"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4520AD0F.36691931@netvigator.com...
TomP wrote:
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4510D9AB.D77218DE@netvigator.com...
TomP wrote:
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45079324.78C0AE97@netvigator.com...
TomP wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9839C2B6E1203vicman@216.196.97.136...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet TomP
(th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com) shat upon us with this:
And here is another atheist intellectual with a wide and deep
background in the history and archaeology of classical antiquity
who
has decided for all time and oh so absolutely and conclusively
that
certain events happened and certain people existed, or not . .
.
except that our dear correspondent Uncle Vic has only the
vaguest
notions what the evidence is . . . nor is he capable of
interpreting
much of it if he did see it.
Why don't you atheists understand that your idiosyncratic
notions
of
"objective verifiable factual evidence" are so much
nincompoopery?
Don't you hate it when the small of mind use the big of word?
Nincompoopery. Wow.
Uncle Vic, do you have even the faintest idea of the myriad
epistemological and logical presumptions inherent in your
idiosyncratic notion that everyone and everything can be proven
by
"objective verifiable factual evidence"?
I know you atheists tend to be overly enamored by notions of
"scientific method" and seem to forget that scientific method
is a
human construct relegated to explaining a relatively narrow
range
of
phenomena, thus many phenomena cannot be explained or
illuminated
by
science. Such as whether or not a particular person was born,
did
certain deeds. spoke certain words, and died at a particular
time
and
place. Why can't you and your atheist fellow travelers grasp
the
obvious truth that science and scientific method have limits?
You got proof, moron?
Proof for what or whom?
Got proof for your idiotic stoneage beliefs?
How can you characterize my beliefs when you are ignorant of what
these
beliefs are?
To what beliefs that I purportedly have do you desire proof for?
POST
IT! Otherwise you shall be dismissed as the uneducated oaf you
are.
You have no idea how much education I have or have not completed or
in
which
fields. Do you always make assumptions before you obtain basic
information?
Science doesn't know everything.
That is correct. But why do you anthropomorphize a branch of
knowledge?
Your present characterization of science anthropomorphic is the
same
as
the
ancient world anthropomorphizing forces of nature beyond their
comprehension
and assigning human-like deities to represent these forces they did
not
comprehend. I thought you atheists were above those superstitions.
Yet
here you yourself did exactly that same thing, Uncle Vic. Shall I
dismiss
you as "the uneducated oaf you [apparently] are," Uncle Vic?
But some day they will.
Kindly produce your "objective verifiable factual evidence" for
your
assertion. Bet you can't. And until you offer such proof, that
makes
your
assertion no more than mere personal belief unsupported by
"objective
verifiable factual evidence." I think an accurate characterization
of
your
assertion is that it is merely your personal belief based upon your
personal
faith that science will someday explain everything. Notice the
vague
and
unprovable generalizations in your assertions? "Some day"? Any
time
between
now and the end of the universe if the universe ends, or from now
until --
infinity? -- if the universe continually expands or exists in
cycles
of
expansion and contraction? "They"? Who are "they"? "Will"?
"Will"
what
exactly? Will science someday prove using "objective verifiable
factual
evidence" that Socrates was tried for corrupting the youth of
Athens
and
executed? No official record of the trial is known to have
survived.
None
of the original manuscripts are known to have survived. Socrates
is
not
known to have written a single word. There is not a single primary
source
or monumental inscription from the life of Socrates. No grave site
is
known
to exist. All of the extant manuscripts mentioning Socrates are
dated
hundreds of years after his reported death. Gosh, by your standards
Socrates
is just a myth who never really existed. Golly, come to think of
it,
Alexander the Great never existed either by your standards. Nor
did
about
99.9% of all the people who ever lived before the 5th century A.D..
Your
method sure makes studying history lots easier because you just
eliminated
about two-thirds of all human history and probably about
one-quarter
of
all
the people who ever lived. Congratulations! Shall we now dismiss
you
as
"the uneducated oaf you are," Uncle Vic? I mean, gosh, the
evidence
of
your
own factual errors, flawed method, and bizarre conclusions is
mounting
steadily.
And then can you explain how "science" will produce "objective
verifiable
factual evidence" that one ethical system is superior to any other.
Then
explain to us how "science" will someday provide ""objective
verifiable
factual evidence" that democracy is a more just political system
than
oligarchy or hereditary monarchy. Can you?
Unless you
strongmen for JESUS manage to rise to power again.
What is a "strongm[a]n for JESUS"?
Why do you think I am one?
Are you making the same mistake most of your atheist fellow
travelers
are
prone to? That mistake is that everyone who challenges or
criticizes
atheists and atheism must be a fundamentalist Christian. Is that
right,
Uncle Vic?
Then we can all kiss
the future goodbye.
Well, somehow the modern (post Medieval, pick a date in the second
half
of
the 15th century you like) culture of Western Europe, which
happened
to
be
mostly Christian, managed to dominate the planet for the past 500
years,
give or take. And this culture hasn't managed to destroy the
entire
planet.
Yet. (And in fact much of the destruction and murder committed
during
the
last century or so was committed by atheists, not Christians, Jews,
or
Muslims. But, as Mark Twain wrote, "I digress.") Almost everything
you
are,
Uncle Vic, and everything you do and everything you think is the
product
of
the Western, Christian culture. Certainly one of the results of
this
mostly
Christian culture was modern atheism. Fernand Braudel (an
historian
everyone should read but I am nearly certain you have not read)
covers
this
set of facts quite accurately in his 1987 book "A History of
Civilizations"
(actually "Grammaire de Civilisations" but you probably don't read
French
nor do many other people posting here) and addresses and identifies
cultural
forces in what he calls "cultural zones" (pages 11 and 12) which
spawn
civilizations with certain unique defining characteristics, one of
which
is
a unique way of thought, or "mentalite". And one unique
characteristic
that
formed the "mentalite" of Western civilization is Christianity.
But
read
Braudel, as he is far more knowledgeable and erudite that this
"uneducated
oaf" you believe me to be, Uncle Vic. Anyway, I would think you
should
be
grateful to Christians and you should profusely thank the
Christians
and
their Christianity for spawning your favorite "-ism," the atheism
that
is
the center of your life.
Or are you going to argue that modern atheism is not a reaction to
the
abuses of Christianity, the economic changes wrought by the
Reformation,
and
one logical extension of Medieval Scholastic Christian and Jewish
philosophy
into Renaissance and modern philosophy?
You, Uncle Vic and your atheist fellow travelers are stuck with a
certain
history and intellectual heritage just as are all other people.
And
that
history and that intellectual heritage are undeniably Christian.
Howl,
*****, flail, and bellyache all you want, but you can't change
those
facts.
I am not arguing that Western culture in general or the
particularly
Christian aspects of it are perfect or the ideal system or the
product
of
divine will or any other such nonsense. Just that certain things
were
the
way they were, and everyone living in the Americas and Europe is
living
the
results of a Christian cultural history. And I also argue that the
atheists
turned out to be even more brutal, intolerant, and murderous when
they
(the
atheists) came to political power. So it seems to me that neither
Christianity or atheism is the source of brutality, intolerance, or
mass
murder, as both atheists and Christians proved themselves most
adept
at
the
practices of brutality, intolerance, and mass murder. Rather, I
think,
the
concentration of absolute power in a few human beings tends to be
disastrous, thus it is of less importance what the individual
aspiring
to
power believes, and most important that power always be diluted
among
as
many human beings with as many differing belief systems as
possible.
That,
of course, is not original with me. But James Madison did
formulate
it
and
published it in Federalist X, and other places. Bet you never read
that.
Nevertheless, you will not "be dismissed as the uneducated oaf you
are,"
but rather encouraged to read it post haste to fill that gaping
void
in
your
education.
Yes, Uncle Vic, you need Pastor Frank and his ilk, and Pastor Frank
needs
you and your ilk, because only the constant tension between all of
the
various belief systems prevents one from becoming absolutely
powerful.
And
absolute power in the hands of people with absolutist belief
systems
always
results in brutality, intolerance, and mass murder, even when the
absolutists are atheists.
James Madison's theory of the balance of interests is solidly
rooted
in
Christianity, and in fact based in certain aspects of Puritanism,
which
was
lineally and directly descended from the formulations of Luther,
Calvin,
Augustine, and Paul as well as the Christian Scholastics of the
"Little
Renaissance" of the 12th century. In 1939, the late Harvard
professor
Perry
Miller wrote a rather excellent book called "The New England Mind"
which
is
a thorough albeit sometimes tedious treatment of the philosophical
roots
of
Puritanism. (When you finish that, I can recommend a dozen or so
other
books that connect Puritanism with modernization generally and the
political
theory of the last half of the 18th century in particular.
Naturally,
Max
Weber's classic "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"
is
the
"sine quo nihil" and Richard Brown's book "Modernization" and
Sacvan
Bercovitch's "The Puritan Origins of the American Self" connect the
intellectual dots quite nicely, and neither is long or tedious.
When
you
finish those, Uncle Vic, I can direct you to volumes and volumes of
books
that explain how Puritan methods and ideals became secularized by
the
late
18th century and how they developed into certain aspects of
American
culture. I can even loan you the books. Just let me know, eh?)
Surely
you
are familiar with this body of knowledge, aren't you, Uncle Vic?
No,
I
don't think you are, actually. I doubt very much you have ever
been
exposed
to much economic, social, and intellectual history. Your ignorance
is
obviously manifested in your posts. So it's a good thing for the
sake
of
this discussion I have been exposed to lots and lots of all three
branches
of history in the course of my education, isn't it, Uncle Vic? I
mean
geez,
Uncle Vic, even some of the looniest denizens of the loony right
wing
of
American Christianity seem to intuitively grasp that Christianity
had
something to do with Western culture and particularly with the
foundation
of
the United States, although I doubt most -- if any -- can explain
precisely
what the Puritan influences were then and how these were
transformed
into
the rhetoric of today. That means your education, Uncle Vic, was
inferior
to the education of the radically fundamentalist Christians you
taunt
with
such ignorant frivolity. Not to mention inferior to mine, and you
referred
to me as an "uneducated oaf ." Any decent education covers these
ideas
because they are a Very Big Deal. Why? Obviously because these
ideas
explain how the world got to its current state. Since you are
obviously
so
profoundly ignorant of your own intellectual heritage, shall we
thus
dismiss
you "as the uneducated oaf you (obviously) are"?
Surely you are educated enough to know that Madison, alone among
all
of
that
nebulous group loosely referred to as the "Founding Fathers," was
the
architect of that same constitution you depend on for the
protection
of
your
rights to liberty of conscience and liberty of expression. The
constitution
has few roots in the Enlightenment or the theism of Jefferson and
Paine,
and
no roots in the atheism of the Enlightenment. Or are you going to
deny
these
facts and prove yourself "the uneducated oaf you are"?
Most of your fellow atheists are incapable of replying, but I hope
you
can
find it in yourself. I sometimes work on the road, so there is
sometimes
a
delay in my response. I offer that as explanation, not apology.
My my, we are 'well read'
I am that, but not nearly as well read as I aspire to be. That "'well
read'" is the reason I consider so many of the atheist posts
hereabouts
so
silly. Many posters think they have just thought up this brave new
world
governed solely by "factual, verifiable, objective" evidence or
discovered
such a world at atheist.org or some other half-witted atheist web
page.
Actually, they parrot a half understood composite of the ideas and
sometimes
even the actual words of people who lived centuries ago. Of course,
these
bold atheists forming this vanguard of human progress leading the
ignorant
savages who still believe in God up from the morass of their
superstitions
have no idea they are parroting old ideas. Nor do they understand that
mostly these ideas and words have been discredited by the human
experience,
and some contained the seeds of their own destruction. (How's that
for a
timely reference to an atheist dialectic?) Yet many of these young
people
are ever so proud of their new rejection of all that religious mumbo
jumbo
and are positively enamoured with their new found freedom from the
tethers
of those old worn out myths and are the vanguard leading their tired
old
myth laden cultures into the brave, new world where everything not
proven
by
"factual, verifiable, objective" evidence must be dismissed as the
nonsense
it has to be by the dialectic of the new atheism. Pfui. What a lot
of
damned nonsense.
And perhaps if these paragons of "scientific" atheism spent more time
reading and learning, they wouldn't appear as ill-informed and
historically
illiterate as they actually are.
and no doubt in possession of a few degrees as well,
You are mistaken. I did receive a couple associate degrees while I was
in
the Air Force, but they awarded college credit for basic training and
the
NCO academy, neither of which are academically oriented. The
subjects I
discuss here were not the subjects covered in my formal education,
thus
my
degrees are mostly irrelevant to everything I post hereabouts. I am
merely
a truck driver who lives in the Bible Belt. Albeit a truck driver who
reads
a lot.
yet you still do not have the grey matter to recognise mythology
when
it
stares
you in the face.
Which mythology do you believe I don't recognize?
Ever read Karl Jung or Joseph Campbell? I mean the parts where they
discuss
their conclusion that myth is symbolic of the most important and
truthful
aspects of a culture, but nonetheless myth may contain the most
profound
truths, and often those truths are beyond the scope of science. I
mean
myth
as metaphor of reality not fully rationalized, and quite possibly
incapable
of rationalization, and beyond the ability of science to qualify and
quantify.
Don't you think that certain attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are
idealizations of attributes sought by, but rarely if ever, obtained by
the
adherents to those faiths within that cultural system??
What more proof do we need that homosapien's brain is at best an
evolutionary
freakish abberation
one that will be the undoing of itself, given enough time - No doubt
in
the
name of 'imaginary gods'
Perhaps so. But recall the results when atheists came to power.
Invariably
a blood bath.
No - 'atheists' have ever come to power any more than Christians have.
In the
case of aggression by countries predominantly christian the faith is
there
and
well established but it is their rulers that decide to attack. in the
case,
what i assume you refer to as communist nations, then their atheism is
not
pronounced. to them religions are a threat so they were banished but so
were
all organizations that threatened their dictatorships, as such they
were
deemed
atheists. There are no atheist battle flags unlike those hanging in
the
naves
of European churches like flags bearing the cross of Saint George on
them
in
the case on my country.
Pfui. Your knowledge of history is fatally flawed. Why don't you spend
some time, actually, lots of time reading the history of the modern era
of
history?
The majority of well known atheists were and are
Why only "well known atheists"? Why did you qualify your assertion?
What
about the lesser known atheists? Were and are they not "humanists and
pacifists" also? I can, of course, name a few thousand atheists who were
neither humanists nor pacifists, and millions more atheists participated
in
the slaughter of something over 150 million human beings during the past
century alone.
No comment, Mr. Young?
[me included] humanists and
pacifists,
That assertion of yours is utter nonsense. Neither you nor anyone else
has
any idea what the total number of atheists throughout history has been,
nor
do you or anyone else know how many of that total were and are "humanists
and pacifists." If you think I am mistaken, produce your data.
Well, Mr. Young, where is your data? Your assertion stands as merely your
totally unsupported personal opinion absent evidence. This is your second
opportunity to produce data to support your opinion. You utterly failed the
first time. Will you fail again?
Bertrand Russell for example
Can you please provide specific citations from the works of Russell
wherein
he claimed to be atheist? I know he emphatically denied being a
Christian
and claimed not to believe in the Christian god, but where exactly did
Lord
Russell assert that he was an atheist and claim that no god existed?
Come on, Mr. Young, prove your point for once. Or can't you? You claim
Lord
Russell was an atheist. Prove it. Lord Russell rejected the Christian God.
But then Lord Russell also doubted his own, thus by extension, humankind's
ability to disprove the existence of the Homeric gods. And since you
introduced Russell, have you actually read any of his books? I have. The
chief difference between Bertrand Russell, yourself Mr. Young, and many of
your atheist fellow travelers who post hereabouts, is that the fanatically
excessive certitude; abrasive and nihilistic skepticism; and woeful
historical ignorance so abysmally typical of many (not all, emphatically not
all) atheist posters hereabouts is absent from Lord Russell's writing. You
might even recall, or discover for the very first time that Russell
encouraged his readers to adopt degrees of certainty as a measure of truth,
and to avoid total skepticism.
who in his lifetime lectured in
numerous American universities.
So what? Lots of thugs, imbeciles, and assorted scoundrels have
"lectured
in numerous American universities." Some are doubtless lecturing "in
numerous American universities" as I write this. The mere fact that
someone
"lectured in numerous American universities" is hardly an argument for
one's
credibility. That being said, I have three of Russell's books. And I
have
actually read and enjoyed them. And Russell is very good, but not
infallible. Some very cogent critiques of various aspects of Russell's
work
have been published over the years. Ever read any of them?
Well? What exactly is your experience with American universities, Mr.
Young? None? I suspect so. Then why do you use lecturing in American
universities as some measure of legitimacy to bolster the credibility of
someone you presume to be a fellow atheist?
Russell was also fired from an American university, and an American court,
by Lord Russell's own account, found him unfit to teach in any American
university. So, doesn't the fact that Russell was found unfit to lecture in
American universities undermine your argument? If Russell's mere lecturing
in American Universities lends him credibility, doesn't his removal from
that position also remove that prop to his credibility?
Bertrand Russell's life's work stands or falls on its own merit. And
neither your approval nor mine affects that very much at all.
There seems ot be an absurd idea among some people that if they trash
atheism
hard enough it will somehow prove that their god exists.
Couldn't tell you. The only proof for God, or gods if you prefer, seems
to
be experiential and testimonial. While those forms of evidence do not
leave
one with the certitude of scientific evidence, being human means we lack
"factual, objective, verifiable evidence" to support most of the
decisions
we make every day.
Well, Mr. Young?
Time would be better
spent approaching the problem head on by 'proving' that it does.
existence by
implication is questionable at the best of times
Yet you yourself make decisions every day based on such questionable
implications. So does everyone else.
Well, Mr. Young, do you believe that you only make decisions based upon
"factual, verifiable, objective evidence" or not?
And the most murderous regimes in human history. And that
isn't a mythology.
Why is it when atheists propose this wonderful new rationalism based
in
science
Possible because we gain the advantages of science in ever increasing
effect as
we age, in the case of religions the reverse is the case.
Do we? My estimate is that only a very exclusive club has even the
vaguest
idea of what science is truly about. Lots and lots of your atheist
fellow
travelers hereabouts trumpet the infallibility of science yet accept
relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang theory, quantum
mechanics, and a veritable flurry of other scientific knowledge on
nothing
more than faith because they do not have the mathematical skills to
comprehend the proofs behind these. I am pretty sure that applies
specifically to you, Bob Young.
Well, Mr. Young? No reply? Or do you claim to comprehend the proofs
underlying relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang theory,
quantum mechanics, and a veritable flurry of other scientific knowledge?
Or do you, as I do, accept those theories as true because people whom you
trust to know far, far more than yourself about physics and higher
mathematics who have the highly specialized education, training, and
experience to construct and prove such theories?
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post hereabouts, accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang
theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying evolution based
upon faith. Not necessarily faith in God, but faith that the tiny number of
human beings who actually have the skills to comprehend these fields in
detail are honestly presenting their research. Yes, Mr. Young, you and your
atheist fellow travelers who endlessly tout science as the exclusive arbiter
of truth and claim that nothing exists unless proven first by "factual,
objective, verifiable evidence" could not even read, much less comprehend
the mathematical proofs for the scientific principles you and your atheist
fellow travelers hold as immutable truth. Welcome back to the universe of
faith, Mr. Young. Although actually you never left it. You and your
atheist fellow travelers just believe you left all that behind in your
brave, new world governed only by science. Pfui.
and reason and based only in "factual, objective, verifiable"
evidence, you atheists fail to understand that some human beings do
remember
what happened when atheists took over the French Revolution and
"liberty,
equality, fraternity" turned into a blood bath? And some human beings
recall what happened when atheists took over the revolution of the
working
classes and peasants, then promptly turned the nations whose
populations
included over one third of the population of this planet into a series
of
large destructive labor camps (Solzhenitsyn's term). And the vanguard
of
this atheist journey into the earthly paradise unencumbered by gods
and
myths with liberty and justice for all turned into the most murderous
regimes in human history. Can you perhaps understand even a little
that
these low points in human history were ushered in and sustained using
ideas,
language, and terminology exactly like the atheists on use net
hereabouts?
No I do not.
You are mistaken. Of course you cannot know you are mistaken because you
have never read Marx, Engels, Feuerbach, Lenin, Bukharin, Trotsky,
Stalin,
Mao, Zinoviev, and the many other theorists. Since you have no standard
of
comparison, you are in no position to state whether or not you understand
these low points in human history were ushered in and sustained using
ideas,
language, and terminology exactly like the atheists on use net.
Well, Mr. Young? Respond, if you can.
Your views are distorted i think by a raging need to prove
something about your god that you cannot manage to achieve.
I don't think I have ever tried to prove anything about any god.
Besides,
notions of god are irrelevant to the critique of the many atheist mass
murderers of the past two and a quarter centuries or so. Atheists
committed
mass murder on the most prolific scale in human history. All of the
known
historical data supports that set of facts. And neither you nor any
other
atheist or anyone else has ever produced any evidence that atheists did
not
murder more human beings in the least amount of time than anyone else in
human history. All you and your fellow travelers have managed is to
complain that the atheist dogma these thugs all publicly stated they held
as
central to their world view was not responsible for their record number
of
victims.
Where is your rebuttal, Mr. Young?
By the way - very pertinent to this particular subject,
Pfui. It is not pertinent at all. How does the relationship of a long
dead
pope with a murderous thug excuse the tens of millions of victims of the
atheist mass murderers?
You forgot to reply to this, Mr. Young.
the world is currently
keenly awaiting the release of documents by The Vatican that, it seems,
will
show that Pope Pius XII was indeed Hitlers Pope and that the
co-operation
with
the faschists was far worse that is currently known. I notice in your
tirade
against 'atheists' you failed to mention the twenty million plus that
died
in
WWII.
So what? Do you think those will make interesting reading? I have no
horse
in that race so whether the documents prove or disprove anything about
the
relationship of any pope with Hitler is of no personal consequence to me.
Eugeio Paccelli [before being ordained] was well known to be fearful of
communism - a bit like yourself it would seem.
Yes, indeed I am fearful of brutal thugs who committed mass murder on the
most prolific scale in human history. And I fear regimes who still hold
that atheist world view as central to their system. Much like as in the
PRC,
Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Belarus right now.
No rebuttal, Mr. Young? Does that mean my argument stands as conceded by
you?
Part of the world's cultural memory is that atheism was a humanitarian
disaster every time it became the most powerful -ism in modern
nation-states. Not most of the time, but every time. Fundamentalist
religion is not the answer either, because the blood baths are almost
as
frequent when the fundamentalists take over. But there will always be
fundamentalists and there will always be atheists and there will
always
be a
competing interests and parties in every society wherein political
liberty
and human rights exist. Such liberties and rights which were
conspicuously
absent in all the atheist states in human history I might add. The
secret
is not to murder, persecute, and ban the other parties and interests,
but
to
balance them in a constant state of tension so no single interest
becomes
dominant. James Madison constructed that theory in Federalist X. You
ought
to read it sometime. It is one of the greatest masterpieces of
political
theory in all human history.
So, instead of criticizing me, why don't you and your fellow travelers
refute the arguments I present? You see, I don't give a tinker's damn
what
you think of me and I am reasonably certain you return the opinion
right
back at me. It is not the personalities that are of importance or
interest
here, it is the ideas. And some of the ideas that we discuss here are
of
vital importance. They are a very big deal. And this is an ideal
platform
to develop and hone the expression of these ideas.
Well for someone keen to label the opposition 'nincompoops', you really
surprise me.
I strive for a certain accuracy in my language. Someone who espouses
nincompoopery is a nincompoop by definition.
Do you disagree with the second point, Mr. Young?
Anyway if you insult me further I will not be responding, so I leave
you
with
words of wisdom that might be useful to you in your future days.
So don't respond.
Have a good week
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Since evolution became fashionable, the glorification of Man has taken
a
new
form. We are told that evolution has been guided by one great Purpose:
through
the millions of years when there were only slime, or trilobites,
throughout the
ages of dinosaurs and giant ferns, of bees and wild flowers, God was
preparing
the Great Climax. At last, in the fullness of time, He produced Man,
including
such specimens as Nero and Caligula, Hitler and Mussolini, whose
transcendent
glory justified the long painful process. For my part, I find even
eternal
damnation less incredible, certainly less ridiculous, than this lame
and
impotent conclusion which we are asked to admire as the supreme effort
of
Omnipotence.
[Bertrand Russell]
Why do you think Russell left the atheists Stalin and Mao off of his
list?
Stalin murdered far more people than "Nero and Caligula, Hitler and
Mussolini" combined. And the atheist Mao murdered at least twice as many
as
Stalin.
Communists dictators restrict any organisation that may threaten them,
religions included, also labor unions, theaters and film producers.
How does your rhetoric change the immutable fact that the atheist Mao
murdered at least 100 million more human beings than Hitler?
How does your rhetoric change the immutable fact that the atheist Stalin
murdered at least twice as many human beings as Hitler?
Thug dictators of every stripe tend to suppress human rights. My point is
that every atheist regime in history was headed by an atheist thug dictator
who were all, every one of them, mass murderers. Which makes atheists no
more humane or pacifist than Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist,
Shintoist, Nazi, Fascist, or Shamanist heads of government.
Mau was treated as a god, [we humans love them you know].
So was the head of every other atheist state in the 20th century. How does
that change the immutable fact that Mao murdered at least five times as many
human beings as Hitler? And at least ten times as many human beings as
Chiang Kai Shek and the other Kuomintang War Lords? Hell, your atheist
fellow traveler Mao murdered twice as many human beings in two years as
Chiang and the Kuomintang murdered in 50 years. Still want to lecture me on
the pacifism and humanism of atheists?
His minions, of
which there were tens of thousands, did what they thought was right for
China
Really, Mr. Young? Why don't you explain how at least 100 million Chinese
citizens murdered by atheists was "right for China"? I can't wait to read
your argument.
and the communist party.
Which was atheist, and headed by a man who publicly expressed his atheism
and hatred of all religion and actively persecuted religion his entire
career.
Nothing was ever done in the name of atheism.
Pfui! What nincompoopery! It really disturbs you that you are absolutely
mistaken in your strange notion that, "The majority of well known atheists
were and are [me included] humanists and pacifists," doesn't it, Mr. Young?
I know you and your atheist fellow travelers like to chant the mantra that
"Nothing was ever done in the name of atheism." But you and your fellow
travelers are full of crap and espouse nincompoopery. If you had ever taken
the time to read the writings and speeches of the "majority of the well
known atheists," such as Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Zinoviev,
Trotsky, Kamenev, Bukharin, Mao, Che Guevara, Vyshinsky, and hundreds if not
thousands of others, you would know that atheism is a foundation of Marxism,
the sine quo non of socialism, communism and all of the acts that flowed
from these theories. No atheism, no Marxism. No atheism, no Leninism. No
atheism, no Maoism, and probably no Mao. No atheism, no communism. Your
problem, and the problem of your atheist fellow travelers, is that you have
no idea what these atheists who really make up "the majority of well known
atheists" said, wrote, and did during their lives. Instead you choose the
likes of Bertrand Russell and point to Lord Russell as representative of
"the majority of well known atheists." Pfui. Name ten atheist theorists
who you think who were "humanists and pacifists." I listed twelve above who
were certainly not pacifists. Bet you can't match that number. Nor have
you yet proven that Bertrand Russell claimed to be an atheist. Lord Russell
certainly did publicly renounce Christianity, but all non-Christians are not
atheists. Try and respond now, Mr. Young. Where in his writings or
speeches did Bertrand Russell claim to be an atheist?
Or are you and your atheist fellow travelers trying to claim yet another
famous historical figure as your own atheist fellow traveler on little or
no evidence?
Atheism is not an organization, it is not a religion, it is simply the
rejection of gods by individuals.
"Now isn't that special?" It might even be true. But I doubt it. And you
can't prove it using "factual, objective, verifiable evidence" so your
assertion must be false and/or nonexistent.
