Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
But there's no evidence to suggest atheism was the cause of ANY atrocities!



Originally posted by an3rkist
Where's the airbrushing happening?


*points up*

Right there it looks like.




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Atheism's role in World Wars, et al, is a pretty well-kept secret, except to those who know history.
Many young generations think it was just megalomaniacs with a good following!

"Let's not bring up their ideology and world view!"
Modern academia hasn't done a lot of homework. Many are whitewashing their 'Religion.'
Christianity has done bad stuff, too, that's been pretty well covered, but, Anti-Christianity has done FAR more!



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
You guys are right .. Were out to get you all . Your weak religion is gonna fall.
We have 2 more years till our plan is finished . Mark my words .

And theres nothing you can do cause we don't outright tell anyone our agenda.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The conspiracy is that Atheists want to remove all association with the murders linked to Atheistic ideology. They shift the blame. As I pointed out in the OP even the very careful wording of the definition of atheism is designed to excuse any possible responsibility. Well guess what? Your world view carries baggage. The conspiracy is you want to disassociate from it and push it under the bed.


Atheistic ideology? What atheistic ideology? I didn't know there was one! It's just a lack of belief in God!

And as for the definition "shifting blame"...wow: All I can say is "wow". Responsibility for what? For the actions of some guy who lived before I was born and didn't have even remotely the same beliefs as me, (except that there's no God)? My world view carries baggage, huh? What baggage is that? The sins of another man?

And lastly, your last accusation in the above quote is yet another example of narrow-minded, bigoted, comments like atheists have "no common sense" and other such ones. I thought this was about "specifically" radical Dawkins follower-atheists, but your accusation seems to be directed at non-believers in general.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
*points up*

Right there it looks like.


What?! No single person has provided a single shred of evidence that even remotely supports the theory that atheism has been the cause for any atrocities. Show me one example, (and no, atheists who have committed atrocities do not constitute evidence unless you can provide evidence they did it in the name of atheism.) The difference is that the Inquisition and the Crusades and other such things were admittedly done in the name of God. Wow...I airbrushed history because I stated that no one has provided any evidence...



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 




Richard Dawkins wants society to believe that faith in God is the root of all evil.


Prove it, whammy.



Certainly Mel. In fact I will let Dr. Dawkins do the honor of saying it with his very own lips. This film is called "The Root of All Evil" it's about all religion.

Google Video Link


And one listen to the hate speech against ALL religious faith in this video ought to settle the damn conspiracy issue once and for all. This not about just Christianity. Dawkins is after all faith.



Don't be silly. What we see is the result of an authoritarian crazy-dude. Theist crazy dudes (Hitler) and atheist crazy dudes (Stalin) can produce the same result when given enough power.

The one link is both were authoritarian crazy dudes.


Mel I agree with you. But you know what? The Inquisition was perpetrated by Catholic crazy dudes. But we have to own ours and you airbrush yours.



[edit on 3/21/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I'm just glad us agnostic don't have an "agenda" yet. Mostly because we can't decide which agenda is right for us, but that is beside the point.

I feel all non agnostics as people who are assuming something. Thats really my only view. Im not even sure if other agnostics follow it. What I do know is assuming there is a god is as bad as assuming there isn't one.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by grimreaper797]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Bigwhammy...somewhere along the lines you say "In a world without God, only materialism and darwinism is left".

Another poster chimed in and said "Bingo".

And thats exactly the problem with all of these threads: There are not only two worldviews (religion and atheism), there are thousands.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by an3rkist
 


I was being facetious.

But as for the evidence, it certainly seems suspicious to me how the victims of atheistic states and governments are generally focused on religions and churches. If you want me to find some examples for you, complete with those nifty looking 'ex' tags, just ask. As Hannibal Lecter would say...

I have oodles.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Where did Marxist communism come from??? How much do you know about it?

Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, had a ready answer to pose as a front or a vouch for Communism against the skeptics who doubted his doctrine. To "sell" his philosophy, he laid the burden of Communism upon "science." "Science" would fulfill Communism, he claimed.

"Science" was gaining ground in its own right, and so for Marx to claim that "science" would provide for the fulfillment of Communism was to align with the contemporary belief that "science" was advancing mankind in every positive way.

"Science?" you ask. "How would science bring forth the reality of Communism?" Well, in support of his agenda, Marx laid down five basic "scientific laws"1: (1) There is no God. (2) Everything is material. (3) Human nature is the product of the economic environment in which the individual is raised. (4) A special environment creates a special class. (5) The proletariat must win.



