Further response to a video

[Alzael]

Also, to point out again,Alex. Your entire argument in the OP is predicated on the assumption that the video is speaking directly to you, specifically. If you can't demonstrate that this is the case then your argument failed right from the beginning. I'm still waiting on this.

It might behoove you to first make a solid initial argument with a solid premise before moving onto others.

Something else that I notice is that he hasn't answered my question about how he shredded all of the arguments in the previous thread. I'm just curious because so far he can't even validate his initial argument in this thread. So I'm wondering where this supposed great argumentative skill of his went in the five months since he ran off last time in mid-conversation.

[AlexBP]

I don't recall any time in this thread when anyone has posted evidence of these things, so please tell me who posted evidence that a significant percentage of Christians are being arrested and beaten for leaving Christianity and the number of the post in which he did so.

For starters there's the post ZenZen made above with the video.

Apparently you didn't notice that I've already responded to that.  As I said already, the video makes no mention of any atheist or anyone else being beaten or arrested for any reason.  Therefore I can't understand why you would cite it as evidence that people are being beaten and arrested when they leave Christianity for atheism.  Further, the video is obviously staged.  If this were a real, spontaneous argument that erupted about the kid's atheism, then would the family have carefully positioned a running video camera beforehand to make sure that it captured the spontaneous argument?  And even supposing that for some reason they did have a running video camera which captured the argument, would they have posted it on YouTube?  Obviously the answer to both questions is no, so the video must have been staged by somebody hoping to smear Christians.

Otherwise go back and actually read what people have written.

I specificaally asked you give the numbers of the posts in which people offer evidence that those who leave Christianity are being beaten and arrested.

There is no country on earth where you can be arrested for not being a Christian.

Yeah, there's no country on earth. Unless you ignore every single country that does it.

And those countries would be which ones exactly?  Greece?  As the State Department website notes, the Constitution "provides for the right of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice".  You cite a law saying that there's a different legal status for churches in unrecognized and recognized religions but as the State Dept. site demonstrates that's a cosmetic difference and all religions still operate freely.  Therefore your claim that the Greeks are "persecuting" any religion is utterly false.  You also attempt to point to Sharia Law to justify your statement that Christians are persecuting people but that runs afoul of one teeny, weeny little problem: Sharia Law is imposed by Muslims, not Christians, and indeed is used in the Muslim countries you list to persecute Christians, not by Christians to persecute atheists.  For example, in Saudi Arabia numerous Christians have been arrested and tortured for the crime of being Christians.  Hence when you say that Sharia Law is a means of persecution for not being a Christian, it's like saying that Auschwitz Concentration Camp was run by Jews.  So, know that we know that no one is being arrested or otherwise persecuted for not being Christian in Greece or the Muslim world, why don't you tell us which countries you know of where that does happen?

[ZenZen]

Further, the video is obviously staged.  If this were a real, spontaneous argument that erupted about the kid's atheism, then would the family have carefully positioned a running video camera beforehand to make sure that it captured the spontaneous argument?  And even supposing that for some reason they did have a running video camera which captured the argument, would they have posted it on YouTube?  Obviously the answer to both questions is no, so the video must have been staged by somebody hoping to smear Christians.

You honestly don't think religious people can do bad things, do you?

If you notice the start of the video, the camera is being placed on a table. To me it seems, that a sibling or another person, knew that the kid was going to tell his parents about his atheism, and S/he therefor grabbed a camera and started recording at once. The ending of the video doesn't point to a staging - why stop in the middle of it?  To me it seems, that the cameraman didn't want to be spotted as the mother came too close...

And how about you respond to everyone else's (?) posts?

[AlexBP]

Ok. You want evidence for IRL discrimination. Fair enough, since the Internet is open to trolling.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/18/2073112/atheists-questions-sheriffs-basketball.html
The same Atheist group from the previous article were speaking out against donating government equipment to a religious organization. It was the judge's intention to remove basketball hoops from jails and give them to a church. (It is unconstitutional) He didn't listen. This is a related article, so I posted it.

My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about basketball hoops, nor about donations of government property to churches at all.  Think about that one for a minute and you might get an inkling of why some people aren't terribly fond of atheists.  Do they really have nothing better to do with their lives than trying to stop kids from playing basketball by force?

Other than that your list does not exactly move me to tears.  You said you'd provide real life evidence rather than anonymous internet claims yet several of your links are to anonymous internet claims and others I've responded to before.  (See post #21)  In regards to the issue of the state constitution (in Arkansas, not Arizona) I fully agree that the biased language should be removed.  However, as the Washington Post article notes, it has not been enforced for generations, and thus is doing no more harm than countless examples of archaic lanaguage from all kinds of laws all over the country, all of which are routinely ignored.  Other than that, we could play a game of 'swap the annecdote' until the cows come home.  You've got some guy arrested in a school meeting (though not because he was an atheist), I've got two guys in Florida actually threatened with arrest for saying a prayer.  You've got an unproven claim of job discrimination, I've got two churches vandalized.  You've got the murder of Larry Hooper, I've got the shooting of the prayer group at Heath High School.  So 'swap the annecdote' is a fun game to play but in the end it proves nothing.

Let's get back to the point of the thread.  According to the video, the Christian viewer is supposed to take it for granted that if he leaves Christianity, there's a serious chance that he'll be arrested or beaten.  Do you have any evidence that would back up this claim?  Not evidence of people making nasty posts on the internet and not posts of people who lost their job and insisted that it must be because of their atheism, but actually evidence of large numbers of people being arrested and beaten because they left Christianity?  Again, this is a yes-no question and should admit a yes-no answer.  If the answer is 'yes', then show me the evidence.

[velkyn]

I do love how Alex finds his stories so much better than anyone elses, when they aren't.  It isn't against the law for atheists to be athesits but they suffer for it anyway.  It seems that the prayer case you mention is a case of breaking an actual law.  And the motive for the Heath school shooting?  Seems to be at least claimed by some, it was caused by violent video games.   and yes, churches have been vandalized, as have mosques and synagoges.  I'm not personally aware of any atheists homes being vandalized, but I would not be suprised in the least to find my front window broken after one of my letters to the editor that shows I am an atheist.  I do get lovely little letters with tracts in them and claims of prayers for me.  Prayers that always fail.  

