kctan

Talking about China & Russia mass murder & all, why don't you people point the finger back at America where its existence today is thanks to the mass murder of its original ingenious so called indians ?

Talk about pot calling the kettle black & the ones doing the mass murdering of America's originals are doing it in the name of Jesus(tax evasion cruxifee) the pervert who loved fucking Christ(alleged saviour). Refute pls.

Back human right thingies. To America, China is bad on its track record of human rights issue, to China, America is also bad on its track record of human rights issue. Its just a perspective of viewing what are term human rights according to each individual government.

So which government having a so called bad track record of human rights issue have truly stated that it had a bad track record of human rights issue & published it for all to see ?

Since there is no evidence of a deity, what's wrong with concluding that there is no deity ? Since the person saying something like this must have gone thru a substaintial amount of so call evidence of a deity & found all false, where is the ignorance in it ?

The only arguement in ignorance is the one presupposing that there is a deity & that inorder for it to exist you must take its existence on blind faith alone. Not only that, questioning its existence is also considered a big no no as you've to take it all in faith.

So which one is argueing from ignorance & illogical ?

Dr. Retard

FarSeeker, you really seem to be inferring far more about atheists (especially the ones on this forum) than the evidence warrants. It looks to me as though you have a preconceived notion of how atheists are and then you creatively interpret their statements in accord with your vision. Of course, I could be wrong, this is merely a quickly formed impression, based on this thread alone.

To the quotes:

The heart of atheism is a negative stance on the existence of God. Anything further is unwarranted. Honestly, find the heart shared by Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Denis Diderot, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Vladimir Lenin, J. M. Keynes, Ayn Rand, Peter Singer, and Richard Posner. As far as the moral epistemology goes, John Locke, a Christian, thought that humans could tell right from wrong on their own, for they could access the natural laws of justice through reason. And look at the terrifying dystopia his thought precipitated: the United States. For some reason, I'm not scared of the view that we can tell right from wrong.

I think the difference between the political situation in the US and the USSR should be explained in terms of the dominant political thought, not the dominant religious thought. I should think this perfectly obvious! The USSR followed Lenin and Marx and the US followed Hume and Locke. The USSR promoted Marxian socialist totalitarianism and the US promoted constitutionally restrained democracy and broad liberty. I think an intelligent student of history and economics could see the results ahead of time, without even knowing the religious demographics of the respective nations. Perhaps some far-fetched link can be drawn between atheism and Soviet dictatorship and Christianity and American opulence, but it's unnecessary and implausible.

Perhaps if the term "religionist" were used by powerful atheists to abuse religious folks and reinforce a system of atheistic domination, you could draw a parallel to "kike" and "nigger," but in this context, it just looks hysterical.

As far as atheist dreams of an atheistic world go, I really doubt that anyone thinks this would usher in a new era of peace and justice (if someone does, point him out to me). Rather, some atheists think that the sort of bizarre thought that often accompanies religious practice would best be done without, and that, since theism is false, people would better off not believing it. I doubt anyone desires the end of spiritual practices so much as false beliefs and certain pertinacious patterns of thought.

This is silly. The history of Christian anti-Semitism is voluminous, but Messianic Jews aren't necessarily lying, stupid, or ignorant. Just because a religion has traditionally oppressed your race, ethnicity, or culture doesn't mean that you can't join the religion without being a schmuck.

How about this? Marxism is a doctrine borne of provably confused economic thinking with observably disastrous consequences, and its current defenders can be profitably compared to Scientologists, creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other crank thought cults. But Marxists generally aren't theists, so big surprise that Christians get more heat on this site than Marxists.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]

Dr. Retard

And a bit more!:

That's an apt response. Who opposes it? Point him out to me. Belief in Christianity has a causal role in the rise of Nazism and belief in atheism has a causal role in the rise of Marxism, but both roles are so small that blame is absurd. Christianity hardly ever has such results and atheism hardly ever has such results.

This is multiply nuts. First, atheists needn't be materialists. Second, they needn't be naturalists. Third, they needn't be dogmatists (remember skepticism?) Fourth, they needn't accept dumb pagan creeds. Fifth, Stalinist and Maoist atrocities are rightly blamed on human corruption mixed with Marxism, not on atheism. Abortion's A-OK, so forgive me if I don't gasp. Singer's views are being caricatured here, and he doesn't make me gasp either. Atheism has nothing to do with human reason reigning supreme. Finally, emotions like compassion are often placed at the center of the practical ethics of atheists.

Honestly, I need only point to David Hume to refute nearly all of this. Hume was a skeptic about human reason, and so counselled caution at rationalist restructuring of society, promoting reliance upon customs, traditional virtues, and human sentiment instead of fictitious rationalist theory-sculpting. He doesn't fit your caricature; neither do most atheists.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]

FarSeeker

Dr. Retard posted November 04, 2001 02:15 PM
FarSeeker: I AM SOOO HONORED.
Of all the posts about the connection between Hitler and Christianity on this thread, web site, and all the posts on the entire WWW, the Dr. reads ONLY mine.

Did you, or did you not, read the sign on the door?
First, I've never met a skeptic who wasn't dogmatic about it except in regards to skepticism itself (they can't be skeptic of skepticism).

They dogmatically refuse to allow God to be "in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto" Himself.

gotta go, class starting.

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

Dr. Retard

Um, the stated goal of the Secular Web isn't the damn Nicene Creed of atheism. It might come as a surprise, but what atheism does and doesn't imply has nothing to do with the goals of a website.

This doesn't make any sense, but I think I know what you meant to say: that so-called skeptics are always dogmatic about their own skepticism. If this is what you meant to say, then back it up. I allow the possibility that you don't meet many skeptics (after all, you don't appear to have met many atheists).

FarSeeker

Sorry if I garbled that. I meant Skeptics are skeptical about everything except their own skepticism.

For example (based on kctan's reasoning) An Atheist author claimed to have debated a Marxist and published it in a certain magazine. I went to 2 university, 1 Community College and the local public libraries to find the article. None of them had it. No evidence to support the author's claim, ergo it doesn't exist, ergo the author lied. But that wouldn't be fair would it?

Skepticism fails that test.

"But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism." _Skeptic_ magazine, :"What is a Skeptic?" (every issue)

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

kctan

So how did skepticism fail in this ?

Did you make sure that the so call magazine existed in the first place ?

If there's no such magazine, obviously that fellow is lying isn't it ?

What's wrong with calling someone a liar when all evidence point to him/her being one ?

Its just like theist always shouting that a god existed but some how could never proof that he/she/it really is there.

Using such an allegory is not really convincing as you could always lookup the atheist author & ask him/her for the publisher as well as which date/year/month whatever issue his/her article is published in. Simple isn't it ?

FarSeeker

The particular magazine named exists. What I am saying is copies of it did exist at the libraries I visited; just like the evidence for God may not exist wheere you look. Or you simply may not see it (It is said Galileo missed discovering Uranus because he just overlooked a moving star in his drawings).

The author was Steve Allen. Nuff Said.

FarSeeker

Dr. Retard posted November 04, 2001 01:58 PM I think I see which path you are trying to drag this dialog. I’m not going to let you. The Atheists I am talking about are those that claim they do NOT have a religion. This excludes Buddhists, and other “atheistic” religions that admit they are.

“you really seem to be inferring far more… than the evidence warrants”
As Atheists do with me, I make my judgements based on my observations of Atheists (by reading Atheists’ posts and observing governments run by Atheists, etc.). Please note that you did not correct kctan’s blatant illogic. Why did you ignore it? Why are only my “misinterpretation” worthy of correction? This site, and those like yourself who tacitly support it, may protest the sentencing of a “rationalist” to death (see the site’s home page) but when Christians die in prison or have their lives destroyed in Atheist controlled countries, your “humanism” vanishes into utter darkness.

“The heart of atheism…”
I beg to differ. Atheism inescapably forces a dependence on some source for moral/ethical codes other than the God given one, and that is human reasoning; otherwise Atheists would be what they deny: without Morals. Thus Atheists have arrived at:

Determining what really is Right and Wrong is the problem! Claiming you don’t agree with Singer and Reiman is irrelevant. They have reasoned that something is right that I know -- and I think you will agree with me -- is wrong, but they have decided that it is Right. Now, what if they get their idea legalized? What would you do as infants died? That is the result of Atheism.

What is the connecting thread of those authors? I don’t know, I haven’t read or studied them in detail. I simply don’t have the time or money for it; I have to work for a living. Does that mean there isn’t any thread? No.

Yes, John Locke was a Christian. I too think humans can find the truth if they try, but that requires them to admit that there is a Pre-established moral/ethical Truth/code for them to find, which Atheism says are not there! Thus Atheism require humans to make up their own codes of behavior. But then you have to recognize the difference between physical natural laws and moral/ethical natural laws. Chinese leaders can’t exceed the speed of light; they can commit murder unquestioned, so does this make murder permissible under empiricism?

Marx Reasoned the ideas he put forward would bring about a paradise. The totalitarianism resulted from the reasoning of those accepting that Reasoning. They decided to throw out all things religious, and we can see the results. The denominations called the Pilgrims and Shakers were also socialistic (I believe), yet they did not turn to mass murder. The founders of the U.S. were well versed in the Bible and made their thinking was based on what it taught – even if they weren’t confirmed Christians.

The failure of Atheists to reason clearly is plainly apparent from the previous claim by your fellow Atheists that because a Christian community “shared the wealth” and Marxists claim to, somehow make them similar in some esoteric way.

American “opulence”? Nice try, but no dice. Christianity supported honesty and justice, the wealth was just a side effect, and yet a dangerous one too. As the Bible shows, men tend to worship money more than God when things get too opulent. And it’s strange how few see the results even now, despite your claim.

A word must be used with oppression to be insulting? I don’t think so. “Religionist” is used when expressing superiority of an Atheist’s beliefs like Racists use the other terms. The oppression exists in other countries, and will eventually arrive here from the same source as that smug superiority.

“I doubt anyone desires the end of spiritual practices…” The Secular Humanist Manifestos even spell this out.

Point 11:
“Humanists believe that humanist education will promote social well-being by discouraging the wishful thinking and worry that stems from ignorance.”

In other words, public schools will be used to indoctrinate children into Atheism. Those who do not accept the indoctrination will be labeled “ignorant,” just like in Marxist states. (this point was emphasized again in 1983 in “The Humanist Magazine”

Point 13:
“Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. In view of this, humanists insist that religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as possible, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”

How do they plan to “reconstitute” religious institutions. For some reason I don’t believe they will do so voluntarily. Secular Humanists will have to take control of ALL religious institutions and dictate how they will operate. This is exactly what Marxist states tried to do. In China, if you are not a government Preacher, you are a criminal. If your church does not teach and act as the State says, you are punished: houses are destroyed, families torn apart, adults thrown in jail, etc.

Point 14:
“The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted.”
“In lieu of capitalism…”

Thus, the reasonable Atheist (i.e. Secular Humanist) will reason correctly that capitalism is “inadequate”. Can you imagine what would have happen if the US had suddenly become rational Secular Humanists” in the 1930’s and instituted these proposals? For one, the Personal Computer would never have been invented; any computers that did exist would never have been miniaturized because it wouldn’t have been necessary. We would probably be driving cars that more resemble the Model-T than what we have today.

Then came the HM update:
“Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo,…”

Translation: You don’t have to accept all of what we are saying to be a Secular Humanist (but Paul Kurtz seems to contradict this in later writings).

“New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction…”
HM 2, “Preface.”

Translation: We reserve the right to change anything at anytime without notice.

“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational,…” HM2, “Ethics.”

Translation: You can do whatever you wish as long as it seems reasonable to you at the time.


Marxism isn’t so different from the best non-Marxists can come up with, using the best Atheist minds you can find.

Man’s societies have persecuted outsider all through history. Christianity has not “traditionally oppressed” anyone; unless you call Haman a Christian (hundreds of years before christ):

Ester 3:5-6, 8-11, 13, NIV A Hitler long before Christ.

While the New Testament says: Anti-Semitism is not and cannot be a part of Christianity or a true and honest Christian’s belief! Christianity Savoir is a Jew. Luke is the only Gospel writer I know of that was not a Jew. The Apostles were: Simon (Peter), Andrew his brother, James (son of Zebedee) and John his brother; Philip, Bartholomew; Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot Paul was a Jew (from Mat. 10:2). An anti-Semitic Christian would be like a Capitalistic Marxist.

And remember, you have claimed there are no creeds in Atheism, so you can’t say anti-Semitism is unacceptable to Atheism. I can say that anti-Semitism is unacceptable to Christianity.

“How about this?” Compared to what your fellow Atheists have said about Christianity, I’d have to repeat the old ad-line: “wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.” I’ve only read your little grouping once before, so excuse me if I ask: did you write or merely read “Why People Believe Weird Things”? But that’s a nice example of attempted guilt by association that Atheists get so angry about when turned on them. But I find it very funny that you would group Steven J. Gould (a self-admitted Marxist, AFAIR*) with us creationists**! I simply adore the irony!

*Hey, He can believe in benevolent aliens from Sirius for all I care; I’m just saying Marxism isn’t held by Atheists who “can be profitably compared to Scientologists, creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other crank thought cults.”
(** Hey, what can I say, if you haven’t proven your theory, I have to fall back on the best supported, previous theory.)

“But Marxists generally aren't theists…”
Yea, and that's what I have been saying. Tell me, which arrived first on this web site: Christians or the criticism of Christians?
BTW: remember, you call yourself an A-theist, not an A-Marxist.

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

Dr. Retard

First off, I choose who to reply to by what seems most interesting at the time. Atheists have made the cut before, so quit whining. And suppose I was biased, so what? Nonsense is still nonsense, whether or not it gets exposed by a biased person. And as far as atrocities against atheists and Christians go, I'll agree they're both atrocities. What's the problem?

If I disagree with some political proposal, I do what Christians do: form a lobby, try to get it overturned, try to persuade people to my viewpoint, etc. This isn't just the result of atheism; it's the result of being constrained by reality.

Right, but your claims to discovered the heart of atheism are thereby rendered dubious.

First, atheism doesn't rule out a pre-established moral code (unless you load the word "established"). Want a list of atheist moral realists who believe that morality is part of the fabric of the universe, just as factual as anything else? And of course there's a difference between moral laws and natural laws. So what? I fail to see the big problem for atheism.

What exactly are you denying? That liberal constitutional democracies lead to a higher standard of living than Marxist socialist regimes? I hope not. It looks to me like you're agreeing with my claims and then saying "nice try" for no good reason.

No, but a word must be used with oppression to be analogous to "kike" and "nigger." "Religionist" might be a term of abuse (though I know that religious people use it to describe themselves, and not with irony either). But so what? "Capitalist" was also a term of abuse (coined by Marx). It's not anything like "kike" or "nigger."

All the Secular Humanist junk is beside the point, as I don't subscribe to that doctrine (nor do any of the many atheists I know personally). Moreover, I don't see anything in the quotes you gave that indicates a desire to end spiritual practices. It looks to me like they're condemning certain kinds of religious practice. The stuff about public schools and capitalism? Completely desultory.

Um, women? Jews? Come on. Now obviously, this doesn't disprove Christianity. Just because adherents to a creed happen to perpetuate and foment oppression doesn't make it false. That's the proper response to these historical claims. The improper response?:

Which is a big change of subject. The claim is not that Christianity has some anti-Semitic core element. The claim is that Christians throughout history have oppressed the Jews.

Moreover, your anti-Semitism victory over atheism is a trivial one. Because Dr. Retardism says that anti-Semitism is evil and that monarchy is generally a poor form of government. And Christianity only suggests the former. So Christianity loses! Of course, in real life, we don't judge metaphysical positions by whether they fail to entail ethical truths.

What would you have me say? Karl Marx can eat diarrhea and suck a goat's balls while he's at it? Would that answer the 'wimpiness' charge? Furthermore, I've never read "Why People Believe Weird Things," I just picked random crazies. I could have added Sasquatch enthusiasts, New Agers, UFOlogists, psi researchers, Forteans, faith healers, Crowleyites, and WWF superstar the Ultimate Warrior. Atheists can get angry about it, because they're not a crank thought cult. They're a diverse group of people who hold a negative position on the existence of God. And Gould can just shut up when he gets into politics, in my opinion. I never said evolutionists are all saints. (They just happen to have the best supported theory in the history of biology).

This is all complete drivel, so far as I can tell. Let me restate: you seemed surprised by the fact that atheists on these message boards fulminated against Christians way more than they did against Marxists. I pointed out that this shouldn't be surprising, since Christians argue for the existence of God a lot more than do Marxists. That's what you've been saying? OK, then we agree! ???

Which arrived first on this website? Probably criticism of Christians. Why do you ask?

And yeah I call myself an atheist and not an a-Marxist. That's probably because the culture I live in holds theism at a very high rate (70-95%? Something like that) and Marxism at a much lower rate (0.05%?) You don't call yourself an a-Marxist either, do you? Neither one of us call ourselves a-Velikovskyans or a-Randians, do we? Must every failure of "a-" terminology require explanation? I don't understand this for a second.