My Magical Button to Delete Atheism

Richard Dawkins is a pretty good scientist.

 

What's your point?

 

When you push your "magical button" do you get a rush of relief?

 

And Michael Behe is a pretty bad scientist.

 

Idiocy is flowing freely today

 

Dam right.

 

Intelligence and Christianity- two words combined that don't make sense.

 

Do you really want to go with the loss of life angle?

You're joking.

I remember reading a book that discussed a similar solution to the societal ailments caused by a minority. You may have heard of it.

 

Sure. Do you?

Oh yes, Dawkins not Darwin was the original creator of evolution. Hitchens is actually a Ph.D level historian. And Wells a learned archeologict of the Jones type.

So tell me, what do groups like this add to our aociety other than cynicism and derision?

http://www.atheists.org/

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

http://militaryatheists.org/

Yes, the world would be a terrible place if we lost the dogmatic ritualized criticism of .... every religion on earth. I mean why bother even trying to adopt a platform of logical based skepticism and required rebuttal? Who needs that when you can just scream?

Is that what Hitler wrote? I just wish the Jews would go away? Is that what is in Mein Kampf? Or are atheists so thin skinned that they take criticism of their organized criticism and poor behavior to mean that their detractors think we should round them up and put them into gas chambers?

I mean that is a reasonabel response

Has anyone seen the atheists super victim cloak?

Need we remind you that such quips are just a little fallacious? Strawman? I can;t think of anything good about atheism actually means - stuff them all in to gas chambers and murder them. Nice.

 

I don't think atheists believe in magic.

 

Stalin was in a seminary before he became a Communist. It is entirely plausible that very, very little would change if Stalin never became an atheist.

The library of Alexandria would still be destroyed by Christians, the great statues of Buddha in Afghanistan would still be destroyed by the Taliban, and thousands of children would still be put into ovens by the very religious Third Reich.

I could say much the same with religion.

Consider the religious British Empire that killed hundreds of millions of people over the course of its history, or the religious Leopold II who killed ~20 Congolese people.

Turns out it's not strictly religion or lack thereof that makes people horrible: it's human nature. We tend to be bastards regardless of what we believe or don't.

 

Well, if that is the case, then he most likely winds up on the 'white' side and loses. No atheism - no Stalin. Additionally, no atheism, and the first undermining of the Russian Revolutions cannot happen - the suppression of the church and persecution of the clergy. Finally, as a Christian, there would have been people to refer him to a standard - the Bible - rather than having him wrapped in an insular cloak of paranoia that fed further needless purges and death.

We make our choices, and our choices have consequences.

Ghengis Khan would not have shattered the east, Attila the Hun would not have killed millions, Moa would not have killed millions, North Korea would be free, Cuba would be free, and teh French Revolution would not have been quite so bloody.

And tell me, where were the atheists and their moral terpitude when religious violence happens?

Oh, I see, they are sitting back and hurling accusations at religion! Not defending their record, but finding fault at the drop of hat for religion. British imperialism was .... driven by religion not geo-politics? Hitler and his minions were driven by ... religions .... not his megolomania or a desire for revenge after WWI?

That is not entirely true. MOST people are usually quite good people. What is at issues here is leadership. THis is one area that religion has a clear one up on atheism. Our Holy Book is filled with history and appeals for wisdom in leadership. The trials of failure and success, of necessity and butchery when leaders stray. Utimately, as man makes his choices throughout the Bible, these are either pleasing to God or not, and when they are not - bad things happen to the Nation as a result. That basis gives religious people who are serious about leadership a lesson in geo-politics, and further study in history and culture can refine that base even further.

What does atheism offer? The Hitchens school of castigation and blame? The excusal of anything bad an atheist does? And that creates horrific problems in leadership, for it creates leaders who continuously blame others and are unable to honestly assess their own motives.

You can see that happening when you take something like the 3rd Reich, which is a Germanic/Roman thing BTW, and simply dump into the Chris Hitchens school of castigation and blame. What were almost all the citizens of Europe that Hitler attacked? Why religious! What did he do with the Catholics and Protestants in his own country? Why divide them up and use them as spies and agents to ensure neither could resist .... him. What did the Reich do too men like Saint Kolbe? Why, murder him of course.

Seriously, do you think people need to hear atheists continuously harpoing about the failure of religion? When anyone who knows history knows that these constant harping by atheists is deeply flawed?

 

Well, if that is the case, then he most likely winds up on the 'white' side and loses. No atheism - no Stalin. Additionally, no atheism, and the first undermining of the Russian Revolutions cannot happen - the suppression of the church and persecution of the clergy. Finally, as a Christian, there would have been people to refer him to a standard - the Bible - rather than having him wrapped in an insular cloak of paranoia that fed further needless purges and death.

We make our choices, and our choices have consequences.

Ghengis Khan would not have shattered the east, Attila the Hun would not have killed millions, Moa would not have killed millions, North Korea would be free, Cuba would be free, and teh French Revolution would not have been quite so bloody.

And tell me, where were the atheists and their moral terpitude when religious violence happens?

Oh, I see, they are sitting back and hurling accusations at religion! Not defending their record, but finding fault at the drop of hat for religion. British imperialism was .... driven by religion not geo-politics? Hitler and his minions were driven by ... religions .... not his megolomania or a desire for revenge after WWI?

That is not entirely true. MOST people are usually quite good people. What is at issues here is leadership. THis is one area that religion has a clear one up on atheism. Our Holy Book is filled with history and appeals for wisdom in leadership. The trials of failure and success, of necessity and butchery when leaders stray. Utimately, as man makes his choices throughout the Bible, these are either pleasing to God or not, and when they are not - bad things happen to the Nation as a result. That basis gives religious people who are serious about leadership a lesson in geo-politics, and further study in history and culture can refine that base even further.

What does atheism offer? The Hitchens school of castigation and blame? The excusal of anything bad an atheist does? And that creates horrific problems in leadership, for it creates leaders who continuously blame others and are unable to honestly assess their own motives.

You can see that happening when you take something like the 3rd Reich, which is a Germanic/Roman thing BTW, and simply dump into the Chris Hitchens school of castigation and blame. What were almost all the citizens of Europe that Hitler attacked? Why religious! What did he do with the Catholics and Protestants in his own country? Why divide them up and use them as spies and agents to ensure neither could resist .... him. What did the Reich do too men like Saint Kolbe? Why, murder him of course.

Seriously, do you think people need to hear atheists continuously harpoing about the failure of religion? When anyone who knows history knows that these constant harping by atheists is deeply flawed?

 

Just like Ivan the Terrible? Yeah, Ivan Grozny wasn't a paranoid, brutal, genocidal monster.

Temujin was a fervant believer in Tengri; he followed the example of Tengri, and as the earth has but one sky, so men should have but one ruler.

Attila's religion is mostly unknown, but it seems to have been a precursor to the Tengriism that Temujin would later believe.

Yeah, Chiang Kai-Shek or some other petty Chinese warlord who came forth from the chaos of the Warlord Period would have taken over and killed millions of Chinese instead.

Debatable point. It might instead be under Japanese occupation, as there would have been less impetus for war in Europe, and thus Japan may have been content to extort the Netherlands government for resources from Indonesia. Who knows?

"Freedom" here meaning "under the thumb of a dictator that is supported by the US." Remember, even JFK said that Castro was justified in ousting the Batista government.

Not necessarily. There were a lot of Catholics involved in the Terror.

Depends on the atheist. Some try to do what they can to stop it, others don't. There is no unifying trait that atheists exhibit except "don't believe in a deity/dieties." Objectivists and Communists agree on almost nothing except that there is no deity.

Oh hai, same thing can be applied to Stalinism, Maoism, and Juche, among others!

The Third Reich was motivated by religion, too, you know. Some unusual hybrid of new-style Odinism and Christianity. It usually depended on the specific Nazi, but most were more than happy to give religious justification to their irrational hatreds of Jews and atheists and homosexuals. It wasn't for no reason that "God with us" was emblazoned on all their belt buckles.

 

How many trillions of people were killed by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and Hindus, throughout the entirety of mans history again? Yet, I know this, and still have very meaningful and enjoyable conversations with friends and family members who are Theists, and don't use that against them. Why? Because retarded association fallacies don't do anything.

Because they're the only Atheists ever.

Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Milton Friedman, etc. But what did those dummies ever do for society, right?

Militant Christians like you don't want us to 'just go away'. You want us to suffer, the mere thought of us burning in your hell gives you a raging hard on. One instance of one of us failing at something, no matter how big, or how small, is placed on display, and turned into a magnificent spectacle to be laughed at and ridiculed, while you miss your own short comings (Pretty sure your Christ had something to say about that behavior). You don't want us to 'just go away', you want to compartmentalize us, you want us to be good little boys and girls who silently sit in the corner while the Theists run the show. Not happening, and just know that filth like you is the reason why we have to make our voices heard.

Perfect example, you can't debate, so you resort to childish insults and snide remarks. Is this the part where you start beginning every post with "father of lies", as well?

Because you don't try, nor do you care. Run back to your hateful little hole and explode with self gratification for standing up to that big bad Goliath that makes up 11.9% of the entire human population.

 

Do you see th trend here? You ignoe anything good religion does to ... what?

Pope Leo I was not a good Christian Leader? Woodrow Wislon who brought the world the concept of collective governance and global unalienable rights as a basis for consensus based policy? Terrible stuff huh?

The question is as much about what atheists have wrong, and you have MORE THAN YOUR fair share, but what have you done right?

Well ... ????

Oh, so he believed in God did he? That makes what he did fine does it?

Attila's religion is unknown, but you are certain it was something eh?

Have to blame religion for those actions as well do we?

What does that have to do with the Cultural Revolution?

We know because we know Japans Imperial plans and ambitions.

Do you see the same trend I see? Anything wrong is religion no matter how far fetched, and any old excuse will do to avoid responsibility for atheism?

So, the proper thing to upon overthrowing a dictator is establish a dictatoriship is it?

The previous one was wrong, but this one, being atheist, is right??

See the trend?

Yes, as victims. The Jacobins were natoriously anti-Catholic, and among their most persecuted victims were priests and nuns.

I guess we should blame Catholics for this diest action as well?

So where is your Saint Kolbe?

Then I suggest you read the historical record. Stalin in particular is aced with anti-religious propoganda. There is no denial of it.

Religion, in the historical record, is at best, a tool for use by Hitler. He employed atheism as a tool as well. To blame Hitler on religion or to ignore Stalins atheism is simply to avoid history itself.

No it wasn't. It was motivated by the Nazi Party. Without the Nazi Party, there is no Third Reich. The number of Nazi's who held aloft a sign that said God with us is immensely small. There are just as mant referrences to atheism in Hilters hysterics as religion. The closest ideology to Nazism is called social darwinism - not religion or atheism.

Perhaps if, like Chris Hitchens, you were not keen to blame religion for everything at the drop of a hat - a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one - you would read the historical record for facts.

Religion does indeed have its historical failings, Hilter is not one of them. Atheism too has its historical failues, Hilter is not one of them. Stalin most definitely IS.

And the question, when one looks out and sees political atheism almost universeally associated with severe oppression is ... what gives?

Blaming religion does not excuse atheist of its own responsibility. The fact that religion has failed does not absolve an honest atheist from the duty of examining his beliefs and accurately applying solutions to valid critcism.

Is atheism an authoritarian political concept? That rests on the merits of atheism - not religion.

 

You mean like fallacious claiming that religion has killed trilliions?

Yep, I murdered 15 atheists just last night.

Are we supposed to treat this bigoted lie as if it is the result of education?

They are the ones who lead.

Albert Einstein was not an atheist. He was Jewish, and the only part he could not fathom was that God would care about us as individuals. Is that YOUR atheism?