Considering the evidence that has been presented, yes there can be considered a serious chance that theists will persecute atheists.  How would you like to definen a "serious chance", Alex?  this is not about "large numbers" which you seem to have manufactured.  It is about if this can happen at all. 

[AlexBP]

We know that Christians have persecuted atheists and have persecuted each other for daring to be of not the "right" sect.
...
This is what I think that Brain was intimating in the video, however, I do not know that.

So the guy was saying that I should stop and consider the possibility that I may be subjected to various persecutions by Christians that occurred in distant historical epochs?  How exactly is that supposed to happen?  Am I supposedly afraid of falling through a time warp?  I knew that you guys believe in mind-reading but the fact that you also believe in time travel comes as news to me.

Why don't you stop right now and consider the possibility that the only reason why you're an atheist is that you're afraid that Robespierre will send you to the guillotine if you convert to Christianity.  Pretty silly idea, isn't it?

(Is the guy's name actually "Brain", by the way?)

and I am curious, can you point me to the post that you listed two countries where is was illegal

Persecution of Christians in China:



Persecution of Christians in Cuba:

http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/cuba-prominent-church-leader-on-trial-17642/

I could have also mentioned Vietnam or a number of other countries.

[Asmoday]

I began the thread by pointing out that nowhere on earth are Christians arrested or beaten when they convert.

You then responded "You should have tried that during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (a war that was all about religious beliefs)".  Thus you were the first person to mention Bosnia-Herzegovina, and you made a completely untrue claim that the war was caused by religious beliefs.


I then responded by pointing out that the war was started by an atheist dictator, not by any religious person or group.  That was the only way that I could respond to your untrue claims.  I tell the truth and I'm not going to apologize for doing so.  If you're upset that I shot down your erroneous statement about the causes of the war, tough beans.  You can't blame me for mentioning Milosevic when you're the one who dragged in an utterly irrelevant and false claim about the war in Yugoslavia.

At least try to keep up, AlexBP.

Your claim was "I never said "atheist dictators killed all these people" or anything about that until others dragged the issue in." That's the point this is about.

As it is obvious in the quoted parts, your claim is wrong. Not only were you not pressured into making any sweeping statements of that sort but you blurted it out on your own accord and repeated it numerous times (including your latest post).  Which makes your previous claim a lie.

But let's get further into this.

You then responded "You should have tried that during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (a war that was all about religious beliefs)".  Thus you were the first person to mention Bosnia-Herzegovina, and you made a completely untrue claim that the war was caused by religious beliefs.

I don't see myself saying "caused". Do you?
I said it was all about religious beliefs as the three groups fighting this war were / are not so much ethnic groups but their main point of difference is their religion, namely Orthodox Christians (Serbs), Catholic Christians (Croats) and Muslims (Bosniaks) (further explained with numerous sources in the article "Religion and War in Yugoslavia" written by David Jovanovic).

I then responded by pointing out that the war was started by an atheist dictator, not by any religious person or group.

What ParkingPlaces and myself have explained to you in detail (but which you ignored) is that each of the three factions had their own grudges to settle with each other (based on religious reasons). Weather Milosevic was an atheist or not is of minor importance in the grand scheme of things, as his rhetoric was aimed at the Serbs and promised them their Orthodox Christian Greater Serbia and an opportunity of revenge on the Catholics for what they had done to the Orthodox during WW2 (at the onset of the war in 1991 the state controlled television station broadcasted interviews with (supposedly) Croats talking about their independence, airing remarks such as "Where Serbian blood was shed by Ustasha knives, there will be our boundaries.").

Back in WW2 the Independent State of Croatia on the territory of Yugoslavia lead by the Ustase regime was a clerical fascist dictatorship that aimed to create a "Greater Croatia," emphasizing the importance of the Roman Catholic Church (as an example the Ustase banned the use of contraception and the laws against blasphemy were made much more severe) and the patriarchal family model. Their laws were directly aimed against the Serbs, the Orthodox Christian population. They implemented religious conversion laws directly into their legislation in May 1941.

Those laws were explained by the minister of education, Mile Budak, in his speech the following July:
"We will kill one third of all Serbs. We will deport another third, and the rest of them will be forced to convert to Catholicism."

These laws were enacted by the Croat Roman Catholic forces with utmost brutality, going so far that it was even reported to Heinrich Himmler in a GESTAPO report in February 1942:
"Increased activity of the bands [of rebels] is chiefly due to atrocities carried out by Ustaše units in Croatia against the Orthodox population. The Ustaše committed their deeds in a bestial manner not only against males of conscript age, but especially against helpless old people, women and children. The number of the Orthodox that the Croats have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand."

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust: "Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs, expelled 250,000 and forced 250,000 to convert to Catholicism."

All of this was well remembered by the Serbs all through the years up to the start of the the Bosnia-Herzegovina war. It should be noted that one point that enraged the population of Orthodox Christians (A.K.A. the Serbs) the most was that the Catholics (A.K.A. the Croats) upon declaring independence with their Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia took up a flag and coat of arms that was practically identical to the flag and coat of arms used by the Independent State of Croatia under the Ustase regime.

As I have said before, this is by no means a justification for all the atrocities that happened but it shows clearly that your simplistic view of history of an atheistic dictator being responsible for all the continued bloodshed is wrong.

That was the only way that I could respond to your untrue claims.

Except that you responded not only with a claim that was overly simplistic but also wrong.

I tell the truth and I'm not going to apologize for doing so.  If you're upset that I shot down your erroneous statement about the causes of the war, tough beans.  You can't blame me for mentioning Milosevic when you're the one who dragged in an utterly irrelevant and false claim about the war in Yugoslavia.

There would not be a problem if you actually had made a true statement in the first place. Not that I doubt you think it's true, but that doesn't make it so.

