patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Actually, there are a lot of parallels between the U.S. today and Rome right before the fall.

As usual, my best insights are often thought of by others before me.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/

Ironman says

the immature folks have to come on Patnet once a week, starting new threads, trying to validate their pathetic existence in life.

Said by a man, who's here daily (and sometimes more than daily), bickering with Dan and others, constantly looking to push his P.O.V onto others. What a hypocrite!

At least I have job.

Dan8267 says

Religion is like a narcotic or alcohol.

It is the opiate of the masses, but if you look at Prohibition and the "War on Drugs," you might consider that you can't save people from themselves.

Dan8267 says

Rome was

an empire, providing Europeans plenty of clean potable water and consequently better health than they would see again for 1,000 years. Without your health, you have nothing. It had problems too, e.g. asbestos miners were known to suffer the conditions we now call asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. But really, if you compare Europe before and immediately after the fall of the Roman empire, most people would say the empire was better. Your own chart showing urban populations illustrates the point: most of those people chose to live in Roman cities when they could, then fled reluctantly when the cities fell.

Dan8267 says

we are still bearing the cost of slavery,

Most of the ongoing "cost" attributed to slavery results largely from the war on drugs, which in practice and by specific intent is a partial repeal of the 13th and 15th Amendments. The drug war was specifically motivated by a desire to incarcerate black Americans (including a particularly bizarre obsession with Billie Holiday). Populations recover from old wounds if allowed to heal. The drug war inflicts, deliberately, repetitive injuries with no chance to recover. Forget about reparations, just end the drug war, and you'll see most of the ongoing "cost" evaporate swiftly.

I would say the Rule of Law, Democracy and Free Enterprise are still our best hope. But the Rule of Law has to apply to individuals, cities, states, nations, leaders, the wealthy and international banks, no matter how large.

As far as the Rule of Reason is concerned, Quantum Physics research is turning the world on its head. However, it isn't only the religious world that finds itself upside down. It is the scientific world as well. It is most likely telling us that consciousness precedes chemistry - and that the modern scientific foundation of Determinism is incomplete at best.
What the elite should probably fear most is both the transparency AND the secrecy that will come from quantum encryption. It will work. In fact, it already works. And it will be affordable. Oh dear.

Dan8267 says

Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism.

Huh? Outlawing religion had *NOTHING* to do with Communism? Why on earth do you think the Commies in the Soviet Union went through the great effort and cost to demolish Churches and Synagogues and persecute/murder religious people? The Communists spanning several countries make ISIS look like pikers in terms of the number of Churches and Synagogues (let alone human lives) they destroyed. The Communists didn't want all those "irrational" religious types competing morally or philosophically in the public square with all those "rational sophisticate" atheists ruling us in the government. So they used the awesome power of the State to destroy religious belief.

If there is nothing else that is good about religious influence in America and the West, is to temper and compete with the dangerous ideologue fanatics like you from infesting our government and imposing your rationality or moral on us. The fanatic zeal is really not much different than ISIS.

You are so blind or historically ignorant of this reality that you are even using Karl Marx locutions "Religion is a narcotic". But sure, Communism/Marxism banning and persecuting religious people has NOTHING to do with Communism and militant atheism.

"The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas.[10] Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union[11] and a high priority of all Soviet leaders.[3] Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief.[3]

The state established atheism as the only scientific truth.[12][13][14][15][16][17][unreliable source?] Soviet authorities forbade the criticism of atheism or of the state's anti-religious policies; such criticism could lead to forced retirement, arrest and/or imprisonment.[18][19][20]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

curious2 says

It is the opiate of the masses, but if you look at Prohibition and the "War on Drugs," you might consider that you can't save people from themselves.

With one big difference. When parents get their 5-year-olds drunk, we arrest them.

curious2 says

an empire, providing Europeans plenty of clean potable water and consequently better health than they would see again for 1,000 years.

But really, if you compare Europe before and immediately after the fall of the Roman empire, most people would say the empire was better.

That's true, but the good the Roman Empire did was not the result of their evil actions (mass murder, rape, torture, slavery). The good came from Roman engineers. The most important Roman was the one who invented concrete. He, she, or (most likely) they were far more important than all the emperors and senators combined.

