Wow, Mujus. That's a bunch. I'm not sure that atheism itself was responsible as much as doctrines that embrace atheism. Communism in the case of most of those. That's another discussion though.


As I've said, I'm not so much interested in the history of atrocities as getting people to come together and acknowledge that atrocities take place and that its our duty to be on guard against them.

Crazy, just like it's not Christianity that's responsible for the misdeeds of those who call themselves Christians.

I think I see what you are saying Mujus. I think I'm going in a different direction in my thinking on this. My point is more for all of us to see that attrocities take place, and I don't think that any of us would sit and defend the slaughter or mistreatment of others. So, my stance is more about looking at history and saying "Wow, we've done some terrible things collectively. Christians, Muslims, Communists, etc. humans have the propensity to be inhumane. Sitting on the sidelines we can say "this or that is misguided", but I think ultimately we don't move forward in the commitment to combat that impulse unless we see it as something we could fall victim to.

God rules and anyone who doesnt like it or doesnt believe it will go to hell

I don't think we can blame religion for the misdeeds of all the atrocities in the history of mankind. People always refer to the Crusades and regard those who were a part of it as murderous brutes, those violent Christians. When regarding the Muslims, people say, those extremist Muslims think they are going to heaven when they blow themselves up to kill other people. The true source of all misdeeds are people. It is the individuals who have taken part in these atrocities. Religion is not the source, but many argue that.

But perhaps, in the cosmic sense, all these atrocities are humane.
Crazy_Anglican said, "Wow, we've done some terrible things collectively. Christians, Muslims, Communists, etc. humans have the propensity to be inhumane." In the long course of human history, we have fought and battled each other out the way we see fit. So what I'm saying is, to commit such atrocities is actually humane. I think you have severely limited the meaning of being humane. To be human has a very broad meaning. Don't go all emotional on me now, saying that it is because I haven't faced such atrocities that I can say that the Armenian Genocide was humane. Please, just don't.

The source of all conflict is people. The individual. We should stop blaming our problems and deflecting our responsibilities to a mere religion. Are you going to blame religion for all those suicide-bombers? Do you think it was religion that has inspired these young minds? It is the priests and whatever influential people there are that has convinced these young minds. The problem is in people.

Therefore, this whole notion of Christianity vs Atheism is just non-sense. Heck. WWJD? - "What would Jesus do?" All these Christians you see today who choose to display prejudice don't reflect Jesus. All these close-minded Catholics who are comfortable in their ever so self-righteousness don't reflect Jesus. And wow, look at Atheism. Either most of them are just pure idiots slandering anything they think aren't fit to their eyes, or they just spit out what they think is right for no apparent reason.

I respect Atheists and I consider them revolutionaries because believing that there is no God is actually a very advanced concept. But most Atheists aren't quite aware of its implications, so I don't acknowledge the whole Christianity vs Atheism crap.

CA, I agree with what you are saying, and subscribe to # 2 of the "common ground" resolutions. :-)

Thanks Mujus,

still in agreement, that's cool.

@ Hyperion,

I think I follow what you're saying, and yes if I'm right about your interpretation. Humane does indicate an idealized "How we should treat one another" while human would indicate "How we actually treat one another".


As far as Atheism vs. Christianity, I have never really seen myself as anti-atheism so much as pro-Christianity. Which was the reason, I found the article interesting. I like the idea of finding some issues we can agree on since there was definitely not a lot of agreement with the article's points.

So,

@ texastough and Hyperion, how about our list thus far: Do you agree with the following statements?

1) “Neither atheists nor Christians are immune to being brought into a mob mentality that allows atrocities to take place."


2) "We're all human; it's our duty to realize that we can commit atrocities, so we can be on guard against them in the future."


3) Both theists and atheists have made attempts to better the world.

Obi? N-Baby? still waiting for you to chime in :-)

Since we've had two statements that I've composed and one that was a joint effort with Jack, how about it? Anyone else want to try to compose plank #4 in our bridge?

Pol Pot wasn't even an atheist, let alone a communist. That example is a total failure. Stop putting the crimes of a racist CIA puppet regime on the socialist world. As for the rest, it's too tedious to debate someone who is just going to plagiarize wikipedia and declare that the gospel truth. It'd take too long and you don't bother listening anyway.

