ATHEIST JEWS LIKE PROVENZA ARE THE BIGGEST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY SEE THE SOVIET UNION (1917-1945) AND THE GODLESS ISRAELIS USING NATO TO STARVE AND BOMB CIVILIAN POPULATIONS (1967-2012). And my God take off that hat you look like Brian Johnson with AIDS.
@Amberlicious1000 You reek of a guy who only knows Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. This is Paul Provenza, doing his stand up. He hasn't ripped off Dawkins, as if he's the main prophet of atheism.
@IggyIrons Um...I "reek" of a guy who only knows Dawkins? Interesting. You actually have no idea what I know. But obviously I know this is Paul Provenza, doing his stand up. I mean, it's right there in the title. But he HAS, in fact, ripped this off Dawkins. He makes statements almost exactly like the ones this guy is saying in this video. Maybe YOU don't know the video I'm talking about, but Dawkins says almost the exact same thing. Here-go, a ripoff. My point still stands.
@Amberlicious1000 Well, yes. A guy who's covered in shit reeks of a guy who jumped into a pool of shit, but it might as well could've been poured on him. You reek of a guy who etc. etc. because you seem to think Dawkins is the one who came up with the "We are all atheists, I just go one further" idea. He didn't. It's as old as the book. And I have never seen those jokes derived from that idea, so I say there's no rip-off.
@IggyIrons Hmmm...quite a lot of hostility just from one simple comment that I made about how Richard Dawkins has said almost the exact same thing. Soooooomeone's bitter. And I don't have Dawkins up on a pedestal or anything. I'm WELL aware that he is not the first guy to come up with atheism or evolotion or whatever. I'm not even a fan of Richard Dawkins. I NEVER said anything good OR bad about him.
@Amberlicious1000 (cont'd) All I said was that Richard Dawkins said something VERY similar to this, like almost the very same words. Then I see a video of this comedian guy saying the same stuff. That's just simple fact. I'm not taking anyone'e side, or hailing Richard Dawkins in any way. I NEVER said he came up with this stuff. I KNOW how old it is. He's no pioneer. Duh. And just because you've never seen the video that I'm talking about, doesnt mean it's not a rip-off. Maybe chill out a bit.
Paul makes an excellent made many times before in different ways--you will never see an atheist blow himself up on a bus yelling "There is no god!" Atheists have done evil things but never in the name of atheism; it was some other part of their makeup that was the cause. Atheism's biggest factor in human behavior is a facepalm when listening to believers try and justify their hallucinatory fantasies--that's it.
I Don't disagree with "most" of your last two comments. But when i was an agnostic I was frequently bemused that atheist thought there was commonality with agnosticism.
Don't get me wrong, I don't profess to be a christian, but this routine of a stand up comedian being an atheist and mocking christians has gotten real cliche and trite. And that's what I'd say if this was 1997.
You know, he's right. There's never been an atheist to kill anybody out of self-delusion, unless you don't count Mussolini, Che Guevara, the Bolsheviks, Mao Zedong, Cho Seung-Hui (VA Tech)...........
@Jeromeo85 Not all mentally ill people who kill say something about god, and people who hear voices in their head would easily assume something supernatural is happening, if not technological, as in governmental or alien. Just this year alone there've been cases where the voices were not attributed to gods or spirits, just persistent instructions to kill. Attributions to gods stand out and are played up in the media, but you're a fucktard if you believe all delusional criminals do it for god.
@ehcmier wow, so I guess my sarcasic point is totally wasted on the general youtube public. *Note to dumb guy* I listed some murderous ciminals that believed there was no god......
this guy is so unbelievably smug, I want to punch him in the everywhere. guys like him are the reason people generalize atheists as smug self-important douchebags.
He says everybody is an atheist. Um, no. I'm not an atheist in any sense of the word. An atheist is a person who denies God's existence. I believe in God so I'm not an atheist.
Oh, and as for his point about religious people being violent and atheists aren't...this is so naive. The greatest violence of the 20th century was committed by atheists in the name of atheism. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Read some history.
@JugglableI don't agree about the atheist thing, but there are so many more religious atrocities committed: the crusades, the inquisition, the Israel/Arab constant killing, Jihads, ethnic cleansing based on religious reasons, not to mention the 13th or so century stoning of 'blasphemes' of all sorts: homosexuals, premarital fuckers, disrespecful sons,witches. so fuck you with you're weak argument. And really if you look at it, the people you name indoctrinate people in the same way as religion.
@ShaithMaster How many people do you think were killed in the Crusades/Inquisition? It's not worth mentioning in contrast w/ the atheist atrocities I mentioned, which killed, conservatively, 100 million in the 20th century.
Yes, they indoctrinate people with fanaticism...It seems like the problem isn't religion, but fanaticism.
@ShaithMaster You said "fuck you," I hope you did not take my comment as me being disrespectful or hateful toward atheists. A lot of my friends are atheists and I did not mean to say believers are inherently better.
@Jugglable It sounded like that's what you were saying.. and Only Stalin killed solely for atheistic reasons, Most of the atiest atrocities were commited in the name of a communist ideology taken too far, or ethnic cleansing
Furthermore, I find his analysis of marxism woefully superficial and quite misunderstanding. He seems like the sort of person that uses soviet union almost as his sole source of what communism is all about. I should know, I am a marxist myself. Yes, we can agree on that differene but as for moral differences it really depends on the individual; there is no set moral code that is completely identical throughout any denomination of christianity or any athiests. Its just personal with influences.
Well to be honest i have looked over georgemartin's stuff and I have to disagree with alot of it as well. First off, he states that athiesm itself is a belief which it is not and doesn't have to be. Athiesm is not just another "belief system". I don't believe in anything, I think and come to conclusions. its more of a passive state of being and to say that all athiests have some belief system is to say that a state of having a complete lack of belief in anything is not possible which is false.
Pssh, this wasn't for my benefit this was for yours. Moral egotism is a big problem these days; most people have the ethical thinking skills of children yet feel that THEY can tually have a good opinion on current issues.. I hope you are left with a more opened mind. Ha, I mean really "misguided morals" who the hell coined such a silly term.
i realize im a little late and i dont mean for this to be a heated debate but i wanted to say every war to me has been under the guise of religion or some other unifying heme to get people on the sameside as a leader who want power for themselves
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means son of encouragement). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles feet.
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
you may be under the assumption that atheists are all communists and if this is your assumption you are wrong. both religious and no religious people have commited terrible acts but that is the burden of free will
in regards to the verses they are biblical verses that have the appearance to be in support of socialist ideas. you must seperate religion from economics because in truth they have no real value to inform the other just like science and religion.
See, I based MY list of misguided morals on a hypothetical moral code that believes that people should be held accountable for killing other animals because of their cognitive abilities and that animal experimentation is the same as human experimentation. That a person is a person when the egg is fertilized &therefore you murder when you abort.Also, the killing of civilians via bombs to save MILITARY people is the same as throwing planes in a building to kill civilians. BOTH are cowardly acts.
So you see, all the things you listed as misguided morals can easily become "good morals" when put in the right context. The only reason why you don't see this is because you are influenced by your personal morals relative to others. For instance, I gather that you consider animals unequal to humans (who are also animals), that abortion is not murder, and that god is not real and homosexuality is not wrong. But thats YOUR morals. And to someone else YOUR morals can be misguided. Its all relative
I can prove it to. Here are actions that could be seen as similar to the ones you listed:
Firebombing a medical lab that experiments on humans, firebombing a group of mass murderers that alludes the law, bombing nagasaki to save time and troops from invading,demeaning religious people in the name of "reason", and finally massive genocide of chickens to feed a human population of millions that can subsist on nonanimals but kill the chickens anyways &always order more than they can eat.
No I suggested we throw the EXPRESSION "misguided morals" because there is no such thing. Morals are relative between people (unless you are some moral absolutist which I doubt). Morals can be only as misguided as YOUR personal moral code labels them as. There is no such thing as definite morals and even if there was its still being debated among ethicists. When you say immoral, you are really saying "immoral to me".
