[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
… I think a more accurate way to say it is that he believed in perverted version of Christianity that was in part influenced by the occult, but mostly by his racist and overall prejudiced views. Although, some the leaders he put in charge were definitely occultists.[/quote]
Yes. You are what you practice not what you say.
If ol’ Fletch said he was a baseball player but when I showed up at the ballpark one day and found out that instead of pitching, hitting, and catching a small, stitched leather sphere ol’ Fletch was using a 16 lbs. bowling ball and setting up 10 pins on each base and rolling the ball at them…I would have to enlighten him that he was not quite playing baseball and therefore he would need to rectify his practice of calling himself a baseball player.[/quote]
And do you know that your god doesn’t approve your adulterous “pitching”?
you shall not commit adultery AND not covet your neighbor�¢??s wife.
Mentioned TWICE in the ten commandments.
[/quote]
Diversionary tactic.
Wrong thread.
Weak argument.
Typical type response from someone on his heels in a debate.[/quote]
Let’s declare a moratorium on Push’s sexual practices - he’s taken a beating from both sides, Christians and atheists. I give Push some credit in that he took the time to think for himself rather than accept what organized religion had to say. Thinking for oneself is a step in the right direction.
Yes, but you keep saying that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and look at the atrocities they committed.[/quote]
That’s odd, especially since I haven’t uttered either dictator’s name.
I never said they represented “atheism” (I haven’t mentioned them at all) - but, rather, I did mention that certain deadly “isms” shared a common theme with atheistic principles, namely the overarching idea that Man is an End of himself answerable to nothing other than what we conceive of in his place on Earth; his wants, his desires, his appetites, subject to no Natural Law.
Atheism isn’t the only “ism” to share this damning principle, but it certainly does share it, and, well, no thanks. Its bitter road is one that slouches toward totalitarianism.
You are arguing with yourself. Yet another straw man.
To me most of the established religions just seem “insane” (no offense intended, it is just my perspective). Also, I do not know if there is a god, but if I knew for sure there was one, I would still reject him/her/it.
Is there an -ism for that?
To me most of the established religions just seem “insane” (no offense intended, it is just my perspective). Also, I do not know if there is a god, but if I knew for sure there was one, I would still reject him/her/it.
Is there an -ism for that?[/quote]
Yes, but you keep saying that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and look at the atrocities they committed.[/quote]
That’s odd, especially since I haven’t uttered either dictator’s name.[/quote]
I guess all of the posts are starting to blur.
[quote]
I never said they represented “atheism” (I haven’t mentioned them at all) - but, rather, I did mention that certain deadly “isms” shared a common theme with atheistic principles, namely the overarching idea that Man is an End of himself answerable to nothing other than what we conceive of in his place on Earth; his wants, his desires, his appetites, subject to no Natural Law.
Atheism isn’t the only “ism” to share this damning principle, but it certainly does share it, and, well, no thanks. Its bitter road is one that slouches toward totalitarianism.[/quote]
I’m not sure how wanting a better life leads toward totalitarianism. I would argue the opposite. More importantly, most Christians also desire a better life on earth for themselves. Pat Robertson doesn’t exactly walk around wearing an itchy monk robe. But even if not believing in a God does have negative consequences, and for some I’m sure it does, this is irrelevant to the central question of whether or not God really exists. AlisaV already explained this. Just because believing in God is a good thing for some people does not mean that the belief is true.
To me most of the established religions just seem “insane” (no offense intended, it is just my perspective). Also, I do not know if there is a god, but if I knew for sure there was one, I would still reject him/her/it.
Is there an -ism for that?[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I never said they represented “atheism” (I haven’t mentioned them at all) - but, rather, I did mention that certain deadly “isms” shared a common theme with atheistic principles, namely the overarching idea that Man is an End of himself answerable to nothing other than what we conceive of in his place on Earth; his wants, his desires, his appetites, subject to no Natural Law.
[/quote]
Man is always answerable to his fellow man. No matter if you’re an atheist or a religious follower, you’re always answerable to the people around you for your actions.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
Agnostic.
I’m an athiest, and very morally sound. I don’t believe in god, but I believe in the golden rule.[/quote]
A theist would be the most generic term.
Agnostic is someone who has reason to doubt God’s existence, but is willing to accept the possibility. ← Most self proclaimed atheists actually fall in to this category.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Back to the original posters reason for the thread:
I think the reason why there is Atheism-o-Phobia is that people take criticism of their religion as personal attacks. You will find people debating an issue, but are still friends and realize they are debating the idea, not the value of their friend.