I'd like to add that he was reminded by ParkingPlaces and myself that he completely ignored that the forces of the "atheist madmen" were Christians themselves (just not his favored brand of Christianity) and that the things that happened were by no means the result of atheistic persecution of Christians since all the religious factions had their very own grudges to settle with each other.

Of course you conveniently neglect to mention that neither you nor ParkingPlaces have provided any citation to back up this claim. 

I must say I found it rather amusing that you'd ask for citations when you continue to claim again and again "atheist dictators killed all these people" but you avoid the question "Who did the killing?" like the devil avoids holy water.

Were Tito and Milosevic atheists? They are listed as such, I won't debate that point.

Their followers however were not. The population of the region has always been particularly connected to their particular brand of religion. So much that their religion became part of their respective national identity. Serb, Croat and Bosniak are practically synonymous for Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim.

Peter Black, senior historian at the United States Holocaust Museum: "In the Balkans, religious identification became part of national identity, as expressed through language and the communication of the national myth. Thus, being Orthodox is part of being Serbian."

And here we get back to your claim "atheist dictators killed all these people." How did they do that? Apparently they must have done it all by themselves since the population was and still is religious through and through.

Milosevic, the leader of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, might have been an atheist but his followers definitely were not. They were Christians.
They even received heavy support from their "Orthodox Brothers" in Greece. Going so far that Greek volunteers joined the Serbian forces in the form of the Greek Volunteer Guard. They even took part in the Srebrenica battle and massacre; the Greek flag was hoisted over the town after battle at the specific request of Ratko Mladic to honour "the brave Greeks fighting on our side."

In 1993 the Archbishop Seraphim of Athens had invited Radovan Karadzic where Karadzic proclaimed in a public event: "We have only God and the Greeks on our side."

[LadyLucy]

My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about basketball hoops, nor about donations of government property to churches at all.  Think about that one for a minute and you might get an inkling of why some people aren't terribly fond of atheists.  Do they really have nothing better to do with their lives than trying to stop kids from playing basketball by force?

You are not getting the point. Why do they not have a right to express themselves? Sure, it's not that big of a matter, but someone had to speak out for this, because it is unconstitutional to give government property to a religious institution. Religious institutions already don't have to pay taxes. They very easily can get donations from the people, instead of taking some basketball hoops from a prison. Stop dodging the point.

Other than that your list does not exactly move me to tears.  You said you'd provide real life evidence rather than anonymous internet claims yet several of your links are to anonymous internet claims and others I've responded to before.  (See post #21)  In regards to the issue of the state constitution (in Arkansas, not Arizona) I fully agree that the biased language should be removed.  However, as the Washington Post article notes, it has not been enforced for generations, and thus is doing no more harm than countless examples of archaic lanaguage from all kinds of laws all over the country, all of which are routinely ignored.  Other than that, we could play a game of 'swap the annecdote' until the cows come home.  You've got some guy arrested in a school meeting (though not because he was an atheist), I've got two guys in Florida actually threatened with arrest for saying a prayer. 

And if you read the article, you'd see as to WHY they were arrested:

"The defendants all admitted wrongdoing,” said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for its freedom of religion program. “For example, the Pace High School teachers handbook asks teachers to ‘embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.’"

This guy, Daniel Mach, Atheist or not, declared their doings unconstitutional because well, it IS unconstitutional to have religion in government (in this case, practicing "Christian virtue" in a public school). The Founding Fathers meant for the United States of America to have rights for all religious groups and people that are of no faith. Government is supposed to be separated from religion. Since the people have a right to protest, of course people made an outroar over the arrests. "This is a Christian nation!" But that's not the case. This is a nation for all religions (and lack thereof), not just Christianity.

You've got an unproven claim of job discrimination, I've got two churches vandalized.

Why are you assuming they are Atheists? Stop it. The people responsible were idiots. Myself, I would NEVER vandalize a religious institution, and for some reason, I am absolutely sure that an Atheist would not do this (we are not mad at god and we have no reason to vandalize a church). I assume these kids were Satanists. (Ooooo, scary, they think they are so bad. Sorry, just my experience with knowing those little idiots in high school.) Fuck, they could have been any religion. Stop trying to make yourself look like innocent victims, despite the fact that the churches received terrible damages. That's preposterous and they shouldn't be doing that. Personally, I would donate money and go there to help them, rather than pray that the place gets better. Just because I am an Atheist does not make me a bad person. You seem to think so.

You've got the murder of Larry Hooper, I've got the shooting of the prayer group at Heath High School.  So 'swap the annecdote' is a fun game to play but in the end it proves nothing.

Why do you assume he is an Atheist? He was mentally ill. Unfortunately for those students, they had to die. Don't use their deaths to prove that he was "Atheist scum". Stop trying to make your religion look like martyrs. Proves nothing? You are so insensitive. I'm guessing you approve that these people who had a lack of belief died.

Edit: I'm an honest person, and I just did more research/digging. Here's more info. on the little brat:
http://www.skcentral.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=3712&pid=81340

Apparently, he was analyzed by 5 psychologists and thought he understood the consequences, so the "mentally ill" thing in the media was a lie. However, what wasn't a lie was the bullying. He was indeed miserable, but doesn't mean he was mentally ill nor had to kill these kids. Atheism has nothing to do with the loss of lives. In fact, here are notes that he meant to give to his girl-friend: Page 1 and Page 2. Turns out he was religious.

Let's get back to the point of the thread.  According to the video, the Christian viewer is supposed to take it for granted that if he leaves Christianity, there's a serious chance that he'll be arrested or beaten.  Do you have any evidence that would back up this claim?  Not evidence of people making nasty posts on the internet and not posts of people who lost their job and insisted that it must be because of their atheism, but actually evidence of large numbers of people being arrested and beaten because they left Christianity?  Again, this is a yes-no question and should admit a yes-no answer.  If the answer is 'yes', then show me the evidence.

I don't want to end up searching and digging even more news stories since you are not acknowledging these injustices. Stop being a bigot.