My point is that the good things accomplished by empires including the Romans are not accomplished by empirical policy and military might, with the sometimes exception of peacekeeping, but by STEM workers, the engineers, mathematicians, and the precursors of scientists who were called natural philosophers. And none of those groups are dependent on empire building.

curious2 says

Most of the ongoing "cost" attributed to slavery results largely from the war on drugs, which in practice and by specific intent is a partial repeal of the 13th and 15th Amendments.

True, but I would add a significant cost in the form of systemic intergenerational poverty requiring spending on social safety nets like public housing, welfare, food programs as well as crime fighting costs and loss of economic opportunity both of which are the consequence of poverty.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism.

Huh? Outlawing religion had *NOTHING* to do with Communism?

That's right. Cuba, as I have stated in my prior post, is Communistic and highly religious. Here are some other examples.

- Mustaches have nothing to do with Nazism.
- The color red is not in itself communistic.
- Being a short French person does not mean one is likely to invade Russia during the winter.
- Wearing spandex does not give one mutant super powers.

Correlation, particularly very rare correlations like sample sets of carnality one, does not imply causality.

I am a hard-core atheist. That does not mean I believe in Communism as a political or economic institution. Nor does it mean that my politics are even remotely like the Soviet Union. There is no relationship between rejecting the existence of fictional gods and establishing a cold war superpower. To imply so is ridiculous and people who do so should be ridiculed.

Again, this was explained in detailed in the thread Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.

Stalin was coincidentally an atheist and would have been a fucking asshole even if he were Christian. The motherfuckers in the Inquisition tortured people directly because of their religion. Totally different. To attempt to imply that Communism is evidence that atheism is bad is disingenuous. To attempt to imply that the Spanish Inquisition is evidence that religion is bad is not.

Furthermore, atheists do not follow Stalin, or praise him, or in any way agree with him. Ask any atheist what he thinks of Stalin, and he'll say Stalin was one of the worst people in history and the world is far better off without him.

In contrast, throughout history up to and including today, billions of religious people fervently support the evil advocated by religious leaders.

Like always, you are wrong because you are willfully ignorant. The key word being willfully.

Dan8267 says

I am a hard-core atheist.

You mean there are degrees? Are hard cores the ones who are angry all the time (they all seem to be)? What do you think Madelyn Murray O'Hair was?

Pagan Ancient Rome was incredibly better. It's absolutely irrefutable from Archaeology. A Roman Slave lived better than a well-off Medieval peasant. Even the stables had standardized, mass-produced, tile roofs located a hundred miles up winding hillside roads from where they were made - or a thousand miles away by sea.

Huge watermills built near the farmland, with the water to power them brought in via miles of concrete and iron aqueduct.

There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall, at the very extreme point of the Roman Empire, the border with the untamed barbarian North. Humble soldiers and travellers used them to pay for food and lodging, coinage didn't enter everyday ordinary life in Europe again for almost 1000 years.

When a slave tripped and broke amphorae in Britain, imported from Catalonia overseas, nobody gave a shit, they had a ton of them just like it. A few hundred years later, and those very same jugs were buried with Christian Anglo-Saxon Kings as "high status" goods. Stuff that slaves used to keep their food in.

P N Dr Lo R says

You mean there are degrees?

Yes.

The belief and disbelief in supernatural entities including gods spans a wide spectrum including the following:

Strong Monotheism - the belief in a particular deity and only that deity
Strong Polytheism - the belief in multiple particular deities
Weak Monotheism - the belief in a single, but largely unknown or unspecified deity
Weak Polytheism - the belief that there are gods, but no particular allegiance
Vague Monotheism - the belief in some kind of creation force, but not necessarily a conscious one or moral authority
God of the Gaps - the belief in some intelligence to fill in the gaps of knowledge
Weak Agnosticism - the belief that we cannot know whether or not there is one or many gods until we die and have proof
Strong Agnosticism - the belief that we cannot ever know if a god exist even if it reveals itself because it's impossible even in principle to prove that oneself is god and not merely really powerful.
Weak Atheism - the disbelief in all gods ever proposed, which is simply taking monotheism one god further
Strong Atheism - the disbelief in all possible gods even ones that have not been proposed

Is that too advance of a concept for you?

P N Dr Lo R says

Are hard cores the ones who are angry all the time (they all seem to be)?

No. Nor do they seem to be. You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like. You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them. This is simply a bigoted lie motivated by a disingenuous political agenda. It's no different than the racist claim that all black men are angry and dangerous, and you should be ashamed of using such an attack.

