Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The atrocities of atheism, Albania.

johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:17:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 10:54:47 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:23:42 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:45:09 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:17:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:19:14 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:


There is no need for us to continue further,

Why? You haven't conceded the argument yet.

I do not agree with your semantic argument and language structure.....You are claiming atheisim can not do anything because it is simply non belief.....Heres a little eye opener for you buddy........Those with non belief ( The atheists), Killed, tortured, and imprisioned, and punished those who had belief or faith

You wouldn't claim that they were void of beliefs.

And you wouldn't claim that these crimes were not the cause of beliefs.

And you conceded that atheism is doubt.

And it's more than obvious that the these beliefs were those of violent communists. They *believed* the best way to deal with the problems of religion in Albania (real and perceived) was to exterpate religion altogether.

This is voilent anti-clericalism, i.e., state atheism. It's not atheism, per se or an extension of atheism.

....Ie' those who hold no belief, Atheists, Killed punished and tortured people who had beliefs.....Call it communism, call it stallinism, call it voodo magic, whatever

Did Is say I concede? No. I said I do not agree with you.

I was saying that we should continue the discussion until you concede the argument.

Convincing yourself doesn't prove anything, I am not convinced, and nethier do I need your verification.

Until you've dealt with my arguments, you aren't justified in your belief that the atrocities in Albania were the result of atheism.

I don't need your justification.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:23:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 11:16:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The point here is that johnlubba needs to apologize to every atheist for the actions of all Radical Muslims, because they're theists and so is he, which is essentially his argument for why all of atheism is tarred by the actions of the Albanian Stalinists.

Just as all individual religious sects take on MORE than simple theism, Communistic governments take on MORE than simple atheism.

I guess you missed the post where I mentioned that not all atheist fall under this umbrella.

If the argument is that not all atheists are to be tarred with the same brush...Then I agree.... But I will add, that anybody who would not conform to an atheistic mind set and renounce all faith and belief in God, were punished and tortured and imprisioned and killed by those who encouraged an atheistic state....God dammit it...why is this so hard for you guys to see......Believers were attacked by non believers to the extent or torture and death....... I care little for the political titles of communisim and stalinsim....It was simply believers being punished by non-believers.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:24:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe that was a general "justified", as in, if you ignore arguments against your position completely, but hold on to your position nonetheless, you are not justified in holding that position.

It was a nice way of saying that you're being stupid.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:27:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:23:51 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 11:16:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The point here is that johnlubba needs to apologize to every atheist for the actions of all Radical Muslims, because they're theists and so is he, which is essentially his argument for why all of atheism is tarred by the actions of the Albanian Stalinists.

Just as all individual religious sects take on MORE than simple theism, Communistic governments take on MORE than simple atheism.

I guess you missed the post where I mentioned that not all atheist fall under this umbrella.

If the argument is that not all atheists are to be tarred with the same brush...Then I agree.... But I will add, that anybody who would not conform to an atheistic mind set and renounce all faith and belief in God, were punished and tortured and imprisioned and killed by those who encouraged an atheistic state....God dammit it...why is this so hard for you guys to see......Believers were attacked by non believers to the extent or torture and death....... I care little for the political titles of communisim and stalinsim....It was simply believers being punished by non-believers.

So where's my apology for all the crap Muslims do, then? For the record: "It was simply believers being punished by non-believers" is a GROSS oversimplification, which is why you've been called to task for it.

This was not about ATHEISM, this was about STALINISM, to which the atheism is incidental, considering the state and the leader is to be worshipped with the same fervor as God in theism. Caesar called himself a god; would it have made a practical difference if instead, he's said there were no gods but that he wanted to be worshipped nonetheless?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:29:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 11:22:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:20:01 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:05:19 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:26:57 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:24:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

"A dogmatic Stalinist, Hoxha considered religion a divisive force and undertook an active campaign against religious institutions,"

The anti-religious fervor game from Hoxha's Stalinism. Both Hoxha's atheism and his anti-theism, were an effect of his "dogmatic" Stalinism. Now, I'm not a Stalinist or a Communist, so I can't say to what degree his interpretation of that dogma should have resulted in antitheism, but nevertheless, it did.

You have done little more than display a post hoc fallacy. They were atheists. They were antitheists. Ergo they were antitheists because they were atheists.

That is not an accurate portrayal, as I have just demonstrated. With a scant 5 minutes of looking a bit deeper.

