It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

The reason they kill female children in China is because of cultural BS that has been in place for a GREAT MANY years before communism was even a boneheaded idea in Marx's head. Heck before Marx's parent's parent's parent existed.
Not because of communism.
Do your research

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You're right... unless you are useful. If you are not particularly useful then you are a prime candidate for natutal selection.

If I understand Darwin's theory correctly, (and I may not since I don't subscribe to it, even though I'm atheist), Nature naturally selects the survivor, not us...

The evidence of conspiracy is these science type Atheists will not even admit any connection between Darwinism and Marxism. Which is a joke as they were practically sleeping together, they were so in love.

Marxism to communism is a no brainer. Did you like the way I said Stalin proceeded to "naturally select" 20 million to die.

They hate that.

Yes, we do hate that considering it's connecting dots that don't connect! I mean...I don't even know how to explain it better than I, and others, already have. Alright, Marxism and communism may have a pretty legitimate connection, but atheism and genocide? WTF?

P.S. I'm still waiting on your response to the fact that you blatantly misquoted me. Will you admit that you misread my statement and then quoted me out of context or that you quoted me out of context on purpose? Or will you just ignore me?

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

Chinese government knew that.
It's been going on since the 70s.
They didn't stop it because to them,
it was the lesser of two evils.

The other option, they say, was mass
starvation. No, that wasn't the other option.
the other option was for the people of the world
to learn some self control. To quit fussing at
people who say you should act like you're better
than a horny animal, or at the very least use
a freakin' rubber or something, anything is better
than killing off 150,000,000 females in 30 years.
(and that's just china)

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by an3rkist

WTF --- Ive admitted at least 3 times go back and re read.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:03 PM

Encounter With a Rational Fellow
It was with great surprise and excitement that I noticed a fellow passenger reading Christopher Hitchens' book "God is Not Great" yesterday while on the bus home. I was so heartened to be able to strike up a conversation with someone who shared the same views on religion.

He echoed my wish to see religion dismantled for the benefit of everyone, and agreed that more needed to be done at early stages of education to prevent religious indoctrination of children. He suggested restricting Sunday School attendance to children over a certain age, where they had developed better reasoning skills.

We noted the recent founding of yet another christian "traditional-family-values-oriented" political party in New Zealand, and the political influence that religious groups are trying to exert over the populace. He also shared my beliefs that there are far more people who are sick of being hammered with religious nonsense than religious adherents would have us believe; that religion deserves no special immunity from criticism; and that the internet may be where the galvanisation of atheists will lead to real action in the real world on a large scale.

I grinned, and told him I was working on the problem

The prominence of atheistic views is failing to convince the masses against religious beliefs, writes JOHN STRINGER.

The bovver boys of atheist nay-saying are at it again. The latest international atheist golden boy, Richard Dawkins, flush from successful international sales of his recent book The God Delusion, has upped the ante on us wafer munchers and cross clutchers.

It's nothing new, of course. The church and Christian and Jewish belief in a monotheistic God have endured this kind of playground collar-tugging and name-calling for more than 3000 years. From pharaohs not getting the hint from gnats, boils, locusts and frogs, to the Roman Caesars (until Constantine's dream) to Karl Marx's famous "religion is the opium of the people" one-liner in his 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, religion has been fair game.

It is, of course, blamed for war and all the social ills of our times, including paedophilia, ignorance, hatred, homophobia and intolerance. Where are some fresh lions when you need them?

The atheist retinue pride themselves on superior intelligence, sophistication and a certain logic. But that is where I've always found the likes of Brian Edwards, Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Christopher Hitchens somewhat incongruous. Atheism seems to define itself entirely in relation to something that isn't; and atheist champions seem to talk an awful lot about God to the point of preoccupation, which would seem to be oxymoronic.

How can God, for example, be "a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, infanticidal, megalomaniacal and sado- masochistic" (Dawkins as quoted in The Press, Oct 17) when he's not there? It beggars belief ... and unbelief. Dawkins owes a lot to God. Without him, sales of his book might have to be immaculately conceived. One wonders if he's flicked God a royalty cheque of late.

These outspoken atheists and their disciples seem to have an almost pathological obsessive hatred of the Big Fella, their academic diatribes fuelling a reactionary debate, which the media lap up. Conflict is the opium of the media.

Atheism is a relatively recent philosophical phenomenon. By far the majority of humans throughout history, ancient and modern, have accepted the existence of God or gods. The word derives from the French "atheisme" ("without theos") of about the 1570s.

Atheism grew, in divergent forms, with the rise of modern scientific scepticism and the open criticism of religion encouraged by the Protestant Reformation, itself a religious movement.

The germination of modern atheism can perhaps be linked back to early Hindu atheist schools and Theravada Buddhism, and even earlier to the pre-Socratic Greek philosophies of thinkers like Diagoras (the "first atheist"), Critias (the violent tyrannical politician uncle of Plato) and Democritus (who came up with the idea of the atom), among others. Where Christianity has actively formed and influenced modern politics (from Christians within the courts of the Caesars, the Roman army, to the Caesarian edicts of the early 300s outlawing persecution of minorities) liberty, and in general terms, open and transparent society have flourished.