P N Dr Lo R says

What do you think Madelyn Murray O'Hair was?

If you are trying to judge all atheists based on your perception of one atheist, that is the very definition of bigotry. It is also extremely stupid.

Would you judge all white people based on Hitler?

If you are trying to argue that O'Hair was advocating bad policy, then grow a pair of balls and outright state which policies you think were bad and why. Do note that I am under no obligation to agree with everything every atheist in history has ever said. That would be impossible anyway.

What O'Hair is most famous for is a legal challenge to the words "Under God" being added to the American Pledge of Allegiance as it was a clear violation of the First Amendment prohibition on the government sponsoring religions, particularly Christian religions. She was 100% correct. This phrase was added in the 1950s as a way of stating that America was morally superior to the Soviet Union because America was Christian. Thus the addition of the phrase was a clear Unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government and a violation of the religious freedom of all Americans including Christians who are smart enough to realize that they had the right to opt out of their religion.

Of course, the American Pledge of Allegiance, and in fact all pledges of allegiance, is wicked, vile, and evil. Good does not require loyalty pledges. Only evil does. And requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance is blatant brainwashing and is antithetical to the principles of democracy, liberty, and an educated and just society.

thunderlips11 says

There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall

Interesting tidbit about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't built to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain, but rather to keep Rome from being politically pressured by politicians to expand even further. The thing about walls is that they don't move. They have a fixed location. So Hadrian could justify not expanding Rome's reach further and expending unnecessary resources for little gain and risking over-expansion.

socal2 says

Dan - did those nations become "great" after they gave up Christianity? Really? Imagine what Europe would look like today without Christianity.

You can't ask Dan to imagine that. In his mind he sees a very different world, he's a communist. He can't understand that without Christianity principles of "love thy neighbor" you only get a society where dog eats dog, where exploitation of human race for the benefit of the government is the norm. He doesn't understand how society needs to be raised on moral principles so that it would not fall into decadence and decay like we are falling into today.

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall

Interesting tidbit about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't built to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain....

Yes it was, along with the other purpose you mention, and (crucially) more. First, the construction project kept the legions busy, because Hadrian knew that idle hands do the devil's work, especially in the military. Second, it gave Roman soldiers a secure place to live, with the equivalent of garrison towns all along the border. (Even engineers need security Dan, because you can't design and build much if barbarians kill you.) Third, it was by far the most impressive construction project the barbarians had ever seen, and in addition to providing Roman soldiers a formidable defense, it made a hugely powerful statement to deter raids: don't dare mess with an empire that can literally wall off entire countries.

In contrast, Germany's Christian Democrat leaders prefer to throw their coins like a trail of bread crumbs for the barbarians to follow, and prostrate themselves like doormats with a big "WELCOME" sign on their backs. Such is what Neitzsche would call the change of morality from master to slave, pagan Roman to Christian. The Romans believed and proved, "our civilization is better and our beliefs are better, and if you don't like it then stay the hell out you barbarian fools." The Scots, even more stubborn then than now, stayed out for 1,000 years.

But you do have a point: Hadrian wasn't hell bent on bankrupting the treasury to "improve" the whole world. Though he had risen through the ranks of the military, like Eisenhower, he wasn't beholden to the military industrial complex. If the barbarians wanted to live primitively and watch their children die prematurely on the moors, Hadrian didn't try to save them from themselves.

Dan8267 says

systemic intergenerational poverty

I had considered that cost and the best way I can explain it is by reference to your own charts above on life expectancy. Most of the gain in doubling life expectancy came from reducing childhood mortality. Even when average life expectancy at birth was 40, most people didn't die at 40; if they survived past the age of 10, most tended to live to around 70. When you average two different data sets, you can get a muddled and misleading result.

Ditto the "costs" ("intergenerational poverty") that you misattribute to slavery. In 1865, former slaves had nothing but their freedom, just like many of the Irish immigrants who arrived in 1848, and many immigrants through Ellis Island into the 20th century. The differences since then result from Jim Crow followed intentionally by the "drug war", which took off in earnest after black Americans began succeeding conspicuously. And seriously, the personal obsession with Billie Holiday. Federal programs intended supposedly to help had also perverse incentives and adverse consequences, including for example the story of the Pruitt Igoe housing project. Most of the deck gets re-shuffled every three generations or so, but the drug war continues to inflict deliberate injury, and that produces an adversely affected data set (e.g. prisoners fixing Chris Christie's broken office chairs for no money, unable to support their own kids), which in turn pulls down the averages. Racists blame the lower averages on allegedly lower intelligence, while others blame it on slavery, but it results mainly from ongoing policies including especially the drug war.

