What do atheists claim to know nothing about?

[Yrreg]

Unacceptable, namely, the asking them such questions or the idea of killing of theists, destruction of structures, and excision of all writings?

Because I would hope most Atheists, and people in general find death and destruction sickening, and no something they'd want to carry out on any basis.

I mean, it should be clear to religious people by now, that many Atheists think badly of religion, particularly because it can drive people to kill other people, and destroy buildings, simply because they hold different beliefs. And I would hope most people would agree with me that the idea of killing people simply for holding different beliefs should be abhorred. We may not agree with those beliefs, but I personally will not kill someone simply because they have faith in a God and I don't.

If we asked you a similar question, you would most likely be offended that we thought you could carry out such actions (even though from an evidence basis most of the killings are perpetrated by those on the side of religion), so why would you even think that we would want to kill theists and destroy buildings?

As a matter of fact I would not be offended if you ask me a rational theist Christian whether Christians killed each other over doctrinal differences and political conflicts, because the truth is that they did.

And I would not defend one side against the other side in the killing.

I am against all kinds of killing over any kinds of differences, because I believe that mankind can resolve their differences without killing each other.

Now, I will bring to your attention that atheists killed a lot of religious peoples when they were in power during the cold war years, and that because the victims were religious peoples and atheists believed religious peoples should be extirpated from the earth.

Of course you will tell me that the killing was done from political motives and not from ideological grounds founded on atheists being atheists diametrically opposed to religious systems.

Well, you are entitled to your view.

But I still maintain that in fact the atheists during the cold war years ruling over communist bloc countries did kill peoples because of their being religious, predominantly represented by Christians, because religious peoples according to these atheists deserved to be extirpated from the earth.
 
What do contemporary historians say about the issue?


Yrreg

[curiosityandthecat]

As a matter of fact I would not be offended if you ask me a rational theist Christian whether Christians killed each other over doctrinal differences and political conflicts, because the truth is that they did.

And I would not defend one side against the other side in the killing.

I am against all kinds of killing over any kinds of differences, because I believe that mankind can resolve their differences without killing each other.

Now, I will bring to your attention that atheists killed a lot of religious peoples when they were in power during the cold war years, and that because the victims were religious peoples and atheists believed religious peoples should be extirpated from the earth.

Of course you will tell me that the killing was done from political motives and not from ideological grounds founded on atheists being atheists diametrically opposed to religious systems.

Well, you are entitled to your view.

But I still maintain that in fact the atheists during the cold war years ruling over communist bloc countries did kill peoples because of their being religious, predominantly represented by Christians, because religious peoples according to these atheists deserved to be extirpated from the earth.
 
What do contemporary historians say about the issue?


Yrreg

For someone who is so adamant about keeping threads on track (and ignoring pertinent questions to do so), you sure are straying from atheists' epistemological claims.

[Yrreg]

Tell me what pertinent questions you want me to react to or to pay attention to, but I cannot guarantee that I will be able to give you satisfactory attention, because there are questions which have been discussed to the point of impasse, so it is useless to continue on both sides each repeating their best arguments....




Yrreg

[John09]

And I would hope most people would agree with me that the idea of killing people simply for holding different beliefs should be abhorred. We may not agree with those beliefs, but I personally will not kill someone simply because they have faith in a God and I don't.

I am against all kinds of killing over any kinds of differences, because I believe that mankind can resolve their differences without killing each other.

Now, I will bring to your attention that atheists killed a lot of religious peoples when they were in power during the cold war years, and that because the victims were religious peoples and atheists believed religious peoples should be extirpated from the earth.


Yrreg

So, what is your point? Yes, christians have done more than their share of killing others for not agreeing with their beliefs. In the old testament, god commanded the Israelites to kill many nations that did not worship him. Roman catholic christianity is responsible for innumerable killings of both non-christians as well as other christians. The protestant reformers also killed other christians who did not hold to their specific brand of christianity. The early American christians killed non-christians. Even today, christians kill abortion doctors.

