Atheism - A System Of Belief

[Ciberr]

You must be registered for see images

I'm late . But i love this.

Goo Atheism.

 

[AirWind]

Nice thread btw, but if someone doesnt belief GOD and just relied to science, than its not a belief system, its just an ignorance IMO.

 

[Shinobi Train]

Atheism is a religion just like any other. The only way to not believe in a religion is to know the truth.

The truth will set you free.

 

[FearxDeath]

Spoiler

1. To be an atheist, one must believe that God does not exist. The atheist cannot logically say, "I know that there is no God," for then he would have to know everything. If he admits that there is anything he does not know, it just might be the fact that "God is."
2. The atheist must either believe that matter is eternal (and the evidence against this), or he must believe that matter was its own creator. Two fundamental laws of science contradict these beliefs - the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law indicates matter cannot create itself, and the Second Law suggests that matter is not eternal.
3. Contrary to the law of Biogenesis (life comes only from life, and that of its kind), atheists believe that life was spontaneously generated.
4. Atheists believe that order and design in nature are the results of non-intelligent accidents.
5. Atheists believe that the non-conscious evolved the conscious, and the non-moral evolved the moral.

These points could be amplified many times over, but this is sufficient to explode the notion that atheism operates solely on fact, leaving "faith" to religionists. One who takes the time and effort to investigate such a chrage will quickly find that it is far from the truth of the matter.

Spoiler

AP -> Surveying the Evidence -> Lesson 1 -> Atheism-A System of Belief

Spoiler

First off I am a christian so I am not hating but here are a few things you messed up on x__x

1) You mean Theist and not religionist... thats just sloopy.

2) A better way to phrase your first bullet would be that for the Athiest to be able to assert that there is no god he would need to be able to prove it, which no one has been able to do so far. Alot of Atheist hide behind the false notion that you cannot prove a negative as in to say you cannot prove something does NOT exist. But that is more nonsense, You can prove there is no loch ness monster by draining the lake and looking, you can prove there are no monsters under your bed by looking etc..

3) As the old saying goes, the big bang itself is a supernatural anomaly because it breaks the laws of physics and thus the Atheist argues against God because he is supernatural while there own ideology is as well, so there only reasonable option left is to believe the universe is eternal. And like C.S Lewis says "An egg which came from no bird is no more natural than a bird which had existed for eternity."

4) I think spontaneously generated would upset some thinking Atheist as that statement is outrageously simplified. But yes the Atheist would believe that life sort of came out of nowhere by accident and even then they have no explanation of why it stayed around as long as it has and it has developed the way it has. Not to mention how unlikely it was in the first place.

5) Ravi Zacharius said it best when he said "If your an astronaut and you go to the moon and landed there. And then saw a pedestal you would think, hmm thats weird that looks like a pedestal. If when you got closer to it and you saw carvings on it you would say, whoa its almost as if something carved on that pedestal like thing, but even then you could rationalize it away by saying well over time space rocks scratched the pedestal-like rock. But if you got closer and on the pedestal was written, Hey there earthling we have been waiting for your arrival. You would immediately know that there was some intelligent life on the moon. Because there is an intelligibility behind those carvings that you cannot simply dismiss" And yet this is what the Atheist tries to do on a daily basis.

6) From the christian aspect the argument from morality is one of the best ones I have heard so far. I watched a debate where I heard an atheist asked whether or not he thought a man raping then killing a girl was immoral, and the atheist said that he wouldnt condone the act and wouldnt like it but from a logical perspective he couldnt say it was immoral.

 

[KillerMongoose]

You made three massive blunders!

1. It is FACT that life was spontaneously created!
2. It is FACT that order and design in nature are the results of non-intelligent accidents.
3. It is FACT that the non-conscious evolved the conscious this is known as the brain developing. Your brain is you conscious, if you managed to damage it you would have no conscious.

Though this is not the correct meaning of Atheism, I personally interpreter it is a system based solely on FACTS nothing else. Religion is based on none proven stories and imaginative beings, of which people foolishly worship.