Actually an unwarranted violent oppression on those who practice a religious faith springs to mind.

Caused by dogmatic Stalinism... not atheism.


No, No, No, Still a violent oppression against anybody inclined to a religious faith springs to mind, formed by an alegiance of radical atheistic thought..... Hitler did not try to kill all non Christians and did not stand for Christians, A country that declares itself an atheistic state and wages an agenda against those of any type of faith, falls into a catergory of radical atheisim.....Obviously not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella.....But the organisation that commited these attrocites indeed stood in favour for atheistic values and surpressed any opposition to it's idelogy.... Hence atheisim has a lot to do with it.

There is no such thing as atheistic values, just like there is no such thing as theistic values. Is there a thing outside of the belief of the existance of God, that ALL theists can agree upon? Clearly not. Just like there isnt anything outside the disbelief of a God, that all atheists can agree on.

Its also not an ideology. An ideology needs to be a group, a body of beliefs and doctrine. Atheism is a single disbelief. You cannot call a single thing a group, a collection.

All those who hold no belif, ie atheists, vilolently opressed all those who held belief, ie people of faith.....Simple.

First you say "Not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella", and now you say that all atheists do.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Damn you guys justlove splitting hairs.... How about if I say all those involved....Happy now. Does that change the fact that believers were killed and tortured and punished and imprisoned by non believers.......No.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:29:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And, of course, as has been pointed out to you, the Stalinists would persecute atheistic buddhists with just as much fervor as they persecute the theists, which, again, means that this wasn't about ATHEISM, so much as it was about Stalinism's desire to have the state and its leaders be worshipped as though they were gods (but without the title, because that's icky).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:31:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:29:22 PM, johnlubba wrote:


Damn you guys justlove splitting hairs...

It's not splitting hairs to point out that what you said was contradictory. You're on a forum: all you have is your words, and nobody is going to somehow psychically know you didn't mean what you said.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:31:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:24:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe that was a general "justified", as in, if you ignore arguments against your position completely, but hold on to your position nonetheless, you are not justified in holding that position.

It was a nice way of saying that you're being stupid.

I'm tired of repeating the same old thing, I already told him I do not agree with his views....Don't attack me with your ad hominems good sir.......do you like that now?......does that please you to exchange insults.....
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:33:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:31:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:29:22 PM, johnlubba wrote:


Damn you guys justlove splitting hairs...

It's not splitting hairs to point out that what you said was contradictory. You're on a forum: all you have is your words, and nobody is going to somehow psychically know you didn't mean what you said.

Go fu ck your self you fucing cu nt....you pri ks start with insults....I wasn't even talking to you wan ker.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:35:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:31:58 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:24:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe that was a general "justified", as in, if you ignore arguments against your position completely, but hold on to your position nonetheless, you are not justified in holding that position.

It was a nice way of saying that you're being stupid.

I'm tired of repeating the same old thing, I already told him I do not agree with his views....Don't attack me with you ad hominems you fuk ing cu nt........do you like that now you cock sucing wan ker......does that please you toi exchange insults you mother fuc king cu nt.

First: It wasn't an ad hominem. I was explaining what another poster was saying, and explaining that it was a polite way of calling you stupid; you CLEARLY were suffering from a lack of reading comprehension then, just as you are now.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:39:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:35:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:31:58 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:24:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe that was a general "justified", as in, if you ignore arguments against your position completely, but hold on to your position nonetheless, you are not justified in holding that position.

It was a nice way of saying that you're being stupid.

I'm tired of repeating the same old thing, I already told him I do not agree with his views....Don't attack me with you ad hominems you fuk ing cu nt........do you like that now you cock sucing wan ker......does that please you toi exchange insults you mother fuc king cu nt.

First: It wasn't an ad hominem. I was explaining what another poster was saying, and explaining that it was a polite way of calling you stupid; you CLEARLY were suffering from a lack of reading comprehension then, just as you are now.

Don't talk wet you cock.....saying my points are not justified unless I challenge them is not calling me stupid you cu nt. you thought you would try to be smart by calling me stupid yourself....Go fu ck your self.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:40:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:19:52 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:20 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 4:16:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
John, what is you definition of atheism?


My definition of atheism is a lack or absence of belief in God, which is stupid, it's not as if I lack or have absence of a belief in pink unicorns.

Ok, so we agree on the definition. Now the reason atheism is not stupid, is because, unlike unicorns, 90% of humanity believe in god. As such, it is necesarry to have word for people who do not.