A lot of the "barbarians" freely passed through gates in Hadrian's wall to trade with the Romans and many lived on the Roman side of the walls in little villages that sprung up along the wall.

Roman legions were also quite effective at using encampments and palisades to guarantee security. Palisades are much more effective than a long horizontal wall and they can be built far easier and more quickly than walls.

So I think the wall's military function was more symbolic than strategic, and it's political function was more important.

curious2 says

Most of the gain in doubling life expectancy came from reducing childhood mortality. Even when average life expectancy at birth was 40, most people didn't die at 40; if they survived past the age of 10, most tended to live to around 70.

Science hasn't slow down the aging process. We still age at the same rate as our Stone Age ancestors.

However, science, technological, and social progress made possible by the waning of religion has
- reduced the deaths of women in child labor
- reduced the per capita murder rate which devastate young men throughout history
- reduced war and famine which killed many children and many adults
- improved sanitation greatly reducing disease and plagues
- created antibiotics which saved many lives

When you add that all together, you get a hell of a fewer people dying between the ages of 20 and 50.

curious2 says

Ditto the "costs" ("intergenerational poverty") that you misattribute to slavery. As of 1865, former slaves had nothing but their freedom, just like many of the Irish immigrants who arrived in 1848, and many immigrants through Ellis Island into the 20th century. The differences result from Jim Crow followed intentionally by the "drug war", which took off in earnest after black Americans began succeeding conspicuously

I consider the racist policies like segregation, Jim Crow, and the war on drugs to be consequences of America's slavery-laden history.

curious2 says

But you do have a point: Hadrian wasn't hell bent on bankrupting the treasury to "improve" the whole world. Though he had risen through the ranks of the military, like Eisenhower, he wasn't beholden to the military industrial complex.

Yes, Hardian does seem similar to Eisenhower in that way. Perhaps that's why I like them both.

Dan8267 says

America's slavery-laden history.

And yet America is the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavey and set about eliminating them to the best of its less-than perfect human ability to do so. In your world, America doesn't get credit for anything good.

Dan8267 says

You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like

Like you do?

Dan8267 says

You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them

A pretty accurate assessment and good advice.

P N Dr Lo R says

And yet America is the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavey and set about eliminating them to the best of its less-than perfect human ability to do so. In your world, America doesn't get credit for anything good.

Not the only and definitely not the first by a two or three generations. The Slave Trade was first banned by Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, followed by a total ban on Slavery in 1833. Britain was the first, also France, then others, the US was a relative latecomer. I think Brazil was the last big country to end slavery, just a few years after the US. Slavery of course continued among the Desert Raider Religion until 1962 officially, but continues to this day de facto in Saudi households and Qatari construction sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Ironman says

I decided to retire early and have some additional fun, unencumbered by "work"..

Hilarious, a man who's independently wealthy but spends 100% of his time on PatNet, arguing with Dan.

This man ain't no Tony Starks.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

America's slavery-laden history.

And yet America is the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavey and set about eliminating them to the best of its less-than perfect human ability to do so. In your world, America doesn't get credit for anything good.

You are a disingenuous piece of shit.

First off, you don't get credit for being the last major country to stop practicing slavery. Hell, you don't get credit for no longer committing a crime against humanity. If the Nazi's won WWII and stopped committing genocide ten years later, would you praise their moral integrity?

Second, America is not the only country in history that recognized the evils of slavery. That's a fucking ridiculous statement. America is the only country in history that had to fight a bloody civil war to end slavery because half the country wanted it so bad they would kill and die for it. Every other country in the world either did not practice slavery or got rid of it without civil war. That doesn't speak well for America.

Third, you are a pathological liar. Acknowledging the evils done in your country's history does not mean that a person never acknowledges the good parts of that history. You are simply trying to poison the well and that is a clear indication of dishonesty.