 

[Mr Scruffington]

Yo is this guy trolling? Obviously he doesn't know what atheism means.

Atheism is just one particular position on one thing: that is, atheism is the DISBELIEF in claims about gods. That's right, DISBELIEF, not BELIEF. There's a difference. Some atheists don't even support the theory of evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Atheism is just one stance on one issue, and we disbelieve claims presented by people about gods.

I was going to respond to the rest of his post, but **** it I don't even care anymore lol.

 

[Anorien16]

1. The idea that 2 lazy slums have more to say than 1 MD is just disgusting.

2. I'm sorry, but he did sterilize thousands of sick people, he was forcing women of lower race to abortion.

3. You know what we should do with the past? Shoot it in the head and bury it deep underground.

1. But no less disgusting than a Billionaire holding ego boosting parties while thousands suffer from starvation..... But I think you are essentially misunderstanding the basic principles of Communism, give this a read:

Spoiler

I would like to pose a question that refers to an idea set forth by Marx, in the Communist Manifesto; he says, "It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us" (86). Is Marx accurate in his declaration that a primary concern of a communist society is the resulting 'laziness' of the people? Yes, I believe that the concern is valid. This is because people will receive enough income to survive, no matter how hard they labor. In an ideal communist society, a doctor or a lawyer would make as much income as a sewage cleaner. Then, naturally one asks, what is the incentive to study rigorously at medical school or law school, when one can simply drop out after middle school? Marx seems to indicate that there is a natural desire in humans to forgo work in favor of being lazy. In the end, the equal income allows all people to survive (no matter what kind of occupation they have), and no one person can become richer, or poorer.

Even though the concern of laziness is certainly valid, the possibility of the problem, (I think) is not as likely. In an IDEAL communist society, everyone will have enough money in order to survive. Yes, people could then stop doing things that cause aggravation or work; however, this will also allow people to do whatever they want. Communism would allow people to no longer worry about money, and instead, people could actually pursue their passions. Artists could do what they love (create art) without fear of not making enough money. An avid fisherman could pursue his passion, even if in a capitalist society, his passion would yield no income. A communist society eliminates the concern of money, and allows people to do whatever they want. In fact, people would not be lazy, but instead, would be much more inclined to pursue activities. A normal human, who possesses inherent passions, would pursue his or her passions in a perfect communist society, and in fact would be much less stressed, lazt, and would not be conscious of money.

Also Communism is based on common good of the society as whole and being lazy brings no good to the community and thus in a way against Communistic Work Ethic.

2. Well I dont get the context here...... ur just cementing what I said: Hitler knew shit about how genetics worked.

3. Yes those who does not learn from the past is condemned to repeat it.... both the shame and glory of our respective past is ours to bear, and to grow wiser from it.

Atheism is a religion just like any other. The only way to not believe in a religion is to know the truth.

The truth will set you free.

Uhhhhh.... a cunningly constructed statement there....

 

[Jobrjo]

aSo to attack a certain person u make a thread about his entire group?



bNo problem there... everyone was a freshmen once and no one born educated.



cDo note that 1LoT only considers a system which happens to contain mass and energy... while it can be applied in large scale but there will be trouble if try to apply on a cosmological scale.. too many factors u see.

Also matter itself may not be eternal but..... mass-energy together is seemingly eternal.

Well this would be going off topic so we better not continue here... why dont u make a new thread later on? Cos honestly speaking even I dont know everything.... so other may give some valuable input if we discuss publicly.



dYour comparing the entire world to a engine? Again 2LoT only holds for a system . . . . . . also I dont get it what does Energy Change (Entropy) has to do with being matter being eternal?

