"Christian" Dad Whips Kids Over Changed Channel

[YoUDeeMan]

It is patently foolish to suggest, as your questions due, that the victims of the atrocities were somehow complicit in them.

Joe, are you teling me that not a single religious person took part in helping Stalin clear out some of the riff-raff in Russia? Not one?

Are you telling me that other religious people didn't just look away from the atrocities, knowing that people would be killed, in the hope that if they just stayed silent and weren't noticed that their God or luck would save them from the same fate?

Are you telling me that no atheists were killed by Stalin, even if they disagreed with what he was doing?

Seriously, do you believe any of that?

[JoltinJoe]

I really feel sorry for you. You use to be a worthy discussion. You've become buffoonish.

Great, say a prayer for me. You used to be honest and at times, humble.

It's not "dishonest" to call you out for the way you take a fact and then, out of context, draw the most extreme and unsupportable inferences. You use to be able to appreciate legitimate nuances and context. Now you've become a shrill anti-Catholic partisan who lives in some cartoonish world where your perceived "bad guys" are always evil and badly motivated. You come across as bigot, the way you stereotype and categorize (but that's ok, because bigotry against Catholics is still acceptable among the pseudo-intellectuals like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, etc.)

It's not arrogance to fight arrogance with arrogance. It's the only language you understand anymore. The difference between what you write and what I write is that what I write is founded on legitimate discussion going on in the field of moral philosophy today. When I went to my college reunion two years ago, a couple of us were talking with a professor who had taught us a philosophy class, Belief Systems of the 20th Century. I asked him how his syllabus and reading assignments would have changed in the past 25 years. He responded that Existentialism is still taught as a mid-century "philosophical curiosity" more important for the questions it raised than the answers it provided, but as a field of philosophy, it was essentially stagnant. He then added that atheism as a moral philosophy was also stagnant, with no significant current writer worthy of being taught. This was because atheism remains unable to address the great question posed to it: if there is no objective source for truth which compels an objective morality, what then compels an atheist to embrace a humanist morality? Couldn't he accept there is no God, and then use that belief to justify anything, like a Stalin?

Until some atheist comes up with a meaningful answer to that question (and it is doubtful one will), the field is dead, he said.

[D1B]

Great, say a prayer for me. You used to be honest and at times, humble.

It's not "dishonest" to call you out for the way you take a fact and then, out of context, draw the most extreme and unsupportable inferences. You use to be able to appreciate legitimate nuances and context. Now you've become a shrill anti-Catholic partisan who lives in some cartoonish world where your perceived "bad guys" are always evil and badly motivated. You come across as bigot, the way you stereotype and categorize (but that's ok, because bigotry against Catholics is still acceptable among the pseudo-intellectuals like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, etc.)

It's not arrogance to fight arrogance with arrogance. It's the only language you understand anymore. The difference between what you write and what I write is that what I write is founded on legitimate discussion going on in the field of moral philosophy today. When I went to my college reunion two years ago, a couple of us were talking with a professor who had taught us a philosophy class, Belief Systems of the 20th Century. I asked him how his syllabus and reading assignments would have changed in the past 25 years. He responded that Existentialism is still taught as a mid-century "philosophical curiosity" more important for the questions it raised than the answers it provided, but as a field of philosophy, it was essentially stagnant. He then added that atheism as a moral philosophy was also stagnant, with no significant current writer worthy of being taught. This was because atheism remains unable to address the great question posed to it: if there is no objective source for truth which compels an objective morality, what then compels an atheist to embrace a humanist morality? Couldn't he accept there is no God, and then use that belief to justify anything, like a Stalin?

Until some atheist comes up with a meaningful answer to that question (and it is doubtful one will), the field is dead, he said.

Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy or religion. You know this, but your bullshit arguments are predicated on confusing this term or equating it with communism.

Joe, you self servingly put words in other people's mouths, lie and use the most childish of logical fallacies to promote your product of 50 years of brainwashing.

I'm done with you and have no respect for you anymore. Which is sad.