From my own experiences, I’ve found people who are religious to become highly offended when I try to refute some of their beliefs (only during mutual debates though on this issue). They simply cannot separate their religion from themselves. This makes it difficult to discuss this with a person as everything you say can be interpreted as an attack against themselves (rather than an attack on the idea they believe in).
This has ultimately led to religious people being disdainful of atheists. But in reality, they should welcome the discussion.[/quote]
It’s only when personal attacks are made do I get offended, you say I am full of shit, I’ll prove you’re full of shit, but other than that, I am quite cordial when delt with respectfully. I am always willing to discuss or argue…
Apparently theists are disdainful of other theists too…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I never said they represented “atheism” (I haven’t mentioned them at all) - but, rather, I did mention that certain deadly “isms” shared a common theme with atheistic principles, namely the overarching idea that Man is an End of himself answerable to nothing other than what we conceive of in his place on Earth; his wants, his desires, his appetites, subject to no Natural Law.
[/quote]
Man is always answerable to his fellow man. No matter if you’re an atheist or a religious follower, you’re always answerable to the people around you for your actions.[/quote]
Depends on what. If I am a heroin addict, what’s that to you? So long as I do it in my own privacy and pay for it with my own money…For instance.
My point is this: spare me the nonsense of atheists have no morals. Experience and history make it clear that belief in a God in no way guarantees moral actions. Not even close.[/quote]
You don’t have a point, because no one - certainly not me - is claiming this ridiculous position.
This is a straw man. Don’t waste my time.
[/quote]
Yes, but you keep saying that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and look at the atrocities they committed. Hitler and Stalin no more represent atheism (assuming they were atheists) than the guy who shot the abortion doctor represents Christianity. More importantly, and as has been argued here, Hitler and Stalin created their own little cults with themselves as gods. Most atheists have had it with organized religion which is one, but certainly not the only, reason they became atheists.[/quote]
Stalin was an atheist. Hitler dabbled in the occult…Which ironically predicted he would lost the war after a blood bath, but his attitude was so be it…
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I never said they represented “atheism” (I haven’t mentioned them at all) - but, rather, I did mention that certain deadly “isms” shared a common theme with atheistic principles, namely the overarching idea that Man is an End of himself answerable to nothing other than what we conceive of in his place on Earth; his wants, his desires, his appetites, subject to no Natural Law.
[/quote]
Man is always answerable to his fellow man. No matter if you’re an atheist or a religious follower, you’re always answerable to the people around you for your actions.[/quote]
Depends on what. If I am a heroin addict, what’s that to you? So long as I do it in my own privacy and pay for it with my own money…For instance. [/quote]
Most moral precepts are based on practical, common sense notions. For your heroin example, if I’m spending money on heroin and I’m high most of the day, will I be a good employee, husband, or father? Most likely not. I value these things in my life, and that is why I choose not to use drugs. Not to mention that an overdose is fatal. From a practical perspective, drug use is just not a smart thing to do. I don’t need a sky wizard to tell me that.
[quote]pat wrote:
Atheists, know damns sure there ain’t no God. [/quote]
Actually this is incorrect (and something I learned just the other day). They explained this on the Atheist Experience. They reject the theist belief in God based on lack of evidence, but are not certain on anything. It’s on youtube if anyone is interested.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I never said they represented “atheism” (I haven’t mentioned them at all) - but, rather, I did mention that certain deadly “isms” shared a common theme with atheistic principles, namely the overarching idea that Man is an End of himself answerable to nothing other than what we conceive of in his place on Earth; his wants, his desires, his appetites, subject to no Natural Law.
[/quote]
Man is always answerable to his fellow man. No matter if you’re an atheist or a religious follower, you’re always answerable to the people around you for your actions.[/quote]
Depends on what. If I am a heroin addict, what’s that to you? So long as I do it in my own privacy and pay for it with my own money…For instance. [/quote]
Well, it’s personally nothing to me as long as it doesn’t effect anyone else (or indirectly effect someone else). If it starts effecting others (stealing to get the money for the drugs for instance), then others will be involved (police, family, etc).
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]No, but his atheism (functional anyway) gave him no reason not to.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]
Both. He wasn’t just atheist, he fucking hated everything to do with religion. There were no shortage of people murdered because they were religious. I can look it up for you, but I prefer you do the leg work. I got a big squat day ahead of me. …Get it?!