Atheism

[DallasApple]

aarrggghhhh!!!!!!

roar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gnomon]

Kapow!

 

[DallasApple]

Bang bang!!!!

 

[monta]

Oooooh! a catfight.

 

[gnomon]

w
h
e
e
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
KABLAM!!!!!!!!!!!

BloomblahbloomblahBLAM!!!

MI BA BA BA SPLOOM!!!!!!!!
​

MA BA SPLOOM!!!!
​

BAYSPLOSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
​

 

[monta]

 

[DallasApple]

OH >>>GOD!!!!

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH GOD!!!!!

HMMM!!!!

Thanks..that was good..Are you hungry?

 

[gnomon]

I think I'll just roll over and take a nap.

 

[DallasApple]

I think I'll just roll over and take a nap.

Meow meow!

 

[DallasApple]

I took a whole PIZZA...well I wont say the rest..its "innapropriate...

Love

Dallas

 

[Falvlun]

guess if we are going to put all of history's atrocities into an "atheist" and a "theist" column, we have to make decisions about how we count things ...

Well, that's a problem right there: We aren't placing all the atrocities into just two columns. Some simply just have nothing to do with religion, or the lack there of. I mean, how would you categorize the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

what about a religious nation that commits atrocities for both "secular" and "religious" reasons (i.e. God promised us land, commerce, slaves, victory)? Do we chalk those atrocities up to "atheism" or "theism"?

Unless you equate "secularism" with "atheism", the two categories in this scenario would be "religious" or "secular/materialistic", with atheism not being a contender at all.

What about atrocities committed by religious followers who were whipped into religious frenzy and duped into serving the interests of their two-faced, atheist leaders?

The ability to whip people up into a religious frenzy is precisely what tends to make religion dangerous.

While the atheists wouldn't get off scott free in this scenario, how much atrocity could that leader have committed if he didn't have the religiously-motivated followers?

What about religious people who commit atrocities for secular reasons and who contradict their own religious beliefs? Is that a "theist" atrocity (since it was committed by theists) or an "atheist" atrocity (since they chose secular motives instead of religious ones)?

I tend look at whichever force was driving people to commit that particular behavior.

If the the invading horde was invading because they wanted more land, then the atrocity was secular, regardless of how religious the horde was.

In the "atheist" column I think it's fair to place the Marxists and communists, with atrocities committed by North Korea, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, China.

If the driving force of any of those atrocities was atheism, then yes, it would be fair.

However, just because an atheist leader or atheist regime commits an atrocity, it doesn't mean that the atrocitiy was atheistically motivated-- just like the invasion of my religious horde wasn't religiously motivated.

Otherwise, are you willing to place the atomic bombing under the religious column, just because it was a Christian (Pres. Harry Truman) who authorized it?

Then there were secular revolutions/civil wars in France, Mexico, Spain and I believe in Cuba too, where churches were burned, clergy prosecuted, etc. There were secular junta death squads throughout Central and South America who oppressed the Marxist/Catholic opposition.

I've always thought it fair to ascribe the prosecution of religious individuals under an atheistic (or anti-religious) regime as the direct result of atheism.

Then we have Western imperialist ventures .... I don't know how many of these can fairly be called "atheist" vs. "theist". But I have read that, for example, the elites of the British empire and her fighting sailors were extremely skeptical of religion. I don't think considerations about God were the main considerations of Henry Kissinger and the Pentagon when carrying out atrocities against the people of Indochina, or that WWI or WWII could be thrown in the same category of "religious war" as the Crusades.

You just said it yourself: "I don't think that considerations about God were the main considerations .... when carrying out atrocities..." Religion, or the lack there of, was not the motivating factor, so these atrocities don't get included in either list. --

The rulers and elites of Europe and Russia throughout the centuries -- the Caesars, the Popes, Henry VIII and many despots of the British monarchy, the Tsars, Napoleon (?) -- were in many cases so well-educated, and their actions so independent of or even contrary to their supposed religious beliefs, yet so predictable according to the motives of wealth and power, that it seems to me a lot of them must have been secret atheists, or at least uninterested in "the next world" apart from keeping pretenses and the utility of this concept for controlling people in this world.

Once again, secularism, and the drive for material gain, does not equate to atheism. While these rulers' actions may not have been religiously motivated, you would have to show how they derived from atheism itself.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know. As I said, untold millions were murdered (not in war) by atheist dictators in the last century, who made their own rules. They developed a moral system, it was only rational to them. Anyone who got in their way was fair game. Funny thing, at the beginning of the century humanist thinkers believed we were entering an age of utopia where man would evolve into all that he could be and make the perfect world. It just did not turn out that way.

I honestly don't think you want to get into the "who has done more evil in the world, atheists or theists" competition. Theism wins, hands down, starting with the leading evil genocidal theist of all time, Hitler, and going back throughout human history. All of them developed moral systems, rational to them. Anyone who got in their way was fair game. Funny thing, theists still try to argue that theism is somehow a force for good, when throughout history it has served to perpetuate murder, genocide, rape, imperialism and oppression.

 

[Father Heathen]

What is it that ATHEISM brings to the table of humanity?

pax

Atheism doesn't bring something to the table so much as it clears it of the spoiled offerings of religion.

 

[Autodidact]

I know all atheists aren't murderous evil dictators. Many are able to practice a much more moral lifestyle than my own. I'm just saying, it can be a descent into madness if it goes wrong. If we believe we are an accidental by product of nature, a result of matter, time and chance, what is our reason for existence if all we face is death? If we kill God, we kill ourselves, for if there is no God, life becomes absurd. What meaning has it?

I know all Christians aren't murderous evil dictators. Many are able to practice a moral lifestyle despite their supersition. I'm just saing, it can be a descent into madness if it goes wrong. If we believe that God dictates our actions, and there is only one correct way to worship Him, then what is to stop us from slaughtering everyone who doesn't worship our God in our way? Especially if religion works with or directs the armies, then there is no limit to the atrocities they will commit, if we let them.

Besides, to really say there is no God, we would have to know the whole universe and all its knowledge and we don't. If we did we would be God.

So you're saying there is a God, but for some reason He's decided to hide behind the third moon of the fifth planet of a star in a distant galaxy?

 

[javajo]

True Christians are known by their love, the rest are in name only. For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Autodidact]

True Christians are known by their love, the rest are in name only. For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I see. So it's common for people who call themselves Christian to be lying or delusional?

 

[javajo]

And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name...Luke 21:8a
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thess. 2:11
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2 Tim 3:13
Insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24:24b
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jn 1:8

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name...Luke 21:8a
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thess. 2:11
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2 Tim 3:13
Insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24:24b
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jn 1:8

And Lo the BIble hath said naughty things about the unbeliever. For verily is the unbeliever the enemy and probably has cooler parties and we just degrade the unbeliever to look cool....and stuff.

*looks at the evidence*...*looks at the bible*....<.<...>.>. Yeah I'll choose the evidence thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name...Luke 21:8a
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thess. 2:11
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2 Tim 3:13
Insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt 24:24b
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jn 1:8

Why do religionists maintain the illusion that anyone else is impressed with quotes from their holy book?

So, as I was asking, are you saying that people-who-call-themselves-Christian tend to be liars or self-deluded?

 

[linwood]

I see. So it's common for people who call themselves Christian to be lying or delusional?

In my experience it generally is.