Now, how is it that the lack of a belief in god has caused these atrocities?

Are you gonna answer this question John?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:42:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.

You think calling me stupid on somebody elses behalf makes you clever, but you a thick piece of sh it who can't hold a discussion civilly and hopes to provoke your opponents temper such as you have....you a fuk ing low life piece of s cum....I hate fuk ing bullys and would love to fu ck you up.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:46:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:40:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:19:52 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:20 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 4:16:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
John, what is you definition of atheism?


My definition of atheism is a lack or absence of belief in God, which is stupid, it's not as if I lack or have absence of a belief in pink unicorns.

Ok, so we agree on the definition. Now the reason atheism is not stupid, is because, unlike unicorns, 90% of humanity believe in god. As such, it is necesarry to have word for people who do not.

Now, how is it that the lack of a belief in god has caused these atrocities?


Are you gonna answer this question John?

Because those who lack a belief in God and held no beleif, ie atheist, punished tortured killed and imprisioned those who did.......Why isn't that understandable.....

If a group of black people kil a group of white peoplesimply because they are white...isn't that a racist attack...??? Of course not all black people all over the world are accountable...but those that were killed simply because of a difference in colour...in the other case it was because of a difference of opinion. atheists tortured the theists.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:47:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:42:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.

You think calling me stupid on somebody elses behalf makes you clever, but you a thick piece of sh it who can't hold a discussion civilly and hopes to provoke your opponents temper such as you have....you a fuk ing low life piece of s cum....I hate fuk ing bullys and would love to fu ck you up.

So, to be clear: I'm the bully here, not the person who can't seem to string a sentence together without trying to cheat the curse filter, and has now multiple times threatened physical violence on posters simply for expressing an opinion you disagree with?

I know what to get you for Christmas now! A dictionary!

Side note: Pretty sure "scum" is not filtered, you didn't need to use your cute little "the mods won't notice if I put in a space" trick.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:53:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:47:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:42:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.

You think calling me stupid on somebody elses behalf makes you clever, but you a thick piece of sh it who can't hold a discussion civilly and hopes to provoke your opponents temper such as you have....you a fuk ing low life piece of s cum....I hate fuk ing bullys and would love to fu ck you up.

So, to be clear: I'm the bully here, not the person who can't seem to string a sentence together without trying to cheat the curse filter, and has now multiple times threatened physical violence on posters simply for expressing an opinion you disagree with?

I know what to get you for Christmas now! A dictionary!

Side note: Pretty sure "scum" is not filtered, you didn't need to use your cute little "the mods won't notice if I put in a space" trick.

You idiot...you called me stupid first even if it's what you were translating for another user, and yes I would love if I could fu ck you up. Just to be clear.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:47:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:42:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.

You think calling me stupid on somebody elses behalf makes you clever, but you a thick piece of sh it who can't hold a discussion civilly and hopes to provoke your opponents temper such as you have....you a fuk ing low life piece of s cum....I hate fuk ing bullys and would love to fu ck you up.

So, to be clear: I'm the bully here, not the person who can't seem to string a sentence together without trying to cheat the curse filter, and has now multiple times threatened physical violence on posters simply for expressing an opinion you disagree with?

I know what to get you for Christmas now! A dictionary!

Side note: Pretty sure "scum" is not filtered, you didn't need to use your cute little "the mods won't notice if I put in a space" trick.

I couldn't post what I wanted to say to you without tricking the cursor you twat....and I've already reported myself to airmax for my profanities and it's now in their hands if I will remain a member here, but with di ck heads like you around who call people stupid and think they can get away with it...makes the site less appealing.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 1:00:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:47:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:42:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.

You think calling me stupid on somebody elses behalf makes you clever, but you a thick piece of sh it who can't hold a discussion civilly and hopes to provoke your opponents temper such as you have....you a fuk ing low life piece of s cum....I hate fuk ing bullys and would love to fu ck you up.

So, to be clear: I'm the bully here, not the person who can't seem to string a sentence together without trying to cheat the curse filter, and has now multiple times threatened physical violence on posters simply for expressing an opinion you disagree with?

I know what to get you for Christmas now! A dictionary!

Side note: Pretty sure "scum" is not filtered, you didn't need to use your cute little "the mods won't notice if I put in a space" trick.

