Lies Atheists Tell

[mynameisDan]

In an effort to hide the fact that no arguments exist in favor of atheism, atheists resort to fib telling about religion in order to court favor with the ignorant. To be fair, most atheists are not meaning to be dishonest, they are just spouting the nonsence they have read in atheist books and web sites. The one we will dispose of in this thread is the notion that religion causes war. This whopper promoted by Hitchens in his book "God is not Great" was recently regurgitated by Bill Maher in an interview with Mike Huckabee. Here are the facts.

The Encyclopedia of Wars lists a total of 123 wars which were fought for religious reasons. (Phillips, Charles and Alan Axelrod. Encyclopedia of Wars. New York: Facts on File, 2005.) Yet the list of wars fought totals 1,763. This means that only 6% of all wars have been fought for religous reasons. The other interesting thing to note is that over 1/2 of these "religous" wars were waged by Islamic nations. So by removing that single religion from the equation we have only 3 percent of the wars waged by all other religions combined! And even some of these are questionable as to whether the motive was really religous or secular. In the U.S. a country dominated by Christians, only 1% of all wars have been fought for religious reasons. So by what stretch of logic can we call religious wars "frequent"? Certainly, in light of the facts of history, religion can be held accountable for very few wars by percentage. In addition, religion is responsible for very few deaths when considered as a percentage.

So is there any truth to the claim that organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause?

Short answer. No!

Which religion or philosophy is responsible for the most suffering, violence and death? Actually, the ideology responsible for the most suffering, violence and deaths of innocents is that of atheism in the last Century. Some 40 million are attributed to Mao and another 20 million to Stalin. And most of the damage was against their own citizenry! (Of course modern atheists do not wish to be identified with these atheist regimes. Any wonder why?

 

[Enmos]

In an effort to hide the fact that no arguments exist in favor of atheism, atheists resort to fib telling about religion in order to court favor with the ignorant. To be fair, most atheists are not meaning to be dishonest, they are just spouting the nonsence they have read in atheist books and web sites. The one we will dispose of in this thread is the notion that religion causes war. This whopper promoted by Hitchens in his book "God is not Great" was recently regurgitated by Bill Maher in an interview with Mike Huckabee. Here are the facts.

The Encyclopedia of Wars lists a total of 123 wars which were fought for religious reasons. (Phillips, Charles and Alan Axelrod. Encyclopedia of Wars. New York: Facts on File, 2005.) Yet the list of wars fought totals 1,763. This means that only 6% of all wars have been fought for religous reasons. The other interesting thing to note is that over 1/2 of these "religous" wars were waged by Islamic nations. So by removing that single religion from the equation we have only 3 percent of the wars waged by all other religions combined! And even some of these are questionable as to whether the motive was really religous or secular. In the U.S. a country dominated by Christians, only 1% of all wars have been fought for religious reasons. So by what stretch of logic can we call religious wars "frequent"? Certainly, in light of the facts of history, religion can be held accountable for very few wars by percentage. In addition, religion is responsible for very few deaths when considered as a percentage.

So is there any truth to the claim that organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause?

Short answer. No!

Which religion or philosophy is responsible for the most suffering, violence and death? Actually, the ideology responsible for the most suffering, violence and deaths of innocents is that of atheism in the last Century. Some 40 million are attributed to Mao and another 20 million to Stalin. And most of the damage was against their own citizenry! (Of course modern atheists do not wish to be identified with these atheist regimes. Any wonder why?

Atheism doesn't need any arguments. The point is that theism has no good arguments, hence atheism exists.
Wrap your mind around it, or try it at least.

 

[mynameisDan]

Atheism doesn't need any arguments. The point is that theism has no good arguments, hence atheism exists.
Wrap your mind around it, or try it at least.

one of those atheist canards is that religion is, on balance, negative. And atheists have advanced an argument along this line that religion is the cause of most wars. This argument is the subject of this thread and your refusal to address it is evidence that once again, atheists have no argument. Wrap your mind around that.

 

[Enmos]

one of those atheist canards is that religion is, on balance, negative. And atheists have advanced an argument along this line that religion is the cause of most wars. This argument is the subject of this thread and your refusal to address it is evidence that once again, atheists have no argument. Wrap your mind around that.

Huh.. I agreed that atheists have no argument, did I not ?
What do they need an argument for ?
No need to address anything beyond the first sentence as far as I'm concerned.

And what you call an argument is in fact more like some sort of justification uttered under the pressure of intense criticism from theists.

 

[Nasor]

one of those atheist canards is that religion is, on balance, negative. And atheists have advanced an argument along this line that religion is the cause of most wars. This argument is the subject of this thread and your refusal to address it is evidence that once again, atheists have no argument. Wrap your mind around that.

One could certainly have a lively debate about whether or not religion is good for society on the whole. But it doesn't matter. Whether or not religion is "on the balance, negative" has no bearing on whether or not that religion is actually true. The concept of santa clause might be good for young children over all, but that doesn't make him real.

