Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Corey Gil-Shuster" channel.

BonesTheCat: yes atheists do bad things. But atheism do not in any way or form condone them. In fact, atheism doesn't even deal with what the individual should or should not do. Atheism is not an ideology but a perception. Atheism doesn't strive for anything in particular. It had no "goals" or justified methods of living. Religion on the other hand does condone things like murder, slavery, sexual assault, war, genocide etc. It's easy to find hundreds, if not thousands of passages saying this in every "holy book". And religious people all run around saying that religion shouldn't be held responsible for such heinous ideology. Therein lies the difference between atheism amd religion.
12
And as to Stalin and General Mao being "atheist". Let's get something straight: they didn't kill anyone "in the name of atheism". They killed in the name of communism. While communism may include elements of atheism, atheism includes no elements of communism whatsoever. Communism in itself was spread as a religion in every part of the world where it was active (the cult worship around it's leaders is a testament to that). And, their death tolls don't even come near the murders that Christianity, Islam and Judaism has achieved and still continue to achieve, while communism is largely dead.
5
Actually, they have. Just because you didn't bother to look it up, or you don't understand their explanations doesn't mean they aren't there. Also, even if they had "no idea" of where atoms came from, not knowing where something came from doesn't prove that there must be a "creator" who deliberately "made" them. You don't ask "who turned on a giant fan?" when you notice the wind outside. No one "created" the wind. It's a random physical phenomenom that happens due to varying differences in pressure and temperature. If wind can form this way due to external forces like heat and pressure, then there's nothing saying that a universe can't form in the same manner, whether we know which natural forces are involved or not.
4
no scientist claims that atoms where the "first things out there"...
4
Actually, the ultra orthodox jew in the video had one of the most sensible opinions and mindset.
3
+Rudiger: No I am right. What you just described is a case of self-defense, which I already covered. If you kill due to a belief that your life is in danger, you kill for pretty much one of the only justified reasons to kill there is. Also convincing someone their life is in danger is not easy. Convincing a religious person that their "faith" or "holy mission" is in danger on the other hand is evidently one of the most simple things to do on this earth. And as for your analysis of hypocrite leaders not living up to their religious laws, thereim lies the nest big problem with religious people: the slavelike obedience to religious authority figures and a general culture of not to question religious authority figures or religious doctrines in general. Atheists/seculars are bred on a regimen to question EVERYTHING. In fact, in most of thier cases, questioning religious dogma was what made them secular in the first place.
3
Hehe, "child murderers" that's a funny one. 'cause it's not like Hamas ever killed any children during their terrorist attacks. XD
3
@Itchyface: bullshit. Religion has a historically higher killcount than even nazism ane communism combined. Justifying murder is infinitely more easy to do in religion than it is within secular ideals. The religious doesn't value human life at all. The religious consider this life to be nothing more than a mere test. A simulation to gague the individials morals that is to determine which eternal afterlife the individual is supposed to be sent to. It's very easy for any religious person to commit the vilest murders and atrocities if they are led to believe that it is "God's will" and that they will somehow be "rewarded" after death. Likewise they place little value on the lives of others. Killing a percieved "enemy" of the religion equates to sending them to a "just reward". Sacrificing a fellow member of the religion is also excused because the religious delude themselves into thinking that the sacrificed person will go to "paradise" after death anyway, so little harm is done. When you are of a secular mindset, death is permanent. You only get one life, as do everyone else. Taking the life of another is pretty much the ultimate "sin" you can commit because you are robbing another human being of their consciousness forever. This is also a fate you do not wish someone else to inflict on you, so you are more likely to develop a set of morals according to the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Only in the most extreme circumstance would a secular person excuse the killings of their fellow man, such as in self-defense or in defense of someone being attacked or if the death of one equates to maximum harm reduction. So you're clearly talking out of your ass. You're the one needing an excuse to act morally. You're the one needing some "divine punishment" not to kill other people. We, the seculars and atheists develop morals on our own, without a need of some fairytale for adults to intimidate us into making moral choices.