But here is truth: Atheists were the most prolific mass murderers in human
history. That is fact. And you can burble on continually for the remainder
of your life about how innocuous, humane, and pacifist atheists and atheism
are, but you will always collide with the historical reality, the blunt and
brutal fact, that atheists murdered more human beings between 1917 and 1976
than all of the persecutions, inquisitions, crusades, religious wars, the
African slave trade, and the European colonization of the New World combined
since Christianity began.
If you want to study atrocities then you need to study the three hundred
year
period covering The Inquisition,
Oh, but I have read and studied atrocities, Mr. Young. And my studies have
included far, far more Medieval and Reformation history than you have, Mr.
Young. Which inquisition do you have in mind, Mr. Young? There were
several. And they covered a longer period than 300 years. The atheist
Lenin murdered far more people from 1917 through 1921 than all of the
Inquisitions combined over considerably more than 300 years.
And if you and your atheist fellow travelers are so well informed concerning
Christian atrocities, why is it that neither you nor any your atheist fellow
travelers have ever mentioned the greatest single Christian bloodletting in
history? You don't have the first clue. Neither do any of your atheist
fellow travelers. During a certain well-known war (which you atheists are
apparently totally ignorant of based upon your posting) entirely conducted
among Christian factions, the population of Germany and Austria alone
declined from about 21 million to 13.5 million in less than a generation.
That truly was a religious war exclusively between Christian factions and
cannot be attributed to colonization, the slave trade, or the age old wars
against Islamic, Norse, and Mongol expansion. Why don't you and your
atheist fellow travelers ever jump up on your hind legs and bark about those
Christian mass murders? And those murders were truly Christian on
Christian. The obvious reason is that you are totally ignorant of your own
history. That and the fact that the atheist web pages seem just as ignorant
as the atheist posters on use net. Gee, imagine that!
I deliberately left the above description of the greatest Christian
bloodletting over the shortest time period vague. Go look it up. Then you
and your atheist fellow travelers really will have a mass murder to throw in
the faces of Christians. And this Christian mass murder really was
primarily for religious reasons, and this one makes the Crusades and
inquisitions appear to be relatively humane little skirmishes by comparison.
But even this Christian mass murder is paltry compared to the atheist mass
murders of the past century. A single atheist calling himself Lenin
murdered 7 million people from 1917 to 1922. And the atheist Mao murdered
20 million people in two years.
You see, Mr. Young, facts keep getting in the way of your pet theory that,
"The majority of well known atheists were and are [me included] humanists
and pacifists." Here is a partial list of "well known atheists": Mao,
Stalin, Lenin, Coucescou, Gromulka, Dherzhinsky, Trotsky, Ho Chi Minh, Kim
Il Sung, Pol Pot, Yezhov, Yagoda, Beria, Khrushchev, Castro, Kim Jong Il,
Marat, Tito, Andropov, and I can continue. What salient characteristics do
these "well known atheists" share? Why, they were all self-proclaimed
atheists and they were all mass murderers, of course.
when anyone could be burned alive because a
Actually, you are mistaken. Not just "anyone could be burned alive" by the
Inquisition. The inquisitions were offices of the Church, and the church
had no authority to execute anyone. The executions were carried out by the
state, not the Church. Since in the Papal States the secular and religious
governments were the same, the executions were indeed carried out by the
Church, but that is the exception. If you had studied atrocities, you
should know that. Which confirms my opinion that you know nothing of the
inquisitions you haven't read on some atheist web site. Those sites are not
reliable sources. Just for one example, the biography of the only atheist
governor of any of the United States, Culbert Olson in California, 1939-43
at http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/olson/ fails to even mention the
fact that Governor Olson oversaw the warrantless arrests, the seizure of
property without indictment or trial, and internal exile to concentration
camps also without indictment or trial, of tens of thousands of citizens of
California while he was governor. None of these people were ever charged in
any court, by the way. And the atheist Governor Olson also made public
statements reported in newspapers supporting these illegal arrests. Of
course, that is exactly the conduct other atheist heads of state are famous
for, such as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, and the rest. Why do
you think atheists.org fails to mention this nasty little set of facts in
its glowing sketch of his life at their web site?
Could it be that atheists.org is no more truthful than the Christian,
Jewish, or Islamic press and web pages?
neighbor was of the opinion that he was a heretic -
And you just proved your ignorance again of the methods and objectives of
the various Inquisitions. Why don't you actually read a book instead of
relying on the tripe at your favorite atheist web sites? May I recommend
LeRoy Ladurie's "Montaillou" as a beginning? The book deals with the
operation of the Medieval Church as it suppressed heresy in one village
early in the 14th century and provides a useful frame of reference for the
study of the operation of the various inquisitions over the next few
centuries.
this is how insecure humans
become when their superstitious beliefs and imaginary gods are threatened.
And how human beings operated in the atheist states. And how people still
operate in atheist states right now. No repression by any Church compares
to the repression practiced by the atheist states right now as we
correspond.
Then there were the twenty million plus people who died in WW2,
Why don't you bother to inform yourself before you post? The total dead
during WW2 is more like 50 million plus. The Soviet Union alone sustained
about 20 million dead and China is probably very close to that total dead
between 1931 and 1945.
a war
comprising the Christian nations, America, Britain, Italy and Germany,
plus a
good many more 'Allies'.
Oh? "Now isn't that special?" Are you sure? Russian and China account for
about three-quarters of the total deaths during World War II. What was
Russia during WW2? Russia was assuredly not Christian. What was China?
Again, not Christian. What was Japan? Not Christian. And the invasion of
Manchuria by Japan in 1931 and the invasion of China proper in 1937 by
Japan including the Rape of Nanking and the aerial bombardment by the
non-Christian Japanese of Chinese civilians, were not the acts of Christian
nations. Because neither China or Japan was Christian. Disprove this
hypothesis if you can, Mr. Young. More Chinese died from Japanese swords
and bayonets that Japanese died from American bullets, artillery
projectiles, flame throwers, and aerial bombs during World War II. Why are
you so historically and factually challenged, Mr. Young?
Why don't you rethink your assertion, go do some minimal research instead of
winging it in your sad and sorry attempt to blame "Christian nations" for
the slaughter of World War II, and get back to us when you have your facts
straight?
At the time kids UK went to church Sundays and prayed for 'safety and
victory
for their glorious soldiers' and the kids in Germany were doing exactly
the
same thing.
And the atheist Stalin gave the "Mother Russia" speech on July 3, 1941, and
the atheist propaganda machine labeled the Second World War as the "Great
Patriotic War." Those represented a sea change in Soviet policy, but then
must have a certain knowledge of history to understand why that is true. But
it is also fact that the atheist Stalin and the atheist Mao continued with
their internal programs of repression and mass murder all through the Second
World War.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth!" --Adolf Hitler, 4/12/22
What is your source for that alleged speech by Hitler? You see, your noble
atheist fellow travelers have a penchant for misquoting and even making
things up. So I never trust any quote posted by an atheist, unless I can
find it elsewhere. Did you make this one up? If not, where is it from?
Presuming Hitler actually did say or write such a thing, how do you know
Hitler wasn't lying? Hitler did lie, didn't he? Or do you think there
really was a world wide conspiracy of Jewish bankers who conspired to keep
the German people down after World War I, Mr. Young?
Besides, the atheist Stalin murdered tens of millions more people than
Hitler. So did the atheist Mao. You see, Mr. Young, any time you want to
throw up the mass murder of human beings in an attempt to smear Christians,
Jews, Muslims, or members of any other religion, you bump into the fact that
atheists were the most prolific mass murderers in human history. Bar none.
No Christian, no theist, not even whatever Hitler or Chiang or Hirohito
were, even comes close. The atheist Pol Pot managed to murder something
over one-quarter of the population of a nation-state in only 3 years. Not
even Hitler, or Mao or Stalin managed that. You see, Mr. Young, whatever
anyone else did, atheists murdered more people, ran the most repressive
regimes, and violated human rights on the widest scale in human history.
Which kind of makes your assertion that, ""The majority of well known
atheists were and are [me included] humanists and pacifists," pretty much
pure nincompoopery.
[Guess this post will get a 'blank stare and utter silence -
No, not at all. Obviously. Albeit a blank stare and utter silence has been
your response to much of this exchange.
- anyway have a good week]
You too.
Bob
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have
stamped it out."~
[Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933]
Am I supposed to go weak in the knees every time you quote Hitler?
Or is this another symptom of your world view that only perceives black and
white? George Bush expressed the same world view when he claimed that
anyone not for us is against us, us being Americans, so unless you support
America you must support terrorism.
Does the fact that I understand that the atheists Mao and Stalin were the
most prolific mass murderers in human history mean that I somehow support or
espouse or excuse mass murder by Hitler or Chiang Kai Shek or any theist you
happen to name?
I know this will likely hurt your feelings, but atheists have proven
themselves no more moral, no more humane, no more pacifist than any other
group you care to name. If anything, atheists have proven themselves to be
more bloodthirsty than any other group you can name.
Proclaiming oneself an atheist does not endow one with any attribute that
makes one a superior specimen of humanity. It is merely the
self-identification of one's position relative to one's own belief in the
existence of gods or God. The individual's Declaration of Atheism does not
endow anyone with superior reason, superior rationality, superior
understanding, or superior anything. But every ideology does have
consequences, and the ideology of atheism certainly has its own set.
"... this is a hard world to be ludicrous in, with so many human beings
so
reluctant to laugh, so incapable of thought, so eager to believe and
snarl
and hate. So many people wanted to believe me!
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I
consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
[Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Mother Night]
Are you sure you have that quotation right? You might consider checking it
against a real source.
.