[LadyLucy]

Persecution of Christians in China:

This article explains as to why China is the way it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

Their constitution says that everyone has a right to their own religion, and that evangelization is not allowed. Unfortunately for Christians and other major minorities, they suffer because they are popular Western ideals, and as you well know, China is a Communist country... They are not entirely for "free-thinking", depending on what they believed first. Many are pretty much god-less after so many centuries of having philosophical stances rather than belief in a god. They don't want religions to be able to run rampant. They are Communist; they don't want certain ideals to run rampant overall, which is why it's not a political foundation of choice in the world. It doesn't imply that Atheists are evil. I don't approve of their behavior. China has one of the worst human rights problems in the world, but as you know, they are almost fit enough to become a super-power and we must negotiate with them economically and all, regardless of their Communist outlooks. I've never seen what's so great about Communism; it just leaves people jailed and believing ONLY what is "appropriate", and that is purely subjective and no one should be doing that. That's why the USA has an issue with dealing with China, things like these.

You know what's weird though? The Chinese constitution claims that there is religious freedom and that believing in a deity/deities is not illegal, when clearly, there's problems with this "religious freedom" claim and arrests have been made for believing in certain beliefs. It isn't healthy for the people, and it certainly is not the way to go.

Persecution of Christians in Cuba:

http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/cuba-prominent-church-leader-on-trial-17642/

Communist ideals = disaster. Agreed, correct?

I could have also mentioned Vietnam or a number of other countries.

Communism in Vietnam is very unfortunate. And I am sure other countries are unfortunate as well. Can we at least agree on one thing and that is that Communism is just not right and causes severe problems with human rights? Read this. Unfortunately, Atheism tends to be "the way to go" when it comes to Communism. But just because I am an Atheist does not imply that I am going to become a Communist and go kill/arrest/torment people. That's absurd. Morales and ethics (if any) are twisted in Communism. Here's a better explanation.

[12 Monkeys]

Further, the video is obviously staged.  If this were a real, spontaneous argument that erupted about the kid's atheism, then would the family have carefully positioned a running video camera beforehand to make sure that it captured the spontaneous argument?  And even supposing that for some reason they did have a running video camera which captured the argument, would they have posted it on YouTube?  Obviously the answer to both questions is no, so the video must have been staged by somebody hoping to smear Christians.

You honestly don't think religious people can do bad things, do you?

If you notice the start of the video, the camera is being placed on a table. To me it seems, that a sibling or another person, knew that the kid was going to tell his parents about his atheism, and S/he therefor grabbed a camera and started recording at once. The ending of the video doesn't point to a staging - why stop in the middle of it?  To me it seems, that the cameraman didn't want to be spotted as the mother came too close...

And how about you respond to everyone else's (?) posts?

C'mon Zenzen ,we all know that theists who do bad things are not "true believers"

[One Above All]

I apologize to both the staff and Alex for still not having replied to his/her posts. However, I have been busy with two essays (one related to PE and another to astrophysics) so I've been kinda busy (also a crappy game I just finished writing on the TI-83+). I will reply tomorrow (it's nearly midnight where I live) or perhaps the day after, if tomorrow I am still busy (doubtful though)

[Alzael]

Greece?  As the State Department website notes, the Constitution "provides for the right of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice".  You cite a law saying that there's a different legal status for churches in unrecognized and recognized religions but as the State Dept. site demonstrates that's a cosmetic difference and all religions still operate freely.  Therefore your claim that the Greeks are "persecuting" any religion is utterly false.

I am aware that the constitution says that. However the actual law says differently, and it is a law which is upheld. It is allowed to persist because of the control that the Greek Orthodox church exerts over Greek politics. So just to be clear. The best you can do is to suggest that having laws specifically targetted to limit the rights and freedoms of others who aren't members of a certain group, doesn't count as persecution? Clearly you have a dizzying and marvelous intellect.

This is an article regarding the practice of the laws. http://www.widdershins.org/vol10iss4/09.htm

Also http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_greec.htm

Interview with a member of one of the Pagan churches talking about persecution. http://agis10.tripod.com/id9.html  http://agis10.tripod.com/

From Wikipedia:"Greece has not used its laws about blasphemy to protect any religion other than the Greek Orthodox Church, which is the state church of Greece."

"Greece complements its laws against blasphemy with laws against "religious insult". The laws forbid the creation, display or trade in work that "insults public sentiment" or that "offends people's religious sentiments". The right to redress for a religious insult has so far been restricted to Christians."

You also attempt to point to Sharia Law to justify your statement that Christians are persecuting people but that runs afoul of one teeny, weeny little problem: Sharia Law is imposed by Muslims, not Christians, and indeed is used in the Muslim countries you list to persecute Christians, not by Christians to persecute atheists.

This is irrelevant and stupidly so. Yes they are Muslims which does not matter to what is being spoken of. The issue raised, which was even said in the quote was "There is no country on earth where you can be arrested for not being a Christian." The issue that was responded to did not have to deal with it solely being Christians persecuting others.

So, know that we know that no one is being arrested or otherwise persecuted for not being Christian in Greece or the Muslim world, why don't you tell us which countries you know of where that does happen?

I have shown that people are being perseucted in Greece for not being Christian. In fact all you managed to use against it the first time was to say "Well it says differently elsewhere so it must not be true." So you never succesfully refuted it to begin with. As for the Muslim world, this is such an obvious and stupid lie that if I thought you were actually capable of shame, I'd tell you that's what you should be feeling along about now.

As I already mentioned but I can see that you chose to ignore in favour of making this strawman argument, Sharia Law applies the same standards to any non-Muslim. So yes, we have established that people are persecuted for not being Christian in the Muslim world. In fact Christians are generally more tolerated than say, Jews or atheists. Which I also pointed out.

So, did you have a single actual legitimate argument to make for anything? For that matter you STILL have not yet validated your initial argument, which I've asked you to do about three times now. Before you respond to the other points I've raised, do that. Or should I just assume from this moment forward that you can't validate the argument and you're just here to lie, waste our time, and demonstrate your astounding lack of intellectual prowess?

[jetson]

AlexBP,

You started this thread, and in doing so, made a very specific argument on behalf of yourself, that does not match at all with what the video appears to be claiming.  Clearly, the video is not making a claim that you will, or have ever experienced any of the things it asserted.  Please acknowledge this fact.

Multiple members have reported some of your replies for breaking forum rules, specifically stonewalling and dodging.  And given the amount of replies to you that directly contrast with your assertion, I have to agree.  Either acknowledge the replies with evidence that they are false, or admit that the things you claim do not happen, actually do happen, and have happened.

Jetson

[Alzael]

I'm also still curious to know how you shredded the video the first time. I would really like to know since you haven't managed to yet even make a topic post that doesn't involve severe misinterpretation and several logical fallacies.If you can actually validate your initial argument then at such time that you actually do I will, of course, retract that statement. But somehow I'm not pretty sure you won't. Mostly because of established precedent.

Your topic post in the first thread was just as poor. And you did, in fact, run out right in the middle of that conversation. Which is odd considering that you were allegedly doing so well, but then I guess it's really easy for you to ignore reality.  Moreover you also never established any validity for your arguments that you were making. As was pointed out by Operator_A25 in that thread.

Bringing up other passages in the Bible and asking me whether they are literal or metaphorical is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

AlexBP,

In your OP You state:

First of all the video attempts to prove that Christians disobey Jesus.  In this it fails because it misinterprets what Jesus said.  To see why we must understand the concept of a metaphor, which is a type of figurative language wherein someone says one thing that's not literally true because it illustrates a point in a vivid way.

Therefore, the question of how you determine the difference between literal and metaphorical passages in the bible is on-topic and fair game.

Your failure to supply an effective and consistent means of discerning between metaphor and literal passages means that you have failed to supply a convincing counter argument to the videos. Your claim of "victory" is completely without merit, in my opinion.

What I think you are doing is attempting to dodge valid questions raised regarding your supposed ability to correctly interpret these passages.

So throughout that whole thread not once did you manage to show that your intial argument had any value. And yet you claim that no one defended against it? You never even made a valid argument in the first place. Actually out of everything said in the video you only even responded to three of the points made in the first place, and you didn't even say anything substantive about them. Your entire post boiled down to "it's a metaphor" repeated ad nauseum. You made a lot of claims that certain things were metaphors but never provided any evidence of why. I suppose this is to be expected though since you've openly admitted to not being an intelligent person.

I just thought I'd point out this obvious series of lies and pattern of behaviour. Now why don't you try and actually do something to show that your initial argument in any way, shape, or form, makes an actual point.

[Seppuku]

3. "You might get beaten."  Nope.  Just as with the previous one, there's no place where leaving Christianity will get anyone beaten, but plentiful places where leaving atheism will get you beaten.

I hate to keep on using him as an example, ex-member here, Goodkat. Beaten by his Christian father because he discovered he was an atheist. The bible would encourage Goodkat's father to murder him, so in terms of biblical values, he got off lightly.

I think you are blissfully ignorant of what happens in the Christian world. India: Christian extremists violently attacking Hindus. Nigeria: Christian churches accusing people of witchcraft, thus beating children, torturing them and even burning them because they think they're witches. USA: many individuals and groups are anti-atheist and persecute atheists for not believing, cases of harassment and even violence, double standards all over the place favouring Christians and discriminating against atheists, e.g. the double standard that it's okay to put up a Christian billboard telling people they'll go to hell if they don't accept Jesus, but as soon as an atheist billboard is put up saying, "There might be no God", it has to be taken down. There's a long list of where atheists are persecuted in the world and an even longer list of where Christians has commited acts of cruelty in the name of their God or because their bible demanded it. Many atheists find it insulting when Christians claim to be the ones persecuted because groups of atheists stand up and saying, "we're not putting up with the shit you deal, so we're going to publically question your faith". This is what this website is aimed to do and of course, I'd much prefer it if theists did question their faith, apply reason to what they believe and not derive all their values from a 2,000 year old ancient script that contradicts itself (do not kill, but homosexuals must die).

Now, I also see many Christians try the claim 'atheism is responsible for acts of evil' (and proceed to use Stalin as an example). I'm going to say, that it's bullshit. It's about as responsible for 'evil' as theism is responsible for the crusades or Hitler's Nazism (yes, Hitler was a theist, not an atheist as people like to claim), but I hear somebody crying, "but the crusades were done in the name of God!" Simple, the Crusades didn't happen because people believe in the existence of a God, but because they believed it was the righteous thing in the name of God, there's a difference because it's their religious text not their position on deities that excused them. Equally, the lack of belief in any deities holds no position on how a person acts, rather, other values that drive them. Humanism is a form of atheistic morality (but is not a part of atheism itself, I'm an atheist, but not a humanist), if humanism encourages a man to blow up a school (not that it would), then it means humanism is at fault, not atheism. Just as if the bible says, "kill non believers" (like for the Crusades) then it is Christianity that's at fault, not theism.


I understand too, that not every Christian is alike, many follow the 'nice' teachings and completely ignore that dark, horrible and bloody side of the bible, probably because they have the capacity to reason that such things are wrong or simply are ignorant that they even exist (not every Christian has read the bible). I say I am happy for a person to believe what they believe so long as it isn't harmful of another person. I have Christian friends, who think although I'm an atheist, I'll go to heaven. They believe their God doesn't only reward the loyal, but also the good. I could probably find fault with that by quoting the bible, but hey, I'd rather encourage Christians to think about morality in terms of reason and not in terms of scripture. I know Christians who love having people, like me, who can challenge their faith, because they believe Christians ought to have a level of reason and of course, it's difficult to start picking faults with your own beliefs if nobody's there to challenge them. Of course, in the experience of this forum, such Christians are rarity.



However, I'll probably say this. I don't expect you'll respond, because it's common place here from theists, but I hope at least you've read what I've had to say. Though hopefully in not using bible quotations, you'll question my claims about the bible and thus engage with what I've written.

[One Above All]

<snip>

If there ever was a post more worthy of +1, I haven't seen it yet[1]
PS: Still too busy to reply to Alex's posts, gonna go to school now (probably gonna be late after this)

1.	Didn't quote the actual post due to the size of it

[kin hell]

<snip>

>snippage<
a post  worthy of +1,

agreed

[AlexBP]

AlexBP,

You started this thread, and in doing so, made a very specific argument on behalf of yourself, that does not match at all with what the video appears to be claiming.  Clearly, the video is not making a claim that you will, or have ever experienced any of the things it asserted.  Please acknowledge this fact.

