10/13/2002                                                                                       View Comments

How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?


VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH




"WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"




Listed are only events that solely occurred on command or participation of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

Ancient Pagans






  • As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  • Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
  • Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
  • Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
  • Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
  • Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
    According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
  • In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
  • In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
  • The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
    [DO19-25]

Mission






  • Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
  • Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
  • 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown. [DO30]
  • 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
    Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)






  • First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  • Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
  • 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
  • Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
  • After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed.
    [WW32-35]
    Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
  • Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
  • Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
    In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
  • The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
  • Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". [WW41]
  • Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. Thousands of heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
  • Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
  • Crusades (1095-1291)

    • Estimated totals:

      • Wertham: 1,000,000

      • Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the
        Madness of Crowds
        (1841): 2,000,000 Europeans killed. [http://www.bootlegbooks.com/NonFiction/Mackay/PopDelusions/chap09.html]

      • Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 5,000,000

    • Individual Events:

      • Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland

      • Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women in
        Rhineland comm. suicide to avoid the mob, 1096.

      • Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, 6

        • 1st Crusade: 300,000 Eur. k at Battle of Nice [Nicea].

        • Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum: 4,000 Christians, 3,000 Moslems

        • 1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred.

        • 50,000 Pilgrims died of disease.

        • 1099, Fall of Jerusalem: 70,000 Moslems massacred.

        • Siege of Tiberias: 30,000 Christians k.

        • Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks

        • Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs.

        • 1291: 100,000 Christians k after fall of Acre.

        • Fall of Christian Antioch: 17,000 massacred.

        • [TOTAL: 677,000 listed in these episodes here.]

      • Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/]

        • Jaffa: 20,000 Christians massacred, 1197

      • Sorokin estimates that French, English & Imperial German Crusaders lost
        a total of 3,600 in battle.

        • 1st C (1096-99): 400

        • 2nd C (1147-49): 750

        • 3rd C (1189-91): 930

        • 4th C (1202-04): 120

        • 5th C (1228-29): 600

        • 7th C (1248-54): 700

      • James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992)

        • 1099: Crusaders slaughter 40,000 inhabs of Jerusalem. Dis/starv reduced
          Crusaders from 300,000 to 60,000.

        • 1147: 2nd Crusades begins with 500,000. "Most" lost to
          starv./disease/battle.

        • 1190: 500 Jews massacred in York.

        • 1192: 3rd Crusade reduced from 100,000 to 5,000 through famine, plagues and
          desertions in campaign vs Antioch.

        • 1212: Children's Crusade loses some 50,000.

        • [TOTAL: Just in these incidents, it appears the Europeans lost around
          650,000.]


    • TOTAL: When I take all the individual death tolls listed here, weed out
      the duplicates, fill in the blanks, apply Occam ("Pluralitas non est
      ponenda sine necessitate"
      ), etc. I get a very rough total of 1½ M
      deaths in the Crusades.



Heretics and Atheists






  • Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
  • Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
  • Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
    The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
    Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic
    neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
  • Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
  • Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]

  • After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324.
    [WW183]
  • Estimated one million victims (Cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  • Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
  • Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
  • John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
  • Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed. [KM]
  • University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]

  • Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.
  • Thomas Aikenhead, a twenty-year-old scottish student of Edinburgh University, was hanged for atheism and blasphemy.

Witches






  • From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
  • In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged.
    [WV]
  • Incomplete list of documented cases:
    The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars






  • 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
  • 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
  • 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. [DO31]
    Between 5000 and 6000 Protestants were drowned by Spanish Catholic Troops, "a disaster the burghers of Emden first realized when several thousand broad-brimmed Dutch hats floated by." [SH216]
  • 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
  • 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
  • 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
  • 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews






  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians.Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  •  694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  • 1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  • 1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  • 1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  • 1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked. [DO40]
  • 1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  • 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  • 1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  • 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  • 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  • 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  • 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  • 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  • 1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492.
    [MM470-476]
  • 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
    [DO43]


(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.

Native Peoples






  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
  • On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
    "I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]

  • Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
  • In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
  • On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
  • The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
  • As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
  • The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
  • What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
  • The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
  • "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
  • Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  • "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."
    [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of America.



  • Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
  • In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no
    choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
  • On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War." The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  • When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
  • So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
  • Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  • Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
  • Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by Spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
  • The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
  • Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  • Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
    "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  • Like today, lying was morally acceptable to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
  • In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
  • In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
  • To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about
    30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  • All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  • A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  • In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious Events in U.S. History



  • Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]


  • Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]



  • By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'."
    [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities






  • Catholic extermination camps
    Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
    In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar -
    orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did
    nothing to prevent them. [MV]


  • Catholic terror in Vietnam
    In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters; the Viet Minh; - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
    Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
    The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:

      "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."


    Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - ; mostly in street riots ; - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
    To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.


  • Christianity kills the cat
    On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them
    fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
    This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]


  • Rwanda Massacres
    In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
    For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
    Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:

      "Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
      According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
      In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the
      Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on
      fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]


    More recently the BBC aired:


      Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
      BBC NEWS April 19, 1998

      A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...



  • As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end.





If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick.



References



[DA]
K.Deschner, Abermals krähte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.
[DO]
K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
[EC]
P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
[EJ]
S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
[HA]
Hunter, M., Wootton, D., Atheism from the Reformation to the
Enlightenment
, Oxford 1992.
[KM]
Schröder-Kappus, E., Wagner, W., Michael Sattler. Ein Märtyrer in
Rottenburg
, Tübingen, TVT Media 1992.
[LI]
H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
[MM]
M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
[MV]
A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also
V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.
[NC]
J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists
, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
[S2]
Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
[SH]
D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
[SP]
German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
[TA]
A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in
the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England
, London 1676.

[TG]
F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
[WW]
H.Wollschläger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zürich
1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is
the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original
medieval Christian chroniclers' writings).
[WV]
Estimates on the number of executed witches:


  • N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch
    Hunt
    , Frogmore 1976, 253.
  • R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New
    York 1959, 180.
  • J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
  • H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954,
    56.

 

 



this excellent article was reposted from: here

Also see
'Thus Saith the LORD'

134 comments:

Anonymous said...

you are talking about 2 different things here, chritianity and catholics..to get it straight catholics are not christians.

.:webmaster:. said...

I so want to comment here.

Nevermind...

freeman said...

anonymous,
As a former catholic and (praise be jezbus) a former christian, what do you mean?

EVERYTHING you believe originated from the catholic mythology!

Hankmeister said...

"Remove the log from your eye before trying to remove the speck from your brother's" Jesus

It would do atheists, seculars and liberal socialists some good to acknowledge that the biggest murderers of all time have been atheists and secular governments. R.J. Rummel, a pacifist himself, documented the mind-boggling murders of secular/atheistic governments and political movements. You can find his research and documentary links here.

It gets rather tiresome hearing the same ol' spew which tries to lump modern Christian evangelicals with what the Roman Catholic church did six hundred or a thousand years ago. How about you exChristians, seculars and atheists taking some responsibility for what your philosophical socialist brethren have done in the name of secular government thoughout the 20th Century...you know, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

And I bet you'll resort to plausible deniability of saying "we're not like them" which is far more of a stretch than modern Christians rightly pointing out you can't condemn us or the Church of Jesus Christ for what Catholics did centuries ago when these massive secular/atheistic pogroms happened within the last century. Hypocrites.

.:webmaster:. said...

Government is not my messsiah. But regardless of what some despots have done, or called themselves, I still deny Christianity as being the magical world transforming power it claims to be. History also denies it.

May the joy of the Lard fill your soul, Hammy.

Michelle said...

Of course, those murders happened because they catholics are not "true christians." So we can just sweep all that atrocity under the rug because, thank god, the true christians are finally here!

Well, where were you guys when all this stuff was going on? Maybe you could provide historical documentation about how the "true christians" were fighting to protect the lives of natives, pagans, witches, etc. The only religious group I'm aware of that started helping any oppressed people were the Quakers, but that was for helping African-American slaves escape to freedom. But Quakers are not true christians, so they don't count, right?

My knowledge of history is spotty, so perhaps you can provide me with contrary evidence that "christians" had been the champion of the oppressed for the last 2000 years. In my church-going days, I don't seem to recall hearing any stories about how the "true christians" stood up for anybody. Maybe they had, but the lord decided it was a better thing to allow these massacres to happen so that the catholics would look bad. ("It's all them damn catholics' fault!")

I look forward to hearing about all those true christian heroes! I'm sure there were plenty. :)

heathen sister said...

Hankmeister:

Hitler was a xian.

Remember what he did to jews.......in the name of xianity thinly disguised as politics.

Anonymous said...

I would disagree, catholics are christians just as christians are christians. I would have to ex-communicate mormoms, or the church of latter day saints, but only because their gospel has no relation to christ.

This website is complete crud for those of you who feel empowered by such loonatic observations. Has any christian claimed superatural authority over sin. Absolutly not. We have all fallen short.

The Bible is divine in origin and it is perfect without flaw. Unfortunatly we are not as perfect as the original. And Mankind has perverted this book from the beginning of time.

And just a hint, dont argue the christian... Argue Christ. But then your left hopeless.

May God bless you and deliver you.

Anonymous said...

"We have all fallen short."

Who wrote that phrase?

I wonder did you get that out of the 6000 year old bible?

Gee you sure are so smart!

Tell us more stupid nonsense that you're repeated out of the liebull.

Anonymous said...

Your right, but only now when you can acknowledge the validity and the authenticity of a book that we call the Bible. It stood the test of time and stands the test of time.

I have no idea were your motivation arises from. Can you enlighten me, i would reform myself if i found it neccesary and of worth. Sadly, all i hear is man's pity, all i hear is a cry of wandering, all i hear is empty testimonies of people who found the words of Christ burdonsome.

Please inspire me, im a good listener.

.:webmaster:. said...

"...im a good listener."

Then please listen to this: click on the "Other" radio button and make up a pseudonym other than anonymous when you post.

vital said...

Well ill be hear, only if you have something to say.

boomSLANG said...

Vital, pleeze tell us how u no that jesus is reel? Let's start from their. kool?

vital said...

Well thats kind of stupid. All jews acknoledge the existence of a man named Jesus. He was real indeed as it has be recoreded throughtout time. Ive never heard such irrational propositions, stating the non-existence of Jesus. Perhaps we are agueing the identity of Christ. I see Jesus, an ordinary man who lived in the herodian era as a man who revealed Himself God-like. There is no question that he existed. Who is Jesus a man fooled by Himself, a false prophet, one who lied or presented Himself as a lier? I see Jesus Christ as the Messiah, for both jew and getile alike, coming in flesh and renewing mankind.

.:webmaster:. said...

Actually, Vital, there is no absolute agreement on the existence of Jesus. Even those who think a man named Jesus might have existed, aren't absolutely sure of the time when he existed.

However, I could be wrong. Please post the references that demonstrate that nearly all authorities agree that there was such a man as Jesus.

vital said...

Referencing... Ok... Im sure there is more than enough data to prove the existence of Jesus because he was crucified by the roman official named Pilot. Honestly, i wouldnt know how denounce the existence or the non-existence of Christ. There is an overwhelming majority that acknowledge the existence of Jesus. I find it a useless argument to argue the existence of Jesus, these are apparent truths that cannot be shacken.

.:webmaster:. said...

Okay Vital. Since you're sure about your facts, could you please provide references. Being sure means knowing how to reference and support your statements. Simply stating "I think" isn't very convincing.

How old are you?

Sadhu said...

Based on history, the figures quoted on this site are either realistic approximations or undeniable, historical facts.

Unfortunately, we have not learned much from history. The senseless killing in the name of religion as well as in the name of various political doctrines goes on. In fact, any medium that justifies killing is welcome in today's world, just like it was centuries ago.

Inquisition practices like rewards for informants of suspects or torture are being revived and legalized right in front of our eyes.

Wars are fought, based on lies and mass deception and the civil rights of most people in this world are nothing but a hypocritical farce. Anyone can be discredited, persecuted, tortured or killed by any government at any time and any place.

While various religious and atheistic cults are busy accusing each other, the global slaughter house is booming in front of everyone's eyes...and the most amazing thing of all is...that hardly anyone does anything about it...and EVERYONE thinks he's right and innocent and as long as his own personal freedom is not taken away, everything's more or less ok.

Rational solutions? Who's interested in those anyways?!

So, lets just go on and whitewash our conscience by accusing everyone who does not share our own dogmatic belief...while remaining in denial and while remaining gullible and willing puppets in the hands of unscrupulous cult leaders in the name of religion or overt atheism.

If people are offered the choice between truly understanding the problem and working on solutions or arguing and fighting, the vast majority opt for the latter.

In summary, I consider this site an important one but most important to me are those people who are dedicated to working on positive solutions.

Agkelos said...

Having taken several History classes, I am fairly certain that the statistics on this page are correct.

I also know that Christianity is not the only religion in the world with a high body count.

Organized religion as a whole is to blame for the deaths of millions. "If some one does not share your beliefs, kill them." Or in our more "modern" society "ridicule, mock, judge and hate them." It all boils down to the same thing.
The average human being cannot bear to stand alone in anything. A king, governor, or representative cannot share a different view than the majority of his people. If he a dishonest person he'll claim that he follows the majority, if he is stupid or cruel he will force his beliefs upon his people. If he is brave he'll say it is none of your business what my personal beliefs are... have yours and I will have mine. Unfortunately, the masses will not allow the latter of these options. In America we will not elect a man who is not a Christian or at least claims to be. That is sad and immoral.
As a Christian you are charged to "worship no other god before me" however, the Bible states nowhere in it's pages that no other gods exist.
The passage "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is nowhere to be found in the original Hebrew text it says instead "suffer not those who would use their arts to harm". Now tell me where the "witch" comes into that statement? I don't see it. Arts could mean doctor, lawyer, politician, mother, butcher, baker, candlestick maker!
And by the way, for all those out there who swear by the King James Version of the Bible. King James changed passages in the Bible so that he could get a divorce. Just thought I'd mention that.
Now. If you are a Christian and have studied your faith extensively and believe in its precepts, I applaud you. You have taken an active part in the maintenance of your soul. For those of you who believe in Christianity because your pastor told you to, read a book or ten and find out what your religion is REALLY about before you go trying to convert some one else. Be devoted to your God, not devided against one another and others. "Judge not lest ye be judged", remember. It is not your place nor is it your RIGHT to tell some one else they are wrong in their faith. Leave those of us who follow other Gods to our worship and we will leave you to yours. Leave each other to your worships and stop squabbling over denominations. Who is to say "the IS" does not speak to each soul differently? We are all individuals after all and whatever or whomever made us, made us that way for a reason. We ARE NOT SHEEP! Be kind to one another, be tolerant of those who are different, and follow your own path. Be brave and walk alone, others will join you along the way. Just be careful you don't hold them at gun point should they wish to depart from you some where later on.
To hate someone who does not share your beliefs makes you a hypocrite.