U still dont get it? mass-energy can neither be destroyed nor be created but can be interconverted . . . . so what can be the conclusion here?



eYes but do u know that some conductors actually violates Ohm's Law? . . . . . some laws have a limitation too.



fAhh... again: Matter can be neither CREATED or destroyed in a any freaking system (still waiting for an exception though) . . . . . Matter came from energy . . . . . How it came about? Its eternal yes eternal . . . . U dont end up in a loop if u realize that if something can not be created or be destroyed it means its eternal but has the ability change form (E=mc^2)



gCommon sense once said that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but we all know the reality is more complex ....... You will find dedicated+logical+through analysis > common sense ........ Also u can not develop unless u study, if u want to study science first learn what others did, said and considered then analyze them for mistakes and finally build from where others left off...



hU invoke a classic question: if something can not come from nothing, then who created the creator? . . . . . In your analysis who is the father of the artist? then who is his grandfather? and so on .... he could not have as u say spontaneously appeared.... BTW I may know your reply: 'Laws dont bind him' . . . . . . I m sorry to say u can not establish a law and the violate it when it get inconvenient, if u do.. then it can go both ways...

Ah as for life comes from life.... u may soon learn details about viruses, they are a curious bunch.... they under normal conditions show no signs of life but as soon as they are introduced to a proper host cell, they reacts and ultimately forces the host to reproduce for them... they are technically speaking in between living and the non living..... so u see there IS actually a possible bridge between the living and the non living.....

A. No I'm not trying to attack ANYONE :/ Didn't even know who was going to reply lol. I'd appreciate it if we could peacefully reach a conclusion, and have nobody attack anyone. Nothing ever comes from that, other than strife.

B. Okay, thanks.

C. Alright, agreed and for the better. I do plan to continue to make these sort of threads. So instead of saying all on my mind, I'll say that which relates to the topic at hand. An atheist MUST believe that somehow everything got here without a creator. An interesting thing about scientific principles is that they apply, no matter the size or situation. The physical universe is a closed system. At least 1 thing can be said of this: 1) How did it get here? If matter/energy can't be made nor destroyed in a closed system, and if this physical universe is all there is, because matter/energy isn't eternal (2LoT) then matter nor energy should exist. But obviously it does. So how did it get here in order to continue? The atheist must believe that it just simply DID, and cannot explain how within th erealms of the physical universe.

D. Entropy: "A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system"
That right about speaks for itself. We lived in a closed system. Entropy shows that things are on a constant down-ward spiral. If such is the case, it cannot be eternal.
M/E can't be created: Yet it is here. So how did that happen?
M/E can't be destroyed: Of course, but it is constantly becoming less useful due to entropy.
^^Those, coupled with common sense, indicate that matter/energy aren't eternal.

E. Please give examples. For if a law is violated, it is no longer a law.

F. Entropy. Energy is becoming less usable. Because of this, it cannot be eternal.

G. Agreed, that's not what I meant. But such is another story for another time. Moving on then...

H. Fair question. Within the physical universe, you end up in an infinite loop. Yet, matter/energy are finite. But we are here, obviously. So if we are here, then something must have always been there. Something outside of the material world. That, you see, is where God comes in. All the laws of lego-land don't apply to humans. We created that. You must recognize that God has created the physical realm, the universe made of matter and energy in which we live. The Creator is not bound by the creation. That's like saying that if in a video-game people cannot talk, can't walk, and are giant blobs, then it applies to the creator of the video-game. Such is obviously not the case- the video-game characters exist in a completely different realm than the creators.

I'm aware, enough at least, of viruses. They are not alive. Essentially, they are a rock. Just a small rock that functions to give chemicals that produce cells to act upon them. They are just like rocks, water, air, glass, etc. They are not alive, it's just that what they do affects things that do live.

^_^

 

[Jobrjo]

First off I am a christian so I am not hating but here are a few things you messed up on x__x

Good to not hate, haha ^_^ But yes, let us reason together.

1) You mean Theist and not religionist... thats just sloopy.

Okay... if we're going to get nit-picky... lol I'll give you that.

