[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Yep and that’s why blaming atheism for the actions of Stalin and co are bunk[/quote]If Stalin believed what I believe he wouldn’t have killed anybody.
[/quote]
A pretty big statement, considering belief and personality are two separate entities.
You are relatively harmless, Stalin with your beliefs would not be.
Just like there’s certain brands of theism that lead to violence, there’s different brands of atheism that lead to violence.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Yep and that’s why blaming atheism for the actions of Stalin and co are bunk[/quote]If Stalin believed what I believe he wouldn’t have killed anybody.
[/quote]
A pretty big statement, considering belief and personality are two separate entities.
You are relatively harmless, Stalin with your beliefs would not be.[/quote]Stalin with my beliefs, which are only possible by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit of the living God, would not have committed genocide in the pursuit of state power. Personalities are entirely irrelevant. One more time. Christianity is not the acquiescence to set of moral beliefs among competing options. It is being raised from true death unto true life by the sovereign grace of the one God who is actually there. It is the transformation from sinner to saint by which a man is recreated in the image of the risen Christ, literally living His life through him.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Yep and that’s why blaming atheism for the actions of Stalin and co are bunk[/quote]If Stalin believed what I believe he wouldn’t have killed anybody.
[/quote]
A pretty big statement, considering belief and personality are two separate entities.
You are relatively harmless, Stalin with your beliefs would not be.[/quote]Stalin with my beliefs, which are only possible by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit of the living God, would not have committed genocide in the pursuit of state power. Personalities are entirely irrelevant. One more time. Christianity is not the acquiescence to set of moral beliefs among competing options. It is being raised from true death unto true life by the sovereign grace of the one God who is actually there. It is the transformation from sinner to saint by which a man is recreated in the image of the risen Christ, literally living His life through him.
[/quote]
Even by your beliefs, couldn’t his ‘old self’ have caused him to still do those things?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Even by your beliefs, couldn’t his ‘old self’ have caused him to still do those things?[/quote]As usual, that’s a great question Fletch. In the realm of raw theology I’d have to say yes. However, the following scenarios apply biblically speaking.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Yep and that’s why blaming atheism for the actions of Stalin and co are bunk[/quote]If Stalin believed what I believe he wouldn’t have killed anybody.
[/quote]
Didn’t Stalin study to be a priest? Read that somewhere. That should have been a clue that he was probably deranged.
Darwin destroys the whole creationist argument btw…just gotta read ‘Origin’. I bet no one here has ever read it.
[/quote]
Look! It’s HH with a stick![/quote]
Look, Pat’s dreams are coming true…it is THE RETURN!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Even by your beliefs, couldn’t his ‘old self’ have caused him to still do those things?[/quote]As usual, that’s a great question Fletch. In the realm of raw theology I’d have to say yes. However, the following scenarios apply biblically speaking.
Stalin was forced to do what he did, because of the nature of the people around him. The country had been ruled by tsars for 400 years. They had no concept of self-government whatsoever. The majority of the population was a bunch of ignorant savages, barely kept above mass murdering each other by the Orthodox church and the tsar’s cossacks.
The only way to rule a country of savges is with an iron fist.
Very slowly, he was educating the people, introducing literacy and industry on a massive scale. Was he a mass murderer? Sure. He was civilising a country the only way possible.
.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
.
[/quote]
I know that religion provides comfort to you gentlemen in a quite nasty world. Just as a person looks away just before something hits them (car, fist, train, whatnot), it is natural to NOT want to think when confronted by this world.
However, looking away doesn’t solve anything, especially when you have time to react.
So, stop supporting those who are destroying the world. Whether they be mystics of muscle or mystics of religion, stop supporting them.
Stand alone, with no ‘crutches’. Stand away from those who, like a society of CANNIBALS, demand that you shut off your mind. They want your sanction. They want your will. They tell you that god loves you, while all the time they seek to drain your soul. They profess love for all yet loathe any that dare to say: “Where’s the proof???”