Agkelos said...

Also in response to the existence or non-existence of Jesus: Does it matter?

Jesus was named a man of great works and kindnesses. He was supposed to have given hope to a vast number of people.

If you throw out all the crap in the Bible you come down to the basic DUH! statement. "BE GOOD TO ONE ANOTHER! WE ARE ALL EQUAL!" And he died to make that point. I think with the vast majority of Christians he failed miserably and would probably weep bitterly to see the state his teachings have come to.

Throw Jesus out the window and you still have Christianity's 10 Commandments. Obvious laws all.
In the times they were written the 10 commandments were things that would get you killed or worse if you did them.

The rest of the book doesn't matter, the rituals don't matter, the who said what's don't matter. It's a simple concept that millions have died over. Now that's ironic for you isn't it. Be nice to me or I'll kill you. How does that work exactly? Believe what I believe or I'll hate you. Right. K.

Better go back and look those basics over again. If your a Christian, their your commandments, follow them or find another religion. Norse for instance allows for the slaughter of all your foes in honorable battle and Odin will love you for it. (that was joke BTW. No offense meant to all you Odinists out there and I know you exist I know two of you personally.)

Agkelos said...

In response to anonymous comment 3/14/06 12:52pm. Catholics are Christians. Anyone who follows the teachings of CHRIST is a CHRISTIAN.

That includes the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints as well AND the Mormons. Arguing semantics does no one any good.

See "stop arguing over denominations" comment in earlier post.

Jim Arvo said...

Anonymous,

I'm afraid I haven't the time to respond to the bulk of your comments, so I'll simply pick a few items that might lead to further discussion.

1) You mention the short passage by Tacitus in his Annals. You are probably aware that the passage is dubious as evidence of Jesus for the simple reason that Tacitus likely obtained the information from secondary (e.g. Christian) sources. If so, this simply verifies the existence of the cult at that time as well as one of their core beliefs (neither of which is in dispute). This is supported by the fact that Tacitus misidentifies Pontius Pilate as "procurator", and he does not mention Jesus by name, both unlikely if his source had been the Roman archives, for example.

2) Do you deny that millions of people have been slaughtered under the banner of Christianity? Even if non-Christians have killed more in the past 2,000 years (which seems unlikely to me, but it's a possibility), does that absolve Christianity? Do you deny that the Bible portrays many such slaughters as being god's will? If so, on what basis do you deny that the perpetrators were Christians, as many professed to be?

3) You accuse us of being bigots. That's a term I occasionally use for Christian visitors here. Let's see if we can agree on what a bigot is before we discuss who deserves that label. In my view, a bigot is a person who makes disparaging remarks that are intended to include an entire class of people solely on the basis of religious convictions, ethnicity, race, political affiliation, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. Does that sound reasonable to you? Now, I do not claim that Christians as a class should be denigrated. Every sufficiently large group of people will include both exemplary and not-so-exemplary individuals. I've met Christians who are bright, honest, and open-minded, and I've met some who are not. It's the latter whom I often have heated debates with. From your post it seems you have something to say about non-Christians, or at least those at this site, as a group. Is that a fair statement? Would you care to clarify that and contrast it with bigotry?

4) You said "You'd have to be daft or obtuse to think our founding leaders were deists". Some were Deists and some were Christians. Many expressed an intense distaste for Christianity in their personal correspondences. Do you deny that? Jefferson went so far as to edit out all the objectionable portions of the Bible. (Those were the Bibles he distributed, by the way.) Read Paine's "The Age of Reason," then tell me if you think he was a Christian. Our constitution makes no mention of Jesus or Christianity, despite the objections of the founding fathers who were Christians. Wisely (I think), the founders kept supernatural references to an absolute minimum, and kept it rather generic at that (e.g. "Creator" not "God"). We can thank the deists among them for that.

5) You said "That fear you have is of letting God take the primary spotlight in your life instead of you." To be clear, who is the "you" in that sentence intended to include? In any case, surely you will admit that you are merely offering a conjecture here, right?

Anonymous said...

U fucking weak people just believe in something that does not exist! GOD DOES NOT EXIST! damnitdamnit You are weak! Try to think on ur own and for yourself!
Only the strong will Prosper!
Only the strong will Conquer!

jort

Prescott E. Small said...

In god We Trust?

Do “we”?

I know I don’t, therefore the definition of “we” is defeated.

As much as I hate to quote my dad (because that implies he was right about something) I have to give credit where credit is due when it was my dad that told me “Trust is something that is earned, not given.”

So, for the record; Dad, you were and are right.

I, like many Americans, watch or read the news every day. I feel that I can safely say that 99% of the time there is something in the news where some person is declaring their “trust” in god because it was he that saved a life or took that life for some inexplicable reason. “God works in mysterious ways.”

We can probably agree on that.

What I fail to comprehend is why this trust exist.

If trust is something that is earned, then how can any person of faith or reason Trust in God.

Being that Trust is earned, and lost much faster that it is earned. I am certain that I could effectively cite tens of thousands of incidents where “acts of god” would be considered untrustworthy.

For example; An act of god caused a Tsunami that killed 100,000 people today. That is horrible, yet immediately dismissed as God has a purpose and works in mysterious ways.

Now take the exact same principle, but reveal it be a human; A man today set off a nuclear weapon in the ocean that created a Tsunami that killed 100,000 people today.

That would be an act of pure evil and nearly every person on the planet would see it as an act of evil and mass murder.

This is what I find confusing; 100,000 people are dead. In either scenario there is a clear path of blame and guilt plus the clear intent to commit mass murder. Yet one is evil and the other is divine, heavenly intervention.

Now it is no secret that I do not believe in god or subscribe to any of the mythologies that plague our planet. I am an avid reader of history, both human and natural.

There are numerous natural events that have exterminated far more life on this planet than any human could ever achieve. However there have been dozens of humans that have done their absolute best to exterminate as many fellow humans as was physically possible.

Though Hitler has a large body count, it pales in comparison to the those piled up by the popes of history. Hitler was easily responsible for killing more than 6 million.

But compared to the popes, he was an amateur. Seriously, Hitler had Automatic weapons, trains, radios, telephones and horseless carriages. He had brought the assembly line into play for the purpose of mass murder. While that is horrific he was far more technologically advanced than the popes of the dark ages.

Now think of Pope Pious, the inventor of the phrase 'Kill them all, God will know his own' This SAINT, was directly responsible for the mass murder of over 1 million. He did this in an age of no electricity, horse drawn wagons and primitive blunt weapons. He killed 1/6th as many people as Hitler in time when it took 20 times the effort to do the killing. He did it all in the name of god, because he trusted god.

God, if he exists, allowed this to happen, in his name. He is just as guilty as the get away drive from a bank robbery.

That is only one of thousands of examples in which god has shown a complete breech of trust.

So if trust is earned, god has a lot of work to do in order to get it back. He has spent thousands of years screwing up beyond even his wildest imagination. He will have to work twice as hard to get it back.

And he has made no progress as of late. As recently as 1984 we had Catholic Priests and Nuns participating in the mass murder of the Tutsi in Rwanda by gun and machete. They even murdered those that came to their church to seek safety and shelter! They actively participated in the systematic face to face murder of nearly 2 million men, women and children.

Where was god then? Off somewhere doing “mysterious work” no doubt.

A while back I ran through the book Holy Horrors with a calculator and with very little effort I came up with a staggering number of people murdered in the name of god, the majority by those that are now called “saints”.

The number was 36,000,000.

If god exists then he should be imprisoned in the bowels of hell for all of eternity. After all, Thou shall not kill.

Also “In God We Trust” should be removed from anything and everything, for trust is lost far more easily than it is earned and there is no way that trust has been earned.

Also, let us not forget that a point needs to be made here about the major and most significant accomplices of these acts of genocide.

The Catholic church owes the world an immense apology. The Vatican should show shame for it alleged saints that have such huge body counts. Either they should be consistent and declare Adolf Hitler a saint or they should posthumously revoke the sainthood of every mass murdering pope, excommunicate them, cremate their remains and scatter their ashes on unholy ground while condemning them to eternity in hell where they belong.

The Catholic Church needs to admit their participation and acts of endorsement of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi’s. They are just a guilty in that genocide. They had a chance to make a difference, yet became willing participants for their share of the gold.

The Catholic Church should melt down all of it’s gold and silver, sell all of it’s treasure and start feeding and clothing the poor that they have spent centuries taking advantage of and enslaving with guilt while the priest live in gilded palaces and their followers starve and die of disease and poverty.

The Catholic Church is the perfect example of hypocrisy and evil, It is the Rome of old, just with a new name.

According to these people man was made in the image of God, Since our acts define us, so do his acts define him; god is obviously evil, therefore look to the mirror – there is the face of evil, the face of god.

Jonathan said...

I found this web site to be very distressing because I know it's all true. If even half of these facts & figures are incorrect, it still amounts to countless millions murdered "for God". What I see happening today by Muslims "for Allah" is not very different, just 300 years late. Just because Catholics committed similar crimes three centuries ago, and are now "civilized", makes them any better than crazy Muslim psychos murdering people around the world today.

I agree with many of Prescott's
statements, and yet I believe in God and have faith in Jesus Christ. I am not Catholic, i.e. I don't endorse a murderous organization of evil. The "Bible" is not what Catholics read, they have their own bible--as do Mormons, Scientologists, and other false religions, er, corporations.

What I find most disturbing is how evil the human race is. We are absolutely without hope and will utterly destroy ourselves. It is inevitable. Human beings are too stupid to survive without murdering ourselves. But, blaming God is misplaced, because God doesn't cause evil. Evil is part of life on Earth, and is not caused or prevented by God. That God allows indescribably violent sins to be committed against innocents is to misunderstand the nature of God. Sin causes horrible death and destruction. Human nature causes this. God hates sin and especially "hands that shed innocent blood". Those that commit heinous crimes against humanity in the name of their god are acting on their own, not with holy blessings.

So, why does God allow countless murders to be committed throughout history, even in "his" name? Einstein struggled with that great question. The answer is...God IS directly involved in the lives of His people, believers (not members of organized corporations masquerading as "religions") but the vast majority of humanity is rife with sin and uncontrollable. God does not CAUSE terrible things to happen.

Those who follow the teachings of Jesus understand--those who are humble, giving up self, forgiving others, loving God, returning love for hatred, praying for those who are abusive and filled with anger or hatred. These are fruits of the spirit which reveal a believer's true nature. God deals with individuals, on an individual basis, not with masses. God is personal. Those who claim to follow Jesus will obey his commandments. Obviously, none of the murderers listed on this web site were truly Christian, but using false religion as an excuse to commit mass murder.

Anyone who expresses the fruit of the spirit in his or her life does not need to proselatize, for anyone who sees the testimony of such a person will WANT that kind of inner peace and that is the true teaching of Jesus Christ. "Convert or die" is the mantra of Catholics and Muslims. It's a shame the word "Christian" has been so confused and abused to the point of it being a useless word.

.:webmaster:. said...

Catholics most certainly do read the same Bible as Protestants.

Protestants also persecuted to death those who disagreed with them.

The killing of un-believers started in the first centuries of Christianity. There was no Roman Catholic Church back then.

"Obviously, none of the murderers listed on this web site were truly Christian, but using false religion as an excuse to commit mass murder."

Yes, yes... with one brush you your hand, 2,000 years of Christian history is made irrelevant because they weren't "True Christians™." Did you you know John Calvin had a man burned at the stake for heresy? Did you know that Martin Luther advocated harshly persecuting Jews? Did you know the Reformation in England caused all out war and horrific persecution of Catholics? Do you know your history at all?

There is another option to consider here. It just could be that Christianity is a ridiculous man made religious cult just like all the other so-called religions on the planet.

That is something to consider, you know.

pinchas said...

former xtian missionary of 20 years here.
the internet has brought us the access to information that has made it possible for all of us to learn the historic roots of xtianity. the result has been a mass exodus away from this filthy and corrupt religious system. it is based on lies and is dishonest and false to its very core. do your homework...study and search for yourselves. gather the evidence and then do the truthful and honest thing and abandon this sickening religion.
the only faithfulness we owe is to the ONE Creator.

Astreja said...

Pinchas, interesting comments.

But which "creator"? The Dagda? Enki? Ptah? Oðinn, Vili and Ve?

Anonymous said...

Hitler USED Christianity at least--if not he was a Christian himself, he was greatly influenced by Martin Luther (leader of Protestant Reformation) -as was ALL Of Germany, who wrote the HORRIFIC HATEFUL 'On Jews and thier lies" 3 yrs before his death, which OUTLINED in vivid detail ALL of the things Hitler DID. Look it up for yourselves, visit a Holocast Museum-go to the Florida Holocausts Museam on the web and so a search for this. This Phamlet was distributed again during Hitler's Reign. But dont' trust your Christian Church to tell you these things, they are completely embarrased by it, most are completey IGNORANT of their own History. You also will not find this information listed on most Christian sites when you do a search for Luther's work, they omit this phamlet. While still calling him a Hero, completely disgraceful. The Luthern Church even gave an official apology not too long ago for Luther's Hate, this particular writing, and his contribution to the Hate of Jewsih people--and the Futute Holocaust. It said to run them out of the country, to burn their synogoges down, He used scripture to say they were Vipers and snakes, Completely filled with Hate.