2) A better way to phrase your first bullet would be that for the Athiest to be able to assert that there is no god he would need to be able to prove it, which no one has been able to do so far. Alot of Atheist hide behind the false notion that you cannot prove a negative as in to say you cannot prove something does NOT exist. But that is more nonsense, You can prove there is no loch ness monster by draining the lake and looking, you can prove there are no monsters under your bed by looking etc..

Alright, the methods are synonymous to an extent, agreed. If you can logically prove it, then you'd be set. Assuming one could do so, of course, which cannot be done. But rather quite the opposite. But such is another discussion for another time.

3) As the old saying goes, the big bang itself is a supernatural anomaly because it breaks the laws of physics and thus the Atheist argues against God because he is supernatural while there own ideology is as well, so there only reasonable option left is to believe the universe is eternal. And like C.S Lewis says "An egg which came from no bird is
no more natural than a bird which had existed for eternity."

Theist: Something outside of the physical realm created this universe. Breaks no laws, as they didn't exist then, God would've created the laws Himself, and anyway after the laws are made, all scientific laws apply to physical entities, not spiritual.
Atheist: From nothing came an eternal something which became the organized everything we see today.. Breaks scientific laws.
That's all that's being said there.

4) I think spontaneously generated would upset some thinking Atheist as that statement is outrageously simplified. But yes the Atheist would believe that life sort of came out of nowhere by accident and even then they have no explanation of why it stayed around as long as it has and it has developed the way it has. Not to mention how unlikely it was in the first place.

It's more likely for a hand-grenade to be thrown into a printer-shop and a 5-volume encyclopedia assembling itself than for life to be created. Except, take out the paper, and the ink. It's more than just unlikely, but as time goes on we're finding out that it literally is impossible, even if there were infinity times life could try to create itself.

5) Ravi Zacharius said it best when he said "If your an astronaut and you go to the moon and landed there. And then saw a pedestal you would think, hmm thats weird that looks like a pedestal. If when you got closer to it and you saw carvings on it you would say, whoa its almost as if something carved on that pedestal like thing, but even then you could rationalize it away by saying well over time space rocks scratched the pedestal-like rock. But if you got closer and on the pedestal was written, Hey there earthling we have been waiting for your arrival. You would immediately know that there was some intelligent life on the moon. Because there is an intelligibility behind those carvings that you cannot simply dismiss" And yet this is what the Atheist tries to do on a daily basis.

Seems like we're on the same page. Funny thins is, that pedestal is so much simpler than the universe. or just earth, or just life, or just a cell, or just 1 non-living molecule, haha.

6) From the christian aspect the argument from morality is one of the best ones I have heard so far. I watched a debate where I heard an atheist asked whether or not he thought a man raping then killing a girl was immoral, and the atheist said that he wouldnt condone the act and wouldnt like it but from a logical perspective he couldnt say it was immoral.

Yes, it certianly is a poerful argument, and I plan to post it in the future


I don't really see where we're at odds here, haha xD But your post is greatly appreciated, thanks!!

 

[Argle]

Atheist is a term like monotheist or polytheist not a religion. Evolution IS a religion. It's pope is Darwin. It's priests are evolutionary scientists. Its "good book" is The Origin of Species. Its cathedrals are Natural History museums. Its miracle worker is Time. It is nothing more than a pagan attempt to explain where everything came from, why it's here, and where it's headed, under the guise of "science," which it is NOT. No scientists ever observed the universe appear from nowhere and make everything by itself. It's all story telling and magic wand waving.

LOL! i seriously hope ur trolling right now.

atheism is just another 'ism' far as im concerned. no difference between a Catholic pushing his beliefs on you and an Atheist pushing his beliefs on you.

 

[RasenUchihaChaos]

funny thing is Atheism is a religion as well

 

[ZK]

Okay. So you are a Christian. You believe in one god. And you don't believe in thousands of other gods. So I'm an atheist, that means I believe in only one less god than you.
Also, something is either true or not. Nothing supports the idea of god so why would I believe it's true?
You can call atheism a system of beliefs, but actually it's just the antithesis of your faith...Ergo an antithesis of a belief is just an 'antibelief' at most...
Where has your god been until monotheism appeared in history?
And actually entropy also suggests that there is no god so then it's a stalemate.

