Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by Damien_Hell


Cool. So what's wrong with christians
believing what they believe, exactly?
Not that they all believe the same thing but
then not all evolutionist believe the same thing
either. or all atheists. the really basic problem
with removing the "sacredness of life" from the equation
is that without that very essential ingredient, this planet
will be "a hell," as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Originally posted by melatonin
Atheism says nothing about murdering, not murdering etc. If you look at why people were being murdered or neglected (as many were the result of poor policy which led to famine). Communism was driven to produce a worker's paradise. To do this, the rulers forced massive social changes and implemented authoritarian government. There is no reason to think it is related to atheism.

Not. At. All. It speaks to one thing. And one thing alone.

Mel I can use the same argument for religion you Do know that right?

- Con

reply to post by chromatico
Ok, lets play the semantics game! Since Atheists dont hold anything sacred, that means they dont believe life is sacred. OK! How about, they dont hold life to be sacred, I bet they sure do VALUE life and RESPECT it. He's trying to imply that Atheists dont value life and respect life, by using the word sacred as a substitue for value and and respect, knowing that atheist dont believe anything is "sacred". ANd you are reinforcing his little shell game, I'm disappointed.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
So apparently if a country is lead by an atheist who murders 50 million people, there is no link...

but if a country is lead by a supposed religious person (who is usually a Roman Catholic - and not a real Christian ) then we are free to draw as many conclusions as we want?

Please. You atheists do airbrush history and you do it poorly at that.

Look, it's all very simple. If we look at something like the inquisitions (yeah, we know, blah, blah), they were based on heresy. People who were not conforming to the instructions of the faith were being killed. If a book like the bible is being used to justify deaths, then we can at least see some link. It might also have had a political influence, but the faith influence is there.

But I wouldn't blame theism for the people Bush has killed through his escapades, even though he said he talked to his mind-buddy. It was apparently for freedom (but not oil, no sir! heh).

However, atheism has no instructions, if you can show that Stalin was killing because of atheism, great, do so. But it is related to one concept, and tells no one to go and do something. Even Dawkins.

Communism does have instructions though. It even has a form of eschatology (not sure that's the right word, but I mean end-point) - the workers paradise. Collectivisation, which requires taking the means of production from the owners into the hands of state. To do this needed big changes in society.

Atheism has none of this.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Mel I can use the same argument for religion you Do know that right?
- Con

Exactly. Atheists have tied religion with war and that is their initial stance.

Now we have determined that atheism and theism have nothing to do with political warfare...

still atheists will always and forever tie Roman Catholic warfare to all religion. This is what Dawkins teaches them. Simple is as simple says.

Originally posted by Damien_Hell

Well going against what any anthropologist in the world will tell you, I'm done here, you clearly have no idea what your talking about, and read my last post, I edited it (and completely called you out)

Damien YOU are doing all the talking so clearly if I don't know what I am talking about, maybe it is because I'm not the one doing the talking YOU are ya goof.

- Con

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by chromatico

 

Ok, lets play the semantics game! Since Atheists dont hold anything sacred, that means they dont believe life is sacred. OK! How about, they dont hold life to be sacred, I bet they sure do VALUE life and RESPECT it. He's trying to imply that Atheists dont value life and respect life, by using the word sacred as a substitue for value and and respect, knowing that atheist dont believe anything is "sacred". ANd you are reinforcing his little shell game, I'm disappointed.

i'm not playing a shell game. i'm a christian and a female and i see it that black and white. read the links i posted. you will see what i mean.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Mel I can use the same argument for religion you Do know that right?

- Con

You can actually, con.

And, as I hope I point out above, it can be applied readily. but not always, sometimes we can see a link between faith and actions.

If you want to say that Stalin killed christians because of his atheism, you might have a better case, as at least atheism is in some way relevant. But, again, it was more a power thing in my mind, he wanted no opponents.

most atrocities in history were the result of
unbelief in anything larger than the person/persons
committing the atrocities, even when they claimed to be
religious, because, had they read their own texts, they
would see that most of the wisest of their teachers
all said the same freakin' thing:
Do NOT Kill.
What's so hard to get about that, i dunno.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
it's just an example of someone who lacks critical thinking skills. If i Say theres no link between atheism and stalin and the millions he killed, but theres a link between religion and the Inquisition and people that killed, it doesn't mean Im a radical atheist, it means Im either a hypocrite or have very poor reasoning, or im just that blinded by my prejudice. It doens't reflect Atheism in any way. Religion and Atheism are not airbrushing anything, self-serving people are man!

If you say so. The inquisitions were based on a certain groups of individuals understanding of their faith. Why was Galileo nearly strung up?

Why was Bruno burnt? Because he brought forward ideas that questioned the basis of their faith.

Stalin was an atheist. Sometimes atheists do bad things. Hitler was a theist. Sometimes theists do bad things.

However, what was their driving force? Atheism/theism? Or communism/nazism?

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Mel I can use the same argument for religion you Do know that right?
- Con

Exactly. Atheists have tied religion with war and that is their initial stance.

Now we have determined that atheism and theism have nothing to do with political warfare...

still atheists will always and forever tie Roman Catholic warfare to all religion. This is what Dawkins teaches them. Simple is as simple says.

Hey Newworld!! Hi How are you!

Yes I agree and what is so obvious about that is many of the same lines they use are from the books too. I was trying like hell to find some "nice" atheist sites for some information, ya know like other things they would be interested in but seems like everytime I go to one, it's all the same stuff. Lesbian sex Gay rights sex sex sex and how aweful Christians are.

Then the more academic sites are how bad Christians are and how lousy Science of ID or creation is. If an Atheist were to discover anything even remotley suggesting a creator, his colleagues would black list him for trying to sneak religion in there.

I was watching D'souza and shermer debate, and that drunken slob hitchens. Dinesh beat them both. I wonder if Dawkins took him up on his offer to debate him yet.

- Con

Sacred:
1. Set apart by solemn religious ceremony; especially, in a good sense, made holy; set apart to religious use; consecrated; not profane or common; as, a sacred place; a sacred day; sacred service.

2. Relating to religion, or to the services of religion; not secular; religious; as, sacred history.

Smit with the love of sacred song. --Milton.

3. Designated or exalted by a divine sanction; possessing the highest title to obedience, honor, reverence, or veneration; entitled to extreme reverence; venerable.

Such neighbor nearness to our sacred [royal] blood Should nothing privilege him. --Shak.

Poet and saint to thee alone were given, The two most sacred names of earth and heaven. --Cowley.

4. Hence, not to be profaned or violated; inviolable.

Secrets of marriage still are sacred held. --Dryden.

5. Consecrated; dedicated; devoted; -- with to.

A temple, sacred to the queen of love. --Dryden.

6. Solemnly devoted, in a bad sense, as to evil, vengeance, curse, or the like; accursed; baleful. [Archaic]

But, to destruction sacred and devote. --Milton.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

dictionary.net

Since the meaning of sacred generally implies some sort of divinity... How can one who does not believe in anything divine hold anything sacred?

I think words like HOLY and Sacred are lost on nonbelievers. Sacred does not mean the same thing as important to a believer. It is a whole greater order of magnitude.




[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by chromatico

 

Ok, lets play the semantics game! Since Atheists dont hold anything sacred, that means they dont believe life is sacred. OK! How about, they dont hold life to be sacred, I bet they sure do VALUE life and RESPECT it. He's trying to imply that Atheists dont value life and respect life, by using the word sacred as a substitue for value and and respect, knowing that atheist dont believe anything is "sacred". ANd you are reinforcing his little shell game, I'm disappointed.

Oh Gig you see a lot of that semantics stuff all the time lol might as well get used to it. I'm still trying to figure it out

- Con

reply to post by undo

The last link I saw you post was about Hindu's and their negative attitudes towards women. I don't see a clear link between that and atheists not valuing/respecting life. Besides, if you want to pull up some videos or links of some militant atheist talking a bunch of nonsense, I can pull up some stuff of a militant Christian doing the same. That get's neither of us anywhere. I suggest you relax your world views to let some gray in, because black and white thinking is very narrow-minded in my opinion. There are plenty, PLENTY, of Atheists in the world that care for their fellow man,and woman, and have no desire to see anyone murdered or die senselessly. If you really believe that the average Atheist doesn't value women or life in general, Im sorry, but you need to get out more, because thats living in a cave kind of thinking.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
It's easy. Maybe someone just thinks Dawkins is a smart guy... maybe they think organized religion is a societal problem....