THE REAL CHRIST REPRESENTER said...

THIS SITE IS A BUNCH OF CRAP FOR THE SAKE OF ALL CHRISTIANS OR "EX CHRISTIANS" TAKE THIS GARBAGE OFF YOU KNOW CHRISTIANITY IS THE WAY YOU JUST DONT WANT TO FOLLOW PRINCIPLES BECAUSE OF YOUR SINFUL WAYS

Dewey said...

THIS SITE IS A BUNCH OF THERAPY, FOR THE SAKE OF ALL CHRISTIANS OR "EX CHRISTIANS", SHOW THEIR GARBAGE, YOU KNOW CHRISTIANITY IS POLITICAL, YOU JUST DONT WANT TO FOLLOW RATIONAL PRINCIPLES BECAUSE OF YOUR SCRIPTURAL WAYS

Anonymous said...

Seem to forget many here that Christ himself once said, "not all who calls 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven". So the article doesn't bother me much. Trying to judge past histories with today's ridiculous "political correctness" is misinformation.

Anonymous said...

Another myth that I must challenge: that Christianity "destroyed" the knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome and pushed us into the Middle Ages. Of course Gibbons say something like that in his monumental "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Even if it was true, and obviously I admit Christianity did push out the paganism of those days, people seem to forget the moral, social, economic, political and spiritual decline the Roman Empire of the west went through after the death of Diocletian. True Constantine did have a part of it. And also the emperor Ambrosius the Great. But let us not kid ourselves in blaming "Christianity" for it. There were many more factors involved. May I add the abandonment of the ancient Greek philosophers and their teachings, Aristotles, Plato, Socrates and the Romans Cicero and Marcus Aurelius as one of the main reasons? And the coming of Barbarians? So don't blame Christianity only? And I see something similar today with the advancing of Islam and the corruption of Western civilization?

Anonymous said...

This is so idiotic and stupid that Protestants claim Catholics are not Christians. hahaha. YOU ARE ALL WORSHIPPERS OF JESUS THE CHRIST, THAT MAKES YOU ALL CHRISTIANS. The Catholics were the first Christians organized by Constantine, you simply came along later, but are still insipid morons. Without the influences of modernity and secular movements that improved humanity from the animal origins from which we sprang, "Christians" would be as barbarous and murderous as they always have been. Anyone or group that can point to another and say "I got the truth, pal, and you don't, so you should die," is a sham. The real Jesus would be horrified and recrucified by your ilk as he was then by the same types: the "religious" people of the day who were the literalists and missers-of-the point of the entirety of Jesus teachings.

Anonymous said...

And the point of this article is...? The fact of the matter is if the Bible and Christianity are all elaborate lies why do you bother trying to discredit them? In today's modern world things are much different than the time of Christ or even a hundred years ago. The reason you try to discredit faith in Christ is because you do not agree with it, and that is your perogitive, but you are not going to be successful. People have tried to slander God, the Bible and Christ since man's beginning and they are still trying, because in all of that time their efforts have failed. We do not sit here and debate whether Hitler's motives and teachings were evil and empty because they proved that in themselves, as have all such things, but the Bible stands. True it can not be in your pre-requisite factually proven (i.e. "show me") but it can not be factually disproven either which is why anyone who has done their research and educated themselves on the Bible at least knows the "Religion" is based on faith. Many of the instances you point out are a result of the mis-interpretation of the Bible or of false teachings spread by self proclaimed "Christians" but who in fact were not even close to what a true Christian should be. There has only been one true Christian, Jesus, who met all the standards to the letter. Every other Human being only tries to be a Christian in the sense that they emitate Christ, a task at which we all can not ultimately acheive till we are with Him in Heaven. Thank you and God Bless!

boomSLANG said...

Anonymous # 4,583,398 said:

The fact of the matter is if the Bible and Christianity are all elaborate lies why do you bother trying to discredit them?

Simple---because unsupported beliefs that condone, promote, and enable barbaric and unethical behavior(s) have no place in modern civilized society, and thus, they should be discredited. Mind you, this doesn't take away anyone's right to go right on believing exactly they want to believe. That fact that liberal and moderate Christians go right on believing in Christianity, while on the other hand, ignoring, circumventing, or weasle-wording the absurdities that their bible cleary demands of them, is evidence that the bible is not any sort of objective, or "Universal" truth. The fact is, most Chrisitans are not "True Christians"...that is to say, Christians according to the bible.

Anony' continues: In today's modern world things are much different than the time of Christ or even a hundred years ago

Precisely!!!....which is why the unchanging dogma of religious convictions has no place in a modern ever-changing world. Good job!

Anony': True it can not be in your pre-requisite factually proven (i.e. "show me") but it can not be factually disproven either which is why anyone who has done their research and educated themselves on the Bible at least knows the "Religion" is based on faith.

It cannot be "factually disproven" that invisible pixies don't live in your clothes hamper, either. SO? Nor can it be "factually disproven" that Allah is not the almight creator of the universe. Again, SO? Does that mean that Allah is said creator? Of course not. Please educate yourself on the "burden of proof" for future discussions. Thanks.

Anony': Many of the instances you point out are a result of the mis-interpretation of the Bible or of false teachings spread by self proclaimed "Christians" but who in fact were not even close to what a true Christian should be. There has only been one true Christian, Jesus, who met all the standards to the letter.

Good grief!...what, on earth, bible have you been reading? "Jesus", according to the most popular and alleged reliable source for Jesus' teachings, many times portrays him to be an immature, jealous, murderous, vindictive bully. That said, please define "True Christian", and delineate cleary, where this criteria comes from. Thanks.

Anony': Thank you and God Bless

Namaste!..and may reason find you.

Anonymous said...

1. The Roman Empire was bloodthirsty regardless of the accepted religion. Christianity simply failed to make them any less bloodthirsty than they were when the Caesars were the "gods" conquoring the world.

2. The *vast* majority of military acts in the Crusades were in direct *response* to Muslim attack. The Christians whose ancestors a thousand years ago were Roman/Pagan/Jewish/Proto-Arab didn't want to hear from the Muslims about how they didn't (despite a couple thousand years of claim) have any right to be there. The massacre at Jerusalem was to the Crusades what Me Lai was to Viet Nam...and I picked a morally "grey" modern war for a reason. However, the fact remains that the Crusades were almost exclusively *reactionary* attacks (meaning they got hit first). I suppose you *could* say these Christians failed to turn the other cheek, but then again, why should they *have* to?

3. Why is it politically incorrect to lump *all* Muslims together, or assume every Chinese citizen is a commie, or hate all Koreans, or assume the Germans are all still Nazis ... but *every* Christian has to get lumped together under the bloody flag of those who've historically done an epically piss poor job of emulating Jesus?

4. Know what you get when you Google "Muslims killed" ? -- you get stories about Muslims killing people.

By contrast, when you Google "Christians killed" you get stories about Christians being killed (usually by Muslims these days, historically mostly by Muslims in general)...and you get this site.

Kinda sad commentary on your site, really.

.:webmaster:. said...

Thanks for the typically Christian comment, anonymous.

Have a nice day.

seamus breathnach said...

First of all , let me congratulate you on your site. Of course, everything is not included, but the enormity of the violence spawned by Christianity is unmeasurable. Since its inception, it has served to destroy.

One of your correspondents writes:

"And the point of this article is...? The fact of the matter is if the Bible and Christianity are all elaborate lies why do you bother trying to discredit them? In today's modern world things are much different than the time of Christ or even a hundred years ago. The reason you try to discredit faith in Christ is because you do not agree with it, and that is your perogitive, but you are not going to be successful."

Why one bothers with lies is to stop them in their tracks. Most people know that this is self-evident. People try to prevent the dissemination of lies -- lies that the Catholic church delights to spread and thereby reduce people to a subservient role.

Hiding behind the notion that every view that is contrary to either the Universal Church or the Infallible One is an attack on Christ, is hardly the point. But since our correspondent confers the right of having a different opinion on those who do differ, let me say that in my experience Christians -- especially Catholics in a Catholic country -- will not allow anyone to have an opinion but theres.

Indeed, if WW11 was to be characterised in a few phrases, they would ,to my mind, reflect the resistance of the Atheist to the Catholic Church's role in the Spanish Civil War, the Catholic Church's deal with Mussolini, and the Christian Chruch's inspiration of Hitler. When all those millions and million of people resisted Nazism, in my opinion the apex of Christian anti-history, they tried to make space for Europeans to cast off the intolerance of the Inquisition. The whole war was an attempt to allow Atheists in Europe, the brightest and the best, to live in their own land without being made berufsverboten by the Popes.

That is -- or was -- the proud heritage of every post-WW11 European, the live and let live generation of the sixties, people who felt that they need not organise again against the bete noir of the Falangists, the Blue Shirts, the Black Shirts and the Brown Shirts of Christian Nazism.

The last two Popes have threatened that heritage.

I hear it everywhere! The Jihad is back!

If they win the peace, Europe will be like America. For entry only the Christian need apply and the News SS who already decide these things are the Opus Dei types! Opus Dei is not a figment of Dan Brown's imagination.

Seamus Breathnach

www.irish-criminology.com

Mariona's Human said...

And people wonder why I love my dog so much......talk about TRUE love and tolerence! Too bad more humans can't have more canine traits lke unconditional love, loyalty and compassion. But , as always, this is just ONE person's opions and I certainly don't expect the rest of the world to agree with me. :)

Anonymous said...

Your Correspondent Johnathon writes:

What I find most disturbing is how evil the human race is. We are absolutely without hope and will utterly destroy ourselves. It is inevitable. Human beings are too stupid to survive without murdering ourselves. But, blaming God is misplaced, because God doesn't cause evil.

He then writes:

So, why does God allow countless murders to be committed throughout history, even in "his" name?


There is a middle term between these to statements, Johnathon. What could it be?

If there was not God, then there would be no conundrum. Man might not be so evil; because he is only made evil when he does not do what religion's view of God wants him to do. And , secondly, if their was no God, then you wouldn't keep looking to him to solve your problem.

In a word, Johnathon, can you not envisage -- with John Lennon -- a place without God and without religion where you and I can meet and trust each other? And even think the best of each other. And if you keep your priesteen out of it, I will also. Who knows? We might actually get on much better without both the Islamic and the Christian God, and, of course ,without their priesteens.

What is important about this site is:

1. It demonstrates the capacity which believers in God and which Christians in particular have cultivated to demonstrate violence; and
2. Historically speaking, no religion has been more violent or war-prone than Christianity, right down to the present preaching of the tenth crusade.

Religion , by definition, masquerades as 'love of us', but what it disguises is that 'love of us' is kept alive by 'hatred of others.'

Seamus Breathnach
www.irish-criminology.com

sarahepic said...

Response to Hankmeister:

1.Well, Your Christian Ancestors didn't have guns, and I'm sure they would of killed a whole lot more if they did, so don't even compare Governments.
2. As for Stalin, Hitler ... easy, we don't believe in the same thing,or to be more clear " same strategy" and last time I checked, your both Christian.
3. What about the Christian priest molestations, claiming " God would forgive them" that wasn't a thousand years ago. Or perhaps throwing the babies they had with their nuns in the basement and left to die. That wasn't to long ago.
4. I'm sorry but supporting a murderous religion is like supporting Terrorism. No Thanks.
5. Anyways who wants to sing praise to someone for all eternity anyways,I'm sorry but I'm not going to kiss someone's butt for that long.
6. I think I'd rather go hang out with Socrates and all the other philosophers the Church killed, think of what else we could have discovered. Galileo was put under house arrest for saying the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Bet the church felt stupid when they learned he was right.

Daniel said...

the people are one bad thing,b ut what about allt he countless works of literature and knowledge that have been destroyed because they disagree witht he way christians believe the world came into play?

Gibbons said...

CHRISTIANS AREN'T PERFECT.

A TRUE CHRISTIAN NEVER CLAIMS TO BE. RELIGION IS NOT A DEBATE OVER WHO HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

I KNOW I AM BAD.
I TRY TO DO GOOD BUT I WILL CONSTANTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY FALL SHORT. HENCE I AM IN NEED OF SOMETHING ELSE, A GIFT.
I AM DISGRACED BY WHAT MANY SO CALLED 'CHRISTIANS' HAVE DONE. IT IS HUMAN NATURE ITSELF. AND JUST BECUASE SOMEONE CALLS THEMSELF A CHRISTIAN DOES NOT MAKE THEM ONE. I AM ASHAMED OF WHAT MANY PEOPLE AND CHURCHES HAVE DONE IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY.


WE ALL NEED A SAVIOUR.

stronger now said...

"WE ALL NEED A SAVIOUR."


I don't.

AtheistToothFairy said...

Gibbons wrote:
CHRISTIANS AREN'T PERFECT

I couldn't agree MORE.

>I KNOW I AM BAD.
I'm sorry you have such a pitiful view of yourself.

>I TRY TO DO GOOD BUT I WILL CONSTANTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY FALL SHORT.

Based on what standards....your own or your make believe god's?

>HENCE I AM IN NEED OF SOMETHING ELSE, A GIFT.

Yes, the "gift" of a MIND I'm afraid.

> IT IS HUMAN NATURE ITSELF. AND JUST BECUASE SOMEONE CALLS THEMSELF A CHRISTIAN DOES NOT MAKE THEM ONE.

Alas, there is no way to prove from the bible, who is a true xtian and who isn't.
Worse, the most 'valid' xtian one can find, is still a very deluded human.

> I AM ASHAMED OF WHAT MANY PEOPLE AND CHURCHES HAVE DONE IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY.

I'll second that vote !!

The best solution of course, is to rid the world of such beliefs, right?