"All these Christians you see today who choose to display prejudice don't reflect Jesus."

Evidently the quote from Jesus blaming Jews for all the world's problems escaped your attention.

Putin, Pol Pot was the leader of the Marxist/Maoist/Communist Party, and under his control, this is what happened in Cambodia:
"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, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were put in the S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were summarily executed. Confessions forced at S-21 were extracted from prisoners through such methods as raising prisoners by their arms tied behind and dislocating shoulders, removing toenails with pliers, suffocating a prisoner repeatedly and skinning a person while alive.[18]

According to François Ponchaud's book Cambodia: Year Zero, "Ever since 1972, the guerrilla fighters had been sending all the inhabitants of the villages and towns they occupied into the forest to live and often burning their homes, so that they would have nothing to come back to." The Khmer Rouge refused offers of humanitarian aid, a decision that caused a humanitarian catastrophe: millions died of starvation and brutal government-inflicted overwork in the countryside. To the Khmer Rouge, outside aid went against their principle of national self-reliance.

Property became collective, and education was dispensed at communal schools. Children were raised on a communal basis. Even meals were prepared and eaten communally. Pol Pot's regime was extremely paranoid. Political dissent and opposition was not permitted. People were treated as opponents based on their appearance or background. Torture was widespread, thousands of politicians and bureaucrats accused of association with previous governments were executed. Phnom Penh was turned into a ghost city, while people in the countryside were dying of starvation, illnesses, or simply killed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

And, this professor considers Wikipedia to be a reasonably reliable first reference, nearly as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in some ways and better in others, although not suitable for citation in an academic research paper.

As for your plagiarism comment, please. You're sounding desperate!

Stop talking about shit you do not know about. Desperate? You're the one who never learned anything that wasn't in wikipedia, and have no capacity to think for yourself or form your own opinions whatsoever.

"On communism: “We are not communists … we are revolutionaries” who do not ‘belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina.” (Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Michael Vickery, p. 288).

Michael Vickery, Cambodia: 1975-1982. Boston: South End Press, 1984.

The fact is the old Indochinese Communist Party was split into pieces in the 50s, and former members of this group unified with Cambodian nationalists in Cambodia. The uneasy truce between these two groups meant they didn't even call themselves communists, indeed the existence of the so-called CPK wasn't even announced until after it came to power, out of pure opportunism. The repression by the monarchists forced the party to go underground, and all the old ICPers left for Vietnam while the nationalists remained.

Your buddies, the most Christian US government, bombed Cambodia to bits in 1970, and smashed the Sihanouk regime, implementing a puppet government. Resentment at the US led to large numbers joining the so-called Red Khmers, including the aforementioned ex-ICPers who had fled to Vietnam. But these ex-ICPers were soon after purged, violently, for being too pro-Vietnamese.

Solath Sar was a Cambodian nationalist of the Narodnik variety. He liquidated the Cambodian working class. He was also a paid servant of the CIA and US imperialism.

So kindly shut up about Pol Pot.

Anyway, it is likely true that the US bombings of Cambodia killed more people than the Solath Sar regime in the first place. Score more points for Christianity.

But Putin, two wrongs don't make a right. The US may have committed numerous atrocities but that does not make Pol Pot blameless.

I never said he was blameless. I said he was a paid agent of the CIA who nonetheless still managed to kill less people than the bombings which brought him to power.

He was also a Therevada monk, and used Therevada Buddhism as an ideological gloss to justify his liquidation of the working class.

Putin, your numbers are wrong. The U.S. bombings may have killed over half a million people, but Pol Pot's regime killed over 2 Million. Also, he was at a monastery for only between a year and two years--BEFORE he was transferred to an elementary school at age or 8. And 95% of Cambodians were Theravada Buddhists, AND I think your grasp of history is off a bit. Apart from the argument itself, why do you feel the need to berate people who have different opinions than you??

All these Christians you see today who choose to display prejudice don't reflect Jesus


No True Scotsman fallacy.