Atheism has a less than wholesome track record as a quality philosophical foundation for civil life.

In the few countries where atheism has been actively practised (the only state to officially outlaw religion was Albania under Hoxha after World War 2 until the 1980s, Stalinist Soviet Russia and Mao Zedong China and Mongolia), the prevailing culture has been one of repression, tyranny and economic stagnation

Scintists such as Richard Dawkins assume that they are rational creatures, examine their world, conclude it has irrational origins and then declare belief in God to be irrational and themselves the paragons of reason. It takes your breath away.

Atheism is the ultimate offence against bothe reason and the heart, and we need not drown in philosophical complexities to grasp this simple truth. The logical extension of evolutionary thought is no more eloquently expressed than by our oung street-wise philosophers in their contemporary maxim—life sucks. It is written in their graffiti.

With what presumption does science dismiss all realities other than that which can be verified by their own instruments?

- Milton Heyward, Shirley

Yeah I guess mel is going to have to see this kind of argument even when Atheists are starting to tell Dawkins to shut his pie hole

Hitchens,, that out of shape drunken bastard, who the hell does he think he is. Who the hell is ANY atheist to stick thier assinine assumptions about raising kids . Are they EXPERTS on EVERYTHING THESE DAYS???

I don't care what ya say mel I can't ignore what my gut is telling me and it is telling me JERKS like this are trying to control our lives by hook or crook.

That makes me think separation of Church and State was a BAD IDEA AFTER ALL.

I see secular kid and I see lots of Christian families and I would say that the difference is contrasted by crack babies and 1 in 4 kids having std's where that isn't close to true where the alternative is Christ.

Hitchens can Kiss My /-\SS

- Con

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

They weren't killing on near the scale Mao was... Mao probably holds the world record for mass murder from the data I have seen.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by an3rkist

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.

The problem is, an3rkist, that even if he doesn't condone eventual killing NOW, he's setting the stage for it. These things always grow bigger over time. And it won't be just the Christians, as Wroath said, it will be ALL religion. And I'm certainly not giving to up what I worked so long and hard to find peace with after all these years.

Edited to change peach to peace

[edit on 3/22/08 by idle_rocker]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
But the teachings of Jesus Christ do not advocate naturally selecting the weak members of society and killing them. In fact they are diametrically opposed to that. Darwinist thought is what fueled Hitlers eugenics program.

And the 'teachings' of darwin do not suggest selecting weak members of society and killing them. That's artificial selection not natural, and has been used since the days of the ancient greeks.

The OT uses it as well. Selecting small populations to survive, killing the unworthy. Eugenics again wasn't specifically a darwinian process. Humans selecting people as weak or worthy isn't natural selection.

Indeed, darwin's theory says nothing about how society should be run.

Morality is not relative to the observer as you would like to pretend. There is absolute truth. We don’t always have it. But not because of my opinion. Because of God. God left us a book full of it. You just reject it.

A book that says murder is bad, whilst ordering people to murder women and children gives absolute morals?

It is evil to take a human life. Exodus 20:13 "You Shall Not Murder"

How about 46 MILLION Babies murdered per YEAR.

Who defines what murder is? Whose laws? Mine? Yours? I don't think it is murder, but a very difficult choice a woman can sometimes make with their own body. Oh well, not your body to worry about. Pity that most modern societies do not see it as murder, no-one will force you to have one. So that's better innit?

People who feel desparate enough can have one, those who think it's murder don't have to.

And for an absolute moral, that's not very absolute.

I like the in the name of science thing. Sophistry is great fun.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by melatonin

The Israelites were not practicing "murder". They were practicing self-defense. The other tribes would have done the exact same thing to them.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:14 PM
I have no problem with the chinese people, mind you.
It isn't THEIR fault. It's the government's fault. It had
the moral obligation to make the right decisions for its
people. It knew what the people believed. It knew its
own traditions and cultural standards. And it forecasted,
like some cowherder breeding for next year's stock, how
many heifers would be need to be removed to keep
the population explosion at bay. They waited until the
right target figures were met, and THEN said, "Stop".

But they didn't stop the one child policy, as a result, to this day
hundreds of thousands more female children will be silently
put to death so the poorer members of their society can
still send the 1 child to school with adequate medical care.
See how that works? They give them benefits for having
only 1 child and natural selection, naturally selects the women
right out of the breeding stock, for annihilation.

Women are extremely expendable in most non-western countries.
And it's starting to pick up steam in western countries as well.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Fox you must be losing your memory. You already have the numbers under you itching little God hating fingers.

How quickly the righteous fall to such senseless invective. I asked you to bolster your argument, and this means I hate God? I'm losing my memory because I expect you to bolster your own claims?

