Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[Alison Wonderland]

You are over reacting. My point was judging by stereotypes, not putting down atheists. Stalin said he was Christian, supposedly, OK, no prob, that is what he said, though he wasn't. I retract his name from my original post and insert Chairman Mao, he probably murdered more than Stalin. Feel better now ?

I can't remember if I responded to this, so, if I did, here's another crack:

Atheism is not a precursor to anything.

It's simply an absence of a theistic belief.

Mao & Stalin both presided under red flags; this has nothing to do with atheism.

There is no atheistic smoking gun. End of story.

 

[psychoslice]

Really, you found that in the NT ?

You should read your bible more.

 

[shmogie]

You should read your bible more.

Another empty statement, with no validation. You never learn

 

[shmogie]

I can't remember if I responded to this, so, if I did, here's another crack:

Atheism is not a precursor to anything.

It's simply an absence of a theistic belief.

Mao & Stalin both presided under red flags; this has nothing to do with atheism.

There is no atheistic smoking gun. End of story.

I would suggest that you read "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto", then maybe some of Lenin's stuff. You will find that atheism and communism are intertwined. You are correct, atheism is simply the absence of theistic belief. Neither good or bad, simply a different world view. I had this philosophy for many years

 

[ChristineM]

I wasn't addressing Russia, nor the Orthodox faith, of which I have family. I was addressing the man of steel, Lenin's lacky, the man Kruschev had a very interesting rant about before the politburo. The man that made sure Trotsky was hacked up with a hatchet, the man who was directly responsible for the butchery of defenseless Polish officers and the decimation of his own officer corps by baseless purges, the man who fomented numerous pogroms against the Jews, you know, that man. . No, I am not the arbiter of who is a Christian. However, Christ was asked how to identify his followers,he said "by their fruit you shall know them". Stalin's fruit was blood, lies. paranoia, murder and terror. No, he wasn't a Christian. You are a rarity, a stalin apologist, is hitler part of your portfolio too ?

Stalin reinstated the priesthood and church. He as a sick minded megalomaniac (as i have previously stated so your hyperbole is not required) but he was evidentially Christian without doubt.

Oh and please note that the Christian god is noted for genocide and murdering those who don't follow his dogma, seems stalin followed in his footsteps.

If you want to discuss Hitler being a catholic with Vatican backing, of the fact that Germany under his rule was majority christian, to took a lot of willing Christians to operate those gas Chambers, then feel fee to to start the ball rolling " Goit mit uns"

Honey, i have no love for stalin or hitler but i am intolerant of lies and would prefer to research fact than blindly follow propaganda.

 

[ChristineM]

Your nationalism post didn't work out.

However.

Your personal views and prejudices are irrelevant to historical fact. Or perhaps you can provide evidence that stalin (and mao) are guilty of murder as defined in law.

From what i see the most you could bring to trial is accessory to murder if icc laws did not give immunity ratione materiae to heads of state.

 

[shmogie]

Stalin reinstated the priesthood and church. He as a sick minded megalomaniac (as i have previously stated so your hyperbole is not required) but he was evidentially Christian without doubt.

Oh and please note that the Christian god is noted for genocide and murdering those who don't follow his dogma, seems stalin followed in his footsteps.

If you want to discuss Hitler being a catholic with Vatican backing, of the fact that Germany under his rule was majority christian, to took a lot of willing Christians to operate those gas Chambers, then feel fee to to start the ball rolling " Goit mit uns"

Honey, i have no love for stalin or hitler but i am intolerant of lies and would prefer to research fact than blindly follow propaganda.

Sweetheart, the point is that you use a totally false standard to identify who is, or isn't a Christian. The founder of the Faith totally rejected the standard you employ. You believe that if someone is a member of a church, or supports a denomination, or engages in ritual, or has the backing of a corrupt self identified quasi Christian organization, they are, de facto, a Christian. However labels and proclamations aren't what it is about. If it were, there never would have been the continuous thread of warnings about degradation of the Church, Falsity, people doing evil proclaiming themselves Christians etc. If you are going to judge a set of moral principles, based upon those who allege they follow them, then the Bible makes it clear your judgement will be totally false. The standard is so simple, but you prefer convenient labels that fit your narrative. A self proclaimed Christian cannot continuously and habitually do what is proscribed in no uncertain terms, and be a Christian. This applies individually or collectively. Labels are irrelevant, except for those with a particular axe to grind. Dietrich Bonhoffer was a Christian, that by his deeds, confirmed the truth of this. He opposed hitler to the point that he was to be executed, he escaped Germany. He came to the conclusion that his faith required him to do what he had been doing, so he went back. He was captured, and tortured, the gestapo demanding that he renounce his faith, till his death, he never did. HE is a Christian. So you say I "blindly follow propaganda". What propaganda is that ? That stalin and hitler weren't Christians ? Uh, what do you think the Romans would have thought about a vestal virgin who isn't a virgin ? Should they agree she is because she says she is ? Maybe they should believe she is because the Temple administration says she is ? Should they reject the testimony of the 143 men who said they had sex with her, because she is alleged by herself and others to be a virgin ? By the Biblical standard, oh so easy to apply, EVERY one of your examples could not be Christians, PERIOD. I don't expect you to accept this, because your personal and perhaps political agenda requires that you not. No problem ! Christians have been aware of people who adopt your methods and motivations for 2,000 years, it is neither new nor surprising.

 

[shmogie]

Your nationalism post didn't work out.

However.

Your personal views and prejudices are irrelevant to historical fact. Or perhaps you can provide evidence that stalin (and mao) are guilty of murder as defined in law.

From what i see the most you could bring to trial is accessory to murder if icc laws did not give immunity ratione materiae to heads of state.

So, what is murder as defined by the law ? First degree murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human with pre act planning present. So, did they commit murder ? Certainly stalin did under the laws of the soviet state when he and Beria were the liquidators for lenin. However, there is a crime called "crimes against humanity " which has as one of its elements unlawful or unjustified killing, i.e. murder. Actually partaking in the act is not an element of this crime. Rather, the power to commit the crime, the order to commit the crime, having a structure in place to implement the order, having a motive to give the order, and the response to the murders are all part of the elements that constitute the crime. Tojo was hanged for murder, without any evidence that he personally participated, hitler would have been, as well as goering. Many nazi and Japanese officials were hanged, without personal involvement evidence, for unlawful killing. I suggest you read the transcript of Kruschev's indictment of stalin before the politburo if you want to see what the highest authority in the Soviet Union thought about how Russian law applied to the murderous actions of stalin. Now to mao. Certainly the murders propogated in his " cultural revolution" at least the early part would meet the standard of crimes against humanity. Nice use of a latin legal term ! I had to really study them when I was taking my degrees, later with daily use they became easier.

 

[ChristineM]

Sweetheart, the point is that you use a totally false standard to identify who is, or isn't a Christian. The founder of the Faith totally rejected the standard you employ. You believe that if someone is a member of a church, or supports a denomination, or engages in ritual, or has the backing of a corrupt self identified quasi Christian organization, they are, de facto, a Christian. However labels and proclamations aren't what it is about. If it were, there never would have been the continuous thread of warnings about degradation of the Church, Falsity, people doing evil proclaiming themselves Christians etc. If you are going to judge a set of moral principles, based upon those who allege they follow them, then the Bible makes it clear your judgement will be totally false. The standard is so simple, but you prefer convenient labels that fit your narrative. A self proclaimed Christian cannot continuously and habitually do what is proscribed in no uncertain terms, and be a Christian. This applies individually or collectively. Labels are irrelevant, except for those with a particular axe to grind. Dietrich Bonhoffer was a Christian, that by his deeds, confirmed the truth of this. He opposed hitler to the point that he was to be executed, he escaped Germany. He came to the conclusion that his faith required him to do what he had been doing, so he went back. He was captured, and tortured, the gestapo demanding that he renounce his faith, till his death, he never did. HE is a Christian. So you say I "blindly follow propaganda". What propaganda is that ? That stalin and hitler weren't Christians ? Uh, what do you think the Romans would have thought about a vestal virgin who isn't a virgin ? Should they agree she is because she says she is ? Maybe they should believe she is because the Temple administration says she is ? Should they reject the testimony of the 143 men who said they had sex with her, because she is alleged by herself and others to be a virgin ? By the Biblical standard, oh so easy to apply, EVERY one of your examples could not be Christians, PERIOD. I don't expect you to accept this, because your personal and perhaps political agenda requires that you not. No problem ! Christians have been aware of people who adopt your methods and motivations for 2,000 years, it is neither new nor surprising.

As i said, who gave you carte blanche to dictate anothers faith?

They are not my method's, they are documents facts, you don't like facts then tough.

As for your diversion... Yawn

 

[ChristineM]

So, what is murder as defined by the law ? First degree murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human with pre act planning present. So, did they commit murder ? Certainly stalin did under the laws of the soviet state when he and Beria were the liquidators for lenin. However, there is a crime called "crimes against humanity " which has as one of its elements unlawful or unjustified killing, i.e. murder. Actually partaking in the act is not an element of this crime. Rather, the power to commit the crime, the order to commit the crime, having a structure in place to implement the order, having a motive to give the order, and the response to the murders are all part of the elements that constitute the crime. Tojo was hanged for murder, without any evidence that he personally participated, hitler would have been, as well as goering. Many nazi and Japanese officials were hanged, without personal involvement evidence, for unlawful killing. I suggest you read the transcript of Kruschev's indictment of stalin before the politburo if you want to see what the highest authority in the Soviet Union thought about how Russian law applied to the murderous actions of stalin. Now to mao. Certainly the murders propogated in his " cultural revolution" at least the early part would meet the standard of crimes against humanity. Nice use of a latin legal term ! I had to really study them when I was taking my degrees, later with daily use they became easier.

So not murder then? Fair enough, you should have said that in the first place.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let m be just as clear as I possibly can be. First, Christianity is based upon the NT. It is not based upon the comments of any person, nor the social effects of any philosophy. All irrelevant.

No, not irrelevant. Christianity is very much influenced by the comments of prominent Christians even today.

Christ made it abundantly clear that many would claim the name, but that few would be genuine.

What you call "genuine" is probably not what I call "genuine." To me, genuine Christians are the kind you encounter on the street, in the news, and in venues such as this. They include everybody who calls himself a Christian and means it, and they come in a wide variety of flavors ranging from the Quakers to the Klan.

Christianity is about an individual persons relationship with God, and other people. It is not about building empires, political philosophy etc., etc. etc.

Once again, that's the insider's perspective. The skeptic doesn't see Christianity in those terms. To me, it is what it does, not any idealized, scrubbed version of what it claims for itself or what its rosiest scriptures say. Christianity in America today is very much a political movement presently trying to transform the America government and American society to conform with its political agenda.

Admittedly, much of it is not supported by scripture. I don't see any scriptures condemning abortion or same sex marriage, for example, nor any commanding the teaching of creationism in schools or of trying to force compulsory state-led prayer in the public schools. For you, that means it's not Christianity, but that's not how I see it.

I understand why you'd like to pare Christianity down to "love one another" and a personal journey with God. If that's all it was, it would be making a positive contribution to societal well-being, and I would support the church's efforts even without believing in its god.

But it is actually so much more. It's the source of most or all American homophobia, misogyny, and atheophobia. What I mean by that is that if Christians values embedded in the Christian message were no longer promulgated as of today, and only the humanist values in those area were in play, those things would begin to evaporate from the culture.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't hand me quotations from any person, unless you find them in the NT. All others mean nothing.

You don't need to read them. Those quotes are part of my argument. They are evidence of the effect of Christianity as are these:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- former American president George H. W. Bush

"My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

These are two ideas you won't find written as such in the scriptures, either, but they are very representative of Christianity as being something very different from what you describe. I understand wanting to distance yourself from that. Me. too. But that is the face that Christianity American style presents to the world.

Christianity has had a very different effect and shows a very different face in the country I'm living in now, a Catholic country. It is not used as a wedge, and it has had a positive effect on the character's of the poorer class. It is also a societal glue. This is a more homogeneous and unified people, and the rituals and traditions are obviously meaningful to these people.

The downside is that it tends to promote ignorance, early marriage, and lack of birth control, and it consumes too much of a household's resources. Poor people are scraping up money to buy the Virgin a new dress - a porcelain doll in fine array periodically carted through town on raised pillows in a wagon once a year,

As to the treatment of women, I would suggest that the equality of women was solely a Christian idea, that developed in a world where women worldwide were treated as chattel slaves.

That's not the Christianity I know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Misogyny is the hatred of women, find it commanded or supported in the NT, or drop the issue. For a Christian there is no other authority that applies, and the other chaff is just whistling in the dark.

Sorry, but I'll apply my standards when making my case, not yours.

Here's an endearing manifestation of Christianity from Mike Pence Refusing To Eat With Women Other Than His Wife Isn’t An Endearing Love Story

Please tell me how this reconciles with your claim that "the equality of women was solely a Christian idea":

Mike Pence Refusing To Eat With Women Other Than His Wife Isn’t An Endearing Love Story
March 30, 2017

In a story about Karen Pence, the wife of the Vice President, the Washington Post‘s Ashley Parker recalled a particular detail that’s not surprising for those familiar with evangelical Christianity but probably sounds downright bizarre to everyone else.