"If they disagree with me, then they're not true Christians." Cue Germany losing a third of their population because different groups of Christians had to butcher each other over differences in theology. ( Which to me is the rough equivalent of having a brutal 30 year war over the type of bear that Pooh-bear is.)

Jack, I'm willing to refute your arguments that are based on facts and honest difficulties, but I'm not willing to continue to respond to emotionally-laden messages like your Pooh-bear comment. It's up to you if you want to continue the dialogue on those terms.

Mujus, I think by now you must realise that you are dealing with anti-theists rather than atheists. Therefore any thought of agreement or finding common ground is futile. These guys would spit in the face of God if he were standing in front of them.

What he said.

Jack_Klein, my point may have seemed like a fallacy, but it is not, because Jesus was a perfect being, according to the story, and I am Christian only because of the story. The story is what makes this Jesus-figure so true and touching. That is why I will never abandon this idea.
I think that incident has more to do with failure to choose reason over emotion, and losing the essence of what makes one Christian. It is not really to do with claims of the ultimate truth. And also, there may have been a mob mentality in that incident.

Crazy_Anglican -
1) “Neither atheists nor Christians are immune to being brought into a mob mentality that allows atrocities to take place."

You know.. I'm not sure. Cuz a mob mentality can form even amongst the most intelligent people. For example, those who choose reason over everything else can form a group and form a somewhat mob-ish group. My opinion regarding the 'mob mentality' is you can only be in a mob if you recognize that your mentality is being fueled by a group of people with the same opinion. You may be in a mob but your mentality may not be in that mob mentality state if you are still thinking as an individual. Most mobs are formed under a common feeling, not reason. So regardless of Atheist and Christian, one can be immune to this mentality if he recognizes it.

2) "We're all human; it's our duty to realize that we can commit atrocities, so we can be on guard against them in the future."

Yes, we are all human and we can commit atrocities. Atrocities may be the simple act of hating someone.

3) Both theists and atheists have made attempts to better the world.

Yes, true that. The Christian influence has influenced the world profoundly. Some of our most basic values have been influenced by Christianity. Art and music and architecture, literature, science, all have been influenced by Christianity. I'm sure there are more. Influence as in, not done by the person who is christian or atheist, but the influence of the idea behind Christianity or atheism.

Mujus, you do nothing but quote wikipedia. That's sum of your argument. You called me a minion of Satan for disagreeing with you, so kindly shove your sanctimonious holier-than-thou garbage somewhere where it's more useful.

Solath Sar didn't kill 2 million, but you guys just make up whatever number you want and call anybody who disputes it Hitler (ironic). The bombing in Cambodia killed more than a half million, but what do you care.

Solath Sar and the top leadership of the CPK were all Buddhists. They were not atheists. Buddhism played a big role in the ideology of the CPK. Go read a book.

I'm sorry, Mujus. I find your religion silly. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

The differences between Protestantism and Catholicism DID cause several brutal wars and massacres. And yes, I do think they're having a fight over a series of fictions.

If you like, its like watching the Harry Potter vs Twilight crowd argue. Just with more slaughter, gibbets, and burning. Its arguing over what fictional bullshit you want to buy into.

Also, Mujus... you're the one asserting fantastic claims. You make the assertion that there is a God, and that he watches over everybody, he has a plan for the world,is all powerful, but we have free will, and the world tends more towards the shitheap than paradise.

You make the fantastic assertion, the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove its worth giving any time to.

So prove the God case. And I'll be ready to cut it to smithereens. I'll even get the scotch out so I can enjoy it a bit more.

Jack, I see that I'm not able to refute the kind of antagonistic prejudice that you seem to think is a reasonable way to interact with others. I'm not called to prove anything to anybody--just to let you know the truth I've come to know. What you do with it is up to you.

"The differences between Protestantism and Catholicism DID cause several brutal wars"

The differences between capitalism and communism have also caused several brutal wars. Perhaps the causal agent here is not so much the beliefs themselves but the fact that humans have a tendacy to fight about their beliefs. Thus it even if we all became athiests we would still have intolerance, perceution and wars. Or does anybody seriosly believe we would have utopia?