[JoltinJoe]

It's not "dishonest" to call you out for the way you take a fact and then, out of context, draw the most extreme and unsupportable inferences. You use to be able to appreciate legitimate nuances and context. Now you've become a shrill anti-Catholic partisan who lives in some cartoonish world where your perceived "bad guys" are always evil and badly motivated. You come across as bigot, the way you stereotype and categorize (but that's ok, because bigotry against Catholics is still acceptable among the pseudo-intellectuals like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, etc.)

It's not arrogance to fight arrogance with arrogance. It's the only language you understand anymore. The difference between what you write and what I write is that what I write is founded on legitimate discussion going on in the field of moral philosophy today. When I went to my college reunion two years ago, a couple of us were talking with a professor who had taught us a philosophy class, Belief Systems of the 20th Century. I asked him how his syllabus and reading assignments would have changed in the past 25 years. He responded that Existentialism is still taught as a mid-century "philosophical curiosity" more important for the questions it raised than the answers it provided, but as a field of philosophy, it was essentially stagnant. He then added that atheism as a moral philosophy was also stagnant, with no significant current writer worthy of being taught. This was because atheism remains unable to address the great question posed to it: if there is no objective source for truth which compels an objective morality, what then compels an atheist to embrace a humanist morality? Couldn't he accept there is no God, and then use that belief to justify anything, like a Stalin?

Until some atheist comes up with a meaningful answer to that question (and it is doubtful one will), the field is dead, he said.

Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy or religion. You know this, but your bullshit arguments are predicated on confusing this term or equating it with communism.

Joe, you self servingly put words in other people's mouths, lie and use the most childish of logical fallacies to promote your product of 50 years of brainwashing.

I'm done with you and have no respect for you anymore. Which is sad.

Seriously, I don't care what your websites say. Atheism is a philosophy which, among other things, denies the existence of objective truth. To the extent that atheism denies the existence of objective truth, it is also a moral system. This is why atheism is taught within the field of philosophy in college curriculum, and why the most noted proponents of atheism, like Nietzsche, are called philosophers.

Nor is there any denying that there is a strong commonality among atheism, secular humanism, and communism in that each of them holds that moral truth does not derive from an objective source.

That you are done with me is the best news I've heard. I won't even quibble that I said I was done with you first. I assume this means that your propensity to create thread after thread of emotional, anti-Catholic tirades is coming to an end.

I don't ask for your respect. In fact, I don't even want it. What you respect is inherently flawed and dishonest. I thank you for not giving me your respect.

[89Hen]

I assume this means that your propensity to create thread after thread of emotional, anti-Catholic tirades is coming to an end.

Not sure that is a good thing. Have you seen his posts on non anti-Catholic tirade threads?

[YoUDeeMan]

It is patently foolish to suggest, as your questions due, that the victims of the atrocities were somehow complicit in them.

Joe, are you teling me that not a single religious person took part in helping Stalin clear out some of the riff-raff in Russia? Not one?

Are you telling me that other religious people didn't just look away from the atrocities, knowing that people would be killed, in the hope that if they just stayed silent and weren't noticed that their God or luck would save them from the same fate?

Are you telling me that no atheists were killed by Stalin, even if they disagreed with what he was doing?

Seriously, do you believe any of that?

Joe?

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, are you teling me that not a single religious person took part in helping Stalin clear out some of the riff-raff in Russia? Not one?

Are you telling me that other religious people didn't just look away from the atrocities, knowing that people would be killed, in the hope that if they just stayed silent and weren't noticed that their God or luck would save them from the same fate?

Are you telling me that no atheists were killed by Stalin, even if they disagreed with what he was doing?

Seriously, do you believe any of that?

Joe?

What's the point? The answers to your questions are not relevant. You are posing the questions for two reasons: (i) to suggest the something other than state atheism was responsible for the Purges of Stalin and (ii) to suggest that the religious have some complicity in the atrocities committed against them.

What happened in the Soviet Union was the decision of a leadership committed to atheism and communism. That it may have used the fear, tanks and arms to cause religious people to "look away" is completely not relevant to any inquiry as to why these atrocities happened. In fact, the fact of the atrocities, accomplished at the hands of a well-armed state, was precisely intended to create enough fear to "look away" or to even participate, directly or indirectly, in the actions of the state.