If you do not believe in killing over any kinds of differences, you are charging the god of the bible with wrong, since that is what he believes in. You, therefore, are not a genuine follower of the god of the bible.

[iNow]

But I still maintain that in fact the atheists during the cold war years ruling over communist bloc countries did kill peoples because of their being religious, predominantly represented by Christians, because religious peoples according to these atheists deserved to be extirpated from the earth.
 
What do contemporary historians say about the issue?

They say that what you've described is plainly false, and based on some fantasy in your head.  That's not what happened, and history bears this out.  You can maintain your position all you want.  It does not align with reality.

[Reginus]

If you do not believe in killing over any kinds of differences, you are charging the god of the bible with wrong, since that is what he believes in. You, therefore, are not a genuine follower of the god of the bible.

If you are genuinely interested in what theists have to say on this topic, you can look into this blog: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/divinely-i ... -genocide/ posts March through June.

[John09]

If you are genuinely interested in what theists have to say on this topic, you can look into this blog: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/divinely-i ... -genocide/ posts March through June.

I read the blog entry, but was unable to find all the entries related to that one. If you can link me to them, I will read them. I am most willing to read the views of others.

I was a christian for 18 years and have read the bible through and through, so nothing will be new to me.

In the entry I read, the writer did not explain why god would command genocide. He did confess his confusion over his present inability to reconcile his idea of a loving god doing such things. All he did was claim that Jesus opposed the old testament god's ways. It was almost as if he was trying to suggest that Jesus expressed disapproval at god's actions in the old testament.

[iNow]

In the entry I read, the writer did not explain why god would command genocide. He did confess his confusion over his present inability to reconcile his idea of a loving god doing such things. All he did was claim that Jesus opposed the old testament god's ways. It was almost as if he was trying to suggest that Jesus expressed disapproval at god's actions in the old testament.

Which itself is also false as per the bible itself.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said this in reference to the teachings of the OT:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Like many Christians, the commenter linked above asserts (although somewhat implicitly) that Jesus went beyond all of the barbarism and immorality so readily found in the old testament, and that he provides you with a basic doctrine of pure love and toleration. This, too, is false. Here are just a small handful of examples supporting my point:

Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20â€"21, John 7:19


The words of the passages above leave no doubt, and make rather clear that anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one’s neighbor really needs to go back and read the New Testament again. When doing so, they should pay special attention to the quote unquote "morality" that we'll all see and experience if Jesus ever returns to earth (for example, in 2 Thessalonians 1:7â€"9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28â€"29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation). Yeah... be sure to pay special attention at revelation. That's some juicy "loving god" stuff in there.

This is all without mention of how this petty little god needs so desperately for people like me to believe in him, and how he teaches that I will burn for all eternity in a fiery hot place despite all of my good deeds and kindness... all for failure to inflate his ego... an ego more reminiscent of an iron age teenaged male than it is of an all powerful loving god in charge of the entire universe. For clearly stated reasons of “vengeance,” in the good book god has willed that non-believers will need to suffer constant physical torture for eternity. No hope of parole. No chance at pardon.  Nothing except a punishment for all eternity, a teaching which demonstrates plainly that religious belief is motivated more by fear and coercion than it is by reason, merit, or rationality.

Neither the behaviors nor teachings of god/jesus found in the bible qualify as “loving” or "kind" or "giving" by any rational human metric, and can only be described as such by someone whose mind is completely indoctrinated with delusion and made blind to reality.

[John09]

Neither the behaviors nor teachings of god/jesus found in the bible qualify as “loving” or "kind" or "giving" by any rational human metric, and can only be described as such by someone whose mind is completely indoctrinated with delusion and made blind to reality.

My friend, that is exactly what caused me to dismiss and attempt to explain away the christian god's evil ways for so long. What christians wish their god was and what he really is are two different things.