I have already responded to this.  See, for instance, post #94, one of several.  As I pointed out, if the video is directed to me personally it is completely wrong and if it is directed to Christians generally then it is even more wrong.  If the video is trying to say that all Christians everywhere are probably only remaining Christians because they "might be arrested" and "might be beaten" for leaving Christianity, then you all would have to prove that that is the reality for Christians everywhere or at least in a wide variety of places.  Even if someone could come up with one or two examples of Christians being arrested for leaving Christianity, it would not justify the claims that the video makes.  Needless to say, nobody has yet come up with a single example of anyone being arrested for leaving Christianity, much less widespread examples.  Why are you asking me to "acknowledge this fact" when I've already responded to it several times?

Multiple members have reported some of your replies for breaking forum rules, specifically stonewalling and dodging.  And given the amount of replies to you that directly contrast with your assertion, I have to agree.  Either acknowledge the replies with evidence that they are false, or admit that the things you claim do not happen, actually do happen, and have happened.

As I've already said, I don't have time to respond to every post when there are so many but I'm trying to respond to the major points.  With that said, which replies are you referring to when you ask me to "acknowledge the replies"?  Alzael says that somebody has posted examples of people being arrested and beaten for not being Christians, but when I've asked him (twice!) for the numbers of this post, he's refused to answer.  So far we have the following: (1) Anonymous internet claims that people have been beaten by Christians. (2) Claims that Christians have posted nasty things on the internet. (3) Claims by LadyAmorosa that Christians are being denied the right to speak. (4) Claims by Alzael that non-Christians are being arrested in the Islamic countries and persecuted in Greece.  My responses have been:

(1) Anonymous internet claims are not reliable.

(2) Insults posted on the internet are not examples of persecution and do not constitute arrests and beatings.

(3) I've responded to this one and will do so in more depth.

(4) Same.

So which, exactly, do you want me to respond to?

[AlexBP]

I am aware that the constitution says that. However the actual law says differently, and it is a law which is upheld. It is allowed to persist because of the control that the Greek Orthodox church exerts over Greek politics. So just to be clear. The best you can do is to suggest that having laws specifically targetted to limit the rights and freedoms of others who aren't members of a certain group, doesn't count as persecution? Clearly you have a dizzying and marvelous intellect.

This is an article regarding the practice of the laws. http://www.widdershins.org/vol10iss4/09.htm

Also http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_greec.htm

Interview with a member of one of the Pagan churches talking about persecution. http://agis10.tripod.com/id9.html  http://agis10.tripod.com/

I asked for an example of a country where people can be arrested for leaving Christianity.  You cited Greece as such as example.  How many people have been arrested in Greece for leaving Christianity?  No ambiguity in this question, just give me a number and back it up with a citation.  (Note I'm not asking for examples from several generations back of being arrested for failing to get a permit or violation of the proletyzing law, but examples of people being arrested solely for not being a Christian.

You claim that the non-Orthodox are being "persecuted" in Greece based on two things.  First, other churches are required to get a permit to operate, and second, laws against prosletyzing and religious insults.  However, neither of those constitutes persecution, at least not according to the definition found in my dictionary.  At worst the Greek government shows slight favoritism to one church, not different from what governments in the USA have done for much of our history.  Countless countries have such laws including those who governments are proudly secular.

You also attempt to point to Sharia Law to justify your statement that Christians are persecuting people but that runs afoul of one teeny, weeny little problem: Sharia Law is imposed by Muslims, not Christians, and indeed is used in the Muslim countries you list to persecute Christians, not by Christians to persecute atheists.

This is irrelevant and stupidly so. Yes they are Muslims which does not matter to what is being spoken of. The issue raised, which was even said in the quote was "There is no country on earth where you can be arrested for not being a Christian." The issue that was responded to did not have to deal with it solely being Christians persecuting others.

Actually if you want to prove that there is "a country where you can be arrested for not being a Christian", then you have to prove there's a country where you can be arrested for not being a Christian.  A country where Muslims persecute people for not being Muslims is not an example of a country where people are persecuted for not being Christians.  Unless you have proof that Muslims in Egypt, Yemen, etc... are being persecuted for not being Christians, those countries are not places where people get persecuted for being non-Christians.  Further, I have already given a link to an article about the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia, which needless to say you ignored.  Here are some more examples of Christians being persecuted in the countries where you erroneously claim that Christians have been treated favorably.

Iran: http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/2074

Egypt: http://www.copts.com/english/

Yemen: http://www.opendoorsusa.org/persecuted-christians/persecution/persecution-in-yemen/

So your #1 example of a place where people are being arrested for being non-Christian actually turns out to be a place where people are being arrested for being Christians.

[12 Monkeys]

Alex,do you actually think that Christianity is the only religion with a persecution complex? The only religion with martyrs like you?

[AlexBP]

I hate to keep on using him as an example, ex-member here, Goodkat. Beaten by his Christian father because he discovered he was an atheist. The bible would encourage Goodkat's father to murder him, so in terms of biblical values, he got off lightly.

And the evidence which makes this claim more reliable than any other anonymous internet claim is what?

I think you are blissfully ignorant of what happens in the Christian world. India: Christian extremists violently attacking Hindus.

There's certainly evidence of Hindu extremists violently attacking Christians.  What evidence do you have that it actually happens the other way around?

Nigeria: Christian churches accusing people of witchcraft, thus beating children, torturing them and even burning them because they think they're witches.

Citation please?

USA: many individuals and groups are anti-atheist and persecute atheists for not believing, cases of harassment and even violence, double standards all over the place favouring Christians and discriminating against atheists, e.g. the double standard that it's okay to put up a Christian billboard telling people they'll go to hell if they don't accept Jesus, but as soon as an atheist billboard is put up saying, "There might be no God", it has to be taken down.

Atheist billboards do not have to be taken down.  That's an absurd claim.  Other than, please provide citations to back up what you're saying.

[AlexBP]

Alex,do you actually think that Christianity is the only religion with a persecution complex? The only religion with martyrs like you?

No

[AlexBP]

This article explains as to why China is the way it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

Their constitution says that everyone has a right to their own religion, and that evangelization is not allowed. Unfortunately for Christians and other major minorities, they suffer because they are popular Western ideals, and as you well know, China is a Communist country... They are not entirely for "free-thinking", depending on what they believed first. Many are pretty much god-less after so many centuries of having philosophical stances rather than belief in a god. They don't want religions to be able to run rampant. They are Communist; they don't want certain ideals to run rampant overall, which is why it's not a political foundation of choice in the world. It doesn't imply that Atheists are evil.

I am glad that you agree that persecution of Christians in China is taking place.  I've never said that it implies that atheists are evil, or anything of that sort.  I merely pointed to China as an example to disprove the video's claims.  According to the video, Christians need to consider that we're only Christians because we're afraid of being beaten and arrested.  Yet in China there are 100,000,000 Christians who risk being beaten and arrested because they are Christians.  If they converted from Christianity to atheism they would no longer be at that risk, since they'd be following the religious viewpoint of the government.  So where's the logic of saying that fear of arrest and beatings causes people to be Christians in this case?

[One Above All]

Let's look at that Wikipedia article in a little bit more detail, shall we?  You quoted one sentence from a certain paragraph but--for reasons that I can't imagine--failed to quote the ending sentence of that same paragraph, which is this: "However the numbers recorded on the registers do not necessarily reflect actual population loss due to the breakdown of the census system during the war".  In addition, the source that Wikipedia itself gives for the 36 million figure actually says this: "Many historians have affirmed that 36 million lives were lost as a result of the violent event, but Fitzgerald and others have shown that this is incredible.  Even if such a huge loss were conceivable, it would be naive to suppose that an accurate count could be carried out".  So in summary, I was right about what the Wikipedia article said, while you tried to mislead by highly selective quoting.  Further, the Wikipedia article itself was wrong and the cited source actually confirms my statement.

How exactly do we know that?  Wikipedia says its "widely speculated" that the he followed Shamanism or Tengriism (neither having much to do with how any of us would understand religion).  Speculation is different from knowing.  At least that's how I see it; perhaps you atheists have decided that anything you speculate is a proven fact.

If the dichotomy is between "A and B", and A and B are both religions, then he was a religious man. Once again, we know he had a religion - we just don't know which one[1]

That article makes no mention of religion other than saying that there were Buddhist monks in Korea who resisted Japanese invasion and that the Japanese sacked Buddhist Temples.  However, the article that "atheistblogger" linked to about the traditional position of the Emperor was the one supposed to proved that the emperor in the 16th century thought himself a God, but didn't actually prove any such thing.

True, I found no reference to such thing

If he said 9,000,000 and the real number is 85,000 then he was off by more than 99%, which is bad even by atheist standards.  Even supposing the death toll was twice the 85,000 you found, your blogger would still be utterly wrong.

Read what I said. Or better yet, let me summarize it for you:
I don't have the patience to go through all the articles for 15 crusades , finding the part with the death toll and adding it all up
PS: What are "atheist standards"? Is that the same as the standards that make it impossible to have an atheist president in the USA and pretty much every religious country?

What exactly are you trying to say here?  First, if you're trying to say that one hundred million Native Americans died, the source that your blogger linked to is explicity devoted to debunking that claim and gives average estimates of a vastly smaller number.  Second, if you're trying to say that Europeans were responsible for these deaths, the source that your blogger linked to is explicity devoted to debunking that claim as well.  So why don't you be very clear about what exactly you're trying to say here?

The people still died. Some from diseases we brought unintentionally, the large majority for religious conquest

1.	IMO it's all the same crap

[velkyn]

So the guy was saying that I should stop and consider the possibility that I may be subjected to various persecutions by Christians that occurred in distant historical epochs?  How exactly is that supposed to happen?  Am I supposedly afraid of falling through a time warp?  I knew that you guys believe in mind-reading but the fact that you also believe in time travel comes as news to me.

No.  It is drawing conclusions that Christians can be violent when they aren't believed and accepted by historical *and* modern events.  Events that you have been shown again and again.  You are either intentionaly acting stupid or you simply are.  I haven't quite decided on which yet.  Either way, you are not helping your position by your actions.

Why don't you stop right now and consider the possibility that the only reason why you're an atheist is that you're afraid that Robespierre will send you to the guillotine if you convert to Christianity.  Pretty silly idea, isn't it?

Lovely strawman.  As I have indicated above, it is not simply an appeal to historical incidents.  I'm wondering do you know why Robespierre et al were so anti-clerical?  It's a textbook example of the problems of the collusion of church and state. 

(Is the guy's name actually "Brain", by the way?)

Yes, Marshall Brain.  He's an author and he's been on TV.  http://www.marshallbrain.com/

Persecution of Christians in China:

Persecution of Christians in Cuba:
http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/cuba-prominent-church-leader-on-trial-17642/
I could have also mentioned Vietnam or a number of other countries.

In China it is not illegal to be Christian.  Simple as that. They even have some nice churches.  I am guessing that those Christians aren't the 'right' type of Christians for you.   Same for Cuba.  I have to wonder, do you know what the term illegal actually means?  Evidently not by the links you give.

[AlexBP]

If we want examples of politicians denying rights to people on religious gorunds, how about Democrat Martha Coakley, who when asked whether Catholic doctors and nurses who don't want to perform abortions should be allowed to choose not to perform abortions responded: "You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room."  Unlike the Bush quote, this is one is certainly real and there's a video:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/14/martha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-/

AlexBP, why are you lying again? And even so obviously to lie and then to provide a link that directly shows you are lying.