The atrocities were intended to create fearful complicity. That doesn't have any impact on determining the cause of why the Purges of Stalin were initiated. It only helps to grasp why this fearful reign of terror was not easily stopped before so many victims were exterminated.

[YoUDeeMan]

Joe, are you teling me that not a single religious person took part in helping Stalin clear out some of the riff-raff in Russia? Not one?

religious people didn't just look away from the atrocities, knowing that people would be killed, in the hope that if they just stayed silent and weren't noticed that their God or luck would save them from the same fate?

Are you telling me that no atheists were killed by Stalin, even if they disagreed with what he was doing?

Seriously, do you believe any of that?

What's the point? The answers to your questions are not relevant. You are posing the questions for two reasons: (i) to suggest the something other than state atheism was responsible for the Purges of Stalin and (ii) to suggest that the religious have some complicity in the atrocities committed against them.

What happened in the Soviet Union was the decision of a leadership committed to atheism and communism. That it may have used the fear, tanks and arms to cause religious people to "look away" is completely not relevant to any inquiry as to why these atrocities happened. In fact, the fact of the atrocities, accomplished at the hands of a well-armed state, was precisely intended to create enough fear to "look away" or to even participate, directly or indirectly, in the actions of the state.

The atrocities were intended to create fearful complicity. That doesn't have any impact on determining the cause of why the Purges of Stalin were initiated. It only helps to grasp why this fearful reign of terror was not easily stopped before so many victims were exterminated.

So, Joe, you agree that atheists were killed by Stalin...not just religious people. In fact, just about anyone who got in his way was killed.

And Joe, you agree that many religious people looked away and did nothing to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

And Joe, you agree that many religious people participated in the slaughter.

Thanks for your honesty...although you didn't answer directly you certainly know that those statements are true. Why is is so hard for folks to admit their own flocks committed atrocities?

Fear does some funny things to people, Joe.

Hey, Joe, has the Church ever used fear to get people to do things that were wrong?

[D1B]

Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy or religion. You know this, but your bullshit arguments are predicated on confusing this term or equating it with communism.

Joe, you self servingly put words in other people's mouths, lie and use the most childish of logical fallacies to promote your product of 50 years of brainwashing.

I'm done with you and have no respect for you anymore. Which is sad.

Seriously, I don't care what your websites say. Atheism is a philosophy which, among other things, denies the existence of objective truth. To the extent that atheism denies the existence of objective truth, it is also a moral system. This is why atheism is taught within the field of philosophy in college curriculum, and why the most noted proponents of atheism, like Nietzsche, are called philosophers.

Nor is there any denying that there is a strong commonality among atheism, secular humanism, and communism in that each of them holds that moral truth does not derive from an objective source.

That you are done with me is the best news I've heard. I won't even quibble that I said I was done with you first. I assume this means that your propensity to create thread after thread of emotional, anti-Catholic tirades is coming to an end.

I don't ask for your respect. In fact, I don't even want it. What you respect is inherently flawed and dishonest. I thank you for not giving me your respect.

Asked you a hundred times to lay out the religion, philosophy or belief system of Atheism and all you can come up with is the above, which is a big fail, again.

Joe, you're a spoiled kid that knows he aint gonna get his way and knows he has no control over the situation. You know the little pussy who's been coddled by mommy and daddy, sheltered for 50 years, and thinks everyone else should love him and deify him like mommy and daddy. It's great until you run into others who didn't share your abusive and sheltered upbringing.

I'm the only one here whose respect you desire.

[andy7171]

JFC! Isn't it about time for a round of retirement threads?

[JoltinJoe]

What's the point? The answers to your questions are not relevant. You are posing the questions for two reasons: (i) to suggest the something other than state atheism was responsible for the Purges of Stalin and (ii) to suggest that the religious have some complicity in the atrocities committed against them.

What happened in the Soviet Union was the decision of a leadership committed to atheism and communism. That it may have used the fear, tanks and arms to cause religious people to "look away" is completely not relevant to any inquiry as to why these atrocities happened. In fact, the fact of the atrocities, accomplished at the hands of a well-armed state, was precisely intended to create enough fear to "look away" or to even participate, directly or indirectly, in the actions of the state.

The atrocities were intended to create fearful complicity. That doesn't have any impact on determining the cause of why the Purges of Stalin were initiated. It only helps to grasp why this fearful reign of terror was not easily stopped before so many victims were exterminated.

So, Joe, you agree that atheists were killed by Stalin...not just religious people. In fact, just about anyone who got in his way was killed.

And Joe, you agree that many religious people looked away and did nothing to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

And Joe, you agree that many religious people participated in the slaughter.

Thanks for your honesty...although you didn't answer directly you certainly know that those statements are true. Why is is so hard for folks to admit their own flocks committed atrocities?

Fear does some funny things to people, Joe.

Hey, Joe, has the Church ever used fear to get people to do things that were wrong?

Ok, yes, the imposition of a fearful reign of terror motivated by state atheism caused many people to look away or maybe even participate, directly or indirectly. In many respects, it worked exactly as intended.

But you don't dispute what I said that none of this is relevant in determining what caused Stalin's actions.

Now why don't you admit that state atheism was the cause of Stalin's actions?

[JoltinJoe]

Seriously, I don't care what your websites say. Atheism is a philosophy which, among other things, denies the existence of objective truth. To the extent that atheism denies the existence of objective truth, it is also a moral system. This is why atheism is taught within the field of philosophy in college curriculum, and why the most noted proponents of atheism, like Nietzsche, are called philosophers.

Nor is there any denying that there is a strong commonality among atheism, secular humanism, and communism in that each of them holds that moral truth does not derive from an objective source.

That you are done with me is the best news I've heard. I won't even quibble that I said I was done with you first. I assume this means that your propensity to create thread after thread of emotional, anti-Catholic tirades is coming to an end.

I don't ask for your respect. In fact, I don't even want it. What you respect is inherently flawed and dishonest. I thank you for not giving me your respect.

Asked you a hundred times to lay out the religion, philosophy or belief system of Atheism and all you can come up with is the above, which is a big fail, again.

Joe, you're a spoiled kid that knows he aint gonna get his way and knows he has no control over the situation. You know the little pussy who's been coddled by mommy and daddy, sheltered for 50 years, and thinks everyone else should love him and deify him like mommy and daddy. It's great until you run into others who didn't share your abusive and sheltered upbringing.

I'm the only one here whose respect you desire.

Did I hear something? I thought you were done with me.

[YoUDeeMan]

Ok, yes, the imposition of a fearful reign of terror motivated by state atheism caused many people to look away or maybe even participate, directly or indirectly. In many respects, it worked exactly as intended.

But you don't dispute what I said that none of this is relevant in determining what caused Stalin's actions.

Now why don't you admit that state atheism was the cause of Stalin's actions?

To answer your question about state atheism, I'll have to give it some thought. I'm not sure a state can be atheistic if the people of the state aren't.

You evaded the question about the Church using fear...and fear is what drives people's behavior. In the past, many religions have wanted to eliminate other religions and have used force to do so. They attack religions the same way Stalin did...and they did it for the same reasons. Religions are powerful social networks and people are often willing to do things for social networks that conflict with what other groups desire. Any social network is going to be attacked or controlled by anyone who wants to maintain power so I don't see much difference between what Stalin did and what other power hungry governments/groups - including the Church - have done. The scale was different, but the intent was the same.

[D1B]

Ok, yes, the imposition of a fearful reign of terror motivated by state atheism caused many people to look away or maybe even participate, directly or indirectly. In many respects, it worked exactly as intended.

But you don't dispute what I said that none of this is relevant in determining what caused Stalin's actions.

Now why don't you admit that state atheism was the cause of Stalin's actions?

To answer your question about state atheism, I'll have to give it some thought. I'm not sure a state can be atheistic if the people of the state aren't.

You evaded the question about the Church using fear...and fear is what drives people's behavior. In the past, many religions have wanted to eliminate other religions and have used force to do so. They attack religions the same way Stalin did...and they did it for the same reasons. Religions are powerful social networks and people are often willing to do things for social networks that conflict with what other groups desire. Any social network is going to be attacked or controlled by anyone who wants to maintain power so I don't see much difference between what Stalin did and what other power hungry governments/groups - including the Church - have done. The scale was different, but the intent was the same.

