So your entire argument is that atheism leads to worse oppressive regimes than religion, and your evidence is one person?

So what did you decided and figure out in your question of fact? What are Africans are they human or sub human?

I might want to get some popcorn for this one.

Sorry it's not complicated enough for you, but I lead a good life. I'm kind to others and care for my friends and family. I don't lie or cheat. And I don't need your god (or anyone's) to be the way I am.

Happy to be an atheist. Not at all afraid of an eternity in hell...

You torture and murder animals though, for the pleasure of your tastebuds,and dont' give it a second thought. Why? Because it's culturally acceptable. If you lived in the south in the slave holding era, you would probably have owned slaves, and considered yourself "living a good life" and "kind to others".

No man is an Island. It's tempting to think that your morality is your own, but it's usually absorbed from your culture, which is turn is often derived from your culture's religious history. The incredibly evil things you do without even thinking show that. You probably balk at the idea that what you do to obtain meat is evil, such is the indoctrination of your cultural norms. Similarly, men in Saudi Arabia consider letting a woman have personal freedoms to be evil, and consider it good to keep her in her place and always escorted by men. Why? They're human like you are. They've just absorbed a different culture.

You have Christianity partly to thank for the fact that you're a moral person, whether you can stomach that truth or not.

The culture under which using animals for food (or the owning slaves) is considered acceptable, is still based on Christianity, as you've been saying itt. You wouldn't resort to cherry picking, would you?


(Barely necessary scripture: And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Genesis 9:1–3)

Questioning the fact whether we should kill animals for our meat wasn't even at question until secularists did it. Proper christians had no problem killing animals whatsoever. Neither did they have any problem killing africans, which according to some people weren't even human, so whatever.

Also I gotta love those peaceful christians that think gay people are going to hell. Go **** yourselves. Seriously I hope you get whatever punishment you wish upon gay people.

This is another false belief. The ignorance of Christianity and history of people who are arguing with me is astounding. Many of the early Christians were vegetarians
Agreed. I'm not making this a Christian vs atheist thing. On the contrary - I'm pointing out that W0X0F in his atheism and belief he's a good person does things that will one day be viewed worse than the Holocaust or slavery. Like the good things he does, he does them because he's absorbed them from his culture, a culture which derives powerfully from Christianity. Is it a coincidence that his morals are identical to the ones derived from Christian ideals, both the good and the bad? Of course it isn't.
Christians are kinder to gays than all others. It's part of the Christian spirit not to judge and to live and let live. Lived imperfectly to be sure, but it still results in a kinder society. Contrast with Islam, which murders and shuns them, or the mass extermination of gays as "defective" biological units in atheist Russia, China, Cambodia.

As bad as Christian societies are toward gay people, all others are worse. Thus you should be thanking Christianity on your knees for how gays are treated in the West.

So what did you decided and figure out in your question of fact? What are Africans are they human or sub human?

I heard you the first time. I ignored it because I'm not going to buy into your weird fetishism of potential racism. Plus it was an aside and not really relevant. It was just a strong example of morality vs questions of facts and how the resolution of questions of fact have drastically altered behavior while not altering moral principles.

Most of the people who did bad things thought they were being basically moral as long as they were following social norms and beliefs. Just like people today.

Oh you are way over the line for potential racism in that post. Its flat out racist.

Describing the views of another age isn't racism. WTF is wrong with you? Have you read any literature whatsoever from that period? Any commentary? People genuinely believed the views I described, en masse. Just like we genuinely believe, en masse, that animals are a lower form of life and it's not morally wrong to cage them, take their young, castrate them, breed them, kill them for food. When we map their brains in 30 years and see the vast similarities - they feel, have a presence, some kind of low level sentience, in fact are not unlike a very dumb human - there will be a new period of shame, and people like you will be called animists and howled down by people like yourself.

Grow up. If you really cared about race relations instead of wanting to posture to feel good about yourself, you'd try a bit harder to understand why people thought what they did. Demonizing those in the past and calling them morally different is a dangerous thing. They were exactly like us, morally, just with different pressures and different beliefs about reality. This is obvious if you think about it, but some people don't. They prefer to demonize different philosophies and call them the "other", when at its base it often comes down to genuinely different beliefs about the nature of reality, and not different morality. Hence why atheism and Christianity can be drivers of very different outcomes even if morality is held constant.

Im not demonizing them im demonizing you and your bs game.


