It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Atheism just an Antichristian Religion?

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Don't assume anything about him. This was cutting edge thought at the time. It has more to do with the evolution of the human race, and how 'morality' has developed -- with and without various stimuli. It's more about anthropology than anything else.

Macro social study.
Basic Wiki Summary (is accurate)

Summary
Wright explores many aspects of everyday life through evolutionary biology. He provides Darwinian explanations for human behavior and psychology, social dynamics and structures, as well as people's relationships with lovers, friends, and family.

Wright borrows extensively from Charles Darwin's better-known publications, including On the Origin of Species (1859), but also from his chronicles and personal writings, illustrating behavioral principles with Darwin's own biographical examples.

Reception
The New York Times Book Review chose The Moral Animal as one of the 12 best books of 1994; it was a national bestseller and has been published in 12 languages. Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould criticized the book in The New York Review of Books.[1] Anthropologist Melvin Konner called the book "delightful".[2]


So, no, he is not just talking about what Sam Harris discusses. It's rather an entirely different approach.

I think you'd like it!




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


It's rather an entirely different approach.

I think you'd like it!

Thank you. I think I'll get the print edition. The Evolution of God was electronic. It's on the hard drive of my broken laptop. I didn't get past the Philo chapter, before kaput of the laptop.

From what I've looked at so far, I would go with Darwin's take over Einstein's.
edit on 30-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
yet some would like to end all religions and install an atheistic regime, reminiscent of Stalin, Mao, pol pot

It beggars belief



Why do you always go to stalin, Mao, and Pol pot? It would be easier to have a nice conversation if you would not compare all atheists to the worst three atheists you can think of. I have learned not to compare every catholic to hitler, or to the priests who rape kids, i don't compare every baptist to westboro, not every muslem wants to marry a child bride and blow up a plane. Would it behoove you so much to admit that some atheists could come up with a govt plan that doen't include killing everybody?

How about we make an agreement to refrain from this from now on. That way we can have a more productive conversation.

American govt seems to be working out pretty well and it is based on a secular model that puts science and reason ahead of religious superstitions. I think even you would agree that this secular govt is better than any of the preceding examples.


edit on 30-8-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Because it is for dramatic purpose. In all of history people have been arseholes, but people focus in on some who may or may not have been atheists. As you say it would like be judging every Catholic on a kiddy fiddling priest, it is nonsensical. It is a logical fallacy.

Its up there with people saying "Christianity is the most persecuted minority out there". There is no actual evidence, but boy does it get the reich uh right wing riled up.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

The reverse can be said as well, as you very well know...

What everyone needs to do is grow up. Religious, or non-, views are just like playground squabbles... My daddy can beat up yours, nu-uh, my non-daddy can beat up yours. ...and on and on and on.

None of you are going to convince the other, so why not call it a day, and agree to disagree.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: flyingfish
None of you are going to convince the other, so why not call it a day, and agree to disagree.


Because the OP had a theory, and they had asked a question, so we answered.

The rest is just additional education. People are free to reject all the information they want, but to protect others whom may simply be misinformed, I feel that it is necessary to correct misinformation to prevent further ingorance.

These discussions, for myself at least, aren't to convince someone like raggedyman - his position is immovable regardless of what information you give him - but instead it's for anyone else who is reading and may not be familiar with the facts given


edit on 30/8/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Precisely. Thanks for posting that. Meanwhile -- these run-on threads are pretty well stagnating now.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh, this I know. More my frustration than anything else. It's either typing it out, or slamming my head repeatedly upon my desk...and since it's much tougher than I am--it's a ww2 vintage metal desk, it's safer, and less painful, to type it out.

As for entrenched, many on the other side are just as entrenched...I won't say more so, but at least as much.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Raggedyman
yet some would like to end all religions and install an atheistic regime, reminiscent of Stalin, Mao, pol pot

It beggars belief



Why do you always go to stalin, Mao, and Pol pot? It would be easier to have a nice conversation if you would not compare all atheists to the worst three atheists you can think of. I have learned not to compare every catholic to hitler, or to the priests who rape kids, i don't compare every baptist to westboro, not every muslem wants to marry a child bride and blow up a plane. Would it behoove you so much to admit that some atheists could come up with a govt plan that doen't include killing everybody?

How about we make an agreement to refrain from this from now on. That way we can have a more productive conversation.

American govt seems to be working out pretty well and it is based on a secular model that puts science and reason ahead of religious superstitions. I think even you would agree that this secular govt is better than any of the preceding examples.



I would love to
That would be great, it would be awesome
Yet
There is a certain core of atheist, holier than thou fundamentalists around these parts who wont, cant acknowledge that their belief or non belief has been used in the past to slaughter many many millions
This same core who are keen to bring up religions past and current evil. Rightly so, I fully accept and understand the religious should be reminded and aware the problems of perversion of the Gospel

So why? Because so should atheists, they shouldnt deny their past indiscretions (maybe they are not indiscretions, maybe slaughtering millions and millions is acceptable), no, its just to show people, any flavour, are at their core evil.

No one holds the moral high ground, not religious or atheist

I will make an agreement to refrain if you remind all those who use the tired old argument about religious violence, that religion starts more wars, kills more people than anything else think about atheists conflicts and death tolls
When in fact we know always stalin, Mao, and Pol pot have by themselves caused more ...

Its not that I think all atheists are, I think all atheists cant see the truth, its people, not religion or atheism, I have explained this before

To say religion is at the root worse, has caused, is a cause, its just wrong


You know stalin use to have his workers look at his photo to make them feel good and work harder
en.wikipedia.org...
I wonder if that made Stalin a god, maybe he was religious after all.
Though just identified himself as an atheist



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Raggedyman
yet some would like to end all religions and install an atheistic regime, reminiscent of Stalin, Mao, pol pot

It beggars belief



Why do you always go to stalin, Mao, and Pol pot? It would be easier to have a nice conversation if you would not compare all atheists to the worst three atheists you can think of. I have learned not to compare every catholic to hitler, or to the priests who rape kids, i don't compare every baptist to westboro, not every muslem wants to marry a child bride and blow up a plane. Would it behoove you so much to admit that some atheists could come up with a govt plan that doen't include killing everybody?

How about we make an agreement to refrain from this from now on. That way we can have a more productive conversation.

American govt seems to be working out pretty well and it is based on a secular model that puts science and reason ahead of religious superstitions. I think even you would agree that this secular govt is better than any of the preceding examples.



I would love to
That would be great, it would be awesome
Yet
There is a certain core of atheist, holier than thou fundamentalists around these parts who wont, cant acknowledge that their belief or non belief has been used in the past to slaughter many many millions
first things first. None of those three people killed people for their atheism. It is not even really sure what Pol Pot and Mao believed. They were not trying to eradicate religion. They were killing off anyone who would not submit fealty to their party. Atheism had nothing to do with their political platform.



This same core who are keen to bring up religions past and current evil. Rightly so, I fully accept and understand the religious should be reminded and aware the problems of perversion of the Gospel.


You might be able to point at a few bad (alleged) Atheists who killed a lot of people. But how long has christianity been poking their swords in other people's continents? How far around the world have they gone to destroy how many cultures and force them to submit or die? How many books have been destroyed because they were offended or because it did not conform? How many times has scientific fact been ignored because the bible says otherwise? The middle east was far ahead in mathematics, engineering, and manufacturing until the abrahamic zealots took over.


So why? Because so should atheists, they shouldnt deny their past indiscretions
i can guarantee you that whatever pol pot's beliefs were, they are nowhere near what your average atheist believes about the world. So no, i do not need to bare the burden of some third world genocidal madman. To make that connection would take some deliberate fact bending.



(maybe they are not indiscretions, maybe slaughtering millions and millions is acceptable), no, its just to show people, any flavour, are at their core evil.
do you think all people are evil? Or have the propensity to commit terrible acts? Or do you mean that all types of people have some bad apples amongst their ranks?


No one holds the moral high ground, not religious or atheist
i'm glad you believe that. There are those who claim that atheists don't have morals and can't tell wrong from right. That used to be a hot button for me and would usually receive a sharp and painful reply. I will claim that we do have the intellectual high ground though, as we generally do not accept ideas without good reason. And do not discount facts for fantasy. That may seem like a stab, but you know that you deny facts all of the time here.


I will make an agreement to refrain if you remind all those who use the tired old argument about religious violence, that religion starts more wars, kills more people than anything else think about atheists conflicts and death tolls
like i said, i do not know how you can compare those three people's ideologies with what atheism is now, or has ever been. What i will do is point out what we did with those people with those bad ideas, we eliminated them militarily. Took all power away from them and never allowed them back into power. As far as i can tell the abrahamic religions are still clearly still in power. No matter how bad they got, nobody has bothered to think about taking them out of positions to be making decisions? There is def a conspiracy here.......



When in fact we know always stalin, Mao, and Pol pot have by themselves caused more ...
not even close. And they are not even necessarily atheists or even killed over their religious beliefs. Not that facts are important to you. You keep driving in that these people were atheists but their beliefs were not based in reason and rational thinking. They were third world dictators plowing the land for political overhaul.


Its not that I think all atheists are, I think all atheists cant see the truth,
what truth? The truth you can't prove?



its people, not religion or atheism, I have explained this before.

To say religion is at the root worse, has caused, is a cause, its just wrong


You know stalin use to have his workers look at his photo to make them feel good and work harder
kinda like how i see people who plaster jesus' face everywhere?


I wonder if that made Stalin a god, maybe he was religious after all.
i bet that was probably the idea there.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I got the book. Print edition. Someone owed me a favor and whipped by the book store.

Um atheism and uh evolution and Darwin and on topic psychology and yeah, morals.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Stalin Mao and Pol Pot were atheist, their communist ideologies clearly indicated as much

They killed many for their ideologies

Simple



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Woodcarver

Stalin Mao and Pol Pot were atheist, their communist ideologies clearly indicated as much

They killed many for their ideologies

Simple


Raggedyman

They did it for their ideologies...

which has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

They never said 'i dont believe in God therfore im going to commit mass murder.'

They did it because it advanced their political ideals.

Coomba98
edit on 30-8-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Woodcarver

Stalin Mao and Pol Pot were atheist, their communist ideologies clearly indicated as much

They killed many for their ideologies

Simple


Raggedyman

They did it for their ideologies...

which has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

They never said 'i dont believe in God therfore im going to commit mass murder.'

They did it because it advanced their political ideals.

Coomba98


They said we dont believe in God, humans are animals and we can slaughter WELL over 100 million, men women and children because they are just like cattle.
No intrinsic value
Darwinism, survival of the fittest
or
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

"Favored Races"

Political ideologies of atheist
www.conservapedia.com...
www.conservapedia.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Where as God claimed we were created in His image and are worth dying for

But whatever floats your boat coombs

Stalin Mao and Pol Pot were atheist, their communist ideologies clearly indicated as much

They killed many for their ideologies



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yeah but that does not mean they killed because they didnt believe in God.

Wheres the cattle part come into it? Never heard of that term from these guys.

Even so killing people because their considered cattle has nothing to do with religion or God. Doesnt even come into it.

Hypothetical: If a society in the middle of the Amazon is found say two weeks ago, and for the past two weeks we silently observe them too see a non-religious barbaric society with no belief or even understanding of anything divine, killing their own and near neighbors for political reasons.

Would you say they did these things because they didnt believe in God? Or for other non-religous reason?

Coomba98



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yeah but that does not mean they killed because they didnt believe in God.

Wheres the cattle part come into it? Never heard of that term from these guys.

Even so killing people because their considered cattle has nothing to do with religion or God. Doesnt even come into it.

Hypothetical: If a society in the middle of the Amazon is found say two weeks ago, and for the past two weeks we silently observe them too see a non-religious barbaric society with no belief or even understanding of anything divine, killing their own and near neighbors for political reasons.

Would you say they did these things because they didnt believe in God? Or for other non-religous reason?

Coomba98


They killed in the name of atheism like the christians killed in the name of religion
The crusades were about land and economical power

Darwin taugh

You know what

Stalin, Mao, Pol Poy, well over a hunded million women, children and men, all atheist regimes

1 + 1 equals over a hundred million lives lost because of ungodly regimes

It seems I better keep on pushing that number to each atheist realises that is what atheism has lead to in the past

Over a HUNDRED MILLION LIVES by atheist regimes



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yeah but that does not mean they killed because they didnt believe in God.

Wheres the cattle part come into it? Never heard of that term from these guys.

Even so killing people because their considered cattle has nothing to do with religion or God. Doesnt even come into it.

Hypothetical: If a society in the middle of the Amazon is found say two weeks ago, and for the past two weeks we silently observe them too see a non-religious barbaric society with no belief or even understanding of anything divine, killing their own and near neighbors for political reasons.

Would you say they did these things because they didnt believe in God? Or for other non-religous reason?

Coomba98


They killed in the name of atheism like the christians killed in the name of religion
The crusades were about land and economical power

Darwin taugh

You know what

Stalin, Mao, Pol Poy, well over a hunded million women, children and men, all atheist regimes

1 + 1 equals over a hundred million lives lost because of ungodly regimes

It seems I better keep on pushing that number to each atheist realises that is what atheism has lead to in the past

Over a HUNDRED MILLION LIVES by atheist regimes


Where did any of these guys say they did what they did because they dont believe in God? Ive never read this anywhere.

They did it for their own ideals. Such as communism for one example.

Yes they were atheists but thats not the reason for what they did.

Where did they say people are cattle? You havnt answered that one yet.

I gotta say as an atheist, someone killing anyone because they dont believe in God to be down right ridiculous. What a stupid reason and what a psychopath that person would be!!
(Dont take that the wrong way its just my opinion on killing people because they dont believe in god, i cant wrap my head around that as it makes no sense)

100 million lives where not taken because of a lack of a belief in God. But for other reasons i have stated above.

But for fun lets run with it for a second....

100 million (a number which i find hard to believe) is nothing compared to the death count held by the religious. Nothing!!

Ill try another approach...

Just because someone is an atheist who kills does not mean they killed because of a lack of a belief in God.

Like saying a religious person... lets say WW1 and 2. Pretty much everyone in that war was religious. Because their religious that would mean they killed because they believe in God.

Like the Nazi belt saying 'in God we trust' worn by all Nazi's.

They killed because they believed in God.

Thats a ridiculous premise no?

Coomba98
(cheers for being civil this time round)
edit on 31-8-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Yes it is ridiculous, as ridiculous as saying people kill for God
That's my whole point



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: coomba98

Yes it is ridiculous, as ridiculous as saying people kill for God
That's my whole point


Actually people have killed for God. Happens all the time.

To name a few..

Numbers 15:32-36
Numbers 31:17-18
Ezekiel 9:6
Isaiah 13:16
Deuteronomy 13:15
Leviticus 20:9
Exodus 32:27
Deuteronomy 21:9
Exodus 31:15
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Then theres Christian Terrorism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: coomba98

Yes it is ridiculous, as ridiculous as saying people kill for God
That's my whole point


What was your point again? I thought it was that because these atheist were killers it must mean they did the killing due to a lack of a belief in God.

Are you in agreement with me now with the WW1 WW2 example?

Coomba98



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

I could agree if you can tell me what caused ww1 and 2
What was the reason behind those wars

Simple enough?

Google search militant atheists

Please,understand that I accept, totally agree some heinous crimes have been done in the name of Christianity, never denied that

Yes the OT was very violent, I am a christian



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join