Well okay, but there is a problem with your viewpoint. Stressing that fighting is worth it if peaceful measures have failed IS a morale point. So how can you assign the worth on any set of morals by USING some sort of moral code; is their a META-moral code? And we are going to have to throw the word "misguided" just out the window because it makes no sense. You just stepped up and made a claim about morals; when speaking to an ethicist, you better damn well support it
"All the things that would make an athiest fight isn't a valid argument since it is not in the name of a superior secular belief" Um...so athiests do not fight for SECULAR beliefs that they find superior (important, you know like maybe a simple code of morals or values?)I thought they would fight for a secular cause, i thought that was the point; it wasn't a religious cause. "Freedom" isn't real; its a value that we made up. Religion is just a metaphysical explanation with values attached to it.
Also,people fight for nonreligious things all the time and conceivably an athiest could do the same &I can assure you there has been a time where he has done the same. Russian revolution: while not a direct conflict against religion I can assure you it snuck in there and a few religious people turned up missing in that hectic conflict.Or perhaps the conquests of rome or the imperialist era of nations where they colonized places.That wasn't in the name of a god? that was in the name of a nation.
What I mean by that analogy is that the LACK of a belief/affiliation with some moral code /nationality or whatever have you is a PASSIVE state of being. Its a theoretical state of being that does not exist in people; ust take religion away from a person &trust me that person will find somet other potential thing that could incite him. Effectively what you are saying is "Noone has ever been killed for the sake of NOT anything!" Now read that, and ask yourself what you think you are trying to say?
Oh boy... someone needs to take a philosophy class or two. If only the argument were that simple. What is "freedom" and why is it "real"? Freedom is an ideal just like communism is an ideal, to simplify things. In fact, communism is an interpretation of what freedom is. "people have not been killed in the name of a lack of belief in a higher or supernatural power". Um okay.. noone have been killed in the name of a lack of clipped toenails either.
You see you pretty much take the best example in the argument for athiests and say "oh but its the same as religion". Well its not; its a more humanitarian-oriented cause then a supernaturally oriented cause. To clarify things you should probably change the sentence,"Athiests do not fight for a higher idea." to pretty much this:"People without a higher idea do not fight for a higher idea." Because that is what you are saying when you say athiests dont but try to exclude communism.
Well then I have to say, you have a poor imagination. There is a slurry of things I can bring out that would make an athiest fight for something; look at the america revolution. Not to say it was all athiests involved but it was not related to religion; in this case, it was related to an idea. Read about the Enlighment, or read about ethics and moral codes; there is a dumpster truck full of affiliations and ideologies that a person could fight for.
So are you saying that to be an athiest is to not be motivated for anything to the point of zeal? Religion and extreme motivation are not synonymous, nor is zeal and athiesm mutually exclusive at all. The definition of religion that I pulled up was a belief in a supernatural power. Thats it. Don't have that, than its not religion. There ya go.
i have no idea were yo get the 9 billion figure from but i will say this. i never, in any comment deny people die because of religious fanaticism. the only point i was making and proved that atheism is not immune to using violence to advance their agendas. i use the communist cause because it's appropriate. atheism in itself has a belief system, and therefor has many of the attributes of a religion. your logic is as flawed as the others.
Fuck off. First, he is dead nuts on - no tragedies have been committed based on lack of belief in God, while countless have on belief in God. Second, disbelief is not indciatave of progressivism unless you are a fundie wacko nutjob. Finally, belief in God is so last-last century. Get over yourself.
You're an historical idiot. Are you forgetting Stalin and the 10's millions who died under his rule. How about thr 3,000,000 killed by Pol Pot, or the countless 10's of millions killed by Mao Zedong. all atheist. all murderers. So it seems to me you are the wacko nutjob with out a clue about history.
bull! their atrocities were in pursuit of the communist ideology. which promotes atheism as superior to religion. the worst atrocities in the 20th century have been done in the name of atheistic communism.
You're fucking retarded, look at today's world. How many wars are waged and people killed in the name of religion, now look how many people are being killed because of atheism. The bottom line is people kill in the name of religion, nobody kills in the name of atheism.
Another historical idiot with a limited comprehension skills. Atheism is a major precept in communism. The ten's of millions who were killed in the name of communism were killed in the name atheism.
the korean war, the vietnam war, the chinese civil war, the war in angola, the russo/afganistan war, the polish soviet war, the ukrainian war of independence, the lithuanian war, the sino-indian war, etc, etc, etc. all wars conducted in the name of atheistic communism.
Atheism is not believing in a god, so all those wars were waged because they thought no one should have a god huh? what history book are you reading from?
all those wars were fought to spread communism and one of those precepts is that no one believes in god. so yes eliminating religion was one of the goals in all those wars. do you read history books or do you just wiki?
I use something that you fail to comprehend, rational thinking. Lets say there are 6,000 people in a shelter. All of them want to control space and food, and some deaths occur. Then there are 3,000 or so who also want everyone to believe in what they do, and out of that 3,000 there are different beliefs and people kill each other over who is right. If you eliminate the killing over different beliefs you are left with less deaths. It's the simplest thing to understand, open your fucking mind.
rational thinking doesn't seem to your forte. lets in your banal scenario that 3,000 are religious and 3,000 are atheist. the atheist don't like the those religious wasting time praying. so they attack and force all who are religious to stop. you see atheist fighting and killing over the right to worship. see how stupid your example was. proves nothing.
The only problem with that is that it doesn't happen like that. You can ignore how the world works if you want but atheists aren't the ones trying to stop theists, it's been the other way around since the beginning of time. You get an idea and try to spread your idea even if it means killing people with different ideas, atheist don't have an idea so what is there to try to spread?
amazingly wrong. atheist have tried to curtail or eliminate religion in the soviet union, cuba, vietnam, cambodia, especially red china. these nations and others have indeed tried to rid their countries of all religion.
A group of people come into existence who tell people what to do, and if they don't do it they try to keep brainwashing them or destroy them, and then when people try to stop and reverse the process you think it's bad? So all those years religion forced their views on people and now that all those people believe how dare anyone try to undue what they've done. Why can't people just let them control the world and leave it at that...
communist came to power in various nations. telling people what to do. if they did'nt do it the atheist communist kept trying to brainwash them and if they did'nt work they would destroy or imprison them. yeah, thats bad. regardless of the merits of religion or atheisism. i have disproved the notion that atheist don't promote conflict to advance their cause.
A man is born without religion, someone brainwashes him into believing in a religion then someone else comes along and "brainwashes" him back to not believe in religion. Can you tell why those two are different? Also I don't know how many times I can tell you something, power was the reason, communism was the tool, atheism was included in that particular package. Religion could have just as easily been too. I don't think in that situation you'd be calling it christianity communism, would ya?
i agree power was the reason for communism to wage war. the power to conquer and instill their atheistic communist policies. atheism is a cornerstone of communism. whether religion could have also be used is not in dispute. the truth is, at the risk of redundancy, i've proven atheist are capible of waging war to advance there agenda. why you fail to see this fact in the face of indisputable evidence is beyond me. btw, christian communism is a oxymoron, like god fearing atheist.
Well despite the church being a communist state I suppose your right. Also, communism has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with controlling everything so yes, a religion could be incorporated. Maybe you just forgot what communism meant, go look it up really quick, I'll wait.
everything you just said was amazingly ignorant. have no clue what communism is? can you really be that dim? have you never heard of marx or engles or the communist manifesto. is you knowledge of history so completly empty. atheism was the official doctrine of the soviet union as it still is in china. communist beleive that only the belief in the state can be acceptable. anything else is a danger to the state. really, you should lay of wiki and pick up a book.
WRONG. Athiesm is a cornerstone of marxism, not all of communism, and not a major one at that. It focus' much more on the sociological aspects of class and materialism; marx personally just had a particular viewpoint on religion but he stresses the socioeconomic factors much more.
@geargemartin That's about as wrong as wrong gets. I can't believe you actually believe that those wars were conducted in the NAME of atheism. Wow, you're just...wow, either INCREDIBLY misinformed, or don't have adequate reading and comprehension skills. NONE of those wars were done in the NAME of atheism. Sorry, hate to spoil your soap box, but facts are facts man. I know, I know, here comes the accusations that I SHOULD BE THE ONE to read a book...these idiotic arguments get old, man.
@Gorshkin111 forget it pal. you lost before you started. any war fought in the name of communism are fought because of the precepts of communism, which includes atheism. it wouldn't be your literacy a question only your lack of intelligent application on the matter.
What close minded theists such as yourself fail to realize is those events would happen regardless of religious preference, those weren't in the name of atheism. religion still kills for power, which is the same reason for every single one of those wars you blame on atheism, but they also kill because their religion says everyone must think the same thing, believe in the same god. So not having something to fight over vs having something to fight over, how hard is this to understand...
atheistic communism demands all think and act the same, atheistic communism demands all to be atheist. i never stated conflict was never cause by religion. its been stated though, that wars are never waged because of atheism. that has been demonstrated to be false. what you fail to understand is communism is willing to kill and wage war to promote their doctrine, including the elimination of all religions. the examples given are perfect examples of atheist promoting their doctrine through war.
And I've already stated to you that atheism is not believing in god, and the bottom line is that was not the reasoning behind the wars. They didn't wage war specifically because they wanted to get rid of religion, they did it to expand their power.
the waged war to promote their ideology and atheism is part of that. no the did'nt wage war specifically for that but that is part of the equation. therefore atheist went to war to promote atheism.
Eating hot dogs could have been part of their lifestyle too, no the war wasn't because of them liking hot dogs but when they take over they will force people to eat hot dogs, because they already do. Therefor they went to war to force people to eat hot dogs. That's about how ridiculous your last statement was. Why on earth are you still even defending religion when we've already established that without it there would be less deaths, do you like to see people die?
your rationality is flawed and getting worse. your last comment only amplifies the silliness of your scenario. this is why your having a problem with atheism being a tool for war as much as religion. though atheist deny the existence of god they do have a belief system. and one of those beliefs is that atheism is inherently peaceful. that notion has been shot down. and now you are having a crisis of faith. so your arguments become insiped and illogical.
what exactly is the connection there? communism is a system of economics and does not have anything to do with religion. why else would russia be majoritively catholic
@ralphyetmore where's the irony? i feel no better or worse for my comment,i simply responded to your question. an insult was not intended. the response could only be considered an insult if you are, indeed, filled with self importance.
@geargemartin No. Your comments on this string are either blatent passive-agressive insults or direct insults. Unfortunately for u, they are laid out here 4 others to read and recognize as such. Your comments could ONLY be concluded as such, since there's no other point to your comments.
U r obviously angry about the clip and anyone that disagrees w/you, or anyone that raises a Q to your comments. I'm not necessarily disturbed by the comments, but rather your cowardess in denying your intent.
@ralphyetmore the intent of my comments are obvious to any one with modicum of intelligence. and if you had truly read my comments, and assuming you IQ is above 90, you would have noticed that i clearly demonstrated that atheism, along with religion, can and have pursued war and violence to advance their cause. on the other hand the intent of you comment is blurred with banal insults and irrelevant hyperbole. you have contribute nothing save adolesent whining.
@geargemartin Nice try. The problem w/ur argument that most all of ur examples for war r communist, & an easy argument can b made that THIS is the problem factor. 1 can b atheist and not commy. 1 could also be deist/theist commy, although that's a harder 1 to argue.
Either way, commy doesn't hold a candle to the killing under the name of god. We both know that. Your argument, while a newer apology for theism in the scheme of things, doesn't seem to hold water.
@ralphyetmore who killed the most is irrelevant. you have not brought up any points that i haven't already addressed. i'm not going to go over the same territory twice.
@geargemartin I don't think that killing is irrelavent.
However, you've dodged the point of my argument. Communism is the motivation for the killing of which you speak. I have not seen you address this point - but perhaps I've missed that in all of the very important and original comments that you've made.
I say that you deliberately missed this point, because you understand that I've challenged your ideas, and that you've been asked to explain the problem in your argument.
@ralphyetmore who killed the most is whats irrelavent to the argument...jeeze. and you have made no new challege's to the debate. i reiterate, i've covered that ground previously.
@geargemartin Yeah, you just said that. What I haven't seen is your reply to my statement that Communism is the real culprit to the atrocities of which you mention.
Funny that you've replied twice to say that you covered that point, without covering that point. You could have easily summarized your conclusion by now. Wanna go for a third time?
@ralphyetmore just how dim are you? that has been ALL covered in my original comments. so what's the deal? is your IQ really below 90 or do you feel left out because you didn't engage in the original debate. either way i'm no longer responding to because you bore me. your rehashed points have already been elucidated previously by others who are more erudite than you.
@geargemartin Ha! I was joking when I suggested that you mention your supposed argument a third time.
Well, as I assumed, you have no argument, and were trying intimidate me with words like "banal" and "erudite". I'm sure that the several replies that you sent me is evidence of your "boredom", right?
Let me know when you care enough about the comments that you make and the thoughts that you think, that you'll actually try to defend them... or even present them.
@geargemartin Just double checked your argument from a year ago. You do NOT address my point AT ALL. You equate Atheism and Communism as the same thing when they are not. As I stated earlier, you do not have to be a commy to be atheist. Your argument lacks the chain of logic that concludes that atheism is responsible for deaths under communism. Atheism is a facet of communism, but it doesn't work in reverse.
This is where your argument falls flat on its face.
@ralphyetmore you are calling me a liar? lol. that's the best you can come up with? pathetic. i know you have proplem with comprehension skills, so i'll type real slow. the debate started when altoid24k ask " how many wars ere waged and people killed because of athieism?...nobody kills in the name of atheism". i proved this was not true. though it's none of you business my girlfreind is a refugie from cuba and could tell you first hand how the communist repress relgion and promote atheism.
@geargemartin No - you have not proved this to be untrue. You've shown that Atheism is a facet of the Communism movement at large - true. You've shown that COMMUNISTS have killed in the name of atheism - true. Communism at large makes the claim that all else should be exterminated - true. Atheism makes no claims. It requires no action. If it did, it would not be Atheism.
I'm sorry for your friend, but it's was communism that was oppressing her - not atheism.
@geargemartin No - that was NOT your original point. Your point was that some wars have been started BECAUSE of atheism - thereby implying that atheism is the root cause. In the examples that you've outlined, Communism is the root cause.
I do not deny that Atheists have started wars. There's probably no demographic of people that have NOT started wars. However, no wars have been started due to Atheism, and you have not shown a legitimate argument to the contrary.
@ralphyetmore that's merely semantics. the wars i listed were all communist inspired. i reread my first few comment and i don't see were i stated atheism alone caused those wars. but whatever, it's late and i'm done. good night.
@geargemartin (1)Now you're just getting lazy. Someone with your vocabulary should understand the difference between semantics and a logical error.
This is one of your statements "its been stated though, that wars are never waged because of atheism. that has been demonstrated to be false." You've yet to demonstrate this. You've also gone on to imply atheism as a root cause of war in other statements. (see 2)
@ralphyetmore if one of the reason's for communism to wage is war to instill atheism as official state doctrine. then atheism, at least in part, has been responsible for many wars and countless deaths in the last century. also, atheism requires "faith" that there is no god. which of course is a belief. if you don't have faith there is a god and, at the same time, you have no faith there isn't one then you are an agnostic. only agnosticism dispenses with a belief system altogether.
@geargemartin That's absurd. You're trying to draw a line that just can't be drawn. That's like saying that if Communism promotes Elvis through war, then Elvis would be responsible. It just doesn't add up.