One infamous Communist, Lenin, once said, "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." 2 Where there is a supreme God, there is a less supreme man who is necessarily under subjection to the supreme God. Therefore, where there is a supreme God, man has limited power, especially since the supreme God may "interfere" at any time and take charge--unpredictably, according to His own counsel. In other words, as the anti-Communism expert, Dr. Fred C. Schwarz, put it, "If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance." 3 The reality of a ruling God topples Communism's man-centered, predictable-circumstance-based sandcastle; so the idea of God must go--as a "law."



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
The very conspiracy is to set up two insufficient systems while those in power subscribe to neither...because they are both flawed.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
^ ^ ^ ^
Sounds like Dawkins, doesn't it???

Here comes more ex tags!



"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the condition of your bourgeois production"--Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, p. 67. This theory states that "the economic environment creates the ideas, attitudes and impulses that constitute human nature. ...The experiences of life, provided by the economic environment, are stored up within the structure of the brain and ultimately reveal themselves in the thoughts and emotions of the mature individual." 4 Human nature is therefore a changeable product based upon one's economic environment rather than an unchangeable, inherent condition.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   


Atheist hubris

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.


Dinesh D'Souza



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The hidden hand sets up apparent "polar opposites" against each other and watches the two half-baked and predicatable stereotype systems fight each other while staying hidden as a third unknown party.

A few false dichotomies some of you have fallen for are:

Atheism vs. Religion

Capitalism vs. Communism

Liberals vs. Conservatives

and so forth and so on.


Every thread on this perpetuates the illusion.

The truth lies in the middle and in the "neither nor".

Slave to Religion or slave to Materialism? Its your "choice".



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I know at least once I said dominant world views. But since you are making the assertion there are thousands, why not give an example of a few. How do hey fit into this scenario.

Atheists want to avoid the responsibility their ideology entails. People of all faiths are being assaulted by Dawkins' books and movies. His world view is Atheism, and Darwinism. His charge is faith causes all the killing. My reply is simply "Godlessness does far worse".



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Notice how the author walks on eggshells to not take a position on anything else in particular. This is because when God is eliminated it really only leaves Darwinism and materialism as a world view.


Quote-mine. The context here is making claims about the existence of gods/godesses/pink unicorns.

ABE:

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made in this - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

atheism.about.com...



That is a little secret forward thinking Atheists like to keep in the closet. Dawkins has taken this quite a ways further in advocating the abolition of faith in God. He calls parents teaching their children about God “child abuse”.


He talks about the abuse of childhood innocence, predominately related to scaring kids with things like the hell concept. A form of mental abuse, filling kids with fear.


If true atheists make no claims or denials, then Dawkins is an atheist extremist, or perhaps a radical atheist.


Still relying on the quote-mine. Of course 'true' atheists make claims. If I said that the sky was blue, would that make me a radical atheist because I should make no claims or denials?


So what Dawkins seeks to do is blame all war and violence on faith.


prove it.


However, it now looks like Darwin’s public theism may have been more for show. Upon studying his recently discovered private writings it looks as if Darwin’s theism may have ended shortly before Origin of the Species was released.


And to do this you show some rubbish quote? He was an agnostic. He stated that he was not an atheist even in the 'most extreme fluctuation' of his position.

Darwin 1887


I believe it is indeed fair, to infer a strong connection between Atheism and Darwinism.


If you say so. Pity that most people in the US who accept evolutionary theory is a valid explanation of the origin of species are actually non-atheists.



The predecessors of Marx and Engels were Russian communists such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. They all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution.


No they didn't. I can't even be bothered showing Stalin's own words on this issue again. He had his own scientists with their own version of evolution which was non-darwinian - Lysenckoism. Mao also depended on it.

Using such pseudoscientific approaches in agriculture directly led to massive crop failures, and the famines that caused many of the deaths you are using in your sophistry.


Mao Tse Tung, who established communist rule in China, openly stated that 'Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.' (4).


Probably a crank quote you picked up from a crank website. You can read through Mao's work if you can find it, reference it:

www.etext.org...


There is an undeniable unity between Atheism, the theory of evolution, and communism. Evolution claims that life is the product of blind chance, we are not made in the image of a divine creator, and we are simply animals. Evolution is the scientific support system for atheism. Communism is an atheist political ideology. It is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism.


Going big on the canards tonight, whammy. Should take it easy. Can rot the brain. Easily deniable.

