You are arguing to get me to agree with you when I already do. You let CTD twist what I was doing into some sort of crusade of mine against religion, and then you agreed with him. Just look at his last 2 posts. He is trying to get me to defend a study that I have said I disagree with. I am not against Christianity or even Christians who make mistakes. You be the judge, but judge using the criteria set in the Bible, not the criteria set by men.
Twist? Would it be 'twisting' to review recent history?
One of the things I like about
The Irrational Atheist is the amount of factual information included to back up the arguments. While there is a lot of flawed atheist logic to debunk, there is also plenty of evidence with which to build a counter-case.
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.17 The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation! No doubt this is why the Unholy Trinity attempts to limit the discussion of secular evil to Stalin and Mao.
This excerpt is, of course, part of the counter-argument against the bogus old assertion that "religion" leads to violence and war. Hype simply cannot stand up to fact.
While one acknowledges that indifferent parties exist on all sides of this issue, one can anticipate that any Christian who is not indifferent should welcome the news that atheist slanders have been convincingly slam-dunked, right? Those who care might even take a peek at such a book. How could it be anything other than good news to find that Christianity cannot be portrayed accurately as a force for evil?
Since your reference claims that atheism was the cause of those examples of violence against humanity, does it actually show a causal link between the two?
I could just as easily point out that the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers in the US are Christians and claimed to be so before they committed their crimes. So what? I can't link their religion to their actions any more than your so-called researcher can link atheism with inhumane behavior.
Now if you want to use statistics, it is well known that the percentage of all atheists that commit crimes is lower than the percentage of all Christians that commit crimes. Can I say that atheism leads to more proper behavior? Absolutely not!! That statistic alone doesn't take into account a myriad of other possible influences on the behavior of the people in the study.
Basically, the claim, implied or otherwise, that atheism leads to the type of behavior described in those two passionately written paragraphs is bunk. Being adamant about it doesn't change it from the bunk that it is.
Not what you were expecting? Well, maybe you're new here.
Instead of recognizing that the very statistical methods used by atheists to slander Christians will result, if properly investigated, in a conclusion unfavorable to them; Linear portrays this as some ad hoc attempt to smear atheism.
Overlooking the fact that this is the result of analyzing the facts behind atheist attacks on Christians, Linear counters that the atheist can produce bogus studies & smear Christians.
No joke! The whole point is that they have done so, and they must put a lot of effort into twisting history and rely heavily upon ignorance in those they wish to deceive.
When the facts are known, their own argument condemns their belief system.
Those who review will note that while Linear does claim individual motives cannot be determined by statistics, he never once denies that the statistical trend alleged by the atheists is true. Quite the contrary. Again and again he maintains it exists. He doesn't read the book, preferring to provide an example of the bogus propaganda which needed debunking in the first place. Those who read
The Irrational Atheist will most likely laugh (or despair) when they contemplate such hopelessly flawed slanders.
More than once, Linear claims to have said "just the opposite" of what his study tries to say. But there are at least two arguments the enemies of God have derived from the statistics. One says that religion/Christianity can be proven to cause violence; one says that a statistical trend exists, and there are other factors involved. We only find opposition to the most extreme opinion in Linear's posts.
I could just as easily point out that the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers in the US are Christians and claimed to be so before they committed their crimes. So what? I can't link their religion to their actions any more than your so-called researcher can link atheism with inhumane behavior.
Now if you want to use statistics, it is well known that the percentage of all atheists that commit crimes is lower than the percentage of all Christians that commit crimes. Can I say that atheism leads to more proper behavior? Absolutely not!! That statistic alone doesn't take into account a myriad of other possible influences on the behavior of the people in the study.
Perhaps "no true atheist" would let us off so easily?
Continuing, one finds
Secondly. If a person truly took onboard Christ, they would not be out there committing crimes and outdoing the atheists and any fall from grace is regretted and repented by such - if in fact they are sincere. So the word "Christian" can be thrown around by anybody, but may not mean they are sincere. There are many practical atheists around who toss around "yeah I'm a Christian" whilst they live completely contrary to Christ.
And we all know some pose as "redeemed" to fool others too. A well known trick. But let us not confuse sincere Christianity with the greater committing of crimes. This is dishonest.
This is called the "True Scotsman defence." You say a Christian wouldn't do/believe something. I show you an example of a Christian doing/believing just that something. You then say "He wasn't a 'true' Christian". So, what is the criteria for a 'true' Christian? How do I tell him from someone who just says he is a "Christian".
"True" Christians would never massacre American Indians or forcibly make them study the Bible. Those people weren't true Christians.
True Christians would never burn someone at the stake.
True Christians would never torture someone to make them confess Christ.
True Christians would never arrest Joseph Smith and then leave him to the crowd to murder.
"Conveniently" overlooking the fact that a standard is in place, and criteria have been long established for determining who is and who is not following the Lord. Seems a rather unexpected thing for such a follower to overlook; but neither can one can be expected to remember everything when one is locking horns with... how do we categorize Bex?
Christians are well aware of the atrocities committed by those in the past proclaiming to be "Christian" but we are also not fooled at how UNCHRISTIAN they were, and contrary to Christ's teachings they were and how shameful they were (and are when anybody continues to do such). But we are also not convinced by those using this as an "example" regarding Christians either
Sure you can judge them now in the light of history. For the most part, they thought they were doing the right thing and furthering the cause of Christ. It is the very thing that Christians are hesistent to do now that stopped those others from continuing their horrid work. Christians that knew they had to stand up to their brothers and shine the light of Christ on the suffering they were causing. Christians don't do that today. Many seem to revel in the excesses of the most fanatical.
This passage is strange indeed. If I read this right (and I'm making every effort) Linear's
fellow Christians were doing some sort of horrid work, and at some point, another group of his brothers stood up to them and put a stop to it.
Christians have become "hesistent" to do horrid things. What a relief! Might be better if Christians had rigidly established doctrines and beliefs that were contrary to butchery. Were I an atheist, I think I might be a little wary of Linear's brethren.
What's funny about this: by insisting the butchers are to be considered his true brethren, and that they sincerely acted in ways that were in keeping with their beliefs, Linear places himself squarely within a group some of the atheists have designated as even more dangerous: the 'facilitators'. Eliminating such is argued to be higher priority than even the "rabid fundy" and the jihadist.
But that's another story... And somehow, I don't think they'd be any too keen on eliminating LinearAq.
