Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by an3rkist

---

Yet ask more than a few atheists and they will tell you that every war that has had some religious faction fighting in it was a religious war.
You really need to look on both sides of that coin.

reply to post by grimreaper797

---

YES!!! EXACTLY!!!!

What I (and a few others) have been screaming for a while now.
Blame the people.
NOT the concept.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

It's all a stupid game of ideologies.
Early Christianity did it to old Paganism.......
And that big old wheel keeps on turning.
A certain amount of Atheism wants the power Christianity once had.
And will do a great deal of twisting and most likely blood (eventually) to achieve that ends.
Certainly seem to think they could do better.
Too bad they are wrong and it doesn't change human nature.

reply to post by an3rkist

---

I love to watch you people's play the semantic shuffle, when it isn't pissing me off that is.
Atheism is a religion.
The minute you slap that label on yourself and join that collective you are answering the spiritual question. Sure your answering with a resounding NO. But your still answering the question. Get over it.

Science does not have the ability to deal with matters spiritual IF they do in fact exist. It deals with physical matter.
And no amount of semantic wrangling will change THAT undeniable fact.

reply to post by grimreaper797

---

And your exactly right.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

I am not soo sure it's one centralized conspiracy but the way of those who believe themselves "leaders of men" (and actually have very little skill in what a TRUE leader is) to keep people needing them and giving them power over their lives.. And those less ethical will use that.

After all. It's easier to control a group with a perceived enemy than one without any enemies.

reply to post by bobafett1972

---

Mad love @ TRUE agnostics.
Not the ones that pretend to be agnostic yet spout atheistic dogma.

Wasn't saying your one. Cause I don't think you are (the latter).
Just had to say.........






[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Thats all explained on page two in my first post and JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T TRUE.

If anything Radical Atheists are the most intolerant of people, for they desire a worldview where each of those religions you listed,,

are also, with the exception of his own Buddism,, as Sam Harris says,,

DESTROYED

- Con







[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology

---

I always found it rather retarded that alot of atheists want to fix a TOLERANCE problem with INTOLERANCE.
Seems to me............. well............... VERY illogical.

Rather like trying to build a glider out of lead.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

www.aclu.org...

Apparently they defend the constitutional rights of disgusting homophobic christians (like the westboro crew) along with even more disgusting paedophiles.

Many more here. But carry on con, misrepresentation is your main approach like most conservative ideologues.

What's the Sam Harris thing meant to show? 'Harris defends witches! We demand the right to burn them!'.

Suppose the ACLU might help you if you ask nicely.

reply to post by melatonin

---

Hmph. I didn't know Con wanted to burn me......
(is a pagan remember?)
Con? Do you plan on burning me?

heheheheh

Anyrate....

Special pleading mel. Not to mention stereotyping.
Tsk.

And if con does support those Westdumbarses I'd have to shoot him.

Though I never heard him support those idiots.




[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Yeah I think I remember saying I read it did I not?

I liked the book but in no way would I say I am an expert in buddism.

- Con

HA HA HA Naah Mel is KoO

but Wraoth YOU ROCK! LOL

Warm Regards

- Con

But the ACLU did support the constitional rights of those idiots. Not special pleading at all. That is what the ACLU does.

Sometimes that means acting against the religious, sometimes it means acting for them.

And con is easy to stereotype. He's playing the normal right-wing conservative card against the ACLU, misrepresenting their actions as predominately anti-religious. Attempting to suggest they condone NAMBLA etc. BS. They defended their constitutional rights.

So are you saying anyone in disagreement with what the ACLU does for gays even when it is to teach transexualism to kindergartners and lower punishment time for pedophiles that makes me a homophobic Christian?

You misrepresent ME melvin

Sam doesn't wany the Bible in public librarys but he wants wicca in there instead.

Sam Harris is the biggest Jerk of all of them

- Con

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by melatonin

---

Ohh slippery one.
Wasn't talking about the ACLU.
Was talking about you.

Thought that was obvious but I guess I was wrong.

And dood..............
*shakes head*

Might want to not throw stones at others for using a group's whatever when you do the same thing yourself.

And considering the fact I highly doubt he is what you say he is, seeing as to how I am a non-christian and I haven't had him go all "God Warrior" on me........

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Oh BULL They defended their constitutional rights? when the framers say the pursuit of happiness that doesn't mean the pursuit of " happenis" with little boys. You make such an /-\SS of yourself when you assume I am misrepresenting the ACLU. YOU LOVE THEM SO MUCH BECAUSE WHY??

