Atheism only a recent conspiracy, page 8

reply to post by randyvs

---

I am curious as to how "recent" you seem to think atheism is.

Even the authors of the Bible tell us that the concept of atheism was around at the time of its writing.

Psalm 14
1. For the conductor, of David; The fool said in his heart, "There is no God"; they have dealt corruptly; they have committed abominable deeds; no one does good.

For the author of this psalm to discuss atheism really shows that the concept is not all that "recent".

J.

reply to post by J-in-TX

---

I'm positive that what you say is true. There have always been atheists. But you never hear of any Atheistic
regimes, governments, monarchies, societies or cultures even. Until around two hundred years ago. Or so.

The concept of course is as old as man really. But acceptance as a world view ? Sketshy, at best after two hundred to two hundred and fifty years. Wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by J-in-TX

---

I'm positive that what you say is true. There have always been atheists. But you never hear of any Atheistic
regimes, governments, monarchies, societies or cultures even. Until around two hundred years ago. Or so.

The concept of course is as old as man really. But acceptance as a world view ? Sketshy, at best after two hundred to two hundred and fifty years. Wouldn't you say?

There are no Atheistic Regimes, governments, monarchies, societies, or cultures even. None. You may get an occasional atheistic club or forum, but that's it.

Secularism is religiously neutral. Yes, that sounds liike atheism's lack of religion as well, but it's much different. Secular societies tend not to promote absence of religion, they just leave it as a personal case. Atheism is one the rise as our understanding of the universe grows, so some societies and cultures are getting more integrated into it, but that's not a conspiracy. Every thought cycle that ever went from uncommon to common would be a conspiracy by that reasoning.

And Regimes. I get the impression you don't personally care that Stalin, Pol Pot, and the other communists did what they did irrespective of their lack of believe in a god. They didn't go "I don't find the existence of deities plausible, so I'm gonna do a lot of bad stuff", no one ever does that. Everything they did, was based of reasons they would have held even if they were of any religion.

If you're going to ignore that and pretend that they were acting in the name of atheism, or that the absence of a belief in a deity permitted them to do it. Keep it to yourself. It's blatantly false and deceitful to keep referencing it when in reality it's untrue.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by J-in-TX

---

I'm positive that what you say is true. There have always been atheists. But you never hear of any Atheistic
regimes, governments, monarchies, societies or cultures even. Until around two hundred years ago. Or so.

The concept of course is as old as man really. But acceptance as a world view ? Sketshy, at best after two hundred to two hundred and fifty years. Wouldn't you say?

And funny enough that matches the timeline of when people started using scientific method: LINK

So suddenly, if you wanted to make a statement regarding gods with elephant heads, or giant global floods, or people surviving in whales, or similar nonsense...you had to back it up with objective evidence if wanted to be taken seriously. Given that many of those statements can't be backed up with objective evidence (or they can simply be proven wrong), while at the same time people were pushed towards being more objective, it explains why atheism is on the rise. I mean, a ton of religious claims can simply be debunked, which makes people question "the whole package".

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx and Mr.XYZ

---

Good responses

And Regimes. I get the impression you don't personally care that Stalin, Pol Pot, and the other communists did what they did irrespective of their lack of believe in a god. They didn't go "I don't find the existence of deities plausible, so I'm gonna do a lot of bad stuff", no one ever does that. Everything they did, was based of reasons they would have held even if they were of any religion.

Of course I agree. The record will show we are of the sqme mind here. It is truely the heart of man that must change before we can rid ourselves of such absurd atrocities as genocide. Secular, religious or just plain fanatical. None are without blood on their hands.

Mr.X

it explains why atheism is on the rise.

As well as a rising population.

reply to post by randyvs

---

At any moment of time, someone would be an atheist.
Certainly, in more primitive times, everyone looked to a supernatural explanation, but that does not discredit the possibility of skepticism- any member of an ancient society could have non-belief that a deity exists.
Although, still, the idea of a natural causation would be undeniably difficult for them to recognize as credible.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx and Mr.XYZ

---

Good responses

And Regimes. I get the impression you don't personally care that Stalin, Pol Pot, and the other communists did what they did irrespective of their lack of believe in a god. They didn't go "I don't find the existence of deities plausible, so I'm gonna do a lot of bad stuff", no one ever does that. Everything they did, was based of reasons they would have held even if they were of any religion.

Of course I agree. The record will show we are of the sqme mind here. It is truely the heart of man that must change before we can rid ourselves of such absurd atrocities as genocide. Secular, religious or just plain fanatical. None are without blood on their hands.

Mr.X

it explains why atheism is on the rise.

