Atheism Kills

[KT45]

This is youtube video created by a user called "theskepticantidote". It is basically saying you can't compare the number of people christians killed compared to the number of people atheist have killed.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rZtsNT4WIHI

 

I personally don't like the fact that he lumps all atheist into one box and then doesn't want to include catholics into his box. If you are going to lump atheist together and generalize them as one group you might as well lump all theist into one box as well and start doing death counts. Anyway I went looking for the stats he found and i couldn't find them. The video he based this off of is from another video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DhcsMnv-hU

This video has a link to this site here

http://www.fellowshipofthemartyrs.com/articles_martyrdom.htm

I looked there but still couldn't find his stats!

 

Anyway just want to know your thoughts

[BCRoyWatson]

This is youtube video created by a user called "theskepticantidote".

 

I wonder what kind of stats I could come up with I used his flawed reasoning, but did it in reverse -- call a killer a Christian unless there's incontrovertible evidence that the killer was an atheist and killed specifically for atheist reasons? Hmmm ....

 

Here's a start. The FBI says that 15,517 people were murdered in the US in 2000. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_3.pdf, p 14) That's probably in the ball park for the murder rate today, so I'll just go with that, because frankly I don't wanna spend any more than five minutes on this.

 

Now, "theskepticantidote" seems to believe that Communist=atheist, and thus any murder which happens in a Communist country is automatically due to atheism. But, Christians like to call the US a "Christian nation," right? So shouldn't the same thing apply? Doesn't that mean that any murder in the US is, of course, the result of Christianity?

 

Of course it does.

 

15,000 murders per year -- well, that's roughly one every half hour. Think about that. Once every half hour, someone in the US is murdered by Christians and Christianity. And those are just murders -- criminal, willful homicide. It doesn't count justifiable homicide, deaths due to negligence, or any of the other ways that one individual can die due to the actions of another individual. And it doesn't even consider deaths by the state.

 

Once every half hour. Think about that. A half hour isn't very long at all. It's a safe bet that while you've been sitting at your PC, web surfing, somewhere in the US a Christian murdered someone. Maybe an honest, law-abiding person, maybe with a spouse and family. Or maybe a child who will never see his or her parents again. But it's a sure thing that whoever it was didn't deserve it. And yet Christians do this every half hour. Over forty every day. Three hundred new victims every week, all because of Christians and Christianity.

 

Sounds pretty scary to me.

[Mike D]

First of all, with only a couple of exceptions this person did not site any sources or background for their research, the majority of it was throwing numbers up, claiming "x number of people killed in year xxxx". So, it's clear whoever made the video is an amateur (probably a teenager) that no intelligent person is going to take seriously. (although Christians aren't always real bright so my guess is any watching that video will probably accept what they are told without question). Second, I am not even sure what his comparison is since he leaves out "godless" Catholics (uhh, hello, Catholics are not atheists moron!!).

 

Bottom line, no thinking person would take this as anything other than a novice attempt at giving Christianity the illusion of "superiority" over atheism on the sole basis of number of people killed under that rule. And he didn't even get the comparison right since he kept referring to communism, and communism is not a form of atheism, it is an economic system. Again, not real bright....

[BCRoyWatson]

So, it's clear whoever made the video is an amateur (probably a teenager) that no intelligent person is going to take seriously.

 

Yeah, it's definitely not a masterpiece. Errors of fact, theology, and so forth aside, some of it's just damned weird, and the guy desperately needs a spell checker. My favorite quotes:

 

"Over 5 million dead bodies: Drowened [sic], burned, quatered [sic], fed to sharks, strangled, starved and bioled [sic]"

 

Sic, sic, sic ... appropriate, I suppose, since this guy is sick, sick, sick ... I'll forgive the occasional typo or grammatical error, but there's just way too much of this sort of thing; it's got "drooling seventeen year old ninth-grader" written all over it.

 

But I did get a good laugh out of this one ...

 

"We give you thanks Lord for without you we are toast"

 

Isn't that an allusion to a Biblical passage? -- "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever turns away from the Lord will be toast, dude."

[Thurisaz]

Soooo...

 

...I won't try to watch that vid here at work (and probably can't due to missing plugins et al), but from what I've read so far, it's standard morontheist bullcrap.

[R. S. Martin]

This is youtube video created by a user called "theskepticantidote". It is basically saying you can't compare the number of people christians killed compared to the number of people atheist have killed.

 

**********

Anyway just want to know your thoughts

 

I didn't watch any of the videos, basically because they take forever to load with my slow internet connection. However, I do have thoughts.

 

My thought is this:

 

If atheism=having no religion, then there have not been enough atheists throughout history to kill a lot of people. How do I know this? I know that for most of human history most humans have been religious.

 

If atheism=no belief in god/gods, then we are talking about something else because some religions don't have a god. Buddhism is the classic example. Apparently this young man does not have too much education around religion. Would such a young man be aware that Buddhists can be called atheists? Buddhists have gone to war against other Buddhists, same as Christians have gone to war against other Christians. WW1 and 2 are major examples of xian vs xian wars.

 

I understand that up till the early 20th century, WW1 was the largest war in human history. And it was Christians fighting other Christians. I'm sure that atheists and other religions made up some of the canon fodder but the leaders of both sides professed Christianity. By now we have had two world wars fought by Christians against Christians. I cannot imagine that the Buddhist wars against each other a thousand or two years ago killed half as many people as did one of these world wars.

 

My definition of Christian: Any person who self-identifies as Christian shall be called Chrisian. This includes Roman Catholics and some Unitarian Universalists.

 

Thus, even if we use the definition of atheist that means no belief in god, we still have more xians than atheists killing people. The numbers just work out that way. For those people who do not consider the killing during war as real killing.........well, let them have their way. I don't really care how a person is killed. Human life is terminated, whether or not the termination was sanctioned by the specific government under whose jurisdiction it occurred.

 

Oops! I see my terminology (termination of human life) leads to debates on abortion. I don't include abortion in the same argument as the killing of fully formed humans outside the womb.

[essence]

This is youtube video created by a user called "theskepticantidote". It is basically saying you can't compare the number of people christians killed compared to the number of people atheist have killed.

 

**********

Anyway just want to know your thoughts

 

I didn't watch any of the videos, basically because they take forever to load with my slow internet connection. However, I do have thoughts.

 

My thought is this:

 

If atheism=having no religion, then there have not been enough atheists throughout history to kill a lot of people. How do I know this? I know that for most of human history most humans have been religious.

 

If atheism=no belief in god/gods, then we are talking about something else because some religions don't have a god. Buddhism is the classic example. Apparently this young man does not have too much education around religion. Would such a young man be aware that Buddhists can be called atheists? Buddhists have gone to war against other Buddhists, same as Christians have gone to war against other Christians. WW1 and 2 are major examples of xian vs xian wars.

 

I understand that up till the early 20th century, WW1 was the largest war in human history. And it was Christians fighting other Christians. I'm sure that atheists and other religions made up some of the canon fodder but the leaders of both sides professed Christianity. By now we have had two world wars fought by Christians against Christians. I cannot imagine that the Buddhist wars against each other a thousand or two years ago killed half as many people as did one of these world wars.

 

My definition of Christian: Any person who self-identifies as Christian shall be called Chrisian. This includes Roman Catholics and some Unitarian Universalists.

 

Thus, even if we use the definition of atheist that means no belief in god, we still have more xians than atheists killing people. The numbers just work out that way. For those people who do not consider the killing during war as real killing.........well, let them have their way. I don't really care how a person is killed. Human life is terminated, whether or not the termination was sanctioned by the specific government under whose jurisdiction it occurred.

 

Oops! I see my terminology (termination of human life) leads to debates on abortion. I don't include abortion in the same argument as the killing of fully formed humans outside the womb.

 

 

 

"Any person who self-identifies as Christian shall be called Christian". I agree. But look at how they evade the obvious in saying "but they were not REAL Christians". I'll suppose that twenty years from now the same excuse will be used for all the Right Wing warmongers who went to Iraq to kill Muslims. And just like all the Germans who were not REAL Christians in their killing Jews. Excusing their bodily members in their murderous activities is no excuse. But they continue to try and get by with it by blaming atheists.

[Mankey]

This is youtube video created by a user called "theskepticantidote". It is basically saying you can't compare the number of people christians killed compared to the number of people atheist have killed.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rZtsNT4WIHI

 

I personally don't like the fact that he lumps all atheist into one box and then doesn't want to include catholics into his box. If you are going to lump atheist together and generalize them as one group you might as well lump all theist into one box as well and start doing death counts. Anyway I went looking for the stats he found and i couldn't find them. The video he based this off of is from another video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DhcsMnv-hU

This video has a link to this site here

http://www.fellowshipofthemartyrs.com/articles_martyrdom.htm

I looked there but still couldn't find his stats!

 

Anyway just want to know your thoughts

 

Blind obedience can kill. It is just as evil to dogmatically worship the state as it is to dogmatically worship anything else.

 

The antidote to dogmatic obedience is Free Thought.

 

I hope no one thinks about kicking me in the balls when I say this but if a Christian were to style themselves a Free Thinker I would never contradict them in that. I just can't do it. I would be happy to debate them on whether or not belief in the Christian God is rational. Hehe.

 

I encourage thinking and at least have respect for others who make me think. I can learn from anybody...or at least I try to.

[WilliamFWN]

The skeptic antidote? I thought skepticism was incurable and often becomes malignant if left untreated, leading to fatalism and to death after around a century of it.

 

What does this person count? People that killed for the concept of atheism? Flat-out ridiculous, that seems. I can't recall a person that killed in the name of atheism. People that were atheists and killed due to their own philosophy? I don't really think that's much of a fair game this idiot is playing. If so, then we need to lump every single Christian on the same boat, like he did with the atheists, and blame them for two millenniums of death, torture, and brainwashing.

 

I really would not even try to do such a thing. I do not mind it when people question many of the tenants of religions or philosophies, but atheism is neither. It is simply disbelief in gods, and I cannot name another real "tenant" or even another hallmark of atheism. I would even question how much of a tenant a disbelief is, as opposed to a belief. Ah well, seems like the kid that did the video is stupid enough anyway.

[Mankey]

The skeptic antidote? I thought skepticism was incurable and often becomes malignant if left untreated, leading to fatalism and to death after around a century of it.

Please expand more on this if you would.

 

I was under the impression that Free Thought was all about people reasoning together openmindedly. "I thought skepticism was incurable and often becomes malignant if left untreated, leading to fatalism and to death after around a century of it." To me this statement is gibberish....but I am just a silly Mankey...

 

 

What does this person count? People that killed for the concept of atheism? Flat-out ridiculous, that seems. I can't recall a person that killed in the name of atheism. People that were atheists and killed due to their own philosophy? I don't really think that's much of a fair game this idiot is playing. If so, then we need to lump every single Christian on the same boat, like he did with the atheists, and blame them for two millenniums of death, torture, and brainwashing.

The important thing to consider is that dogmatic obedience to the state is a very bad thing as history shows. Religion is stuck with the ignorance that exists in its holy books. Religion inculcates dogmatic obedience. Atheism by itself does not do these things.

 

I really would not even try to do such a thing. I do not mind it when people question many of the tenants of religions or philosophies, but atheism is neither. It is simply disbelief in gods, and I cannot name another real "tenant" or even another hallmark of atheism. I would even question how much of a tenant a disbelief is, as opposed to a belief. Ah well, seems like the kid that did the video is stupid enough anyway.

Agreed. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods.

[WilliamFWN]

Please expand more on this if you would.

 

I was under the impression that Free Thought was all about people reasoning together openmindedly. "I thought skepticism was incurable and often becomes malignant if left untreated, leading to fatalism and to death after around a century of it." To me this statement is gibberish....but I am just a silly Mankey...

Maybe I should have explained the first paragraph was a bit of a joke. You're right: it is mostly gibberish (though perhaps a bit of self-projection: I am a bit fatalistic after all). I've had a few weird comments about my stupid jokes today. Earlier, an anonymous troll used my long joke (I made a large quote from another troll's cut-and-paste argument from design, replacing words here-and-there) of the "Delectable Design of a Taco" to try to justify Intelligent Design.

 

I just thought it was a rather stupid name as well. I mean, the skeptic antidote? He assumes too much about sickness based on that of his own.

The important thing to consider is that dogmatic obedience to the state is a very bad thing as history shows. Religion is stuck with the ignorance that exists in its holy books. Religion inculcates dogmatic obedience. Atheism by itself does not do these things.

I agree here as well. I was pointing out that some political and moral philosophies can make slaves out of people, too, and that these philosophies (Communism, etc.) really have nothing to do with "atheism" (i.e. do not necessitate it), per se. Religions and philosophies are a bit different: usually the former relies far too much on dogma, then uses reason to back itself up; the latter uses reason (usually), and sometimes codifies the reason into moral axioms (such as the Pythagoreans). The two are different, but they can cause something similar things, such as wars, massacres, etc., and can also be used by people to justify good, though the original doctrine isn't necessarily "good", itself.

