"Fred Hall" <fkhall@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dug85h$1h9$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:35:51 -0600, "Cat Whacker"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Tell someone who cares numbnuts.

Hey, I care. Where do I sign up for a Zapto account?

=================
Usenet.zapto.org. :-))

Nu........

Ha! The biggest mass murderer of all time was the atheist Joseph
Stalin.

Close. Second, IIRC.

But that is irrelevant, because Joe Stalin, killed no one, in the name
of atheism.

A common argument by atheists - incorrect, but common.

Why are so many theists such stupid, nasty,bigoted liars when it comes
to atheists?

Oh well next time an atheist nut kills we will say it's because of his
lack of belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or pixies or gremlins
because these things don't exist neither. Shouldn't we?

You could blame it on an objective assessment that good and bad do not
exist
either if you want.

Only if you're stupid and confuse a theist's subjectivity with
objectivity.

That way you can excuse the mass murder
of six million
jews on the simple basis that six million jews used a less successful
survival strategy than those that killed them (for a time) - or that 53
million were wiped out because they adopted a less successful survival
strategy than those that survived, after all, why should you consider a
complex evolved mechanism such as a human as intrinsically more 'worthy'
than simpler evolved mechanisms such as bacteria - to think such thoughts
is
entirely subjective and has no place in science.

Only if you are a deliberate liar.

A lack of belief in something does not make you kill because of that
lack
of belief. There are lots of things I DON'T believe in. Here's a
hypothetical. Are you going to accuse me of NOT beleiving in the
bogeyman
that's why I killed someone? Will you say I DIDN'T beleive in ghosts so
that's why I killed someone? Does it makes sense to say I DON'T beleive
in
miracles or wookies or aliens or time travel so that's why I killed
someone. Even if I say "I don't have any morals" that still doesn't mean
that's why you killed someone. There is a motive for killing. Some
people
want money, power, etc, these are ACTIVE reasons why people kill not
PASSIVE nonsensical ones like "I don't beleive in Bigfoot". God holds no
moral authority for atheists in the same way Bigfoot holds no moral
authority for them.

Irrelevant. History has shown that from the enlightenment onwards
Atheistically inclined societies have presided over more mass murder in
recent times and on a more industrialized scale than ever before.
Objectively there is nothing 'wrong' with this and it is of no more real
significance than wiping a worktop with an antibacterial wipe.

Liar. What does not believing in Santa Claus make you do, moron?

Why is that if an atheist kills someone it's immediately seized upon the
fact he doesn't believe in God? There are a million things he also
doesn't
beleieve dimwit. That screwed up logic is insanely stacked and biased in
order to cover up the atrocities of others in the NAME of religion and
in
the NAME of their God.

Where have I 'blamed' anyone for anything? - dimwit

BY INSISTING THAT ATHEISTS KILLED PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR ATHEISM.
STOP PRETENDING, DELIBERATELY NASTY, BIGOTED LIAR.

I commented on the fact that atheists disavow any connection with mass
murder and atheism.

Because there isn't any, moron.

Historically their argument does
not stand up.
Atheists have presided over mass murder in order to eliminate religion -
suggesting otherwise is revisionist thinking and extremely dishonest.

BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE ATHEIST, DELIBERATELY NASTY, BIGOTED LIAR.

Please refer to the bible for evidence of Jehovah and his people smiting
innocent men women and children. Stop denying it by pretending atheists
kill because they are atheists, they are also A a lot of things.

What have I denied and where - please cut and paste whatever you can find
and post it here:

You have denies the fact that atheist neither motivates nor justifies
anything.

Please seek ACTIVE motives for killing.

Why need a motive? Since good and bad are simply subjective value
judgements they are a common myth that Atheists cannot defend objectively.

Liar.

We define it in terms of the effect of actions on others.

You on the other hand need an imaginary alpha male to tell you what to
do and what not to do - and it does a lousy job because you it does
not stop you being a hypocritical, bigoted, deliberately nasty liar
while pretending you have the moral high ground.

But then you're a Christian. We've come to expect that.

Does a cat need a motive to kill a mouse or can it just do so because it
wants to do so? does that make the cat 'right' or 'wrong' to kill the
mouse? Why do you consider it au fait to kill millions of simple evolved
organisms such as bacteria yet subjectively need a motive for the killing
of
milliions of more complex evolved organisms? Why muddy the objectivity
waters with subjective mud? (please give scientific, objective answers;
without recourse to mythical and subjective value judgements)

Idiot.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 04:34:10 -0000, "Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com>
wrote:

By the by: Joseph (Stalin) Vissarionovich, was a xtian, who was
training for
the priesthood, until he became a socialist, and got kicked out of
seminary
school.

He started out a theist and turned to atheism. Theism was incompatible
with
positivism.

Note that he was "kicked out", he did not leave of his own accord, as an
atheist
would have done.

I daresay an atheist would have done whatever suited his purposes,
irrespective of your pronouncements as to what you think he would do...

The Man of Steel, was a xtian.

Until his conversion to atheism. Maybe if he had stayed xtian millions
would not have died?...

I daresay a xtian would have done whatever suited his purposes,
irrespective of your pronouncements as to what you think he would do...