Here is Edison's clarification: "You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Views_on_politics.2C_religion_and_metaphysics

Nice to see atheists will claim the mantel of others to excuse themselves.

You are a sock puppet aren't you? Which one are you? Which previous banned atheist are you? Are you Wyzaard? Stroll? Which one?

Well wnough of that. Sock puppets with a chip on their shoulder are not worth the effort. You should have taken you first banning as a sign.

 

Your quips are only so much dissembling, shifting the cause to blame on your ideological opponants. To say "catholics were involved" for instance, hardly proves anything since the Catholic Church, a 2000 year institution, has been dominant in Europe through most of recorded history.

What you say here about the Germans also is based on a false premise, that elements of religion in an evil movement means that religion is to blame and religion is therefore evil. Germans have been a deeply Christian society with both Catholic and Protestant piety inextricably woven in. Though there were many who opposed or opted out of the National Socialist movement for religious reasons, those who joined sought religious justification because they were raised that way. But the movement itself was utterly godless. And contrary to oft touted misinformation, Hitler was neither a Christian nor a Jew and harbored deep contempt for both. The movement was driven by humanistic ascensionism, the belief that mankind was intrinsically self sufficient and could bring about its own salvation.

We say that atheists killed 120 million people in the 20th century because at the heart of all these regimes was utter godlessness. And when men believe that God doesn't exist and we are accountable only to ourselves, no extent of wickedness is out of his grasp.

 

Sophistry.

The cause of the destruction is uncertain.

I think atheists would enjoy the destruction of religious monuments.

Nonsense. You Mean Hitler Wasn’t A Priest?

Many British leaders of the imperial era had read Gibbon or Voltaire or d'Holbach or Laplace or Thomas Huxley and hated religion.

Evidence?

Evidence he was religious?

 

Think again.

Look Who's Irrational Now

 

So Ms Hemingway is irrational. How is this significant, given her religious bent?

 

Atheism has nothing to see in the movements mentioned. All them had another origin, the freedom of the people. And talk about the French Revolution how something evil is dangerous. There was terror years, but didn't have any relation with atheism.

And to add the religion is behind millions of deaths, the religion killed and robbed children in all dictatorships of South America. The catholicism fought the democracy in Spain, and we had a religious regime durig 40 years.

If you eliminate the atheism, freedom of the mind, you leave slaves of the people. Thanks to the secularism the people is more free. Religion is oppresive, represive and totalitarian, and more the religious institutions like the catholic, or the muslim. Thanks to religion or in his number we have millions of deaths, directly in his name.

In name of atheism there are 0 deaths. The deaths have been caused in name of other causes, for the freedom of the people, or for the communism,... Or whatever, but never in name of atheism. Just is a coincidence that some people and murderer was atheist.

 

I was dissuading people of the notion that religion automatically made people better than atheists.

Hitler was still most definitely religious, though.

Anyway, you seem to lack any sort of reading comprehension, given that I mentioned earlier that humans engaging in evil actions is a result of basal human nature, not necessarily religion or lack thereof.

The same is true even when they believe in YHWH. The genocide of the Native Americans, the enforced famines of India, and the slaughter of coreligionists in Europe for the purpose of god.

 

Atheists have promoted their ideology, attacked those that disagree, even killed those that disagree.

One example:

New Reports Tell of Executions, Torture of Christians in North Korea
New reports from former North Korean eye-witnesses indicate that the totalitarian government tortures, executes Christians and people related to the faith.

How can you possibly suggest that no atheist is acting out of his atheist convictions? For many this is a deeply held belief on a matter of importance.

Really?

Can you at least admit that atheists have killed tens of millions?

According to [B]The Black Book of Communism[/B] about 94 million were killed by atheist Communists in only 80 years!

 

Emphasis mine.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods.
Atheists don't have "convictions," we have a request for evidence of gods.

So how do you propose a person who doesn't believe in gods kills people on the "conviction" that he doesn't believe in gods?