Furthermore; the entire concept of an infinite being that has no end and no beginning is just ludicrous. God, per definition, has to break the laws of physics to exist. Really, I don't think a lot of people realize what they're saying when they accept God as being something 'infinite'.

Really? You all believe in the same thing and gather together in groups to practice your belief system. You guys even have Atheist fund raisers to "spread the truth"

So does WSPA. Is that a religion?

What a deluded thread. Turning atheism into a religion? cute.
Do you know of any holy books that state all the rules of atheism? I have yet to find one.
Don't try to deem atheism as a religion, that's just foolish.

Ignorance at its finest.

Why do you say respectable stuff like this and then open the floodgates for a load of pseudo-science bull?

Common sense > physics book. Nonetheless, I believe I know what I'm talking about, at least to an extent

Not with that kind of statement you're not. Without education, common sense would be telling you that the Earth's flat. I support people questioning what they're taught, but there's a fine line between 'questioning' and just being plain ignorant for the sake of it.

Anyone that believe life spontaneously arrived is ignorant/arrogant/stupid. And I say that is pure honesty, not insult. I know that God created. In a closed system, things cannot just occur. Everything that's here cannot be explained if we stay within the physical realm. Drawings can't explain themselves from just each other, there must have been an outside force, an artist, to have them come into being. Such is the case here. In this material world, we know for a fact that life comes only from life.

Explain the existence of your God, who had no influence on the world when Zeus was in charge, but suddenly grew very important after some angry Jews executed a guy.

Atheism is a religion just like any other. The only way to not believe in a religion is to know the truth.

The truth will set you free.

'Dat feel. Let the truth flow through you.

 

[Anorien16]

A. No I'm not trying to attack ANYONE :/ Didn't even know who was going to reply lol. I'd appreciate it if we could peacefully reach a conclusion, and have nobody attack anyone. Nothing ever comes from that, other than strife.

B. Okay, thanks.

C. Alright, agreed and for the better. I do plan to continue to make these sort of threads. So instead of saying all on my mind, I'll say that which relates to the topic at hand. An atheist MUST believe that somehow everything got here without a creator. An interesting thing about scientific principles is that they apply, no matter the size or situation. The physical universe is a closed system. At least 1 thing can be said of this: 1) How did it get here? If matter/energy can't be made nor destroyed in a closed system, and if this physical universe is all there is, because matter/energy isn't eternal (2LoT) then matter nor energy should exist. But obviously it does. So how did it get here in order to continue? The atheist must believe that it just simply DID, and cannot explain how within th erealms of the physical universe.

D. Entropy: "A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system"
That right about speaks for itself. We lived in a closed system. Entropy shows that things are on a constant down-ward spiral. If such is the case, it cannot be eternal.
M/E can't be created: Yet it is here. So how did that happen?
M/E can't be destroyed: Of course, but it is constantly becoming less useful due to entropy.
^^Those, coupled with common sense, indicate that matter/energy aren't eternal.

Ur essentially wrong here..... if Energy changes and as u say becomes 'less useful' to us humans does that negates the fact that it still exists? Also its only considers thermal energy there many other forms of energy in the world which Laws of Thermodynamics does not cover.

Also by if a something can neither be created nor be destroyed what does it make it? Apply your commonsense here too.....

E. Please give examples. For if a law is violated, it is no longer a law.

I told you already... see Ohm's Law, Non Ohmic Conductors, Super Conductors for one example . . . . . . . There are a lot everyone has to learn.

F. Entropy. Energy is becoming less usable. Because of this, it cannot be eternal.

That cos its changing from heat energy to other forms..... just because it changes forms does not mean it does not exist. A simple parallel A knife that loses its sharpness becomes less useful/useable to us but does that mean it does not exist or did not exit or will not exist in one form or another?