>WE ALL NEED A SAVIOUR.

I'll have to agree with Stronger Now and say, "I don't".
See, some of us are okay with dealing with life all on our own and don't require the shoulder of some imaginary god to cry upon or give us false hopes of some eternal existence.


Okay folks, anyone care to make a wager on whether this hit&run xtian will return here?

ATF (Who wonders why so many have so little confidence in their own human abilities, that they latch onto fictitious creatures for support)

Dave8 said...

Gibbons: "CHRISTIANS AREN'T PERFECT."

Well, I suppose one would have to have an understanding of perfection in order to judge "all" Christians as "not" perfect.

Gibbons: "I KNOW I AM BAD."

Is bad the opposite of perfect? If you can't define "perfect", then how do you understand what it means to be "bad"?

The premise of doctrinal Christianity is that they hold the "prescription" for "perfection"... the instructions are listed - in their Holy Bible.

However, perhaps you are not a doctrinal/orthodox Christians, you are a cultural Christian... if so, then you are a member of a group of people who meet in a building... you are not a practicing member of a "religion" - in short Gibbon, you are just as secular as the majority of society... well, with the exception of who you hang out with on your Sun-days.

Gibbons said...

I would not consider my view of myself to be "pitiful" as some of you may think. I know that i am an amazing, unique individual who is perhaps one of the luckiest guys alive...God has trully blessed me. But i also know that i am no where near good enough. And that i can not be self-rightous thinking that i can do it on my own.

I fall short every day. To the standard of perfection (without any error). I would think that you would agree you have too, by your own moral compass you may have. Whether it is your own personal one, that of a group, or society. True you most likely do not commit first degree murder on a regular basis, but maybe it is something else...lying...if you dont find that wrong and only hold youself to social laws...that of drinking underage, not buckiling your seatbelt..etc etc. By this own standard you must admit yourself not to be a perfect organism.

But the matter of salvation and perfection is a different issue for you do not beleive that there is a god to begin with... (which let i remind you is a belief itself. To rid the world of all beliefs, is obviously impossible and hence irrelevant, but remember that you fall in the same category) The question i ask you, which i understand may have many different answers depending on each of you, but..."How do you believe all of this happened? (Earth, life, you, me)" I am sincerly asking. As nature points out there is a beginning and end to all life...How are we here and to what purpose (chance)?

AtheistToothFairy said...

Gibbons wrote:
I would not consider my view of myself to be "pitiful" as some of you may think. I know that i am an amazing, unique individual who is perhaps one of the luckiest guys alive
----
Gibbons,

You say you don't see yourself as "pitiful", but you did say you see yourself as "BAD".
Maybe it's just me, but I see little difference between those two views of oneself.

How can one think oneself to be "amazing" and one of the "luckiest guy's alive", yet still view oneself as "BAD"
Perhaps you should define the word BAD for us, okay.
Maybe you meant 'bad', as in bad-ass...haha

>...God has trully blessed me. But i also know that i am no where near good enough. And that i can not be self-rightous thinking that i can do it on my own.

First off, you do not 'KNOW' that any god "truly blessed" you. You only believe that is the case.
So by what measure do you use, to say you're "no where good enough"?
Good enough for WHAT or for WHOM?

I see nothing wrong in having enough self-confidence to believe one can do things right in life, without some supernatural external force intervening in our lives.
Of course, you do, because you've been trained by religion to believe you are a flawed individual etc..


>I fall short every day.

Well, if you set your personal goal post too high, then you will always seem to fail.
Perhaps you should lower that goal post to something more, ummm, HUMAN.


>To the standard of perfection (without any error).

So you're saying that your personal goal is to be PERFECT?
Well no wonder you have such a dismal view of yourself.

First off, can anyone truly know what it means to be "perfect"?
That definition would vary per individual, don't you think?
Answer me this, what is the perfect car or perfect song?

>I would think that you would agree you have too, by your own moral compass you may have. Whether it is your own personal one, that of a group, or society. True you most likely do not commit first degree murder on a regular basis, but maybe it is something else...lying...if you dont find that wrong and only hold youself to social laws...that of drinking underage, not buckiling your seatbelt..etc etc. By this own standard you must admit yourself not to be a perfect organism.

I would never make a claim to say that I'm a perfect organism, nor do I have any ambitions towards achieving such a far-fetched goal, even if one could define what perfect means here.

My moral compass is based on what I believe is right and just, which has been formed by my life experiences. That's not to say that I don't mess up now and then, but I'm only human and again, have no desire to pretend I can be something other than human.
If I mess up, I try and fix things directly, rather than begging some invisible god to forgive me and/or fix things himself, for me.

That is called taking ownership of one's own screw-up's, my friend.
If I feel guilty from something I've done 'wrong', then I have no god to throw that guilt upon and have to deal with the guilt myself by making things right again etc..
This view of reality, makes it my own responsibility to deal with such problems, rather than transferring part/all of the problem onto some mythical god being, as xtians seem to love to do.


>But the matter of salvation

Salvation, from WHAT exactly?
If you mean from hell, then once again, you have zero proof such a place exists, or will exist in the future, right?

> and perfection is a different issue for you do not beleive that there is a god to begin with...

You got that right !!

> which let i remind you is a belief itself.

Yes a 'belief', much as one would say that not accepting that invisible horses roam the surface of our sun, would also be a 'belief'.
Frankly, I think the huge lack of any evidence for your god, constitutes an obvious and rational conclusion, that would be considered a little more than just a mere 'belief'.

You use the word 'belief' towards my atheist viewpoint, as if it's a matter of "faith" that I don't believe in your god, where you believe in this god with faith alone.
There is a huge difference here, in that your beliefs (faith) come from emotions and mine come from a sheer lack of god evidence. A god I might add, that should be plainly obvious, if it does exists and is interacting with any humans.


>To rid the world of all beliefs, is obviously impossible and hence irrelevant

I do not think to rid the world of a belief in a non-existent god is irrelevant, at all.
In fact, it's very important that humankind learns to rid itself of such superstitions, and reside in a world of reality.
These god based religions greatly hinder human progress, and have been responsible for countless wars, torture, and the general subjugation of the human spirit.

> The question i ask you, which i understand may have many different answers depending on each of you, but..."How do you believe all of this happened? (Earth, life, you, me)" I am sincerly asking. As nature points out there is a beginning and end to all life...How are we here and to what purpose (chance)?

First off, there is no grand universal purpose to life. Life just IS.
Any purpose to our lives, is solely from a personal viewpoint and is different for each person.

You ask the age old question, that I will paraphrase to, 'How did everything come to be'.
Just because we don't know all the answers to the origin of the universe and our own existence, doesn't automatically point to some god having been the cause of it all.
Frankly, to insist that god-did-it, is nothing more than an excuse from ignorance.
We don't know, so therefore, god must have done it etc..
I could just as easily say, we don't know, so some super advanced aliens must have done it...same thing.


Humans once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that god put it there on purpose. We got a little wiser about that falsehood and now we know that god did no such thing.
We once thought the sun went around the earth, which the 'science' of the bible infers in many ways.
Science, despite religion, discovered the earth is just one of several planets that orbit the sun, which effectively pushed your god a few steps back from a former, more-assured, reality.

Today, we understand how vast the universe is, and as time goes on, it only seems to grow bigger and more endless.
Should we suppose that your god needed to create such a huge playground, just to stick a tiny earth inside of, and it's biological life forms?

It's very much accepted that all the matter of the universe came from a singularity.
The big-bang is not some rumor spread by the bible devil to lure us humans away from your bible god, and neither is the accepted evolution of life for that matter.

Perhaps the driving force for YOU to believe so deeply in this god being, is one of FEAR?

We know we all had a beginning (birth) and we all will have an end (death).
Alas, some fear the death part so much that they'll grab ahold of any promise that offers a life beyond our corporal death.

What a side-show circus attraction this promise is.
For just a matter of handing over your brain to the promoters of such a belief, one can be assured of living for all eternity.
Oh, but don't dare ask for any proof of this god or of souls or of anyone living in some afterlife, because all such things are strictly a matter of blind faith.
To question the validity of such promises, is to 'test' the very god that supposedly is offering that great reward.

You may continue your life of thinking some god created it all, that some dude named jesus came to die in human form so that his Daddy would change his mind and give a select few an eternal life in some heaven, but if you really reason things out here, you'll soon discover that this whole concept is nothing more than a silly childish fable.
The whole plot (theme) of your bible story is crude and totally unbelievable, except to those who put on blinders to stop themselves from using reason and seeing reality.

Believe what you will, but I ask this of you and your kind:

Do not go around pushing others to swallow your delusion.
Do not get in the way of human progress and do not try and infect your country's government with the god virus.


ATF (Who is still awaiting some credible proof of this god, or at least, his doings)

Dave8 said...

Gibbons: "I would not consider my view of myself to be "pitiful" as some of you may think."

A person who believes in principles that create low self-esteem, or self-value; would not be expected to pity themselves...

Interestingly, the more a person buys into the principles/standards that create a lowered sense of self-value, the more apt they are to seek and condone self-abuse.

Gibbons: "I know that i am an amazing, unique individual who is perhaps one of the luckiest guys alive..."

Based on what standard of evaluation?

Gibbons: "God has trully blessed me."

Everything you know, resides in your mind, to include your understanding of a God concept. What does your mind suggest, constitutes a "blessing"?

Gibbons: "But i also know that i am no where near good enough. And that i can not be self-rightous thinking that i can do it on my own."

You suggest that there must be a secondary party, to "validate" you as a "good" person - that creates a sense of do-dependence. The more co-dependent a person becomes, the less control they have of their life, and the greater their loss of a "self-identity".

Gibbons: "I fall short every day. To the standard of perfection (without any error)."

Again, what is the perfection "standard" for evaluation, and what "second" party do you seek, for an assessment of "your" performance?

Gibbons: "I would think that you would agree you have too, by your own moral compass you may have."

However, "my" moral compass, is assessed by "my" standards for living. Morality, is the method I have ascribed to sustain what I deem valuable - Self. The sustainment of self, covers the range of needs from physical to a strong sense of mental actualization/identity.

I am not "co-dependent" on another agent, to validate my sense of success in maintaining a moral position. I "do" maintain a sense of what it means to be morally "right", based on a "self" assessment; therefore, I "am" self-right(eous), because I maintain an individual morality based on "self-standards".

While I "do", have to consider my self-assigned moral behavior, in relation to a communal expectation, e.g., laws, I do not "require" a community for "validation".

My morality is between me and my self-ascribed standards - independently.

While I am independent, I also maintain a social role in society, and am part of a community. I may be "judged" by my community, based on law, but communal laws do not necessarily reflect my "morality".

I may save my "life", by stealing a non-FDA approved pill that cures a terminal illness, and that would be "morally" acceptable to me; yet, stealing is against the law.

I do not "confuse" my morality, with social norms, or the expectations as set forth by a "secondary" agent; co-dependently.

Gibbons: "...By this own standard you must admit yourself not to be a perfect organism."

Again, the "standards" of a society, do not "dictate" my sense of "morality", or the method by which I ascribe to maintain what I deem valuable - Self/life.

What you propose, is that I may not be considered "perfect" in terms of aligning my behavior with the expectations of a particular society, or secondary party.

Social standards are constructed, from the average of a collective ignorance. In my opinion, the "average" of anything, is a declaration of something that exists in a "less than perfect" state.

I can easily suggest that I am "perfect", in understanding my method of maintaining what I deem valuable/good. In such a manner, my morality is the perfect method/ideal.

If you want to discuss the evaluation of my ability to live according to the "virtues" that logically support my ideal, then... you can ask "me" for my evaluation - I don't need a second party establishment for my morality, nor a secondary validation for my ability to live according to my "self-imposed" virtues.

I watched a video, or something recently, that suggested that the religious and non-religious likely have a common "morality". I find that to be "technically" inappropriate.

Gibbons, me and you, "likely" have a very different morality, because your "values", if you are a practicing Christian, are much different than mine.

Your morality would represent a method for maintaining your soul or eternal salvation/life, and your method for achieving that value inherently would be "much different" than my method for maintaining my mortal "Self".

For example, your method of success, may call martyrdom for a divine cause a virtue; my method would not, it would actually be antithetical, and diametrically opposed to such a proposition.

The only "commonality" we may share, in terms of morality, is in our passion and "effort" to achieve what we find "valuable".

The more "secular" a Christian becomes, the more in "common" our moralities can be.

Albeit, there will always exist a level of moral disparity, based on the inherent Christian value of the after-life.

Gibbons: "But the matter of salvation and perfection is a different issue for you do not beleive that there is a god to begin with... (which let i remind you is a belief itself. To rid the world of all beliefs, is obviously impossible and hence irrelevant, but remember that you fall in the same category)"

Well, I disagree... Let me clarify my "dis-belief", if you demand that we all hold a belief in everything we discuss.

I "dis-believe", the "individual", who makes a proposition without validation.

The fact that I "dis-believe" in the "credibility" of an individual, who makes hypothetical claims without support; does not... mean... nor should it ever be mis-construed to mean, that I actually entertained and accepted their hypothetical statement as "validated" by evidence, only to then reject the statement with dis-belief.

I don't disbelieve invalidated hypothetical statements; I dis-believe in the "individual" who makes hypothetical claims as "facts", with no corroborating evidence.

Now... Gibbons, doesn't it seem absurd to suggest that because I dis-believe in an individual's credibility; that I somehow "believe" in everything that a non-credible individual proposes?

In terms of psyche-development, I have learned a while ago, to consider the validity of the source, before I consider statements produced by the source.

Many Christians, make the argument that non-believers are synonymous with those who hold a "belief" against a "credible" source and their statements. This point of view, is presumptuous to say the least.

My dis-belief in the credibility and authority of an individual, has no bearing on the certainty/confidence I hold towards any "one" particular statement they make...

When I say to a Christian; "I don't believe you", that is not the same as "I don't believe the statements you make".

