Not to you TS but just to be clear. This is what i read and where i stopped reading. Its all present tense and a direct question to the reader.


If it was this.

No confusion.


No i mean the insult dog post you made with malice. Dirty deeds.

I think you are adding "torture" unnecessarily into the equation. Also don't you kill and torture plants and trees for your taste buds too? Or have you made your mind up and think you are above plants in your equation? Or plants don't deserve to live on without you murdering them for your own selfish needs?

I also don't agree with your morality view. True you get molded to think a certain way, yet think deeply enough I feel you can get away from mainstream thinking and come up with your own set of logical rules(morals) and live by those.

I also don't agree with your views about men in SA. If they understand logic and I think they do then they would know that it is wrong to do the things they do in regards to woman. If you want to condone their behavior and simply state well "hey they are human, they don't know any better" than I think you are missing the point completely. In my opinion they are bad people, they fully understand that it is wrong yet do it anyway, no I will not agree with you that they are not to blame! They make a conscious decision to behave a certain way, may they get what is coming to them!

Apart from the atheists obviously and several others in history and currently I expect - but you obviously just quoted Islam. You know, cultures that treat homosexuals as equals rather than letting them live and calling them sinners behind their back - and all the other excuses used by Christians to "protect their children". You're just a troll at this point.

My God man. This is just a standard literary usage to bring the reader into the present of 300 years ago. The later passages make clear what I'm doing, as does the context I'm discussing it in (questions of fact that that vastly change how we act while having the same morality - hence even unchanging biblical law involves much interpretation).

You're so OCD on race issues that you get triggered and can't think rationality. You see racism everywhere like people with OCD see germs everywhere. It's a sickness man.

Trees and plants lack a nervous system or awareness. Social mammals, in contrast, have feelings, fear, longing, anguish, pain, affection. They're 90+% human in their cognition and emotional centers. Just intelligence lacking, really.

I agree, but how many actually do this? I contend that 95+% just absorb it from social norms, which in this case means atheists absorbing it from Christian norms. Short of revolution (like the atheist revolution in China and Russia, where they restructured their society by force on atheist Marxist principles), this is how society works on most moral issues. Have you read Aristotle's The Politics? You should. A brilliant, deep thinker, including on morality. Yet he defends slavery as natural and right. How few feel their way away from mainstream thinking? They're as rare as poker players figuring out, on their own, Sklansky's Theory of Poker. Most people just follow and learn from what others do.

I don't condone their behavior. I think Islam is the most evil practicing cult on Earth today (and has been for 60 generations), and represents a greater long term threat to women and free thought than Nazism ever did. Still, you need to realize that nearly everyone in these cultures believes they are doing the right thing with regard to women. Many of the women themselves do. Such is the power of cultural moral indoctrination.

I love how you take an example of extremist regime that oppressed their citizens into a system as proof that a system doesn't work. Try forcing christianity upon anyone and it doesn't work. Try forcing islam upon anyone and it doesn't work. It's cute that you totally dismiss any other factors in society and blame atheism for everything.

Yeah yeah yeah. And your lynching diminishing and IQ and testosterone were all just intellectual curiosity. Maybe if you stop bringing AA and their deficiencies you give them up and you stop with your racism ill stop bringing it up. You seem to have some OCD on the issue yourself.

You truly are a piece of **** though even outside or that. Dirty and without honor. Feel free to ignore my OCD on making comments on your consented jabs at AA and others.

What you close to a perma and thats why the deleting and lying about your post to me?

When are you going to attempt to draw this line between atheism and immoral behaviour?

Use your own definition:
...and describe the steps from "I am an atheist" to "As a consequence, I believe People X should be exterminated". It should be easy, if it is as obvious as you claim. If this is too much, describe the steps from "I am an atheist" to "As a consequence, [any behaviour of your choice]".

People perform terrible actions in the name of their god. Also, people are hypocrites.

That doesn't even make any sense. Mods can read all posts and edits. I neither deleted or lied; you're just acting unhinged.

Here's what happened. I wrote a quick reply without quoting (your post was the last when I did). As I submitted it, W0X0F's post came through, so my quick reply looked it was to him and made no sense. I then edited my post immediately to reply to him instead, intending to go back to you. Your reply then came in a minute later, without me realizing.