Again I ask you if something can neither be created nor be destroyed what does it make it? Use commonsense . . . . .

G. Agreed, that's not what I meant. But such is another story for another time. Moving on then...

Si....

H. Fair question. Within the physical universe, you end up in an infinite loop. Yet, matter/energy are finite. But we are here, obviously. So if we are here, then something must have always been there. Something outside of the material world. That, you see, is where God comes in. All the laws of lego-land don't apply to humans. We created that. You must recognize that God has created the physical realm, the universe made of matter and energy in which we live. The Creator is not bound by the creation. That's like saying that if in a video-game people cannot talk, can't walk, and are giant blobs, then it applies to the creator of the video-game. Such is obviously not the case- the video-game characters exist in a completely different realm than the creators.

Yet no matter whatever rules the VGs may say or apply is the basis of those worlds: the hard drive and softwares free from the very laws that bounds us? Those fantasy worlds are actually illusions created while following laws of our world . . . . . . .

As I warned u earlier your assumption that there can be some supernatural phenomenon to describe the natural can go both ways...... why cant existence of matter-energy be actually beyond the laws of this world? What if like God as excellently put by you matter-energy itself is outside material world yet inside it?

I'm aware, enough at least, of viruses. They are not alive. Essentially, they are a rock. Just a small rock that functions to give chemicals that produce cells to act upon them. They are just like rocks, water, air, glass, etc. They are not alive, it's just that what they do affects things that do live.

^_^

U think they are like rocks yet they have RNA, reproduce, consume etc all of which are basic qualities of the living..... how the non living in your opinion can have qualities of the living? Apply commonsense here.....

 

[RasenUchihaChaos]

The rantings of upjumped zealots make for tedious listening. there ilk serves no role in what is to come.

We are the axis about which the world turns Time itself flows with our footsteps!"

 

[YowYan]

Furthermore; the entire concept of an infinite being that has no end and no beginning is just ludicrous. God, per definition, has to break the laws of physics to exist. Really, I don't think a lot of people realize what they're saying when they accept God as being something 'infinite'.

So does WSPA. Is that a religion?

Why do you say respectable stuff like this and then open the floodgates for a load of pseudo-science bull?

Not with that kind of statement you're not. Without education, common sense would be telling you that the Earth's flat. I support people questioning what they're taught, but there's a fine line between 'questioning' and just being plain ignorant for the sake of it.

Explain the existence of your God, who had no influence on the world when Zeus was in charge, but suddenly grew very important after some angry Jews executed a guy.

'Dat feel. Let the truth flow through you.

With 'Psuedo-science', you're referring to mixing spirituality with science, am I right?
If so, there are plenty of scientific experiments of non-physical phenomena that prove some spiritual teachings right. Science itself has very humble beginnings starting with alchemy.
You're just not familiar with those, that's why you and I clash sometimes on topics like these.

 

[Jobrjo]

...

Not with that kind of statement you're not. Without education, common sense would be telling you that the Earth's flat. I support people questioning what they're taught, but there's a fine line between 'questioning' and just being plain ignorant for the sake of it.

Explain the existence of your God, who had no influence on the world when Zeus was in charge, but suddenly grew very important after some angry Jews executed a guy.

...

That's not what I meant by that statement in regards for common sense. I do agree with you on your 1st paragraph. I probably just shouldn't have said that. Moving on...

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say with your 2nd paragraph. But I will say this. Within any closed system in the physical realm (paintings, videogames, legos, us, etc.), the closed system cannot explain itself. There, by nesecity, but be something eternal. That is God. Now I could go on and on a logically prove this, but I'm saving it for another thread, seeing how that would be going off topic. The laws of our universe don't apply to those of Spiritual existence, such as God, anymore than the laws of a fantasy-fiction world that I decide to write apply to me. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.

 

[ZK]

With 'Psuedo-science', you're referring to mixing spirituality with science, am I right?
If so, there are plenty of scientific experiments of non-physical phenomena that prove some spiritual teachings right. Science itself has very humble beginnings starting with alchemy.
You're just not familiar with those, that's why you and I clash sometimes on topics like these.

