truelgbt wrote:sorry double post.

ain't that the truth

lol

And crawling on the planets face, some insects called the human race. Lost in time, lost in space, an in ... meaning.

I just want to know how truelgbt came up with their username - I mean is it even possible to be all of those things at the same time? I think not, and even if it were, why choose it as a username? Perhaps I shoulda called myself 6ftwhitebritishmale...oh no wait I've got an imagination.

Agrippina wrote:I thought about this subject. What about all the tens of thousands of people "smote" by God in the Old Testament? Surely that's genocide associated with God and his people, not atheists.

From an objective point of view, genocide by God and his people can only be used as a claim against Christianity if:
1) God does in fact exist.
2) The God of the OT is the true God as depicted in the OT.
3) The OT events actually happened as recorded in the OT.

Is that what you are lending support to? All those 3 points?
Or are you just saying that what they believe in makes them guilty of genocide too? That would be a weak argument, especially coming from an atheist who claims there is no God, if you are an atheist of course.

On the other hand, the list of genocides in the Original Post happened in modern times and are indeed true by all accounts although the actual numbers of those murdered varies somewhat but still in the millions dead.

truelgbt wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I thought about this subject. What about all the tens of thousands of people "smote" by God in the Old Testament? Surely that's genocide associated with God and his people, not atheists.

From an objective point of view, genocide by God and his people can only be used as a claim against Christianity if:
1) God does in fact exist.
2) The God of the OT is the true God as depicted in the OT.
3) The OT events actually happened as recorded in the OT.

No, there is another point to be made, namely that the people who claim to be worshiping a loving God evidently (through their continued worship of a character described as having ordered and perpetrated unspeakable genocides) have lost their minds, and that their claims about morality (including but not limited to their views on the moral status of abortion) are vacuous and hypocritical in the extreme. Particularly when these self-appointed "moral policemen" take time out of their day to criticize atheists for their views on morality and then turn around and try to explain away why God orchestrating a genocide of an entire people is somehow a good thing.

Nobody is claiming "the bible says God committed genocide, so the bible is false". Rather, the point is that we are tired of hearing your religious bullshit about sin and morality when you repeatedly try to apologize for and explain away unspeakable evils depicted in your patently absurd religious scriptures. Shove it up your fucking arses we are tired of hearing your horseshit.

truelgbt wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I thought about this subject. What about all the tens of thousands of people "smote" by God in the Old Testament? Surely that's genocide associated with God and his people, not atheists.

From an objective point of view, genocide by God and his people can only be used as a claim against Christianity if:
1) God does in fact exist.
2) The God of the OT is the true God as depicted in the OT.
3) The OT events actually happened as recorded in the OT.

Is that what you are lending support to? All those 3 points?

No. What she's pointing out is that Christians claim that morality comes from their genocidal god.
Christians cherry-picking the bible does nothing to change that, nor does that fact require one to believe the OT is a historical record.

truelgbt wrote:Or are you just saying that what they believe in makes them guilty of genocide too?

No, why is it you struggle so much with reading comprehensions?

truelgbt wrote: That would be a weak argument, especially coming from an atheist who claims there is no God, if you are an atheist of course.

And atheist is not someone who claims there is no god.

truelgbt wrote:On the other hand, the list of genocides in the Original Post happened in modern times and are indeed true by all accounts although the actual numbers of those murdered varies somewhat but still in the millions dead.

None of them being committed due to atheism however.

Rumraket wrote:Rather, the point is that we are tired of hearing your religious bullshit about sin and morality when you repeatedly try to apologize for and explain away unspeakable evils depicted in your patently absurd religious scriptures. Shove it up your fucking arses we are tired of hearing your horseshit.

1) "Your"? Who do you mean by "your"? It's not my bullshit. I never preached to you or anyone else here. Just because I'm asking questions which everybody else should have already asked does not make it my bullshit. Maybe you're the one bullshitting. You're talking like your panties are pulled up in a twist, lol.

2) About preaching morality, I'm sure some religious fools may have done so. But exactly WHO preached their morality to YOU personally? Its so easy for any of us to play the victim and just say this or that so just asking.

3) I'm not defending or apologizing for or explaining away unspeakable evils am I? Where? Show me my post where I did that? You LIE.

4) WHAT specific moral deficit were they talking about? Lying? We know that's immoral. Stealing? Got that too. Murder? Obviously. By "morality" if you are talking about lying, stealing, murdering - well those are all precepts of any society so who needs to cry about that? You? Don't you live in a society with moral rules and their associated civil laws? Civil laws dictate whether you did something immoral or not and whether you deserve jail time.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And atheist is not someone who claims there is no god.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:None of them being committed due to atheism however.

Whether atheism had any influence either way is not supportable either way. There is no way to determine this.

I think the OP was simply using the atheist genocide list to say, "Whether atheism had a part in these genocides I cannot say for sure but its one hellava coincidence that the most famous genocides of the 20th century and the dictators involved were atheists. That was his point. Coincidence.