I've acknowledged quite a few great things about America and have strongly advocated that western civilization in general is far superior to all others. Examples of great things in American history include
1. The Progressive Movement
2. Anti-Trust Laws
3. The Civil Rights Movement
4. Marriage Equality
5. The decline of religion, particularly Christianity
6. The high tax rates on the uber-rich that existed in the 1950s
7. Social Security
8. Public housing for the poor
9. Food programs for the poor
10. The funding of STEM back in the 1950s and 1960s
11. Al Gore's legislation to open up development of the Internet
12. Elizabeth Warren's financial industry reforms
13. Bernie Sander's platform

A good citizen acknowledges both the good and the evil in his country's history. It is especially important to acknowledge openly and honestly the evil because the entire purpose of history is to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and it is the bad things in history, the mistakes, that teach the important lessons. There is nothing patriotic about whitewashing your country's history. All you are doing is hurting future Americans.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like

Like you do?

I attack the policies of conservatives and their actual motivations. That's not an ad hominem attack. Learn the difference.

Furthermore, I provide evidence to support my arguments.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them

A pretty accurate assessment and good advice.

Hypocrisy. You just made another ad hominem attack and two lies. The first lie is that atheists are angry. The second lie is that I'm advocating the advice that atheists should not be listened to.

In taking these dishonest steps, you have proven my point that you are dishonest and disingenuous and that you are making false arguments. If you have to lie to support your position, your position is not worth supporting.

By the way, you have repeatedly violated the commandment of your false god, "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.". You are exactly bearing false witness against many of your neighbors. What you are doing is a sin according to your religion. Oh, the hypocrisy of Christians.

thunderlips11 says

Not the only and definitely not the first by a two or three generations. The Slave Trade was first banned by Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, followed by a total ban on Slavery in 1833.

Yes, ironically American history would have been better if we had lost the American Revolution. Slavery would have been extinguished a generation earlier and countless murders and rapes avoided.

One of the great, for lack of a better word, ironies of history is that America fought a revolution for liberty yet there would have been more liberty in America if it had lost that revolution. Sad, but true.

Dan8267 says

That's not an ad hominem attack

It's exactly what you did several months ago when you started a post about how Christians are evil. The term for this is passive-agressive--you launch attack, then act surprised and indignant when someone disagrees with you when that's what you wanted all along. How boring would it have been if all the responses were in your favor?

Dan8267 says

6. The high tax rates on the uber-rich that existed in the 1950s

None of whom would have paid the high tax rates in reality.
Dan8267 says

You are a disingenuous piece of shit.

And you come across as an angry little twit who doesn't have a life. The photos you posted of yourself and your friends in your responses to ironman are indicative of an empty head.

Rin says

This man ain't no Tony Starks.

True dat. Ironically, Tony Stark, as portrayed by Robert Downey, has almost an identical personality to me. Maybe CIC is secretly attracted to me? It would support my theory that he's a self-hating, closeted homosexual homophobe.

thunderlips11 says

the US was a relative latecomer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery-idUSL1561464920070322

1948 - United Nations General Assembly adopts Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including article stating "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

The United States massively violates this International law every single day by using prisoners as slave labor. That should stop immediately. It is one of the great injustices and shames of our time.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

That's not an ad hominem attack

It's exactly what you did several months ago when you started a post about how Christians are evil.

Stating that the Nazis were evil because they committed genocide is not an ad hominem attack on the Nazis. You need to learn what the the Ad Hominem Fallacy is.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

You are an idiot. That was an insult, not an ad hominem attack. I'm not saying that you are wrong because you are an idiot. After all, idiots are occasionally right. I'm saying you just an idiot and we can tell that from your asinine false arguments. Your arguments are wrong because they
- contain baseless assertions
- have no evidence to support them
- are empirically false
- contain logical fallacies

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

6. The high tax rates on the uber-rich that existed in the 1950s

None of whom would have paid the high tax rates in reality.

Evidence?

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

You are a disingenuous piece of shit.

And you come across as an angry little twit who doesn't have a life.

No, I don't. You just don't like me. I don't like you either. The difference is that I don't have to lie about how pathetic your are. The truth is on my side.

I have debunked every single lie you've posted on this thread. That makes me superior to you. I'm more intelligent, more thoughtful, more honest, and morally superior to you. All your faith in the false god of Jesus hasn't made you a morally decent person. In fact, I suspect that religion is partly to blame for your immorality. Morality is best served by reason and contemplation, not faith.