I even told you this right after:
But you're so high on social justice warrior "sniffing out the bad guy" Power Ranger craziness, you make the crudest attribution errors and think that anyone who doesn't think like you must be a bad person all around. This is standard for your ilk. Given your "let's get the witch" pitchfork instincts, I think I'm a far better person than you will ever be.

Let it go, man. You're coming across as obsessed. Have the last words, nothing more to say here.

I thought I'd put this case together quite strongly here and there. Perhaps I have to make a post about the evil consequences of atheism on some percentage of the population. History has a ton of examples; while atheists comprise a few percent of the population historically, most of the worst mass murderers in the Christian world have been atheist (Stalin, Mao, most of the German SS, many of the nationalist and communist dictators, etc).
People are nicer than you think. Half of all Christian soldiers refuse to shoot at other troops, not wanting to kill someone with God watching. They deliberately miss. In fact it's a huge problem in war, such that it was extensively studied by military planners.

You are going with you did not delete a bunch insults to me? Ok... But yeah this is a dumb conversation.

Really? It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. The lack of malnourishment has probably significantly changed the average human, and it seems plausible to me this includes their moral attitudes. More to the point, you are focusing too much on the individually created sense of morality, rather than socially constructed ones. I'm not a cultural relativist - why shouldn't I think that some modern societies are more moral than past ones? You seem to think morality is just a matter of how blameworthy people are, but at a society-wide level this doesn't seem correct at all.

This may be apropos or maybe not:

Slavery in ancient Greece :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...ce#Terminology

Where I disagree is in your assumption that our acceptance of something as a fact is ipso facto morally neutral.

It was just an honest mistake that these slavers thought it was okay to profit off of the Middle Passage? We shouldn't condemn them for this?

So? Factory animal butchery is incredibly cruel and people who support it should be ashamed of themselves.

In general you are making the same assumption here you often make, which is that a simple correlation between the belief that x is morally okay and x happening shows that the belief that x is okay is the cause of x happening and so the morally relevant variable.

I don't know if you are aware but it seems like you are cherry picking here. In my opinion you are in direct contradiction here yet you are trying to justify that it is fine to kill and eat plants/fruit but not ok to kill animals.

Although I'm not disagreeing with you and there are probably layers, (it's ok to kill a dog if it acts crazy, prob don't kill a human if it acts crazy) in my opinion it's still not justified to kill, not that we have a choice in the matter but if we did would we choose the food pill and not kill anything at all?

Another scenario an ancient Alien civilization created animals, they look alive and similar to humans but they need to live in order to grow, so we can eat them eventually. They don't have to eat but they got bored after 100 million years of not eating and just existing. Since the invention of the body nanobot regulator nearly 95 million years ago, they decided to invent live animals to once again enjoy food and stimulate their taste buds.

I mean if you were the creator how would you feed yourself exactly? What would you create to eat?

I gave up because I thought he was just doing this to be argumentative (and because of the stuff he posted in the Chester Bennington thread), but maybe he does actually believe this is a logical assumption to make.

I'm making no such assumption whatsoever. I'm not providing a formal proof that atheism -> evil acts. It's weird that you even think that. I've had much more nuanced conversations with Christians, frankly.

I'm pointing out the ways in which:

- Atheist societies have been incredibly evil, all of them. Atheists are a tiny fraction of the world's population, yet the three avowed atheist societies have been places of oppression, mass murder and horror
- The makers of the philosophies that created those society claimed atheism as an inspiration and necessary part.
- Religion probably acts a blocker to the darker forms of materialism and seeing humans as mere biological units, in the people with dispositions that might think that way
- Religion blocks the most fervent isms. When there is no God, justice on Earth is the ultimate thing, and thus any action to achieve something like Marxism becomes justified. You no longer answer to God, but the state, which replaces God as the moral arbiter and righteous holder of power (the same thing happened in Japan, incidentally, where the emperor is a "living God"/divine, but they're otherwise atheists compared to Christians).

If you don't realize that these traits of atheism are somewhat likely to lead to horrors, and provably have via direct causal philosophical links (NOT correlation), then I think you're blind, or at the very least ignorant of history and how the various isms have risen and why.

There is no connection whatsoever with this and the idea that atheists are a bad person, or that atheism is inherently evil. None. We're talking about the societal effects of atheism. My personal belief is that atheists who develop their own moral framework and reasons will be more up to the point where their survival is seriously threatened, and then far less moral than Christians.