As an atheist, I am interested in any evidence that christians (or whoever) might be able to present that their religion is actually real and that their god actually exists. I don't feel any particular need to evaluate their religion's impact on society when determining whether or not their god is real.

 

[mynameisDan]

"One could certainly have a lively debate about whether or not religion is good for society on the whole. But it doesn't matter. Whether or not religion is "on the balance, negative" has no bearing on whether or not that religion is actually true."

apparently leading atheists do believe it matters, as they feature the subject in their books. Why do you feel atheists have chosen over and over again to lie about religion causing war???

"The concept of santa clause might be good for young children over all, but that doesn't make him real."

when athesits make these silly apples to oranges comparisons they do nothing to advance their arugment.

"As an atheist, I am interested in any evidence that christians (or whoever) might be able to present that their religion is actually real and that their god actually exists."

no, you aren't. You, by definition have set yourself outside of rational discussion by declaring yourself and atheist and can only be the object of ridicule.

"I don't feel any particular need to evaluate their religion's impact on society when determining whether or not their god is real."

Good, then perhaps you need let your atheists buddies know this and ask them to stop their straw man argument lies in their foolish attempt to denigrate what they have chosen to lack belief in.

 

[Nasor]

apparently leading atheists do believe it matters, as they feature the subject in their books. Why do you feel atheists have chosen over and over again to lie about religion causing war???

Not having read any of those books, I couldn't tell you. Probably the only "atheist book" I have read is Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World," and as far as I can remember he didn't make that claim.

when athesits make these silly apples to oranges comparisons they do nothing to advance their arugment.

I was merely trying to provide an illustrative example how the good or bad effects of a belief don't have anything to do with whether or not the belief is actually correct. Sorry if that was too confusing for you to follow.

no, you aren't. You, by definition have set yourself outside of rational discussion by declaring yourself and atheist and can only be the object of ridicule.

Right. When someone believes a collection on 2000+ year old magic stories about talking plants and animals and people magically conjuring food out of thin air, clearly that person is a bastion of logic and reason. Anyone who isn't convinced that these stories of talking animals and magically-conjured food are true is obviously outside of rational discussion.

Good, then perhaps you need let your atheists buddies know this and ask them to stop their straw man argument lies in their foolish attempt to denigrate what they have chosen to lack belief in.

"What they have chosen to lack belief in"??? I can't choose to believe in something or not. My beliefs are forced on me by logic and evidence. I can't simply decide to start believing in something that seems absurd to me, and I can't choose to stop believing something that appears to be true simply because I don't like it or don't want to believe it. If you really are able to simply "choose" what to believe, I guess that certainly says something about the way your mind works. But perhaps I misunderstood you.

 

[spidergoat]

You only have to look at how some Republicans accused Obama of being a Muslim as a reason he couldn't be president. Religious hatred exists as a cause of conflict. This is in addition to all the typical causes of conflict, which cannot be attributed to a single ideology. The recent conflicts have been way more deadly simply due to the advances in technology, but even examples in the USSR and China have their source in a different kind of ideology which resembled a religion not a product of reason.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

one of those atheist canards is that religion is, on balance, negative. And atheists have advanced an argument along this line that religion is the cause of most wars. This argument is the subject of this thread and your refusal to address it is evidence that once again, atheists have no argument. Wrap your mind around that.

*************
M*W: Maybe you need a little brute force from us in wrapping your head around atheism. Atheism is negative only where gods are concerned. Since you do not have the capacity to understand this simple truth, why do you shame yourself on a scientific forum with your delusions? Further, since you're a christian, why the hell did you come here? Christianity is not a scientific process.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

"One could certainly have a lively debate about whether or not religion is good for society on the whole. But it doesn't matter. Whether or not religion is "on the balance, negative" has no bearing on whether or not that religion is actually true."

apparently leading atheists do believe it matters, as they feature the subject in their books. Why do you feel atheists have chosen over and over again to lie about religion causing war???

"The concept of santa clause might be good for young children over all, but that doesn't make him real."

when athesits make these silly apples to oranges comparisons they do nothing to advance their arugment.

"As an atheist, I am interested in any evidence that christians (or whoever) might be able to present that their religion is actually real and that their god actually exists."

no, you aren't. You, by definition have set yourself outside of rational discussion by declaring yourself and atheist and can only be the object of ridicule.

"I don't feel any particular need to evaluate their religion's impact on society when determining whether or not their god is real."

Good, then perhaps you need let your atheists buddies know this and ask them to stop their straw man argument lies in their foolish attempt to denigrate what they have chosen to lack belief in.

*************
M*W: Strawman? That's you!

 

[mynameisDan]

“ Originally Posted by Nasor
I was merely trying to provide an illustrative example how the good or bad effects of a belief don't have anything to do with whether or not the belief is actually correct. Sorry if that was too confusing for you to follow. . ”

and I was only attempting to show that leading atheist lie when they try to evangelize others into their fold. Your illustration was a poor one in my view.