[iNow]

Completely understood.  (I may have let the momentum of my point get the better of me a bit, but)  I was responding more to support and supplement your post in response to the comments shared in the link provided by Reginus.    

[John09]

I was responding more to support and supplement your post in response to the comments shared in the link provided by Reginus.    

I knew you were. I was just giving my own agreement with what you said, since I was guilty of doing it myself.

All good.

[Reginus]

I read the blog entry, but was unable to find all the entries related to that one. If you can link me to them, I will read them. I am most willing to read the views of others.

Sure, here are the other ones (I've only read the first 6 or so):
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/what’s-at-stake-in-trying-to-explain-the-violent-god-of-the-old-testament/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/the-violen ... re-of-god/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/ot-violenc ... -behavior/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/could-old- ... -mistaken/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/a-defense- ... rs-thesis/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/a-critique ... rs-thesis/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/craigie-th ... nt-part-i/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/revealing- ... e-part-ii/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/a-negative ... aigie-iii/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/“shadow”-and-“reality”/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/the-teleol ... -violence/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/whats-up-w ... -nephilim/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/yahwehs-wa ... -nephilim/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/heiser-cla ... my-review/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/boyd-and-h ... -question/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/creach-and ... y-destroy/

Good luck going over all of that  .

[Arctonyx]

But I still maintain that in fact the atheists during the cold war years ruling over communist bloc countries did kill peoples because of their being religious, predominantly represented by Christians, because religious peoples according to these atheists deserved to be extirpated from the earth.
 
What do contemporary historians say about the issue?

I suggest you brush up on history, although it is true that the many of the leaders of the soviet union were atheist and that they committed many atrocities, you've fallen into the fallacy of correlation = causation (well this isn't statistics, but it's like saying that because some tyrant owned birds that all bird owners share in the responsibility). These leaders did not kill religious people because they didn't conform to their atheism, they did such things because religion was an alternate power that had as much if not more sway over people then they did. They did not like anyone having more power then them, so they killed them. Power struggle, not 'you don't believe in God so you must die'. Tyrants have a choice to make:

1) Object to religion, as it's an alternate power that may not agree with you.
2) Embrace religion, say you're on God's mission, appeal to peoples religion to follow you.

Those tyrants are still tyrannical independent of their religious views.

[Recusant]

Good luck going over all of that   .

OK, I've read several posts (basically all of March '08) in the blog you have referenced.  I think this is a very interesting topic, and deserves it's own thread.  Though there has been a bit of acrimony in the dialog between Yrreg and some of the other members of this forum, I believe that it's worthwhile to try to maintain this thread as the place to discuss his questions and various answers.

Thus for those of you who are interested in exploring this line of apologetics, I think I'll start another thread in the Religion section...

[Yrreg]

From Yrreg:
But I still maintain that in fact the atheists during the cold war years ruling over communist bloc countries did kill peoples because of their being religious, predominantly represented by Christians, because religious peoples according to these atheists deserved to be extirpated from the earth.
 
What do contemporary historians say about the issue?

I suggest you brush up on history, although it is true that the many of the leaders of the soviet union were atheist and that they committed many atrocities, you've fallen into the fallacy of correlation = causation (well this isn't statistics, but it's like saying that because some tyrant owned birds that all bird owners share in the responsibility). These leaders did not kill religious people because they didn't conform to their atheism, they did such things because religion was an alternate power that had as much if not more sway over people then they did. They did not like anyone having more power then them, so they killed them. Power struggle, not 'you don't believe in God so you must die'. Tyrants have a choice to make:

1) Object to religion, as it's an alternate power that may not agree with you.
2) Embrace religion, say you're on God's mission, appeal to peoples religion to follow you.

Those tyrants are still tyrannical independent of their religious views.

Well, you have your opinion.

Perhaps one day those religious peoples killed in atheist-communist regimes will take a poll, I mean their countrymen, to find out why they were killed: for being religious or because of wrong politics.


Yrreg