If a Christian "demands" that I inspect or observe their statement, I begin by assuming their proposition to be a hypothetical statement, until evidence becomes available.

To close the loop, I do not "disbelieve" or have a "belief" towards a hypothetical proposition. Hypothetical statements are as vast and varied as one's imagination can create, and until a hypothetical becomes supported by evidence - it remains hypothetical, by definition - not my opinion/belief.

We all have a "belief" in what "constitutes" by "definition" a hypothesis/hypothetical... to say I believe/accept the idea of a hypothesis, does not mean, nor should it be construed to mean, that I "believe" or "dis-believe" in all propositions that are "hypothetically" proposed.

Now, Gibbons, if you have any concern about what I do believe or don't believe concerning a hypothetical statement, or the object of my dis-belief (the individual I consider incredible, as they propose hypothetical as fact, without evidence) then by all means ask as many questions as you want.

However, at this time, I hold no belief or disbelief towards a hypothetical statement. A statement is what it is, based on its characteristics. As well, I have known "zero" Christians, to be credible or authoritative, because every Christian I know, to this day, has claimed hypothetical statements to be "facts", while holding no evidence.

Yes, I dis-believe a lot of people... because they invariably invalidate themselves as credible, by making incredible claims without support.

Now, obviously, why would a Christian claim that I actually dis-believe their hypothetical statement, when I don't consider them a credible source to begin with?

Perhaps, such a person, makes such a statement, because their entire belief system requires co-dependent support - and even the self-induced perception a "negative" belief, gives them a sense of affirmation, even if in the negative... and a sense of self-accepted "credibility".

Gibbons: "The question i ask you, which i understand may have many different answers depending on each of you, but..."How do you believe all of this happened? (Earth, life, you, me)" I am sincerly asking."

My "belief", regarding earth, life, you, me, is restricted to my experience and knowledge of each of those terms and their referents.

In other words Gibbons, I do my best not to "believe"... I am more concerned with what I "know".

To propose something beyond my experience, requires imagination and the submission of a hypothetical statement.

Currently, I am not interested in promoting a hypothetical proposition, so that we can joust, using hypothetical lances - infinitely.

Trying to come to terms on a common cosmology between a naturalist and a theist, is like jousting with a windmill, or seeking Nessy or the ever so elusive Holy Grail.

In the end of a long and sincere dialectic, both parties will either have to accept belief equals belief; or... promote "knowledge" above belief, or "belief" above "knowledge".

I promote "knowledge" above belief; I would surmise if you are in the least bit religious to promote "belief" above "knowledge".

Gibbons: "As nature points out there is a beginning and end to all life...How are we here and to what purpose (chance)?"

Nature does not dogmatically point anything out; it presents us with information, and we interpret that information in our limited sphere of reality...

I have yet to be shown a beginning or an end of anything, at least not by how "I" interpret Nature... I perceive a lot of transition & transformation via transference. That's based on my "knowledge", not "belief", by the way.

As far as "purpose", and chance... I'd wager you have little chance of determining a Universal Purpose that is supported by knowledge.

Astreja said...

Gibbons: "But i also know that i am nowhere near good enough."

Then keep working on the stuff that you think you need to improve. That's what I do constantly. But don't hamstring yourself by thinking you're doing it for the sake of an invisible sky dude.

"True you most likely do not commit first degree murder on a regular basis but maybe it is something else...lying...if you dont find that wrong and only hold youself to social laws..."

*ahem* 'Lying is bad' *is* a social law.

"By this own standard you must admit yourself not to be a perfect organism."

What is it with this silly obsession with 'perfection', anyway? Particularly in its usual context of {actions + thoughts}. In My opinion, perfection is an unattainable, abstract standard even for gods. The universe is in a state of constant change, and 'perfection' implies 'permanently better than everything else out there'. Does not compute.

"...for you do not believe that there is a god to begin with... (which let i remind you is a belief itself.)"

Tired old assertion, just a variation on the tu quoque logical fallacy.

"How do you believe all of this happened? (Earth, life, you, me)"

Don't know, but science may one day give us a good explanation. I'm in no hurry to find out, because knowing 'why' is irrelevant to My day-to-day life.

"...and to what purpose (chance)?"

We make our own purpose in life. There is no external grand scheme that makes any sense to Me, and this is why:

- - -

Astreja's Dilemma v1.0

If meaning in life must be assigned from without, from what source does a god derive its purpose?

If a god has no extrinsic purpose and no intrinsic purpose, it is not in a position to make purposeful the lives of any other being.

But if a god's purpose is intrinsic... I propose that our purpose is, likewise, intrinsic.

(Or, to put it less delicately, if a crazed sky-fairy can just reach into its ass and pull out a 'reason' for us being here, I'm sure we can come up with something that makes at least as much sense. It certainly does not make sense that an omnipotent deity would need mortals to do anything at all to further some unknown plan.)

- - -

Furthermore, I see very little 'chance' in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Complexity is derived from simplicity in accordance with consistently manifesting, predictable and measurable things... Atomic forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the like.

Gibbons said...

I do not find it productive to attempt to tear my comments apart a half sentence at a time, asking me to give you a vocabulary lesson...

But reading your comments i feel that your stong reason for denying God is a lack of tangible evidence by your own standards. This is a much more intelligent reasoning rather than basing your dis-belief on actions performed by so-called Christians or any other things that have been argued in former comments. And this reasoning can be looked at and discussed.

Yes i do believe that there is "evidence" pointing to a God. True, we have yet to find a "Made by God" tag under a rock but i feel that the evidence is still all around us, in science. Even though i am Christian i value science. I love the pursuit of knowledge and find it extremely important to the development of the human race as a whole. To blame christians for holding back the human race is not a very mature or intelligent logic. Some of the most brilliant minds in history and many of them today are THEISTIC individuals. I myself consider my self to be fairly academic and am pursing the sciences and the "pursuit for human knowledge" at my university.

Through my learning, both by theist and atheist alike, i have yet to find a single piece of physical evidence that points to an existance without God.

Even though the Big Bang theory has lost much support and backing in the recent years, i do not throw it out, or any other such like ideas. I PERSONALY believe that God uses nature and uses physical events rather than just snapping his fingers as some people may believe.

This being a "Ex-Christian" site i would assume that many of you may be ex-christians... But hearing some of the comments you have made regarding your outlook on Christianity or the Bible, i question your true understanding of what Christianity focuses on or what the Bible says, if read in context.

I understand that many of you may have had very bad experiences with the Christian church. Many people have. If your value is in expanding your own knowledge then i feel that it would make sense to consider Christianity as a valid option, just as i try to keep an open mind on other peoples views, no matter how different they may be from my own. And if you claim that you have already given it a look, i pray that it was a good one, and that you werent given a twisted view of Christainity or God.

I think you will agree that there is nothing denying an existence of a god other than your own personal experiences and knoweldge...

.:webmaster:. said...

You are absolutely correct, gibbons! There is no way any of us can dogmatically deny the possibility of the existence of supernatural agencies that operate from outside the laws of known reality.

However, until even a single religious believer is able to present one gram of empirical evidence that his or her object of divine worship actually exists somewhere outside his or her imagination, I think it reasonable and rational and reasonable to reject religious superstition.

"All hail Zeus, king of the gods."

Sounds silly to worship Zeus, doesn't it? Yet, people did it for quite a long time. In fact, many, many generations of otherwise rational people were quite confident those gods of old were as real as you or me. Today we think their whole mindset is bit odd and humorous. But we are sure that our gods are completely different.

Think about it.

stronger now said...

"Through my learning, both by theist and atheist alike, i have yet to find a single piece of physical evidence that points to an existance without God."

Have you also ever found even a single piece of physical evidence that points to an existence without pixies, invisible dragons, and leprechauns?

"...i question your true understanding of what Christianity focuses on or what the Bible says, if read in context."[bold added]

Would this "true understanding" be your own personal understanding of what the bible says in context?

"I think you will agree that there is nothing denying an existence of a god other than your own personal experiences and knoweldge..."

I think you will agree that there is nothing denying the existence of pixies and invisible flying dragons than your own personal experiences and knowledge....

Do you believe in those as well?

.:webmaster:. said...

One more thing gibbons,

You seem to think some of us are mistaken in our understanding of Christianity. I would say that you are the one who is mistaken if you honestly think there is only one Christianity. There are many different Christianities, and the one any particular person is talking about on this site is usually the particular version that person has recently left.

Now, are one of those Christians who is about to tell us that you are in possession of the one "true" version of Christianity?

You are correct that there have been and continue to be many intelligent people who subscribe to some form or other of theistic ideas and beliefs. However, I think you might find it difficult to name very many that dogmatically hold to a Christian fundamentalist, Bible literalism, position. Even Issac Newton, who is raised constantly as some sort totem of faith, disbelieved in the Trinity, predicted the end of the world would come in 2060, and spent years trying to turn iron into gold. Smart people are just people. They are as subject to the influences of upbringing, family, culture, environment, time in history, diet, sickness, delusion, etc., as the rest of us. Driving without a seatbelt, for instance, is stupid, but plenty of smart people still do it.

Think about it.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Gibbons...I do not find it productive to attempt to tear my comments apart a half sentence at a time, asking me to give you a vocabulary lesson...

You have chosen to enter a discussion on religious philosophy, yes? You offer your opinion; we give point-by-point counter-arguments. So?..how does that lack productivity? BTW, it is not uncommon in such discussions to define one's terms, in an effort to seek common ground. Why do we seek common ground in these discussions? Answer: To be more productive.

Gibbons...But reading your comments i feel that your stong reason for denying God is a lack of tangible evidence by your own standards.

Who are you talking to, exactly? Again, aren't you the one seeking productivity? I believe so, so if you would quote the person you are directing your comments to, it would be more productive, IMO. But since, for the time being, you seem to be talking to "everybody", I don't mind pointing out, that no, Atheists don't "deny" your biblegod; we simply lack belief in said biblical character.

As far as "tanglible evidence" by our "own standards", allow me to also point out that this is likely the same exact "standard" with which you dismiss "Allah", "Poseiden", "mithra", "Toth", and a whole host of other deities. In other words, from what I can tell, it is you, the Christian, who creates the double-standard for "tangible evidence".

Gibbons...This is a much more intelligent reasoning rather than basing your dis-belief on actions performed by so-called Christians or any other things that have been argued in former comments

For the record, every "Christian" is technically "so-called". In other words, the fallacy of your argument - one that we see a lot, BTW - is that you claim there an objective way to determine who is a "True Christian", and who isn't. Gibbons, there is no alternative way to obtain the title "Christian", other than to "call" yourself one. If you insist that a second party has the authority to come along and determine which people are "so-called Christians", and which people are "True Christians", then by the same standard, you must be prepared to allow a second party to tell you that you are not a "True Christian", based on their personal interpretation of Christian doctrine.

So, the question is---would you give some other person the authority to tell you that you are not a "True Christian"? I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "I highly doubt it".

Gibbons...Yes i do believe that there is "evidence" pointing to a God.

Yes, yes..we've gathered that much. However, "a God" is very ambiguous. It is altogether a separate argument to say "I believe in a god", than it is to say, "Jesus IS Lord!(God)". Do you understand the distinction? In other words, from a Muslim perspective, the person who believes in the wrong "God"...i.e..any "God" other than Allah, is no better-off than the person who doesn't believe in "God" at all.

So, we'd be asking for evidence that the Christian biblegod is the "One True Creator of the Universe", and all other gods are figments of people's imaginations. Do you have such evidence?...that's the question, and we can start from there.

Gibbons...True, we have yet to find a "Made by God" tag under a rock but i feel that the evidence is still all around us, in science.

As history shows, "feelings" are not a reliable means for determining truth. In fact, "feelings"/"science" is an oxymoron. To illustrate, primative man couldn't explain "thunder". His feelings told him, "It must be Thor!" Well, today, science tells us differently. Nonetheless, you seem to be arguing that whatever we learn from the scientific method; whatever natural explanation science gives, that a flying, disembodied "mind" is ultimately responsible for those processes...i.e.. a "supernatural" explanation. Well, that is a fantastic claim which ultimately cannot be disproven, which is why you need fantastic evidence if you expect people to share in your "feelings" on the subject. Nature is default; not SUPER-nature.

Gibbons...Even though i am Christian i value science.

Then I'm curious to learn how you explain some of the absurdities in the bible that seem to defy the scientific method..i.e..talking snakes, swimming hammers, zombies, bloody rivers, healing disease with bird's blood, etc.

Gibbons...To blame christians for holding back the human race is not a very mature or intelligent logic.

We don't discriminate; we blame ALL religion. It just so happens that the focus is Christianity, of course, because this is an EX-christian website, and because.....well, because you are a Christian who has chimed-in on the discussion.

Gibbons...Some of the most brilliant minds in history and many of them today are THEISTIC individuals.

Yes, many of whom are Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim. Now, does that lend credence to their respective religious beliefs?

Gibbons...Through my learning, both by theist and atheist alike, i have yet to find a single piece of physical evidence that points to an existance without God.

Through your learning? Well, through this process you have evidently picked-up on a few logical fallacies. It is fallacious, illogical reasoning to look for evidence that disproves what has yet to be proven. In other words, there is likewise "not one piece of physical evidence" that disproves the notion that gremlins haven't hidden our car keys and sunglasses when these items occasionally turn up missing. It might serve you learn to the burden of proof.

Gibbons...I PERSONALY believe that God uses nature and uses physical events rather than just snapping his fingers as some people may believe.

That's nice, but I'd like to point out that you've made a distinction without a damn bit of difference. So, you believe that "God uses nature", do you? HOW? How does "He" do it? If you cannot answer that, then you have nothing better than the metaphorical "snapping of God's fingers". Remember, nature exists. Simply stating that "nature" has a supernatural cause is fallacious reasoning, and remains merely speculation.

Gibbons.....hearing some of the comments you have made regarding your outlook on Christianity or the Bible, i question your true understanding of what Christianity focuses on or what the Bible says, if read in context.