And just to be clear again, I will not return to this post and fuel your trollish behaviour which began by calling me stupid....you can whistle in the wind. nobody will hear you,.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 1:02:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:42:23 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:37:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
And second: devolving into curses, as you have, for no reason (and for a second time, no less!), and complaining about others posting when YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM, does not reflect well on you.

You think calling me stupid on somebody elses behalf makes you clever, but you a thick piece of sh it who can't hold a discussion civilly and hopes to provoke your opponents temper such as you have....you a fuk ing low life piece of s cum....I hate fuk ing bullys and would love to fu ck you up.

I would have to say it is your gratuitous use of obscenities that is not conducive for holding a civil discussion. You're letting your passion get the better of you. You're points would be better received if you refrained from using this emotionally charged vitriol.

In debate, it is generally the case that cooler heads prevail.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 1:13:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:40:15 AM, drafterman wrote:

Cool, then we agree that it isn't a sect of atheism.

sect (skt)
n.
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
_______________________________________

No. We do not agree. Agnostics, for example, are a sect of atheists (neither have faith in a deity, and are therefore atheist by definition, but are different in practice and self-identification...thus, sects)

Well, I didn't set that bar, you did.

Actually, we both did. You just set yours ridiculously low.

How can you gain knowledge about something (spirituality) that doesn't exist?
That's like being an expert on unicorns. Not, like, an expert on the myths of unicorns, but an expert on real unicorns.

spir"i"tu"al (spr-ch-l)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.

________________________________________

Spirituality is not dependent on a belief in a deity. Those who believe in a deity equate spirituality with having a soul. Those who don't equate it to the mind. It's the same thing; the only difference is the source.

Well, now that I have your permission...

I now rescind that permission.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 1:34:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 1:13:57 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
No. We do not agree. Agnostics, for example, are a sect of atheists

This is categorically false.

(neither have faith in a deity, and are therefore atheist by definition, but are different in practice and self-identification...thus, sects)

Then you might be surprised to learn that there is such a thing as Agnostic Theism.

http://www.answers.com...

http://educatheist.files.wordpress.com...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 1:36:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:24:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe that was a general "justified", as in, if you ignore arguments against your position completely, but hold on to your position nonetheless, you are not justified in holding that position.

It was a nice way of saying that you're being stupid.

Thanks for clarifying what I meant, though I didn't mean it as a concealed insult.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 2:14:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 1:34:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 3/1/2013 1:13:57 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
No. We do not agree. Agnostics, for example, are a sect of atheists

This is categorically false.

To be a theist, one must have faith in a deity. Agnostics do not have faith. They are therefore atheist. They simply self-identify as something other than what they are.


(neither have faith in a deity, and are therefore atheist by definition, but are different in practice and self-identification...thus, sects)

Then you might be surprised to learn that there is such a thing as Agnostic Theism.

http://www.answers.com...

http://educatheist.files.wordpress.com...

I'm aware they exist. I'm also aware of CatDog (who I assume, as a cat, poops out of the dog mouth side, and vice versa). The term is an oxymoron. The people who identify as such are simply morons.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:50:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 1:36:59 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:24:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe that was a general "justified", as in, if you ignore arguments against your position completely, but hold on to your position nonetheless, you are not justified in holding that position.

It was a nice way of saying that you're being stupid.

Thanks for clarifying what I meant, though I didn't mean it as a concealed insult.

I didn't think it was that bad of an insult. Perhaps "dumb" would have been a better adjective, I suppose? I wasn't trying to be a jerk. Flippant, yes, but for criminy's sake, johnlubba's response is clearly unbalanced.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:56:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 2:14:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/1/2013 1:34:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 3/1/2013 1:13:57 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
No. We do not agree. Agnostics, for example, are a sect of atheists

This is categorically false.

To be a theist, one must have faith in a deity. Agnostics do not have faith. They are therefore atheist. They simply self-identify as something other than what they are.


(neither have faith in a deity, and are therefore atheist by definition, but are different in practice and self-identification...thus, sects)

Then you might be surprised to learn that there is such a thing as Agnostic Theism.

http://www.answers.com...

http://educatheist.files.wordpress.com...

I'm aware they exist. I'm also aware of CatDog (who I assume, as a cat, poops out of the dog mouth side, and vice versa). The term is an oxymoron. The people who identify as such are simply morons.

That's a bit unfair, they're just using the term differently than you are.

These days, "agnostic" is generally taken as a epistemological term, as opposed to a theological one.

One can say "I'm not CERTAIN there is a god (and/or I believe it cannot be known that there is a god), but I have a faith that there is one", and one can say "I'm not CERTAIN there is not a god, but I feel like there is no good reason to believe".

