What Happens When We Stop Believing in God

neither am I going to turn this into a major research project to gather without doubt 'every' possible instance of atheist militancy, stalin was an example, you have many more, atheist v theist militancy in terms of death toll far outweighs theist trough out history. This has been literally hashed to death out here. We have enough evidence to make the point with a few major players.

 

The difference is that atheists have never fought to support unbelief, but unfortunately believers have often fought for God.

 

I have only pointed the phrase out to you almost a dozen times.

 

seems your knowledge of russian history is as lacking as your knowledge of european history at large

Stalin Purges

USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)

The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for an education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy.

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful.

Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps.

Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1]

More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2]

Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]

In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–1941)



I suppose when the guv sends an army squad in to capture you, line you up in front of a pit and blow your brains out there is not too much fighting involved.

.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Compared to who else? And to try and insinuate the racism of the late 1800's still exist is fallacious nonsense. Even comparing to 1950's and 60's.

 

Says the man in the mirror.

 

Stalin fought Jews, but never Christians or Muslims.
His hatred against Jews wasn't religious motivated. At his time, anti-Semitism was en vogue. Stalin thought that Soviet Jews are always bound to "Israel" rather than his new communist empire.

Sure, Stalin was an atheist, but he never recognized the believe in God as a main thread to his communist "new world". Anything metaphysical and transcendental didn't interest him. He was too stupid for that.

 

Good idea. You demand a definition, saying any will do if it differentiates. I state one that differentiates. You complain it isn't the "traditional" one that you like and you cry. You clearly have issues and they are not my concern.

 

So you were going to rely on raw numbers but run and hide from that ... and reinterate that you will not be making any other or substantiation of claim - but then double down on your raw number claim.

What a joke of a post mate .. jumping back and forth .. both sides of the fence .. in the same post .. kind of similar to what Jolly was doing ...just in a different way ... at least he extended over number of posts in order to hide tracks .. you don't even bother to do that much

 

"Hopelessly Lost" - is indeed a phrase that you should hearken to .. "Prima Facie" a phrase you have never pointed out to me.

 

Yes. And he was all about his own power. Who can truly know if he believed in any Gods. He failed to take control of the church and religious sentiment (unlike Hitler, who did use it) so he got it out of his way.

 

I asked you for a definition - as you were crying about the definition I was using --- contradicting that definition in your diatribe. You then give a few definitions .. but finish with the definition which is exactly the same as the definition I gave.

I then tell you .. you have given the same definition I gave .. we are in agreement.. upon which you cry NO.

That you can't figure out definition you are using from one sentence to the next ... contradicting yourself in some circle of self deception - is not my issue mate.. but you have company in Koko who is doing the same thing .. sitting on both sides of the fence .. so take comfort in the fact that you are not alone in your folly.

 

Wrong. I was happy to use your preferred definitions. Still am. I was merely pointing out that others exist, and that yardmeat had used one other than yours and it caused confusion in earlier posts between you. I also suggested avoiding these labels prone to causing equivocation confusion. The short hand is useful but it does often lead to misunderstandings.

Very similar definition of agnostic. Different definition of atheist.

No contradiction. Your reading comprehension failed you.

I have Koko on ignore. He is a troll who consistently refuses to engage in good faith conversation. I don't know yet if you are that way or not. We may simply have an honest misunderstanding.

 

Notice that in my post to you .. I give examples of what I am talking about .. "No Contradiction - Reading comprehension Failed - Wrong"

What the fk are you talking about .. hiding behind some corner .. desperately trying to lack enough specificity to be nailed into the coffin up have sealed yourself. Where has my comprehension of what you are saying failed.

You claimed "NO" when I stated our definition of agnostic is the same/similar .. in this post .. you state "Very Similar Definition" of Agnostic

So what is it mate where is your failure in reading comprehension .. cause it ain't mine. Trouble figuring out what "NO" meant when you said it ? .. the act of negation not understanding you ?