P N Dr Lo R says

The photos you posted of yourself and your friends in your responses to ironman are indicative of an empty head.

The only photo of myself I have ever posted on this site is my avatar image. I have never posted any photos of my friends on this site, and I would not. Can Christians ever stop bearing false witness against their neighbors?

Dan is apparently unaware that the US Christian groups were at the forefront of the Abolitionist movement.

The Christians in the Abolitionist movements figured out slavery's evil long before atheist/agnostic leaders like Thomas Jefferson.

socal2 says

Dan is apparently unaware that the US Christian groups were at the forefront of the Abolitionist movement.

I'm quite aware that there were Christians in both the anti-slavery and pro-slavery camps.

Are you aware that there are Muslims who are anti-terrorists? Does that imply that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism? That sensation you are experiencing right now, it's called hypocrisy.

Are you aware that in every single passage of both the Old and New Testaments that mention slavery, the Bible is pro-slavery. Yes, the holy book of Christianity and the infallible word of the Christian god is slavery is good.

Slavery was ended despite Christianity, not because of it. It is no coincidence that slavery only ended after Christianity's power had waned enormously. For 1800 years, Christianity practiced slavery and nations infected by the plague of Christianity only stopped practicing slavery after Christianity had lost most of its grip on the public.

As Christianity and all other religions fade from our society, our society has become more moral and just. The best time in Western culture -- nay, in the entire world history -- is today and that's because religion, particularly Christianity, is dying. All the civil and human rights and rejection of violence has increased as church attendance has fallen. So much for Christianity promoting morality. History says the opposite.

socal2 says

The Christians in the Abolitionist movements figured out slavery's evil long before atheist/agnostic leaders like Thomas Jefferson.

Oh so now Thomas Jefferson is an atheist or an agnostic? I thought Jefferson was a deist.

Like other Founding Fathers, Jefferson was considered a Deist, subscribing to the liberal religious strand of Deism that values reason over revelation and rejects traditional Christian doctrines, including the Virgin Birth, original sin and the resurrection of Jesus. While he rejected orthodoxy, Jefferson was nevertheless a religious man.

It's funny how the religious beliefs of dead people change dramatically and constantly depending on whether or not a poster wants to claim that dead person as a member of his group or his opponent's group.

Dan - the LEADERS of the Abolitionist movement were Christians. Not some hangers on or johnny come lately's.

Slavery was around long before the bible and was part of life in virtually every society on the planet.

Dan8267 says

As Christianity and all other religions fade from our society, our society has become more moral and just.

As I already pointed out, we already had a relatively recent experiment with that hypothesis with the various Communist nations - and they ALL were genocidal maniacs run by atheists that killed more people in a few decades than all religion combined over centuries.

You fanatical religion haters have absolutely no leg to stand on based on RECENT HISTORY.

I think it is more germane to discuss the actions of the atheists in the USSR and Russia a few decades ago, as opposed to the "pro-slavery" bible thumpers from 2,000+ years ago.

We now return you to our previously announced thread topic:

"Suicide bombing outside Aden palace kills 11
***
This was just one of the latest violent incidents in a Middle Eastern country that has become a proxy battleground for Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as a target for Islamist groups.... Two schoolchildren and a number of security troops were among the dead, and at least six other people were injured, three senior Aden security officials said."

socal2 says

Dan - the LEADERS of the Abolitionist movement were Christians. Not some hangers on or johnny come lately's.

Socal2 - the LEADERS of the Pro-Slavery movement were Christians. Not some hangers on or johnny come lately's.

socal2 says

Slavery was around long before the bible and was part of life in virtually every society on the planet.

Violence was around long before Islam and was part of life in virtually every society on the planet. Are you saying that Islam is not a significant factor in violence today?

You are disingenuously whitewashing history. The Bible and the Christian god are pro-slavery. I didn't make up all those Bible quotes. Just because an evil is not unique to a culture does not mean that culture does not heavily promote and carry out that evil.

Racism and genocide have been practices for tens of thousands of years before the Nazis. That doesn't mean it's wrong to associate Nazis with racism and genocide as those are pretty strongly linked to Nazi history. It's kind of their bible, Mein Kampf. You know what Christianity's bible is. It's the Bible. And that book is way the fuck pro-slavery just like Mein Kampf is pro-Aryan.

socal2 says

As I already pointed out, we already had a relatively recent experiment with that hypothesis with the various Communist nations - and they ALL were genocidal maniacs run by atheists that killed more people in a few decades than all religion combined over centuries.

