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.

 

Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 69
24
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You would really have to define God to completely debunk Dawkins. "God" can be whatever a person wants it to be. To you it is a supreme being who created and controls everything. To me it is the laws that govern the Universe, or our consciousness. To Muslims, it's a slightly different being than yours. To Dawkins, God is "science". If your faith in your belief drives you to harm other humans, it's evil. I believe Dawkins is correct, faith, even faith in God, (if you use an open definition of the word "God"), is the root of all evil. If he uses his faith in Science to impose his beliefs on others, he is just as bad as the theists who are doing it.

From my standpoint, you have not debunked Dawkins. To Stalin, God may have been himself. Who knows? His faith in his own beliefs being superior to that of others caused him to commit genocide; that's my opinion but it seems pretty logical and sound.

I think Dawkins is correct, but he has only implicated himself if he does what many of you seem to think he plans on doing. But, my definition of God is different than others, which could be said about everybody I suppose.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin
 


the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil v the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil the root of all evil

?????????????????????




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

It is obviously implying that people like myself who believe in God are delusional. I find that highly offensive and bigoted. I am not delusional. I have two college degrees... It is extremely offensive... to imply I am mentally ill!

Yet you yourself think nothing of pillorying atheists as 'violent sociopaths'.

You started this thread. You have started others like it. They are threads in which no real evidence for conspiracy is presented. Instead, you and your chums use them to make personal attacks on scientists, evolutionists and atheists. You freely slander and insult not only the living but also the dead, who cannot defend themselves. Then you get all hot under the collar because someone says you are delusional!

If you don't wish to be offended by such things, don't deliberately start threads and post material calculated to provoke and offend.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I'm replying to your post about the black globby stuff. I didn't want to quote the whole post, so I'll just respond to it.

There are so many things happening these days and it's these supernatural ocurrences that happen to us as individuals that seem to be the reason Christians have such strong beliefs. I guess it's hard for someone that hasn't had something like this happen to them to understand why we, as Christians, feel so strongly about our faith. When something like this happens to someone as an individual, it's just too difficult to deny that it isn't supernatural. And when something like this happens to you, it changes you forever.

These things can't be described or explained by science, and this is where science misses the mark, in my opinion. Not that I don't believe in science...I do...strongly. But this supernatural faith, I believe, is the lost connection between science and ourselves.

More and more of these things you have described are happening and being reported by more and more people in very recent years. It seems a very logical conclusion to believe that something is happening right before our very eyes. I think your theories go a long way in answering some of these questions. It makes me believe we had all better wake up...and quick. That was a very courageous and personal post. You have My respect.

I hope what I just said makes sense. I've been working a lot of long hours and I'm pretty brain-dead right now.

I_R



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
This is from The New Republic: a journal of science and the arts. It agrees with my assessment of degrading inflammatory tone Dawkins takes.I can not let this topic rest if folks denying any conspiracy or saying Richard Dawkins is going about it in the right way.



Atheism's Wrong Turn


Mindless argument found in godless books.
by Damon Linker

In the penultimate chapter of his best-selling book The God Delusion, biologist and world-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins presents his view of religious education, which he explains by way of an anecdote. Following a lecture in Dublin, he recalls, "I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell."

Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery, for it follows directly from the character of his atheism. And not just his. Over the past four years, several prominent atheists have made similarly inflammatory claims in a series of best-selling books. Philosopher Daniel Dennett shares Dawkins's hostility to religious education, warning ominously in Breaking the Spell that "under the protective umbrellas of personal privacy and religious freedom there are widespread practices in which parents" harm their children by teaching them ignoble lies. In The End of Faith, writer Sam Harris argues that "the very ideal of religious tolerance--born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God--is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss." And then there is polemicist Christopher Hitchens, whose manifesto God is Not Great culminates in a call for humanity to "escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection ... to know the enemy, and to prepare to fight it."

