Top 10 Christian Terrorists
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Why? Because not only does the Bible have twice as many violent references as we find in the Quran – which involve commands about genocide and war, references to dashing babies against the rocks, commands to kill women and children, etc., but because, statistically, White Christians are much more dangerous to Americans than Muslims.
Don’t believe me? Here are the Top 10 Christian Terrorists of the last 50 years:
1) Timothy McVeigh (who was an active member of the Christian Identity Movement) blew up the Federal Building in Oaklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people -including children who were in the day care center – and injuring over 600 others.
2) Dylann Roof , a Christian young man who was a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church and who entered a black church in Charleston, SC in 2015, and shot 9 churchgoers to death, saying he was there “to shoot black people.”
3) Mark David Chapman, was a huge Beatles fan who, after converting to Christianity, could not get over the fact that John Lennon was guilty of blasphemy – for claiming that his band was “bigger than Jesus” – and ended up murdering him for this infraction in 1980.
4) Eric Robert Rudolph was a Christian terrorist who not only carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, but also attacked an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub because of his Christian beliefs.
5) Robert Lewis Dear , in November 2015 committed the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, in which three were killed and nine injured. He also praised another Christian Terrorist Group, the Army of God, saying that their attacks on abortion clinics were “God’s work”. Dear’s ex-wife said in court documents pertaining to their divorce that Dear “claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic…[and] is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”
6) Mark Anthony Conditt , the 23-year-old responsible for the recent series of bombings in Austin, Texas, was part of a conservative survivalist group called Righteous Invasion of Truth, “a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids, created and named by the kids and their families that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills and water balloon fights.”
7), 8) and 9) – In 1996 three men— Charles Barbee, Robert Berry, and Jay Merelle —were charged with two bank robberies and bombings at the banks, a Spokane newspaper, and a Planned Parenthood office in Washington State. The men were anti-Semitic Christian Identity theorists who believed that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks would hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.
10) Peter James Knight – On 16 July 2001, he walked into the East Melbourne Fertility Clinic, a private abortion provider, carrying a rifle and other weapons and took hostages with the intent to kill all 15 employees of the clinic. Knight, according to the psychiatrist who examined him, “interpreted the Bible in his own unique way and believed in his own brand of Christianity.”
And I could very easily go on to mention other Christian Terrorist groups like:
*Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army, in Uganda.
* Anti-balaka groups in the Central African Republic – Committed several massacres in 2014 against Muslim civilians, killing hundreds and forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country. Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized and forcibly converted to Christianity.
*In China the Eastern Lightning Cult or Church of the Gospel’s Kingdom, is responsible for dozens of riots, attacks, and murders, since 1998.
* Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), a Christian extremist group operating in North East India that 2009, was charged with forcing Hindus to convert at gunpoint. They also desecrated temples by painting crosses on the walls with their blood.
* The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a terrorist group in India that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and has engaged in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs, including forced conversions on Buddhists and other tribespeople.
* The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) is also a Christian Naga nationalist militant group operating in North India.
* The Walisongo school massacre is the name given to a series of attacks by Christian militants on 28 May 2000 upon several predominantly Muslim villages in Indonesia as part of a broader sectarian conflict in the Poso region. Officially the total number killed in the attacks is 165.
I could keep going, but I think you get my point.
So, is Islam a violent religion? Maybe. But Christians are just as violent – if not more so.
Especially if you look at their religious texts.
Which is exactly what a recent project by data analyst and research marketer Tom Anderson aimed to do, and it turns out that, of the three books – The Hebrew Old Testament, the Christian New Testament, and the Islamic Quran – the Old Testament is the most violent text of all, with approximately 5.3% of the text referring to “destruction and killing”. (Note: The Quran was the least violent text with just 2.1% and with the New Testament sandwiched in the middle with 2.8%).
So, according to Anderson’s findings, the popular notion among Westerners that Muslims subscribe to a particularly violent faith is false. Indeed, as he concluded, “of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.”