"A belief in no god" is also a logical error. In order to establish your statement, you must first establish the concept of a god. Your statement already assumes the existence of a god, therefore it's a claim on top of a claim. (see 2)
@ralphyetmore the first part of your comment is completely nonsensical and doesn't apply. as to the rest. my statement is one of definition and assumes nothing. atheism and religion are mirror images of themselves. one emphatically believes there is no god(s). the other emphatically believes there is(are).
@geargemartin You assume the existence of a god. You keep overlooking that. You seem to have a problem wrapping your head around the idea that someone could not have a belief. This is why this part of your argument is in error.
I don't emphatically believe in no god. Maybe there is a god. No one actually knows that to be true. No one has presented positive evidence in the existence of a god or any group of deity. Until someone does, I don't bother w/the question.
@geargemartin (2) You do not understand the concept of Atheism. Atheism makes no claim at all. The only reason that the concept of Atheism exists in the first place is because of a claim that a god exists. if such a claim did not exist, there would be no Atheism.
A belief is an idea that is unsubstanciated. Your god idea is a belief. As an Atheist, I'm not implying a belief - I'm asking you why you have your belief. Until you can convince me of your belief, I'm not believing it.
@ralphyetmore atheism DOES make a claim, that there is no god. with no empirical evidence one way or the other atheist must rely on faith that their views is the correct one.
@geargemartin Like I said - you simply do not grasp the concept of Atheism.
YOU make the claim that there IS a god. I do NOT believe your claim. See that I put "NOT" in the last sentence?
I assume that you do not believe in the Easter Bunny. Is it correct to say that you believe in no Easter Bunny? Of course not. Your belief does not actually enter into the equation. You're just not buying what someone else is selling. That's all.
I can't think of a way to make it more clear than that.
@ralphyetmore in our recent dialog i have made no assumption about the existents of god. now, according to your previous comment you admitted the possibility of a god. is this accurate?
@geargemartin The problem is that you are framing a question based on erroneous information. I think that you realize that you are now being dishonest. Before I can honestly answer your question, you must first get your facts straight.
@ralphyetmore refused to answer. okay. which of these definitions best describe you.1)- a disbelief in the existence of a deity, or 2)- a person who holds the view that ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of god.
@geargemartin See? You're skirting your own statements. I think it's because you understand that you've found the hole in your logic, but aren't honest enough to admit it.
How am I supposed to answer a bunch of questions that are derived falsely, erroneously, or dishonestly? Can you at least be honest enough to esablish the foundation for you series of question?
@geargemartin No - these are not honest questions, because they are derived from your dishonesty. Please establish an honest foundation fro these questions, so that we may continue... honestly.
@ralphyetmore my faith is immaterial to the dialog. foundation is immaterial to the query. you agreed to answer my series of questions. no you are reticent to do so. you call me dishonest, i can only conclude that YOU are the coward. prove my conclusion wrong and please answer the questions.
@ralphyetmore if i must. which definition describes you best.1) a disbelief in the existence of a deity. or 2) one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence
@geargemartin By all means, if this tasks you, you have no obligation to me. ^_^
Neither of those definitions adequately describes me. I don't have evidence that any deity exists. I don't know that which is not defined. That is why asked for your position, because you would have to define what it is you believe in order to adequately answer the question.
But I guess that "the disbelief in the existence of deities" is a better answer than the latter.
@ralphyetmore first you state your an atheist. then later you stated "i don't emphatically believe there is no god. maybe there is a god". i then asked for clarification. the next question involved text book definitions. you were confused as which describes you best, but you go to your fall back definition of an atheist. i can only conclude that you are confused, and therefor i can only conclude your confusion disqualifies you from engaging in a logical debate over the issue.
@geargemartin (1) Again. Nice try. My stance is that I don't know of any existence of a god. My stance is that I also don't believe your claim, or anyone's claim of a god, since no one has given a logical explination as to how a god could exist or why there is no measurable evidence of a god. This is not a contradiction in logic, this is merely an honest answer that doesn't presume anything. Any claim w/o evidence, is a belief. I make no claim. (see 2)
@geargemartin (2) I know that I could be wrong, and that if evidence shows the contrary, I WOULD be wrong. However, none exists - so I have no reason to believe in a god. Again, no broken logic.
Now that we've gone off topic, I'd like to get back to it. I have some questions that I'd like to pose that shows that Atheism is not responsible for killing. I figured that since you posed a series of q's to me, you won't mind the same.
ATHEIST JEWS LIKE PROVENZA ARE THE BIGGEST MASS MURDERERS IN HISTORY SEE THE SOVIET UNION (1917-1945) AND THE GODLESS ISRAELIS USING NATO TO STARVE AND BOMB CIVILIAN POPULATIONS (1967-2012). And my God take off that hat you look like Brian Johnson with AIDS.
GewgleTubeExplorer 4 days ago
i just believe in one less god than you do.... great!
obalajadia 3 months ago
This is basically just ripped off from a Richard Dawkins video. SO not original.
Amberlicious1000 6 months ago
@Amberlicious1000 Yeah, I remember when Richard Dawkins did the jokes about atheists not going on shooting sprees. Good stuff!
MaryJesusJoseph 5 months ago
@Amberlicious1000 You reek of a guy who only knows Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. This is Paul Provenza, doing his stand up. He hasn't ripped off Dawkins, as if he's the main prophet of atheism.
IggyIrons 5 months ago
@IggyIrons Um...I "reek" of a guy who only knows Dawkins? Interesting. You actually have no idea what I know. But obviously I know this is Paul Provenza, doing his stand up. I mean, it's right there in the title. But he HAS, in fact, ripped this off Dawkins. He makes statements almost exactly like the ones this guy is saying in this video. Maybe YOU don't know the video I'm talking about, but Dawkins says almost the exact same thing. Here-go, a ripoff. My point still stands.
Amberlicious1000 5 months ago
@Amberlicious1000 Well, yes. A guy who's covered in shit reeks of a guy who jumped into a pool of shit, but it might as well could've been poured on him. You reek of a guy who etc. etc. because you seem to think Dawkins is the one who came up with the "We are all atheists, I just go one further" idea. He didn't. It's as old as the book. And I have never seen those jokes derived from that idea, so I say there's no rip-off.
IggyIrons 5 months ago
@IggyIrons Hmmm...quite a lot of hostility just from one simple comment that I made about how Richard Dawkins has said almost the exact same thing. Soooooomeone's bitter. And I don't have Dawkins up on a pedestal or anything. I'm WELL aware that he is not the first guy to come up with atheism or evolotion or whatever. I'm not even a fan of Richard Dawkins. I NEVER said anything good OR bad about him.
Amberlicious1000 5 months ago
@Amberlicious1000 (cont'd) All I said was that Richard Dawkins said something VERY similar to this, like almost the very same words. Then I see a video of this comedian guy saying the same stuff. That's just simple fact. I'm not taking anyone'e side, or hailing Richard Dawkins in any way. I NEVER said he came up with this stuff. I KNOW how old it is. He's no pioneer. Duh. And just because you've never seen the video that I'm talking about, doesnt mean it's not a rip-off. Maybe chill out a bit.
Amberlicious1000 5 months ago
I do have a what would Thor do bracelet. Fucking all comics are miserable hateful people with bad childhoods
ThorFan4Life 6 months ago
@ThorFan4Life haha, at least you still have Thursday.
mrpayne123 6 months ago
Comment removed
jorddallin 6 months ago
I'm wearing a WWTD bracelet. This guy's a dick.
mooseknuckle51 8 months ago
Paul makes an excellent made many times before in different ways--you will never see an atheist blow himself up on a bus yelling "There is no god!" Atheists have done evil things but never in the name of atheism; it was some other part of their makeup that was the cause. Atheism's biggest factor in human behavior is a facepalm when listening to believers try and justify their hallucinatory fantasies--that's it.
NixManes 10 months ago 2
The funny thing is, I actually am wearing a "What would Thor do?" bracelet. I got for Christmas actually... Not even lying.
uiruu 1 year ago
I Don't disagree with "most" of your last two comments. But when i was an agnostic I was frequently bemused that atheist thought there was commonality with agnosticism.
geargemartin 1 year ago
Two years since I made my original comment. After102 responses, It seems as long as this video is posted I shall never be lonely.
geargemartin 1 year ago
You never hear about an atheist going on a cross-country shooting spree 'cause no god didn't call to tell him not to.