You are an Atheist. Right RIIIIGHT.

I think it is waste of money we spend if we have to "protect" the civil liberties of pedophiles whether they be so called Christians or Atheists


It's just plane DUMB'

- Con

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Did you actually read Sam's article? The next part goes:



I don't think he is actually suggesting that he wants the bible out of libraries to be replaced by books on wicca.

Heh, con, sometimes I just can't take you seriously.

ABE:



I don't think I quite said that. They do defend the rights of homophobic christians to protest against gay pride stuff. They would even defend your right to rant on about how disgusting it is to attempt to reduce prejudice against minority groups like transgender individuals.



I kinda agree it might be a waste of dosh. However, if you have an idea of free speech written in stone - then they are people who have a right to free speech, even if they speak disgusting rubbish which do not break laws.

I thought that was sort of the idea. Unless you think some people don't deserve rights to free speech and other basic ideas of american liberty...

[edit on 22-3-2008 by melatonin]

yeah I did read it,, ya know he seems to write differen't in his essays then his books.

I try not to take myself too serious too

- Con

No no I agree,. with that part but I don't see how his freedom of speech was being violated.

I mean I think a person wanting to say a prayer at lunch in public schools have that right too. The ACLU doesn't




Funny stuff lol

- Con





[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

I'd like to conduct a survey:
Since we can't take a vote or do a show of hands, it will just have to be a personal inventory.

1. How many of you are Anglo?
2. How many of you are descendants of immigrants from another country?
3. How many of you had ancestors that owned slaves?
4. How many of you are American citizens?

I am going to guess that there was a majority of yes answers.
I bet you are wondering what I am getting at. Over and over on these threads of Christian vs, Atheist or vice/versa, I see the accusation of, 'Murdering Christians.' It tends to make everyone think that the rest of you folks' hands are clean.

1. How many Indians would you say were slaughtered?
2.How many black people were enslaved, beaten, tortured and murdered?
3. Are we guilty of this? Or is it our ancestors?

If it is a question of who did what, then bobafett1972 has already provided a succinct and credible answer. However, what bobafett1972 has addressed, and what everyone seems to have addressed, is not the question. It is not the argument.

In order to solve a crime a detective doesn't need to know what has been done or what did it. The detective knows what the crime is and that a human did it. The remaining questions are "Who?" and "Why?". The detective may find out the answer to "Who?" before he finds out the answer to "Why?", and that is preferable because if a suspect is apprehended the detective only has to ask the suspect to provide the answer to "Why?" If the suspect remains at large the detective then has to provide an answer to "Why?" on her or his own. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the crime the answer to "Why?" may be easy or difficult to answer. However, answering "Why?" in the absence of a suspect can significantly narrow the list of possible suspects. Usually.

I use this example of a detective solving a crime because it serves as a good analogy to what should be going on in this thread, but which is not. So far, there are five pages of folks taking sides. A blame game is what this thread amounts to. A detective does not go around blaming everybody on the block for a crime, which is what is happening in this thread. A detective seeks only the suspect or suspects who may be responsible. And if a detective is seeking a suspect or suspects, a detective will need to establish motive in order to reasonably manage solving a criminal case.



The second sentence in that quote is where the heart of the argument lies. The question that Dawkins attempts to answer, that everyone in this thread (with the possible exception of bobafett1972) has attempted to answer is the following:

Is religious faith and/or the teaching of blind faith the ultimate reason for past and present human atrocities in the civilized and uncivilized world?

That is the question that everyone concerned with this argument should be trying to answer. It is not about blaming. We know who are responsible for the known detesable acts that have been committed. What we do not seem to know is why those acts were committed.

As far as I can tell, all wars are fought over the claiming of useful space. For example, Iraq qualifies as useful space because of its deep, rich, and plentiful oil fields. Acquiring useful space amounts to money and power. Not ideology, useful space provides the primary motive to all wars that are and have been fought.

The human component in war is also valuable, of course, but only up until to the point that it is useful in the acquisition of useful space and the management of acquired useful space. Acquired useful space should produce money and power. Wars are never fought over the acquisition of more humans. Humans that are acquired along with conquered territory are assessed for value. Namely values that would support the conquering regime's mission. Intellectual and physical value are the two dominant traits of humans that are considered. Some common questions that are asked are

Are they reasonably smart?

Are they healthy and strong?

Can they learn new and different things that we teach them?

What is important to consider is the hierarchical systems that make war possible.

How and why are policies accepted and passed?