Maybe it’s Christians we should be most afraid of?
Did you know? According to an FBI analysis of every U.S. terrorist attack between 1980 and 2005, the vast majority of them – over 94% – were carried out by someone who was not a Muslim.
In fact, between 2001 and 2015, more Americans were killed by homegrown right-wing white extremists than by Islamist terrorists, according to a study by New America, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, DC.
What’s more: Since Trump took office, more Americans have been killed by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.
Here are just a few of the attacks that have occurred in 2017:
§ On October 1, 2017, a 64-year-old white man from Nevada opened fire on a crowd of more than 22,000 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing more than 50 and wounding more than 200.
§ In August, a 20-year-old white Nazi sympathizer from Ohio sped his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing a woman and injuring at least 19 others.
§ In June, a 66-year-old white man from Illinois shot at Republican Congress members during an early morning baseball practice, severely wounding several people including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House of Representatives Majority Whip.
§ In March 2017, a 28-year-old white man from Baltimore traveled to New York City with the explicit aim of killing black men. He stabbed 66-year-old Timothy Caughman to death and was charged with terrorism by New York state authorities.
§ In May, a 35-year-old white man from Oregon named Jeremy Joseph Christian began harassing Muslim teenagers on a train in Portland, telling them “We need Americans here!” Two men interceded; Christian then stabbed and killed them both.
Dear Christians: We have a huge blind spot when it comes to violence.
As much as we want to believe that we are a peaceful religion, the painful reality is that we are just as violent – if not more violent – than other religions.
Not only that, we tend to believe that a white Christian terrorist can’t actually exist, Yet this flies in the face of everything that has happened in U.S. History over the last few hundred years.
According to a PRRI survey: “White evangelical Protestants are the most likely (87%) to disown Christian terrorists who claim to be acting in Christianity’s name. However, they are among the least likely (44%) to say the same about terrorists who say they’re Muslim.”
In other words, white evangelicals find it very easy to believe that Muslim terrorists exist, but instantly dismiss – and quickly forget – all the numerous Christian terrorists who have blown up buildings, shot hundreds of people, or driven cars into crowds of people in the name of Christ.
Case in point: There was a time in American History when almost half of the Christians in this country went to war with other Christians over the power to own black people as slaves. This “Civil War” killed 624,000 people, and after the war, many Christians resorted to organized terrorism. As author Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove documents in his book, “Reconstructing the Gospel: Finding Freedom from Slaveholder Religion“, the era of reconstruction was marked by several Christian terrorist attacks, such as the Colfax massacre that took place on Easter Sunday in 1873.
BOTTOM LINE: Christians need to be more concerned with their own violence before they start to worry about the violence of other religions.
What’s more: the violence of a religion or a religious book is no indication of the violence of a person within that religion.
Of course, to proclaim that Christians are violent simply because their Bible contains twice as many violent references as other texts, like the Quran, is an unfair assumption.
In the same way, to proclaim that Islam is a violent religion based on the actions of a very few of them is equally unfair.
To accuse a peaceful Muslim man or woman of something that they are not guilty of – being bloodthirsty and violent – based on a few texts in the Quran is foolish, and un-Christlike.
Islam is as peaceful as those who practice it faithfully. And out of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world today, 99% of them are peaceful.
Can we say the same of Christians?
At the very least, let’s not judge everyone based on the actions of a few.
Or, as one wise man once said, let us “treat others as we ourselves want to be treated.”
Better yet, let’s get the plank out of our own eye before we attempt to take the speck out of our Muslim neighbor’s eye.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
Got this far:
Timothy McVeigh
He was an atheist.
Whoops!
Sad you have to make things up.
Perhaps as the needle was being stuck into his vein, when he knew his god had surely forsaken him, butt...
It is hard to know what he might believe now since McVeigh is dead but Terry Nichols, McVeigh's best friend and convicted co-conspirator, was then and still is a devout evangelical small c christian fundie. They were both motivated by Waco to blow up the OKC federal building. McVeigh was evangelical when he and Nichols blew up all those toddlers in the Murrah Building as payback for the kids killed in Waco. Really, you do not know what you are talking about here. I am from OKC and was blown off my feet by McVeigh's bomb. So, I was paying attention all along...
He was openly an atheist as an adult. His family’s beliefs are irrelevant.
"Science is my religion," Timothy McVeigh... [deleted]
This post is just pure propaganda, falsely portraying a proud atheist as a terrorist motivated by Christianity, just to fuel bigotry.
its sad to see.
Not according to any credible sources I can find. As the article notes at the time of the bombing McVeigh was an active member of The Christian Identity Movement. Show proof or admit defeat...
[Removed]
If you won’t accept that someone who declared openly that “science is my religion.” At the time he was radicalizing was an atheist than there’s really no point to the discussion.
" Its theology promotes a racial interpretation of Christianity"
You do know what "theology" means don't you?
Theology: noun - the study of the nature of God and religious belief. religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.
So you claim they're "not religious" but then link their description which proves they are.
If you want, you can claim they don't share your religious beliefs, but you cannot claim they're not religious and expect to be believed.
He only made that claim in one interview AFAIK, and yet he requested and received last rites from a Catholic priest. Real atheists don't bother with such superstitious nuttery.
Moreover not only was he involved with the Christian Identity movement when he lived in Michiga, but his motivations for the bombing in OKC include acting out the Turner Diaries (a white supremacist Christian apocalyptic novel which promotes a "race war" which begins with a Christian terrorist bombing of FBI headquarters), and the FBI's actions against a wacky Christian sect in Texas.
Only liberal loons are allowed to self-identify. Everyone else is subject to the bigotry on display in this seed.
McVeigh was not an atheist. He wasn't Catholic but he also wasn't an atheist.
he knew most people would find it repulsive
What was repulsive was the picture of the fireman carrying the bloody and lifeless body of little Kaylie Almon from the devastated federal building. The photographer was so deeply affected by the image he captured that he gave up photography.
Slight difference to belonging to the religion and killing in the name of it.
If they all worked at McDonald's they wouldn't be McDonald's terrorists....
unless they walk into an area and say non believers of the Golden Arches must be destroyed. They are not Khafir ... Ronald Ackbar!!!
The "No True Scotsman" false dichotomy works in both directions. Why not just decry all religious extremism?
As an atheist I usually do. Yet it is important to differentiate a terrorist who happens to belong to a religion and a terrorist who is driven by the religion.
Roof for example didn't believe he was driven to kill because his religion commanded it.
The Paris attacks on Hebdo was directly because they believed their religion demanded blasphemy must be punished.
More if you will .. the people bombing abortion centers in the past believed that Christians shouldn't allow abortions to happen.
A critical difference that shouldn't be ignored.
The ones on the list all seem to be driven by their loony superstitions and/or were involved in Christian-based hate groups like the League of the South.
I'm having trouble validating that claim. Please feel free to show how people like roof didnwhat they did based on religious beliefs... or any of them.
I'm not beyond labeling Christian terrorist as an s needed... most if not all of these seem to be terrorists who weren't doing it in the name of Christianity. I am eager to agree with your assessment though if you can show otherwise. IE roof killing in the name of Christianity
edit: to be clear I am fine labeling anyone involved in religion as a representation of that religion. Let's not cherry pick when it applies though. If we are going to label anyone who identified as Christian when need to do the same for those who ID as Muslim as well. There are plenty of honor killings we can add to the list as well.
So you believe that Christianity is like a light bulb that a person turns off and on instead of a factor that shapes their perceptions of life and their god ordained role in it?
Or, maybe, they are a "Sunday" Christian that dresses up, goes to church, does his week's worth of praying and ignores his god and its teachings until another Sunday rolls around?
When I was a Christian, I was a Christian 24/7 because I was taught that my sect's version of Yahweh expected me to be a Christian 24/7.
