Still not debating, just making some points intended only for those capable of rational thinking with an open mind and the ability to properly reason and use actual logic (i.e. not what some erroneously perceive to be reasonable and logical thinking - some need to research the difference, I think!):
I don't think Hitler was an atheist, based on the available evidence, although this is arguable since he may have changed his mind at some time. Regardless, the point is that nothing he did was done in the name of atheism or Christianity any more than it was done for the sake of mustaches. Hitler did, however, target Jews, people identified by their Jewish faith. Same applies to Stalin, etc. The 9/11 terrorists, the Crusades, circumcision, fatwas, Inquisition, Indian bombings, Arab-Israeli wars, most of the former Yugoslavian atrocities, etc., were all specifically done in the name of religion, which is the stuff I was talking about. Of course other atrocities were done for other reasons, but I was not talking about those.
One day people will realize that the Bible is not a valid reference for any position, and what it states is irrelevant. If "holy books" were references, why don't we have anyone using the Sikh or Mormon (etc.) books? If I write a book supporting my position and then use quotes from it to prove I am correct and that the "book says so" does that add value to any argument?
You can only prove or disprove things that actually exist. That's why we can't prove or disprove the existence of flying pink unicorns any more than this whole absurd god argument. It does not take faith to deny belief in someone else's unfounded assertions. It takes faith to believe in unfounded assertions, like religious people do (with no evidence). Christians typically deny belief in Hindu, Muslim, Shinto, Buddhist and all other non-Christian beliefs, yet that does not take any faith on their part to do so, does it? It does not take any faith in others to deny belief in Christian stuff either. Repeating logical fallacies do not make them true, either.
If someone asserts that flying pink unicorns exist, then the burden is upon them to prove it if they want others to understand or believe or respect what they say. Stating that atheism is a belief is not correct just as stating that bald is a hair colour is absurd and invalid. Atheism is a lack of belief in all of the deities and faith-based belief systems that others have claimed. Most religious people are only atheists about all deities except their own, and fail to notice the irony.
The level of religious extremism or fanaticism is not a factor in establishing the validity of a belief. Even if belief in a belief system occasionally provides someone with comfort or relief or whatever, what they believe or the result of their belief is not a factor in establishing the validity of the belief. That is what evidence is for. By evidence, I mean real evidence, not a story book: Santa's story being written down does not make that one true either. Etc. Really, really liking a story, or liking how old it is, or quoting its own story book, or anything else that is not evidence, are equally irrelevant in determining the validity of a belief.
Have a nice day!
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 11th Sep 2011 at 09:57.