Cover-to-cover is "in context". Have you read the bible cover-to-cover? Notwithstanding, I don't need to read "T'was the Night Before Christmas" cover-to-cover to know that "Santa" doesn't have a referent in reality.

As for "true understanding", you commit another logical fallacy when you attempt to posit that something so blatantly open to interpretation can have an objective meaning. If there was complete unity among Christ-followers, you might have an argument. But obviously, we don't see that.

Gibbons...I think you will agree that there is nothing denying an existence of a god other than your own personal experiences and knoweldge...

No, I don't agree. Firstly, for the second time in one post, you imply that we "deny" God's existence, which is not true. If you had objective evidence, then I would be "denying God". Of course, let me point out, that yes, I would deny any being that would threaten bodily harm for not reciprocating its "love".

Good day.

Dave8 said...

Gibbons: "I do not find it productive to attempt to tear my comments apart a half sentence at a time, asking me to give you a vocabulary lesson..."

It would be helpful to ID the person whom you are responding towards. However, the issue of partial deconstruction of a sentence does not violate a vocabulary principle...

Arguing half sentence snippets to be unproductive, perhaps for "contextual" reasons - is of a grammatical concern.

That said, if you "know" of something to be out of context, based on someone taking grammatical license with your post... then you have all the virtual room available, to "elaborate" where you find miscommunication - the point of communication is to "exchange" ideas with clarity if it is your intent to provide another with "understanding", based on "your point of view".

Gibbons: "But reading your comments i feel that your stong reason for denying God is a lack of tangible evidence by your own standards."

Gibbons, I need to break down two main ideas in that single sentence.

As others have noted, it is hard to discuss an idea without defining terms. Can "you" place your term God in a context that we can equally understand? Until that term is give "context", the use of the word in a grammatical sentence, creates a hypothetical situation for me, and is totally arbitrary - meaningless.

Regarding, the denial of a hypothetical term “God”, because my standard of evaluation is held by my own mind; I do not “deny” the hypothetical statement - it’s hypothetical but worse, arbitrarily hypothetical. If an attempt is made to give context, please note, that shifting the hypothetical to a metaphor isn’t going to make it any more real to me, it then becomes a metaphor.

Are “words” like “hypothetical”, “metaphor”, “simile”, etc., my own “standards”? Yes, I have adopted these terms to represent my “impression” of your “statement(s)”. However, you have as well, adopted and adapted to standards of evaluation, as all cognitively developed humans do. We do in fact, have a “common” language – which in essence does present a “standard” for “communication”.

The common presence we share is in “reality”; therefore, “reality” should be the standard of evaluation we adhere to in order to come to a common understanding on “any” topic. Do you have an expression that can direct me to a referent in our reality that you would claim to be representative of the term God?

Gibbons, when our minds conform to “reality”, in other words; when our thoughts, ideas, etc., conform to the reality we experience – we find objectivity, and speaking in objective terms allows us “both” to focus on reality, which is “all” that exists between us. In an objective sense, we should never disagree on “reality”, if “reality” is the standard of evaluation.

Now… when thoughts, ideas, etc., do not conform to our shared “reality”, then they are subjective impressions of reality; they represent subjective truths if held as true by the individual.

I do not “share” your “subject” presence (concretely), and therefore, can “never” truly adopt your subjective truth(s), based on “experience”… I’d have to have “faith” in “you”, where faith is synonymous with confidence and trust, to accept your subjectively asserted truth(s).

Gibbons, neither you nor I, am obligated to confide in, or trust anyone. To me, my trust must be earned; I do not give it out freely… in a sense, trust is a virtue that makes the relationships I hold - valuable. If my trust were freely prostituted, then it would cheapen the value of any relationship I held.

I find it perverse, that the “one” relationship that is touted as the most glorious by the religious, requires the immediate prostitution of the single most important virtue I hold for relationships - trust.

As a child, I was expected to “submit” to authority; education, religion, community, etc. A relationship built on submission is not synonymous with a relationship built on trust. Christianity, as well as many other religions; doctrinally and traditionally speaking in many cases; is not built on a trust relationship, it is built on a submission relationship.

I am not intellectually submissive, nor simple minded, my trust should not be construed by others to be rightfully theirs on demand; my trust is not their right – it’s a privilege I may or may not grant them.

Gibbons, I do not single you out, there are “many” people, whom I engage in passionate discussion that have a burning desire to “create” and “offer” their type of “religion” as a “ministry” to “Ex’s”, perhaps feeling the need to be an “Ex”, minister of sorts…

Any religion, or… religious associate, etc., who demands my unfettered trust, is grossly presumptuous, and violates my sense of “morality”. Again, “morality” is the methodology employed to protect and sustain what we value. I value “life/Self”, therefore, the methodology for protecting and sustaining my life/self constitutes my “morality”.

The virtues I hold are “moral habits” that I exercise, to maintain my sense of “morality – be moral. As I stated earlier… I am quite confident that my morality and the morality of “any” religion, will be divergent, primarily based on the assumption of an afterlife, and the methodology and virtues that are exercised to successfully attain/maintain that “value”. However, when an afterlife isn’t a concern, the “virtues” I adhere to, like maintaining the integrity of a trust relationship, can be in direct “conflict”, with those who demand submission or “suspension” of my virtue; creating a violation.

Gibbons, I know this may sound a little old-fashioned… but, before we intellectually kiss, can you provide something “objective” as a show of “good faith”, in order for this relationship to move forward.

An “objective” truth, is mind independent… in other words, reality is not “created” with the mind; it is interpreted. If you can provide something “objective” where the standard of evaluation is “reality”, where we can corroborate and come to a communal knowledge – then, please do so.

If you are not able to do so, then your subjective knowledge is all we have to work from, and I am not in the habit of prostituting my trust, in order to start intellectually dating.

Gibbons said...

When i stumbled across this site, doing a little research, my reasoning for commenting was that I felt the issue being debated (Number of people killed by Christians) was the wrong avenue for rejecting Christianity. Through our discussion i have seen that many of your atheist "dis-beliefs" go much deeper than just the death toll. Which i am glad for. I would hope that actions of christians "reflect" that of Jesus but i know fully well, that is not always the case.
So my hope is that anyone on the site would understand that horrible acts have been done in the name of Christianity and will continue to occur. I have no right to judge the hearts of man, nor do i know how God will judge them...But if the primary purpose of a Christians actions is to reflect those of Jesus then i doubt any indivual, no matter at what level of authority, whom kills millions in a belief that they have twisted to their own agenda, is a true Christian "follower of Christ(Jesus)".

Just as Islamic indivudals i have talked to claim that the "Islamic Extremist" or not true Muslims at all, but have twisted their faith to their own agenda.

But through our talk it seems we have reached the conclusion that there is no emperical evidence that points to a god or to a world without one. I highly doubt there will ever be any scientific fact that will trully shaken my faith, as i believe there will ever be a scientific finding that will cause you to come looking for a god to grab onto.

Science is solely the study of the world/nature around us, since a god is outside the realms of nature and human logic itself, it can not be studied or understood, which in turn seems to turn against basic human logic to therefore believe in.

I feel science points to a god, but then again that is my own personal perspective that i have. Just as we can not see wind, but can see the effects of wind all around us.

It is impossible for me to describe, rationalize, prove, or explain an all-powerful being that is all knowing, omni-present, and lives outside our mere three demensions. It is unfair for you to ask me to prove him and obviously just as unfair for me to demand you show me he doesnt exist.

So we come to the conclusion that we won't be able solve the age-old debate if God exists...hahaha

I guess i would have but two requests...

A) Know that Christians mess up too (one of the primary principles of Christianity) and that we will continue doing so. Please do not judge the faith or God solely on the actions of some twisted men, for they will awlays exist in every faith, every corner of the world.

B) Even though i do not claim to have the "true Christianity" and know church doctrine differs everywhere you go, the core beliefs of "Followers of Christ" are the same. I hope that if that isnt what you have previously experienced in the Christian church you will have an option to learn more about it some other time.

We can't understand everything. Not everything can be logicaly or scientificly explained. This is not the reason i turn to God but more or less the reason i am saying, you can not find God in those places.

.:webmaster:. said...

Let me see if I understand what Gibbons is saying:

1) There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Gibbon's god.

2) Empirical evidence for Gibbon's god is irrelevant, because Gibbon's god is outside of known reality, making Gibbon's god incomprehensible to human minds.

3) Although Gibbon's god is incomprehensible to human minds, Gibbons has a pretty good idea this god exists. It's just a feeling, mind you, but it's a pretty sure thing.

4) Religionists are just as evil, wicked, undependable, untrustworthy, dishonest and murderous as any other segment of human society.

5) Religionists who are evil, wicked, undependable, untrustworthy, dishonest, or murderous are not "true religionists™."

6) No one should judge the validity of a religion based on the behavior of religionists, because the behavior of religionists is irrelevant to the validity of the religion.

Is that about it? Did I sum things up well enough, or did I leave something out?

boomSLANG said...

Gibbons(back for more)..I would hope that actions of christians "reflect" that of Jesus but i know fully well, that is not always the case.

What's that?... you say that you hope that Christian's actions "reflect that of Jesus"??? Um, have you read the Old Testament lately?(or ever, for that matter)

Let's review: The christian biblegod, as depicted in the OT, is a blood-thirsty, tyranical, petty, jealous, racist, homocidal maniac. Let me tell you something, if such a being existed, one would be one too many, nevermind millions of "Christians" striving to follow in its footsteps. Good grief! No!

Gibbons...So my hope is that anyone on the site would understand that horrible acts have been done in the name of Christianity and will continue to occur.

Relevance?

Gibbons...I have no right to judge the hearts of man, nor do i know how God will judge them

Existential fallacy...whAT "God"?

Gibbons...if the primary purpose of a Christians actions is to reflect those of Jesus then i doubt any indivual, no matter at what level of authority, whom kills millions in a belief that they have twisted to their own agenda, is a true Christian "follower of Christ(Jesus)".

For an overview of your biblegod's "agenda", see Deuteronomy.

In brief review---at one time, the "True Christian" agenda was to KILL all those who held views that opposed Christianity, including family members. Nice, huh? But that has somehow changed. Why? How did liberal/cultural Christians figure out, on their own, that following such a ridiculously barbaric biblical passage is "wrong", when their holy hand-book clearly says it's "right"? 'Listening.

Gibbons...I highly doubt there will ever be any scientific fact that will trully shaken my faith...

Yes, yes!..of course...and that's called a religious conviction. It's where you continue to believe, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.

Gibbons...Science is solely the study of the world/nature around us, since a god is outside the realms of nature and human logic itself...[bold added]

Bare assertion fallacy. You have not one single shred of objective evidence for any "god", thus, to make assertions such as what "god" is, and what "god" does, is moot. Further, if said "god" is "outside the realms of nature", then you cannot know one single thing about said "being", since you, yourself, are a natural being.

Gibbons......we can not see wind, but can see the effects of wind all around us.

Yes, we can see the direct effects of the wind. Hence, we can logically infer that the "wind" has a referent in natural reality. However, you cannot logically make the same inference about something other than "nature", causing nature. You are adding extra "baggage". See Occam's Razor.

Gibbons...
It is impossible for me to describe, rationalize, prove, or explain an all-powerful being that is all knowing, omni-present, and lives outside our mere three demensions. It is unfair for you to ask me to prove him and obviously just as unfair for me to demand you show me he doesnt exist.
[bold added]

I beg to differ--it is not unfair to ask for evidence for a belief, when in a situation where personal beliefs become collective beliefs, and further, those collective beliefs are then promoted as Universal Truth, to which we all must conform.....and/or, if those collective beliefs infringe upon my personal freedoms.

Gibbon's request...Please do not judge the faith or God solely on the actions of some twisted men, for they will awlays exist in every faith, every corner of the world.

I'm not judging any "faith", or any "God", because I DON'T BELIEVE IN "GOD". Please, stick it in your memory-bank.

Gibbons...We can't understand everything. Not everything can be logicaly or scientificly explained.

Right! Precisely! We don't know everything. Science ADMITS when it doesn't know something. Conversely, you, the Theist, simply assert that "GOD DID IT!" when you don't know something. Are you getting this?

Gibbons...This is not the reason i turn to God but more or less the reason i am saying, you can not find God in those places.[bold added]

How convenient, telling us where we can't "find God". Typical.

Astreja said...

Gibbons: "So my hope is that anyone on the site would understand that horrible acts have been done in the name of Christianity and will continue to occur."

This is precisely the problem, Gibbons. From the end of the article: "As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end."

Christianity's god does not appear to have any power to police its adherents and prevent them from harming others. Yahweh, Jesus and Holyspook are notable by their absence and inaction during these atrocities, most probably because they're dead and/or nonexistent.

As a result, we're stuck with the believers, who aren't doing a heck of a lot to police themselves either.

And I am fucking sick and tired of Christians distancing themselves from the bad behaviour of other Christians. Get your house in order before someone else gets murdered.

sharnix04 said...

I am not fully knowledgable of the Bible or the history of Christianity, by any means. I am of the belief that politics and religion should not be discussed, for no matter who you are you will always be in disagreement with atleast one other person on some view points. (i.e.) Two Christians who attend the same church, read from the same scriptures and attend the same mass, will inevitably disagree on something (if that makes any sense). I did, however, find this site very interesting in both a historical and religious view. I am admitting to my ignorance to both the Bible and the history of Christianity, may you have mercy on me with the bashing. Please, be gentle. :-)

webmdave said...

You left something really critical out! The three top athiests killed 120
Million people!

webmdave said...

I would imagine you mean Stalin, Mao Zedong and possibly Hitler (though Hitler is controversial about his religion). The difference there is that they did not kill people BECAUSE they were atheists, they killed those people because they wanted to be in power and keep in power; compare that to Christians who kill heathens because they are heathens, plain and simple.