Ask yourself that sometime: what kind of people shun someone who simply asks, “Where’s the proof?” They will hate you for that. Why? Because they recognize that you WANT TO LIVE, while they seek only death. Shutting off your mind is death. That is what they want.
Let them die.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< “Where’s the proof?” >>>[/quote]I’ll say again. It is not possible that there could ever exist so much as one particle of reality that is NOT utterly conclusive, empirical AND deductive evidence of the unchallengeable Lordship of the God I worship. His signature is on, in and through EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, NOW AND FOR ALL TIME. Especially in your mirror where you see his created image every day. Your blindness in sin is the problem. NOT a lack of evidence. My God does not probably exist and His existence is not a decent explanation for the universe. His NONexistence is impossible.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< “Where’s the proof?” >>>[/quote]I’ll say again. It is not possible that there could ever exist so much as one particle of reality that is NOT utterly conclusive, empirical AND deductive evidence of the unchallengeable Lordship of the God I worship. His signature is on, in and through EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, NOW AND FOR ALL TIME. Especially in your mirror where you see his created image every day. Your blindness in sin is the problem. NOT a lack of evidence. My God does not probably exist and His existence is not a decent explanation for the universe. His NONexistence is impossible.
[/quote]
I am speaking to you at the ‘deathbed’ of your mind. Religion made the bed but it is YOUR CHOICE to lie down in that ‘bed’.
There is a god. But the last thing he wants is for you to cripple your mind with faith. That is the way of death, a betrayal of the brain that god gave you.
Get up from the ‘bed’!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< There is a god. But the last thing he wants is for you to cripple your mind with faith. >>>[/quote] Prove it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< There is a god. But the last thing he wants is for you to cripple your mind with faith. >>>[/quote] Prove it.
[/quote]
Watch out, you may be coming over to ‘the Dark Side’, with a comment like that. 
Read your Darwin. Our brains have gotten progressively bigger over the eons. They are built for analysing percepts.
Now to shut that off…for a fable?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. You say that there IS a god and that this god finds faith to be crippling. If there is no faith there MUST be proof because without proof any belief is simply taken on faith. You owe me either proof or an admission of faith. OR, you’re a moron. Since I continue to steadfastly resist your ongoing attempts to demonstrate to me the latter, I’ll be waiting for your answer.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. You say that there IS a god and that this god finds faith to be crippling. If there is no faith there MUST be proof because without proof any belief is simply taken on faith. You owe me either proof or an admission of faith. OR, you’re a moron. Since I continue to steadfastly resist your ongoing attempts to demonstrate to me the latter, I’ll be waiting for your answer.[/quote]
I believe in subjective experience. This means that there are truths that exist but only I can genuinely know them.
For example, I had oatmeal with blueberries for breakfast on Saturday morning. I can’t prove this to anyone else but I know that I had that breakfast.
Faith means that you would accept my word about that breakfast just because I said so. Should you do so? I am human so I may be lying like a rug.
Therein lies the heart of subjective knowledge. It is fine for me. But once I dress up in priestly robes and begin demanding that ignorant peasants believe what I say…well, that there is a right crock o’ shit.
LOLOLOLOLOL!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< there are truths that exist but only I can genuinely know them. >>>[/quote] What if I were with you as we enjoyed oatmeal and bluberries together. What if we were together when God, in an entirely faith free experience wherein you are CERTAIN it wasn’t a demonic deception, told you personally how evil faith was? Despite the fact that Just such Satanic trickery is described in the bible.
I am running out of ways to show you the excruciating nature of your inconsistencies. You have an almost supernatural ability to blind yourself to them. Maybe you do. With a little help. Sure sounds like it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wait, if atheism can’t be responsible for atrocities carried out under it’s banner, how is Theism then skewered?[/quote]
What atrocities have been carried out under the “banner of atheism”?
[quote]Sloth wrote?