Your sample set is three, hardly a significant number. My sample set is over a hundred.

Furthermore, atheism is not a characteristic of communism. Cuba is religious and communistic. In fact, there is nothing in communist economic or political philosophy that relates to atheism.

And to put the nail in the coffin of your argument, Communism is not a characteristic of atheism. There is absolutely nothing about atheism that is relevant to communism.

In contrast, the Spanish Inquisition was intrinsically a religious action motivated by Christianity. The Holocaust was intrinsically religious also motivated by the desire to make Christianity the only religion. The various genocides of the Native Americans were deeply connected to Christian expansionism. The Dark Ages were defined by Christian opposition to reason, learning, and advancement.

If you are trying to make the case that any atheist state must be a dictatorship or a communist state then you are the biggest fucking idiot in history. It is obvious that atheists do not have to be tyrants or communists and that the measly three examples you have given are not even remotely representative of Western atheists. You couldn't even find a Western European or American example. That should show weak your argument is.

How the fuck are Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins resemble Stalin or Mao? Your case is ridiculous and obviously so. I can name dozens of Christian tyrants who committed genocide, torture, mass incarceration of political opponents, mass rape, and so forth. The difference between my arguments and yours is that
1. I have the weight of all of human history with hundreds of examples across thousands of years. You have three anomalies.
2. The examples I show are intrinsically related to Christianity. Your anomalies are not in any way relevant to atheism.
3. I have shown how religion inherently is dangerous and how faith inescapably promotes evil. You have shown NO reason why atheism causes people to do evil.

Put simply, you have ignored all the evidence, all the examples, and all the analysis that shows religion in general and Christianity in particular are evil. You discard without reason all evidence against your position and assert without evidence that atheism is inherently evil. You white wash Christian history and claim that because other cultures have also done some of same evils that it's okay to condone the evils done by Christianity.

All of these disingenuous arguments are hypocritical because you do not accept their applications to Islam. This entire thread has been about the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace despite that tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Muslims are violent and have no respect for human life. I can site as many examples of Muslims today who are anti-terorrist as you can site anti-slavery Christians from the 1860. Yet, no where do you claim that because many Muslims are anti-terrorist that Islam does not promote terrorism. That would be a ridiculous argument. For the exact same reason, it would be a ridiculous argument that because some Christians were anti-slavery that Christianity and it's unerring holy Bible did not heavily promote slavery in American and European history.

socal2 says

I think it is more germane to discuss the actions of the atheists in the USSR and Russia a few decades ago, as opposed to the "pro-slavery" bible thumpers from 2,000+ years ago.

You are only saying that because doing so would support your false arguments. In reality, the comparison we should be making is American atheists during any time period with their Christian counterparts. And that comparison always makes Christians look bad.

The best examples, of course, would be from America now rather than last century. Every single "god hates fags" sign held at funerals, including funerals of soldiers, was held by a Christian, not an atheist. The entire bigotry against homosexuality and marriage equality is intrinsic to Christianity. Atheists are not homophones in any measurable number.

Atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population despite making up 7% of the population. That's a ratio of 1:100. Christians on the other hand are 73% of the prison population while only 70.6% of the general population. That's a ratio of 108:100.

In other words, Christians are 108 times as likely to commit crimes than atheists. If anything, given the huge prejudices against atheists and for Christians, this is a very low estimate of just how much more likely Christians are to commit crimes. Put simply, atheists are statistically immensely less violent and criminal than Christians today.

This fact shouldn't be surprising since intelligence is the number one cause of atheism and it's also the number one cause of pro-social, non-violent behavior and empathy.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, atheism is not a characteristic of communism. Cuba is religious and communistic.

You could not be a member of the Communist party in Cuba and be religious. And like most Commie hell-holes, if you were not a party member in good standing, you were dirt poor, starving or in a gulag. Now granted, South American Commies weren't as bat-shit crazy against religion as the European and Asian Commies. But Chinese and Russians set the bar pretty high with their genocidal actions..