"Koko on ignore" - funny .. as you guilty of the same charade I just accused Koko of a few posts back - Sitting on both sides of the fence .. in no uncertain terms.. Ya hear mate ? ya got company .. and that should be painful .. hanging in that crowd.. as although I do not put any on ignore .. were I so inclined .. K-man might have a home.

 

As I said, your reading comprehension failed you. I was very clear in what I wrote. Clearer than you infact.

I have no interest in the hostility and ego games you and Koko are all about. If you want to be respected, be respectful. If you can't engage in good faith conversation, I have no interest in speaking with you.

 

another post of deflection .. accusations from peanut gallery .. not even saying what you are referring to - a post of meaningless nothing while crying "I was very Clear" followed by running from the playground crying names . .. to be with Koko .. whom you have on ignore I mearly commented on you both playing the same game .. told you exactly what that game was .. "playing both sides of the fence" told you exactly how you did it .. Crying "NO" when I claimed our definition of Agnostic was the Same/Similar ..a point I had been making numerous times .. in numerous ways .. you in full on denial .. much of the time not even realizing it .. or worse .. realizing your abject nonsense definition was the problem ... yet not declaring the obvious ,, keeping that card in hopes of some kind of obscene gotcha point .. which you desperately tried to cash in on but failed miserably...

"I have no interest in speaking with you" ===>>> You have nothing of interest to say mate .. so your desire not to speak pleases me

 

Indeed.

No I didn't. It is "atheism" that has substantially different definitions. I stated numerous times that agnostic means "does not know" in opposition to gnostic meaning "thinks they do know", not to be confused with Gnostic religion (another meaning of that word).

It still isn't clear if we agree on what agnostic means because you earlier said the key difference between atheist and agnostic is that atheist says there is no God (showing we have different definitions of atheist), and I later said agnostic can be theist (which you didn't comment on).

Then your combative ego stroking posting style got in the way of any further good faith conversation. It is indistinguishable from Koko's posting style. I thought he was one of a kind, but it seems I was wrong.

I am not interested in the flame war style of conversation you seek. The two of you are a perfect match, so have at it with each other.

 

This is where we left it mate -

you crying "I have no interest in speaking with you" ===>>>
me responding - You have nothing of interest to say mate .. so your desire not to speak pleases me

Now .. grant both of us your wish ... por favor. Lest of course you wish to admit that your playing both sides of the fence game .. is the one you are playing same as Koko .. along with running from the playground crying names when found out .. to be with your fine Friend.


Not me in your group mate .. "Not one of US" me not playing those games "without frontiers" ..

 

One would think that for an agnostic to not know, would be enough. And yet ironically, you are the one talking in large measure.

 

Works for me.

You two are made for each other. I will leave you to it. Too bad neither of you are able to get past your own egos to have constructive good faith conversation, and instead are looking for imagined gotchas and to score points in your own minds.

Not what I seek in an online forum, but to each their own.

 

No need to be tarring me with your failings mate .. projecting the image you see in the mirror onto others .. you be the one acting like Koko .. playing two sides of the fence .. then running from the playground name calling when called on it.

Now go .. and at least make good on one of your claims "I have no interest in speaking with you" ===>>> and stop speaking to me .... as until you have something of interest to say, your desire not to speak pleases me

 

Just four weeks ago................when you were confusing Madison/Guaranty with the Paula Jones perjury and obstruction of justice and materiality.

 

Who cares about some uninformed hoplessly lost post from 4 weeks ago ? Trouble maintaining the page you have .. unable to keep on track .. only down the rabbit hole can you be found

 

I don't see the reason for being so adamant about definitions here.

And, your last is objectionable, as you haven't identified any case in America where there has been an effort to restrict religious freedom other than as identified in our constitution. So, what are these actions to restrict religious freedom, and how are you identifying the beliefs of those you see as doing that?