In 2002, Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.

You would think a man with some self control could eat food with another woman (or be in the presence of alcohol) without believing it’s a violation of a sacred bond or a lead-in to that… but whatever. It’s his decision. It doesn’t affect me one way or another. There are plenty of similar stories in evangelical circles of Christian men not getting into cars with women by themselves out of fear of… who the hell knows what.

Maybe they could stop treating women as sexual objects.

Maybe they could stop assuming every woman they meet wants to sleep with them.

But there’s a difference between Mike Pence, the citizen, refusing to meet with women alone… and Mike Pence, the Vice President, doing the same thing.

If Pence won’t meet with other women alone, that’s all the more incentive not to appoint women to positions where he might have to have private conversations with them. As writer Jill Filipovic said so well,

"Powerful men who will meet one on one with men but not women hurt women's careers.That's not moral or normal"

 

[shmogie]

No, not irrelevant. Christianity is very much influenced by the comments of prominent Christians even today.




What you call "genuine" is probably not what I call "genuine." To me, genuine Christians are the kind you encounter on the street, in the news, and in venues such as this. They include everybody who calls himself a Christian and means it, and they come in a wide variety of flavors ranging from the Quakers to the Klan.



Once again, that's the insider's perspective. The skeptic doesn't see Christianity in those terms. To me, it is what it does, not any idealized, scrubbed version of what it claims for itself or what its rosiest scriptures say. Christianity in America today is very much a political movement presently trying to transform the America government and American society to conform with its political agenda.

Admittedly, much of it is not supported by scripture. I don't see any scriptures condemning abortion or same sex marriage, for example, nor any commanding the teaching of creationism in schools or of trying to force compulsory state-led prayer in the public schools. For you, that means it's not Christianity, but that's not how I see it.

I understand why you'd like to pare Christianity down to "love one another" and a personal journey with God. If that's all it was, it would be making a positive contribution to societal well-being, and I would support the church's efforts even without believing in its god.

But it is actually so much more. It's the source of most or all American homophobia, misogyny, and atheophobia. What I mean by that is that if Christians values embedded in the Christian message were no longer promulgated as of today, and only the humanist values in those area were in play, those things would begin to evaporate from the culture.

The skeptic sees with eyes that supports their skepticism. If there is no standard to measure with, then anything can be anything, right ? If I say I am a professional baseball player, but have never been paid for playing, because I say so, am I a pro ? No, because there is a standard that defines what a professional is. You want to adopt the terminology without the standard. Therefore, to you, I am a professional baseball player. It doesn't work that way. Christianity proposes that humanity has a problem, and that many humans talk the talk but don't walk the walk. You disregard this and say "they are absolutely who they say they are". I would suggest that you would never follow this formula in any other area of your life. Would you entrust your life savings to a guy who just says he is a successful financial adviser ? How about if you need brain surgery, would someone just saying " I am a very successful Harvard trained neurosurgeon who did my residency at Johns Hopkins" be sufficient for you to entrust your life to him/her ? What if they were actually a GP who graduated from the Tiajuana school of medicine, and their last 11 patients died on the operating table ? Would that be unimportant to you because they said the other stuff ? Homophobia, the irrational fear of homosexuals. How could a Christian who is one by the standard of the faith have this ? I will tell you what the NT commands are re homosexuals. They are to be treated exactly as anyone else, they may attend services, but cannot be members of the church. That's it ! Do you see irrational fear here ? You have yet to prove from the Christian standard that we are to hate women, before you look, it isn't there. Prayer in school, well, if you are going to allow moslems to do it, you better allow Buddhists, Sikh's. and Hindu's to do it as well. As to homosexual marriage, I didn't support it. I supported legal unions that permitted all the rights and obligations of marriage. Did I take that position based upon religious bigotry ?, no, I took that position based upon the definition or a word for 5,000 years, then the total redefinition of it. If you have read Orwells 1984 you know that big brother continually scrambled the language, so up meant down, blue was red, and the people were so confused that the ultimate goal of control of a peaceful population was achieved. "political correctness " has the same goal, with thought control thrown in. So, measure Christians by the established criteria, recognize that all the foibles present in humanity can be in those who SAY they are Christians, and with respect, stop trying to scapegoat a set of religious and moral standards for everything you don't like

 

[shmogie]

You don't need to read them. Those quotes are part of my argument. They are evidence of the effect of Christianity as are these:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- former American president George H. W. Bush

"My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

These are two ideas you won't find written as such in the scriptures, either, but they are very representative of Christianity as being something very different from what you describe. I understand wanting to distance yourself from that. Me. too. But that is the face that Christianity American style presents to the world.

Christianity has had a very different effect and shows a very different face in the country I'm living in now, a Catholic country. It is not used as a wedge, and it has had a positive effect on the character's of the poorer class. It is also a societal glue. This is a more homogeneous and unified people, and the rituals and traditions are obviously meaningful to these people.

The downside is that it tends to promote ignorance, early marriage, and lack of birth control, and it consumes too much of a household's resources. Poor people are scraping up money to buy the Virgin a new dress - a porcelain doll in fine array periodically carted through town on raised pillows in a wagon once a year,




That's not the Christianity I know.

Wrong. All of your quotations mean is that you are prepared to accept opinion over fact, nothing more. Catholicism is as far from what Christianity was founded to be, as earth is from the edge of the universe. It's not the Christianity you know, because you choose hearsay and tainted evidence to form your view of Christianity rather than learning for yourself what it was, and is, to be.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Garbage responses like "be honest for once in your life" convince me only that skeptics are mean, Christians are nice, and my worldview is correct.

That's a pretty skimpy foundation for belief, but probably better than faith. At least there's an appeal to evidence, however skimpy.

Incidentally, you fell into that hole yourself a few weeks ago.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry, but I'll apply my standards when making my case, not yours.

Here's an endearing manifestation of Christianity from Mike Pence Refusing To Eat With Women Other Than His Wife Isn’t An Endearing Love Story

Please tell me how this reconciles with your claim that "the equality of women was solely a Christian idea":

Mike Pence Refusing To Eat With Women Other Than His Wife Isn’t An Endearing Love Story
March 30, 2017

In a story about Karen Pence, the wife of the Vice President, the Washington Post‘s Ashley Parker recalled a particular detail that’s not surprising for those familiar with evangelical Christianity but probably sounds downright bizarre to everyone else.

In 2002, Mike Pence told the Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.

You would think a man with some self control could eat food with another woman (or be in the presence of alcohol) without believing it’s a violation of a sacred bond or a lead-in to that… but whatever. It’s his decision. It doesn’t affect me one way or another. There are plenty of similar stories in evangelical circles of Christian men not getting into cars with women by themselves out of fear of… who the hell knows what.

Maybe they could stop treating women as sexual objects.

Maybe they could stop assuming every woman they meet wants to sleep with them.

But there’s a difference between Mike Pence, the citizen, refusing to meet with women alone… and Mike Pence, the Vice President, doing the same thing.

If Pence won’t meet with other women alone, that’s all the more incentive not to appoint women to positions where he might have to have private conversations with them. As writer Jill Filipovic said so well,

"Powerful men who will meet one on one with men but not women hurt women's careers.That's not moral or normal"

Your standards are deeply flawed, if you refuse to use the established standard for 2,000 years, then you are just another person looking to the actions of other people to validate your prejudices. I have no remit to try and defend every person that you quote or throw up in your jihad. My remit is to defend Christianity as it was established. Find someone else for your political concerns, and your opinion driven, hack jobs, I am just not interested

 

[BilliardsBall]

Would you care to give an example of when rape is morally OK? Because I am drawing a blank here, but since you know so much about atheistic morality, perhaps you could tell us when rape is OK.

You missed posts from atheists on this thread (and other related threads) saying "I can see how not everyone would agree with me [an ethical atheist] that rape is wrong" and "it's a societal ill we [atheists and others] choose to make wrong".

I think rape is never okay - except if you're a dialectical materialist evolutionist - an atheist. Rape is propagation of the species and a survival-enhancing characteristic. Do you disagree? Don't say an atheist believes in good and evil!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I appreciate your high regard for my opinion, deeming me capable of establishing absolute moral codes for all humanity...

But, no. That's not how it works.

There are NO [thing(s)] is an ABSOLUTE statement. Don't tell me you're an atheist who believes in absolutes?!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree, Jeremiah!

But the OP doesn't involve the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the rape act, rather, it's morality and it's absolute nature.

Is rape inherently wrong or subjectively wrong?

PS. "Wisdom" is knowledge applied, it is immaterial. I thought atheists don't believe in immaterial things like wisdom (the absolute rightness of an action)?!