"religious people were not allowed to join the Cuban Communist Party due to religion being contradictory to the party's Marxist philosophy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_CubaDan8267 says

And to put the nail in the coffin of your argument, Communism is not a characteristic of atheism. There is absolutely nothing about atheism that is relevant to communism.

Atheism has EVERYTHING to do with Marxist/Leninist philosophy. Your own words against religion are almost identical to the 19th and 20th Century monsters that cursed the world with Communism:

"Marxism–Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism–Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism.[4] Marxist–Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.[5]"

"Marx - In his rejection of all religious thought, Marx considered the contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant and irrelevant to the future of humanity. Furthermore, in his view, atheistic philosophy had liberated human beings from suppressing their natural potential and allowed for people to realize that they, rather than any supernatural force that required obedience, were the masters of reality. Marx’s opposition to religion was based especially upon this view in that he believed religion alienated humans from reality and held them back from their true potential. He therefore considered that religion needed to be removed from society."

"Engels considered religion as a false consciousness, and incompatible with communism. Engels, in his lifelong contacts with leaders of Social Democratic and Communist parties in Europe as well as the founders of the First International (the 19th century political union of communist movements), urged them to disseminate and cultivate atheism"

"Lenin’s unequivocal hostile intolerance towards religious belief became a distinctive feature of ideological Soviet atheism, which was contrasted with milder antireligious views of Marxists outside the USSR. His hostility to religion allowed no compromises, such that it even alienated leftist religious believers who sympathised with the Bolsheviks. It even alienated some leftist atheists who were willing to accommodate religious beliefs"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism

Dan8267 says

There is absolutely nothing about atheism that is relevant to communism.

No, just its heart and soul. The 20th century produced two of the most brilliant minds, both of whom were atheists into their 30's, one a communist, to enter the public discourse of mid-century. Both Whittaker Chamber and C. S. Lewis converted to Christianity from atheism and set examples by their testimonies and writing that stand the test of time 'till today--so far above the caliber of people like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher as to not even bear mentioning in the same breaths. It's the thesis of Whittaker Chambers' 1952 book Witness that atheism is the main theme of communism, more so than as an economic system--the state replaces God with man.

socal2 says

Atheism has EVERYTHING to do with Marxist/Leninist philosophy.

You clearly know nothing about atheism, Marxism, or world history. You are talking to a hard-core atheist here who is in no way an advocate of Marxism, the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba. When face with a living example that contradicts your preconceptions you continue to ignore reality. That is why faith and religion are evil and people who succumb to those evils are brainwashed and incapable of grasping reality.

It is because you have unquestioning faith in doctrine, including political doctrine, that you cannot correct the gross misconceptions in your head. And that is why every rational, sane person must oppose all religions including your false, brainwashing one.

socal2 says

Atheism has EVERYTHING to do with Marxist/Leninist philosophy. Your own words against religion are almost identical to the 19th and 20th Century monsters that cursed the world with Communism:

"Marxism–Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." - Adolf Hitler

So either you agree with Hitler and by your own logic are a genocidal maniac, or you hate children.

Can you see how stupid your reasoning -- and I use that term very loosely -- is?

Religion is like a drug. It causes delusions and is highly addictive to some people. That's as far as I'd take the analogy, but that to that extend it is true. A truth is a truth regardless of who says it. Even broken clocks are sometimes right. If that's the best argument you can make, i.e. you said something reasonable that other people who aren't reasonable also said, then you are on very weak ground.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

There is absolutely nothing about atheism that is relevant to communism.

No, just its heart and soul.

Bullshit. There is nothing that I, Richard Dawkins, or Neils degrasse Tyson advocated that is even remotely similar to the Soviet Union. Nor do you have any evidence demonstrating that American or European atheists have advocated dictatorships and the curtail of liberty. How fucking stupid are you? Do you even realize that you are talking to the most liberal person you will ever interact with in your pathetic life? I believe that prostitution and sex in public should be legal. How the fuck am I an advocate of a strong central state that controls all aspects of life and the press? You're a fucking moron.

P N Dr Lo R says

atheism is the main theme of communism, more so than as an economic system--the state replaces God with man.

Moron is too kind of a word to describe you.

Atheists don't replace a fictitious god with man. Atheists oppose the belief in all false gods and want them replaced with nothing. If you can't understand even this simple truth, then your religion has fucked you up even more than I thought.

Dan8267 says

nothing

A good description.