As well as a rising population.

edit on 6-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I'm having a bit of a problem with this; you identify that non-belief does not establish any justification for violence, but you ignore that by saying "(atheism is) without blood on (its) hands", implying that it does establish justification for violence.

I'm a bit lost on your reasoning, so I'll settle it by providing my usual argument.

To hold anything accountable, it must influence actions.
Non-belief has as much influence on a persons actions as the color of one's skin- it establishes no justifications. People would kill because there is no god as much as someone would kill because they were black, white, yellow, or red.

Our brain adopts moral attitudes through thought, experience and senses- some develop attitudes that are selfish and violent, others do not. Developing a moral identity, like being selfish or violent, because of holding non-belief a deity exists is illogical.

In essence, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao are individuals that are to blame for their actions, not non-belief.

Here is an example:
1. "God does not exist, KILL!" Where is the justification here? A: Nowhere.
2. "God does not exist, I will kill people because killing is fun, I want political power, I dislike people." Where is the justification here? A: The justification is the individual views killing as fun, has a desire for political power, dislikes people- none of which resulted from not believing a deity exists.

There is no "blood" on atheism's "hands".

Religion, on the other hand, uses superstition to influence a person's moral attitudes without thought, experience or sense, it can demand actions that would otherwise not be accepted.
To some extent this is good and, on the other hand, very bad.
Religion can motivate behaviors from people with a physiological moral make-up that would pursue things like killing, stealing, and so on without the enforcement of a supernatural belief. Religion can, also, motivate behaviors destructive to society, like oppressing women, abusing children, and so on.
I feel it is a touchy subject to argue weather or not a religion truly benefits or harms society, yet remains accountable for whatever harm to a society it promotes.

reply to post by Neverseenit

---

I'm having a bit of a problem with this; you identify that non-belief does not establish any justification for violence, but you ignore that by saying "(atheism is) without blood on (its) hands", implying that it does establish justification for violence.

Am I reading this correctly ? Atheism is without blood on it's hands ? Is that what I said ? Where did you read that ?

Try again.
All regimes, governments, societys, cultures, right down to civilazations. However religious,secular or just plain
fanatical, are not without blood on their hands. In other words pointing our fingers in judgement, or the minor
disagreements of what ever numbers are involved ? Is a misidentification or misdiagnosis of the actual problem.
It's very much like treating someone for a bad cough, when they have lung cancer.
Nothing stands in the way of men who decide to kill one another.
Christ while he was on this earth tryed to lead us away from that.
Hope that clears things up for ya ?

Griffo

Everyone is born an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god; babies are born and they have no concept of what a god is, which means they don't believe in it. Therefore they are atheists and therefore atheism is not a recent conspiracy

Very weak Griff, since babies are born without knowledge of anything.

How can you even do that ? Bring the purity of little babies in to this ? The very innocense of the womb that mankind was really meant to be ? The very seed of life ? Have you no shame ? No compassion ? I ask you....

Where is your decency ? Your humanity ? :

Woe.
Sorry, I got carried away.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Neverseenit

---

I'm having a bit of a problem with this; you identify that non-belief does not establish any justification for violence, but you ignore that by saying "(atheism is) without blood on (its) hands", implying that it does establish justification for violence.

Am I reading this correctly ? Atheism is without blood on it's hands ? Is that what I said ? Where did you read that ?

Try again.
All regimes, governments, societys, cultures, right down to civilazations. However religious,secular or just plain
fanatical, are not without blood on their hands. In other words pointing our fingers in judgement, or the minor
disagreements of what ever numbers are involved ? Is a misidentification or misdiagnosis of the actual problem.
It's very much like treating someone for a bad cough, when they have lung cancer.
Nothing stands in the way of men who decide to kill one another.
Christ while he was on this earth tryed to lead us away from that.
Hope that clears things up for ya ?

edit on 8-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

His point is not that no one is guilty of murder/genocide/other atrocities. You(seemingly intentionally) missed the entire point. He said that no one has ever used a lack of belief in deities as motivation or justification for any evil deeds. In other words, that lack of belief didn't cause anything bad to happen. It's just that some of the horrible people had beliefs, and some lacked beliefs, but no one used not believing in something to rationalize doing evil acts.

"Atheism", the lack of belief in deities, is not something that motivated any murder or genocides.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Neverseenit

Everyone is born an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god; babies are born and they have no concept of what a god is, which means they don't believe in it. Therefore they are atheists and therefore atheism is not a recent conspiracy

Very weak Griff, since babies are born without knowledge of anything.

How can you even do that ? Bring the purity of little babies in to this ? The very innocense of the womb that mankind was really meant to be ? The very seed of life ? Have you no shame ? No compassion ? I ask you....

Where is your decency ? Your humanity ? :

Woe.
Sorry, I got carried away.

edit on 8-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I'm going to ask this once, and I mean no offense, but it has to be asked:

Are you a Troll, or Trolling? You're baiting hooks with false claims, and you seem unwilling to see any point anyone makes to the contrary. Either you're looking for a reaction(Trolling), or you're just trying to reassure your beliefs to yourself by acting like you're winning a weird argument.

I mean, what kind of response is that? You completely avoided addressing the point, but instead tried to reprimand him as if stating facts about things somehow harmed babies.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

---

I'm going to ask this once, and I mean no offense, but it has to be asked:

Are you a Troll, or Trolling? You're baiting hooks with false claims, and you seem unwilling to see any point anyone makes to the contrary. Either you're looking for a reaction(Trolling), or you're just trying to reassure your beliefs to yourself by acting like you're winning a weird argument.

I mean, what kind of response is that? You completely avoided addressing the point, but instead tried to reprimand him as if stating facts about things somehow harmed babies.

You can say that if you like. I couldn't care less what you call or think of me either..Means squat to me.
But the easiest answer is the answer.

I was making a joke of his weak arguement.

I'll give you two more questions and then I retire to my lamp.

His point is not that no one is guilty of murder/genocide/other atrocities. You(seemingly intentionally) missed the entire point. He said that no one has ever used a lack of belief in deities as motivation or justification for any evil deeds. In other words, that lack of belief didn't cause anything bad to happen. It's just that some of the horrible people had beliefs, and some lacked beliefs, but no one used not believing in something to rationalize doing evil acts.

And my counter point was ? Just to see if you're capable ?

reply to post by randyvs

---

He's correct though. Without indoctrination, people wouldn't believe. If you were born in Borneo, you'd believe in some mighty jungle god, if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd believe Allah to be the greatest thing since cake, and if you were born in the Vatican, catholicism wouldn't probably be your thing. But in the end, until someone brainwashes you, you're essentially an atheist.

My parents wanted me to be grown up enough to "pick a religion", make up my own mind...as in, look at the facts and then make a decision. Once you do that, and look at all religions objectively, you realize every single one has dramatic flaws and stuff that's demonstrably wrong. So why on earth would you follow something that's demonstrably wrong???

Christians believe people can survive in whales for days, or the a global flood really happened. We know for a FACT that's not the case, yet people still believe that nonsense.

In hinduism, gods have elephant heads and other nonsense...it's just as crazy.

The jews believe wearing certain clothes is essential (as if a being creating everything would bother with something as trivial as clothing), or that using electricity on weekends will get you a ticket to hell.

Muslims (fundamentalists) believe to be awarded virgins (lol) if they slay infidels, and that port gets you a ticket to hell.

It's all NONSENSE and they're buying into something that has been used to control the DUMB masses for centuries. It's really quite astounding to watch it from an outsider's perspective, like watching monkeys fling poo at eachother

reply to post by MrXYZ

---

All I can say to that X, is that first you must be able to look at it objectively. I think you would be quite surprized, at the small amount of subjective evidence it takes, to completely negate all objective evidence you cling to so
stubbornly. Cling as even both of us do so well, neither you or I will make any difference, to the one truth we will
all get to know in the end. And the end approaches us both even now. No fear, just facts.

reply to post by MrXYZ

---

Hey partner, I have never made one post at GLP ok ? FYI on that. With that in connection, i think if anyone should get to accuse you of such crap as that. It damn well ought to be me.

What a premise for going over there and straightening out some real zealots that would be.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

---

Hey partner, I have never made one post at GLP ok ? FYI on that. With that in connection, i think if anyone should get to accuse of such crap as that. It damn well ought to be me.

Don't steal my fame

I was trying to find an old post of mine and googled "MrXyZ, abovetopsecret"...just to find out there's an entire thread about "people like me"

I want my money!!! Please, given that you're kinda on their side...can you tell me where I can cash out? Do I get rollover minutes?

reply to post by MrXYZ

---

I want my money!!! Please, given that you're kinda on their side...can you tell me where I can cash out? Do I get rollover minutes

Thank God sides as you speak of them are just an illusion.

The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 8 days ago with 49 member flags

Was Jesus a Greek-Phoenician Philosopher? A hidden book, revealed…
  Posted 1 days ago with 27 member flags

The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags

Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam
  Posted 1 days ago with 22 member flags

Where is the gospel of jesus?
  Posted 2 days ago with 18 member flags

Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 16 days ago with 16 member flags

Quake Reveals Day of Jesus\' Crucifixion
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags

The talk too controversial for TED to post...
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: