| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tom P" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2005 06:07:43 PM |
| Object: |
Atheists on Atheism |
Following are the words of atheists on atheism; atheists describing their
atheism; the necessity for their atheism; the fact that atheism is the
necessary prerequisite of materialism; and the objectives of their atheist
movement.
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and posted
some of the leading atheists in world history. Incidentally, three of the
atheists I quote here became heads of governments during the 20th century,
and actually applied their atheist ideals and goals to the populations of
these modern nation states.
There are lots more where these came from. And even more in the various
"Collected Works" of these world famous atheists. Atheists were never shy
or bashful concerning their objectives. They just came right out and said
it.
I deliberately found a public source for these documents. These quotations
may be reproduced and freely distributed with the only caveat being that
credit must be given for the source, which is the Marxists Internet Archive
at http://www.marxists.org/. I quote from this site at
http://www.marxists.org/: "All material within these Archives, unless noted
otherwise, is public domain. MIA created material is protected by the
Creative Commons License." So please give credit where credit is due if you
repost or reproduce these. Thank you. Happy reading.
"Communism begins from the outset with atheism . . ." (Karl Marx, "Private
Property and Communism" in Marx: Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1844: Private Property and Communism." Trans. Martin Mulligan. Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1959.) Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that
are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths,
it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on
a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical
experience." Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, "The Manifesto of the
Communist Party," in Marx/Engels, "Selected Works," Volume One. Trans.:
Samuel Moore. Moscow: Progress Publishers, , pp. 98-137. Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/
"The point is, therefore, to be more radical than everybody else as far as
atheism is concerned. Fortunately it is easy enough to be an atheist today."
And then later in the same essay: "This much is sure: the only service that
can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of
faith and to outdo Bismarck's Kirchenkulturkampf laws by prohibiting
religion generally...." Frederick Engels. "Emigrant Literature II," 1874,
in "Marx and Engels On Religion." trans. Andy Blunden. Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1957. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/
"The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared,
is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical
traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach
(first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany-a materialism which is
absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion." (From V. I.
Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion." Originally
published in "Proletary," No. 45, May 13 (26), 1900. Published according to
the text in Proletary. Source: Lenin, "Collected Works." Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1973, Volume 15, pages 402-413. Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin
"Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the
materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore,
necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic
roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the
propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific
literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly
forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party
work." V. I. Lenin' "Socialism and Religion," Novaya Zhizn, No. 28,
December 3, 1905. Signed: N. Lenin. Published according to the text in
Novaya Zhizn. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965,
Moscow, Volume 10, pages 83-87. Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin
"Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party.
It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena
of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical,
while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these
phenomena, its theory, is materialistic." J. V. Stalin, "Dialectical and
Historical Materialism." September 1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/
"Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical
materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of
dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the
study of society and of its history." J. V. Stalin, "Dialectical and
Historical Materialism." September 1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/
"Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and
its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does
not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full of
'things-in-themselves' that can never be known to science, Marxist
philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully
knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and
practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and
that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things
which are as yet not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by
the efforts of science and practice." J. V. Stalin, "Dialectical and
Historical Materialism." September 1938.
Available at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/
"The history of science furnishes man with proof of the material nature of
the world and of the fact that it is governed by laws and helps man to see
the futility of the illusions of religion and idealism and to arrive at
materialist conclusions." Mao Zedong, "Dialectical materialism-notes of
lectures"as published in K'ang-chan ta-hsueh, nos. 6 to 8, April to June
1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/.
"Marx, Engels and Lenin all explained materialist dialectics as the theory
of development." Mao Zedong, "Dialectical materialism-notes of lectures"as
published in K'ang-chan ta-hsueh, nos. 6 to 8, April to June 1938.
Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/.
"Dialectical materialism's theory of movement is in opposition first of all
with philosophical idealism and with the theological concepts of religion.
The fundamental nature of all philosophical idealism and religious theology
derives from their denial of the unity and material nature of the world; and
in imagining that the movement and development of the world takes place
apart from matter, or took place at least in the beginning apart from
matter, and is the result of the action of spirit, God, or divine forces."
Mao Zedong, "Dialectical materialism-notes of lectures"as published in
K'ang-chan ta-hsueh, nos. 6 to 8, April to June 1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/.
.
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 10:58:46 AM |
|
|
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Rick wrote:
Almost all of you are misstating what the OP said - constantly
and consistently. Take your comment to the OP:
**************************************************************
As is your assumption that atheism is a "group with leaders."
**************************************************************
Pure strawman. The OP said nothing of the sort.
Then why did the OP speak of Marx, Engles, Pol Pot, Stalin,
etc, like it meant something?
Good grief, you're trying hard to dance around this. He said
they were *LEADING* atheists, meaning they were prominent. Why
in the world is that so hard to understand???
<sigh>
And after that self-righteous rant of yours a bit farther up in
the thread, I /almost/ had some hope for you.
The chorus, once more: they aren't leading atheists. They were
prominent, to be sure, and they were atheists. But they weren't
prominent because of their atheism any more than most secular
politicians are of their religion. And they sure as ***** aren't
considered leaders by any atheists /I've/ ever known.
HOWEVER, since religion tells people what to think, say and do, it
is fair to say that a person's religion compels that person's
actions. ESPECIALLY in cases such as Hitler, whose Christianity
was so thick you needed a fireaxe to dent it.
But, in the case of atheism, there's nothing /to/ tell the atheist
what to think, say, or do. There are a bazillion and one ways to
come to the conclusion that fairy tales are pure fantasy. That
process might have some influence over who and what you are, but
the conclusion certainly cannot.
If you have a cup that's filled with wine, you can make some
conclusions about the contents of the cup. If you have a cup
that's filled with water, you can do likewise. But if your cup is
empty, it's meaningless to talk about what's in your cup and what
effect it has on anything else.
I have no shepherd; and yet I do not want.
I sleep under the trees: I find my own way to water.
My soul restores itself: I walk the paths of righteousness
for their own sake.
Yea, though I climb the mountain of the light of life, I
fear not death: for I am not alone; my family and my cat
they comfort me.
I have presence of mind to prepare no table for enemies: I
wash my head with shampoo; my cup is filled just so.
Surely whatever happens shall be that which follows me all
the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of no
lord, not ever.
Despite your high-and-mighty attitude that you know atheists
better than atheists themselves, you once again demonstrate
yourself to be an arrogant, deceitful, disingenuous, nasty
Christian bigot.
And, while many of us know lots of Christians who're good people
despite their Christianity outside of USENET, those sorts of
Christians almost never seem to make their way here. I strongly
suspect it's because this is the only place most of us wear our
atheist badges, and those things seem to attract the Christian
bigots like moths to a flame. So is it any wonder that the moths
get burned?
In recent memory, I can think of one stimulating conversation I've
had with a theist. You can read the thread, starting with
Mr. Griffith's first note here:
http://tinyurl.com/8hefm
My first response isn't until the next page of ten notes.
The rest of the Christians, overwhelmingly, have shown little or
no intellectual capacity, little or no curiosity, little or no
open-mindedness, little or no honesty, and little or no courtesy.
Just like you.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
22 Jul 2005 02:15:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:58:46 -0700, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
The rest of the Christians, overwhelmingly, have shown little or
no intellectual capacity, little or no curiosity, little or no
open-mindedness, little or no honesty, and little or no courtesy.
Yes, but it isn't Christianity in and of itself that makes them so. Guys like
Rick and Tom P would be tiny-minded, bigoted assholes whether they were
Christians or not.
Just like you.
Cheers,
b&
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
22 Jul 2005 02:33:22 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
The rest of the Christians, overwhelmingly, have shown little
or no intellectual capacity, little or no curiosity, little or
no open-mindedness, little or no honesty, and little or no
courtesy.
Yes, but it isn't Christianity in and of itself that makes them
so. Guys like Rick and Tom P would be tiny-minded, bigoted
assholes whether they were Christians or not.
And, sadly, Christianity gives them the perfect rock to cower
under....
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Delia" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 09:34:31 AM |
|
|
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote in message ...
You don't know what a strawman is any more than DanielSan.
A straw man is an argument that has been altered (and usually weakened)
from the original intent so as to make it easy to refute.
For example:
Person A argues for the right to choose regarding abortion.
Person B argues that Person A merely wants to kill babies.
Person B has set up a straw man. The original argument is whether there
should be the right to choose whether to continue to continue a
pregnancy or not. Person B, however, altered that argument to a
dramatically different (and easier to attack) argument.
Now, question, Rick. Who is setting up the straw man, here? The ones
that say that atheism is a simple lack of belief in gods,
It's the people who are falsely claiming that atheists have a mere lack of
belief in God(s).
I have a lack of belief in gods of any stripe. That's all. No belief or
faith that absolutely no gods exist. If I'm not an atheist, what form of
theist do you figure I am? Presbyterian?
Maybe you'd like to believe that, but I have observed over
a very long time that that is almost completely and absolutely not true.
"Almost completely and absolutely..." - good one!
I've only seen a few exceptions, those being the weak atheists with a mere
lack of belief.
I'm one of them, and your arguments don't seem to address my case. If
pressed for a guess, I'd be willing to bet on the proposition that the
number of strong atheists is overwhelmingly dwarfed by the number of
fundamental Christians, the diametrically opposed position.
Or else almost all of you are lying about being mere atheists.
Hey, could be, but it also applies to people who might dishonestly claim
to be Christians, don'tcha think?
Almost all the posting here proceeds with the assumption that
there absolutely is no God, and that those who believe in God are nuts
and/or dangerous.
You're most likely misreading the posts (see my previous inquiry into
your reading comprehension). For example, an atheist such as myself can
withhold belief in gods of any kind, but - for the sake of argument -
can assume that the Christian God exists, in order to discuss and debate
the characteristics of the God, the claims of the Bible, and the merits
of the Christian religion. Even Tom P ran away from the question of
whether he's a true Christian based on whether he follows Jesus's rule
that a would-be follower must hate his family and himself. That's a
discussion of Christian policies as set down by Jesus, without any
necessary preconceived assumption that no gods exist.
If you can't see that, you're just blind.
What is it with you Christians and your bigotry against physical
handicaps? I had extremely weak vision - myopia and astigmatism - for 38
years, wearing very thick glasses, and four years ago the condition was
completely corrected through unusually successful LASIK surgery - a
miracle of man's, not a miracle of God's, although I'm sure many
Christians will be happy to use this as something else to give credit to
God for, but the credit really should go to the non-Christian surgeon
and the many Russian peasants who were experimented on decades ago in a
Soviet attempt to save money on glasses.
But back to the physical handicap bigotry: the "If you can't see that,
you must be blind" retort has more than the obvious problems with it.
All it is is a measure of frustration that a person's (typically
religious) opinion hasn't been communicated effectively. "If you can't
see (understand) that, you must be blind," as you stated. Suppose you
came across a blind person who needed assistance. No one of any measure
of civilized behavior would consider withholding the assistance. We'd do
anything we could to help the blind person. But in the religious
analogy, those who do not understand or believe what is asserted are
said to be "blind", and thereby condemned. That's completely the
opposite of what would be normal, humane behavior. You've had a hard
time convincing people that the jaundiced way you view atheist posts is
even remotely legitimate, and your frustration causes you to lash out at
your audience with a bigoted and heartless remark about vision-impaired
people. That says a lot about your character, apart from you being
demonstrably wrong on occasion. For example...
or the person
that states that atheists are just like Marx, Engles, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc?