So true!
SumWunGye 1 year ago
what would Thor do? I want that bracelet!
djwaglmuffin 1 year ago
Heard this from Dawkins first, but its still just as true! :)
teews666 1 year ago
Comment removed
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong, I don't profess to be a christian, but this routine of a stand up comedian being an atheist and mocking christians has gotten real cliche and trite. And that's what I'd say if this was 1997.
marksamuelsoncable 1 year ago
You know, he's right. There's never been an atheist to kill anybody out of self-delusion, unless you don't count Mussolini, Che Guevara, the Bolsheviks, Mao Zedong, Cho Seung-Hui (VA Tech)...........
Jeromeo85 1 year ago
@Jeromeo85 Not all mentally ill people who kill say something about god, and people who hear voices in their head would easily assume something supernatural is happening, if not technological, as in governmental or alien. Just this year alone there've been cases where the voices were not attributed to gods or spirits, just persistent instructions to kill. Attributions to gods stand out and are played up in the media, but you're a fucktard if you believe all delusional criminals do it for god.
ehcmier 1 year ago
@ehcmier wow, so I guess my sarcasic point is totally wasted on the general youtube public. *Note to dumb guy* I listed some murderous ciminals that believed there was no god......
Jeromeo85 1 year ago
this guy is so unbelievably smug, I want to punch him in the everywhere. guys like him are the reason people generalize atheists as smug self-important douchebags.
thanks, paul. thanks so much.
elbonia17 1 year ago
He says everybody is an atheist. Um, no. I'm not an atheist in any sense of the word. An atheist is a person who denies God's existence. I believe in God so I'm not an atheist.
Oh, and as for his point about religious people being violent and atheists aren't...this is so naive. The greatest violence of the 20th century was committed by atheists in the name of atheism. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Read some history.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@JugglableI don't agree about the atheist thing, but there are so many more religious atrocities committed: the crusades, the inquisition, the Israel/Arab constant killing, Jihads, ethnic cleansing based on religious reasons, not to mention the 13th or so century stoning of 'blasphemes' of all sorts: homosexuals, premarital fuckers, disrespecful sons,witches. so fuck you with you're weak argument. And really if you look at it, the people you name indoctrinate people in the same way as religion.
ShaithMaster 1 year ago
@ShaithMaster How many people do you think were killed in the Crusades/Inquisition? It's not worth mentioning in contrast w/ the atheist atrocities I mentioned, which killed, conservatively, 100 million in the 20th century.
Yes, they indoctrinate people with fanaticism...It seems like the problem isn't religion, but fanaticism.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@ShaithMaster You said "fuck you," I hope you did not take my comment as me being disrespectful or hateful toward atheists. A lot of my friends are atheists and I did not mean to say believers are inherently better.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable It sounded like that's what you were saying.. and Only Stalin killed solely for atheistic reasons, Most of the atiest atrocities were commited in the name of a communist ideology taken too far, or ethnic cleansing
ShaithMaster 1 year ago
@ShaithMaster Yes, a communist ideology taken too far. Read their communist manifesto. These people were trying to stamp out religion.
Jugglable 1 year ago
ommg mee toooo
1337kamikaze 1 year ago
Paul Provenza was great in the West Wing (Season 1 - Episodes 19 and 20)
weedipikia 1 year ago
OH look, a stand up comedian who is an atheist!! And his jokes are so new and fresh!
lfgalbraith 1 year ago
yeah shamelessly stolen from dawkins
Fuzworth 1 year ago
This fuckn guy looks like Robert De Niro WTF hahahaha
rockydragoo 1 year ago
@rockydragoo Hahaha yes, he is american-italian too.
luigibattista10 1 year ago
He stole this material from Richard Dawkins!
femalehysteria 1 year ago 24
@femalehysteria yeah he did
TairyGreen89 1 year ago
what would thor do!
New bumper sticker
yubarraboo 1 year ago
HAHAHA No god didn't call to tell him not to. hahaha Brilliant!
AnnaSofiaR 2 years ago
blah blah blah blah blah blah
BornInTheWrongYear 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I added my own comments if you would care to restart this debate
twizelby 2 years ago
Furthermore, I find his analysis of marxism woefully superficial and quite misunderstanding. He seems like the sort of person that uses soviet union almost as his sole source of what communism is all about. I should know, I am a marxist myself. Yes, we can agree on that differene but as for moral differences it really depends on the individual; there is no set moral code that is completely identical throughout any denomination of christianity or any athiests. Its just personal with influences.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Well to be honest i have looked over georgemartin's stuff and I have to disagree with alot of it as well. First off, he states that athiesm itself is a belief which it is not and doesn't have to be. Athiesm is not just another "belief system". I don't believe in anything, I think and come to conclusions. its more of a passive state of being and to say that all athiests have some belief system is to say that a state of having a complete lack of belief in anything is not possible which is false.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Pssh, this wasn't for my benefit this was for yours. Moral egotism is a big problem these days; most people have the ethical thinking skills of children yet feel that THEY can tually have a good opinion on current issues.. I hope you are left with a more opened mind. Ha, I mean really "misguided morals" who the hell coined such a silly term.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
I suggest you read some books on ethics.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
i realize im a little late and i dont mean for this to be a heated debate but i wanted to say every war to me has been under the guise of religion or some other unifying heme to get people on the sameside as a leader who want power for themselves
twizelby 2 years ago
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
twizelby 2 years ago
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means son of encouragement). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)
twizelby 2 years ago
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)
twizelby 2 years ago
you may be under the assumption that atheists are all communists and if this is your assumption you are wrong. both religious and no religious people have commited terrible acts but that is the burden of free will
twizelby 2 years ago
in regards to the verses they are biblical verses that have the appearance to be in support of socialist ideas. you must seperate religion from economics because in truth they have no real value to inform the other just like science and religion.
twizelby 2 years ago
See, I based MY list of misguided morals on a hypothetical moral code that believes that people should be held accountable for killing other animals because of their cognitive abilities and that animal experimentation is the same as human experimentation. That a person is a person when the egg is fertilized &therefore you murder when you abort.Also, the killing of civilians via bombs to save MILITARY people is the same as throwing planes in a building to kill civilians. BOTH are cowardly acts.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
So you see, all the things you listed as misguided morals can easily become "good morals" when put in the right context. The only reason why you don't see this is because you are influenced by your personal morals relative to others. For instance, I gather that you consider animals unequal to humans (who are also animals), that abortion is not murder, and that god is not real and homosexuality is not wrong. But thats YOUR morals. And to someone else YOUR morals can be misguided. Its all relative
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
I can prove it to. Here are actions that could be seen as similar to the ones you listed:
Firebombing a medical lab that experiments on humans, firebombing a group of mass murderers that alludes the law, bombing nagasaki to save time and troops from invading,demeaning religious people in the name of "reason", and finally massive genocide of chickens to feed a human population of millions that can subsist on nonanimals but kill the chickens anyways &always order more than they can eat.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
No I suggested we throw the EXPRESSION "misguided morals" because there is no such thing. Morals are relative between people (unless you are some moral absolutist which I doubt). Morals can be only as misguided as YOUR personal moral code labels them as. There is no such thing as definite morals and even if there was its still being debated among ethicists. When you say immoral, you are really saying "immoral to me".
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Well okay, but there is a problem with your viewpoint. Stressing that fighting is worth it if peaceful measures have failed IS a morale point. So how can you assign the worth on any set of morals by USING some sort of moral code; is their a META-moral code? And we are going to have to throw the word "misguided" just out the window because it makes no sense. You just stepped up and made a claim about morals; when speaking to an ethicist, you better damn well support it
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
"All the things that would make an athiest fight isn't a valid argument since it is not in the name of a superior secular belief" Um...so athiests do not fight for SECULAR beliefs that they find superior (important, you know like maybe a simple code of morals or values?)I thought they would fight for a secular cause, i thought that was the point; it wasn't a religious cause. "Freedom" isn't real; its a value that we made up. Religion is just a metaphysical explanation with values attached to it.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Also,people fight for nonreligious things all the time and conceivably an athiest could do the same &I can assure you there has been a time where he has done the same. Russian revolution: while not a direct conflict against religion I can assure you it snuck in there and a few religious people turned up missing in that hectic conflict.Or perhaps the conquests of rome or the imperialist era of nations where they colonized places.That wasn't in the name of a god? that was in the name of a nation.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
What I mean by that analogy is that the LACK of a belief/affiliation with some moral code /nationality or whatever have you is a PASSIVE state of being. Its a theoretical state of being that does not exist in people; ust take religion away from a person &trust me that person will find somet other potential thing that could incite him. Effectively what you are saying is "Noone has ever been killed for the sake of NOT anything!" Now read that, and ask yourself what you think you are trying to say?
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Oh boy... someone needs to take a philosophy class or two. If only the argument were that simple. What is "freedom" and why is it "real"? Freedom is an ideal just like communism is an ideal, to simplify things. In fact, communism is an interpretation of what freedom is. "people have not been killed in the name of a lack of belief in a higher or supernatural power". Um okay.. noone have been killed in the name of a lack of clipped toenails either.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
I've been to college for a semester and taking some philosophy classes so I am the supreme authority on this topic. LOL
sk8rpimp68 2 years ago
it short, its a very selective and flawed way of looking at it as well as a gross mishandling of the facts.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
You see you pretty much take the best example in the argument for athiests and say "oh but its the same as religion". Well its not; its a more humanitarian-oriented cause then a supernaturally oriented cause. To clarify things you should probably change the sentence,"Athiests do not fight for a higher idea." to pretty much this:"People without a higher idea do not fight for a higher idea." Because that is what you are saying when you say athiests dont but try to exclude communism.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Well then I have to say, you have a poor imagination. There is a slurry of things I can bring out that would make an athiest fight for something; look at the america revolution. Not to say it was all athiests involved but it was not related to religion; in this case, it was related to an idea. Read about the Enlighment, or read about ethics and moral codes; there is a dumpster truck full of affiliations and ideologies that a person could fight for.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
That means more world for me.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
So are you saying that to be an athiest is to not be motivated for anything to the point of zeal? Religion and extreme motivation are not synonymous, nor is zeal and athiesm mutually exclusive at all. The definition of religion that I pulled up was a belief in a supernatural power. Thats it. Don't have that, than its not religion. There ya go.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
Before I jump into the debate, I would like to ascertain whether or not the hot dogs I am being forced to eat are kosher or not.
IMBananas666 3 years ago
i have no idea were yo get the 9 billion figure from but i will say this. i never, in any comment deny people die because of religious fanaticism. the only point i was making and proved that atheism is not immune to using violence to advance their agendas. i use the communist cause because it's appropriate. atheism in itself has a belief system, and therefor has many of the attributes of a religion. your logic is as flawed as the others.
geargemartin 3 years ago 2
True, yet unfunny and not very well communicated.
The fact that he isn't very charismatic combined with his frequent vulgarity makes atheism look bad.
plaayer13 3 years ago
I agree. I'm actually an agnostic, but I know when a joke is funny!
gungagin 3 years ago
Another liberal progressive fucked-up commentary from the wacko left. This time lead by a unfunny clown. Only a jerk would feature this video.
lgday 3 years ago
Fuck off. First, he is dead nuts on - no tragedies have been committed based on lack of belief in God, while countless have on belief in God. Second, disbelief is not indciatave of progressivism unless you are a fundie wacko nutjob. Finally, belief in God is so last-last century. Get over yourself.
Qermaq 3 years ago
You're an historical idiot. Are you forgetting Stalin and the 10's millions who died under his rule. How about thr 3,000,000 killed by Pol Pot, or the countless 10's of millions killed by Mao Zedong. all atheist. all murderers. So it seems to me you are the wacko nutjob with out a clue about history.
lgday 3 years ago 2
Nothing to do with atheism, everything to do with pursuit of power.
Qermaq 3 years ago
bull! their atrocities were in pursuit of the communist ideology. which promotes atheism as superior to religion. the worst atrocities in the 20th century have been done in the name of atheistic communism.
lgday 3 years ago 2
You're fucking retarded, look at today's world. How many wars are waged and people killed in the name of religion, now look how many people are being killed because of atheism. The bottom line is people kill in the name of religion, nobody kills in the name of atheism.
altoid2k4 3 years ago
Another historical idiot with a limited comprehension skills. Atheism is a major precept in communism. The ten's of millions who were killed in the name of communism were killed in the name atheism.
lgday 3 years ago
the korean war, the vietnam war, the chinese civil war, the war in angola, the russo/afganistan war, the polish soviet war, the ukrainian war of independence, the lithuanian war, the sino-indian war, etc, etc, etc. all wars conducted in the name of atheistic communism.
geargemartin 3 years ago 7
Atheism is not believing in a god, so all those wars were waged because they thought no one should have a god huh? what history book are you reading from?
altoid2k4 3 years ago
all those wars were fought to spread communism and one of those precepts is that no one believes in god. so yes eliminating religion was one of the goals in all those wars. do you read history books or do you just wiki?
geargemartin 3 years ago 6
I use something that you fail to comprehend, rational thinking. Lets say there are 6,000 people in a shelter. All of them want to control space and food, and some deaths occur. Then there are 3,000 or so who also want everyone to believe in what they do, and out of that 3,000 there are different beliefs and people kill each other over who is right. If you eliminate the killing over different beliefs you are left with less deaths. It's the simplest thing to understand, open your fucking mind.
altoid2k4 3 years ago
rational thinking doesn't seem to your forte. lets in your banal scenario that 3,000 are religious and 3,000 are atheist. the atheist don't like the those religious wasting time praying. so they attack and force all who are religious to stop. you see atheist fighting and killing over the right to worship. see how stupid your example was. proves nothing.
geargemartin 3 years ago 3
The only problem with that is that it doesn't happen like that. You can ignore how the world works if you want but atheists aren't the ones trying to stop theists, it's been the other way around since the beginning of time. You get an idea and try to spread your idea even if it means killing people with different ideas, atheist don't have an idea so what is there to try to spread?
altoid2k4 3 years ago
amazingly wrong. atheist have tried to curtail or eliminate religion in the soviet union, cuba, vietnam, cambodia, especially red china. these nations and others have indeed tried to rid their countries of all religion.
geargemartin 3 years ago 5
A group of people come into existence who tell people what to do, and if they don't do it they try to keep brainwashing them or destroy them, and then when people try to stop and reverse the process you think it's bad? So all those years religion forced their views on people and now that all those people believe how dare anyone try to undue what they've done. Why can't people just let them control the world and leave it at that...
altoid2k4 3 years ago
communist came to power in various nations. telling people what to do. if they did'nt do it the atheist communist kept trying to brainwash them and if they did'nt work they would destroy or imprison them. yeah, thats bad. regardless of the merits of religion or atheisism. i have disproved the notion that atheist don't promote conflict to advance their cause.
geargemartin 3 years ago 5
A man is born without religion, someone brainwashes him into believing in a religion then someone else comes along and "brainwashes" him back to not believe in religion. Can you tell why those two are different? Also I don't know how many times I can tell you something, power was the reason, communism was the tool, atheism was included in that particular package. Religion could have just as easily been too. I don't think in that situation you'd be calling it christianity communism, would ya?
altoid2k4 3 years ago
i agree power was the reason for communism to wage war. the power to conquer and instill their atheistic communist policies. atheism is a cornerstone of communism. whether religion could have also be used is not in dispute. the truth is, at the risk of redundancy, i've proven atheist are capible of waging war to advance there agenda. why you fail to see this fact in the face of indisputable evidence is beyond me. btw, christian communism is a oxymoron, like god fearing atheist.
geargemartin 3 years ago 2
Well despite the church being a communist state I suppose your right. Also, communism has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with controlling everything so yes, a religion could be incorporated. Maybe you just forgot what communism meant, go look it up really quick, I'll wait.
altoid2k4 3 years ago
everything you just said was amazingly ignorant. have no clue what communism is? can you really be that dim? have you never heard of marx or engles or the communist manifesto. is you knowledge of history so completly empty. atheism was the official doctrine of the soviet union as it still is in china. communist beleive that only the belief in the state can be acceptable. anything else is a danger to the state. really, you should lay of wiki and pick up a book.
geargemartin 3 years ago 12
Actually that is not what the communist manifesto says, its what the parties that claim to be communist say but yeah okay...