To say they killed those people because they were atheists is like saying Stalin killed people because he was Russian, or moustached, or that Mao Zedong killed because he was Chinese.

webmdave said...

You ever hear that two wrongs don't make a right. Untold numbers of people were killed and are still being killed by moslems for their religion. The Khmer Rouge killed a few millions. Lots of killing through out the ages. It is simply especially egregious when the killing is done in the name of Bible God. You know, the all-seeing, all-knowing, all powerful Love Dude that could have prevented all of this killing in His name since he has all power in the Universe. Wow, another thank you to God for remaining invisible. Are you there God? Guess not. That is why I no longer believe in Him.

webmdave said...

You are in denial. Treatment is available.

The xian church is the largest religious dealer in death for those who do not agree with it that history has ever known.

God, in his casting into hell of all detractors MIGHT have exterminated more than the church, but he has the mitigation of being mythical to fall back on.

webmdave said...

Don't be such a blathering moron. Hitler operated with the BLESSINGS of the bloody Church. I had very distant relatives die in the concentration camps that were created in a Christian nation. Stalin and Mao were just power-hungry madmen and the only reason they didnt use religion to justify their acts was that they didnt NEED IT. And none of that changes the fact that more killings have been done in the name of your asshole of a Christian god than can be counted.

webmdave said...

Do yourself a favor. Learn the REAL facts before you post such idiocy again.

webmdave said...

Dodajr,

Not much to add here, except Martin Luther (Lutheran Church, et al) prepared the German culture with his bible supported vitriol against Jews - Hitler channeled the religiously founded hatred for his own purposes.

Of course, those following the Lutheran tradition today seem to make an attempt to distance themselves from his hate filled teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Regarding the "top-three"... if we were to declare belief in The One True God "Humming-Pig", then every criminal throughout history, in the present and future (unless they bow-down and repent to Humming-Pig at my house of worship, where they will need to tithe for my assistance in the matter) is implicitly in "the evil group" - to include christianity.

Peace
D8

webmdave said...

Any killing is wrong, plain and simple.....

webmdave said...

Welcome to Atheism! After morning indoctrination we'll have several focus groups for your enjoyment and education! First off there's Brooding and Commiseration with Dr. Mingus. A short cigarette break will give way to Neeno Snobely's class on Diatribe Regurgitation. We'll break for a vegan lunch giving you a chance to check your MSNBC homepages, and then conclude the afternoon with Russell Farley's seminar on internet warfare with Advanced Forum Jargon. Russell will demonstrate how to jam the words Ad Hominem/Logical Fallacy, Strawman, and Occam's Razor into every post you make to confound and bewilder your inferior Christian sparring partner.
Remember! You used to be stupid, but now you're Atheist!

webmdave said...

Some of the info you posted is true. Especially about the pogroms in Europe. But some of it, has many other factors. The genocide in Rwanda is kind of a stretch. It really is. It wasn't about religion, it was about ethnic groups fighting it out because of elections. The same thing happened in Kenya a few years ago. That was due to fighting ethnic groups trying to get into power. If you read any accounts of the crusades, you'd know that on BOTH sides, people were killed. If the conquering army came in you were of the wrong religion, they would pillage, rape and murder their way through the city or forcibly make you convert. As for the Cathars, my husband is from the South and I live in France, they weren't killed for using birth control. They were killed because of land and title wars and also because of a complete conflict with the doctrine of the church. In Vietnam, the French colonial government was run like very department of outre mer. France was and is now a secular country. At that time, the Catholic church didn't have much control over people being that people were becoming more and more atheist even in the sixties. Finally, as far as the Independent State of Croatia (Yugoslavia), the state killed ethnic minorities. At that time Serbs were being massacred not because of their religion but because of their ethnic origin. If you want to site something about Christians killing other groups, why not cite the wars in the Balkans. Or better yet, read the book Café Europa. It was written by a Croate writer named Slavenka Drakulić. One of the best books I've ever read. It explains the collective mindset of countries to the East. Great book.

webmdave said...

oh please.

Hitler is never without religion.
His anti-semitism ideology was not much different than Luther's prescribe treatment to jews.

The only difference is Hitler has the technological and know how to put it in action, which resulted in holocaust.

You are obviously biased, killing for any reason other than self-defense is wrong! which cannot be justified by using simple number game.

If those damn puritans are able to find say 10 mil witches, would you think they would hesitate to butcher them all?

Give us a break, x-insanity!

webmdave said...

Indeed, however, the Catholic priests involved in Rwanda did not invoke god's name and love mission in an attempt to save those poor souls. They simply drove them out to be killed.

Note in the article it states that the Catholics wold not feed villages that would not convert to their brand of religion. That is pitiful.

webmdave said...

it's funny that Christians think that their religion means to profess good onto others. clearly it's not, as history has shown us here, but also that the Christian bible contains some of the worst guidelines to ever live by.

you guys can see it on this website: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

now sure, on the website there's a part that says "good stuff", but that's just one part, in comparison to all of the other horrible things in the bible.

and, just for the hell of it, here's a logical paradox: if the Christian god is all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful, then couldn't he see into the future that mankind would use his name to kill in the millions? and therefore, wouldn't he stop mankind from nearly destroying itself? .... ..only a loving and caring deity would do this. and yet look at history. so either god doesn't exist, or he exists as a cruel, vindictive, bloodthirsty, racist, and evil god.

now if you don't believe me (as Christians probably wouldn't) just remember the website: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

and one last note: for all the hype over how "bad" atheism is because of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, well that's all bogus. Hitler himself was, in one way or another, a Christian, and Mao was a Taoist, which is some sort of a Chinese belief/religion. only Stalin himself was an atheist, and even then that's skeptical (he allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to be revived after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union). and even if Stalin killed so many people as an atheist, so what? it's his atheist death toll (about 10-15 million, this is only for the dead, not for fake trials, deportations, etc.) versus history's religious death toll (I'll let you guys count here). so just remember this website, and you'll remember the truth.
and don't forget: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

webmdave said...

Obviously if you TRULY were/are a Christian, and TRULY had the spirit of God within you, you would not purposely kill or cause harm to others/your enemies.

It is written: You shall not murder.(Exodus 20:13)
It is also written: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you.

[32] "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. [33] And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. [34] And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. [35] But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. [36] Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
(Luke 6:27-36)

Therefore, maybe it is true that people who CALLED themselves Christians killed/murdered but in truth those people were sinning and going against the word of God. As a Christian you should LOVE your enemies and those who persecute you.

webmdave said...

"As a Christian you should LOVE your enemies and those who persecute you."

...unless they try to lead you away from "God". If they dare do that, it's perfectly fine to *KILL* them!(Deut)

webmdave said...

Almost all religion killed in the name of it. This is due to man's lust for power and domination.

Does that make you feel any better - knowing that it is not ONLY xians who do it?

webmdave said...

The blind shall not see. Read the rest of your Bible. The ugly parts ans see why your religion encourages meaness towards oneself and others.

webmdave said...

I enjoyed all your quotes. How differen't do you believe christianity is from islamic? The only reason for conflict is to maintain power by defense or gain power by offense. Abrahamic religions more notably than any other in history conduct themseles in this manner. Can you explain why?

webmdave said...

I am a Christian. All your site proves is how messed up I and other Christians are....to the fact that I would agree with you. Yes, I am messed up. But that is they whole point of Jesus. He was not messed up, but perfect and he paid for my imperfections and other messed up Christians who are sinners. You and I can find plenty of things wrong with Christians, but you can find nothing wrong with Christ. I may not be proud of myself and my sins, but I am very proud of Jesus and who he was and who he is.

webmdave said...

Roger: "You can find nothing wrong with Christ."

Sorry, Roger, but you're wrong about that. The owners of a dead fig tree and a herd of pigs would definitely disagree.

There is nothing unique in the words that purportedly came out of the mouth of "Jesus," who may not even have been a real person and who almost certainly didn't perform the miracles attributed to him.

Furthermore, Christianity is not a good set of tools for getting one's behaviour under control. With its assertion that humans are born evil and cannot redeem themselves via their own conscientious actions, it is actually cultivating a profoundly unhealthy psychological state.

One would do well to toss the miracle stories, the promises of heaven and the threats of hell, and simply live "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked" (Matthew 25) for all it's worth.

webmdave said...

to say that stalin, maos, etc beliefs had no bearing on how many people they murdered is ridiculous. Atheism is a belief system. These governments purposefully stamped out and forbade the former religions in place of theirs. It has always amazed me how much talking atheists do of a God who they think does not exist.

webmdave said...

To say that atheism (a lack of belief in a god) is a belief system is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Stalin and Mao endorsed (and often enforced) atheism because they didn't want people uniting against them under it, they didn't want another power undermining them.

And yes, atheist often talk about god. Why? Because god's fan club usually wants to deny atheists (and women, gays, and others) their rights, simply because their iron age book says that they should.

webmdave said...

If this site proves how messed up Christians are then perhaps it is time to think outside the Book and come up with a better belief system. A belief system that is based on reality instead of your imaginary hero, Jesus.

webmdave said...

Stalin initially controled the churches so he used what ever he could to control the population.

Atheism is not a belief system. There is no creed nor is there a motto for atheism. Atheists simply don't believe god[s] exist.

As an American atheist I feel compelled to be part of the discussion about god[s] because that is a major topic in our society today. My friends and I also discuss the Lord of the Rings and Star Trek with great frequency and yet we do not believe that either is about real events.

webmdave said...

This is very nice, but you are forgetting that if Jesus is God, then he is the same one that in the OT ordered killing for MANY reasons. So god is not against killing but for it. Unless Jesus is not God, Jehovah. And if he didn't come to destroy the Law, then he certainly is approving killing. God himself ordered a lot of killing in the bible, including the horrendous taking of the promised land. He also killed ALL OF HUMANITY -and poor innocent animals- in the deluge. And who says that Jesus is against killing at all, since he is coming back and will slaughter all nations himself!, with no love or forgiveness for his enemies.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

webmdave said...

No champ, the pope gets the gold plated toilet, yes, and millions do turn away from god, but it is only those who slayed men, women and children who turn away. You have to keep the faith, and beware false prophets. This whole thing is a massive act of faith. Just like not believing in God is a massive act of faith (after all, i see no proof....)

webmdave said...

Just like not believing in God is a massive act of faith (after all, i see no proof

So I guess you Faith that Zeus and Onin and Flying Pink Unicorns don't exist either, yes?

Atheism is the default position. Anything asserted beyond that "null" position requires that the burden of proof be on YOU.

webmdave said...

Last I read in the bible, Joshua stayed true to god until death and he made a career of killing people for god. In fact, the entire Hebrew tribe seemed to thrive on the slaughter of innocents and the rape of young girls.
I am reminded that the Inquisition thrived on the slaughter of innocents as well and I don't recall any of those religious, god-fearing butchers turning away from god.

I don't need FAITH to NOT believe in God, all I needed was the ability to reason, a intellectual ability that has, quite obviously, eluded you.

webmdave said...

Coercion and the politics that drive people to kill, the base humanity and horrendous nature of their hearts...that is what kills. It is Stalin, it is Constantine, it is all these men and all of these people. But it is not Jesus. And I firmly believe that, if someone left the faith for anything pertaining to this article, they did not devote the time necessary to struggle and fight through and understand what occurred. Indeed, there are self-proclaimed Christians, men and women who may have felt devout, that committed these evils. Yet they still failed and are not in line with Christ. These people are not my Jesus.
We know he existed; any exploration of archaeology and history will show that. We know God exists; any true student of philosophy cannot ignore the Ontological Argument, modalized by Alvin Plantinga and undisputed by even Bertrand Russell. And we know that it is Christ, for His blood is the only absolution of sin in the world that is given for free, over any other religion or belief.
If you have left for these reasons, you have not reconciled the difficulties in your head on your own, nor put in the time, sweat, pain, and tears. I am a Christian pacifist, and my heart burns with every sad death I see in the name of my Savior who was also a man of peace. It is not Jesus who did this, and I find the pity party of this website disgusting. Use your brains and struggle through the hard stuff of life instead of waxing your pride on a website about failure. It serves you no pride nor standing in anyone's eyes, Christian or not.

webmdave said...

You see this as a website about failure? Take off your god-goggles and you will see that on the contrary, exchristian dot net is a place where we celebrate our success in overcoming the delusion of christianity. If you find anything on this website disgusting, there is one simple solution for you to take -- click the X in the upper right corner and begone.

The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their religious beliefs.

webmdave said...

These people are not my Jesus. We know he existed; any exploration of archaeology and history will show that

Sorry, but there is little evidence that jesus lived and no contemporary evidence at all.

Very strange for a magic-man who impressed multitudes of people in many towns and then floated up to heaven afterwards.

Jesus/God exists in only one realm. That realm being your own MIND. Beyond your mind there simply is zero evidence for any god.

The Ontological Argument also fails, but even if a god were proven by this method, that is a far cry from it being any holy book god, let alone the one from that 2000 year old dusty bible book.

You belong to a blood/death CULT!

ATF(Who wonders how a heart can burn and yet not burn up?)

webmdave said...

What about the part of the Bible where Jesus says to sell your garment and buy a sword?

webmdave said...

Tyler: "I am a Christian pacifist..."

Versus:

"Use your brains and struggle through the hard stuff of life instead of waxing your pride on a website about failure."

That, Tyler, is blatant verbal abuse. Your "pacifism" seems to be somewhat defective.

webmdave said...

It is Stalin, it is Constantine, it is all these men and all of these people. But it is not Jesus.

What you have not grasped, Tyler, is that the whole of your belief system is founded upon a book which was especially ordered by Constantine for the purposes of political and social control.

The man you condemn actually created the religious belief you adhere to.

Your religion is a fraud, manufactured from various pre-existing myths and based upon lies and ignorance.

You cannot have it both ways though, in the normal manner of xians, you will try to.

Peace,

David

webmdave said...