Journalists have dubbed this combative style of challenging religious belief "the new atheism." To the extent that the appellation is meant to highlight the novelty of virulently anti-religious ideas finding a mass audience in the United States, it is certainly fitting. But, as a description of the style of unbelief itself, it demonstrates a striking lack of historical awareness. That's because "the new atheism" is not particularly new. It belongs to an intellectual genealogy stretching back hundreds of years, to a moment when atheist thought split into two traditions: one primarily concerned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth, the other driven by a visceral contempt for the personal faith of others.

The New Republic


Originally posted by the Dickie Dee
"I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."


Damn if that isn't insulting. Please do not pretend he isn't purposefully using degrading and insulting language to people of faith. If he went about it in a more respectful way; without insinuating that I am mentally ill or a child abuser, it would be a lot easier to respect his views. It is dame n near impossible to respect someone who is calling you a crazy child abuser for bringing up your child as a Christian. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect that.


[edit on 3/28/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


That was not my opinion. I prefaced it with I am not sure I agree with this... I was letting you know about it, Your argument is with that blogger not me. Sorry if it disturbed you, I really do not agree with that opinion.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


It would only be the same thing if there was a book called The Atheism Delusion.

Here you go:

The Atheist Delusion by Greg Taylor

The Atheist Delusion by John Gray

The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath

You also neglect to mention the countless vials of bile and opprobrium that atheists have had poured over them by believers since the beginning of time.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
The Atheist Delusion by Greg Taylor


Not a book. It looks like an article in reply to Dawkins?


The Atheist Delusion by John Gray


Not a book. Looks like another rebuttal article?

But to be fair, I will say your example is close enough and I will stand corrected as long as you let me know that is actually a book. They just look like articles to me in reply to Dawkins' book.


The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath


Ah. Finally an actual book. But does it say, 'The Atheism Delusion?' Why, I don't believe it does!



You also neglect to mention the countless vials of bile and opprobrium that atheists have had poured over them by believers since the beginning of time.


The beginning of time? Just how old do you think the Bible/religion is? Regardless, if I didn't mention it it's probably because this forum is already saturated with such sentiments towards people of faith.


[edit on 3/29/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 




Posted by Bigwhammy
In the penultimate chapter of his best-selling book The God Delusion, biologist and world-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins presents his view of religious education, which he explains by way of an anecdote. Following a lecture in Dublin, he recalls, "I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell."


Well, I suppose if he were a smarter 'biologist', he would leave the psychological problems to the field of psychiatry. I have a lot of psychologists as friends and I have never heard a one of them say anything like the above quote. Since everyone deals with everything in different ways, I wonder what it would be like if the tables were turned, and children never had any moral upbringing? I suppose if we use his logic, could that not also be considered child abuse, especially since faith is usually coupled with hope? What would happen in the minds of children who are raised with no hope?

Just questions I'm posing here for deeper thought.

I_R



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
They are threads in which no real evidence for conspiracy is presented.


I'm not going to worry about his other threads but concerning this thread: There was more evidence (and actual proof in come cases) in this thread (that atheistic conspirators have attempted to rewrite history and still continue to do so) than almost any other thread in this forum where a conspiracy was put forth. I have seen only a few other threads in this forum that verified the conspiracy it put forth as much as this thread.


If you don't wish to be offended by such things, don't deliberately start threads and post material calculated to provoke and offend.


Let me ask you this: Would you be telling him the same thing if he had made a thread about the historical rewrite by Protestant Christians? Or posted comments about the horrible things said by condescending or bigoted Christian leaders throughout said thread? I don't see you in the thread on BTS where such things are being posted about some Christians.

Should I start telling any non Christain who makes a thread about bonehead Christian leaders that they are only doing it to 'provoke and offend?'

The sword cuts both ways. I recall seeing some interesting Christian information in the Atheist Chat thread. Should I storm in and tell all of you that you are only trying to provoke and offend? Nah, I don't care. It's your right as members here. Whammy nailed it and called out Dawkins in particular for some very horrible things he said concerning 'people of faith' and religion. So Whammy [and his 'chums' as you call us] are the bad guys for bringing it up in the thread? But it's okay for you to do the same thing in the atheism thread? These were not hearsay quotes: many times actual video footage was shown of Dawkins saying insensitive things.

Case closed.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
You would really have to define God to completely debunk Dawkins. "God" can be whatever a person wants it to be.


Although the above objection looks like the game Clinton tried to play by saying 'define a lie,' I'll simply say 'fair enough' for now. But what do you think of his comments concerning 'people of faith?' This does not necessarily refer to believers in a deity but those who believe in a spirituality (among other things) as well. It would seem even Buddhism would fall under this as it is a belief system.

You can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Dawkins has even been quoted as jokingly saying something along the lines that when he is done with Christianity he will move onto Buddhism next. So, it seems that even the definition of God or even a belief in a god is somewhat irrelevant. He seems to have an ax to grind with anyone of faith even if his fascination seems to be with the Abrahamic religions.

[edit on 3/29/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Can someone please point out where Atheists have elected Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other Atheist to be our mouthpiece? Say what you wnat about Dawkins, I could care less. He's another guy talking a bunch of stuff and spouting off opinions. I don't see how attacking Dawkins, whether he's right or wrong, or civil or abrasive, proves anything, validates anything, or refutes anything. He's just a man who happens to get alot of publicity. And we all know the people that get the most publicity are people who either say very smart things or very dumb things. He's probably done both.

I don't think you can formulate a picture of a conspiracy based on this guys ramblings. Or any guy's ramblings. Seems to me it wouldn't be a very effective conspiracy if you could get to the heart of it by going on YouTube.

What we have here is a circular conspiracy, Atheists are conspiring to assert there a religious conspiracy, the religious are conspiring to assert an Atheist conspiracy, in the process probably obscuring the real conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Can someone please point out where Atheists have elected Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other Atheist to be our mouthpiece? Say what you wnat about Dawkins, I could care less. He's another guy talking a bunch of stuff and spouting off opinions. I don't see how attacking Dawkins, whether he's right or wrong, or civil or abrasive, proves anything, validates anything, or refutes anything. He's just a man who happens to get alot of publicity. And we all know the people that get the most publicity are people who either say very smart things or very dumb things. He's probably done both.

I don't think you can formulate a picture of a conspiracy based on this guys ramblings. Or any guy's ramblings. Seems to me it wouldn't be a very effective conspiracy if you could get to the heart of it by going on YouTube.

What we have here is a circular conspiracy, Atheists are conspiring to assert there a religious conspiracy, the religious are conspiring to assert an Atheist conspiracy, in the process probably obscuring the real conspiracy.


Hitler was just a man, Stalin was just a man, Mao, was merely,, a man.


What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents. - RFK


This is an interesting quote from Robert Kennedy, If I was to only look at the Causes for Atheism, then I challenge any Atheist to look at the scores of websites they have out there and simply compare them to Christian websites. Removing exceptions to the rule as I understand such exist, lets cut right to the heart of Atheism in this way, and I will submit what they are for is never or rarely mentioned, when it is, it is for the perpetuation of evolution, the biggest waste of money, time and talent in the history of Science and it should be given its walking papers because it has failed and will continue to fail as a science. I will challenge anyone to Google Atheism and Christianity and see the obvious inconspicuous difference. See where one site is saturated with the critisism of one specific type of people and the examples given to excuse reasons to hate them or to ridicule them into a supposed better more reasonable behaviour. See which sites pump themselves full of intellectual superiority while doing it as ignorant angry individuals. See how one group does not deny what they believe while another denies they have anything in common as a group yet spout out the same sound bytes and clever twisted talk of convoluted logic by an author named legion.

The books by hitchens, Dawkins and Harris among others have given a reason that on its face makes sense and exploits the readers as so called "victims" of an oppressive Christian Religion where they have re-written history and de-frauded Science.

I don't say this to convince Atheists of it. I know that among them, Gig is a refreshing example that they are not all the same. The refreshing part is also the compelling part that when it comes to so called "Free thinkers" YOU are one of the few who actually think freely and the exception to the rule. The stereotype of the typical Atheist fits hand to glove foot to mouth as we have seen is the case in many debated matters. Of course that can be said of theist too but we really have always known we are a very flawed and immoral people.

We also know that giving in to our sinful nature especially knowing that there is no point to us then to live and die, that we are nothing special,, we would slide quickly into barbarians.

Just why are so many websites by Atheists having to remind everyone how dumb we are how evil we have been always taking the most extreme cases of abuse or taking a somewhat slower Christian from the short yellow bus portraying him as the poster child for Christians in general.

I can say with Bold Confidence that I know you won't find comments like this on that search


Go ahead and see what they are both about, and what they are against.

As many here would like to say they are not part of any conspiracy as if they would have to call it that before anyone believes it. However, here we have seen efforts by many Atheists using the same revisionist techniques they have claimed the holocaust never happened they are claiming Christ never existed.

Tell me if you can find an Atheist website that isn't pre-occupied with dismantling Christianity. I mean when it comes to comparisons I have given positive reasons for Christianity and have asked Atheist if they can match such charitable efforts. Ill never forget, just after Maddness denied the Atheist element in the atrocities debate as "Not done in the name of Atheism, so they don't count" he gave Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as his answer to my Charity Challenge.

As tempting as it was to say, "Bill Gates didn't give that money in the name of Atheism" so it doesn't count, I let him have a his victory but it wasn't about winning the argument as it was with him. See the truth is Bill IS an atheist, and he DID give substantial contributions to Charities HOWEVER, that kind of honesty, I will never see from the Atheist. I have done this already but just take a guess how many times you will get an apology from one of them when compared to Christians. You have made more when wrong more than any, I have seen combined since I have been here.



Why should they be angry about us not wanting to support such egregious lies and a Science whose history has been tainted by its Atheist supporters who will stop at nothing to substantiate it as fact.

When it has been proven WE HUMANS existed millions of years ago.



That seeing humans like us millions of years ago, who had enough intelligence to create a needle would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Well, it sure is interesting isn't it,

When the needle is found.





Again, it would be easy to ask people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, what the point of their vitriolic, vulgar, distasteful books are compelling them to take responsibility for their statements. I mean if they have all these problems with Christians, then I ask,, what are they doing about it?

Is it just lip service or are we condemned to having to hear the books followers whine about us abusing our kids while NONE of them ever call the damn police. Are we to ignore the words of Kennedy?

You might not think this is a conspiracy but that doesn't stop a rather large angry group who want the word "God" removed from the face of the earth. Not because it really offends them. No it makes more sense to remove it while rewriting history that Christ was a myth, Science teaches Bunk and generation after generation hear less and less about the creator who made them.

They are angry, and they encourage others to be as well



Anticipating the accusations of quote mining and using "cherry Picked" images and photos does not change the fact that it is what you will see just by casually surfing their websites and blogs.

The obsession with sex and hedonism on the menus






To the anger in their hearts




What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents. - RFK


I know what Atheist’s say about us, and I am afraid I can only see it for what it is,,

A conspiracy to take from us, the most important loved one

In our lives

- Con



[edit on 30-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 
This post earns you a seat in Pedant's Corner with melationin and me.

Your claim that religious 'creationists' are merely responding to an attack from atheists remains, however, unsubstantiated. It is merely that the march of science renders your beliefs increasingly untenable. You see this as evidence of a conspiracy, but it is simply a case of the truth being made known.

Good luck with your rearguard action; since the premises on which you base it are illogical and therefore untenable, it may prosper for some decades yet, doing ever more damage to society and morals, but the weight of evidence is against it. You and your confrères may succeed, for a time -- possibly quite a long time -- to hold back the tide of history, but truth will out.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
This post earns you a seat in Pedant's Corner with melationin and me.


Why, thank you. I have never had such a feeling of acceptance and am proud to be the Christian's spokeswoman in the Pedant's Corner. We've been needing a Pedant Representative for a while now.


Your claim that religious 'creationists' are merely responding to an attack from atheists remains, however, unsubstantiated.


Unsubstantiated? From your links:


The Atheist Delusion
Answering Richard Dawkins
www.newdawnmagazine.com...


Right there in the article's title.


The Atheist Delusion
In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain...
books.guardian.co.uk...


Dawkins' name is mentioned in the second paragraph then very, very frequently as of the of 9th paragraph.


The Dawkins Delusion
[Dawkins' The God Delusion is mentioned on the front cover of the book!]
www.amazon.com...


Not to mention:


The Dawkins Delusion
The Dawkins Delusion? is a book by the biochemist and Christian theologian Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, written as a critical response from a Christian perspective to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.
en.wikipedia.org...


Well that was easy. Didn't even break a sweat.


It is merely that the march of science renders your beliefs increasingly untenable.


No, it does not. Maybe for those who do not know better but many of us believe every time science discovers something about our world and universe, they are merely figuring out a process of God.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your claim that religious 'creationists' are merely responding to an attack from atheists remains, however, unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated? From your links: tral-la, boom-de-ay, etc...

The operative word in the sentence quoted is, as you are well aware, 'merely'.

Is this really the very best you can do? I am reminded of little girls arguing over the rules of hopscotch or French cricket.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
The operative word in the sentence quoted is, as you are well aware, 'merely'.

Is this really the very best you can do? I am reminded of little girls arguing over the rules of hopscotch or French cricket.


Merely? Yes. That is 'merely' what they were doing as the above quotes show.

"The best I can do?" This again? 'The best I could do,' 'all that I needed to do,' or 'all I was willing to do.' It's all the same: Your argument that it was unsubstantiated that it was in reply to Dawkins' work has been rebutted.

Case closed.

Edited to add: After rereading the comments, it looks like you were the first to use the word 'merely.' Although 'merely' stands, you seemed to have put that implication into my thoughts.

Again: Case closed.

[edit on 3/30/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


After much inner turmoil, and self-doubt, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is gone circular. Someone somewhere used the term 'tag-team', in the sense that there are 'groups' from both sides....both 'sides' referring to the so-called 'atheists' and the so-called 'theists'....

As I was saying, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is damaging to the spirit of ATS. I do not state this lightly, I simply think it has gone on long enough, and the original premise has not been proven to anyone's satisfaction, except to the 'True Believers' who gang up in the first place!!

Perhaps, and I know I invite scorn or Mods 'warnings', but someone has to say ENOUGH! I've seen threads die out, from inactivity....but this keeps going on, and it goes nowhere, IMO.

If I'm wrong, please show me where I'm wrong. I'm listening....

Best, WW



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
After much inner turmoil, and self-doubt, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is gone circular.


Really? I reached that conclusion without all the turmoil and doubt. Figured the disintegration was pretty obvious.
Not sure why you are addressing me, though. 1). It is not my thread. 2). My above comment was in reply to someone else's.

Anyways, WW. This is something I have seen a hundred times and is nothing particular against you. It's just that anytime I offer a sufficient argument, things start being said like the thread has gone by the wayside, I am off topic, the discussion is redundant, etc. Never is it noticed I am not the one who originally started the tangent.


Someone somewhere used the term 'tag-team', in the sense that there are 'groups' from both sides....both 'sides' referring to the so-called 'atheists' and the so-called 'theists'....


Mel often jokes that us Christians are a tag team. But that is just his sense of humor and I realize he is only saying it in jest. But yes, it does look like the lines have firmly been drawn in the sand.


As I was saying, I have come to the conclusion that this thread is damaging to the spirit of ATS. I do not state this lightly, I simply think it has gone on long enough...


Then by all means please close the thread, WW.


and the original premise has not been proven to anyone's satisfaction, except to the 'True Believers' who gang up in the first place!!


Gang up? Gang up!?
Just ask I and I will gladly link you to some Christian conspiracy threads. Having a like minded opinion is not a gang up. Are you trying to get people in trouble, WW? And it most certainly has been proven. Not anyone's fault some cannot see it. What are you confused about? Let me know and I will be happy to explain.



Perhaps, and I know I invite scorn or Mods 'warnings', but someone has to say ENOUGH! I've seen threads die out, from inactivity....but this keeps going on, and it goes nowhere, IMO.


I hope you do not get a warning. You are entitled to your opinion!


If I'm wrong, please show me where I'm wrong. I'm listening....


Since you do not believe anything has been proven in spite of 70 pages of evidence, why don't you tell me where you are lost and I will do the best job possible to assist.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Dawkins made a movie that infers faith is "the root of all evil". I have heard the line "More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else" over and over in threads attacking Christianity. That is airbrushing history.

By pointing out the historical truth that more people have been killed for communism by non religious governments, I feel like the point has been made. Most reasonable folks have conceded that faith is not the root of all evil.

But if you want to cast some doubt on that weedwhacker; I will be obligated to go back to posting death tolls from secular regimes again.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


ASH, you are correct....I was reading through posts and lost focus on who the OP was...my bad, late at night after a long day....

BW, I see you posted just afer ASH...and you offered to give out more statistics about how 'AWFUL' secularism is...sorry for paraphrasing, but that's really what's been happening for all of these pages....

My point is, and always has been....ONLY the victors can re-write history. So far, best I can see, the 'atheists' are far out-numbered...may I emphasize....FAR!!! out-numbered.

BW, or Ash...a question. You are both very, very well-respected (?) experts in this subject --- can you provide a few numbers, from polls or statistics or whatever metric you care to cite....how many 'christians' exist on the planet? THEN, how many 'atheists'....THEN, please break down, by population numbers, the other FAITHS, if you can.

We will ignore, for the moment, the geographical distribution of these various peoples, unless you wish to somehow assert there is a cadre of 'atheists' in some region (and please stop bringing up China, because I think you know by now that, irrespective of the 'official' Government position, the People can think for themselves).

NOW, just for the benefit of everyone who has visited or will visit this
thread please give us some numbers....estimates are fine.

THEN, I'd like to know your estimation, the breakdown of ALL of the various Christian sects, i.e., which are Catholics (largest, I assume) and how they break down into different beliefs, the Unitarians, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the SDA, the LDS.....(these are in no particular order, except I named Catholics first, since I ASSUME they're the largest....well, they have the most money, anyway....)

NOW, we have all of these presumptive 'christians'....did I mention the Protestants and Lutherans yet? NO? Just did....

So, all of these 'christians'....and what I see mostly from the various, prevalent posters here at ATS are the ones who proclaim a belief in a 'return' of jesus. But, it seems, there is discord and disagreement even in that 'belief'.....

ALLRIGHT, I have said a lot, because I had the stage for as long or as little as you cared to read of my post.

I have meant no disrespect, although it may read that way at first glance.

My only intent is to keep one question afloat --- HOW can this thread continue to purport that Atheists are 'Air Brushing' (better to say 're-writing) History when it's obvious that Atheists have NO majority, NO real say, and tend to be SHOUTED DOWN!!! by theists?!?!?

Some few, very vocal 'atheists' write a few books, and that somehow shatters the foundations of Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, or Buddhism? Give me a break, cry some crocodile tears, and then show me the relative works, the volumes of works by all the respective sides of the issues, and let's then decide who has the World's STAGE!!

*soap box kicked aside* --- Best, WW



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join