Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

All reading a newspaper does is show that people can screw their lives up perfectly well all by themselves, without blaming poor ADAM for it.

[southern cross]

God's actions are only senseless and arbitrary if you have no concept of sin. We are all deserving of death because of sin, the wonder is so many of us are spared. And I don't see how you as a materialist can call anything right or wrong, I mean to you, we are simply grown up germs, right?

A rather circular argument this. If you believe in god and god defined sin then you know that god can't sin 'cos he said so. Sin and god are intrinsically linked, after all, according to the bible he created the first sin.

[JohnPaul]

dianaiad wrote:

I'll also freely admit that the OT God was a vengeful and strict Judge. However, I have the sneakiest suspicion that most of the stories YOU refer to as horrific were a case of the winner writing the history, and your characterizing of those decision makers as 'tribal chiefs' is more accurate than most Christians want to admit. When I deal with the OT God, I tend to go straight to the events that GOD was described as directly responsible for; the Flood, perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to look with a very jaundiced eye those stories where 'God commanded' and MEN did.

Yes, history is written by the winners and any atrocity can be easily justified by passing the responsibility on to a God who, by definition, can do no wrong and is not required to explain his actions.

The New Testament is a little different. In my opinion, it appears to have been rather inconsistently written after the fact by apologists and salesmen for the new and growing Christian churches, who needed a "God-story" to attract converts. Virgin Birth? Empty Tomb? No religion in the area at the time could be without such frills.

Even then, much of what passes for Christianity was created even later by self-serving theologians and has only the loosest connection with scripture. The Trinity? Gobbledygook to make "One God" out of two or three and justify calling Jesus "God." Original Sin? What better way to threaten the masses with hell if they don't join our church to be "SAVED!!!" Hallelujah!!!

Yeah, well...what can I say about that?

We Mormon types did think that Christianity went off the rails fairly early on, and we don't buy Original Sin (at least in the way everybody else does) or the Trinity, either.

We do, however, go with the virgin birth and the resurrection. Those are sorta important to us, given Who we think Jesus is and all...

Why? I can understand that a physical resurrection might have impressed people at the time, but it seems to have been handled very sloppily, with no witnesses, etc. Why is it important now, when our expectations of gods are a little more sophisticated?

With all due respect, I would sooner believe gold plates and Egytian heiroglyphics than the silly (and completely unnecessary) story of the virgin birth. Not to mention its immoral implications. So God sends a pimp angel to solicit prostitution from a young engaged girl. The angel promises her she will be glorified among women if she submits, so she agrees to it with no money up front??? And her prospective husband goes along with the scheme? Really?

Aside from the silly and immoral nature of the story, doesn't it contradict the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of the House of David? It is said that Joseph was of the House of David but Mary was not, and even if she was, the Jews did not count descent through the female line. I guess some gospel writer (not even all of them) decided that "Son of God" sounded more impressive, even if he was illegitimate and born through adultery and/or prostitution.

[JohnPaul]

<snip to here>

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

All reading a newspaper does is show that people can screw their lives up perfectly well all by themselves, without blaming poor ADAM for it.

It is EVE who is blamed for it. That sneaky conniving woman took advantage of poor ADAM.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

All reading a newspaper does is show that people can screw their lives up perfectly well all by themselves, without blaming poor ADAM for it.

It is EVE who is blamed for it. That sneaky conniving woman took advantage of poor ADAM.

Oh. Sorry...you are quite right. She is blamed. But y'know, nobody ever talks about EVE'S transgression, only that she is to blame for ADAM'S transgression.

There's all sorts of philosophical musing possible in that one.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Nonsense, who gained by speading a false story when the spreaders received only persecution and death? I want in on that action, LOL. As Paul said, if Christianity were not true, or only for this world, the apostles were the most miserable of men. SOMETHING changed the apostles from a small band of frightened men (Peter wouldn't ever confess Jesus before a servant girl) to a group no power on earth could silence. IMHO the Resurrection is that something. You are alleging a vast conspiracy with NO evidence, how about a secret memo at least from an early Pope X saying 'today we're going to make up the story of the loaves and fishes' or something?

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

The new churches gained membership, but all the secret memos were shredded when the committee of Bishops very selectively but the Bible together in the 4th century.

Paul was an obvious opportunistic con-man who saw the growing Christian churches as an opportunity for himself and then used the story of his "conversion" by the dead Jesus, conveniently unseen by anyone else, to bamboozle his way to become a big fish in a little pond.

I had understood that Original Sin was the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That was an obvious set-up, deliberate entrapment of an innocent and naive couple for a trivial infraction. I don't believe the newspapers reported the story at the time.

[JohnPaul]

<snip to here>

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

All reading a newspaper does is show that people can screw their lives up perfectly well all by themselves, without blaming poor ADAM for it.

It is EVE who is blamed for it. That sneaky conniving woman took advantage of poor ADAM.

Oh. Sorry...you are quite right. She is blamed. But y'know, nobody ever talks about EVE'S transgression, only that she is to blame for ADAM'S transgression.

There's all sorts of philosophical musing possible in that one.

Eve's transgression is irrelevant to us today because inheritance was only through the male line. People at that time had no understanding of the biology of reproduction and believed that the fetus developed only from the male semen deposited in the womb, while the woman served only as a "vessel" to carry it. It was the Biblical men who did all the "begatting."

[East of Eden]

East of Eden wrote:

Nonsense, who gained by speading a false story when the spreaders received only persecution and death? I want in on that action, LOL. As Paul said, if Christianity were not true, or only for this world, the apostles were the most miserable of men. SOMETHING changed the apostles from a small band of frightened men (Peter wouldn't ever confess Jesus before a servant girl) to a group no power on earth could silence. IMHO the Resurrection is that something. You are alleging a vast conspiracy with NO evidence, how about a secret memo at least from an early Pope X saying 'today we're going to make up the story of the loaves and fishes' or something?

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

The new churches gained membership, but all the secret memos were shredded when the committee of Bishops very selectively but the Bible together in the 4th century.

Cite, or did you just dream that up?

Paul was an obvious opportunistic con-man who saw the growing Christian churches as an opportunity for himself and then used the story of his "conversion" by the dead Jesus, conveniently unseen by anyone else, to bamboozle his way to become a big fish in a little pond.

More nonsense. People don't knowingly die for a lie. This is Paul's 'payoff', before his execution:

"I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." II Cor. 11

Would you undergo all that for a lie?

I had understood that Original Sin was the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That was an obvious set-up, deliberate entrapment of an innocent and naive couple for a trivial infraction. I don't believe the newspapers reported the story at the time.

No, but the book of Genesis did.

[East of Eden]

<snip to here>

As far as Original Sin, as GK Chesterson said, it is the most empiracally verifiable doctrine of our faith, all you have to do is read the newspaper.

All reading a newspaper does is show that people can screw their lives up perfectly well all by themselves, without blaming poor ADAM for it.

Then why is all of mankind so consistently messed up, all the while having an idea of what should be? Who is without mistakes? Why in all the 5,000 year record of human history has there only been about 200 years of recorded peace?

[East of Eden]

dianaiad wrote:

I'll also freely admit that the OT God was a vengeful and strict Judge. However, I have the sneakiest suspicion that most of the stories YOU refer to as horrific were a case of the winner writing the history, and your characterizing of those decision makers as 'tribal chiefs' is more accurate than most Christians want to admit. When I deal with the OT God, I tend to go straight to the events that GOD was described as directly responsible for; the Flood, perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to look with a very jaundiced eye those stories where 'God commanded' and MEN did.

Yes, history is written by the winners and any atrocity can be easily justified by passing the responsibility on to a God who, by definition, can do no wrong and is not required to explain his actions.

The New Testament is a little different. In my opinion, it appears to have been rather inconsistently written after the fact by apologists and salesmen for the new and growing Christian churches, who needed a "God-story" to attract converts. Virgin Birth? Empty Tomb? No religion in the area at the time could be without such frills.

Even then, much of what passes for Christianity was created even later by self-serving theologians and has only the loosest connection with scripture. The Trinity? Gobbledygook to make "One God" out of two or three and justify calling Jesus "God." Original Sin? What better way to threaten the masses with hell if they don't join our church to be "SAVED!!!" Hallelujah!!!

Yeah, well...what can I say about that?

We Mormon types did think that Christianity went off the rails fairly early on, and we don't buy Original Sin (at least in the way everybody else does) or the Trinity, either.

We do, however, go with the virgin birth and the resurrection. Those are sorta important to us, given Who we think Jesus is and all...

Why? I can understand that a physical resurrection might have impressed people at the time, but it seems to have been handled very sloppily, with no witnesses, etc.

There were witnesses, see the Gospels. They were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

Why is it important now, when our expectations of gods are a little more sophisticated?

People were no less skeptical then. Thomas had to feel the wounds for himself before he believed.

With all due respect, I would sooner believe gold plates and Egytian heiroglyphics than the silly (and completely unnecessary) story of the virgin birth. Not to mention its immoral implications. So God sends a pimp angel to solicit prostitution from a young engaged girl.

Huh? Where does it say Mary had sexual relations with an angel?

Aside from the silly and immoral nature of the story, doesn't it contradict the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of the House of David? It is said that Joseph was of the House of David but Mary was not, and even if she was, the Jews did not count descent through the female line.

Wrong, Mary was also of the House of David: http://www.biblecenter.de/bibel/widerspruch/e-wds08.php

I guess some gospel writer (not even all of them) decided that "Son of God" sounded more impressive, even if he was illegitimate and born through adultery and/or prostitution.

The excuses don't change for the God-rejectors, yours is the exact same used by the Jewish leadership in the NT.