“ Originally Posted by Nasor
Right. When someone believes a collection on 2000+ year old magic stories about talking plants and animals and people magically conjuring food out of thin air, clearly that person is a bastion of logic and reason. Anyone who isn't convinced that these stories of talking animals and magically-conjured food are true is obviously outside of rational discussion.. ”

what places you outside of rational discussion is your labeling yourself an atheist to begin with.


“ Originally Posted by Nasor
What they have chosen to lack belief in"??? I can't choose to believe in something or not. My beliefs are forced on me by logic and evidence.. ”

so are my own. And logic and evidence has led me to conclude that the bible explains reality, and that there is a God.


“ Originally Posted by Nasor
I can't simply decide to start believing in something that seems absurd to me, and I can't choose to stop believing something that appears to be true simply because I don't like it or don't want to believe it. If you really are able to simply "choose" what to believe, I guess that certainly says something about the way your mind works. But perhaps I misunderstood you. ”

No, I am not able to just believe in something because I want to. I am constrained to test and retest what I believe against the evidence available to me.
No, I am not able to just believe in something because I want to. I am constrained to test and retest what I believe against the evidence available to me.

 

[mynameisDan]

I was merely trying to provide an illustrative example how the good or bad effects of a belief don't have anything to do with whether or not the belief is actually correct. Sorry if that was too confusing for you to follow. .

and I was only attempting to show that leading atheist lie when they try to evangelize others into their fold. Your illustration was a poor one in my view.

Right. When someone believes a collection on 2000+ year old magic stories about talking plants and animals and people magically conjuring food out of thin air, clearly that person is a bastion of logic and reason. Anyone who isn't convinced that these stories of talking animals and magically-conjured food are true is obviously outside of rational discussion..

what places you outside of rational discussion is your labeling yourself an atheist to begin with.

What they have chosen to lack belief in"??? I can't choose to believe in something or not. My beliefs are forced on me by logic and evidence..

so are my own. And logic and evidence has led me to conclude that the bible explains reality, and that there is a God.

I can't simply decide to start believing in something that seems absurd to me, and I can't choose to stop believing something that appears to be true simply because I don't like it or don't want to believe it. If you really are able to simply "choose" what to believe, I guess that certainly says something about the way your mind works. But perhaps I misunderstood you.

No, I am not able to just believe in something because I want to. I am constrained to test and retest what I believe against the evidence available to me.

 

[spidergoat]

Christianity spawned modern science, nearly all founders of all disciplines of science were founded by Christians. Wrap your little atheist mind around that one.

With a little help from the Greeks via the Muslims. Deal with it. Frankly, it used to be impossible to do anything in science without giving lip service to the God crowd.

 

[mynameisDan]

You are an idiot.

you are a fool. There, don't we feel better now?

 

[mynameisDan]

You only have to look at how some Republicans accused Obama of being a Muslim as a reason he couldn't be president. Religious hatred exists as a cause of conflict. This is in addition to all the typical causes of conflict, which cannot be attributed to a single ideology. The recent conflicts have been way more deadly simply due to the advances in technology, but even examples in the USSR and China have their source in a different kind of ideology which resembled a religion not a product of reason.

Yes, as I recall you are one such atheist who has been out propagating this myth. I notice that you are not attempting to refute my statement above with any objective evidence.

 

[Enmos]

Christianity spawned modern science, nearly all founders of all disciplines of science were founded by Christians.

Isn't it ironic ?

 

[mynameisDan]

Isn't it ironic ?

No, it isn't. It is a direct refutation that Christianity stiffles true science and that atheism is somehow its standard bearer.

 

[Enmos]

No, it isn't. It is a direct refutation that Christianity stiffles true science and that atheism is somehow its standard bearer.

LOL yes it is.. IF your claim is true and Christianity spawned science (which it is not btw), it is VERY ironic that science makes religion more or less obsolete and has spawned atheists. Hehe

 

[mynameisDan]

Christianity spawned modern science, nearly all founders of all disciplines of science were founded by Christians. Wrap your little atheist mind around that one.

LOL yes it is.. IF your claim is true and Christianity spawned science (which it is not btw), it is VERY ironic that science makes religion more or less obsolete and has spawned atheists. Hehe

My claim is fact and is easily proven, modern science was spawned in Christianity and most disciplines were founded by bible believing Christians. Science can in no way make biblical faith obsolete. Science is tool for Christians and none to understand the physical world. You have created a false religion out of it.

Science didn't spawn atheists. Evolution spawned and legitmized this faith belief. Evolution has nothing to do with science.

 

[spidergoat]

It is true that the centers of learning in Europe have historically been churches or church affiliated. Sadly, that turned around as soon as the things science began to discover contradicted the literal Biblical view. Christians used to think that everything science could reveal would support their worldview.