I read your posting and was reminded of doctors who used to think that women only imagined they were experiencing what is now diagnosed as PMS and PMDD. You are talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.
I am a true student of philosophy and the Ontological Argument holds no weight for me. If you use it as proof for the existence of your god, then I can use it as proof of the existence of the island of Utopia here on Earth. I imagine it therefore it exists.
Trying to imagine something does not make it real.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

( from http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm )

Oh my... I just imagined there was a perfect 500ct diamond in my backyard. I need to go now and dig it up so that all of my financial problems will disappear!

Toodles!

webmdave said...

Oh, and by the way, Bertrand Russell DID comment on the Ontological Argument: "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."

webmdave said...

"It is Stalin, it is Constantine, it is all these men and all of these people. But it is not Jesus."

Actually, I don't think either of those people actually killed anyone either. They might have ordered a lot of people killed, and many more might have been murdered by their underlings trying to curry favour or entrench their own positions of power and prestige, or even just interpreting their leaders' plans in their own manner and acting accordingly.

Thank God Jesus doesn't have a history of people killing because they thought it was his will, or that he had given them a mandate to, or to defend the influence their association with him had brought them, or to further his plans. Otherwise he'd be no better than Constantine or Stalin.

webmdave said...

<> So, you want to 'encourage' those who have left, and keep Christians from 'avenging'. So why do you allow the Ex's to be so rude, 'avenging' their own newly non-religious beliefs? That's ok under the umbrella of 'encouraging' them? Seems more like 'inciting hatred' to me...

webmdave said...

The Bible was written too early to be legend or myth, and not historical document. The Gospels were written only 15-20 years after Christ's resurrection, with over 500 witnesses (still alive to corroborate evidence) of Christ being crucified, buried, and resurrected. You can have a conspiracy theory about publication, but there were more strict publication laws in 50 AD then now. You can't print lies, with eye-witnesses still alive to attest the validity of the claims. And we're talking about the most popular book in existence, memorized by many.

So you're basically left with 3 ways to interpret Christ; either he's a lier, a lunatic, or the son of God as he claims, and many believed. You can't say he never existed; that's ignorance.

I suggest listening to the Great Debate; Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein--both learned, prominent speakers who argue the case for the existence of God much better than any of us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4LXxTZ0S4&playnext=1&list=PL52FADB6871DBB604&index=13

Exposing your emotional vulnerability to the gospels only proves how powerful Christ's claims are. There is no neutrality, you either hate or love Christ. There are no wars fought over Buddhism, because no one really cares, there is no impact. It seems unbelievable that so many would risk their lives, and die over a piece of fiction.

Ask yourself what you have to lose by following Christ--chances are you're almost already following his principles, except you need to justify your pagan lifestyle, and are too afraid to let go of control. You want to be your own God, well than go ahead and create an alternate universe, and send me a postcard.

webmdave said...

how do you account for the laws of logic, reason, and science?

are the laws of logic a convention, or universal?

webmdave said...

Earthfromhere, I think the word "laws" are a misnomer that causes us to anthropomorphize any we happen to recognize, and imagine up a "judge" to enforce those supposed laws.

I think it's much simpler, actually. That which we call a 'law' is merely structural consistency; if something did not behave in a regular manner on repeated occasions, we might not notice it and we could not consistently use it for anything.

In other words, our reality is built on constants rather than variables, and confirmation bias creates the illusion that there's something more to structure than structure itself.

webmdave said...

you're arguing semantics Astreja, and basically saying you have faith in the consistency of structure, while appearing to not answer my question, you have done the opposite.

not only do you have faith in law, but you have faith in language, and consider both to be universal, so stop pretending otherwise, and answer a more specific question: is morality universal, or a convention??

i'm not here to convert anyone back to Christianity, or provide proof that God exists. True conversion happens in the heart not the mind. And every Atheist who converts to Christianity claims that they were suppressing the truth the entire time. God reveals himself in two ways; through general revelation, and then through the scriptures, so it doesn't matter if you don't believe in the bible's claims, for the truth has been written on your heart.

since you're having trouble responding to the simple question of convention, here's a more simple question; do you believe truth to be absolute or relative?

webmdave said...

You're begging the question; are laws of logic a convention or universal? Maybe morality is an easier question to answer; is morality universal or a convention?

webmdave said...

Earthfromhere, it appears that laws of logic are more likely to be universal than conventional but there does not appear to be a way to definitively prove that. Bertrand Russell tried for some years to find the foundations of mathematics and logics, and just wound up going in circles with no way of isolating objective first principles. I recommend the graphic novel Logicomix in this regard; it's a fascinating read.

As for morality, I think that it's a convention... But a convention with a built-in confirmation bias. Only societies that establish a benign morality (Avoid killing, avoid stealing, etc.) will tend to survive. Societies that endorse more violent behaviour will simply disintegrate, leaving only the ones that we consider "moral."

webmdave said...

Do I believe truth to be absolute or relative, Earthfromhere?

Yes. :-D

I'm reasonably sure that 1+1=2, but I do not believe that behaviours are automatically right or wrong; it depends on context.

As for your rather dubious claim about 'truth written on [My] heart,' My cardiovascular system has no divine graffiti upon it. My brain, however, clearly records that in all My years I have yet to encounter *any* evidence of your imaginary friend. I'm sure if your god exists and actually wants to make My acquaintance it'll make itself known to Me. I believe it to be far more likely that your god only exists in your imagination. I'm also not particularly interested in the personal experiences of believers as those experiences are not communicable and not verifiable.

webmdave said...

Why should I need to "account" for them?

webmdave said...

You're misusing "begging the question". Begging the question is a type of logical argument that is frequently misused when the phrase "raise the question" is necessary.

Also, Jesus was either a "liar" - not lier . . .

webmdave said...

False, true conversion does not happen only in the "heart". You are speaking of the metaphorical heart, which is actually the human psyche. The human psyche is inextricably linked to the human brain or "mind" as you refer to it. The brain processes millions of sensory stimuli via over 1,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 trillion) neurons on a daily basis, 99% of such stimuli are filtered out by the thalamus and never reach the cerebral cortex.

Blind faith and "believing with your heart" is never a good path to follow. If I believe blindly that every word of the Bible is true, infallible and unchangeable, I cannot accept that the earth revolves around the sun (despite the fact that sciences has proven this heliocentric relationship to be true) or that the sun had to exist first for its gravitational pull to pull the earth into orbit; the Bible says that the earth was created first. I would also have to believe that plants existed before the sun or the seasons were created to nourish them (see Genesis 1:11-14). My brain may not believe it, but, well, since God said it and I HAVE to believe in my heart that it's true, it must be, reason be damned.

Please, go back to your apologetics class where the answer for everything is "Well, we can't explain it but God can, so just trust him!" and let those of us who choose to use reason, knowledge and the Truth of personal experience continue to intelligently converse.

PS - isn't your screen name a little blasphemous?

webmdave said...

You don't, Christian troll with the blasphemous screen name is trying to use tactics from christian apologetics 101

webmdave said...

I love this article. I love it so much :)

webmdave said...

To say that atheism (a lack of belief in a god) is a belief system is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Good point!
I just want to add something about Mao. He was never atheist. He falsely claimed to be an atheist so he could use the name of Communism to gain followers who were mostly poor and hopeless.
After he had acqired the absolute power to control the whole nation, he openly supported the idea that he was the son of GOD (In Chinese, it is called Tianzi"). The blindness of his followers were no different from religiouse people. It was a religion in disguise.

webmdave said...

Atheism is the lack in a belief system and is not a religion. Look it up.

webmdave said...

Let us not forget the circa 160 million non muslim butchered by Isalm may years ago when India and Pakistan split!

webmdave said...

i would like to metion that you forgot about the kkk.
all of the people that died under the hands of the kkk were killed by white protistant males. wich makes all of the deaths that they caused under the name of god.

also i would like to refure all of you to a webpage on facebook.
Church Of The Damned.
i made said webpage so people can come and discuse things about religion. al lreligions. and everry aspect of religion.
i figured that since this is a much disputed religious argument and since it is my job to help people with problems conserning religion i would like anyone and every one to come check it out.
oplenly debate your religious views you rbeliefs and what have you.
thank you.
Reverend Joseph Hemby U.L.C. ministries madesto california

webmdave said...

revjhemby, why in the world would anyone want to read a webpage written by a person who can't even spell? And not all white protestant males kill in the name of their god. The KKK kills in the name of the KKK.

webmdave said...

I am an Atheist. I only talk about God when one of my Christian friends bring up the fact that I am an Atheist and a horrible person for that. I have told them many times that I will go to church with them if the give me any evidence of any biblical story ever really happening. So far, I have never gone to church with them.

webmdave said...

plz dont blame christianity for the killings of millions of people, christianity isnt to blame for the millions of people killed, it was mad men and entrepreneurs that caused the killings of millions of people, and christianity doesnt recommend killing people for the lord said "thou shall not kill" most of those people that are listed as examples of christians killing people arent really christiansns, sure they believed in him, but they still werent very christian, they were mad men who were greedy and only cared for themselves, real christianity is the opposite of that.

webmdave said...

Yet your lord commanded genocide Knrpplsi.......holy fucking ignorance.

webmdave said...

The catholic traditions aren't Christian. The papacy is not of Christ but is of the devil. Martin Luther was martyed by Rome. As well as many Christians who rejected the popes. Jesus nor his followers ever killed.

webmdave said...

NoTruth2share45: "Jesus nor his followers ever killed."

You're a liar and an idiot. I seem to remember an entire herd of pigs going off a cliff.

You are also not allowed to pick and choose True Christians™ to omit ones who have committed violent acts. If someone commits a violent act as a direct result of a belief, it is perfectly reasonable to attribute the violence to the belief.

Oh, and "the devil" is a mythical construct with no basis in reality. Take your delusions somewhere else, please.

webmdave said...

Dear Truthis2share45 -

You are embarrassing yourself through you complet ignorance of FACTS. You said,
"The [c]atholic traditions aren't Christian." [sic] WTF? Do you have any idea where Christianity came from? The Catholic church WAS the Christian Church from the beginning! Luther didn't come along for 1500 years!

The Universal (Catholic) Christian Church got its official start in 326 C.E. when the 1st council of Nicea (under Constantine, the Roman Emporer - hence the name 'Roman' Catholic Church) put together a crude 1st edition of the Bible (nothing like the one you hold in your blood-stained hands).

The Papacy was instituted early in the Church's history. Your hero Mr. Martin Luther was considered a heretic, just like your church most likely considers Joseph Smith a heretic.

Jesus never really lived, but there are stories in some of the ancient writings (some of the ones that didn't make it into the proto-orthodox versions or the later annotated and revised versions) that tell of him striking people dead, just for pissing him off! (The Infancy Gospel of Jesus).

As for his "followers" not killing - you can't be serious! Just read some history! Even if you don't consider Catholics Christian, there is enough bloodshed that has been carried out by Protestant Christians over the past 400 years to fill volumes! In fact, volumes have been written - LOOK IT UP!

Unless you are very young, there is no excuse for such blatant stupidity!

Run along now ...................

XPD (Ex-Pastor Dan)

webmdave said...

Two names for you -

Ananias, Sapphira

Acts Chapter 5.

I agree that truth is to share, though I think you should stop trying to share until you have found some truth.

You are ignorant and yet you still insist on repeating the pap you hear from the pulpits, and from those audio discipleship courses you bought for so much money so long ago.

Perhaps you should consider bypassing those sources and actually read the bible, all of it, instead of coming here and telling lies to people who have read the bible, all of it, many times over.

Lying for Jesus might work for you at your employment, or in the street, or talking to strangers elsewhere, but it will always fail here because we actually know what you are talking about and recognize that you have been taught and instructed to lie by your church.

Please do come back when you have read your bible so that we can have a constructive conversation.

Peace,

David

webmdave said...

OK, I will stop blaming xianity for killing millions of people, because it was the fault of mad men and entrepreneurs.

I trust that you sill stop blaming the devil for evil, as it was the fault of mad men and entrepreneurs.

webmdave said...

*comes back after a nice long visit with the g/f*

**The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell.**

I salute this man. I really do.

webmdave said...

Yes, this is a website about failure.

CHRISTIAN FAILURE. Religious failure. Failure of god to live up to his very own promises. The failure of apologists who will sit and turn logic into a balloon animal.

And we do take pride: Pride in the fact we got out from under a tyrannical, evil, bloodthirsty system that has drained us all completely- and we take special pride in the fact our lives are rebuilding after we escaped christianity. We have not a little pride that we are responsible for ourselves, and not subject to the whims of some overpaid thief telling us what some invisible fictional character thinks.

webmdave said...

Hello, wylekat. Nice to hear about you having a life!!! You go, guy! Nice to see you back here.

webmdave said...

If you believe all that then I suppose you found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, have tea with Big Foot, go swimming with Nessie and dance with a unicorn every full moon as well.

You should try learning on your own instead of being a muppet for your preacher. Like a three year old, all you are doing is repeating what you have been told instead of actually doing a bit of research and finding things out for yourself.

webmdave said...

I found the *perfect* woman (for me). The reason I am stating it thus is this: A former minister 'friend' told me right off I'd NEVER find the 'perfect woman'. Not for me, not even just generically perfect. How wrong yet another christian is... we're so perfect together, we think alike on a LOT of things.

Take THAT, christianity! :-D

webmdave said...

I am glad that you have found a "good friend" to hang with. Christianity honestly screws up so many relationships. And human beings, too. It is nice to be free and decide for yourself what is right and wrong for you. Not living from a one size-fits-all rule book:)

webmdave said...

Nice of you to let us know who's getting into heaven and who isn't. :-/

But if Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus, then all your blather about what the bible says is beside the point is it not? Regardless of what is written where, perhaps these popes, crusaders, inquisitors and so on were only doing what Jesus was personally tell them they should.

I mean these men were professing to be Christian, but not doing what it says in the bible, so perhaps Jesus was telling them personally that they had to take a different course? I mean, God can't do evil right? Anything he commands you to do is, de facto, the right thing to do.