Remember the above definition of straw man and consider it carefully.
Almost all of you are misstating what the OP said - constantly and
consistently. Take your comment to the OP:
**************************************
As is your assumption that atheism is a "group with leaders."
**************************************
The OP consisted of a disingenuous list of quotes from what was
described as "leading atheists." If atheism is not a "group with
leaders," then the OP is fatally flawed right out of the starting gate.
Here are the exact words: "I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at
all if I quoted and posted some of the leading atheists in world
history. Incidentally, three of the atheists I quote here became heads
of governments during the 20th century, and actually applied their
atheist ideals and goals to the populations of these modern nation states."
Pure strawman. The OP said nothing of the sort.
Except for the part referring to "leading atheists."
WMD
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 09:41:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:34:31 GMT, Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net>
wrote:
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote in message ...
If you can't see that, you're just blind.
What is it with you Christians and your bigotry against physical
handicaps? I had extremely weak vision - myopia and astigmatism - for 38
years, wearing very thick glasses, and four years ago the condition was
completely corrected through unusually successful LASIK surgery - a
miracle of man's, not a miracle of God's, although I'm sure many
Christians will be happy to use this as something else to give credit to
God for, but the credit really should go to the non-Christian surgeon
and the many Russian peasants who were experimented on decades ago in a
Soviet attempt to save money on glasses.
But back to the physical handicap bigotry: the "If you can't see that,
you must be blind" retort has more than the obvious problems with it.
WMD
SNIP
Hey WMD, I think Christians LOVE to use the 'blind' phrase cuz they
get to subtly reference their own bible... "None are as blind as
those that will not see", of course, this is directly saying that
those that don't believe in the CHRISTIAN GOD are willfully blinding
themselves to the "truth" of the "CHRISTAIN" god....
yawn....
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 05:09:36 PM |
|
|
Rick wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Now, question, Rick. Who is setting up the straw man, here?
The ones that say that atheism is a simple lack of belief in
gods,
It's the people who are falsely claiming that atheists have a
mere lack of belief in God(s). Maybe you'd like to believe that,
but I have observed over a very long time that that is almost
completely and absolutely not true. I've only seen a few
exceptions, those being the weak atheists with a mere lack of
belief. Or else almost all of you are lying about being
mere atheists. Almost all the posting here proceeds with the
assumption that there absolutely is no God, and that those who
believe in God are nuts and/or dangerous. If you can't see that,
you're just blind.
You've heard from a number of ``weak'' atheists on the thread. As
a strong atheist, I think it only fair to clarify my position.
I can conclusively prove that there is no omnipotent force, no
omniscient mind, no omnibenevolent guardian angle watching over
Earth, that existence is creatorless, and that there is no such
thing as the supernatural.
Since every non-idolatrous god claim relies upon at least one of
those properties--the supernatural, if nothing else--there can be
no true gods.
Might there be some super-powerful alien that could make itself
indistinguishable from a god to human perception? Sure. We have no
evidence of such, but that doesn't absolutely rule out the
possibility.
It would, however, be of no more ultimate significance than David
Copperfield setting himself up as a tin god to some back-bush
tribe. Either would be no more (and no less) than a living idol.
or the person that states that atheists are just like Marx,
Engles, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc?
Remember the above definition of straw man and consider it
carefully.
Almost all of you are misstating what the OP said - constantly
and consistently. Take your comment to the OP:
****************************************************************
As is your assumption that atheism is a "group with leaders."
****************************************************************
Pure strawman. The OP said nothing of the sort.
Others have addressed this. Tom P quoted ``leading atheists'' who
he took pains to point out were leaders of many people. But the
fact of the matter is that the people they led were not
necessarily atheists--that they led through force of arms and
political power, not through the compelling nature of their
atheism. And I can't even think of where to point you at some
atheists who currently follow said leaders--certainly not because
said leaders are atheists.
Well, okay. There are probably a few Marxists out there, but I
doubt even one of them would take everything Marx said as
absolute, unquestionable gospel. They'd call themselves Marxists
because they find most of his words compelling--but that wouldn't
stop them from picking and choosing from Marx's ideas. You did
know that there are a good many Christian Marxists, no?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 05:36:45 PM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1121897376.686516.253070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I can conclusively prove that there is no omnipotent force, no
omniscient mind, no omnibenevolent guardian angle watching over
Earth, that existence is creatorless, and that there is no such
thing as the supernatural.
Wow, I've never seen an atheist with a god complex. Will wonders
never cease?
--
Mike
The Truth is realized in an instant; the Act is practiced step by
step.
-Zen saying
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 07:46:41 PM |
|
|
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
I can conclusively prove that there is no omnipotent force, no
omniscient mind, no omnibenevolent guardian angle watching over
Earth, that existence is creatorless, and that there is no such
thing as the supernatural.
Wow, I've never seen an atheist with a god complex. Will
wonders never cease?
If you're saying that my claims require god-like powers, then we
must conclude that Euclid, Epicurus, Godel, and Turing all were
gods. My proofs are nothing but restatements or adapatations of
things they've already done.
Start with my .sig, if you want a taste.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 09:03:11 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in news:42def16f$1_2@spool9-
west.superfeed.net:
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
I can conclusively prove that there is no omnipotent force, no
omniscient mind, no omnibenevolent guardian angle watching over
Earth, that existence is creatorless, and that there is no such
thing as the supernatural.
Wow, I've never seen an atheist with a god complex. Will
wonders never cease?
If you're saying that my claims require god-like powers, then we
must conclude that Euclid, Epicurus, Godel, and Turing all were
gods. My proofs are nothing but restatements or adapatations of
things they've already done.
Then they're not "conclusive" except for those whose a priori
assumptions coincide with their arguments. But then that's not
proving anything.
--
Mike
All great truths begin as blasphemies.
- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 09:26:10 PM |
|
|
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
I can conclusively prove that there is no omnipotent force,
no omniscient mind, no omnibenevolent guardian angle watching
over Earth, that existence is creatorless, and that there is
no such thing as the supernatural.
Wow, I've never seen an atheist with a god complex. Will
wonders never cease?
If you're saying that my claims require god-like powers, then
we must conclude that Euclid, Epicurus, Godel, and Turing
all were gods. My proofs are nothing but restatements or
adapatations of things they've already done.
Then they're not "conclusive" except for those whose a priori
assumptions coincide with their arguments. But then that's not
proving anything.
Well, of course. I've never claimed otherwise. All I've claimed is
that the most popular set of /a priori/ assumptions commonly
associated with God are logically invalid. If God is nothing if
he's not a married bachelor, then God is nothing.
If your idea of ``God'' doesn't include omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, primal causality, or supernatural ability, then
there /might/ be something to it. Maybe. We'd need a better
definition to know for sure.
But, if it requires at least one of those properties as a
necessary characteristic, it doesn't exist.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 09:40:33 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in news:42df08bf$1_2@spool9-
west.superfeed.net:
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
I can conclusively prove that there is no omnipotent force,
no omniscient mind, no omnibenevolent guardian angle watching
over Earth, that existence is creatorless, and that there is
no such thing as the supernatural.
Wow, I've never seen an atheist with a god complex. Will
wonders never cease?
If you're saying that my claims require god-like powers, then
we must conclude that Euclid, Epicurus, Godel, and Turing
all were gods. My proofs are nothing but restatements or
adapatations of things they've already done.
Then they're not "conclusive" except for those whose a priori
assumptions coincide with their arguments. But then that's not
proving anything.
Well, of course. I've never claimed otherwise. All I've claimed is
that the most popular set of /a priori/ assumptions commonly
associated with God are logically invalid. If God is nothing if
he's not a married bachelor, then God is nothing.
Once anyone, theist or atheist, takes those assumptions literally,
then they're in strawman territory.
If your idea of ``God'' doesn't include omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, primal causality, or supernatural ability, then
there /might/ be something to it. Maybe. We'd need a better
definition to know for sure.
That's the problem. If one can define "God," then it isn't.
But, if it requires at least one of those properties as a
necessary characteristic, it doesn't exist.
Unless, of course, each of those characteristics are mere shadows of
reality...allusions to something beyond our ability to verbalize or
conceive. Metaphors for that which we cannot even imagine.
--
Mike
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the
average voter. - Winston Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 10:24:26 PM |
|
|
Mike Andrade wrote:
That's the problem. If one can define "God," then it isn't.
Only the undefined is undefinable. And the undefined simply
doesn't exist.
If you can't define your god, then it's even less than a figment
of your all-too-feeble imagination. Further, if you believe in its
existence, worship it, and think you know what it wants of you
anyway, you're a fucking stupid gullible idiot who should be
blindfolded when being led through the supermarket checkout aisle.
And if you think you know what it wants of others, and are willing
to impose its will on us, then you're a most dangerous psychotic
sociopath who belongs in a padded room with a /very/ strong door,
locked from the outside.
Or perhaps you'd care to try to define your god after all...?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 10:53:32 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in news:42df1667$1_2@spool9-
west.superfeed.net:
Mike Andrade wrote:
That's the problem. If one can define "God," then it isn't.
Only the undefined is undefinable. And the undefined simply
doesn't exist.
So bacteria only came into existence upon being defined by human
beings?
If you can't define your god, then it's even less than a figment
of your all-too-feeble imagination.
My imagination isn't feeble. It's quite lively.
Further, if you believe in its
existence, worship it, and think you know what it wants of you
anyway, you're a fucking stupid gullible idiot who should be
blindfolded when being led through the supermarket checkout aisle.
I suppose that's a good argument...somewhere...to someone.
And if you think you know what it wants of others, and are willing
to impose its will on us, then you're a most dangerous psychotic
sociopath who belongs in a padded room with a /very/ strong door,
locked from the outside.
Key word being "if." Conjecture isn't a very good argument.
Or perhaps you'd care to try to define your god after all...?
Who said I had a god?
At least your previous post was civil. I guess I overestimated you.
--
Mike
"A fool and his money are soon elected."
- Will Rogers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 11:55:27 PM |
|
|
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Mike Andrade wrote:
That's the problem. If one can define "God," then it isn't.
Only the undefined is undefinable. And the undefined simply
doesn't exist.
So bacteria only came into existence upon being defined by human
beings?
Ah, nothing like the smell of herring steeped in beet juice.
First, you assert that God is undefinable. Then, you assert that
we just haven't figured out how to define him yet.
So, what's for dessert? Scottish porridge? Gingerbread men on
broomsticks?
If you can't define your god, then it's even less than a
figment of your all-too-feeble imagination.
My imagination isn't feeble. It's quite lively.
Just like your god. It's most impressive, really, but nobody seems
to be capable of finding any evidence of it.
Further, if you believe in its existence, worship it, and think
you know what it wants of you anyway, you're a fucking stupid
gullible idiot who should be blindfolded when being led through
the supermarket checkout aisle.
I suppose that's a good argument...somewhere...to someone.
It is to anybody who realizes the lunacy in ignorantly trusting
something you not only have never experienced, but can't even
imagine experiencing.
And if you think you know what it wants of others, and are
willing to impose its will on us, then you're a most dangerous
psychotic sociopath who belongs in a padded room with a /very/
strong door, locked from the outside.
Key word being "if." Conjecture isn't a very good argument.
Coherent thought shore ain't your strong suit.
Somebody says he knows what God wants but doesn't have the vaguest
idea what God is, and that he's gonna make you do what God
wants...and you're reduced to blathering about conjecture because
you're incapable of recognizing mental illness when it stares you
in the mirror.
Or perhaps you'd care to try to define your god after all...?
Who said I had a god?
You sure have been arguing quite vociferously for one. Most people
aren't anywhere /near/ that passionate about things they don't
believe in, and honest people don't take the contrary position
without making it clear that that's what they're doing.
Are you admitting to dishonesty?
If so, I guess that must mean that you're one of those dogmatic
agnostics. You firmly believe that God sprinkles His Holy Dumb
Juice over anybody who gets close to discovering Him, and you're
afraid you'll get an extra-powerful dose if you look too closely.
Unfortunately for you, He already hit you with the Super Soaker.
It's a good thing to say, ``I don't know.''
It's foolish to say, ``I am incapable of knowing.''
It's insulting to say, ``You are incapable of knowing.''
And it's downright antisocial to say, ``Everybody is capable of
knowing.''
Seeing how such statements are all-too-often followed by
exhortations to stop even looking, I find your type
despicable--assuming that that's what you really are. So long as
none are harmed by the effort, I'll not tolerate those who would
stand in the way of the quest for knowledge.
At least your previous post was civil. I guess I overestimated
you.
If you wish civil treatment from atheists in atheist newsgroups,
you would be wise to not preach about gods so ludicrous that even
an idiot can see right through it. And if you can't stand the
heat, get the ***** out of Hell.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 12:11:06 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in news:42df2bbb$1_2@spool9-
west.superfeed.net:
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Mike Andrade wrote:
That's the problem. If one can define "God," then it isn't.
Only the undefined is undefinable. And the undefined simply
doesn't exist.
So bacteria only came into existence upon being defined by human
beings?
Ah, nothing like the smell of herring steeped in beet juice.
First, you assert that God is undefinable. Then, you assert that
we just haven't figured out how to define him yet.
Wow. You certainly don't have a feeble imagination.
So, what's for dessert? Scottish porridge? Gingerbread men on
broomsticks?
If you can't define your god, then it's even less than a
figment of your all-too-feeble imagination.
My imagination isn't feeble. It's quite lively.
Just like your god. It's most impressive, really, but nobody seems
to be capable of finding any evidence of it.
There you go imagining things again.
Further, if you believe in its existence, worship it, and think
you know what it wants of you anyway, you're a fucking stupid
gullible idiot who should be blindfolded when being led through
the supermarket checkout aisle.
I suppose that's a good argument...somewhere...to someone.
It is to anybody who realizes the lunacy in ignorantly trusting
something you not only have never experienced, but can't even
imagine experiencing.
How do you know what I or anyone else has or has not experienced?
And if you think you know what it wants of others, and are
willing to impose its will on us, then you're a most dangerous
psychotic sociopath who belongs in a padded room with a /very/
strong door, locked from the outside.
Key word being "if." Conjecture isn't a very good argument.
Coherent thought shore ain't your strong suit.
I wasn't aware that making arguments based on one's assumptions (see:
strawman) was classified as "coherent thought."
Somebody says he knows what God wants but doesn't have the vaguest
idea what God is, and that he's gonna make you do what God
wants...and you're reduced to blathering about conjecture because
you're incapable of recognizing mental illness when it stares you
in the mirror.
I'm not the one blathering.
Or perhaps you'd care to try to define your god after all...?
Who said I had a god?
You sure have been arguing quite vociferously for one.
Really? Where have I made an argument for God's existence?
Most people
aren't anywhere /near/ that passionate about things they don't
believe in, and honest people don't take the contrary position
without making it clear that that's what they're doing.
Passion is an emotional state. So you can tell that I'm passionate
from words typed on a screen? Perhaps you are god-like.
Are you admitting to dishonesty?
Where have I claimed anything to be dishonest about?
If so, I guess that must mean that you're one of those dogmatic
agnostics.
LOL.
You firmly believe that God sprinkles His Holy Dumb
Juice over anybody who gets close to discovering Him, and you're
afraid you'll get an extra-powerful dose if you look too closely.
Unfortunately for you, He already hit you with the Super Soaker.
Like I said, I suppose if you cannot argue with what you have, just
make up a bunch of stuff and tear it up.
It's a good thing to say, ``I don't know.''
It's foolish to say, ``I am incapable of knowing.''
It's insulting to say, ``You are incapable of knowing.''
And it's downright antisocial to say, ``Everybody is capable of
knowing.''
Seeing how such statements are all-too-often followed by
exhortations to stop even looking, I find your type
despicable--assuming that that's what you really are. So long as
none are harmed by the effort, I'll not tolerate those who would
stand in the way of the quest for knowledge.
My type? LOL.
At least your previous post was civil. I guess I overestimated
you.
If you wish civil treatment from atheists in atheist newsgroups,
you would be wise to not preach about gods so ludicrous that even
an idiot can see right through it. And if you can't stand the
heat, get the ***** out of Hell.
Preach? Sheesh.
--
Mike
Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 12:55:08 AM |
|
|
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
It is to anybody who realizes the lunacy in ignorantly trusting
something you not only have never experienced, but can't even
imagine experiencing.
How do you know what I or anyone else has or has not
experienced?
You wrote, ``If one can define 'God,' then it isn't.''
If one had experienced ``God'' in some form, then that experience
would constitute a necessary part of the definition. But since
defining it is to destroy it, it's impossible to experience it.
Only an illogical fucktard wouldn't get that simple conclusion.
Who said I had a god?
You sure have been arguing quite vociferously for one.
Really? Where have I made an argument for God's existence?
This whole thread. There's the above quote, for starters.
Essentially, you assert that God only exists if he can't
be defined, and then you go on to insist that God is
undefinable. Ergo, God exists.
In the same message, you also state:
Unless, of course, each of those characteristics are mere
shadows of reality...allusions to something beyond our ability
to verbalize or conceive. Metaphors for that which we cannot
even imagine.
In other words, you assert that God is a metaphorical being beyond
our ability to imagine, so far above us that all we see is His
Shadow.
Earlier in the thread, you claim that I haven't really disproven
God without even asking for the proofs. You're certain that I
haven't done it, even though you don't know what I've done. The
only way that's possible is if you're certain that God really does
exist or if you're certain that it's impossible to prove his
nonexistence--which really amounts to essentially the same thing.
Are you admitting to dishonesty?
Where have I claimed anything to be dishonest about?
First you argue for the existence of an undefinable God far beyond
mortal ken. Then you suggest that you don't really believe in one
after all. The statements contradict each other. Intentionally
making contradictory statements without identifying them as such
means that one statement or the other is a lie.
In other words, you're a liar who managed to hoist himself on his
own petard in all of a few posts. Only duke manages that feat any
quicker 'round here.
Preach? Sheesh.
You're advocating for the existence of an imaginary sky fairy, and
you yourself insist that we're incapable of even beginning to
understand its nature. We can only take your assertions on faith,
for any actual evidence would destroy faith and thus destroy your
god.
Yeah, that's preaching.
So, liar, would you like for me to make you my *****? All you have
to do is keep lying and preaching.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 11:10:56 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in news:42df39b9$1_1@spool9-
west.superfeed.net:
Mike Andrade wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
It is to anybody who realizes the lunacy in ignorantly trusting
something you not only have never experienced, but can't even
imagine experiencing.
How do you know what I or anyone else has or has not
experienced?
You wrote, ``If one can define 'God,' then it isn't.''
If one had experienced ``God'' in some form, then that experience
would constitute a necessary part of the definition.
So you insist upon an objective definition that is constituted
primarily by subjective experiences. Okay.
But since
defining it is to destroy it, it's impossible to experience it.
Only an illogical fucktard wouldn't get that simple conclusion.
I see you're still using that intellectual approach.
Who said I had a god?
You sure have been arguing quite vociferously for one.
Really? Where have I made an argument for God's existence?
This whole thread. There's the above quote, for starters.
Essentially, you assert that God only exists if he can't
be defined, and then you go on to insist that God is
undefinable. Ergo, God exists.
You are aware, I hope, that one can defend and even argue positively
for a position without holding said position, are you not? It's done
all the time. It's a learning process.
In the same message, you also state:
Unless, of course, each of those characteristics are mere
shadows of reality...allusions to something beyond our ability
to verbalize or conceive. Metaphors for that which we cannot
even imagine.
In other words, you assert that God is a metaphorical being beyond
our ability to imagine, so far above us that all we see is His
Shadow.
That is not an "assertion." It is called a supposition. I merely
responded with one of the more common theological positions of most
of the monotheistic religions. Of course, you didn't address /that/
point, but rather began attacking me.
Earlier in the thread, you claim that I haven't really disproven
God without even asking for the proofs. You're certain that I
haven't done it, even though you don't know what I've done. The
only way that's possible is if you're certain that God really does
exist or if you're certain that it's impossible to prove his
nonexistence--which really amounts to essentially the same thing.
No, I merely said that arguments with which one already agrees do not
constitute "conclusive" proof. A point, by the way, with which you
agreed, even if tacitly.
Are you admitting to dishonesty?
Where have I claimed anything to be dishonest about?
First you argue for the existence of an undefinable God far beyond
mortal ken. Then you suggest that you don't really believe in one
after all. The statements contradict each other. Intentionally
making contradictory statements without identifying them as such
means that one statement or the other is a lie.
In other words, you're a liar who managed to hoist himself on his
own petard in all of a few posts. Only duke manages that feat any
quicker 'round here.
You really need to brush up on your definitions of "lie."
Preach? Sheesh.
You're advocating for the existence of an imaginary sky fairy, and
you yourself insist that we're incapable of even beginning to
understand its nature. We can only take your assertions on faith,
for any actual evidence would destroy faith and thus destroy your
god.
Yeah, that's preaching.
So, liar, would you like for me to make you my *****? All you have
to do is keep lying and preaching.
No, that's okay. I can see that you are a fair-minded person who is
open to a variety of ideas. You've impressed me as a great
individual.
Now /that/ is lying.
The truth is, your "approach" has been simply the flip-side of the
religious fundamentalist's approach. There's nothing to it. It's
all based on your imagination of what the other person believes
rather than on specific points or positions actually offered. You
imagine the other as "passionate" and "preaching," which, as far as I
can determine, are mere projections on your part. You began well,
with a reasoned response, but when your assumptions were challenged,
you appear to have gotten defensive and went into this silly mode.
In all, it appears you have a good deal of maturing to do.
--
Mike
A bad standard is better than nothing. It gives you something to
violate. -- The Hammer Forum, 1986
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 12:06:33 PM |
|
|
Mike Andrade wrote:
You are aware, I hope, that one can defend and even argue
positively for a position without holding said position, are you
not?
When you don't even hint that you don't hold the position that
you're arguing positively for, that makes you a liar.
*****, liar.
It's done all the time.
On USENET? Sure thing. It's called trolling.
*****, troll.
It's a learning process.
Teachers don't lie and they don't troll. The only things to be
learned from trolling liars come from hands-on practice in
bitchslapping trolls and liars.
Still want to be my *****, fucking lying troll?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Andrade" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
21 Jul 2005 01:01:23 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in news:42dfd715$1_1@spool9-
west.superfeed.net:
Mike Andrade wrote:
You are aware, I hope, that one can defend and even argue
positively for a position without holding said position, are you
not?
When you don't even hint that you don't hold the position that
you're arguing positively for, that makes you a liar.
*****, liar.
It's done all the time.
On USENET? Sure thing. It's called trolling.
*****, troll.
It's a learning process.
Teachers don't lie and they don't troll. The only things to be
learned from trolling liars come from hands-on practice in
bitchslapping trolls and liars.
Still want to be my *****, fucking lying troll?
As I said, you've got some growing up to do. S'long.
--
Mike
When you want to test the depths of a stream, don't use both feet.
- Chinese Proverb
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hellbound Alleee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 08:27:31 PM |
|
|
Don't let yourself be fazed by typical, ignorant Christian arrogance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
20 Jul 2005 07:21:37 AM |
|
|
[posted and mailed]
"Rick" <pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com> astounded us with:
news:CpOdnSge6JTRk0PfRVn-pw@giganews.com:
Almost all the posting here proceeds
with the assumption that there absolutely is no God, and that those who
believe in God are nuts and/or dangerous.
Correct.
NEXT loser!!
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Delia" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
18 Jul 2005 11:26:30 PM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11dohvtdjrnjr68@corp.supernews.com...
I guess the next thing you'll tell us is that all atheists are unpatriotic
and that we all ought to get up and move to mother Russia as well. Aye?
Greywolf
Why would I tell you that? Your suggestions seem terribly bizarre and
sarcastic to me.
Why are you so offended just because I posted some quotes from some of the
most famous atheists in human history?
Are you ashamed to be associated with those 5 atheists I quoted from?
I'm sure you're not ashamed to be associated with this Jesus Christ
fella, assuming you're a Christian, so you shouldn't be offended when I
conclude that you hate your family and yourself based on the criteria He
mentioned in Luke 14:26.
--
Wayne Delia,
Delta Iota Chapter Advisor, Phi Kappa Sigma at Marist College
"Don't eat me! I have a wife and kids! Eat them!" (Homer Simpson)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
23 Jul 2005 07:09:55 PM |
|
|
"Wayne Delia" <> wrote in message
news:Wh%Ce.4976$Zx3.2864@trndny05...
Tom P wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11dohvtdjrnjr68@corp.supernews.com...
I guess the next thing you'll tell us is that all atheists are
unpatriotic
and that we all ought to get up and move to mother Russia as well. Aye?
Greywolf
Why would I tell you that? Your suggestions seem terribly bizarre and
sarcastic to me.
Why are you so offended just because I posted some quotes from some of
the
most famous atheists in human history?
Are you ashamed to be associated with those 5 atheists I quoted from?
I'm sure you're not ashamed to be associated with this Jesus Christ
fella, assuming you're a Christian, so you shouldn't be offended when I
conclude that you hate your family and yourself based on the criteria He
mentioned in Luke 14:26.
Conlcude anything your heart desires.
--
Wayne Delia,
Delta Iota Chapter Advisor, Phi Kappa Sigma at Marist College
"Don't eat me! I have a wife and kids! Eat them!" (Homer Simpson)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Delia" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
24 Jul 2005 09:47:02 AM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Wayne Delia" < > wrote in message
news:Wh%Ce.4976$Zx3.2864@trndny05...
Tom P wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11dohvtdjrnjr68@corp.supernews.com...
I guess the next thing you'll tell us is that all atheists are
unpatriotic
and that we all ought to get up and move to mother Russia as well. Aye?
Greywolf
Why would I tell you that? Your suggestions seem terribly bizarre and
sarcastic to me.
Why are you so offended just because I posted some quotes from some of
the
most famous atheists in human history?
Are you ashamed to be associated with those 5 atheists I quoted from?
I'm sure you're not ashamed to be associated with this Jesus Christ
fella, assuming you're a Christian, so you shouldn't be offended when I
conclude that you hate your family and yourself based on the criteria He
mentioned in Luke 14:26.
Conlcude anything your heart desires.
I've concluded that you're a frustrated theist of some sort who got his
feelings hurt by an atheist somewhere down the line, and you're loaded
for bear with nothing to shoot at. You're also a hypocrite and an idiot.
--
Wayne Delia,
Delta Iota Chapter Advisor, Phi Kappa Sigma at Marist College
"Don't eat me! I have a wife and kids! Eat them!" (Homer Simpson)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
18 Jul 2005 06:46:15 PM |
|
|
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
Atheists don't have leaders. Just like a-santa-ists.
Your 'morals'-by-threat are the worst kind.
Here is some of your religion's history:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm
Science doesn't burn people for the sake of disagreeing.
***** with your death cult.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
--
Niels
Alt.Atheist #2237
"The thing that saved me was Upanishads; Hinduism. Where you have
practically the same mythology [as Roman Catholicism], but it has been
intellectually interpreted. Say, already in the 9th century BC the Hindus
realized that all the deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you not out there [points away]."
-Joseph Campbell in The Hero's Journey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
18 Jul 2005 07:59:22 PM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing their
atheism in their own words. Why? What exactly bothers you?
Is it the fact that these men I quoted were atheists?
Are you ashamed to share your atheistic beliefs with Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Stalin, and Mao?
Anyway, why criticize me? I didn't write that stuff. Real live atheists
did. And I noted that you never attacked the accuracy of the quotations I
posted. If they were not accurate, I am confident you would have screamed
bloody murder. So I will presume you agree that the quotations are true and
accurate as posted.
Atheists don't have leaders. Just like a-santa-ists.
Where did I claim atheists had leaders? I don't see where I used the word
leader in this post, but I could have missed it. Can you point out to me
where I even used the word "leader"? I used "world famous" to describe the
atheists who wrote these words. Can you honestly state you have not heard
of the men I quoted? I also used the term "head of government. But that is
just a recitation of facts. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were indeed atheists and
indeed they were heads of the governments of their countries. How can
anyone dispute those facts?
Your 'morals'-by-threat are the worst kind.
To what do you refer?
Seeing as certain of these atheists I quoted were responsible for over 100
million murders between 1917 and 1976, I must admit your implication of
superior ethical conduct and morality by atheists seems a bit of a stretch.
And that figure of over100 million murders in 59 years is a low estimate,
and is also far greater than all of the murders by Christians since
Christianity was founded about 1950 years ago.
Here is some of your religion's history:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm
Nice try. But that has nothing to do with the subject of my post. That
subject was atheists on atheism. I did nothing but quote world famous
atheists. What does the existence, or not, of Jesus have to do with
atheists writing about their views on atheism?
Science doesn't burn people for the sake of disagreeing.
Again, that may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with atheists
writing about their atheism.
Who said science did anything? Are you equating science with atheism? You
are in august company. So did Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Stalin and a couple
dozen atheist mass murderers I can name.
Besides, science never did anything. Scientists did a whole lot of things.
Just as Christianity never murdered or tortured anyone, not even a single
person. Christians did to millions. Atheism never committed mass murder on
the most prolific scale in history. Atheists did. Is that distinction too
subtle for you?
***** with your death cult.
Now that isn't nice. Why would you insult me for posting the words of
atheists on the atheism they practiced and evangelized? I would never
insult you like that no matter what you posted about theists.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
I think I can match every murder, every instance of torture, and every
atrocity listed on that web page or any other litany of Judeo-Christian
murders throughout history with an atrocity and murder committed by an
atheist since the late 18th century. Care to make such a list? Ever read
some of the orders of the atheist Trotsky and the atheist Dzherzhinsky
during the Lenin regime? The difference between the ones I can list and
those on that page is that the atrocities by atheists all occurred during
the modern period and are better documented. Many, if not most, of those
listed at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html are obviously
allegorical. Geez . . .
May I ask a question, please? Why do so many atheists, and I include you in
this generalization, presume that everyone you correspond with is a
fundamentalist who believes in the absolute literalness and inerrancy of the
entire bible? Not even a substantial number of Christians believe that.
But apparently most atheists make that assumption. Can you really not tell
the difference between allegory, fable, parable, and history?
--
Niels
Alt.Atheist #2237
"The thing that saved me was Upanishads; Hinduism. Where you have
practically the same mythology [as Roman Catholicism], but it has been
intellectually interpreted. Say, already in the 9th century BC the Hindus
realized that all the deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you not out there [points away]."
-Joseph Campbell in The Hero's Journey
Sure you cited that properly? Wasn't that in an interview with Bill Moyers
in "The Power of Myth"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
19 Jul 2005 09:13:46 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing their
atheism in their own words.
And do you then object if we quote those of your religion who
were communist?
Seeing as certain of these atheists I quoted were responsible for over 100
million murders between 1917 and 1976, I must admit your implication of
superior ethical conduct and morality by atheists seems a bit of a stretch.
No, it doesn't.
And that figure of over100 million murders in 59 years is a low estimate,
and is also far greater than all of the murders by Christians since
Christianity was founded about 1950 years ago.
And you know that the murders were caused by atheism how?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
23 Jul 2005 03:40:22 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:th2qd19ft592q7qruf9jtmebfslchmvul0@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and
posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing their
atheism in their own words.
And do you then object if we quote those of your religion who
were communist?
Not at all. Post all you like anywhere and any time you choose. Toleration
and equal justice for all means we must support the rights of those who
express opinions different than our own. Especially those we disagree with
most vehemently.
Seeing as certain of these atheists I quoted were responsible for over
100
million murders between 1917 and 1976, I must admit your implication of
superior ethical conduct and morality by atheists seems a bit of a
stretch.
No, it doesn't.
How so? The facts are that when atheists gained control of the armed might
and police powers of modern nation states, atheists used that power to
commit mass murder on a prolific scale. That is not much of an argument
demonstrating the ethical superiority of atheists. Seems to me that
evidence proves that atheists are corrupted by power pretty much like
everybody else.
And that figure of over100 million murders in 59 years is a low estimate,
and is also far greater than all of the murders by Christians since
Christianity was founded about 1950 years ago.
And you know that the murders were caused by atheism how?
You should read more carefully. I didn't say these murders were caused by
atheism. Atheism never murdered
anyone. Atheists have. I wrote that these murders were committed by
atheists. Not atheism. Is
that distinction too subtle for you? Even if it is too subtle, it is true.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
19 Jul 2005 05:42:22 PM |
|
|
In episode <th2qd19ft592q7qruf9jtmebfslchmvul0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch burst
into the room and exclaimed:
In alt.atheism On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and
posted some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing their
atheism in their own words.
And do you then object if we quote those of your religion who
were communist?
How about how Marx derived many of his ideas in part from the communal
nature of the early Christian church?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
| | | | |