 

Also, I feel I must clarify something. In a way, these philosophies are "atheistic", but only in the sense that the philosophies are secular and have nothing to do with gods. That goes for any idea that does not have its basis in a god of some sort: democracy, fascism, socialism, etc. I feel there is a lot of confusion on atheism, and what it actually is, even among atheists. I also hope that this doesn't look like too much of a contradiction of my last paragraph. The philosophies are "atheistic", therefore secular; "atheism", though is neither a doctrine nor a dogma (despite what Merriam-Webster might say), so no ideas can really be associated with something that is simply not based on a god. Rather, a philosophy can only be "atheistic" (in the sense of advocating the lack of a god over all other religions and such) if the philosophy has that explicitly in one of its precepts. To my knowledge, none of the philosophies I have mentioned necessitated atheism. Modern atheism is (of course) fairly recent, and its vocabulary is rather new as well. There's a lot murkiness in the meaning of "atheism", but that's a different discussion. I was thinking about making a topic of it, myself, sometime.

[Mankey]

Please expand more on this if you would.

 

I was under the impression that Free Thought was all about people reasoning together openmindedly. "I thought skepticism was incurable and often becomes malignant if left untreated, leading to fatalism and to death after around a century of it." To me this statement is gibberish....but I am just a silly Mankey...

Maybe I should have explained the first paragraph was a bit of a joke. You're right: it is mostly gibberish (though perhaps a bit of self-projection: I am a bit fatalistic after all). I've had a few weird comments about my stupid jokes today. Earlier, an anonymous troll used my long joke (I made a large quote from another troll's cut-and-paste argument from design, replacing words here-and-there) of the "Delectable Design of a Taco" to try to justify Intelligent Design.

 

I just thought it was a rather stupid name as well. I mean, the skeptic antidote? He assumes too much about sickness based on that of his own.

The important thing to consider is that dogmatic obedience to the state is a very bad thing as history shows. Religion is stuck with the ignorance that exists in its holy books. Religion inculcates dogmatic obedience. Atheism by itself does not do these things.

I agree here as well. I was pointing out that some political and moral philosophies can make slaves out of people, too, and that these philosophies (Communism, etc.) really have nothing to do with "atheism" (i.e. do not necessitate it), per se. Religions and philosophies are a bit different: usually the former relies far too much on dogma, then uses reason to back itself up; the latter uses reason (usually), and sometimes codifies the reason into moral axioms (such as the Pythagoreans). The two are different, but they can cause something similar things, such as wars, massacres, etc., and can also be used by people to justify good, though the original doctrine isn't necessarily "good", itself.

 

Also, I feel I must clarify something. In a way, these philosophies are "atheistic", but only in the sense that the philosophies are secular and have nothing to do with gods. That goes for any idea that does not have its basis in a god of some sort: democracy, fascism, socialism, etc. I feel there is a lot of confusion on atheism, and what it actually is, even among atheists. I also hope that this doesn't look like too much of a contradiction of my last paragraph. The philosophies are "atheistic", therefore secular; "atheism", though is neither a doctrine nor a dogma (despite what Merriam-Webster might say), so no ideas can really be associated with something that is simply not based on a god. Rather, a philosophy can only be "atheistic" (in the sense of advocating the lack of a god over all other religions and such) if the philosophy has that explicitly in one of its precepts. To my knowledge, none of the philosophies I have mentioned necessitated atheism. Modern atheism is (of course) fairly recent, and its vocabulary is rather new as well. There's a lot murkiness in the meaning of "atheism", but that's a different discussion. I was thinking about making a topic of it, myself, sometime.

Thank you kindly for your response. I could not have said it better.

 

I am worried about the notion that atheists are necessarily immune to being irrational. I value Free Thought. My atheism is not as important.

 

Consider this:

 

Arrests In Southern Tier Vandalism Case

 

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 08:12 PM - WBEN Newsroom

 

Jamestown, NY (WBEN) - State Police have arrested three teenagers in connection with vandalism in a Chautauqua County church.

 

Troopers say the 16 year old male, and two juvenile girls, aged 15 and 14, spray painted slogans such as "Long live Atheism" and burned the American flag hanging from the church on July 4th.

 

The FBI has been assisting in the case as investigators believe it has the earmarks of a hate crime.

