Isn't it remarkable that Christians would like to use atheists as scapegoats for every evil action throughout history instead of admitting their own complicity? After all, they are the ones who are constantly reminding us that the inhumane actions committed by their predecessors don't necessarily reflect upon them, so why can't they just admit that the christians of the past were complicit in some of these atrocities?
They have, stupid! What's funny is that Kelly goes on to use Christian Dinesh D'Souza as an example; when D'Souza actually did acknowledge atrocities done in the name of religion. It's just that atheism is responsible for more dead bodies than Christianity. Here's a sample from his book:
"Religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders perpetrated by atheist regimes. I recognize that population levels were much lower in the past, and that it's much easier to kill people today with sophisticated weapons than it was in previous centuries with swords and arrows. Even taking higher population levels into account, atheist violence surpasses religious violence by staggering proportions. here is a rough calculation. The worlds population rose from around 500 million in 1450 AD to 2.5 billion in 1950, a fivefold increase. Taken together, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in population, that the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even so, these deaths caused by Christian rulers over five-hundred-year period amount to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a few decades."
Please, stop lying Kelly.
6 comments:
This chick gives women a bad name, what a bimbo!
If atheists are responsible for every killing by non-believers, then believers are responsible of every violent act perpetrated by a believer, regardless if the act was inspired by their belief or not. Now care to compare numbers?
Nicolaecarpathia,
Atheism is not a non-belief. It's the belief that God does not exist. I see atheists play this game all the time.
The belief that god does not exist is itself a belief, eh? Well, which god? Are you saying the non-belief in Allah is itself a belief? How about non-belief in Zeus, Ra, Thor, or Flying Spaghetti Monster? Most atheists don't believe in any human invented god or the supernatural claims of their believers. I might say that there are forces in the universe that we don't understand, and perhaps never will. I might even call those forces "god" but so what? It is quite something else to say you know the mind of that god, what holy books he wrote, or that you can't eat pork. That's the nonsense that you believe. And that's why there are those of us who, as noted by Blaise Pascal, are "constitutionally unable to believe."
The belief that god does not exist is itself a belief, eh? Well, which god? Are you saying the non-belief in Allah is itself a belief? How about non-belief in Zeus, Ra, Thor, or Flying Spaghetti Monster? Most atheists don't believe in any human invented god or the supernatural claims of their believers. I might say that there are forces in the universe that we don't understand, and perhaps never will. I might even call those forces "god" but so what? It is quite something else to say you know the mind of that god, what holy books he wrote, or that you can't eat pork. That's the nonsense that you believe. And that's why there are those of us who, as noted by Blaise Pascal, are "constitutionally unable to believe."
Nicolae (aka Daniel),
Please, chill out with the posts. You've posted the same comment over 4 times.
Anyway, the atheists believe in no god or gods. How hard is that to understand? Atheism is not the "non-belief in God(s)" though. I prove that here.
Frank
Post a Comment