, because you seem to have missed the point of my post there, where you are trying to trap me. You or whoever is. It matters not
Graphic Images Warning:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Pol+Pot+Genocide
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Mao%20%20Genocide
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Sta … 20Genocide
If you know anything about this history, you know what I am saying is true, when these examples are not made up, and not too dissimilar to to the group being discussed. The same group you have compared a couple of us to. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT.
To make your point above, the examples he gave would NOT have to be like ISIS. If you think the acts and results of those people that caused those atrocities are NOT like ISIS, then what sort of or form of reasoning could I possibly use with you?
I see your repeated need to judge me and labe, but lies like this "You already have compared me to the likes of Pol Pot several times when you defended that Atheistic murdering regime nonsense." More Outright lies and personal attacks.
I find that most people in very weak positions they can't defend, are the ones that generally use these kinds of tactics. Please stop lying about me, as I never compared you to Pol Pot. As bad as a position you have placed yourself in with the ISIS comments, I don't know why you insist on digging a bigger hole. Not because I or anyone compared you to Pol Pot. Nor because anyone that has been compared to ISIS multiple times actually fits those comparisons. Please stop creating these scenarios while then blaming others for your problems you created.
This is the cycle. It would generate and anger and frustration for anyone, I can request and ask you to stop and report as long as you keep it up.
These are dangerous ideas, and accusations. People shouldn't have to keep defending themselves against such. You dont get any special exemptions, any more than Christians deserve this extra negative treatment. I will continue to not respond in kind, and take note on the mentality you continue to support and exhibit.
Don't be so naive. It would appear that you are quickly becoming disillusioned in your blind faith of atheism. Reality is not matching up with your safeguarded atheism on Hubpages. The historical fact of the atrocities committed by states that sponsored atheism, is indeed that: Fact.
So far you have just gotten a 24 hour taste of what it feels like, as opposed to the 24/7/365 that folks dish out here. Buckle up partner.
It would seem that you are very eager to comment on what is not there. I believe my words were, "---and philosophically an Atheist." As you may or may not know Atheism is not a political philosophy. It is a simple statement that references deities.
I think that you may have some other problems here referenced by your comment, "As usually the case they will make a crude reference to a male body part and how it should not be out in public." I have been on this site for about a year and have never witnessed anything like this. Perhaps, as you seem to have a tendency for over reading, you have simply read what was not there. For this, I would recommend a psychologist. It could very well be a Freudian thing.
Atheism has nothing to do with the tyranny of the examples you mentioned. Stalin, for example, simply replaced the omnipotence of a god with the omnipotence of the State, from a religiously defined deity to a secular deity. There is no difference. Stalin, China and Pol Pot.
Adolph Hitler was proclaimed an Atheist, but then this was the national statement on Christianity. "The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today" "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." Adolph Hitler
Of Pol Pot, "Prince Norodom Sihanouk said, "Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler." So, while Pol Pot was definitely not a Christian, he was also definitely not an Atheist.
Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot received extensive religious training and, as many ego maniacs will do substitute themselves into the roll of a deity, as many egocentric theists have done over the centuries. This is not Atheism however, it is still a form of theism.
China is no different. China and Communism have simply redefined Man's definition of a god into a secular mode maintaining all those wonderful attributes.
And by the way China seems to be quite successful and Russia under Putin seems to be slapping our President around, who is probably an Atheist in drag. But, to this, I am not proud.
Your statements are without merit and would seem to be enormously biased.
Christianity and Judaism have been de-fanged, Americanized and no longer poise a threat and this was due to the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Religion, which is, no less, then a freedom from a religious mandate. Perhaps, you would like to see that changed and America returned to a theocracy, as it started out to be. Would it matter if Sharia Law was imposed, so long as it was a god that all had to worship and obey. Which god is the true god? I have always wanted to know.
I would bet that you would say that America was founded on Christian principles. Could you tell me what those principles are?Are you a doctor? If not, cease from making remarks on my mental well being okay?
The rest of your mass murdering atheist regime apologetics amounts to "nuh uh that dont count. I dont care whether Pol Pot thought he was a Tea Pot. The regime specifically targeted religious people.
None of them believed in God. They pushed some form of the Marxist–Leninist atheism of: Therefore, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2 … st_atheismYou have no argument. I had the impression that you were going to teach a lesson. Do you have any idea, as to when that I might start?
My comments on your well being were out of a concern regards your over the wall statements on organs.
In fairness, when I saw he said that to you, I went back and looked. You said, and this is a quote, " I am an American, politically and philosophically an Atheist."
Its simple comma placement, and a simple correction would suffice I would think when it was asked about.
I can only speak for myself, but the other comment is one I have seen, but I have been here over 6 years.fully
Hopefully you reported the individual.
You are an American? Are you doing apologetics for Marxist–Leninist atheism? I'm old, but thought I saw it all, until now. Oh wait, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. "just dont count" cuz you say Atheism has nothing to do with the tyranny of the examples you mentioned." - cuz you say so? Probably never even happened? 100 million dead people probably faking it. Religion and the religious were specifically targeted because that is what that Marxist–Leninist philosophy does.
Oh, and lets not forget the dangers your religion (fun-dies) poses to children.
There’s another case of Christians killing their child because, rather than visit a doctor, they put their trust in God. (And it happened in Oregon, where these kinds of faith-based homicide cases are all too familiar.)I feel that I owe you an apology. After rereading my earlier response some of it was crass and uncalled for, therefore, I do apologize for those remarks.
You, however, are still very wrong and even now speak to something that you know absolutely nothing about.
The savagery that you speak was authored by the same personalities that launched the Catholic and Protestant wars that savaged Europe for 150 years and killed millions. It is also the same personalty type that launched the Crusades, to include the Children's Crusade and have we mentioned the Inquisitions and the 100,000 men, women and children who were burnt alive, as witches. Do we ignore the targeting of Catholics by Protestants and Protestants by Catholics or of Islam and the targeting of Christians and Atheists. The history of Christianity is written in the blood of humanity, as are all religious beliefs. One is no different than the other and all have and will kill for their gods. No better is the man who claims omnipotence and demands adherence and worship. All the same.
The list is much longer, but it becomes academic, as we are not dealing with gods, but men who see themselves as gods, whether they dress themselves in the rituals of spirituality or as a secular deity clothed in the omnipotence of the State. In either case it is not Atheism.
Yes, I would agree you have not seen it all, not even close. Your words ring of a prejudice, even hatred for what you do not understand and refuse to learn.Well that's some pretty, flowery, fancy, convoluted equivocation. That's quite a story, to put it politely and nothing but opinion, refuted by Stalin's own words I posted earlier. It sounds like you are trying to smear a connotation of religion all over these dictators in the hopes that no one will notice the blatant contradiction of what Marxist materialism and all that stuff was all about. You are painting Sir, and you are no Picasso. Marxist-Leninist's wanted to eradicate religion, not mimic it, or replace it with the GOD/MAN (and conveniently anything but an atheist) Dictator - fiction - you posit.
You are a <personal attack snipped> person and if you are happy with it good for you.
I am verklempt Mr. Cjhunsunger. When you replied to Radman and wrote: You are a very one dimensional and foolish individual.. My first thought was of white orchid on glass table. Elegant in it's simplicity. But here, your abusive ad hominem attack shows a lack of imagination and leaves me wanting. I am a Christian on Hubpages and not allowed to make personal attacks or I get banned. Since you are allowed, please use more creativity. Thanks
Just to clarify Mr. Cjhunsinger, you are an American that, ( in my opinion only of course), seems to have a inclination or tendency to do Marxist Leninist Atheism apologetics (true? false?) and since you seem to take exception, would it be true or false, that you would have fought for or sympathized with Islam in the Crusades?
Now how about someone who actually understands true biblical Christianity instead of someone who pulled the quickest insult out of his hat.
Don't you fall into the morass, too.
The topic is the radicals, both Christian and Muslim, that take it upon themselves to harm others in the name of religion. Not the religion, not the mainstream people that profess belief. ONLY that handful of crazies that have decided their god wants them to murder or otherwise harm in his name.
And you think there aren't any out there you are sadly mistaken. A quick, and relatively innocuous, example is Westboro church - if you think their objective is not to cause hurt and pain you're wrong again. Then there was the fine folks not too far from me a couple of years ago that dragged a gay man behind their car for a couple of miles and then tied him, torn and bleeding, to a barbed wire fence to die.