Also:
"Out on the road or back in town
"All the little critters put catdog down
"Trying to be brothers
"Trying to get along
"Trying to walk together
"Trying to sing this song
"Trying to walk together
"Trying to sing this song

Catdog
Catdog
Alone in the world was a little Catdog!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:00:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:29:22 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:22:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:20:01 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:05:19 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:26:57 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:24:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

"A dogmatic Stalinist, Hoxha considered religion a divisive force and undertook an active campaign against religious institutions,"

The anti-religious fervor game from Hoxha's Stalinism. Both Hoxha's atheism and his anti-theism, were an effect of his "dogmatic" Stalinism. Now, I'm not a Stalinist or a Communist, so I can't say to what degree his interpretation of that dogma should have resulted in antitheism, but nevertheless, it did.

You have done little more than display a post hoc fallacy. They were atheists. They were antitheists. Ergo they were antitheists because they were atheists.

That is not an accurate portrayal, as I have just demonstrated. With a scant 5 minutes of looking a bit deeper.

Actually an unwarranted violent oppression on those who practice a religious faith springs to mind.

Caused by dogmatic Stalinism... not atheism.


No, No, No, Still a violent oppression against anybody inclined to a religious faith springs to mind, formed by an alegiance of radical atheistic thought..... Hitler did not try to kill all non Christians and did not stand for Christians, A country that declares itself an atheistic state and wages an agenda against those of any type of faith, falls into a catergory of radical atheisim.....Obviously not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella.....But the organisation that commited these attrocites indeed stood in favour for atheistic values and surpressed any opposition to it's idelogy.... Hence atheisim has a lot to do with it.

There is no such thing as atheistic values, just like there is no such thing as theistic values. Is there a thing outside of the belief of the existance of God, that ALL theists can agree upon? Clearly not. Just like there isnt anything outside the disbelief of a God, that all atheists can agree on.

Its also not an ideology. An ideology needs to be a group, a body of beliefs and doctrine. Atheism is a single disbelief. You cannot call a single thing a group, a collection.

All those who hold no belif, ie atheists, vilolently opressed all those who held belief, ie people of faith.....Simple.

First you say "Not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella", and now you say that all atheists do.

Stop contradicting yourself.



Damn you guys justlove splitting hairs.... How about if I say all those involved....Happy now. Does that change the fact that believers were killed and tortured and punished and imprisoned by non believers.......No.

Well, no, im not splitting hairs, since you clearly said ALL.

So now do you accept that it wasnt atheism that caused these atrocities, it was communism/stalinism?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:12:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:46:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/1/2013 12:40:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:19:52 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:20 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 4:16:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
John, what is you definition of atheism?


My definition of atheism is a lack or absence of belief in God, which is stupid, it's not as if I lack or have absence of a belief in pink unicorns.

Ok, so we agree on the definition. Now the reason atheism is not stupid, is because, unlike unicorns, 90% of humanity believe in god. As such, it is necesarry to have word for people who do not.

Now, how is it that the lack of a belief in god has caused these atrocities?


Are you gonna answer this question John?

Because those who lack a belief in God and held no beleif, ie atheist, punished tortured killed and imprisioned those who did.......Why isn't that understandable.....


If a group of black people kil a group of white peoplesimply because they are white...isn't that a racist attack...??? Of course not all black people all over the world are accountable...but those that were killed simply because of a difference in colour...in the other case it was because of a difference of opinion. atheists tortured the theists.

Ok, so let me get this straight. You believe that these people, being atheists, decided to kill all those who were not atheist, so as to have a purely atheist country.

I believe the issue here, is that you don't want to look past the atheism. You just see the atheism, and miss completely, the Stalinism that actually caused this. A good analogy for this situation would be if there were a group of whites killing blacks, and you were simply saying that they were killing these black people because they aren't white. But in actuality, they were doing it because the black people did not conform to their political idelogue.

You have to understand, while the fact that these people were religious was the reason they were killed. This is not the same as not being atheist.

Atheists can be religious to, and a religious atheist would have been killed just the same.

It isn't atheism vs theism, it's Stalinism vs religion.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:37:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 12:08:02 PM, Polaris wrote:
The biggest cause of dictatorial mass murder and genocide: Mustaches.

Tom Selleck is a force for peace in the middle east. Shame on you for doubting the power of the 'stache.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.