Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The Commander and Chief

Do Atheists need to hire a Public Relation firm? Atheists are just as morale as Believers, if you don't believe me, just ask one. I mean it doesn't seem fair that an Atheist can't get elected as President of the USA or ever get any babysitting jobs.

Backward God fearin' rubes like G.W. Bush get to be President. Yet so many Atheists can't even come out of the closet in fear of losing their jobs, friends or social networking group.

I know the "Billboard Campaign" has managed to sky rocket the Atheist numbers way up in the 3% group, but we still need to find ways to make Atheism look more attractive.

I will offer some new slogans to help with new recruits. How 'bout "Hey, save some money this Christmas. Become an Atheist and you wont have to buy any presents". Or "Atheists going green, we wont waste gas driving to church".

Feel free to post your new ideas for slogans.

Good lookin' owt. feeno

61 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abortion: As effective as abstinence, but way more fun!

    Not really "atheist," but you guys probably lump it all together...

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I mean it doesn't seem fair that an Atheist can't get elected as President of the USA or ever get any babysitting jobs.

    Given the propensity for atheist leaders to slaughter huge numbers of their own people, is it any wonder?

    we still need to find ways to make Atheism look more attractive.

    I heard something they could use as an ad campaign awhile back. "Zeus of Reason, because we all know how well the original Cult of Reason worked out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My comment was so evil, JD wanted a buffer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. W isn't backward because he's God-fearin', nor's he God-fearin' just on account of being backward. It's an unfortunate combination when your finger's on the button and you want the end times to happen, though.

    We won't have fresh atheists to show for those billboards for years yet. A believer who doubts based on simple statements like those has a LOT of doubting and thinking to do yet, before the belief isn't there anymore. Anyone who's coming out in the short term was already an atheist, just not one who liked to say so.

    Your suggestions might be in fun, but you're not far off the mark. One of the proposed slogans for the Australian bus campaign was, "Atheism. Sleep in on Sundays." Like all the others, it was rejected for being too "controversial". Go figure.

    JD, are you talking about communist dictators? Have you ever read the responses to that old chestnut?

    The Cult of Reason, and Robespierre himself, were deist, not atheist. Its other name was the Cult of the Supreme Being.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Robespierre was a Deist, the Cult of the Supreme Being could be considered deist, however the Cult of Reason as established by Jacques Hébert and Pierre Gaspard Chaumette was not.

    "Now, it must be kept in mind that the French Revolution was not a purely atheist enterprise; only two of the members of the Committee for Public Safety, d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne, were confirmed atheists. It is also true that the massacres may not have been a genocide proper, but rather the vicious aftermath of a civil war triggered by religious oppression and persecution by the Revolutionary French regime. But both the Committee and the Revolution were avowedly anti-clerical, and there is no question that the Revolutionary slaughter of 170,000 Vendéeans was primarily driven by anti-religious sentiment. So, the war in Vendée not only demonstrates the falsehood of the "religion causes war" theme, but also underlines the tendency of anti-religious regimes to commit large-scale atrocities." Link

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah, you're using Vox Day.

    Had the two cults confused, obviously. I suppose the Cult of Reason is what atheism actually looks like as a religion, i.e. not atheism; Reason was personified as a goddess.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, if I may interject briefly here, although I am an atheist, I still have a Christmas tree in my living room and presents under it, Christmas lights all over the house, a wreath on my front door, I even made little stockings for my kitties, my relatives are coming up for a few days, we're gonna have a nice turkey dinner, and I'm probably going to sing the same Christmas carols that my grandfather used to sing in church back in the days. It's tradition, and it can be fun.

    So my slogan would be "Why force yourself to believe, when you can just pretend and still have just as much fun?"

    Side note Feeno, if you think an IPA is too strong, try a barleywine. It's like a double-fermented IPA and it's too strong even for me.

    JD: I know you like to bring up Stalin and his comrades as really bad example of dictators who happened to be atheists. But I guarantee, I dislike them very much, because bottom line is, they were sociopathic psychos, regardless of what they believed or didn't believe in.

    Peace, Freedom, and Happy Bill of Rights day! (Dec 15th)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Religions are like bedpans: they’re either cold and empty, or full of shit.

    Religion and science got divorced, but Religion still shows up drunk on the holidays.

    Pat Robertson named his show the “700 Club” by rounding up from 666.

    I used to spend my time in church picking out who I would have sex with. I still get aroused whenever scripture is read or I hear organ music.

    [Wait, that last one was more of a confession...]

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lordship

    I can't figure you out. You are heavily armed, stay in shape, and are trained in the arts of self defense. Yet you hang up little stockings for your kitties?

    Ginx

    Your 3 slogans for Atheism are actually the best I've ever heard.

    LX

    I actually thought of using something like the sleep in on sunday thing. Maybe I heard it before tho?

    ReplyDelete
  12. JD, in addition to the fact that people like Stalin and Pol Pot (whom I'm assuming you're referring to here) were strongly ideologically motivated (communism could likely be considered their "religion") and ruthless dictators, keep in mind that there's another confounding variable here - technology. These examples, along with what you brought up about the French Revolution, are in more modern times than, say, the Crusades. Thus, these people had access to much more sophisticated weapons. Like, say, guns and bombs. This, quite simply, allowed them to kill many more people. Do you really think that the Crusades would not have had more bloodshed if you had gone back in time and given them all guns and ammunition?

    ReplyDelete
  13. In JDs link Vox simply asserts, Richard Dawkins uses "an absurd and inept attempt at a defense."

    Yet Vox does nothing to give any evidence and prove why that might be so.Because he really cant!,and if he could lil fozy voxy would be sure to make sure to do so.

    Vox -->" Any thinking individual would laugh at a similarly illogical claim that Marlboro's can't cause cancer because no smoker lights up in the name of Marlboro."

    Uses a completely fraudulent deceitful analogy ...Smoking is proven to often "cause" cancer,atheism and non belief itself is not proven to be the "cause" of often producing bloodthirsty type dictators.


    Vox -->"And no hand waving or philosophical floundering will ever lessen the horrifying impact of Gen. Francois Joseph Westermann's letter to the infamous Committee"

    Its Vox doing all the hand waving here!, whatever Francois Joseph Westermann's letter to the infamous Committee was ,Voxes hand waving has not given any decent evidence to prove how it is supposedly connected directly to all atheists and non believers beliefs.

    "Any thinking individual would laugh at a similarly illogical" Vox who is full of showmanship and quite smart and is a guru type messiah to his silly adoring faithful followers, who yes is educated, yet obviously is still far too thick! to be able to know when to simply admit he is not as smart as he sometimes tries to make out he is.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/if_you_hand_me_some_stupid_yes_in_fact_i.php#more

    ReplyDelete
  14. Vox -->"But both the Committee and the Revolution were avowedly anti-clerical, and there is no question that the Revolutionary slaughter of 170,000 Vendéeans was primarily driven by anti-religious sentiment"

    Ohhhh dear Vox has managed to prove is that obviously some folks didnt have much love left for folks of faith for some reason.

    Goodness me, and yet faithful folk manage to even (piss other faithful folk off) quite often too! ..So much so that they often squabble split and devide themselves off into many new little faith groups each and every year!! like they always have been doing now for thousands of years....Deviding our families and communities in the process.

    So all Vox has actually managed to prove here is that faith actually DOES often manages to piss people off.

    ReplyDelete
  15. JD- said "Given the propensity for atheist leaders to slaughter huge numbers of their own people, is it any wonder?"

    I don't actually understand your point here.

    Do you mean to say that homicidal lunatics who happened to be atheist killed lots of people?

    Because many of the people executed under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were not atheist, most were religious, so they weren't killing their own people per say, they were just slaughtering for the hell of it. Or rather, because they were pathological war mongers, cruel authoritarians, with delusions of grandeur and a god complex.

    Most of these fascists all had mustaches too, but they didn't kill in the name of their mustaches.

    Nor did they kill in the name of atheism. So if you were implying they murdered and enacted genocide in the name of atheism, I beg you to go back to your local library and check out some history books. But if I have simply misunderstood your point, then no harm no foul.

    But it one thing to say one was religious and killed someone because they were a bad person riddled with folly and sin, versus, they killed someone because they thought they were a witch and their religion specifically calls upon them to murder witches. Like that of the crazed Christian fringe groups in Africa currently hunting down sick children because of the insanely stupid superstitious fear that deathly ill children are witches spreading disease through their magical powers. In the 21st century, I do not see how this thinking is helpful or at all healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. These examples, along with what you brought up about the French Revolution, are in more modern times than, say, the Crusades. Thus, these people had access to much more sophisticated weapons. Like, say, guns and bombs. This, quite simply, allowed them to kill many more people. Do you really think that the Crusades would not have had more bloodshed if you had gone back in time and given them all guns and ammunition?

    If you like, you can look up the slaughter wrecked by Ghengis Khan with the technology available in his day.

    No Jeff, the preferred method of slaughter amongst atheist leaders is starvation. There's nothing technologically advanced about that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Most of these fascists all had mustaches too, but they didn't kill in the name of their mustaches

    And cigarette smoking over the course of a lifetime leads to about a 17% chance of contracting lung cancer. No one lights up in the name of Marlboro but there you have it. The conclusions are inescapable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I found the link for the "Zeus of Reason" example over at another blog. This potential is enormous. Here are some of the better one's.

    Atheism: Religion without the guilt, or the logic

    Atheists: We're Number One!
    (at least in body counts)

    Atheists - We make other mass-killers look like f***ing pikers

    Atheism - If you're going to be a loser, why not shoot for all eternity?

    Which day did God make all the fossils?
    It depends. Are you talking about Eoanthropus dawsoni or Hesperopithecus haroldcookii?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No Jeff, the preferred method of slaughter amongst atheist leaders is starvation. There's nothing technologically advanced about that.

    Ahh, well, when you put it like THAT...

    Want to count up all the people that died of starvation during the Middle Ages (during which time all leaders were religious)? Come on now...that's ridiculous. If we're going to go by numbers of starving people, religion still wins by a long shot.

    Even if I grant your idea that Stalin killed people in the name of atheism (which I don't), it's incredibly dishonest to count the people that starved to death. He did not order them killed, for one thing, and I'm going to just take a guess and say that likely the starvation was not religiously motivated. The fact that a planned economy doesn't work well and leads to shortages of food doesn't mean that automatically it must be a hate crime against religious people. That would be the worst argument I've ever heard.

    Atheism did not "lead to" deaths of starving people. Poor economic circumstances caused by an incorrect political ideology led to that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. *sigh*

    So everything before the 20th century doesn't count, I guess, because atheists didn't rule yet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Christendom may be considered to have
    begun in 392, when the Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great established Christianity as the official state religion of the empire.
    From that date, there were approximately 126 emperors of the Western and Eastern empires until the fall of Byzantium in 1453. If one
    adds to that total the roughly sixty-five kings who ruled over each of the twenty-seven member states of the geographical area formerly
    known as Christendom since Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 a.d., one calculates a very conservative estimate
    of 1,781 Christian kings and emperors ruling as theocratic monarchs over their royal or imperial subjects. This number is probably too small by at least an order of magnitude, given Jared Diamond’s previous estimate of 1,000 European principalities, but it is more than sufficient to prove the point and it would take far too long to do the research required to calculate the precise number. Although those 1,781 Christian rulers, like rulers everywhere, engaged in wars and indulged in murders and committed plenty of other deplorable
    deeds, very, very few of them ever engaged in a systematic act of mass murder that can be reasonably described as anything approaching the crimes of the sort committed by Stalin. Nor did most of their later successors, who did not rule by blood and divine decree but instead
    governed with varying degrees of consent from the populace, with the singular exception of a certain German Reichskanzler. By all accounts, the slaughter of the Protestant Huguenots known
    as the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was the most infamous of medieval Christendom. It was the low point of the thirty-six years of the Wars of Religion, which in addition to the religious component was a struggle between the House of Guise and the House of Bourbon for the throne of France. And while the massacre was not
    ordered by King Charles IX—it was at the instigation of his mother, Catherine de’ Medici, of the famously ruthless Italian family—it
    was blessed with his approval. The murder of an estimated 10,000 Frenchmen over the period of several months by the French crown horrified all Christendom. Even the king’s father-in-law, the Holy Roman Emperor, denounced it, and the young king went to his early grave crying out “What evil council I have followed! O my God, forgive
    me!”
    And yet, had this worst of all the medieval monarchs of Christendom been an atheist, and had he been responsible for killing twice as many of his subjects as he in fact was, he would still not be numbered among the ranks of the fifty most lethal atheist leaders in history.
    This is not to excuse or justify Charles IX’s historical villainy, but it is necessary to view such acts in perspective, especially when
    the New Atheists are claiming that it is religion’s potential to inspire murderous violence that justifies their attacks on it."

    ReplyDelete
  22. there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm, beginning with the First French Republic and ending with the four atheist regimes currently extant: the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. These twenty-
    eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal15 acts of the sort
    committed by Stalin and Mao and are known to have murdered at least 20,000 of their own citizens. The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two
    atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
    17 The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name
    is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
    Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians,
    even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

    Day, Vox The Irrational Atheist Chapter XII, The Red Hand of Atheism

    ReplyDelete
  23. JD-

    "And cigarette smoking over the course of a lifetime leads to about a 17% chance of contracting lung cancer. No one lights up in the name of Marlboro but there you have it. The conclusions are inescapable."

    You've offered a false dilemma through a bad analogy. It hasn't addressed my concern that you've mistaken personal ideologies for all encompassing doctrines. Atheism doesn't sponsor any doctrine. There are no holy books to tell us who to kill and how to go about doing it. There's no ambiguous moral precepts to follow for atheists, since more atheists I know form their morality from multiple sources of philosophy, politics, and good old fashioned experience.

    I'm not denying that believers aren't capable of the same, but believers do have a propensity to enact poor, cruel, or downright vicious behavior in the name of faith. It is this link between faith and faith based acts which most concerns me.

    Atheists can't be held accountable for lacking doctrinal creeds which call upon them to behave one way instead of another... any creed an atheist may adhere to is merely a personally held one, and does not reflect the share thinking or beliefs of the gamut of atheists and nonbelievers in full.

    However, religiously prescribed convictions are tied directly into the adherence to doctrine, which is was generates the beliefs of faith to begin with.

    It seems to me that you're turning the question around. You can look into the atheist thing more and maybe gain a better informed opinion, but what I think most believers are purposefully avoiding is having to have any culpability, not in the pious crimes of the religious done out of faith, but in willingly admitting there's a direct link between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  24. By the way, Vox makes a logic error from the start. It's not how many murders atheists versus religious adherents are accountable for. One injustice is just as morally depraved as the next. For a believer, God doesn't distinguish between one or a million, as the act simply done once is breaking his law.

    Humanists will say the same, that it's not the actual tally that matters of who killed the most, but the fact that even one unjust murder was one too many.

    You should set aside the need to prove believers less guilty than all the rest, even as they are all accountable for the same criminal act, and start trying to address the issue of faith leading to faith based acts of violence, oppression, intolerance, and irrational thinking.

    Because it's apparent to me that a handful of murderous atheists, as regrettable as such a stain on an otherwise good record is, there have been thousands more who have shown great compassion and decency and have had no need to place a faith in the supernatural.

    The peculiar thing to me is, how the number of upright and just atheist so outweighs the number of bad, cruel, deviant murderous kind. Whereas, when you look at religion, especially the faiths of the God of Abraham, there are so many bad seeds it almost becomes hard to tell the friendlies from the enemy. It's problem no righteous believer has adequately addressed, because anytime you bring it up they take the defensive position of trying to shift the blame onto their favorite scapegoat: atheists.

    So yeah, there were some bad atheists, I'll admit it. They killed a lot, but not in the name of atheism, and in most cases their killing sprees were influenced or compelled by religious traditions, especially in the case of Stalin and Hitler.

    So here's the challenge: prove to me that religion was NOT influential in the massacres it has inflicted throughout the annals of history, and that it was NOT done out of faith, and NOT in the name of God, and that those who inflicted such criminal deeds were NOT genuine believers, then I might take you more seriously.

    But instead of trying to frame atheists--and bunch them together as depraved for the deeds of a few individual lunatics and war criminals, which does not accurately reflect all atheists, and shares no relation to what atheists may believe in today, I suggest you read a real historian and not Vox Day (an ex-video game designer), maybe try reading any of the materials found here:

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Stalin&x=0&y=0

    and here:

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Hitler&x=0&y=0

    Or just head to your local library.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tristan.

    You are dealing with very simplistic, dichotomous, concrete type of thinking. All bluff, no blunder. A library is out of the question. Nationalistic propaganda or no game.

    Many of us have said this time and again. It is interesting. I often think that engaging in harmless debate is a good way of learning. But, clearly it is not. Despite many of us agreeing that we do not support these types of leaders, and clearly stating that these types of dictatorships are not often the result of religious ideology, but a mixture of complex economic, political, and sociocultural factors that would require a little bit of critical and complex thinking, this is always lumped with atheism. It always will be. There is no ambition to learn or develop a more informed position, this is all it will be. Good vs evil, black vs white, blah blah blah.

    Instead of attacking the political views of each of these leaders, all that you need to see is that they were atheist. Never mind the fact that many of them had Christian roots, and discarded them. But, this would involve actually reading many books from different viewpoints, rather than cutting and pasting flimsy arguments together.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The astonishing thing is that many of today's atheists are still so desperate to deny any possible connection between a historical atheist mass murderer and his atheism even as other atheists are actively slaughtering large quantities of religious people for their religious beliefs... despite the fact that this connection has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or nonexistence of God.

    Now, as I pointed out in The Irrational Atheist, atheism alone cannot possibly be responsible for turning an individual into a mass slaughterer. The overwhelming majority of atheists will never kill anyone for any reason. But, the disproportional tendency of atheists who find themselves in positions of sufficient power to commit mass slaughter that subsequently engage in it cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence or irrelevant correlation either. Because atheists practice a morality of one, both logic and history dictate that there always be some who redefine good and evil in a manner that directly contradicts the way it is defined by Christians and more conventionally moral atheists alike.

    Mao is a prime example of such an atheist, as he explicitly declared that conventional morality did not apply to him; by his logic, the desire for absolute power was in itself license to exercise it in any manner he saw fit. He concocted a rationalization for his lethal actions long before he committed them in his commentary on Friedrich Paulsen’s A System of Ethics:

    "I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s actions has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others. . . . [People like me want to] satisfy our hearts to the full and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me. . . . I have my desire and act on it. I am responsible to no one."
    - Mao: The Unknown Story
    p. 15

    "I am responsible to no one." That, right there, explains the intrinsic danger of atheism. The perception of freedom from the invisible shackles of religion that many atheists celebrate is precisely the source of the problem. While this is relatively harmless in the average atheist, it is absolutely lethal in those extraordinary individuals who possess ruthless personalities, exceptional ambitions and utopian visions. And it is telling, too, that like Richard Dawkins and other atheist champions, Mao claimed he not only possessed a moral code, but a moral code that was superior to conventional religious moralities."

    Vox Day

    ReplyDelete
  27. JD -->"Mao is a prime example of such an atheist"

    No JD wrong again !.... Mao is a prime example of such an mentally deranged "lunatic narcissist".Your quote of the unknown story proves it.

    That he happened to be also atheist, had so very little to do with it.

    Properganda wont work forever JD ...Naturally the truth will always prevail

    Why dont you and Vox stick to arguing more from points of complete intention of honesty,its a much stronger position to argue from

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks to both Tristan and Tink for what you both said ... My same thoughts almost exactly,but said in a much better way than i could ever hope to try explain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yep, Feeno, whom do you think I try to protect with all my guns? My little kitties of course! Seriously, I see no contradiction between shooting 500 rounds of ammo at the range in the morning and then petting my cats in the afternoon. Gotta have balance in life. Kinda like the samurai who would paint masterpieces in between battles.

    JD: You're right about atheists, and everything you read about us malevolent atheists is true. BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ! You have found us out!! We are evil godless heathens out to enslave mankind because we have no god-damn moral compass. Seriously dude, get a grip on reality and stop reading that propaganda. When's the last time you went to the Red Cross to donate blood? I do it all the time, and I don't see how that contradicts atheism in any shape or form. Morality does not come from the Bible. It's part of human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I dont know... Saying that atheists answer to noone, well that is pretty interesting isn't it. To bring this back to the fascist, dictatorship type of point of view that those less critical tend to enjoy flagging. Despite all of us clearly saying that we do not agree with their actions.

    I don't know, many of these "atheist regimes" have had to answer for their actions. Examples like the Nuremberg Trials, the execution of Benito Mussolini, punitive sanctions by the United Nations, execution of Sadam Hussein, etc. You see, in the secular world, there are legal consequences for such actions. These people have had to answer to the people through the legal system, many with their lives, which unfortunately, is often not equally matched to the devastation that they have caused. Which is why we have these systems in place.

    Let us spin the question... Who do Christians answer too? Oral Roberts just died, America's premiere huckster and con artist. This man took billions of dollars from hard working Americans with claims of faith healing. He has provided no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims. And, he paved the way for the likes of Benny Hinn and Jim Bakker. Who, by the way is back on tv. America is in the throes of a deep recession, with the middle class being eliminated. Many people are destitute, losing their homes. Do you think one of these vipers would step up and do acts of Christian charity? Nope, and they have enough money to save many families in need.

    If I was Christian, I would be outraged.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Vox --->"cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence or irrelevant correlation either"

    Vox the fox merrily waffles ... as he also "coincidentaly" quickly and quietly simply just "dismisses" as "irrelevant correlation",the fact of Mao actually being the mentally deranged lunatic narcissist that he actually was.

    Vox...."The Irrational Christian"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oy vay, how many posts above here since my last one and not a single one of you zeroed in on what the main point is.

    It's not atheism in and of itself that is so scary. It's when atheist leaders couple their beliefs with a utopian desire to remake society that we all have to look out. Even "if I became an atheist", I'd still be leary of such leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  33. JD

    Thanks for the plug.

    Peace, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  34. Utopian remake.... Kinda like Jim Jones or David Koresh? Two very easy examples.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Probably Jones more so than Koresh would be a better example of this Tinkerbelch.

    Getting back to the topic at hand, to oversimplify the statements by Day as basically meaning that all (or most) atheists are prone to be killers would be wrong. Based on his above statements, atheists and Christians alike should fear rule under an atheist regime with utopian visions of grandeur.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ugh... You are so rude, it is so unnecessary. Perhaps you think that its funny to misspell my name as much as you can, but you just look like a dumb oaf. You do not do this to anyone else, just me, which lends me to think that you do it because I am female. Can you please refrain yourself and practice some of that Christian "compassion" that you are always throwing around and at least address me with some basic respect.

    I use the handle Tinkbell because it a nickname of mine. It came from a person who I really liked at a time in my life that was alot of fun. I was called Tink because I looked like her, and it is really disrespectful the way that you demean my name.

    ReplyDelete
  37. JD,

    "Because atheists practice a morality of one..."

    False premise right here. You've confused atheism with sociopathy. The two are not alike in any way.

    Your argument, if I get you correctly, is essentially that atheist + leadership (+ utopian visions which you added later) = mass slaughter. While this potentially may be closer to the truth, it is still a simplification. Atheism is not the cause of the murderous tendencies here, it's a blind devotion to a radical ideology, combined with a totalitarian dictatorship that provides the leader with massive amounts of power, combined with modern technologies, and probably combined with some sort of delusions or sociopathic qualities. I mean, Stalin often comes off portrayed as intensely paranoid, which can be an indicator of mental illness, though of course it isn't always. But why on earth would a disbelief in God make any difference to the situation?

    If you agree that, like you said, atheists are not prone to be killers, then why are you bringing it up as a relevant factor? Are you saying that we would all be killers if we had a sufficient amount of power? That still seems unlikely. Let me just ask you: Do you think that if an atheist (miraculously) got elected to the White House, that he/she would start a war, start killing off political rivals, or intentionally enact policies to cause the population to starve? Do you really think it's that simplistic?

    Now how about if there was the utopian visionary you brought up that got into the White House? Perhaps we could see some of these effects (although of course the US has a system of checks and balances that might help to prevent such a thing). But I could imagine such a thing happening regardless of the person's religious beliefs. So please support the idea that atheism has a part to play in this, because I don't see why a radical utopian visionary who is religious would be any less likely to kill people off than one who is not religious.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You've confused atheism with sociopathy. The two are not alike in any way

    No, you are confusing atheists (alone, seperate) with atheists (or conceivably anyone of any religion or no religion) practicing a morality of one, which in and of itself could be argued is sociopathic. What in the atheist system or code prevents this?

    Your argument, if I get you correctly, is essentially that atheist + leadership (+ utopian visions which you added later) = mass slaughter

    Yes. This has proven to be the case 58% of the time. "Slaughter" is defined as the non-martial killings of a minimum of 20,000 of their own people.

    More later.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Tink -->"which lends me to think that you do it because I am female"

    Yes its just JD showing you the love of jesus shining like a wonderful moonbeam.

    What are you worried about?.Why questioning it?Fascist Manifestos ohh dear... tut tut

    Why females have it far to good already, according to Guru Vox the "Irattional Christian"

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-women-shouldnt-vote-reason-345-346.html

    ReplyDelete
  40. JD-->"What in the atheist system or code prevents this?"

    Shit thats a real hard one ...hmmm what about the fact most atheists also being social and moral are naturally not really being quite so keen of sociopathic tyrants ...Sociopathic Tyrants dont bode well even for survival

    ReplyDelete
  41. Atheism is not the cause of the murderous tendencies here, it's a blind devotion to a radical ideology, combined with a totalitarian dictatorship that provides the leader with massive amounts of power

    When a leader has that power, what can put the kabosh on such ideas as the slaughter of so many of his own people? What's standing in the way of him becoming someone who will "redefine good and evil in a manner that directly contradicts the way it is defined by Christians and more conventionally moral atheists alike"?

    combined with modern technologies

    The majority of those murdered by their atheist leaders were not killed with guns or bombs.

    Do you think that if an atheist (miraculously) got elected to the White House, that he/she would start a war, start killing off political rivals, or intentionally enact policies to cause the population to starve? Do you really think it's that simplistic?

    Could you please rattle off a list for me of atheist leaders who are eld in high regard by a large number of their own people? daniel Ortega comes to mind but I'm willing to wager that he is quite a devisive figure in his home country.

    Not to keep bringing up the same point, but keep in mind that 58% of atheist leaders have slaughtered a minimum of 20,000 of their own people. Is an atheist leader that only ordered the non-martial deaths of *only* 6,000 of his own people really that much more benevolent?

    I don't see why a radical utopian visionary who is religious would be any less likely to kill people off than one who is not religious

    From the above quotes from Day, we can determine that although "1,781 Christian rulers, like rulers everywhere, engaged in wars and indulged in murders and committed plenty of other deplorable
    deeds, very, very few of them ever engaged in a systematic act of mass murder that can be reasonably described as anything approaching the crimes of the sort committed by Stalin. Nor did most of their later successors, who did not rule by blood and divine decree but instead governed with varying degrees of consent from the populace, with the singular exception of a certain German Reichskanzler. By all accounts, the slaughter of the Protestant Huguenots known
    as the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was the most infamous of medieval Christendom. It was the low point of the thirty-six years of the Wars of Religion, which in addition to the religious component was a struggle between the House of Guise and the House of Bourbon for the throne of France. And while the massacre was not
    ordered by King Charles IX—it was at the instigation of his mother, Catherine de’ Medici, of the famously ruthless Italian family—it
    was blessed with his approval. The murder of an estimated 10,000 Frenchmen over the period of several months by the French crown horrified all Christendom. Even the king’s father-in-law, the Holy Roman Emperor, denounced it, and the young king went to his early grave crying out “What evil council I have followed! O my God, forgive me!"

    Now, with the power of the internet at your disposal, I would ask you if you are aware of any other "theocratic monarchs" who begin to approach the numbers of Charles IX?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think they all drank alcohol, both the atheist and theist despots. Let's hate on drinkers.

    ReplyDelete
  43. what about the fact most atheists also being social and moral are naturally not really being quite so keen of sociopathic tyrants

    Breathtakingly stupid Gandolf. For how many generations have the, shall we say, "post-Christian" nations of Europe and elsewhere been post-Christian? Perhaps you can tell me what guarentees there are that as a society becomes less familiar with a religious inspired legal/moral code that they will actually keep it and by what arguments would they assert to moral relativists that would want change?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Tink -->"which lends me to think that you do it because I am female"

    Yes its just JD showing you the love of jesus shining like a wonderful moonbeam."

    Both of you are verifiably incorrect. Just ask PhillyChief on this thread from earlier in the week. I'm an equal opportunity offender.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, you are not an offender, you are offensive. There is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  46. JD -->"Perhaps you can tell me what guarentees there are that as a society becomes less familiar with a religious inspired legal/moral code that they will actually keep it and by what arguments would they assert to moral relativists that would want change?"

    You make a assertion that the morals are actually proved to be connected to the religion part of humanity.Suggesting its proven religion is needed for folks to be moral

    I disagree...I think religion is not needed for man to work out morals such as,killing folks is not good,nether really is stealing,or violence etc etc

    Your problem JD is you just simply cant get over the fact us atheists really are just as moral as you religious folk are,seems sometimes even more moral!.You are simply trying to argue from a old indoctrinated bullshit faith angle which said that supposedly heathens are evil,you are not really using honesty or looking for whats the actual scientific truth.

    All you want is for things to hopefully be able to be made to fit your "faith"

    I think its a weaker angle to try to argue from though JD ...Once you are no longer completely honest ...you really start often tryin ta push shit uphill

    ReplyDelete
  47. You make a assertion that the morals are actually proved to be connected to the religion part of humanity.Suggesting its proven religion is needed for folks to be moral

    I neither assert nor suggest anything of the sort flox a lox a pox a tox . I'm certain that there are aforementioned "more conventionally moral atheists" out there. They absorb the moral code of the society that they live in. That is, unless of course you would like to argue that atheists have devised a moral code throughout history and influenced societies in the past to adopt it. If so, could you provide a relevant link?

    I think religion is not needed for man to work out morals such as,killing folks is not good,nether really is stealing,or violence etc etc

    See my above statement re: the societies that atheists live in.

    One thing that comes to mind is the idea put forward by others that if religion did not exist, then science would have to invent it to ensure it's ethical use.

    Your problem JD is you just simply cant get over the fact us atheists really are just as moral as you religious folk are,seems sometimes even more moral!.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Might you offer up a stastic or link in support of your assertion?

    Once you are no longer completely honest ...you really start often tryin ta push shit uphill

    Is this coming Warlock of the Wallabies who has yet to answer the question, "For how many generations have the, shall we say, "post-Christian" nations of Europe and elsewhere been post-Christian? Perhaps you can tell me what guarantees there are that as a society becomes less familiar with a religious inspired legal/moral code that they will actually keep it and by what arguments would they assert to moral relativists that would want change?"

    Awaiting replies.....

    ReplyDelete
  48. JD -->"That is, unless of course you would like to argue that atheists have devised a moral code throughout history and influenced societies in the past to adopt it."

    http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/601_confucianism.htm

    Confucianism was around circa 500 BCE and knew the Golden Rule was “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”

    This guys explains it quite well.

    http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/08/18/who-first-invented-the-golden-rule/

    Its only a silly old fashioned "moral racism" and ignorant bias and bigotry to try and suggest thoughts/delusions of gods are whats actually correlated with our human morality.

    People will and have had many different ideas of gods,but yet morals still often remain the same almost everywhere "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others" ..Simply because of "always" being relative to the universal humanity...The gods are not ever so universal infact they are often very very different!,but yet humans are "always" universally human with the same human feelings etc. And so naturally the morals are often relative to that, and are often seen to be almost the same conclusion.

    Even the very simple fact many "faithful folks" are being debunked proved deceitful and often completely immoral almost daily now these days,often even by the very atheists themselves!.Must surely be just about enough to blow! the idea morality supposedly corelates to god delusions right out of the water!.

    Atheist societies can be just as moral or immoral as god societies can be.That sometimes psychopathic deluded tyrants can take over on either side of the argument is totally beside the point, because that part directly corelates to their personal delusions and mental problems etc.

    Even the fact more societies morals might have actually evolved through religious/superstitious folks societies thoughts more that they did through non religious folks thoughts,is still only relative to the fact that it happens more folks were superstitious/religious humans at the time.And that was natural too that so many were superstitious/religious because there was so much they never quite really understood at that ancient time.They were uneducated about much.

    JD -->"One thing that comes to mind is the idea put forward by others that if religion did not exist, then science would have to invent it to ensure it's ethical use."

    JD i do think religion has played a big part in how our morals have formed,they had to.Often folks around were superstitious/religious type people.Without things like DNA to aid us in things like law and order,maybe the fear of hell played a role that needed to be played at the time.But i cant see religion is needed now to ensure us being interested in being ethical.

    JD -->"Perhaps you can tell me what guarantees there are that as a society becomes less familiar with a religious inspired legal/moral code that they will actually keep it and by what arguments would they assert to moral relativists that would want change? "


    It has never really been the religion part thats inspired us.Do you really think man really needs to be religious to know getting murdered, really isnt such a nice feeling?..Or stealing etc etc

    Come on JD.Religion was only ever corelated to the superstitious part.

    You talk of non believers as being the " moral relativists " yet christians are only ever " moral relativists " too.

    They once used to think even stoning each other to death as a punishment was a moral thing.Its only "morally relative" to the fact that we are nowadays simply no longer quite so uneducated ancient or barbaric etc .That we no longer think it moral to stone folks.

    JD christians really only ever were/are moral relativists too.

    ReplyDelete
  49. JD there is still tribes being found deep in some places like the Amazon Jungle even these days,these folks still have their morals.Gods are not whats relatively universal to morals,humans are.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gandy

    I'm not so sure, those isolated and hidden tribes are usually found worshiping something.

    And I think it was Jeff's blog I left this doozy on, but I said this, and you can quote me, and If I ever become famous and then die, maybe my quote can be punched up on the internet. But here goes "We don't necessarily need God to be good, but we don't know what good is without God".

    Late, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  51. Howdy Feeno.

    I like quotes.But still that quote seems a little hard to believe wheres the real reasoning and logic and theory behind it.

    Think about it for a moment.Even with gods seems man dont know good,why else would we have needed to change the moral "thoughts" on the matter of stoning folk?.


    Amazon Indians might have some old traditions,like maybe the chief kills a chicken and thinks he reads the gut lining believing it shows him some devine information or something.Or maybe they have some special place in the forest they think is sacred.

    To say this is the connection to god that helps them know what good is.Has become slim in chance of holding much honesty and truth as a claim,its became a very lame argument and we atheists are rightous to laugh at such claims as showing ignorance....Why? ..because thats all it shows now in the year 2009, christianitys large endless pools of pride and willful ignorance.The faith whatever the cost type mentality.

    Your idea that man needs god to know good is laughable... Its become a fuckin joke man

    Many of your priests know god pretty well,they read his book and did all the godly type arse licking and backscratching they knew all the christian homie handshakes.Yet we still need to actually drag the fuckers into court as sex abusers, the gods dont help much in letting them fuckers know how "GOOD" it would be to simply admit their crimes.

    It only took christians who have this "god" thing, 150years for god to get to remind them it might actually be a "GOOD" and decent idea to make a lil apology to ole Darwin

    Feeno this idea that thoughts of gods is tied in with morality is a complete utter joke.And while folks of faith continue down that line of ignorance,it is vital to the decent future of all humanity that as many people as possible treat them as the laughing stock that they wilfully continue to bestow on themselves.

    Feeno have you really honestly ever thought this matter through very much ?.Is it because you feel its "honestly" "fact" that we need god to know good,or is it more just because of having been indoctrinated?.What is your actual "theory" for "reason" why you "honestly" think it "logically" "factual"?

    Ohhh no, please dont tell me you too like heaps of other faithful folk who just happen to have simply agreed to believe it,because other faithful folks told them so, because thats what faith really is, blind mindless indoctrination.

    I disagree god is needed for man to know good.Infact im willing to even suggest maybe the idea of gods actually often even get in the road of man getting to know whats actually good or not good.I think the gods have actually help produce much bad "knowledge" instead of good.

    F ->"but we don't know what good is without God"."

    They had gods,and so they thought it was good to sacrifice children

    No god cant be deemed to corelate to good.Because god can be seen to corelate to bad also.

    The reasonable likely answer is it can be seen it corelates with man,not gods.

    Feenobbly my friend your persona i like, however i dont think so much of religiously biased logic and reasoning.

    The evidence is stacked so very very high against the likelhood of gods being involved that much in our moral thinking.

    Catch you later
    Gandy

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ola big G

    Is there a morale standard? If so who decides what it is? If not who has the right to decide? Check out Jeff's blog "Disjointed Thinking" and read my last post to him, actually It might have been to you.

    thanks, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  53. "If so who decides what it is? If not who has the right to decide"

    Ok Feeno we will do it your way, who do you honestly think decided so far?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Confucianism was around circa 500 BCE and knew the Golden Rule was “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”

    "What constantly amuses me is the irrational atheist's assertion that the Good exists without God. I don't think "Christian Atheist" is a useful term, but it's an important concept that I think more agnostics and atheists should contemplate before they unthinkingly cast their lot in with the nihilists.

    Morality is not the Golden Rule, and its clear that those who think Buddhism or Hinduism feature moralities significantly akin to Christianity don't know much about the practice of those religions or the history of the fatalistic cultures wherein variants of those religions were dominant. As a Westerner, one of the funnier aspects of "The Tale of Genji" is the constant fear of Buddhist monks descending in force from their mountain monasteries and pillaging the villagers and travellors below."

    "(Atheists)They readily recognize "evils" that are not violations of the Golden Rule, but are instead violations of other aspects of Christian morality in its totality, violations of the Will of God. Indeed, the very notion of an improper thought is proof of this as the Golden Rule can only be violated with an action, moreover, I daresay no atheist is willing to grant a rapist a free moral pass on the grounds that he would not object to being raped himself.

    This adherence is not rational, it is merely unconscious acquiescence to the human herd mentality. Civilization runs three generations deep. That is the extent of moral inertia."

    Vox Day

    They once used to think even stoning each other to death as a punishment was a moral thing.Its only "morally relative" to the fact that we are nowadays simply no longer quite so uneducated ancient or barbaric etc .That we no longer think it moral to stone folks.

    JD christians really only ever were/are moral relativists too


    I would like you to list the top 10, no, let's make this easier for you, The Top 5 instances of Christians ever stoning anyone to death in history.

    It has never really been the religion part thats inspired us.Do you really think man really needs to be religious to know getting murdered, really isnt such a nice feeling?..Or stealing

    The "Low Church Atheist" often times makes the common error that his better educated "High Church" brethren avoids by lumping all religions in together as if they were all the same when nothing could be further from the truth, as Bloggerblaster once pointed out, " Depending on which god you're referring to that could be correct, or incorrect. Certainly the God of Islam would agree. Which is why in moslem countries rape victims are either forced to marry the rapist, or they are killed. Interestingly... Nations with Christian influences handle rape much differently. Wonder why that is?", and rape is only one example.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Many of your priests know god pretty well,they read his book and did all the godly type arse licking and backscratching they knew all the christian homie handshakes.Yet we still need to actually drag the fuckers into court as sex abusers, the gods dont help much in letting them fuckers know how "GOOD" it would be to simply admit their crimes.

    The provision of a moral code is no gaurantee that every single person will follow it. Further more, the Bible states that we are all, every single one of us, fallible sinners so there's nobody immune from the effects of sin. Our faith teaches us that submission to the will of God, instead of any sort of sinful desires will help us be more moral people. If we do not submit to His will, then we run the risk of destroying not only our lives but of those of others as well.

    Since you brought it up G, is a child

    A. 10
    B. 20, or
    C. 100

    times more likely to be abused by a schoolteacher than a priest? You brought up this example so I'm assuming that you know.

    ReplyDelete
  56. JD --->"quote Vox :"Morality is not the Golden Rule,"

    Achtung der Führer der Irattional Christian! hath spoken

    Hey JD reading Foxy Vox out dont simply prove everything.Like prayer the more you do it over and over again like a meme,doesnt change anything with prayers factually being answered.

    I admit ive never bothered to read the book right through and i freely admit to not even being so smart.But man Vox`s assertions stick out like freakin dogs balls even to me,just reading the little you post i understand what other folks are saying about the Fox.

    He`s sly and he cunning and you could almost pin a tail on him,but cunning dont often change truth.All it do is try and flunk the way through using bullshit.

    To be honest Vox doesnt even inspire me to even bother arguing with such rubbish.Vox to me is the prime example ive often seen, that certain types of very educated folks also strangely seem to have this great way of showing how extremely proud ignorant and stupid some very educated folks can still be easily seen to be.It can sometimes be easily seen, even by mere simple almost totally uneducated laymen like myself.

    Vox simply ASSERTs the golden rule has nothing to do with morals, and supposedly that makes it simply so....If its supposedly not anything to do with moral,is it supposedly more likely to be to do with something totally immoral or something then.I mean WTF

    JD today i find i just cant really be bothered anymore in continuing the childish bullshit game with you of snakes and ladders, of who supposedly threw more stones than the other or whatever.

    Would you care to even agree to considder atleast conceding,that maybe having god beliefs makes folks really no better off, than folks having no god belief.

    I mean what difference does it matter whether a schoolteacher abuses 10 or 20 or 100 times more?? ...Does that really change at ALL, the fact priests (with a god and a faith) still abuse?.

    Using your same theory i could suggest to you rich people tend to steal less often...Does that then prove everyone being rich is the simple answer.....Or could the real honest true answer still be that really its about working towards a closer more universal inclusive realtionships between ALL humans is what we really need.

    And might it be, your evidence you gave as supposed correlation for god/faith making the difference, has more correlation to do with the feeling of being in a community.The type of very same feelings which faith through the many years its has been plaugeing our societies and community.To some degree has ALSO managed to play a big part in helping to desolve and take away from the wider society and community in general. By use of faiths ignorant idiotic religious shunnings and seperations superstitions and its bigoted attitudes of exclusiveness.

    What say yee dear Captain Curtoffski

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hey Feenobbly mein hombre

    Please dont let the glare of da Voxfox bedazzle ya.

    Would you still care to answer this question i doth put to you.

    "Gandolf said...
    "If so who decides what it is? If not who has the right to decide"

    Ok Feeno we will do it your way, who do you honestly think decided so far?

    Feeno i feel you have been given plenty of good theory and suggestions from the point of view of us atheists, of evidence for who we suggest was involved in deciding, and how it could have very likely happened.

    Now its your call,and dont forget simply saying "godidit" aint really a decent theory is it.So whats the real rub you reckon hmmm.

    Its fine o keep saying now and again and again here and there "but who gets to decide", like some meme over and over again.

    But my friend feenobbly ..How about you and me we finally really get down to it this time and talk about where and how "you try" to decide where "you think" this donkeys tail should actually be pinned.Who do you think decided so far and how is it supposedly proved any different in your books?.

    Cheers Feeno, whats your take on this matter, me old faithful comrade.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ganda Clause

    When somebody is "wronged" they feel as if they've been treated "unfairly". They then want "justice". And at least the perpetrator to feel "guilt" or "remorse".

    In a world with out God how do we decide what right, wrong, fair, unfair, justice or guilt is.
    If there is no standard, how do you measure it? Science likes to measure things. Evolution teaches us things by measuring time, space and matter. A Scientist might say, "Well it's in our DNA". Really? That's just sounds secular for "God did it".

    Atheists like to say "Christians are losers if the only reason they don't murder and rape people is because of God". That's a red herring. Because people do right/wrong things regardless of religious affiliation.

    Atheists also like to say "We should do it, because it's the right thing to do". But can't explain why it is the right thing to do?

    The Bible teaches us that God has given man a conscience, and has planted his knowledge inside of us and created us in his image. That's why you feel "guilt" when you do something wrong. That's why you feel "hurt" or "betrayed" or a sense of "unfairness" when someone "wrongs" you.

    Why/How should DNA explain guilt?
    How do you know what "fair" is?

    G, I gotta go, sorry, I'm being called away. I'll try to finish my thoughts later.

    Thanks, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hey Feeno no worries we can get to it as you have time, just thought we might as well try and nail this question down a little bit if we can.Otherwises its just like pass the parcel.

    We can see the moral forming process happening around us all the time! almost daily,and we understand why and how humanity makes the decisions it does.Yes we do decide whats thought moral or immoral!

    Folks will wake up every morning and if one of the kids is sick "they" decide how sick they are and whether it so moral to send their kids to school and maybe infect all the other kids or not.

    If the faithful were honest with themselves for once,they know they decide this....They know the heathen down the road decides it too...Whether they both have differing decisions is more relative to differences like culture upbringing and surroundings.Or somebody might be effected by some mental problems and sometimes not quite make the moral decisions.Thats where humanity as a group in general jumps in on some of the very IMPORTANT moral decisions and decides, making it a univesal decision we are all asked to abide by protecting us.

    Feeno seems to me nothing more you said above has yet proved decent theory proving how supposedly it was god didit.

    You say--> "Atheists like to say "Christians are losers if the only reason they don't murder and rape people is because of God". That's a red herring. Because people do right/wrong things regardless of religious affiliation."

    But thats exactly the point! maybe you again happen to miss "people do right/wrong things regardless of religious affiliation" actually proving the point! god obviously makes little difference, because he`s obviously non existant! ..Its not a red herring at all.

    You might then suggest free will!...But so what about free will ?.pfffttt..Of course humans are not fucking wind up toys ..Yes we have a mind of our own and think and decide what we do .What we decide to do is relative to things like our upbringing, experience, and surroundings...Free will is just a fancy faith word for a "mind that decides".

    But no that doesnt mean the world would simply spin into anachy because its often more than one mind doing the deciding.

    You say -->"Why/How should DNA explain guilt?"

    Im no scientist ..But still you offer idea of god ..Yet when your own daughter gets raped and the police catch somebody through DNA ..Suddenly you dont question the scientists ...You dont wait for your god to hurry up and point the rapist out...Double standard?

    You say -->"How do you know what "fair" is?"

    Im thinking so if somebody smacks Feeno a real fucking good one around the ear hole for nothing ..Feeno as a christian supposedly also posessing a brain, thinks he cant decide if its fair? ...You need some god to suddenly "pop up" and decide for you whether it seemed fair or not?..Lets atleast keep it real

    Now you have morals written in your faith book...your faith books whether inspired by god or not ...(comes through the brain) of men to their mouth yes?, and is shared discussed and then taught to everyone.

    But its still man who has chosen !.Its mans mind thats decided there in that book too what he thinks is moral! ...Whether it supposed to be divine or not is totally beside the point.That points only another human opinion.

    Asking folks time and time again "who chooses" is fine,if you have a good theory to prove why it really cant have been man.

    So far i feel you have proved , you personally would rather it be the "religo humans" doing the choosing.But thats still human moral.


    Cheers Feeno i look forward to hearing out your theory and good proof that has proved to you, how acording to your knowledge its definatly not happening through human thought.

    Then i will understand more properly why you keep asking "but who gets to choose"

    Thanks Gandolf

    ReplyDelete
  60. Vox simply ASSERTs the golden rule has nothing to do with morals, and supposedly that makes it simply so.

    The above cited article states that the Golden Rule isnt the same as Christian Morality. To violate the Golden Rule requires action on my part. Please cite for me an earlier code that is highly critical of my thoughts or my refusal to submit to the will of God.

    JD today i find i just cant really be bothered anymore in continuing the childish bullshit game with you of snakes and ladders, of who supposedly threw more stones than the other or whatever.

    TRANSLATION: A cursory internet check revealed that Christians never stoned anybody to death.

    I mean what difference does it matter whether a schoolteacher abuses 10 or 20 or 100 times more?? ...Does that really change at ALL, the fact priests (with a god and a faith) still abuse?.

    Whatsamatta G? Can't admit that you were prejudiced?: To the kid that was abused, whether it was by a priest or schoolteacher, it doent make a difference. Both were sick in the head. Both were criminally wrong predators.

    However, you brought up the example of a priest abusing a child. Just out of curiosity, the answer was C. a child is 100 times more likely to be abused by a schoolteacher than a priest. It helps dispel the common mythology that you seem to have fallen victim to.

    “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

    Shakeshaft, C. Ph.D., U.S. Department of Education report. 2002.

    And might it be, your evidence you gave as supposed correlation for god/faith making the difference, has more correlation to do with the feeling of being in a community

    Maybe. I would add that the teaching that we are going to be held accountable someday would have something to do with it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  61. JD ->"The above cited article states that the Golden Rule isnt the same as Christian Morality. To violate the Golden Rule requires action on my part."

    Ohh for sure,i would agree its not quite the same its a moral variant or what its technically called.But its still the same type of thing.

    JD->"Please cite for me an earlier code that is highly critical of my thoughts or my refusal to submit to the will of God"

    Sorry JD not quite sure i understand?.Where you asking who earlier had a code and tried controlling by fear of the supernatural?.

    JD -->"TRANSLATION: A cursory internet check revealed that Christians never stoned anybody to death."

    L.o.L ...no i was actually being honest,ive been feeling very tired the last few days.I hadnt even looked,dont believe me its fine.Sorry if i was rude, i admit i can get grumpy too.

    Wikipedia is no through investigation but i find it interesting for general information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

    JD i did understand the fact that in Christianity it was considdered a old law.But what concerns me is the fact of how much its was thought about being a good idea for all sorts.And hows it runs like a common vein of thinking even in other faiths such as Islam where i would say yes its very much worse.If the question was who was worse with the stoneing my opinion would be seems Islam would really take the cake.

    Personally i rather get away from the idea of argueing who threw more stones etc,and preferably be more concerned about where the thoughts come from that help lead folks to stone throwing.

    JD -->"Both were sick in the head. Both were criminally wrong predators."

    I agree with this JD .But my point is it proves having the god belief doesnt stop the problem.

    Yes the stats are different,yet this could correlate to many other factors,like the exclusive closer nit community within church being one thing.But then would you hold it totally against society in general that they are maybe more devided distant from caring as a group/tribe ,when faiths/superstitions have traditionally always infested us with all their very many various exclusive separists bigoted biased faith thoughts of self rightous devision?.

    Im not really interested in coming out top dog here,non belief for me is not about backing some favorite rugby team because it my family tradition.Im not interested in making faiths look bad for fun.This for me is more about it being a matter of importance.

    Im prepared to agree closer communitys is what we need, i agree with you there is benefits.I just dont agree to needing to make one/all of the faiths as being whats thought community focus.My thoughts are humans need to start promoting getting back to a much more unversal community type focus,where bigoted exclusive attitudes are not really fostered.Im not a hater of Christians,Muslims,Hindus,or who ever else.

    JD -->"Maybe. I would add that the teaching that we are going to be held accountable someday would have something to do with it as well."

    I think most likely all humans have something good to bring to the table.But we need to start being honest,and superstitions and faiths have traditionally a little to often stemmed the flow of evolving new ideas and options.Keeping superstitions wont help us,but that dont mean i dont think faiths have some good ideas and cultures...But they need to be promoted as cultures ...No promoted as "the" holier than thou supernatural gods work thats always simply bigotry and delusion.

    The problem with the idea of controling by fear of punishment after death etc,for starters doesnt really work as we can see, many folks just aint scared by it.We have threats of lethal injections in jails,that fear dont stop folks either.

    JD in my opinion control by fear and bigotry and exclusivism is maybe not where the (best possible) answer actually lays.

    Anyways beside our differences JD ,heres me personally hoping you have been enjoying the end of year celebrations.

    ReplyDelete