For just this matter, I would have to say "Not a true Christian". Biblical Christianity has nothing to do with it.Which is exactly my point. Hitler called himself a Christian while killing 6 million Jews. Does this jibe? Jesus was a Jew.
A radical Christian is exactly as DJ described... someone who loves to the extreme. Jesus loved to the point of giving his own life to save that which is lost. As Sir Dent said, the OP entitles this thread with "fundamentalist Christians" then switches the wording to "radical Christians."
If a group calls themselves Christian, then performs acts of hate and behave contrarily to the Bible, then I would question their claimed identity.So where is the insult then? The stated fact that a handful of nuts change Christianity into something it is not? That there is insanity out there, occasionally labeling itself as Christian?
There is insult in this thread all right, but it is provided by the Christians looking for it when it isn't there and then making up reasons to give insult themselves.I can barely get past your first sentence.... nobody changed Christianity. We still have the Bible to show us what God has outlined as Christianity. Those who call themselves by a title, but do not live according to the true meaning or purpose of that title, have not changed ANY thing, except your perception of what that title means.
The bible itself has changed over centuries. Some books were added some removed, some got readmission.
All were redacted.
God might have had second thoughts!!You really should do a little research on this one. Christianity has changed considerably over the years. For example there is much more of an emphasis put on Jesus now as opposed to when the first group of Christians came to America. The bible is open to many interpretations, that's why we so many denominations.
Really, I have to do your homework for you?
But, you can start here. Here are some changes just in one life time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolso … s-changed/My husband just provided you with hours of research on the astronomy thread. All the while he was wondering why you didn't just look it up yourself. And b/c I ask if you have research to back up your comment, you make a snide remark like that? Ok. This is another typical thread. It is a hate speech thread. I am not going to participate anymore.
Where I must have missed that? Astronomy thread?
Your husband researched for him? I was under the impression that it was for you, you wanted to say he was wrong and there really was some darkness or something as claimed by that rubbish video.
Oh right, that was a while ago. What he found was that I was right. I new I was right because I had already done the research. I hadn't asked him to do the research for me, I showed what my research had uncovered and asked what the relevance of that video was.
How nice of your husband to do that for you and/or them. I sometimes think that if you really research something, and really spend the time, it still doesn't matter to some, sadly. I think this is because that even though they say if they only had proof...... its really not about the proofs, the reasons, the logic or lack of, etc. Its bottom line, about personally held beliefs and ideas, held by faith, that won't be swayed by anything or impressed unless it supports that upheld idea.
I hope you and your husband still benefited, and probably some others did that don't talk much perhaps on here, but observe. As for your assessment of this thread, you were 100% right on the money, lol. In a way though, I still learned a lot for my time here.
So the "Christians" that murder for their God really are following His orders.
Can't say as I can accept interpretation of the bible. Which is why I said that the changes they've made to His word make them not a true Christian. I'm a little shocked that you disagree with that, though.
+1
I think any rational, reasonable, educated person would do the same. By educated, I simply mean to just have a very basic understanding of what Christ taught, and then what Hitler did vs what he claimed, as in the example given, and know how to compare and contrast, etc.
If you want to see radical Christianity, look at the life of Jesus.
He as as radical as any of His followers will ever need to be.
Then, follow the life and experiences of the original 12 Apostles, (and Paul in particular).
You will find that each one gave his life for the Gospel.
However, in contrast to Jihad, where they blow themselves up etc. and kill innocent victims, they died to get the Gospel message (of LOVE) to their fellow human.
They laid down their lives FOR others, and not TAKE their lives!
Often I wish I could live up to this high a standard!The twelve apostles are fiction. And there was no 'christian' persecution as alleged in first century AD but was all pious fabrications.
If gospel preachers ever tried to emulate jihadies chrisianity would have been wiped off by Roman military machine. Bit after gaining power christians did indeed behave like jihadies, if not worse.+1!
Yes, Jesus, he was the best example! His message is not difficult to understand, but continues to be radically life changing to this day.
The mindset of a fundamentalist is plainly to cause havoc whether christian or ISIS. All of them kill for a religious cause.
I have been labeled a fundie/fundy (fundamentalist) in this thread, as have others, and I don't fit your "all" in your description there. I know of some people that would actually fit the "fundy or fundie" title in the way I think it is meant to smear here, and even THEY aren't killing. So I would have to disagree. Not all radicals kill, but some are sympathetic to the killing. I am neither.
As an example of some that are sympathetic, yet not killers, I recall very distinctly, the video footage from overseas, after 9/11 happened. There was dancing in the streets, as if something wonderful had been achieved. Those grandmothers and women I saw, and everyone else probably didn't actually kill anyone. Rather, they seemed very sympathetic and siding with the killers as seen in their actions assuming it wasn't faked footage or anything. Other examples echo that response can be given. They didn't seem to stand up against it, they seemed to be rejoicing in it.
Here is a sincere question that arises out of many posts I saw that alluded to the need to ask it....
Is one of the beliefs of atheists, that once a religionist of any kind, that that person is always still of that religion? Wouldn't that include all the people that ever leave religion to become atheists, and if the answer is yes, then what do THOSE atheists that were once part of a religion think of their fellow atheists beliefs about them?
The reason I ask this, is because it seems to have been suggested that if there is any hint of religion in an atheists background, then IF they ever commit any horrific acts AS an atheist later in life, then they can always be blamed STILL on religion from the past? Surely I am not reading that insinuation correctly, right? If this is what is being suggested, isn't this trying to pass off a really illogical idea on us all? It might work for some, but it makes no sense.It's the "hey they walked by a church one day in the past" or "his brother's, neighbor was a Priest" , so the FACT that they implemented their Marxist–Leninist atheism that specifically targeted religious people just don't count argument. It counted enough for the victims.
Here is what we have here. Someone blaming deaths on an atheist who was raised as a very religious person. That same person doesn't recognize the responsibility of the death for any Christians. So if one is going to blame the persons religion or lack of we should look at his upbringing as well. I for one was brought up in a rather Catholic way and still do not believe abortions should take place. My religious upbringing has effected me in a profound way.
That being said don't you think it's fair that if one is going to commit logical fallacies that allow them to blame a persons lack of faith on their doing one should also blame their faiths on there doings?
The truth is I started out here defending your faiths, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.No, not if they no longer have any faith and are an atheist, that left their faith and are now targeting people of faith. They don't believe in a god or gods, are are pretty sure they won't ever face the god they don't believe in, and won't have to answer for it. If they hadn't left their faith, the wouldn't be targeting people of faith, right? Look up Pol Pot, it says next to his religion, "none." I can't believe I am having to help you see the severe stretch you have to even make to pin any actions on past religion. This only makes my case all the more, the "spirit" of this thing almost, is a true desire to go after religion, even when its not in play and the religious are the ones targeted. (Like in the OP)
The example of abortion you give might not just be because of religious upbringing, but because the fact there is an innocent, unborn human person whose life is being ended, that if left alone would end up like you or me very likely. Its your conscience I think at play there, not just your past Catholicism. Sometimes the morally correct stance wins no matter who holds it, and a case could be made that its morally the correct stance. So that example to me doesn't make the case, that it makes sense to blame past religion for a person's current killings if they happen to currently be without religion, as a stance.
What if that atheist won the Nobel peace prize? Can we "blame" that incredible success on his past religion only in that case, and not his current atheism? Surely you can see the point there and the inherent problem? Its simple picking and choosing, which illuminates the whole point of why this thread is so horrendous, and that those speaking up against it are making such valid points. Its a targeting by cherry picking and avoidance with strong faith, of other hard facts. Facts that fly in the face of certain strongly held beliefs. (Not fun, but we each choose our beliefs.)
If someone commits logical fallacies, pointing them out and making a case showing how its illogical is a good thing to do.
If any person were to blame the bad actions on past religion only, and credit the good achieved to a person's atheism always when they are currently an atheist, then THAT is a person with very strongly held biases. This is like setting things up to always be a win win, which isn't logical or moral, but wanting to win and the other side to lose that badly. Makes the case again if its done. Its the equivalent to cheating an getting mad, then blaming the other side for simply pointing it out, as doing something bad.So I take you you except the fact that your religion is responsible for WW1 and WW2 as the leaders were confirmed Christians? What about the War on Iraq?