Still. I contend that atheist societies will almost always drift toward being evil and repressive eventually, for a couple of the reasons mentioned above. We're a mere generation out of Christianity, and most people are still Christian or at least religious (atheists are a minority everywhere except maybe China). And the past 70 years since WWII have been very unusual. There's been a single global Christian superpower which has pressured the world into acting morally in various ways, and checked the spread of isms.

Just lol.

"- Atheist societies have been incredibly evil, all of them. Atheists are a tiny fraction of the world's population, yet the three avowed atheist societies have been places of oppression, mass murder and horror Again, 3 data points
- The makers of the philosophies that created those society claimed atheism as an inspiration and necessary part." It's irrelevant what they claimed. They probably weren't above lying.

Everything else is your assumed causality because of your prejudiced starting view.

According to you and Original Position, the idea that Jews are an inferior race and that it's morally ok to kill them has no causation with Jews being killed. Anyone who claims such a thing is
No link whatsoever. It's just all happenstance. Even if it's happened.

It's a more extreme example, but it's the same notion.

When Marxism came from an atheist explicitly invoking atheism and its focus on materialism in its ideals, when he said it was a necessary part of that philosophy, there's probably a link between atheism and going into a kind of materialism that has never ever existed in the Christian philosophy and is completely incompatible with it.

To your edit, which I missed:
We have one data point for Nazism. A handful for fascism (itself often closely linked to atheism, but not necessarily). Yet you have no problem whatsoever linking those philosophies with evil. It's a given.

Yet for atheism, it's "three data points".

In reality it's not just three data points. These are entire populations, billions of people under vast geographical areas. Just like the Muslim world isn't 10 or 15 data points - there are far more than that even there are only that many countries.
Is this some kind of high level leveling? You think that Marx was really a Christian pretending to be an atheist to smear atheism? That Lenin was? This is an incredible claim. The milder claim that you could be making is that Marxism has no philosophical links with atheism, and Marx just said it did. This is simply false, there is a large body of literature, and Marx's reasoning is explicitly atheist in parts. Lenin's is absurdly athesist.

You can play the non-cognitivist game ("atheism is just a lack of belief and implies nothing else"), but that's as silly as claiming "the belief in the inferiority of Jews is just a belief and implies nothing else", while ignoring the causative links this has with genociding Jews.

My starting view, my prejudice, was that of course atheism has no links to evil. You have it backwards. It was evidence that led me here, learning about history, reading the actual sources, not my starting view.

It's a strawman.

No, as I said about three pages ago and as others have said, I am saying you don't seem to understand relationships and causality.

You are claiming that somebody who is atheist is more likely carry out genocide. I am saying that a more likely scenario is that someone who wants to carry out genocide is more likely to use atheist reasoning as a justification.

I don't think he understands that when you have a country so destroyed by famine and war and 15+ million dead (WW1 Russia) it is very easy for a revolution to happen. The Tsjar happened to lead a christian nation which obviously didn't succeed, which to me is irrelevant but when the population wants something new they choose something that isn't the establishment. Christianity was the establishment and they failed so miserably that anyone with half a brain could use anything as an excuse to take power.

It's not like the whole country gradually became atheist and planned a genocide. There was an oppressive regime that happened to use atheism as an excuse since it was beneficial.

Name me a society that gradually became more atheistic and started massacring.

Sure. The revolution didn't come from atheism. Just like the revolution in Germany didn't come Nazism. It came from hunger and repression and a feeling of unjustness. But the ideals that arise that created the horror state were from Nazism. Just like the atheist Marxist ideals that took over Russia.

The guys who did eugenics, killed the Jews and Romas, were using atheist science that denies a human soul or the right to life. We're all just animals like cattle, after all, if there's no God.

Atheism wasn't beneficial to these people in gaining power. Often it was a hindrance. It did however lead to their horrid beliefs, however, and their horrid actions.
Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia. A tipping point of atheism, especially among the powerful and intelligentsia, that they were willing to do horrible things for their own ends. Most of the Nazi party members were well known atheists. You should read their writings.

Please don't use the quote function like that - I get what you were doing but a casual reader might think I used the phrase "Jew genocide".

Of course that's different, there's clearly a link between thinking a group is inferior and wanting to carry out genocide of that group because they are inferior, one logically follows the other for people in the first group that might be prone to commit genocide.

There isn't a logical progression from "I don't believe in god" to "I think some people are inferior" to "I think I have the right to kill them". People with tendency to genocide might believe the third phrase anyway, but there isn't a logical link between 1 and 2.