There are over 30,000 sects of Christianity. It is impossible to say exactly what one sect believes in because there are divisions even within sects. However, it seems doubtful that their religious beliefs were not a factor in the decisions made by these men. There are just a handful of Christian sects that do not support war (death and violence). So if a Christian sect feels it must wage war in the name of their belief system, it is most likely that they had been acting on various scripture where Yahweh directed his followers to vanquish their enemy. Do most of us feel they were sane or justified is another matter entirely.
sure, read up on:
Robert Lewis Dear
he was quite religious and quite motivated by his religious beliefs , he felt he was completely justified doing his crime because he will be " saved " by God and praised other religious groups for doing " God's work "
even the seeded article states :
i don't know many atheists who commit crimes because God wanted them to do it, do you ?
I already explained it pretty clearly. Being a part of something is different than doing something in the name of that thing.
im sure there are plenty of feminist for example that have done things.
mentioned in another thread..... but the Weinstein accuser that actually had raped a kid.. She was a #metoo feminist.
Does that mean she was a feminist extremist raping people?
No. She wasn't doing it in the name of #metoo.
She just happened to be a rapist who was associated with #metoo
If she was rapin people as retribution to #metoo and declared as much
that is a critical difference
it isn't that hard to comprehend
you could take the Islamic or Christian people who do crimes and connect it to other things as well.
if they all shopped at Costco that doesn't make them costco extremists because they were related to it.
if they were killing because they wanted people to only shop at Costco and not sams that would make them a Costco extremist. Pretty straight forward. Not sure why that is so hard.
unless you want to start associating people with groups based on loose ties? I'm fine with that as well
Sure you could name that person.
yet that wasn't what I asked was it?
i asked for validation that the above list of the seed were motivated by their religion as skrekk claimed.
Showing one person who was doesn't really fit that criteria that I asked.
If you want we can start naming attacks that are easily verified to be religious based? I'm game. Heads up I have about 20 Islamic attacks over the past two years alone just off the top of my head. How many Christian ones can you name? Again... I'm atheist. So it doesn't hurt my feelings. Religion is a disease. However currently on disease is the flu and the other is Ebola
Did you even read the article?
you asked:
so " or any of them " didn't refer to anyone on that list now ? gee, looks like it did .... and it was validated, read the links .
so now " God " isn't a religious term anymore nor was it derived from any religion or benefitted from any religion ? interesting....
i absolutely showed you 2 examples and they fit the criteria - one believed he was saved by God and could do whatever he pleased . Do you know any atheists who claim to be " saved " ? is being " saved " a religious concept or not , in this case ? do you know any atheists who do anything because " God " told them to ?
you can name as many Christian ones as you can Muslim ones - they are both equally violent and i'm pretty sure that's the point of the seed so thanks for pointing it out to everyone. Both are diseases and exactly equal , unless you want to forget the history of Christianity ? gee, for someone who claims to be an atheist - you are spending an awful lot of time defending Christianity over Islam yet still claiming it won't hurt your feelings .
Yes I did. And all it had was "these people went to church" for the most part. If they killed in the name of their religion it should be pretty easy to substantiate. Why not just show that instead of playing games? Do you view yourself as one who believes in facts easily verified? If so then just verify those claims. Pretty straightforward. If I wanted to prove the Charlie hebdo attacks were due to religious extremists killing in the name of their religion that is pretty easy to verify. Why is it so hard for you to do the same with those others on that list?
Total BS. Apart from Conditt the motivational link to Christian extremism is clear.
Oops. You are right. I missed that example was on the above list. That one is correct. The majority in that list were not killing in the name of Christianity. apologies. I missed you did in fact name someone on the list.
and yes.. I am atheist as I've said for years even on NV. Do you know many religious people who claim to be on believers.