Hm...I think I'll just quote something you said earlier in this thread: "Oops"


Coakley was not denying people's rights on religious grounds. She didn't deny people anything at all. Her answer was common sense (something a lot of religious folks have problems with, I know).
People can believe in whatever they want. And if their belief says "Don't do XYZ!" then so be it. But if their belief forbids XYZ and in an Emergency Room XYZ has to be performed to save lives, then they should stay the f**k out of there and work somewhere else. (You can't tell me any nurse does't know prior to starting work in an ER that sometimes abortions are necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.)

You obviously are not aware of what Coakley was talking about.  In America we have a conscience clause which allows doctors and nurses to decide whether they'll participate in abortion or not.  This clause has existed for almost 40 years, was approved by almost unanimous support of both parties, and been upheld many times.  It does not prevent women from recieving abortions in cases of medical necessity, but only says that a doctor or nurse need not provide abortion on demand against his or her conscience.  Barack Obama's initial health care bill tried to eliminate part of the conscience clause, and in a debate over that Coakley said that anyone religious opposed to providing abortion on demand not in cases of medical necessity should not work in the ER.  Cases of abortion for medical necessity do not play into this issue at all.  In any case it's moot for two reasons.  First, a group of conservative Democrats overruled Obama on that point in the final portion of the bill.  Second, Coakley lost her Senate race to Scott Brown and it was probably because of her anti-Catholic comment.
 

[AlexBP]

If the dichotomy is between "A and B", and A and B are both religions, then he was a religious man. y

But in this case we don't have a dichotomy between two religions, we have speculation that it might be on or the other.  Since it's only a speculation, it could be some other religion or none at all.

If he said 9,000,000 and the real number is 85,000 then he was off by more than 99%, which is bad even by atheist standards.  Even supposing the death toll was twice the 85,000 you found, your blogger would still be utterly wrong.

Read what I said. Or better yet, let me summarize it for you:
I don't have the patience to go through all the articles for 15 crusades , finding the part with the death toll and adding it all up

So what you said matches what I said.  There's nill evidence to back up your blogger's claim that the death toll was nine million.  You've found a figure of 85,000 and suggested that there might be more in other articles that you looked at.  But how many more?  Especially consider that the number of Crusades was 9 rather than 15 and the later ones were extremely small campaigns compared to the first, it's highly unlikely that the missing 8,915,000 casulties are located in the articles that you didn't read.

What exactly are you trying to say here?  First, if you're trying to say that one hundred million Native Americans died, the source that your blogger linked to is explicity devoted to debunking that claim and gives average estimates of a vastly smaller number.  Second, if you're trying to say that Europeans were responsible for these deaths, the source that your blogger linked to is explicity devoted to debunking that claim as well.  So why don't you be very clear about what exactly you're trying to say here?

The people still died. Some from diseases we brought unintentionally, the large majority for religious conquest

Could we have a citation for the claim that "the large majority [died] for religious conquest"?  I don't think that's true.

[AlexBP]

You are not getting the point. Why do they not have a right to express themselves?

Wait, you're responded to my quote about this article.  Where in that article do you see any evidence that the atheist group is not allowed to express themselves?  Clearly the article demonstartes that they are allowed to express themselves, and further they have the ability to force a judge to waste time dealing with their frivolous claims.

This guy, Daniel Mach, Atheist or not, declared their doings unconstitutional because well, it IS unconstitutional to have religion in government (in this case, practicing "Christian virtue" in a public school). The Founding Fathers meant for the United States of America to have rights for all religious groups and people that are of no faith. Government is supposed to be separated from religion.

Actually they didn't.  In England the Church of England was the Establishment, meaning that everywhere in England you had to be a member of that Church in order to run for office or have other rights.  (From this comes every third-grader's favorite word: "antidisestablishmentarianism").  The founders put in the Constitution a ban on establishment of religion by Congress in order to protect the religious rights of the states, many of which began as colonies started by religious refugees.  Many states had a direct relation between church and government, to the point where some percentage of government income went directly to the church.  This was true in New York, Connecticut, and others.  It was specifically to protect these states that the First Amendment was worded so as to prevent establishment of religion at the national level.

On the various individual cases I'm largely in agreement with you.  There's a little bit of individual violence between Christians and atheists and perhaps once every 20 years or so one of each group in this country murders one of the other, usually as a result of mental illness, but it proves nothing about either group generally and it's certainly absurd to claim that Christians would leave if we weren't trembling in fear of such a thing happening to us.

Let's get back to the point of the thread.  According to the video, the Christian viewer is supposed to take it for granted that if he leaves Christianity, there's a serious chance that he'll be arrested or beaten.  Do you have any evidence that would back up this claim?  Not evidence of people making nasty posts on the internet and not posts of people who lost their job and insisted that it must be because of their atheism, but actually evidence of large numbers of people being arrested and beaten because they left Christianity?  Again, this is a yes-no question and should admit a yes-no answer.  If the answer is 'yes', then show me the evidence.

I don't want to end up searching and digging even more news stories since you are not acknowledging these injustices. Stop being a bigot.

That sounds like a 'no'.

[One Above All]

But in this case we don't have a dichotomy between two religions, we have speculation that it might be on or the other.  Since it's only a speculation, it could be some other religion or none at all.

Considering the tribe he belonged to had no atheists, it's impossible for him to have been an atheist. Also considering the speculation is between one or the other, it pretty much means the odds of being a third, or even fourth option are mathematically insignificant

So what you said matches what I said.  There's nill evidence to back up your blogger's claim that the death toll was nine million.  You've found a figure of 85,000 and suggested that there might be more in other articles that you looked at.  But how many more?  Especially consider that the number of Crusades was 9 rather than 15 and the later ones were extremely small campaigns compared to the first, it's highly unlikely that the missing 8,915,000 casulties are located in the articles that you didn't read.

I said 15 as an arbitrary number. And yes, it's highly unlikely... though not impossible. We won't know unless one of us has the patience to check all the articles (I assure you I don't have it)

Could we have a citation for the claim that "the large majority [died] for religious conquest"?  I don't think that's true.

Why did we expand in the first place? Greed
Why were missionaries sent to the native americans? Religious conversion
What happened to those who did not follow the religion being preached to them? Death
What happened to those who questioned said religion? Death

It's always the same - theists persecuting those who do not follow their religion