As for the logical fallacies what they do is help us understand when we are in error. It's an error to say that Christianity is to blame for WW1. 2 and the War on Iraq just as it's an error to say that atrocities caused by these people are because of their Atheism.
You may want to read about people like Stalin and Pol Pot and what they were taught as Children and how that lead to the horrors that they did, just as you may want to read about what the Bush's and Hitler were taught that may have lead to the horrors they committed.
Notice how PhoenixV pretended the mass suicide of a group of religiously indoctrinated people was mass murder? He shot no one or held a gun to their heads, he just talked them into it before he shot himself dead.
The truth is I'm not blaming the religious upbringing of mass murderers on their upbringing, it's you who are blaming it on their unconfirmed Atheism. I simple defended that stance by pointing out what they have been taught by their religious upbringing and comparing that to what they have done. It's a very valid defence.
So if you are going to continue pointing to these people and saying what they did was because of their lack of belief I'll point out the atrocities that religious folks have done and claim it was in fact because of their religion. It's only fair, and I started out defending Christianity in this forum. So do you concede it was Hitlers Christianity that led him to murder millions of Jews and attempt to take over the world killing millions in the process?A simple study on the links I posted earlier, show the religious in the other cases were targeted. This is the point of posting them, or I and others would be hypocrites. For you to have a case like you are suggesting, more truths have to be in play. No one makes that argument, not seriously.
There have been Christian Presidents in this country for a long time. Obama says he is one too. If they and Congress decide to have to intervene in a world war, that is not a preferred thing, but I have never ever heard anyone suggest it had anything to do with their Christianity, it doesn't make sense. Their Christianity however, has long been a reason I think they use to defend Israel, and be an ally. The USA has taken great heat for that stance on standing by Israel. The tide seems to be changing quite a bit.
If you really believe that that many people collectively killed themselves and children on some random day because it felt like a good idea, with no impact at all from their leader, I suggest you are sugar coating something rather terribly, and showing extreme bias. Its like wanting to excuse the main player in all of that, that if not there, there wouldn't even be a Jonestown. Lets be fair. Your struggle with those facts, doesn't mean Phoenix is pretending anything, or trying to smear. Many refer to it as the Jonestown Massacre. I just googled Jonestown and saw that as a result. Christians aren't making this up.
I don't agree it was a valid defense. You are saying conflicting things.
You said, "The truth is I'm not blaming the religious upbringing of mass murderers on their upbringing, it's you who are blaming it on their unconfirmed Atheism. I simple defended that stance by pointing out what they have been taught by their religious upbringing and comparing that to what they have done. It's a very valid defence."
Your first sentence, then your second conflict there, and you say its valid. I disagree.By your logic Hitler was innocent of actually killing anyone. It is not my opinion, it is the statements of some of the survivors - To a certain extent, the actions in Jonestown were viewed as a mass suicide; some sources, including Jonestown survivors, regard the event as a mass murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#cite_note-1
However, I assert there are other groups of people who should fall into the category of being murdered:
• Those who drank poison believing that they had only two choices: drink the poison, or be shot by armed guards. Is that “revolutionary suicide”? No, it is not. Their deaths were coerced. The pavilion was surrounded by armed guards. People witnessed others being pulled from their seats and forced to drink or being injected.
• Those who may have voluntarily drunk the poison based on the lies of Jim Jones as told that day. Jones asserted that the children would be taken from us, that the Guyanese Defense Force was on its way and it was armed and would be shooting, etc. If someone “voluntarily” takes their life based on the lies of another, is that really suicide? Wouldn’t the perpetrator of the lie be responsible?
• Those who voluntarily drank the poison through months/years of conditioning that created a state-of-siege mentality. Oftentimes, as many survivors have learned since, the “crises” we were experiencing were – literally – manufactured by Jones himself (e.g. gun shots being fired into the community in September of ‘77). If one commits “revolutionary suicide” based on years of experience, without the knowledge that the experiences themselves were created by the leader, is that suicide? I assert it is murder.
How does one assign a numerical total to the people who fall into the above categories? It is impossible. Perhaps one guideline would be this: During the so-called “September Siege” of 1977, Jones twice asked the approximately 700 people in Jonestown “Who wants to commit revolutionary suicide?” The first vote revealed a total of two who voted “for” (Maria Katsaris and Harriett Tropp). The following day the total rose to three (Carolyn Layton, along with Maria and Harriett).
That constitutes less than one percent of Jonestown’s population who felt revolutionary suicide was an option. Were the percentages higher on November 18, 1978? I say no, not discernibly. Those who were not in Jonestown on that day bolster that argument. Of the approximately 300 or so full-time members who were not in Jonestown, only two committed suicide (one after murdering her children). Again, we are left with a figure of around one percent.
Giving much room for debate, I will say that 75 per cent of those 361 in the above named categories did not commit suicide (though, personally, I feel it is higher). That is 278 people, which – when added to the children and seniors and those injected with poison – brings us to a total of 829 people murdered, or ninety percent.
Finally, I use Jim Jones’ own words, taken from the so-called “death” tape, to refute the assertion that the majority of people meekly acquiesced in their death: “Don’t lay it [your life] down with tears and agony. Stop this hysterics! This is not the way for [people] to die.”
Jones himself tells the world what was happening in Jonestown: Tears. Agony. Hysteria. I can attest that agony and tears and hysteria (and fear) were the operative emotions of that day. The screams heard on the so-called “death” tape were far louder than those which come through on the tape itself.
Mass suicide? Or mass murder? While some did commit suicide, the vast majority of those who perished in Jonestown were murdered. Jonestown should always be considered a mass murder, with some suicide. http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=31976Well my brother Atheists and none fundy Christians I must apologies. I started out defending these people but can no longer do so as they portray the exact same zeal and lack of understanding of others that groups like ISIS seems to. There lack of understanding and compassion is rather apparent in these last few pages and I'm deeply sorry for confusing them for compassionate understanding people. I personally do not blame any of the non fundies that have left the forums, as these people exemplify a lack of understanding for humanity and have an inability to see any wrong doing of their own, much like ISIS. Not one of them have been able to come forward as I did and defend people against hate speech.
Strange, there has been NO more ISIS activity here than there was at the OP. Yet you do a 180 degree turn around and apologize for standing up for what you did prior. This came after you were shown with quotes and facts from things like the "death tape" from Jonestown, that your beliefs don't always hold up to the facts and scrutiny, Radman. So I find that an odd thing to have you say twice there, about ISIS.
Fundys are something in particular, and people sharing facts to the degree we did today, does not make a person a fundy, just because you might feel like they are showing how poor ideas are wrong with facts and reasoning and logic.
You were right to defend what you did early on, only in that first post really. That was cool, and I spoke out and said so. Now you say you were wrong. Yet no ISIS activity though was done in sharing of what I saw here since that time, how could it have been of course. Illogical and unreasonable, not gallant nor innocent, and all transparent.
You say, "as these people exemplify a lack of understanding for humanity and have an inability to see any wrong doing of their own, much like ISIS."
If you or I are wrong, then we are actually wrong or not, and that can be shown, no need for the comparisons you give there. Good grief. If you could equally show with facts how what you just said was true, then I suppose you would have done that, but chose not too. One reason would be that the facts don't support your held beliefs about Christianity and a lot of history.
Edit: Even though you did the same thing you stood up to initially, I would never still compare you to ISIS, because they do very particular things, and you are not doing them I assume, and neither is anyone else here. That is called something in particular, by the way.It's sad really. I did try to defend fundies and the like, but it appears your are unable to understand the simplest of concepts and reasons.
For instance Jim Jones and his cult is on record as being one of many Christian mass suicides and yet you pretend it's something else entirely as do you pretend Hitler was not what he says he was. The simply fact is that Jonestown was an example of how someone can take advantage of the gullibility of fundies and some get them to commit mass suicide which included their own children. We can see another example in the news today as another couple was put in prison for failing to look after their children properly for religious reasons. Thought prayer would heal them. Sad really. It's one of the reasons why your religion causes and has causes so many wars.
It's sad you don't see the difference between Hitler and Jim Jones. Hitler orders the killing and Jim Jones simply asked the fundies to kill themselves AND THEY DID.
But I'm done. No sense attempting to reason with groups like ISIS either.And you did it again. Another ISIS comment. That is one thing.
On the other stuff, We will have to agree to disagree, and that you think it is sad, that it is me that can't understand the simplest of concepts and reasons, while alarming, is not anything new from you. I see you say this to others as well. The needless insulting when you cannot back up your beliefs and assertions with facts, nor answer to the actual facts from quotes from the people themselves, is what is really telling.
What is sad is when someone's personally held and strong belief that is in obvious error when lined up with the facts, resorts to the tactics you do here. If you had the facts and reasoning and logic to back you up, then you would have shared those things. Those are the best way to make one's points morally. You chose not to do that. You can keep acting like you defended something when the truth is as we see now you have said what the OP said many times over as a response. To avoid that, are people to just let you believe whatever you want? That isn't actually caring about someone, by the way. I know of some that would tell you want you want to hear, but that isn't really helping you to think any of this through. So we see more of what you initially condemned. I hope in time, you will see that too.Unable to see the double standard staring right in the face. I've defended my position just fine, but you guys are unable to see the double standard, reason or logic, which I'm sad to say puts you guys just as ignorant of others as groups like ISIS are. I've explained this several times and was hopping reason would prevail, but you keep coming back and pretending all atheists are murderers like the biggest Christian murderer of all, Hitler. And because you don't seem to understand the difference between mass suicide and murder, I'm out and have to concede I was wrong attempting to defend you fundies.
Unfollowing.I understand that your belief that you are right in what you are saying is very strong, and that you hold that position with great faith. Even the OP didn't go after particular Christians, comparing them to the horrific group mentioned like you do again here.. I never once said anything that warrants, "but you keep coming back and pretending all atheists are murderers like the biggest Christian murderer of all."
Personal attack and defamation of character, to say I pretend all atheists are murderers.
You then call us fundies, when the actual reality is that your assertions, poor arguments, and personal attacks and hate speech really needed to be addressed. In an oversimplified version, this in part was about correcting an erroneous idea, that people that lack religion, can't do horrific things. Recent history is replete with examples. One can find examples in history of things from all groups. That is the whole point. Yet you and the OP at least, want to believe that Christians are comparable to that group, and that history supports it. It doesn't. ISIS does something in particular, and everyone knows this. This is why I came into this challenging everyone to please report this. Its a very dangerous way to be.
So much time was spent researching on just my part, and Phoenix took even more time to show you actual quotes from people and more factual information. It is clear you want to believe what you want over what history shows. The worst part is that you play this card of pretending to have done something noble or gallant in some defense of people, that turns out to be the very opposite, the worst with verbal assaults of all.
You say you have defended your position just fine, and, "you guys are unable to see the double standard, reason or logic, which I'm sad to say puts you guys just as ignorant of others as groups like ISIS are." This has been shown to not be true by showing you double standards, reason and logic, and I am not comparing you to that group. It would be immoral and not factual to do so, and I would for sure get banned here. As for beliefs, this is an example of some of the strongest displayed on HubPages.Phoenix didn't quote but misrepresented.
The only atheist he could get was Stalin and stalin killed "Since religion was the ideological tool that kept the system in place, Lenin believed atheistic propaganda to be of critical necessity". He killed because he and his regime wanted to take the place of god. He was using atheism as a tool to further communism and murders were incidently or in the words of a Christian murderer, collateral damage.
So Phoenix was merely changing communist to atheist regime, the fallacy of undistributed middle along with non sequitur.
Radman has said it one more time another way, since you posted this
There is no greater defamation of character or hate speech, or personal attack, than comparing people to that, than he has done now more than anyone else on this this whole thread, all the while "saying he defended them." Not one person has said it more now than him, in the last two posts alone.
This line of facts and reasoning makes more sense, and cares about the particular details. It is more fair. I think it is a better case, even if I were to agree with Radman on his belief about the whole thing.
Atheism
1) a lack of belief in a deity.
2) a belief in the lack of deity.
3) a position that there are no gods.
The first two are still believers, they just changed the people whom they chose to believe and communists, fascists. .. and all those who profess atheism belief belonged to that category and their belief is a product of their respective ideology. (Since religion was the ideological tool that kept the system in place, Lenin believed atheistic propaganda to be of critical necessity. - from your own source wikipedia). Hence their morality also come from their ideology. Atheism has no morality attached to it.
Stalin and Polpot killed because they were communist.
Hitler killed because he was fascist.
But why did Bush or the Spanish inquisidars killed?
Religion has morality attached to it unlike atheism.
- Jay C OBrienposted 9 years ago0
Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?
Yes, we are all people. We are all interconnected in some way as evidenced by the existence of telepathy or ESP. I have my own verified personal experiences and I have researched others. Some people are more spiritually mature than others. The more mature are here to help the less mature. It goes on and on, doesn't it. But are we forgetting that religion is just the tool? The workers are the evil folks, evil hearted men leading a group of malcontents.
Seems most every religion, as well as ethnicity, has had a shot at world leadership and domination. Who's turn will it be next year?
And where will the followers come from? The malcontents of this year.
Isn't it interesting that the malcontents of the 60's and 70's here in the US are now the government leaders, either by direct ascension or philosophy?mishpat
Seems to be a fatalistic observation and, if I can add, a correct one. It would seem that the call for a Utopia, whether of a godly or secular description provides ample followers, blinded by the idea of something for nothing, a heavenly reward or a perfection, that is not to be.
Perhaps, the common thread that binds humanity is the reach for a promise of what cannot be and for the religious or political charlatan a possession of the knowledge of this very exploitative human characteristic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D
Christianity ushered in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.
ISIS wants to impose their own version of both ideas on us.
I guess they feel that reciprocity is fair play and it is to all moral people.
The question is, is this reciprocity that they think they are doing to us fair play?
We do not think so but ISIS seems to think so.
Do they have a point?
Regards
DLOne of the biggest problems with humanity and over history is that people get mad at the wrong things. Of course people will get mad at things, but they direct what comes with the anger or frustration at something other than the source or core of their true anger or frustration. I mean the things that actually cause the anger or frustration. Not the perceived things, the preferred or desired things. This will never solve the true conflicts and they will never seem to really go away and then drastic things begin to be desired sometimes. Then all are just hurt on all sides. Good grief.
- Onusonusposted 9 years ago0
Here's another video of Christian fundamentalists in Sioux City, Iowa stoning a man and woman to death for the offence of adultery. You can hear them shouting, "Let he who bears the biggest stone cast the first stone!" In Arabic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1JHHQxd7gDeleted
He using Sarcasm, because if it werent really evil it would be too stupid to rate a response.
Of course,I stand corrected. He was making an opposite point that Fundie Christians don't do that. Gotcha. So now I am fairly embarrassed, lol. I am ill with a bad cold, does that give me any passes? lol.
Wow, proud of yourself? Had to explain what sarcasm if to your little cult. Sad really, don't tell her to drink the cool aid.
Oh my gosh, its like the points made yesterday that were shown to be full of fallacies, weren't even discussed.
We seem to just be revisiting the same points. These were the failed points from yesterday that we all took the time to wade through and break apart as if with a fine toothed comb. I would say I can't believe it, but I have remembered hitting this point before.What a superb post. Kudos to you, Rad. . I agree with every word you say.
A tip, Pam? Using the "reply" button under a post will make a clear indication which post you are replying to. Using the reply button at the bottom right of the screen means you are replying to the topic in general or at least to what the Original Post was.
Just noted some statistics regarding immigration and religion in England. I wonder if the OP's posting is just a show of frustration because English liberalism has failed to protect the country's sovereignty. BTW, Canada is on a par. Look out America, your next.
Mishpat, Very interesting. I wondered something similar when I saw the location, myself. I pay some attention to Canada also. Its going to be an interesting, ongoing observing of a playing out of cause and effect.
People see the wrong things as their enemy too often. People get so mad at the wrong things. The best antidote to a bad idea, is exchanging it with a better one, or the best one. No one gets automatic "wins" on ideas, simply because that person is preferred, or has a bigger club, is in power, or can make the calls.
I think this is what infuriates and never gives satisfaction to powers that be (no matter how big or small), that are trying to pass off bad ideas as good.
Its actually all really simple conceptually. Good, true, moral ideas win automatically without having to try. Bad, false, immmoral ideas and beliefs have to work extra hard to pass off as the other kind, and thus we see power grabs, hurting others in various ways, and silencing. This is how terror of various forms actually wins, when not stopped. When allowed for whatever strange reason, people will be hurt, conflict will ensue, and blame will be assigned, and there are viscous cycles. People often like to learn history for this reason, OR hate the truth of it being exposed.
History is the perfect way to learn about what has worked and not worked. Those that want to pass off bad ideas, think that if they can just get in power and force it onto people, that it will work. It doesn't, because truth isn't like that. Sometimes I think people aren't just ambivalent to the idea of a god, but to the idea of truth. It is its OWN thing, we can't own it, and it was here long before us and will be long after. People don't want to submit to it, even when they can't beat it. Very willful humans, we are. Some dig heels in, until their live is over. Even facing death, very obstinate.
Cause and effect, we get what comes with our choices. There is the greater, bigger picture.Although I find your question to be intriguing, I must confess that it is to nuanced to address with a cut and dry response. It may actually be a case of presenting the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Now that you mention it, I think that sounds right about the false dilemma. Thanks for pointing it out.
Seeing some terms here over and over but it seems they mean different things to different people.
The most recent being Jesus was a radical and intolerant. Yes and no to each depending on how you see it.
He was a radical in that he did not go along with the status quo of the religious leadership. But is that a negative? I think not. Those folks which he label as hypocrite, vipers, etc, like many today, were fleecing the naive in the name of God. And he spoke against it openly and publicly.
He was also intolerant. Was that a negative? I think not. He spoke to a variety of beliefs in conversation. But He physically tossed out the "moneychangers" who were, again, fleecing the people in the temple.
One of my favorite "radicals" of recent years was Che. Oh, how he fought for the rights on the downtrodden. But then, when the authorities finally finished his life, he was found wearing a Rolex.
A thinking and reasoning person will recognize, not necessarily accept, that religions are, as one put it in the past, an opiate for the masses. Guess they were right.
But Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship by faith, one on one with God through the works of Jesus Christ. You can't earn and you can't lose it once you got it. You can only reject it.
You can belong to any church you want, or islum or the order of the moose. Or maybe the Klan or the Democrat or Republican party. They all have required rites/rules which must be followed religiously in order to keep their "membership."
And if someone tells you, in the name of that religion, that you must do this or you must do that, keep one eye on them and the other on your wallet.I am more convinced that ever, that people struggle with the truth. That has probably always been the case, but I think what seems to be more the norm, is how some lash out about things, rather than think them through carefully.
Even if I didn't agree with you on some random point, I can tell you like to think things through carefully. I think that is wonderful, and rare. I hope to do that, it is my goal, as if fairness. (among other things.)
The teachings of Jesus are tough at times, even and maybe especially for Christians. This world has a lot of problems, and a lot of things are changing, including mindsets of people.
So true, about the watching your wallet comment. Yes, some are easily led, and tricked.
One thing in common is that they're both fanatical. Christian tend to preach and bug US politics while the ISIS perpetuating violence.
Fundies in America are given the ability to affect politics non-violently. Fundies in other areas have no access to the government through non-violent means so must address it violently to accomplish the same goals.
Same thought processes, different situations.The fundies in African have been negatively affecting change there unfortunately.
Yes. The Christian militias are out of hand over there. What they are doing to Muslims is horrible and inexcusable.
Both sides, tend to "preach" their own views and beliefs, but only the Christian side is considered fanatical in that case? I see.
I see the same mentality exhibited here, that is problematic. IF Christians are fanatical like ISIS for that reason, then so are a lot of others, but it just so happens only Christians get in the Original Post? You see the problem.Uhh...you did note that only a small subset of Christians, just as only a small subset of Muslims, made it into the OP?
Somehow, on some planet, in some distant universe... it is fine for Christians to act that way because everyone else is as well. Instead of being outraged that members of one's own religion are behaving that way, it is preferable to point out that others are acting that way... so it's fine. Really.
That's how it seems to work, all right. It makes a good diversion, too, as not a single one has ever answered the OP - just rant about how Christians are always attacked and the thread should be closed down.
OK, as a Christian I'll answer it.
"Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems. All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking."
Yes, radical Islam and radical Christianity do have more in common with each other than moderate beliefs and normal secular beliefs. Absolutely. The similarities are that they are both radical. Radical Christians kill hundreds of thousands of people a day to serve their interests as do radical Muslims. There is absolutely no difference between the rhetoric of Jihad Muslims and Extremist Christians except the book they use to reference.
If you consider any of the above hate speech, it's because you hate Muslims so much that you being compared to them is violently offensive.
As far as a belief in hell for all eternity being part of the radical Christian's belief system, it is equivalent to the 70 virgins thing... so yes there are parallels there. The problem is that neither of those beliefs are the sole property of the extremists of either faith. Those beliefs filter through the moderates as well.The OP's claim lacks merit - "Christians with beliefs" does not equal "ruthless terrorist organizations". It is not a rational legitimate claim. It is not an actual criticism. Only in atheist lala land does it have merit. Defend against my strawman! Defend against my non sequiturs! Oh the hypocrisy!
Meanwhile in North Korea:
Like Marxism-Leninism, Juche ideology espouses state atheism. There are numerous reports of people sent to prison camps and subjected to torture and inhuman treatment because of their faith. It is estimated that 50,000–70,000 Christians are held in North Korean prison camps.There are reports of public executions of Christians.
It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners are detained in concentration camps, where they perform forced labour and risk summary beatings, torture and executionThat seems a bit ridiculous to say, if you have even just been barely glancing in here the last several days.
I have non stop had to go back for the atheists sake, TO the OP, to remind what it is we are all responding to, answering, and discussing. So I disagree with you that is not factual, for those reasons at least.
You have been answered on this numerous times. You may have missed though, where two of us were compared to ISIS four times since then, and I have been labeled a fundy.
Yeah, I was. Unfortunately not a single answer had anything to do with the OP, just that Christians were being attacked in general. The all important qualifier of radical somehow gets ignored, just as you do here.
You are not admitting the obvious, Wilderness. That is, she focuses particularly, and only, on Christians, when we all know full well there are multiple groups with radicals in them. She also gave a free pass to secular groups, which I am sure she happens to be a part of, but I don't know for sure. It seems obvious though.
No one here made a thread, nor could they, about ISIS and any other group. Radical or not. You are pressing hard to make the crux of this whole debate, something that it is not, to reflect the focus off where you all don't want it to be. And blaming Christians like me in the process for not just "getting it." No.... I get it. Why didn't Pam compare ISIS to an atheist sponsored state, and choose Christians instead, or why not Jews, why not other groups? We all know why, and its the same stuff over and over here.
I think its much more fair and reasonable to go appeal to the problem the targeter created, than the targeted in this particular case.Again, you are using criticism to deflect criticism. Appeal to hypocrisy. Please try again.
If you care to point out what I said there exactly, that is illogical, then you will be perhaps believable. What you have done instead, is just accuse again, and avoided every point and question I made or asked. You maybe don't understand that in these situation, it takes showing HOW, what a person has said, is wrong, to rebut it. Not just keep saying they are wrong.
A kind warning also, because I get the feeling this may never end.... If you keep this line of lack of reasoning up, I will just simply stop speaking with you again. I had done that for months if not years, until this one fair post I saw from you that I only read because I was in such disbelief of Pam's post, that I was reading all replies."Why didn't Pam compare ISIS to an atheist sponsored state, and choose Christians instead, or why not Jews, why not other groups? We all know why, and its the same stuff over and over here."
Appeal to hypocrisy - Why not atheism, why not Jews. Criticizing with criticism. If the OP had compared ISIS to Atheism, I wouldn't be talking about Christianity or Judaism, I'd be discussing Atheism.I put such situations up to lack of empathy. Sometimes people are too self-involved to see anything but how something makes them personally feel. It's center of the universe syndrome. It causes people to take offense at general statements while, strangely, not seeing how such general statements could affect others.
It's very odd.
"No one here made a thread, nor could they, about ISIS and any other group. Radical or not."
How odd. I was sure I saw ISIS in both the title and the OP.
Wait. I DID see it in both places. Even that horrible Wilderness guy referenced both the radical groups of Islam (ISIS) and Christianity, while commenting that Christianity in general has grown and developed faster than Islam, making the radical end much smaller than ISIS. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627#post2672827
Maybe it's the the Christians with a chip on their shoulder, looking for offense where none is offered?I would like to point out that it is only some Christians. Moderate Christians are more than willing to discuss both the positives and negatives of their faith. It is only the fundamentals that want to bury their heads in the sand. Defensiveness accompanies that mindset. In general, moderate Christians dislike extremists of their own faith more than those of others because of the embarrassment they cause and the guilt by association.
Which is why I had to differentiate real Christians from Fundy Christians.
It's astonishing that they are accusing someone of slander (I have no idea who, might be me) after lying about what some crazy people have done in the past and painting everyone of us atheists with that same brush. It's rather like saying all Fundies are like the Fundy Christian Hitler therefore we have to keep an one on them. Perhaps we do as they are making a mess out of African since they started losing their battles in North America.Well I apologize to you for what other members of my faith might have said or implied. Not all of us agree with their opinions, in fact most of us don't. I would also like to ask that you don't hold it against Christ, because he surely didn't say we should act like that.
It wasn't you in that case, Radman, about the slander. Ironic though, because.....
Now to address the next point though, is simply untrue, and is a strawman all its own. You said, "It's astonishing that they are accusing someone of slander (I have no idea who, might be me) after lying about what some crazy people have done in the past and painting everyone of us atheists with that same brush."
That actually, is not true. You need to be careful to differentiate where it matters, so you aren't falsely accusing people like you are here, again. No one has painted all the atheists here with the same brush as as the mass murdering atheists. How or why would could anyone? Very clearly that isn't true. I have spent so much time, and these large accidents keep coming from you, as I am assuming the best about you there this isn't a repetitive act on your part. You really shouldn't say things, or make another persons argument out to be what it is not. That is a logical fallacy, a strawman, what you did there. It includes some serious accusation, please stop that.
I don't know how to be more patient than this, and need to know that if we are going to continue to talk, then this has to stop.Also, those Marxist Leninist atheist regimes are not just "some crazy people" that did stuff, like its some isolated Crazy Command-er responsibility Nuremburg defense. The ideology/organizations were/are extensive and massive. They still exist today, or close versions of them and it takes a lot of them to execute people and keep people in prisons.
"If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism.
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist pol pot? 3 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist joseph stalin? 50 million?
What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist mao zedong? 50 million?
We are not talking about military campaigns a - thousand years ago - in a response to muslim conquests.......mass murdering atheist dictators killed a hundred million human beings in the last approx 75 years.
Over 100 million human beings in the last 75 -80 years....
The whole thing is disturbing."That! It's like every other word is "atheist." I'm sure that any reasonable person would see the bias... almost obsession. There is no reason to keep stressing the word other than to make certain implications. Playing innocent is well and good, as long as one realizes that no one else is buying it.
He's gained at least one follower who see no wrong in his post at all. I keep trying to tell her not to drink the cool aid.
Thanks for this too!
Jim Jones:
I am an Atheist, drink the cool aid.Don't you think your posts might be getting a bit shrill? Perhaps you could dial it back a little?
Ah, that religious leader didn't tell them he no longer believed in God. I'm telling your followers to not drink the cool aid. Do you think Atheists can be honest or do think we need to be afraid of all of them?
Things like that are sad. I've never felt the need for blind loyalty. Wrong is wrong no matter who says it.
Thanks. For bumping this. In every post and in every word and all the pastes , I speak for myself and stand by every word. I like it that you bump my posts. Here is some more:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674736
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674773
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674591
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674387
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674210
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674323
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2673916
If Christians can be compared to ISIS and Christians on HP have to be blamed for what the Spanish/Christians Military did a 1000 years ago in a response..
. ...Then lets go by the statistics of who killed the most. Christians? Or atheists. We know that answer.If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism. Deal with it.
You mean like what the fundy Christian Hitler did during WW2? Wasn't very safe to be Jewish back then.
Or the thousands, THOUSANDS, of Muslims that are being killed in Africa. Are the squads doing it because they are Christians or because they like killing other people and differences give them a reason that the public can get behind?
No, actually we don't know those statistics because we have no idea why any of these people killed anybody. Which is the point I've been trying to make, if you weren't so busy screaming "witch" at the Atheists, you might have noticed that. Must you make it a competition? I don't have a ruler and a table handy and frankly I don't care who's is longest.
Yea, we do. Thanks to the link references. See number 2 link.
It says they were atheists, not that they did the things because they were atheists. Does the difference really confuse you? I gave you an example of the fallacy in an obvious form... they were men. Did they do the things they did because of their dangly bits?
Again, a logical fallacy. Criticizing to defer criticism. I'll pay attention when you stop using fallacies to make your argument.
Logical fallacy of repeated assertion. Over and over and over.
"All in all over 100 million human beings were tortured, starved to death and or murdered by three Atheists and their tactics included anti-religion propaganda and labelling people"
And here is a lie.
"You realize that a "made up fallacy" by an atheist with a wordpress blog is: 1 Not a real logical fallacy and 2. does not make them an authority on squat, especially HISTORICAL FACT."More…
" Some of Fundamental Christianity's core tenets are turn the other cheek and love your enemy. Atheism has no such intrinsic tenet. It's darwinism of survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, kill or be killed, with no concept of absolute justice or absolute objective morality: Hence MASS MURDERING ATHEIST REGIMES."
I pasted from Wikipedia mostly and never painted anyone else. Like Harry Truman said: I never gave anyone heck, I just told the truth and you thought it was heck.
I wish it was just some crazy people in the past. But it is happening again right now in North Korea. But its not just a crazy dictator or two or three or four in the past. It's an ideology that was so pervasive that it knew no bounds and spanned from USSR to China, Korea to elsewhere. It cant be blamed and excused away, on just a dictator. Its Marxist Leninist atheism and or state sponsored atheism or an offshoot of that like in Korea, with crazy dictators and lots of personnel to keep it going and their goal is to eradicate the beliefs in a humans mind, which is impossible and insane to attempt.Is it against the Fundy Christian faith to be honest? Sometimes I forget that there is no scripture preventing you from lying. For the record, Jim Jones was not a mass murderer as you stated, he was a religious leader who talk a group of gullible people in committing mass suicide. I think you will also find you were not truthful about the numbers you provided with your fallacies either.
When I said, "No one here made a thread, nor could they, about ISIS and any other group. Radical or not."
I meant that no one else on HP has made a thread like that against any other group. It was only made against Christians. This is not me exaggerating anything.
I appreciate the little you did defend, like noting the far distant past acts of some people that wouldn't be favorable in the eyes of Jesus... I really do.
I ought to say this to you too Wilderness.... I very obviously don't like your first sentence, of that first post, but have had to reference numerous times when Radman and others seemed confused as to why we were talking about history so much. It wasn't just to point out the words, "not hesitate to kill" so much, but to point out that you brought up actually a very good point, about history. I think my quoting and referencing it could look to you, like more than I mean it too. So for whatever that is worth.
For your defense, no matter how small or big, and or fairness, I do thank you for that. I don't see a lot of that on HP.
I don't see it like you have expressed a couple times now, that Christians might just have a chip on their shoulder, looking to find offense.I don't think you are a horrible guy Wilderness. I actually like your political views.You and I had a cool debate or two on a creator or not and something about radio signals at planck scale or something I forget. I think you get caught up in, or buy into the "Christianity is the boogey man" syndrome. The worst of the worst like Westboro Baptist, strap a cardboard sign to their body and hang out on the street where everyone boos them. The extremist is just crazy, period, the world is full of crazy people of all flavors. The majority watch TV, go to church and do food and clothes drives. They create and run charities, they help the poor and homeless..they started the first colleges and small schools all across the country not long ago. I wouldn't be surprised if your grandparents were taught in a one room schoolhouse Church. Wilderness aint their anyone in your family that is Christian if it aint too personal to share or ask of ya?
Comparing Christians, based upon their beliefs as a ruthless terrorist organization is a smear. Pedophiles take advantage of the trusting nature of children. Do you know anyone that takes advantage of the trust of another person? Would you think its okay to make a comparison like that?