The leading communist states relied on a neo-lamarckian theory. Many theists accept evolution. Atheist =/= communist. But communist sometimes = atheist.

ABE: oh, and evolution doesn't say that life is the product of blind chance. It does say it was non-directed by things like gods. The 'blind' watchmaker is the proposal.

However, there are other forms of communism, even christian communism.


More importantly, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is due to violence and conflict (survival of the fittest). This “natural selection” mechanism supports the concept of 'dialectics' which is a fundamental tenant of communist totalitarianism as witnessed in the 20th century.


No it doesn't. Even if the theory of evolution was wrong, it is self-evident that violence and conflict are characteristic of nature.

All a major part of evolutionary theory says is that those who reproduce most successfully will come to dominate populations.


Richard Dawkins is wrong. Faith is not the root of all evil.


I think you are wrong by suggesting he said this was the case.


when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of 'conflict' remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all oppose violence.


Pity they make little headway to stop it. You had almost 1800 years to show that the philosophy of non-conflict will dominate society.

ABE:


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Certainly Mel. In fact I will let Dr. Dawkins do the honor of saying it with his very own lips. This film is called "The Root of All Evil" it's about all religion.

And one listen to the hate speech against ALL religious faith in this video ought to settle the damn conspiracy issue once and for all. This not about just Christianity. Dawkins is after all faith.


Again, prove it. He doesn't actually say it is the root of all evil. It is the title of the series and it is 'The root of all evil?'

He has stated numerous times that to say anything is the root of all evil is silly. Listen to his own words, rather than rely on superficial scholarship.


Mel I agree with you. But you know what? The Inquisition was perpetrated by Catholic crazy dudes. But we have to own ours and you airbrush yours.


And what was the inquisition about might I ask? Wasn't anything to do with heresy was it? When you can show that Mao or Stalin killed for atheism, the comparison might hold. Communism =/= atheism not matter how much you try the logical contortions.

But I agree they were also crazy dudes.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
A common Atheist device when debating Christians is to bring up the inquisition. You can blame Christianity for that.


And they do
alot.

Gets kind of old doesn't it?

Here Rome comes along, murders Jesus, murders his followers, and then decides to highjack Christianity and turn it into Catholicism. Then we have the Vatican going out murdering people 'in the name of Christ' - a complete and utter blasphemy - well: they succeeded. To this day people are blaming Christians for the action of the Roman satanist empire. Isn't it brilliant?

If you ask me, it's not that atheists re-write history, it's that they subscribe to a BS version of history.


P.S. That Dawkins documentary is disgusting. Fearmongering anti-Islamic garbage... I fail to see how people consider Dawkins a leader.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

I know at least once I said dominant world views. But since you are making the assertion there are thousands, why not give an example of a few. How do hey fit into this scenario.

Atheists want to avoid the responsibility their ideology entails. People of all faiths are being assaulted by Dawkins' books and movies. His world view is Atheism, and Darwinism. His charge is faith causes all the killing. My reply is simply "Godlessness does far worse".



The atheist assault is only a reaction to christian assault.

True psychological power neednt judge over what others think, neither convince others to think differently.

The cause of ALL world problems is the inability to have a firm belief while at the same time needing others to agree with that belief.

But if you need to convince others, you are not convinced of it yourself.

If the belief were firm, it wouldnt require others to believe it also.

Christians and Atheists on this Forum are notorious for shoving their doctrines onto others.

But I know plenty of normal christians and atheists out there...decent people who practice complete appreciation of other peoples beliefs.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The very conspiracy is to set up two insufficient systems while those in power subscribe to neither...because they are both flawed.



Not being smart, but can this not be apllied to pretty much anything?
We are human and so far from being perfect in so many ways that it isn't even funny. Being an Agnostic, I do not subscribe to any one belief system. Yes, I feel that there is some force in the universe but I can not put a name to it. Though, I also firmly believe that that force is far from perfect as well. I could be wrong, but I have no problem with that. I am comfortable with my choices and beliefs. I am just thankful that I am free to make those decisions for myself and not be force to believe someone elses beliefs.

Back to my point, how can something that is man made not be flawed in some way, shape or form? Or did I totally mis0understand what you meant?



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
You say that these are the two "dominant" systems of thinking.

Rest assured they are both dying out though. As the intelligence of the overall populace increases, barbarian belief-systems will be eradicated.

Atheism is barbarian because it does not recognize the soul and a supreme being.

Religion is barbarian because it requires submission and promotes intolerance peppered with simplistic fairy tales of how life works.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join