That's not what I meant by that statement in regards for common sense. I do agree with you on your 1st paragraph. I probably just shouldn't have said that. Moving on...

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say with your 2nd paragraph. But I will say this. Within any closed system in the physical realm (paintings, videogames, legos, us, etc.), the closed system cannot explain itself. There, by nesecity, but be something eternal. That is God. Now I could go on and on a logically prove this, but I'm saving it for another thread, seeing how that would be going off topic. The laws of our universe don't apply to those of Spiritual existence, such as God, anymore than the laws of a fantasy-fiction world that I decide to write apply to me. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.

Nope.
I don't know why you'd consider this assumption fact, but it's not accurate.
You're arguing that 'nothing' cannot create 'something', which, at face value, seems extremely logical. You forget, however, to explain your creator. You've simply invoked an infinite regress, where everything in existence leads back an original creator, in this instance the Christian God, but never once do you explain how your God exists as you believe him to. He shouldn't be able to exist, considering that, by your own logic, something cannot 'pop out' of nothing. How does your God exist?
What arguments can your put forth for his existence that I can't repeat in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[sasori345]

Wow, just wow...

Throughout history, bellum sacrum has been a significant reason for needless man slaughter.
The Crusades, French Wars of Religion, cleansing of the Jews, Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, the clensing of the Picts, Battle of Mohaç, any kind of Jihad, religion based terror in Indonesia and countless more happenings have occured.

For what?
Seriously, I'm asking you. I truly want to know the reason why so many have died and why it's acceptable.

Religion has caused more deaths than anything else in history.

Besides, you're missing the point while making accusations.
All these wars have been waged because of religion.
No war has ever been waged because of atheism.

I'll try to make it clear;
Did Stalin set the Ukranian holocaust in motion because he was an atheist? No.
Did he kill anyone who opposed him and his rejime because he was an atheist? No.
Did he do all his dirty deeds because he was an egoistic arsehole with a warped idea of utopic society? Yes.

Did Hitler murder Jews because he was an atheist? No.
Was he actually an atheist? No.
Was he another maniac who used the race card in order to be able to cleanse his country from Jews due to Europe's rooted Antisemitism? Yes.

Additionally, although Stalin believed that religion had no place in his blasted rejime, what makes you think Hitler was an atheist? Hitler promoted something he called positive Christianity, which is basically his Nazi loving, warped version of Christianity purged from it's Jewish origins.

Let me use that outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism, nationalism and social-Darwinism:

70,000,000 under chairman Mao
20,000,000 under Stalin
2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions

No religious war in history, not all the religious wars of history added together, did as much damage as this century’s wars of nationalism and ideology.

 

[YowYan]

Let me use that outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism, nationalism and social-Darwinism:

70,000,000 under chairman Mao
20,000,000 under Stalin
2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions

No religious war in history, not all the religious wars of history added together, did as much damage as this century’s wars of nationalism and ideology.

All of this is true. In the name of imperialism, the only thing that changed is that it's now easier to kill people instead of controlling them. That does not change the fact that monopolyism and socialism has nothing to do with atheism. Which was her point all in one.

 

[Kirin Rei]

Let me use that outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism, nationalism and social-Darwinism:

70,000,000 under chairman Mao
20,000,000 under Stalin
2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions

No religious war in history, not all the religious wars of history added together, did as much damage as this century’s wars of nationalism and ideology.

Bah, you're missing the point.

The claim was that atheism was the cause of ideological wars. Meaning that all the casualties you listed above were caused by atheism and religion couldn't be held responsible for the deaths it caused.

My point was that no war had ever been waged because of atheism and countless wars had been waged due to religion. Hitler and Stalin were given as examples by the other party and that's the reason I mentioned them in my post. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and deaths caused by political rejimes have nothing to do with this debate.

@YowYan -> You beat me to it. <3