Why would masses of humans agree or deny the dictates and policies of the few and powerful humans who govern and are in control?

Religious faith or political faith both make the claim and promise of delivering "Truth, Justice, and Salvation for all." Why do masses of humans choose to give up the major responsibilities for managing their lives to fewer and comparatively more powerful humans? This is where Dawkins's question takes us.

Religion and politics as compared to science is what provides us the foundation for this argument. Religion and politics require faith. Politics requires a bit more evidence than Religion does, but religion and politics hardly rise to the standard of science. Science promises neither Truth, Justice, nor Salvation. It only endeavors to provide increased knowledge and understanding of the natural universe that humans inhabit. Science requires that humans take full responsibility for their lives and their future. Religion and politics each require that humans give up a great measure of their responsibility and control. Religion does make the promise of delivering knowledge, but it does not provide knowledge that can be verified outside of faith. Science does provide knowledge that can be verified outside of faith.

This is what I think that Dawkins is aiming at. That humanity taking full responsibility for itself would be better off than it does giving up that responsibility to religious figures and political figures. I also think that Dawkins has made a great error for indicting all of the world's religious faiths and pitting them against atheists. He has made a huge misstep, in my opinion. His effort to deny, discredit, and destroy religious faith basically makes it appear that atheism and science are faiths that are alternative to religious and political faiths. Obviously Dawkins's effort was misguided.

Are people who are taught to believe in things which cannot be proven more susceptible to policies and dictates that do not work in their favor? Are those people more susceptible to believing lies? Policies, dictates, and lies which may fatally work against them.

That is something else that Dawkins questions. His argument implies that if humanity took responsibility for itself, it would be less likely to work against itself. Of course, this requires faith, but it only requires that humanity believe in itself.

The idea of a Messiah lies at the heart of this. A savior. The Savior. Humanity might would be more responsible for itself if it believed in a disinterested God. Knowing that nothing will save you might be the best thing for your survival and chance of salvation. Waiting for something to save you that you don't know for a fact exits or that you believe to exist for which there is no proof could prove to be debilitating to one's sense of responsibility. However, this is not the same thing as saying that atheists are more responsible than those who are religious.

This is where we get into a philosophical quandary. The supposedly omniscient and unlimited God through the eyes of men versus the limited perspective and capability of Man.

Frankly, I think it's foolish for any person to attempt to answer these questions for all other persons. Again, Dawkins has made an egregious error in judgment. Others in this thread have made the same mistake, though I mean no disrespect. It is clear that these questions cannot be answered, and, in my view, I don't think they are questions that science can answer or should be trying to answer. Religious institutions are guilty of doing the same.

I believe in God. It is impossible for one to question God, so I don't. I believe in Man and science but not without question. I believe that humanity is on its own. I believe that people should question what men have written and put forth as representing Truth or a final Truth. Any document claiming to hold the answer for all humans should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. What is the compelling reason that Man should relinquish responsibility to what men have written? Dawkins and his books qualify under this as well as other religious persons and documents.

I am German
My Grandfather was a motorcycle mechanic in Germany during wwII
No slaves
Citizen

I think what happened to the Indians was analgous to genocide and no I don't think people living today are responsible to make restitution on the sins of our ancestors no more then we should make our children pay for our debts. That last part however seems to be just what we are doing.

Now ,, what was the point of that?

- Con

reply to post by Areal51

---

Well you also got to remember, science.
Like religion.
Is made by man.
His attempts to understand the hows and whys of existence respectively.

To say that science is a fount of ultimate knowledge is ignoring the fact that it is just as easily tainted by its creator as we can all agree religion has been.

I don't understand why sooo many think that it is untainted by that thing we soo seem to LOVE to drag into everything.
Politics.
Watch the movie "Dark Matter" it's an dramatized example.


*edited because I am a grammatically challenged idiot when I am tired*

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

But IIRC, the case was related to some pedo who had copies of NAMBLA publications. The parent of one victim of this pedo attempted to sue NAMBLA. But they can't be held responsible for his actions. No matter how disgusting their position is, they can express it.

If these dudes were sued, then those producing anti-abortion stuff read by people who have killed abortion doctors, should also be open to similar action.



I think they can, as long as it's not public. Maybe they should do it like your mate Matthew suggested might be an option - 'in thy closet'. If you all did so, you might have found Teddie Haggard in there.

Wow was lot to read but well,, what can say Damn good post. I don't agree with all of it but what I don't agree with would amount to splitting hairs. I think whammy would appreciate the work that went into that whether he agreed with it or not.

- Con