2
Rüdiger Rabe Every creation (an item formed by deliberate act) may have a creator. But so far none of you religious muppets have presented any evidence that the universe was CREATED. Just because something exists it doesn't mean that someone or something must have "created" it. And your idea that nothing can exist from nothing is actually false. Professor Stephen Hawking among others has actually proven that something can be created out of nothing. In fact, it happens all the time with particles in the sub-atomic level, where certain particles have been observed to vanish from existence only to reappear later. If the sub-atomic particles can exhibit these traits, then a universe compressed to a small enough size (which we have evidence for that the universe actually was at a certain point in time, since we have observed that thw universe is continually expanding outwards from a central point) could do the same. But please, go on ahead and believe in your infantile sky-daddy instead. I'm sure that'll lead you to "enlightenment". But you should seriously refrain from trying to teach me and other scientifically minded people like me about "logic", since you clearly have no grasp of it.
2
Daniil Ponomarenko: Quite the contrary. Atheist are about as freeminded as you can be. We'll accept any theory regarding the origin of humanity, the universe or whatever. All that we require is that you present evidence to back it up. So far you have failed to do so. Therefore we don't buy into your spiritual nonsense which you take on "faith" and nothing more. And you can't really blame us for finding you quite comical. You're basically the suckers of the world. Easy to fool. If I wanted the contents of your wallet, I guess I could just say: "Give me your money, total stranger! I'll immediately give it back to you. Just have faith." :) An atheist on the other hand wouldn't be so easy to fool. We require evidence that we'll actually get the money back before parting with it.
2
Daniil Ponomarenko: Actually no, it isn't "countered" by your silly little question. Because you don't use evidence to prove that something doesn't exist, evidence is only useful to prove that something does exist. Also, you're the one claiming god does exist. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not us who question your claims. You have to prove that he does exist. We do not have to prove he doesn't, by the simple merit that he has never shown himself to us and thus we logicslly assume he doesn't exist. Until proven otherwise of course. Now the sick part about religious people is that you don't know he exists, and you can't prove it either. But you assume he does for no reason. It's no different than assuming that unicorns or leprechauns exists, despite the fact that no one has ever seen them or any kind of traces of them. You belong in a mental institution. Believing in some mystical, fictional superbeing is real, despite having no evidence, and that it tells you how to live your life is basically the same as being afflictws by schizophrenia.
1
Daniil Ponomarenko: The feeling is mutual.
1
@nledaig Incorrect. You are refering to socialist regimes. And socialist regimes persecuted religion, not because belief in the non material "offended it", but because all leaders of every socialist regime in history has never been too keen on the population having any belief in a different authority than themselves. But this totalitarian mindset is a product of socialist ideals. Not atheist ones. In fact, socialism is very similar to theocratic regimes like that. Theocracies always violently persecute followers of other religions than the state religion, like the Jews does against the palestinian muslims in Israel, or what the muslims do against christians in other parts of the middle east, or what christians did for nearly a millenium in Europe to pagans and jews.
1
who said that killing and conquest must be evil? Every society on earth has done this at some point in history. Conquest (and the deaths resulting from it) are only as "evil" as the society you're trying to build through it. War and conquest will always be ugly, and it is something that everyone will engage in at some point. The way to judge which is evil and which is good is looking at what is attempted to be made. Looking at all the current islamic societies that are run by islamic theocrats it's pretty fucking obvious that their goal with the killing and conquest is a rather nasty one for everyone except muslim men (women will perpetually be treated like cattle with no rights, atheists will be murdered as "apostates", young girls will be molested by old men as child brides through forced marriages etc.) Then we take a look at the society that Israel has created for it's citizens where women aren't perpetually treated as cattle, where it isn't the norm to fuck 9 year old girls, and where it is perfectly permissble to be an atheist, and it becomes abundantly clear which party is the evil one and which isn't. So no, conquest and killing per se is not "evil". As the old addage goes: you can't make an omelet, without breaking a few eggs. The people you need to watch out for are the ones breaking your eggs with the goal of making a turd sandwich.
1