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
WRONG. Athiesm is a cornerstone of marxism, not all of communism, and not a major one at that. It focus' much more on the sociological aspects of class and materialism; marx personally just had a particular viewpoint on religion but he stresses the socioeconomic factors much more.
KommissarMakita 3 years ago
whats the connection between christians not being communists i dont remember that on the ten commandments
twizelby 2 years ago
@geargemartin That's about as wrong as wrong gets. I can't believe you actually believe that those wars were conducted in the NAME of atheism. Wow, you're just...wow, either INCREDIBLY misinformed, or don't have adequate reading and comprehension skills. NONE of those wars were done in the NAME of atheism. Sorry, hate to spoil your soap box, but facts are facts man. I know, I know, here comes the accusations that I SHOULD BE THE ONE to read a book...these idiotic arguments get old, man.
Gorshkin111 1 year ago
@Gorshkin111 forget it pal. you lost before you started. any war fought in the name of communism are fought because of the precepts of communism, which includes atheism. it wouldn't be your literacy a question only your lack of intelligent application on the matter.
geargemartin 1 year ago 3
What close minded theists such as yourself fail to realize is those events would happen regardless of religious preference, those weren't in the name of atheism. religion still kills for power, which is the same reason for every single one of those wars you blame on atheism, but they also kill because their religion says everyone must think the same thing, believe in the same god. So not having something to fight over vs having something to fight over, how hard is this to understand...
altoid2k4 3 years ago
atheistic communism demands all think and act the same, atheistic communism demands all to be atheist. i never stated conflict was never cause by religion. its been stated though, that wars are never waged because of atheism. that has been demonstrated to be false. what you fail to understand is communism is willing to kill and wage war to promote their doctrine, including the elimination of all religions. the examples given are perfect examples of atheist promoting their doctrine through war.
geargemartin 3 years ago 8
And I've already stated to you that atheism is not believing in god, and the bottom line is that was not the reasoning behind the wars. They didn't wage war specifically because they wanted to get rid of religion, they did it to expand their power.
altoid2k4 3 years ago
the waged war to promote their ideology and atheism is part of that. no the did'nt wage war specifically for that but that is part of the equation. therefore atheist went to war to promote atheism.
geargemartin 3 years ago 4
Eating hot dogs could have been part of their lifestyle too, no the war wasn't because of them liking hot dogs but when they take over they will force people to eat hot dogs, because they already do. Therefor they went to war to force people to eat hot dogs. That's about how ridiculous your last statement was. Why on earth are you still even defending religion when we've already established that without it there would be less deaths, do you like to see people die?
altoid2k4 3 years ago
your rationality is flawed and getting worse. your last comment only amplifies the silliness of your scenario. this is why your having a problem with atheism being a tool for war as much as religion. though atheist deny the existence of god they do have a belief system. and one of those beliefs is that atheism is inherently peaceful. that notion has been shot down. and now you are having a crisis of faith. so your arguments become insiped and illogical.
geargemartin 3 years ago 4
what exactly is the connection there? communism is a system of economics and does not have anything to do with religion. why else would russia be majoritively catholic
twizelby 2 years ago
i love it when pricks like him knock my religion. fuck him and fuck you for featuring this. unsubscribing.
geargemartin 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, you're a fucking idiot for being offended by a non-funny comedian.
So, since you're unsubscribed FUCK YOU
gungagin 3 years ago
since you did'nt realize i would still receive your response in my comments. fuck you you stupid bastard.
geargemartin 3 years ago 4
Of COURSE I would know you'd get the comment.
Go worship your invisible man in the sky somewhere else.
gungagin 3 years ago
thats ok. you go and worship...nothing, except self importance.
geargemartin 3 years ago 13
Well at least it's something REAL.
gungagin 3 years ago
yep. real lame.
geargemartin 3 years ago 4
@geargemartin what's wrong with self-importance?
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore nothing i suppose, if your an egotist.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin How very ironic that you call me an "egotist" - so that you can make yourself feel better.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore where's the irony? i feel no better or worse for my comment,i simply responded to your question. an insult was not intended. the response could only be considered an insult if you are, indeed, filled with self importance.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin No. Your comments on this string are either blatent passive-agressive insults or direct insults. Unfortunately for u, they are laid out here 4 others to read and recognize as such. Your comments could ONLY be concluded as such, since there's no other point to your comments.
U r obviously angry about the clip and anyone that disagrees w/you, or anyone that raises a Q to your comments. I'm not necessarily disturbed by the comments, but rather your cowardess in denying your intent.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore the intent of my comments are obvious to any one with modicum of intelligence. and if you had truly read my comments, and assuming you IQ is above 90, you would have noticed that i clearly demonstrated that atheism, along with religion, can and have pursued war and violence to advance their cause. on the other hand the intent of you comment is blurred with banal insults and irrelevant hyperbole. you have contribute nothing save adolesent whining.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Nice try. The problem w/ur argument that most all of ur examples for war r communist, & an easy argument can b made that THIS is the problem factor. 1 can b atheist and not commy. 1 could also be deist/theist commy, although that's a harder 1 to argue.
Either way, commy doesn't hold a candle to the killing under the name of god. We both know that. Your argument, while a newer apology for theism in the scheme of things, doesn't seem to hold water.
Nice use of the word "banal".
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore who killed the most is irrelevant. you have not brought up any points that i haven't already addressed. i'm not going to go over the same territory twice.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin I don't think that killing is irrelavent.
However, you've dodged the point of my argument. Communism is the motivation for the killing of which you speak. I have not seen you address this point - but perhaps I've missed that in all of the very important and original comments that you've made.
I say that you deliberately missed this point, because you understand that I've challenged your ideas, and that you've been asked to explain the problem in your argument.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore who killed the most is whats irrelavent to the argument...jeeze. and you have made no new challege's to the debate. i reiterate, i've covered that ground previously.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Yeah, you just said that. What I haven't seen is your reply to my statement that Communism is the real culprit to the atrocities of which you mention.
Funny that you've replied twice to say that you covered that point, without covering that point. You could have easily summarized your conclusion by now. Wanna go for a third time?
Like I said - Nice try.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore just how dim are you? that has been ALL covered in my original comments. so what's the deal? is your IQ really below 90 or do you feel left out because you didn't engage in the original debate. either way i'm no longer responding to because you bore me. your rehashed points have already been elucidated previously by others who are more erudite than you.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Ha! I was joking when I suggested that you mention your supposed argument a third time.
Well, as I assumed, you have no argument, and were trying intimidate me with words like "banal" and "erudite". I'm sure that the several replies that you sent me is evidence of your "boredom", right?
Let me know when you care enough about the comments that you make and the thoughts that you think, that you'll actually try to defend them... or even present them.
Now who's banal?
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@geargemartin Run away! Run away! XD
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@geargemartin Just double checked your argument from a year ago. You do NOT address my point AT ALL. You equate Atheism and Communism as the same thing when they are not. As I stated earlier, you do not have to be a commy to be atheist. Your argument lacks the chain of logic that concludes that atheism is responsible for deaths under communism. Atheism is a facet of communism, but it doesn't work in reverse.
This is where your argument falls flat on its face.