Any answers yet to your questions of fact.What have you figured out?

Not that i expected you to answer your questions with straight up answers.

Are Sub Saharan Africans quasi humans?

All i did was ask you to answer the questions you posed. Its was as easy as saying no i dont think they are a quasi-human animal.

Oh and if you would of put a was instead of an is i would not of asked. So if it is a question of fact what are the facts?

The classification was a fact .In the 19th century and I'm sure earlier, people lived within their tribe or nation so that a German could be contemptuous of a Frenchman or to people of another race which were not normally habitating within the particular nation's boundaries.

It really was a time of an ethnic or national egocentricity. And so, scholars thought nothing of categorizing peoples of other races or nations. this is not an apologia for this activity but a presentation of the mores of another time.

The word "barbarian" was used by the Greek of the Periclean age to denote a lower form of person who was not an Athenian, so to speak. The word has carried into our modern times and became less invidious; "that man is a barbarian; he said with a smile".

There was a change as the ancients spoke of the "age of light" which began, in some form at around 1895 with the forces involved with the peoples mores became more "cosmopolitan". In this the old barriers of nationality, race and tribe were beginning to be overcome and in our time has become a cultural punishable offense to even begin to refer to another according to his/her nation,tribe or race.

This is seen nowadays but the human judgmental attitude still persists for the punishers are as strident in their condemnation as one would have been within a tribe,etc... It seems that mankind is in need of balance a harmony of inner being.

Nothing comes without pain and the wars of the 20th century are evidence of the continued antipathies of nation against nation especially in the "barbaric" west. Rapprochement with our enemies is the call for the times as we enter into the "age of light".

Finally, mores are individual, and so in our times the individual is conscious enough to not blame his nation for our particular peccadilloes ; or another words he can't say "the devil made me do it".

Of course the individual does say it (devil) , in some way, for each of us has to travel through his own destiny and in some way we can help each other with knowledge and comprehension in hopes of leaving the decadent mores of another time.

No one should hide from the past but of course the justification is within those times within the heart of men to which we were in previous times.

Not looking for a history lesson.

It wasn't a history lesson; none given.

I've never tortured or murdered an animal in my life. I thank Christianity for nothing.

This is like Hitler saying he's never killed any Jews. An absurd statement.

Atheists are coming off really badly in this thread.

With you as an atheist that cant be helped.

Yes it's exactly like that. What a stunningly spot on analogy. I have been put in my place.

(You religious people are really kind of nasty and mean spirited. Religious people are coming off really badly in this thread.)

I'm not religious. I'm an atheist.

When something is done on your behalf, at your command, purely for your benefit, voluntarily paid for by you, it's as if it's done by you. This is basic law and morality.

Like i said there was no need for a derail if you gave a simple answer. Even if i was confused by your post thats all it takes to clear it up.

As far as the rest. I get post deleted when i go there so ill stay away form the personal attacks.

Dirty... you deleted it. Should always quote you i guess.

There was no malice. When I saw W0X0F replied, I edited to answer him instead. As for you, this is what I said:
Your brain is so addled with race politics that you're not even understanding context or plain English. It's kind of sick, man.

I picked it because it was a brilliant example of how morality doesn't tell us what the facts are to which we apply that morality, and how horribly wrong we can get it.

How we view the world, factually, is often more important for moral outcomes than morality. Thus we tortured and enslaved our fellow humans for generations because we thought they were less, even though the morality was likely identical. Even God-given religious laws only tell you a part of morality. A small part at that.

Such was the point of my example. Black people weren't enslaved because Christians were bad, they were enslaved because the people of the age genuinely believed they were less and and effectively non-persons/non-entities. Their observations and their common sense told them this. Just as we wholeheartedly believe the same now for animals. Now we know the error of our ways for black people.

You want to pretend that the enslavers were bad people. Maybe some of them were. But at a cultural level, they believed that what they were doing wasn't that different, morally, to what was done to animals.

Similalry, witches weren't killed because the people doing the killing were evil people. They were killed because the people genuinely believed that witchcraft represented a serious danger to their mortal souls and the souls of their loved ones, and that an all-powerful being had commanded the to get rid of them.

Yet in spite of the terrible things that religion has led us to, atheism (and atheist ideas) have lead to far worse outcomes, far more dead, far more oppressed, then religion has ever done. That's all I'm saying.

This is the power of ideas. Where do you think atheist materialism leads, more often?