While historically I can view all religions as equally violent and dangerous... I refuse to view them as equal under modern times due to some form of white guilt many in the modern left view them as. Islam is currently the biggest threat world wide to modern freedoms. It is a cancer and many in the left seem happy to defend it under some notion that it is defending it against white people. If it was Christians bombing people and running people over with trucks several times a year in the name of Christianity the lef twould be with me condemning it.
islam and Christianity share the same values... but for some reason many on the left seem quick to defend Islam for throwing gay people off roofs and stoning women for being raped... and shooting up a concert to appease child rapist allah.
Mans by some reason I mean "it isn't white people"....
call bullshit fairy tails out where it is due. Islam shouldn't be above criticism for its BS.
christianity is free to criticize already. Islam and Judaism seems to have some liberal protection for some reason. As an atheist it is obvious
then explain how food was motivated by Christianity?
some of the others are a stretch and they try to tie it in because they went to a church... but others are really a stretch. Roof could be explained through white supremacy..... Blaming Christianity though???
Food?
.
Roof got involved with white supremacy through the League of the South which is part of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement.
If you are going to reach that far to label someone a Christian extremist then don't get upset when people reach to label someone a Muslim extremist to a BLM extremist for example. Plenty of black people shooting places up who were involved in BLM protests... does that mean they were BLM extremists just because they were affiliated with them?
Context matters. Motivation matters. Associations doesn't equate to motivating factors
The Christian extremist motivations seem pretty clear. Which of these faithful Christian terrorists are you disputing?
That's the point: we shouldn't be stretching at all.
Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of what they claim as their basis. We should be united in our horror and resolve, against terrorism.
No. I think identifying what motivates someone in an attack is important. if you ignore that you aren't standing against terrorism IMO.
Well lets unpack it one by one.
how was roof killing in the name of his religion?
edit: just saw the league of the south part above. I hadn't heard that before and I am having trouble finding any connection. Link?
Roofs manifesto made it clear what his driving force was
Certainly.
The question I think the seed is asking is whether religion is "what motivates" or whether the person's motivation is elsewhere and religion is only an excuse.
I can agree to that. It will be a case by case basis though.
Roof has said that his first exposure to these groups was from the League of the South, which is an explicitly Christian Identity white supremacist group. That's also where he got the idea for a "race war" which is what his manifesto was about. So he was in fact acting out the agenda of the LoS.
By the way while the LoS might be fairly small it's rather influential. Alabama's former supreme court chief justice hosted meetings for the LoS at his foundation for Christian sharia law.
no problem, people overlook things at times, it happens to everyone - myself included.
i lean more towards agnostic (to simplify it).
yes Islam is definitely guilty of many violent crimes worldwide, i agree - but don't let Christianity off the hook, do a little research. I view them as completely equal from history to current modern times - especially in terms of violence done in the name of the religion.
i think you should look a bit further into it - i personally haven't seen many on the "left" defend Islam for thrown homosexuals off of roofs and stoning women, i have seen many on the "left" defend against discrimination against non terrorist Muslims since it seems many on the "right" like to view any Muslim as a horribly violent terrorist. Just my personal opinion.
i agree - both should be on the same level.
I think it's a bit more involved as to the discrimination involved, but that's my personal opinion. I personally don't belong to the "left" or the "right" so i honestly wouldn't factually know.
The difference is "belonging" to a religion can be passive and doesn't require deep faith or conviction, while "killing in the name of a religion" requires such faith a person would risk their lives and those of others to display it.
Not all Christians are bad people, the majority are good people. The same argument could be made for every religion, including Muslims, yet there are those on the right that every single Muslim on the planet are plotting, RIGHT NOW, to blow up your house.
This article illustrates quite well that there are bad elements in all religions.
Nice strawman. I don't know anybody who thinks "every single" Muslim is plotting against us.
No one cited in this article is actually a Christian. The term is used so loosely that it has no connection to he standards set by Jesus and the Apostles.
nor can the author actually cite a single verse calling for or condoning violence by Christians, because there are.
”Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?"
And He said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from,' then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.' But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.' Luke 13:22-27
John 8:31(amplified Bible)
So Jesus said to those Jews who had believed in Him, If you abide in My word [hold fast to My teachings and live in accordance with them], you are truly My disciples.
"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." John 15:5-6
So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:33
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 10:37-39
You mean like the right calling everyone that does't agree with everything they say a, "liberal"?
Spin if you like, they are Christians, you don' get to say they aren't just because you don't want to admit they are members of the same cult you are. Like I just posted above, there are good and bad people in all religions. It's arrogant presumption to think that 'YOUR' religion is exempt from having bad people in it.
That's life, accept it.
[deleted]
Your argument begins with a No True Scotsman fallacy. As long as they believe in a triune God and Jesus then they are definitely Christians, even if they may not agree with your preferred sect.
Absolutely wrong. The devil and demons know that Jesus is savior and God but it doesn’t make them Christians. Nor have I advocated for some “preferred sect”. I have quoted the standards given by Jesus and the Apostles
your post concludes that Jesus was either a liar or wrong with the standards He set.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. 2 John 1:9-11
"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." John 15:5-6
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 10:37-39
I like how your buddy Jesus is like a magical but clueless battery:
You just doubled down on the No True Scotsman fallacy. That is the opinion of your sect, but your sect does not create the definition for what is a Christian, nor is it the prototypical Christian sect, despite your beliefs. Demons don't worship God or Jesus.
You’re the one engaged in fallacy. I’ve posited no sectarian statements, only the words of Jesus and the Apostles defining what makes someone’s genuine Christian. The fact that you purposely choose to ignore the facts means one can only conclude you are not interested in the facts, only your own anti-Christian OPINION
Your preferred interpretation of those words is not the only possible interpretation, so your beliefs are not prototypical or definitive of what it is to be a Christian.
Answering the atheist challenge to prove God exists
Belief in God is a reasoned conclusion based upon a review of objective evidence
Atheism is an irrational, emotionally driven belief system that denies objective evidence
We’ve had this argument multiple times. My answer remains the same
the first evidence is the earth which defies statistical probability (scientists put it at 700 quintillion to one). Only irrational thinking ignores or rationalizes away this fact
the second evidence is Jesus who is God appearing to mankind in a body of flesh.
Simon Greenleaf who is the father of the rules of evidence in this country and a former atheist reached this conclusion based upon a challenge from his students at Harvard
Atheism is Irrational
Faith based upon reason
The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity
by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery
http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/articles/bissart1.htm"> .
History, Law, and Christianity
Of which there is literally none, not one shred of evidence proving the existence of 'God'. Why do you think the founding fathers penned the 1st Amendment the way they did? Because it's insanity to pass laws based on something there is LITERALLY no proof of.
Where is the objective evidence to support the existence of any god?
False. Atheism is the default stance when there is no objective evidence of god. If you had proof of god you would not need faith or religious belief because you would have reproducible proof. Obviously, that does not exist.
It has always been wrong.
Your argument is the watchmaker's fallacy (argument from design) because the Earth can and does exist without a creator.
How is not believing in something that there is no proof of in the first place, "irrational"?
That's like saying, "Not believing in 3 foot tall pink elephants with wings is irrational".
I don't believe in 3 foot tall winged pink elephants because the ones that I saw were 1-meter tall, were polka-dotted and they had both fins and gills.
You link the article you claim proves this but maybe you didn't actually read it.
"Atheism is demonstrably, certainly, and definitively irrational… If, by “atheism”, you mean an assertion of absolute certainty that there is no God or gods; what my friend Peter would refer to as his “Gnostic Atheism”.
It goes on, "there are 100% rational versions of atheism as well; not agnosticism, full atheism."
I've seen this discussed many times here, the difference between a gnostic atheist (one who claims certainty that God/gods do not exist) and Agnostic atheism (one sees no evidence of God/gods thus currently doesn't believe in any, but isn't so close minded as to deny any possibility of something in the universe we might define as a God).
"Atheism is an irrational, emotionally driven belief system that denies objective evidence"
How can someone deny "objective evidence" that doesn't exist? If you have "objective evidence" of God, please do present it. So far I've only heard subjective evidence, "God answered my prayer, so I know he exists..." etc.
Objective: adjective -
You're living in the past. Decades ago, before we were able to confirm numerous star systems with plentiful planets, that was the statistical probability.
"When I first began teaching big history, almost 30 years ago, most scientists seemed pretty sure that life was extraordinarily rare. And it might be that it existed only on planet earth. But science moves on, and today I suspect most astrobiologists, the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life."
"First, in the 1990s, astronomers learnt how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems, so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live. Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed. And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily. Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments, inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/06/19/what-is-the-statistical-probability-of-life-on-other-planets/#f9859506fdf6
"the second evidence is Jesus who is God appearing to mankind in a body of flesh"
Okay, now you're just being silly. First, there is very thin evidence that there was a teacher/prophet around that time who may fit the description, but the fact is that's because the prophecy about the Messiah arriving during Roman occupation was widespread with many who claimed to be "Jesus". Even Josephus, who believers like to claim as proof of Christ's existence, didn't live during the supposed Christ's life time, and along with mentioning Jesus in his writings also talks about Hercules as being a real soldier who visited the troops and Josephus even claims to be the Christ himself.
But even if you could prove a man who fits that description existed, you have ZERO evidence of his divinity.that's a rather arrogant comment, as if you have any authority to decide who really is or really isn't a Christian - because that would be speaking for God.. which i hear is a no-no for the religious in your sect and many others.
I think we should be asking Is any religion a religion of peace? I willing to bet that every religion everywhere has used violence as a means to an end, the time and scale of it may vary but it has happened
While that's true it's still worth remembering that in the US the # 1 terrorist threat comes from Christian extremists.
Newp. The vast majority of conflicts thought history has been caused be religion. In the 1390's, it was Christians that rounded up and executed 80% of the Jews in Europe because they said the Jews were the ones responsible for the Black Plague.
Did you know? According to an FBI analysis of every U.S. terrorist attack between 1980 and 2005, the vast majority of them – over 94% – were carried out by someone who was not a Muslim.
Well, since we're talking about religion-- let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute. What percentage of the population of the U.S. is Muslim?
There are many more atheist Americans than there are Muslim Americans.
.
then explain how food was motivated by Christianity?
some of the others are a stretch and they try to tie it in because they went to a church... but others are really a stretch. Roof could be explained through white supremacy..... Blaming Christianity though???
Most white Supremacists are Protestant Christians. The Klan has strong opinions about Catholics and Jews.
That still is different than religion being the motivating factor. If a klansman killed someone black are they killing because Jesus told them to or because they believe they are racially superior?
you could ask gang members if they were Christian and I'm sure quite a few would say they are. Doesn't mean Christianity was the driving factor. If you can take religion out of the equation and the attack would have still happened based on other factors... it wasn't the religion
The Klan and others believe that blacks and others are inferior to whites because of the curse of Cain. It's almost as if you are trying to defend racism. Obviously, religion is a major factor in the Klan because they burn the cross as a sign of their power. These people aren't agnostics.
.
So the whole point of this appears to be to attack people who are critical of violent acts and shame them into silence. I can't respect that and you see it a lot from the PC Left. They don't like it when someone says something bad about a protected group, so they look for something to criticize in the critic, and then they declare that the critic has lost the right to criticize.
It might even be a fair attack on hypocrisy (which I would support) if Christians or their scripture, to use this example, were actually endorsing violence, but they're not, by and large. There's no teaching from Jesus that I am aware of that could support any of the violent acts listed here. A person may call themselves "Christian" and commit acts of violence but that's different from citing scripture as support for your violence. That's much harder to do if you're a Christian. Islamic terrorists do it all the time and Muhammad was a violent person who commanded his followers to commit acts of violence.