The amazing thing is, nobody on this forum has argued against or defended this 'coincidence' up to now.

Is it a coincidence? Yes or No? Why?

This has been debunked so often. Why in the hell do people give oxygen to these people who seem to be unable to read and comprehend.
He is of course talking bollocks like they all do.

The OP is showing that there is one hellava COINCIDENCE that the most famous genocides of the 20th century and the dictators involved were atheists.

NOBODY has debunked the COINCIDENCE factor by showing that these dictators were not atheists although they said they were IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

You need to show that the dictators did not say what they did about their atheism. Unfortunately, the internet says they did.

Calilasseia wrote:Heh, think of the trillions of insects that would have been exterminated...
From Table 3, the data for numbers of animals per square metre for each of the 13 sampled sites, reading along the row for Collembola (Springtails), is as follows:

42,000
70,000
59,000
88,000
38,000
51,000
57,000
71,000
100,000
68,000
45,000
81,000
120,000

The point I'm making here is that the numbers of insects that would have been exterminated, if the fantasy "global flood" had been real, would have run into trillions.

Comparing the deaths of insects to the deaths of humans is pure desperation not to mention absolutely idiotic and reprehensible by all standards including us skeptics - atheists, agnostics, pretty much everybody on this planet.

truelgbt wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:None of them being committed due to atheism however.

Whether atheism had any influence either way is not supportable either way. There is no way to determine this.

I think the OP was simply using the atheist genocide list to say, "Whether atheism had a part in these genocides I cannot say for sure but its one hellava coincidence that the most famous genocides of the 20th century and the dictators involved were atheists. That was his point. Coincidence.

The amazing thing is, nobody on this forum has argued against or defended this 'coincidence' up to now.

Is it a coincidence? Yes or No? Why?

What do you mean by coincidence? Are you asking whether we think there is a necessary connection between atheism and dictatorship? No, we don't think that, so yes it is a coincidence. Done.

Now what?

truelgbt wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And atheist is not someone who claims there is no god.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So?

Still a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

truelgbt wrote:The OP is showing that there is one hellava COINCIDENCE that the most famous genocides of the 20th century and the dictators involved were atheists.

It is no more hellava coincidence than that they were all men.
What you need to do is to actually demonstrate a causal link between the two.

truelgbt wrote:NOBODY has debunked the COINCIDENCE factor by showing that these dictators were not atheists although they said they were IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Shifting the burden of proof once again.
It is up to you to demonstrate that their atheism is causally connected to their acts of genocide.

truelgbt wrote:You need to show that the dictators did not say what they did about their atheism. Unfortunately, the internet says they did.

truelgbt wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Heh, think of the trillions of insects that would have been exterminated...
From Table 3, the data for numbers of animals per square metre for each of the 13 sampled sites, reading along the row for Collembola (Springtails), is as follows:

42,000
70,000
59,000
88,000
38,000
51,000
57,000
71,000
100,000
68,000
45,000
81,000
120,000

The point I'm making here is that the numbers of insects that would have been exterminated, if the fantasy "global flood" had been real, would have run into trillions.

Comparing the deaths of insects to the deaths of humans is pure desperation not to mention absolutely idiotic and reprehensible by all standards including us skeptics - atheists, agnostics, pretty much everybody on this planet.

A vapid appeal to emotion.

truelgbt wrote:NOBODY has debunked the COINCIDENCE factor by showing that these dictators were not atheists although they said they were IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

I agree, there's no reason to doubt their sincerity about their professed beliefs. If they say they were atheists, I believe them. I just don't see what their actions have to with their nonbelief.

There are and have been millions and millions of politicians and world leaders who are atheists who have not at all engaged in, advocated for, or expressed any interest in dictatorship or genocide. So yes, it's a coincidence.

truelbgt,
Please define the motivation and thinking behind a lack of belief in a supernatural deity as justification for genocide which would include the death of believers AND NON-believers of said deity.

truelgbt wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:None of them being committed due to atheism however.

Whether atheism had any influence either way is not supportable either way. There is no way to determine this.

Except that there is, by acknowledging what atheism is and isn't. One thing it definitely isn't is a worldview or other form of imperative that leads to genocide.

truelgbt wrote:I think the OP was simply using the atheist genocide list to say, "Whether atheism had a part in these genocides I cannot say for sure but its one hellava coincidence that the most famous genocides of the 20th century and the dictators involved were atheists. That was his point. Coincidence.

Bollocks it was the vapid PRATT that Christians offer to discredit atheism or in response to examples of Christian genocides and violence.

truelgbt wrote:The amazing thing is, nobody on this forum has argued against or defended this 'coincidence' up to now.

Is it a coincidence? Yes or No? Why?

It is fact that it is a coincidence. There's nothing to argue against or defend.