Monotheistic religions being the most intolerant and relying the most on fear and guilt to control people.

[D1B]

An excellent and level-headed reply to Joltin Joke and his tired and desperate attack on atheism and obvious red herring...


How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?

Response:

None, probably.

How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?

No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism.

But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad.

To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. *The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened — which is utter nonsense.

The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion's responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can't motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It's been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.

It's difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Whatever culpability theism itself might have, it's likely small enough to dismiss, allowing us to treat it and atheism as functionally equal in this context.

aboutatheism.com

[Wedgebuster]

[JoltinJoe]

An excellent and level-headed reply to Joltin Joke and his tired and desperate attack on atheism and obvious red herring...


How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?

Response:

None, probably.

How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?

No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism.

But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad.

To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. *The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened — which is utter nonsense.

The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion's responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can't motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It's been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.

It's difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Whatever culpability theism itself might have, it's likely small enough to dismiss, allowing us to treat it and atheism as functionally equal in this context.

aboutatheism.com

Rubbish.

[D1B]

Rubbish.

[JoltinJoe]

Great. I'll let you have the last word.

I cited Dostoevsky and Nietzsche in support of my position.

You cited aboutatheism.com to support you.

[D1B]

Great. I'll let you have the last word.

I cited Dostoevsky and Nietzsche in support of my position.

You cited aboutatheism.com to support you.

Nietzche warned humanity about the dangers of christianity. He essentially said it makes people weak. He was right.

[JohnStOnge]

The point is not whether or not a bunch of people were killed "because" of atheism during the Stalin and Mao years. The point is they were regimes that officially embraced atheism. And they killed an awful lot of people.

The point is that they illustrate the lie of the idea that theist religion is the cause of such things.

If you think that the absence of theist religion is the root of all evil and that everything would be sweetness and light with mankind if only theist religion wasn't present, you are kidding yourself. And if you can't see that things like the Stalin regime in the USSR and the Mao regime in China illustrate that, you are just choosing not to see.

[JohnStOnge]

And, again, atheism can offer no basis for why anything Stalin or Mao did was "wrong."

[D1B]

The point is not whether or not a bunch of people were killed "because" of atheism during the Stalin and Mao years. The point is they were regimes that officially embraced atheism. And they killed an awful lot of people.

The point is that they illustrate the lie of the idea that theist religion is the cause of such things.

If you think that the absence of theist religion is the root of all evil and that everything would be sweetness and light with mankind if only theist religion wasn't present, you are kidding yourself. And if you can't see that things like the Stalin regime in the USSR and the Mao regime in China illustrate that, you are just choosing not to see.

Stalin and Mao illustrate the failures of totalitarianism and their brand of communism. Atheism is not a political or moral or religious system. After repeated requests, you, Joe and Baldy have failed to come up with any evidence that it is. Until you do, your argument is bunk.

I find it curious that you of all people here would defend theism. You are without a doubt the most courageous and freethinking beast here, yet you defend a system that places freethinking and critical ethical inquiry right up there with the greatest of evils.

You ,like Joe, also fail to admit that christianity used to be the scourge of the planet for about 1800 years and it is what it is now because atheists, deists, scientists, women, minorities and other martyrs challenged the church and its version of objective truth, and transformed it into the less murderous, in some cases decent, racket it is today. The church did not give up its power to kill people easily.

[D1B]

And, again, atheism can offer no basis for why anything Stalin or Mao did was "wrong."

Your're right, because atheism is not a belief system, religion, political system or moral system. Secular humanism though can offer a basis for why you shouldn't kill people.

BTW John, what does theism offer as a basis?

[Skjellyfetti]

And, again, atheism can offer no basis for why anything Stalin or Mao did was "wrong."

No, but empathy can. Morality doesn't come from religion... it comes from human empathy.

Christian morality is summed up by Jesus as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's empathy... plain and simple.

What Stalin and Mao did was wrong because it was treating other human beings in a cruel in inhumane way. I empathize with the victims' suffering... therefore I find it wrong and abhorrent.... and not because the Ten Commandments says "Thou shall not kill." That's not atheism offering a basis for morality... but, it is a basis for morality absent religion.