And you lie.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore if you think REAL HARD. you'll see you just proved my point. try not to get a headache over it.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin What point?!?! You've proved nothing, you've made statements with glaring logical gaps, and you lie.
This is the fourth time that you're ducking my argument.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore you are calling me a liar? lol. that's the best you can come up with? pathetic. i know you have proplem with comprehension skills, so i'll type real slow. the debate started when altoid24k ask " how many wars ere waged and people killed because of athieism?...nobody kills in the name of atheism". i proved this was not true. though it's none of you business my girlfreind is a refugie from cuba and could tell you first hand how the communist repress relgion and promote atheism.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin No - you have not proved this to be untrue. You've shown that Atheism is a facet of the Communism movement at large - true. You've shown that COMMUNISTS have killed in the name of atheism - true. Communism at large makes the claim that all else should be exterminated - true. Atheism makes no claims. It requires no action. If it did, it would not be Atheism.
I'm sorry for your friend, but it's was communism that was oppressing her - not atheism.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore once more, you have managed to prove my point. atheist are just as capable as religions to wage war and to promote their agenda.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin No - that was NOT your original point. Your point was that some wars have been started BECAUSE of atheism - thereby implying that atheism is the root cause. In the examples that you've outlined, Communism is the root cause.
I do not deny that Atheists have started wars. There's probably no demographic of people that have NOT started wars. However, no wars have been started due to Atheism, and you have not shown a legitimate argument to the contrary.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore that's merely semantics. the wars i listed were all communist inspired. i reread my first few comment and i don't see were i stated atheism alone caused those wars. but whatever, it's late and i'm done. good night.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin (1)Now you're just getting lazy. Someone with your vocabulary should understand the difference between semantics and a logical error.
This is one of your statements "its been stated though, that wars are never waged because of atheism. that has been demonstrated to be false." You've yet to demonstrate this. You've also gone on to imply atheism as a root cause of war in other statements. (see 2)
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@geargemartin (2) Atheism has no motivations, since it has no beliefs.
Answer me this: Have wars been started because of Communism? I know that we'd both answer "yes".
Now answer me this: Have wars been started due to Atheism? My answer is "no". If your answer differs from this, then it is due to a logical error.
You're also logically erred in your definition of "atheism". You state that atheism is a belief when it's just the opposite.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore if one of the reason's for communism to wage is war to instill atheism as official state doctrine. then atheism, at least in part, has been responsible for many wars and countless deaths in the last century. also, atheism requires "faith" that there is no god. which of course is a belief. if you don't have faith there is a god and, at the same time, you have no faith there isn't one then you are an agnostic. only agnosticism dispenses with a belief system altogether.
geargemartin 1 year ago 19
@geargemartin That's absurd. You're trying to draw a line that just can't be drawn. That's like saying that if Communism promotes Elvis through war, then Elvis would be responsible. It just doesn't add up.
"A belief in no god" is also a logical error. In order to establish your statement, you must first establish the concept of a god. Your statement already assumes the existence of a god, therefore it's a claim on top of a claim. (see 2)
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore the first part of your comment is completely nonsensical and doesn't apply. as to the rest. my statement is one of definition and assumes nothing. atheism and religion are mirror images of themselves. one emphatically believes there is no god(s). the other emphatically believes there is(are).
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin You assume the existence of a god. You keep overlooking that. You seem to have a problem wrapping your head around the idea that someone could not have a belief. This is why this part of your argument is in error.
I don't emphatically believe in no god. Maybe there is a god. No one actually knows that to be true. No one has presented positive evidence in the existence of a god or any group of deity. Until someone does, I don't bother w/the question.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@geargemartin (2) You do not understand the concept of Atheism. Atheism makes no claim at all. The only reason that the concept of Atheism exists in the first place is because of a claim that a god exists. if such a claim did not exist, there would be no Atheism.
A belief is an idea that is unsubstanciated. Your god idea is a belief. As an Atheist, I'm not implying a belief - I'm asking you why you have your belief. Until you can convince me of your belief, I'm not believing it.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore atheism DOES make a claim, that there is no god. with no empirical evidence one way or the other atheist must rely on faith that their views is the correct one.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Like I said - you simply do not grasp the concept of Atheism.
YOU make the claim that there IS a god. I do NOT believe your claim. See that I put "NOT" in the last sentence?
I assume that you do not believe in the Easter Bunny. Is it correct to say that you believe in no Easter Bunny? Of course not. Your belief does not actually enter into the equation. You're just not buying what someone else is selling. That's all.
I can't think of a way to make it more clear than that.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore let me ask you a series of questions. first are you an arheist?
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Sure. I'll stick with your series of q's.
I would be classified as an atheist. My answer is "yes".
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore in our recent dialog i have made no assumption about the existents of god. now, according to your previous comment you admitted the possibility of a god. is this accurate?
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Now who's playing with semantics?
Is this your quote?
"i love it when pricks like him knock my religion."
Are you not religious?
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore that comment was not part of our recent dialog. please answer the last question i presented.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin The problem is that you are framing a question based on erroneous information. I think that you realize that you are now being dishonest. Before I can honestly answer your question, you must first get your facts straight.
Are you religious?
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore refused to answer. okay. which of these definitions best describe you.1)- a disbelief in the existence of a deity, or 2)- a person who holds the view that ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of god.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin See? You're skirting your own statements. I think it's because you understand that you've found the hole in your logic, but aren't honest enough to admit it.
How am I supposed to answer a bunch of questions that are derived falsely, erroneously, or dishonestly? Can you at least be honest enough to esablish the foundation for you series of question?
Are you religious?
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore these are simple honest questions that you seem frightened to answer. please answer them so we may continue.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin No - these are not honest questions, because they are derived from your dishonesty. Please establish an honest foundation fro these questions, so that we may continue... honestly.
Are you religious?
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore my faith is immaterial to the dialog. foundation is immaterial to the query. you agreed to answer my series of questions. no you are reticent to do so. you call me dishonest, i can only conclude that YOU are the coward. prove my conclusion wrong and please answer the questions.
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin Your faith is paramount to the dialog and your questions.
Since you won't honestly answer the question that we both know the answer to, I'll answer it for you. Your answer is "yes".
To answer your second question, your assessment is not accurate. My answer to the possibility of a god is "I don't know".
Now you can proceed with your next question.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore please answer the second question.
geargemartin 1 year ago
Comment removed
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin I thought that I just did. Perhaps I'm not understanding the question. Please rephrase the question, so that i can answer it.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore if i must. which definition describes you best.1) a disbelief in the existence of a deity. or 2) one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence
geargemartin 1 year ago
@geargemartin By all means, if this tasks you, you have no obligation to me. ^_^
Neither of those definitions adequately describes me. I don't have evidence that any deity exists. I don't know that which is not defined. That is why asked for your position, because you would have to define what it is you believe in order to adequately answer the question.
But I guess that "the disbelief in the existence of deities" is a better answer than the latter.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore first you state your an atheist. then later you stated "i don't emphatically believe there is no god. maybe there is a god". i then asked for clarification. the next question involved text book definitions. you were confused as which describes you best, but you go to your fall back definition of an atheist. i can only conclude that you are confused, and therefor i can only conclude your confusion disqualifies you from engaging in a logical debate over the issue.
geargemartin 1 year ago 4
@geargemartin (1) Again. Nice try. My stance is that I don't know of any existence of a god. My stance is that I also don't believe your claim, or anyone's claim of a god, since no one has given a logical explination as to how a god could exist or why there is no measurable evidence of a god. This is not a contradiction in logic, this is merely an honest answer that doesn't presume anything. Any claim w/o evidence, is a belief. I make no claim. (see 2)
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@geargemartin (2) I know that I could be wrong, and that if evidence shows the contrary, I WOULD be wrong. However, none exists - so I have no reason to believe in a god. Again, no broken logic.
Now that we've gone off topic, I'd like to get back to it. I have some questions that I'd like to pose that shows that Atheism is not responsible for killing. I figured that since you posed a series of q's to me, you won't mind the same.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago