Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by an3rkist

I empathize with your viewpoint, and completely understand why a theist of any kind would be offended by Dawkins. However, I think comparing it to people persecuting blacks is somewhat rash. Dawkins isn't proposing we kill anybody, and the whole idea of his theory is that if we get rid of faith we could get rid of a lot of killing.

His words are in line with eventual killing. He proposes fixing what is at the very basic level a problem with TOLERANCE with intolerance.
To which I ask how in the h*** will that fix it?

Because there are many who will NOT give up their faith.
And really you have no good right to demand they do.
Faith has after all done good things as well.

But anyway. It would take killing them to remove faith.
Human nature after all calls for it.

Like I have said before.
Look at Early Christianity's spread in Europe current events are mirroring what happened then. Except that now its ALL religions.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
His words are in line with eventual killing.

What words were those? I found his video somewhat extreme, but I saw no reason to believe he condones eventual killing of anybody.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


How has this 'out of the blue' response helped this topic at all?

~Ducky~

reply to post by an3rkist


Read the full post................
I address your statement.

Originally posted by jimbo999


Nobody is stopping you from teaching your kids whatever you want - or ever has...at home. But equally - we (the majority) equally have the right to ensure that our children are not brain-washed into any type of religious belief in the schools that we pay our taxes towards. Religion should be a personal choice - not something imposed upon from above - wether that be school or government.

I disagree with your assumptions about BW - I've seen his work here on these forums for too long now - and it has all the hallmarks of a religious fanatic....

J.

Whammy a fanatic? HA HA HA Hey I agree,, It is MUCH easier to an Atheist where I can sit around, drink beer, fart and get fat, smoke pot do drugs, get laid doing whatever the hell I want, EVEN ON SUNDAY!

By the way, if Christians were to only live a disciplined life one day a week, it would be 24 hours more discipline then most.

Whammy a fanatic? HA HA HA

Yeah that so much worse then a radical Atheist Psychopath.

b imbo I have your posts and invariably you are posting antagonistic garbage laced in you angst agression for Christians. So let me just cut to the chase..

What the hell is your problem?? What you got against them?

It better be good too, not some whiney crap about having religion "shoved down your throat.

- Con

Originally posted by Spoodily
"God" and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.

Religions use their respective deity and rituals surrounding said deity to turn people away from knowing "God" for themselves.

Any time someone says they are the path to knowing or not knowing "God" is a liar.

"God" is NOT a deity or being within or outside of the universe. "God" is not "in" everything. "God" IS everything, every last littile bit of anything science could ever imagine they could study.

How stupid do people have to be to not understand that you will NEVER be able to step far enough back from "God" to say you've seen and understand it all.

Only "God", which is infinite, will ever experience itself fully.

Their is a selfish attitude about god among the religious that is very self serving. Whenever I hear someone speak about their false deity or lack thereof all I hear is "me this and me that, god's like me and not you or science tells me this therefor god is not real, etc."


[edit on 3/22/2008 by Spoodily]

Wow some very interesting thoughts there and I don't usually do this but I wouldn't mind talking to you more about some of the points you make here in more detail if you would be so kind

- Con

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


It appears that your attempt to address my statement was no more than an assumption that to remove faith we would have to kill everybody with faith. I asked what words Dawkins used to give you that impression. (I'm not as familiar with his work as some people here, so I'm asking in honesty, though I also think it's a loaded question because I doubt anything he's said would suggest that or somebody else would have already quoted him on it.)

I think, if I remember correctly, that you and I agree that it is not the belief structure a person subscribes to that makes them "evil" and do "evil things", but it is the individual. (Though I agree with Dawkins that it's faith that is the culprit, just not necessarily faith in God or any one religion). However, I think you and I disagree on Dawkins' motives, and I fail to see how you could think he wants to kill people off, or even how his ideas could make others want to kill people off. I think he proposes that we convince the people through science, (though I'm not saying that's logical or doable). I just want to know what gives you the impression he wants to kill people of faith off?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

I empathize with your viewpoint, and completely understand why a theist of any kind would be offended by Dawkins. However, I think comparing it to people persecuting blacks is somewhat rash. Dawkins isn't proposing we kill anybody, and the whole idea of his theory is that if we get rid of faith we could get rid of a lot of killing.

His words are in line with eventual killing. He proposes fixing what is at the very basic level a problem with TOLERANCE with intolerance.
To which I ask how in the h*** will that fix it?

Yeah like he would say that kind of thing before he has enough public support and anger churned up lol.

Yep that is exactly the way I see it, I mean when they say "Dawkins didn't say he was going to kill us or whetever, I think to myself " What does he have to spell it out to you!" Did Hitler get elected by saying he was going to kill millions of Jews, and others who didn't fit his social darwin plan of eugenics.

Dawkins may be a jerk but he isn't stupid.

Like I said,, give him time

He'll say it

- Con






[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by melatonin

It was a quote-mine, and you are still doing it. The statement was that being a weak atheist does not involve claims or denials about the existence of god/godesses/pink unicorns. It says nothing about making claims that belief in god is delusional.

They were separate sentences. I never meant to imply that the definition of Atheism makes claims of belief in God being delusional. What I did do was say- the definition of Atheism is A. Richard Dawkins is an A who goes way beyond A. So he is a radical A. …hole

If that’s quote mining give me a hat with a light on it. I am proud to be a quote miner’s … uh son

Here’s another quote mine for you…

Dawkins: “Science has clearly shown religious superstitions to be false.”

But he doesn’t define what “religious superstitions” are. At least I offered a definition!

I'm not sure I have heard him call for the abolition of faith. He thinks it's delusional, I can see in his idealistic utopia, such a thing wouldn't exist. But I'm sure he's more pragmatic than that.

Dawkins say this, “because extremist religion hides in the fringes of moderate religion we must also eliminate moderate religion.”

Pragmatic? more like tricky Dicky… “I want to show how faith acts like a virus that infects the young…”

The Virus of Faith

Google Video Link

Yes, people of faith can also do good stuff. No-one said they couldn't. Not really a justifiable reason to take an innocent mind and use fear and punishment to mould a mini-me. If you are so sure of your faith, leave the kids alone. Let them develop a free open mind without placing the fear of hell.

Well Dawkins does not acknowledge it. And who gets to be the mind police for our children Athiesstic scientists? The same ones that say it’s OK to slaughter the unborn ones? Sorry we say NO!

No it's not. It's not the dominant source of morality. It's a book with some rules in, such as don't covet oxes and stuff. Tells us little about many of the ethical issues in the real world.

I think it tells a whole lot about them. You avoided my question. If not religion then what is the moral framework?
The Bible teaches that we are all made in the image of God. Even Atheists So for that reason alone there is value in human life as image bearers of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: took out mistake I made about An3rkists answer... sorry guy I misunderstood you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He says that faith can be a cause of terrorism. But I see the goalposts have shifted.

Yeah and faith is a virus. And Bible study is child abuse. Belief in God is delusional.

Depends on the meaning of faith you use. If you use the notion in the bible - belief in things unseen, then yes. If you mean trust, then it need not be.

But if you’re wife goes out of town and you trust that she is not cheating on you. That is belief in things unseen Mel… That is faith. So is faith still BS as you put it. Or is it necessary for a healthy relationship with anyone?

And therefore I blame jesus for Hitler.
They were atheists. They were also men. In fact, all three had penises, therefore I blame penises for Stalin and Mao.
The major link between Stalin and Mao was communism. Atheism is not the same thing. They were atheists. Sometimes atheists do bad things. Amazingly, so do some theists.

You’re using the airbrush again. The strategy I see is to make it so foggy no one can see the connections. You won’t face the absolute truth of the unholy trinity of Atheism, Darwinism, and Marxism. They are linked in a multitude of ways. I demonstrated that in the OP. Dialectic opposition and natural selection are similar for a reason. It is not a coincidence. They are related. It is also not a coincidence that the worst murders in history are associated with these ideas. They have everything to do with it.

So he wasn't an atheist. You would just like him to be one.

No it just looks like he wasn’t very clear himself. It really doesn’t matter, he’s dead now. There’s still time for you though. His influence is what really matters. Stalin believed in God until he read Darwin. Reading Darwin influenced him to become an Atheist.

Nothing in darwin's theory suggests marxism. Nothing in atheism suggests marxism. Indeed, Darwin said that it was silly to link socialism to his theory (see below).

Well Karl Marx would beg to differ with you.

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

emporium.turnpike.net...

That is a myth. A lie continuously circulated around the creationist echo chamber.

Prove it.

The problem for the leftists in the late 19th century and early 20th century was that the rise of Darwinism apparently proved scientifically that the Malthusian doctrine of ‘survival of the fittest’, and hence the laissez faire idea that the leftists detested, was the norm in Nature. Since man was merely an intelligent animal according to their own arguments and the theory of ‘Natural Selection’, they became seriously concerned about the possibility that it also was the norm in society, which would undermine their own ambitions. A more positive side (from the leftist point of view) of Darwinism, however, proved useful in challenging the traditional authorities. Thus, leftists ‘… needed Darwinism for both positive and negative reasons: positively, as an alternative to the traditional forms of authority they were busy disavowing; negatively, as a way of disarming those erecting biological barriers to socialism by lifting the Darwinian mantle for the socialist cause’ (according to [8]). What was needed was a link between Darwin and Marx.

Then, the leftists created the myth that Marx offered to dedicate some volume or edition of Das Kapital to Darwin. The myth was based on nothing more than a letter from Darwin to Edward Avelling—the partner of Marx’s daughter Eleanor—that got mixed in with letters from Marx to Eleanor sometime in the 1890s. In the letter, Darwin politely declines Avelling’s offer to dedicate an atheistic pamphlet to Darwin. Yet, somehow this little incident is turned into the aforementioned myth, and there is still ‘… a profusion of scholarly articles since the mid-1970s [that] have failed to shift [this myth] from popular perceptions’ (see Ref. [8]). Nevertheless, ‘Engels explicitly encouraged socialists to regard Marx and Darwin as complementary’ (see Ref. [8]). For Marx and particularly Engels, it also became important to steal Darwinism from competing brands of socialism in addition to preventing Darwinism from being used against socialism altogether (see for example [6]). All this, and more, took place despite Darwin himself earlier on described the ‘connection between Socialism and Evolution though Natural Selection ‘s a foolish idea”’.. 1 I doubt that Marx and Engels were unaware of Darwin’s own opinions, since they were well informed about many other matters. Thus, it seems clear to me that the Darwinian Left is not derived from an honest analysis of Darwinism but is rather a cynical exploitation of Darwinism both in an internal power struggle among leftists and to provide legitimacy.

The Darwinian Left—from myth to intellectual hijacking, Jan Emblemsvåg, Futures, Vol 36, 10, December 2004, Pages 1117-1121

Your scholarship obviously involves trawling creationista sites, which are taken at face value.

That doesn’t prove it’s false. Just that you want an excuse not to address it.

But marx is not Stalin or Mao.

Jesus to bible. Bible to Luther. Luther to Hitler. Hitler to -----------> Dead jews!!!

But Marx and Darwin influenced their thinking in ways that made killing acceptable. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, Dialectics, eugenics . All share this idea of conflict.

Because I don't like to physically hurt other people. It's a value statement. I could make an attempt at a logical statement, but that's not really the point here. No need for rules, I have this internal moral compass. If you depend on written instructions to ensure you don't kill others, cool. Please use them.

Why do you have those values? Where did your internal moral compass originate? Perhaps another “poof” ?

See I know you have values, Mel. You were created in the image of God.

Squeal like a pig!

Umm, yeah, OK. Squee!

I am really sorry Mel I didn’t mean t degrade you like that.

Did you see the movie Deliverance by chance?

I assumed you had as it's sort of a classic. If so, I applaud your willingness to go along with a joke.

I can't even post it. Oh well you should know...
Urban Dictionary


[edit on 3/22/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by an3rkist


Dawkins advocates a position of intolerance.

And where does the road of intolerance ultimately end??????

Give you a hint. Nazi Germany did alot of it.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
An3rkist admitted he would just kill him. So there is no inherent value to human life for him.

WTF?!?!?!? Did you even read my posts? How more blatantly dishonest could you be? I'm on the verge of being completely hostile here because this is a blatant lie! Go back and read my posts Bigwhammy before you make statements that are completely false.



[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

The END result of Evolution and Natural Selection is the eradication of women. This is not a hysterical reaction, nor a feminist rant, it is simply the truth. History has proven over and over again and is even proving it now. a society based on survival of the fittest population, out of control, the first thing to die are the women and children. It happens all the time and has happened countless times in history.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Whammy a fanatic? HA HA HA Hey I agree,, It is MUCH easier to an Atheist where I can sit around, drink beer, fart and get fat, smoke pot do drugs, get laid doing whatever the hell I want, EVEN ON SUNDAY!

There is nothing wrong with farting, I take a offense to that, in fact you know what I think about your attack on farting, I'll tell ya, Pppbbbth (That is a fart spelled out)!

Gettin' a little hot under the collar are we? Lol, this always happens when this kinda stuff gets started.
Athiests, they are trying to oust Yeshua, it means they have standards that they have to live by which they did not set. It means that there are consequences for the things they do that they know in they're heart is wrong. It means that there is an answer for the misteries in this life, that there are absolutes, that you do have to believe in what you cannot see.
How do they become Athiests? Parents are God haters. Parents are people who've shoved a false image of Yeshua on them they're whole lives. They don't understand how God can allow horrible things to happen (usually triggered by they're grandma or grandpa dying). Science says God doesn't exist and scientists are smart people so Christians must be stupid and nobody wants to be stupid. People have had overwhelmingly bad experiences with Christians because we usually suck when it comes to being Christ-like. You see one thing the Athiest have'nt figured out is that, CHRISTIANS ARE PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEM! That's right, we are sinners too, we're just trying to do what's right and the majority of us are led astray by a fals image of Yeshua.
Yeshua is'nt a light brown haired, white skinned, blue eyed, sissy lookin' fellow.
He's the homeless man needing help, He's the starving child in Africa, He's the lonely widow, He's the prostitute on the street corner, He's the "terrorist" being tortured in Git-Mo, He's you and me, but He is God incarnate, and He took our place on the cross to pay for all sin.

What does science offer us? No answer as to why we are here? New ways to kill each other? New ways to kill ourselves (ie taking medicines that do more harm than good)? I have no problem with learning things, but why crucify a God who says to "love each other", to "help each other" and that "we can be with Him forever after we're done on earth". Athiests, tell me what is so wrong with what Christians (not Catholics) are SUPPOSED to believe? What is wrong with what we believe?

-Jimmy

Many women are spiritual and religious, from various "faiths", be they abrahamic faiths, pagans, or what have you. They do NOT want to be wiped out in some futuristic version of "Worship me, I'm a man," scenario. They COUNT on you men, to make sound, rational decisions regarding their welfare. They do NOT want to see men on national television talking about what a good thing it is that China has a One Child Policy. Do you realize how many females had to die for that One Child Policy to become a success?

Instead of pooling their resources and collective powers to come up with actual humane and loving alternatives, the governments of the world have opted for a survival of the fittest scenario in which Jim and John will be married and Janet and Jill will be a thing of the past -- like some extinct species.

Originally posted by an3rkist
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

...

A pretty poor analogy. If there's no reason not to kill him, and I don't believe in God, then I must have to kill him!

Sidenote: atheists can be spiritual, too. In my opinion, that whole external source thing was a horrible example.

You said right here you would kill him. You don't have to. You said you would.