Now to address the good point that was almost missed.....
That is absolutely true, that comparing Christians based on their beliefs, (hell in particular as she designated), to a terrorist organization IS a smear. To those being smeared, it is trying to be turned around onto them, over and over and over. By so many, I have lost count now.
Radman, the next fallacy you charge with is, "False Analogy Fallacy - in this fallacy you've assumed the belief in God is similar to the non-belief in God. For you to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour."
This one strikes me as a little bit funny, because I do recall just last night, I was responding to you in a comment where you yourself alluded almost outright, that atheism is a religion. Do you recall that? I don't think it is, and take atheists at their word when they say a lack of beliefs.
The thing is, you have to show where anyone assumed the belief in God, is similar to the non belief in God. Then, show why atheism needs to be shown to be a religion? Can't atheists atheists act in a positive, negative and neutral fashion, all without a belief in god? They can, and they do, as we see. This accusation seems without merit, for just posting historical facts.Please show me where I said Atheism is a religion?
I've maintained all along that we can't use ones religion to determine their actions, but that's not what Phoenix has been saying is it? So if you want to maintain that Atheists are dangerous for what ever reason you have to point to the doctrine that makes us that way. In the case of ISIS we can say that they are dangerous because they are following exactly what the Quran says to do with people like the journalists. Kill them or hold them as ransom. It's right in their holy book. Do you have some way of saying the same about Atheists? If not then you've made another fallacy if you are implying it can be paralleled with another religion.
Did I just see someone compare Muslims to pedophiles? Boy that sure does sound like hate-speech to me.
Did I just see someone make something up, just try to distort, and create hate speech that isn't there? This is making a forced comparison that isn't there.
No one is making the comparison, that just was made. This is a high form of petty bickering at the very least. In fact, this is a deliberate distortion to defame someone.
If only you just had points to rebut with, to have a case. You are deliberately trying to create a distortion. This is probably the most slanderous strawman fallacy employed I ever heard of.It was the most obvious slanderous distorted strawman I ever saw. They must be desperate to stoop that low.
I think it would be so much more profound an impact, to make actual cases against those that you disagree with in our discussions here, rather than that. A strange way to give confirmation that your opponents are making pretty good points, but it communicates that all the same. I can't think that anyone would do what we saw, over just making a factual case with reason, logic and facts. (If facts, reason and logic were on their side in the discussion.)
If someone is not going to reply to someone then they probably shouldn't reply.
One should also not say that one has no points after one has made the claim that one is not reading the other's posts. One also knows where the report button is and may push it as often as one sees fit. This one knows this one does This will be my last post to you. I truly don't read your posts. I received an email from a fellow HP member about it, that also knows I don't read any of your posts. I literally groaned, because I didn't want to read it, especially if it was so worthy of note. I looked, and had to go and look at what you were responding to. Sure enough, it is as I said, deliberate distortion to defame someone, and what goes with that.
This behavior is very transparent, and I recall it very well, the glee and so much more. I knew full well in my responding there is risk you would say just what you did there.
This is the last. Now, you do that as many multiple times to anyone else, rather than discuss actual points in the forum. I would encourage the latter. Everyone else was at least attempting do to discuss points. I won't be reading, and therefore won't know to report any possible abuses that might arise. Its still well worth the benefit, and I am not feeding a situation I think needs to be discouraged, rather than encouraged. I am not a believer in being run off of HP forums, or the site, because of people that act in this manner. That isn't fair. This way, I avoid the behavior and get to post freely.I am ever so glad this will be your last post to me. Am I also to assume that you won't be posting things directed at me but not addressed to me? Cause that would be awesome! I'm also glad that I am such an event that others pass emails about me.
I was ran off from this site a few months ago by behavior exactly like you have describe and happily participate in.
I begged to have an actual conversation and was ignored by others in favor of posting one liners and pictures. So when in Rome, I'm doing as the Romans. If the Romans don't like it, maybe they should look at themselves.
And you aren't reading this like a bear doesn't crap in the woods.
Radman, you shared, "Poisoning the Well Fallacy - When you present adverse information about, or associates unfavourable characters, characteristics or qualities with, a targeted person, or in this case, worldview (atheism), with the intention of undermining it, this is known as poisoning the well. “Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheism is dangerous.”"
That would only be a valid criticism, if what you presented in quotes as the argument, WAS the argument being made. That is not the argument being made. So your logical fallacy assertion is false, because you falsely presented the argument itself. No one here made that argument.
Stalin was brought up in response as a historical example, to help the OP and others, see its not just that of religion, as was being charged.Another logical fallacy, criticizing to defer criticism. It doesn't matter why he brought up Stalin being a dangerous Atheist, because it's a logical fallacy to do so.
My problem is it's completely unrelated. The question of the thread was about extremist Muslims and Christians. I have no idea how atheism relates, as it wasn't even suggested in the OP. One would think if the topic was a comparison of extremist Muslims and extremist Christians that those subject would be what was discussed. The random-ness is confusing to me.
That's why I'm waiting for him to put forth an argument without logical fallacies. I've already done it for him back on page 2. but he seems to think spewing hatred towards an unrelated group makes his point.
That's a shame, it could have been an interesting and enlightening conversation without the distraction. It seems wrong that people can derail a thread for their own agendas. It's not conductive to reasonable debate at all. It becomes all about those people and their issues. Frankly no one is interesting enough to warrant this many pages of conversation about their emotional distress.
It's a shame the forums have come to this. Once they were full of intelligent people having intelligent conversations... now they are cock-fights.
I think the saddest casualty is Mo. She was one of the pure good ones. It doesn't seem she was confrontational and bitter enough for anyone's tastes. It's really sad when voices of reason are harassed until they leave by individuals who just want conflict to feel whatever need it is that fills.She turned the other cheek, it got slapped and she left. She had and has a wonderful way of reaching people. It's sad because I can't think of a single atheist who didn't love her.
One last post and I'm out of here...
Christians, like any other group, are cannibalistic. It's human nature that the nastiest and least scrupulous try to eliminate those who highlight their faults in comparison. It is BECAUSE Mo was liked that she was chased off. Jealous and bitter people hate it when others are loved, because they know they are unlovable. Rather than change themselves, they attack their competition. It doesn't make them any more loved, but at least they aren't reminded of their own inadequacies.
The Christians on these boards aren't any different. The loudest and most aggressive chase away others so they can keep the illusion of superiority. Mo is, and always will be, better than them. Completely. Nothing they can twist will change that.
I love her deeply and she has all my respect, a very hard thing to earn and something that the so called Christians on this board will never have. Not because she gave the best one-liners, not because she had the biggest swinging e-.... but because she loves like Christ. Even if they win the teddy-bear for one-upsmanship, they still wouldn't be worthy to be wiped off her shoe. I think they know that, and I think her presence was a constant painful reminder of it.+1 Can't argue with a thing you've said here. Mo was special.
I feel the same way about Cgenaea and Chris Neal (he may not like me I dont know) but I think he was cool.
Sad.
Especially Cgenaea. The way she was treated. I wish I had free speech on HP. I would love to expound on that.Yes, Chris Neal is a good guy, from what I have seen. Also, the patience of a saint with some. I can't imagine why he was banned.
Your habit of making up what you think or want other people's arguments to be, then criticizing them with supposed logical fallacies, has been shown to be obviously lacking, obviously wrong. I know you believe you are right, with all of your heart very likely. Still, so much time and effort has been spent clarifying what I think you are trying to say, that I am convinced that more time and repetition won't help. I find, that when I have taken a great deal of time, you don't own the errors, OR explain why you think my assessment is wrong on your errors. You just throw out another supposed logical fallacy, and carry on like you have some upper hand.
So what is the point of my speaking with you from a genuine heart and mind that wants to really discuss? You make it all a futile attempt, Radman. I have tried with you, to the point that I am convinced it is actually pretty futile, and I have been at this point before.
Radman, you shared, "Slippery Slope Fallacy - The slippery slope fallacy is a species of the false cause fallacy that seeks to present a conclusion of an argument that is dependent upon an unlikely chain of events. In other words you are saying that the more secular we become the more our society will erode when in fact what we see is the opposite. Would you rather live in Uganda, Saudi Arabia or North America?"
Do you have a post where that argument was made? I think it is looking like you might have drawn some conclusions on your own, and I have shown how and where when I see it as cut and dry. This may be another. In case I forgot or missed if Phoenix or I made the point of (or similar to), "that the more secular we become the more our society will erode?" Can you point it out so I can answer with it head on, or clearly? Thanks.Radman, regarding the false analogy fallacy, you said, "I've maintained all along that we can't use ones religion to determine their actions, but that's not what Phoenix has been saying is it? So if you want to maintain that Atheists are dangerous for what ever reason you have to point to the doctrine that makes us that way. In the case of ISIS we can say that they are dangerous because they are following exactly what the Quran says to do with people like the journalists. Kill them or hold them as ransom. It's right in their holy book. Do you have some way of saying the same about Atheists? If not then you've made another fallacy if you are implying it can be paralleled with another religion."
I actually don't recall Phoenix saying it was because of the religion of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, that we can blame their actions.
I have seen you do this with Hitler however, and myself, and Phoenix at least. Hitler seems to for sure be a Christian in your mind, and you seem to have concluded that we can blame his actions on his Christianity, remember? (Not verbatim, admittedly, but said in forms many times over.) Your references to ISIS and the numerous cult references to Phoenix and I, changed to that after you observed our behavior in here, and I am then no longer a real Christian (not verbatim), in your eyes. And why? Because of the behavior. Same with Mo, and her behavior,and her real Christian status in your eyes because of the behavior and your judgment of it, etc. It seems contradictory.
You said again here, "So if you want to maintain that Atheists are dangerous for what ever reason..."
Please stop, that is false. I don't maintain that, you keep saying it though. This creates an atmosphere, where we are getting nowhere. We actually aren't talking about anything really, because of your false assertions, and misunderstandings, which I am having to spend all my time correcting to even begin to talk. Never mind, that you tend to not read my long posts. I am probably wasting my time. I have however, now addressed your five supposed logical fallacies.http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674736
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674773
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674591
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674387
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674210
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674323
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2673916
And likely others but I'm laughing too hard to type. Must not read Phoenix's posts either. Almost every post he writes has something to do with "mass-murdering atheists" Bias leads to fallacies because bias is by nature irrational. It's obvious to those not flying a specific persons banner because we find him super groovy.
I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist..Ok, well that was chilling. It has been an interesting few days for sure in here. I have learned so much, seen so many quotes that illuminate what I had already learned about the histories in question, and gained in general knowledge. As usual, the boards are an interesting place to see how people form their opinions and what they base them on, as well as their beliefs.
Especially Cgenaea. The way she was treated. I wish I had free speech on HP. I would love to expound on that..sadYeah, not many could take how she was treated, and remain so strong and not give it back. She has a good heart, as far as I could see, and the patience of a saint.
+ 1111 Everything you've said here, is true and more. Cgenaea had heart and would still be here, except....She doesn't conform, and doesn't stop talking about her relationship with God, and likes to express herself in her own way. (And good for her.) Her strength is drawn from something much deeper and very real. Its very obvious, because no one could hardly take what she has taken, and didn't deserve. One has to ask, what seriously, was so awful about what she was saying, that people felt so free to treat her so ugly. I mean their behavior....ugly.... I think some of us know. If you somehow end up seeing this, waving to Genaea!
Hope you are doing well.
No human being could take what Cgenaea took. I couldn't have. And she never gave it back. There was a couple of times Chris Neal came in and I was thinking, thank God here comes the cavalry, I guess he had to be silenced. He spoke his mind or the truth.I will look forward to seeing both of them back when they come back.
I don't know him well, or Genaea either, I am going off what I did know in observance.I have to agree, I like both of those people. I consider Chris a personal friend, we chat often and I warned him he was getting close to a ban. He told someone he was about to call them a jerk and someone push the report button. Just so you guys are aware. He's called me a jerk plenty of times, but I've never pushed the report button, because he may or may not have been right.
Anyhow, I've done my best to show you two the flaws in your logic. I'm not about to defend atheism here because of your logical fallacies. Start a new forum and perhaps I'll defend a lack of belief without criticizing another group to avoid criticism.I did respond to each and every one of your logical fallacies that you said were happening in here. Mostly through using strawmen, and crafting up your own wording of things we never said, you then tried to apply a logical fallacy to those arguments that were never made. I carefully pointed out how that wasn't the case even with the example that came closest. I and offered for you to give some actual quotes to show the opposite, which you didn't do. I think that is because they aren't there. This seems obvious, besides that fact they were arguments and things I would never say, and that I never saw Phoenix say. In other words, all your assessments and presmises would have had to be correct, for your arguments to follow. They were not.
Improperly applied logical fallacies to the actual reasons the history was brought up, doesn't make you correct. It was never established that Christianity is like ISIS. History was shown to prove the OP wrong in her assertions/beliefs, mainly the point about ISIS having more in common with one group over others. She was the one that brought up the idea of groups not hesitating to kill if they thought it would serve their purpose. So ideas were not warranted, simply put. The histories showed a very simple point, and with her beliefs, she will know what that is. Your insisted upon emphasis that the argument was as simple as you make it out to be,, doesn't address the greater problem. She seems to believe, that because of the hell belief of some Christians they are to fairly compared to what she compared them to. That position is illogical at best.
So the truth of the actual matter, means she doesn't have facts on her side, and is left only with her beliefs which where shown in her smears of another group. I don't know if she is an atheist, but know she sided with you in what you were saying. If she is, there is nothing in her atheism that I could appeal to, to suggest she shouldn't create a forum thread like this. She doesn't seem phased by my appeals from reason, logic or morality either. It would have been good to see her make a case for her thread, other than that Christians believe in hell and that is really evil. Its just sad, really.
I have never seen a human being treated that way on the internet.I have said this before, its like she is a whipping boy to some, for lack of better words. Like seeing the maltreatment, and rather than even just ignoring it or reporting that treatment of her, some gang up like its ok, and don't stop. It doesn't make it right, because she comes back and shares her views with people, and is strong.
Fair enough Beth. How did you read "no possibility of coexistence with Islam"? and what action did you think was being suggested?
In the context of 911, I didn't even read the word Islam. TAO was responding to the OP and my brain just kind of replaced ISIS with Islam. However, to be fair, I don't know what kinds of things TAO read. I do know if you read deeply into certain religions, they can get pretty "extreme/dark". Of course, I know some lovely Islam ppl, as many of us do, but I have not researched the religion of Islam deeply, therefore, I will reserve my comments and possibly learn something new through someone else's research.
I can see that, honest mistake. From my viewpoint, I'm not exactly sure if anything he read could excuse the belief that people can't co-exist with a couple of billion people based on their faith. That's what we are talking about here, a couple of billion PEOPLE. Not ideas, not beliefs, people. Children, women, elderly... men and women... all painted with the same brush.
Muslim hatred is out of control, and I'm repulsed by the amount of people either covertly or outright suggesting violence against Muslims. Not ISIS, not Al-quada, but Muslims. Just as TAO did. As Christians, we should be defending Muslims right now more than ever. Their beliefs might be different, but they are experiencing REAL persecution. They need help, not hatred.
/soapbox
The most recent man that was beheaded by ISIS, does anyone know what his parents believe? I saw them on the news the other night, making a statement. He was beheaded just a few days ago, and I heard they didn't have him kneel down like normal, and I don't even know what that means, or how they would and I don't want to know. The report may have been wrong, but it was on the news.
The group was ISIS. They act in a particular way, as many know.
I only saw part of it, but what I saw made me wonder what their beliefs are, because they talked of forgiveness, how broken the world was, and looking forward to a time when all things would be made right, or not broken. That was all I got.The last person decapitated by ISIS was a Muslim. 99.99 percent of those killed by ISIS are. So I would say his parents were likely also Muslims. 900,000 Muslims displaced because they won't join ISIS. At least 100,000 additional Muslims in concentration camps. Twice the casualty numbers of 9-11 monthly. 19 Iraqi journalists.
5 European or American Journalists and aide workers decapitated, well over a 1,000,000 Muslims, tortured, killed, beaten, displaced, starved and left to die along the roadside because they couldn't keep up during death marches for standing against ISIS.
Edit: Sorry for inaccurate numbers, I was using two month old UNAMI information. The numbers are about double that with their latest report.