Neither are requirements for being an atheist, so I don't see how they can be counted as a definition

and in the back of their minds, they still might consider it possible that there is a 'God' or a universal consciousness. In fact, I've already seen atheists call themselves Buddhists etc.

Those are Agnostics, and Buddhists don't believe in a god, Buddah was a normal person who reached enlightenment, get your facts straight

Labelling yourself an atheist is considered an intellectual badge of honor or something

why thank you

reply to post by undo


But you assume that Atheists all DO believe the same thing. You say that no Atheist holds life sacred, when thats completely wrong. Maybe sacred is the wrong word, but life is more important to an Atheist then a theist. A theist kills someone they can say, well if he was a good person he'll go to paradise. An Atheist kills someone. They're dead, you killed them, theres no upside. You get ONE shot, killing someone is taking away that chance

reply to post by Gigatronix


If there are plenty, why are there 150,000,000 dead females in China from the 70's to today ? They ignore it because it's an inconvenient evil.

I'm not an inconvenience and neither is any other woman I know.

Hun, that's equivalent of the population of every single female in the USA today - dead in the course of 30 years. BECAUSE, life is only as valuable as its convenience, do you see what I mean?

In India, life is only as convenient as the material value of it. Female children equal high dowry. This is how to keep the population explosion at bay - remove the heifers by making it so unattractive to raise them or give birth to them, that no one wants them. And with the advent of abortion, it's easier than ever!

Problem is, it's out of control now.
The farther we move away from the sacredness of life, the closer we move to the near extinction of every female on the planet.

reply to post by undo


thats because in China you can only have one kid, and they only want a boy to carry on their last names. The girls get sent to orphanages, which have crappy conditions. And you do know women are required to make babies right? killing off all the women is just stupid.
And people in India tend to be poor, a dowry is usually expensive

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Damien_Hell]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Damien_Hell]

reply to post by Damien_Hell


You didn't just ask me that question.
I'm a mom, three times! Two of 'em natural birth delivery... .yeouch.

Anyway, think, please and thank you. We ladies deserve a shot at survival.
I know you can make robots to replace us, and tuck our little dnas away in glass jars and make new men in test tubes, but sheesh....

Originally posted by melatonin


However, what was their driving force? Atheism/theism? Or communism/nazism?

Who knows what Hitler was,, jeez I see so many letters he wrote that say he wants to destroy all religion and letters that say he is doing Gods work, the guy was a nutjob plane n simple.

The thing is, we use the same bible that we always have but leaders of Church's have an influence on people in large groups. It is evangelism but not in general that can persuade a large group like that and Stalin did it Hitler did it and so has Kings and Preachers. Then it is up to them to provide information to substantiate their motives or agenda. When I see Science which is something I don't trust that much anyway, poking around in our thoughts and books coming out encouraging people to vent their anger at a specific group of people with a specific tradition or belief, that becomes no different then what happened to blacks. You get enough scientists and a strong lobby together, NOW they would be using politics to margin us out.

If I see a direction a mass of angry Atheists talking like they are, and I read an agenda they have for removing everything we hold sacred while inventing theory's about religion meme and it is ALL BAD,, I start to get worried. Then when I see the same people, making assertions about the way I run my life, raise my kids, who get straight A’s, are not on drugs but were taught the bible at 8-9 years old, I am a Child abuser. I see the same people ASKING no no,, offering money even on some websites for any dirt they can find on the bible or Christians, THEN I START GETTING TICKED OFF.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one look at history and I mean before it was airbrushed, tells me what direction this could go, if we keep coming up with excuses for why this preoccupation of Christianity by Atheists is being done in the first place.

It's like I said, if we are all that bad,, then I say

Whatcha gonna do it about it.

- Con