EDIT OK you were not answering the question... Just airbrushing over the issue w with complaints. .

Sorry I though that was your answer... "I must have to kill him! "




[edit on 3/22/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by an3rkist


OK you were not answering the question... You were just airbrushing over the issue with complaints. Sorry I though that was your answer... "I must have to kill him! "

My mistake I apologize.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by an3rkist
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

...

A pretty poor analogy. If there's no reason not to kill him, and I don't believe in God, then I must have to kill him!

Sidenote: atheists can be spiritual, too. In my opinion, that whole external source thing was a horrible example.

You said right here you would kill him. You don't have to. You said you would.

EDIT OK you were not answering the question... Just airbrushing over the issue w with complaints. .

Sorry I though that was your answer... "I must have to kill him! "

Apparently sarcasm is beyond you, or I guess it just may be the fact that you couldn't hear the way I was thinking it. I kind of thought the big THUMBS DOWN was a dead giveaway, but that statement was COMPLETELY sarcastic and was, in fact, mocking your example. Sorry it didn't get through to you...

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
But if you’re wife goes out of town and you trust that she is not cheating on you. That is belief in things unseen Mel… That is faith. So is faith still BS as you put it. Or is it necessary for a healthy relationship with anyone?

The strategy I see is to make it so foggy no one can see the connections. You won’t face the absolute truth of the unholy trinity of Atheism, Darwinism, and Marxism. They are linked in a multitude of ways. I demonstrated that in the OP. Dialectic opposition and natural selection are similar for a reason. It is not a coincidence. They are related. It is also not a coincidence that the worst murders in history are associated with these ideas. They have everything to do with it.

That's not faith, it's trust. Trust is based on a history or pattern that lends credence to the belief, faith has no evidence to support it. And quit making claims and provide some evidence! Holy crap! I'm pissed off at you for lying about what I said, but I'm also still waiting for you to provide evidence that these atrocities were committed because of Atheism. You're connecting dots that just don't connect as I've said from the start! You're creating connections that have no relevance. Give one iota of evidence that Atheism caused these men to commit these genocides... Waiting waiting waiting...

Why do you have those values? Where did your internal moral compass originate? Perhaps another “poof” ?

See I know you have values, Mel. You were created in the image of God.

Not directed at me, but I'm tired of you claiming that without God there could be no morals. I'm not a Darwinist, but even evolution can explain morals: it's better for survival if you help each other out. People throughout history who were atheists have not been mass murderers, so take your arrogant self righteous bullcrap and...alright, I'm gonna stop there before I get myself in trouble. (Probably too late.)

I'm just still pissed off to no end that you lied about what I said earlier. Blatant lie. Apparently you missed the sarcasm though, so maybe it wasn't a "lie". I should've been more blatant in my attempt to mock the example you gave.

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by HoHoFoo

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
But they answer the spiritual question thusly they are a religion.
It's as simple as that.[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

1+1=God, is religion and unprovable.
1+1=2 => 1+1God, answers the spiritual question and is provable.
Is 1+1=2 so a religion?
There is no solid evidence about God, so I'm atheist. This is not religion.

Yeah those are incomplete inductive arguments for logical fallacy however.

If that is the kind thing your into to disprove God then

Try the logic of of a champion not even Dawkins would stand up to the rigors of this argument for the why and how of a God existing.

Unless someone can write something better then this no one need reply

plato.stanford.edu...


- Con

Originally posted by HoHoFoo

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
But they answer the spiritual question thusly they are a religion.
It's as simple as that.[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

1+1=God, is religion and unprovable.
1+1=2 => 1+1God, answers the spiritual question and is provable.
Is 1+1=2 so a religion?
There is no solid evidence about God, so I'm atheist. This is not religion.

Yeah those are incomplete inductive arguments for logical fallacy however.

If that is the kind thing your into to disprove God then

Try the logic of a champion not even Dawkins would stand up to the rigors of this argument for the why and how of a God existing.

Unless someone can write something better then this no one need reply

plato.stanford.edu...


- Con