 

The females will return to Chautauqua County Probation. The 16 year old male is currently in Chautauqua County jail in lieu of $50,000 bail.

[WilliamFWN]

Thank you kindly for your response. I could not have said it better. smile.gif

 

I am worried about the notion that atheists are necessarily immune to being irrational. I value Free Thought. My atheism is not as important.

No problem.

 

I really do think, though, that "atheism" needs a much more clear definition, so there wouldn't be so many word games one has to play with fundamentalists and other apologists. One has to continually define atheism as something for oneself, but another has a completely different view on the meaning of "atheism" (and related terms, i.e. atheistic and atheist, as well as agnosticism and agnostic) and what the definition of it actually implies. Disbelief in gods, or belief in no gods? No belief in any gods? Strong/positive atheism or weak/negative atheism? It's extremely confusing, as one has to determine what sort of "atheism" the other is talking about. Though I usually don't repeat myself (well, I end up doing it anyway), I think the point did reserve some amount of reiteration.

[Mankey]

Thank you kindly for your response. I could not have said it better. smile.gif

 

I am worried about the notion that atheists are necessarily immune to being irrational. I value Free Thought. My atheism is not as important.

No problem.

 

I really do think, though, that "atheism" needs a much more clear definition, so there wouldn't be so many word games one has to play with fundamentalists and other apologists. One has to continually define atheism as something for oneself, but another has a completely different view on the meaning of "atheism" (and related terms, i.e. atheistic and atheist, as well as agnosticism and agnostic) and what the definition of it actually implies. Disbelief in gods, or belief in no gods? No belief in any gods? Strong/positive atheism or weak/negative atheism? It's extremely confusing, as one has to determine what sort of "atheism" the other is talking about. Though I usually don't repeat myself (well, I end up doing it anyway), I think the point did reserve some amount of reiteration.

Hehe. I edited too late.

 

Atheism is simply a disbelief in Gods. I stand by that.

[Grandpa Harley]

Anyone noticed that most of the worst serial killers of the latter part of the 20th C were active in the church?

[Mankey]

Anyone noticed that most of the worst serial killers of the latter part of the 20th C were active in the church?

I am afraid I know nothing about that....but it does not surprise at all. Crazy is bad enough without Gods "help"

 

As far as the teens go they are irrational...thoughtless....brats.

 

We are not immune to irrationalism because we are all mere Mankeys.

[Grandpa Harley]

I spent a while studying abnormal psychology... Ed Gein and BTK spring to mind, but nearly all are raised in church going families and a lot are active in their local church...

 

[♦ nivek ♦]

NUmbnuTTz reformed vid on YouTube

[Mankey]

I spent a while studying abnormal psychology... Ed Gein and BTK spring to mind, but nearly all are raised in church going families and a lot are active in their local church...

 

Thank you. For most of my life I never was very interested in learning. I was never really curious or questioning.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm almost obsessively a 'knowledge junkie', who collects strange people who do strange things

[Mankey]

NUmbnuTTz reformed vid on YouTube

I loved the dig at the catholics. Hehe. They forget about the protestants and the Native Americans. Watching this made my eyes bleed.

 

Superstition is not a method. It is illogical. It is not consistent. It is not as dynamic as rational methods in discriminating.

 

Still it is very important that all have a voice.

 

Censoring or legislating opinions like superstition or atheism is not the answer to our problems. Many religionist groups lobby and motivate the sheeples to vote based on delusions. Anti-theists as far as I know do not do this. They try to change minds.

[Grandpa Harley]

It worked when they were laying the ground for the superstition to take root... there are time when the weapons of the enemy shouldn't be discounted as 'too terrible to use' since they seem to use them with gay abandon...

[Mankey]

It worked when they were laying the ground for the superstition to take root... there are time when the weapons of the enemy shouldn't be discounted as 'too terrible to use' since they seem to use them with gay abandon...

There is a such thing as a reasoned rhetoric.

 

I do my thing. I do not know..or really understand everything enough to really criticize other heathens.

[WilliamFWN]

He sure didn't live up to his name....

[Mankey]

It worked when they were laying the ground for the superstition to take root... there are time when the weapons of the enemy shouldn't be discounted as 'too terrible to use' since they seem to use them with gay abandon...

I feel that a stronger foundation is got from reasoning and experience. If you know the good you will do the good. Changing minds builds a solid foundation. Other tactics just cause harm.