We have already gone through this charade of yours before. I'll put out a number and then you'll come back with one you think is better. Well I'm not playing your game. You post your numbers. I know they make you hot. Then wipe your famous "hate-jazz" off your shirt.

Not my job. I'm making no claims here. I'm simply looking for what evidence is on your side.

There is no hard answer, they are all estimates.

Really? Because you pose it as hard, irrefutable fact. Now you say it's an "Estimate"? Okay, an estimate based on what?

Why are your figures so correct?

What figures? I've been asking for yours. It's not my job to provide any, as I'm not trying to convince an audience of something, here. You do know how this works, right?

Did you help count the bodies while they were doing the executions? It's an absurd ruse on your part.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not the one making the claims here. I simply want to know where you're getting the figures, and what those figures are. Since you are the one making the claim that atheism has killed more people in the last century than religion has in all prior history, I presumed you had something to back it up with. So let's see it, please.

There is no contention that the greatest killers were Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

I would contend it. Well, Hitler still takes the cake, I would think, but Mao and Stalin are, as far as deaths they were directly responsible for, probably outdone by the likes of Idi Amin, the last Shah of Iran, and the Duvalier regime in Haiti.

BLaming Mao for every death in China under his reign is a lot like blaming the Catholic Church for the deaths of the black plague, or George Bush for all the fatal car accidents in the United States.

Oh I know -- shift to Hitler now... People can try to say Hitler was Christian. He wasn't Christian he just tried to justify his racism with a Bible. He was practicing Darwinian eugenics - on Gods chosen people no less.

No, he was in fact Catholic. And contrary to some claims otherwise, Catholics are in fact Christian. Not going to claim he lived up to the ideals of Christianity by any shot. But he was still Christian. Even if he wasn't, the overwhelmingly vast majority of Germans were.

Remember, only two beings in the universe can judge someone "not a Christian" - that person, and God. You are neither.

Unfortunately, Darwin never spoke of Eugenics. Eugenics was created by Francis Galton, and as he wrote of the concept, it was quite different from what Ernst Rudin came up with in Germany. Galton advocated selective breeding - that is, choosing the best possible genetic mates for yourself. Rudin, however, advocated the systematic purging of "lesser" humans.

So, tangent aside. Have you found those numbers yet?

[edit on 22-3-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Hey and I apologize again for misunderstanding your (non) answer. I am sick today so struggling to keep up. I did go back and edit that out. OK?

I'm not sure why you put the "(non)" in there, but I will admit I completely missed this (non) apology and will move on... (Just put the "(non)" in there to even out the "(non)" you put in your response. Not sure where the other two admittances are, but sufficeth to say I won't mention this again...)

Originally posted by idle_rocker
The problem is, an3rkist, that even if he doesn't condone eventual killing NOW, he's setting the stage for it. These things always grow bigger over time. And it won't be just the Christians, as Wroath said, it will be ALL religion. And I'm certainly not giving to up what I worked so long and hard to find peace with after all these years.

I don't think he's setting the stage for the eradication of those who are religious any more than Christians are setting the stage for the eradication of those who do not subscribe to their beliefs. After all, from what I understand of Dawkins' theory, all he's said is he thinks we should get rid of faith. The Christians, on the other hand, have admitted that those without faith will die and burn in Hell.

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:20 PM
I'll find your friggin numbers. Wammy is sick and needs some rest. So I'm going right now since you can't look them up yourself and since you have notthing else to come up with but a bloody demand for something you already know is true. Outta here. Back with the numbers!

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by zorgon

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.

That is probably the smartest comment I have seen in a religious thread for a long time

I think I will frame this post... Mind if I quote it?

Sure. My opinions are open source.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Why don't you have an angst-wang sandwich for Easter. We've already done that dance. I refuse to play your game. I don't feel the need to justify it. The statiistics are common. If you want to deny the murders of Stalin and Mao why don't you start your own thread for a change and have at it. You can try your intellectual bullying game all you want, Not gonna do it

[edit on 3/22/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by chromatico
The Israelites were not practicing "murder". They were practicing self-defense. The other tribes would have done the exact same thing to them.

Yeah, if you say so. The old testament is full of murder and genocidal acts.

Elderly, newborn, unborn. Murdered. All but several people of the whole population of the earth selected out for being less than worthy.

These actions are not moral in my mind. Of course, you will justify them. Just like I will justify a woman having control of her own body.

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by Conspiriology

I have a thread I started a while ago if you would like to read what I have said so far.

The Universe and You

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by idle_rocker

Ask a Christian for a fact, and they act like you just slept with their wife. What's with that?

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

So in other words, you've got nothing to back up your own argument with? Why make it, then?

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Ask the right christian. Ask me. What facts would you like me to provide for you? And you know me, I will find them, and if I don't, I will admit defeat. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong. But NO WAY am I going to admit you're right if you aren't.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by undo]

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in