If the argument is that atheism holds no such idea that believers are sub-human, non-bright, sheeple, that must be actively oppressed for the betterment of some future human state of near utopian rational being, because atheism simply lacks a belief in god, carrying none of the above baggage then Theism is exonerated too. Theism simply means a belief in a deity. It doesn’t mean a belief in oppressing unbelievers in order to bring about a theocratic world. It simply means a belief in a deity. Specifically, with the West in mind, Christianity simply means a belief in and a following of Christ. Christ, objectively, did not instruct his apostles or disciples to convert by sword. In fact, an objective reading quickly reveals that following Christ necessitates a peaceful invitation to the unconverted, in order to follow Christ.
So, if atheism is innocent because ‘atheism’ simply mean a lack of belief in a deity, without any requirements to ‘unconvert’ the converted by the sword, then so too is Christianity clean as the wind driven snow.[/quote]
No, the beliefs you described above are just that; “beliefs”. It takes a positive belief system to put someone in motion and down that nasty road. Communism, religion, Marxism, etc.; all are belief systems running on dogma. Atheism, again, is a non-belief.
Theism then, can be explicitly fingered in many, many atrocities throughout history. Why? Because they were doing those things under the banner of their belief system. They had the faith that comes with religious dogma. Islamic Jihad, christian witch hunts, the inquisition, Aztec human sacrifice, medieval trials by ordeal, the crusades, etc., all done in the name of their dogmatic belief systems.
People who shoot abortion doctors, do so in the name of god and have quite a bit of faith that they were acting in accordance with their beliefs. They had the faith of their religion to give them the perceived moral authority to kill. This isn’t even discussing the atrocities listed and commanded in the bible, which I’m happy to discuss if you’d like.
So no, atheism is a non-belief with zero dogma, where theism is a positive dogmatic belief. [/quote]
From dictionary.com:
a�??�?�·the�??�?�·ism�?�¢?? �?�¢??/�??e�??�?�ª�??�?�¸i�??�??�?�ªz�??m/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
The foundation for your arguments that it is simply a non-beleif, is bunk. It is very much a belief. If it were simply a non-beief as you say, then there would be no atheist websites, no advertisements, no doctrines or dogmas of any kind. But there are, hell you posted links to them. How do you have such things based on a non-belief? It seems to me you don’t even understand your own beliefs. And there very much is a dogma. If there were no dogma whatsoever than an atheist could believe and God and still be an atheist. But there is a dogma, to be an atheist, you must deny the existence of God. If there is a stated doctrine that denies the existence of God, you can act on that doctrine. Atheism is a NOUN.
[/quote]
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
The term atheism originated from the Greek Ã?¡Ã?¼?Ã??Ã?¸Ã??Ã?µÃ??Ã?¿Ã??? (atheos), meaning “without god(s)”, used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word “atheist” lived in the 18th century.[11]
a�?�·the�?�·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
a�?�·the�?�·ist�¢?? �¢??[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[i]Atheism
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are �¢??super�¢?? natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.[/i]
[i]Definition of atheism
noun
[mass noun]
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin:
late 16th century: from French athÃ??Ã?©isme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’[/i]
It seems to me Pat, that you’re misunderstanding concepts such as dogma, negation of belief, etc.
Atheism is very much a negation of belief in deities, as in NO BELIEF IN ANY GODS, not even yours. But to prove me wrong, all you have to do is lay out for me what the atheist dogma is; tell me what I believe in that makes me an atheist. What positive belief makes one an atheist?
No, the reason there are atheist websites and such, is that while there is no atheist dogma to speak of, there are numerous associated philosophies. Skepticism, freethought, etc., are just a few of these. Not believing in god is in no way dogmatic, nor does it constitute a system of beliefs that an atheist must subscribe to in order to be an atheist. If you knew more about the atheist community, you’d know that we’re all over the map. The one thing, the ONLY thing that binds us together, is that atheists have come to the conclusion that there are no god(s).
So just go ahead and tell me what the atheist dogma is; tell me what I believe in that makes me an atheist.
[i]“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.”
-Don Hirschberg
[b]Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, “organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats”.[/b]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LOLOLOLOLOL!
Good stuff HH, thanks for posting that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LOLOLOLOLOL!
Is it just me, or does Col. Brady remind you of our good friend Pat? LOL
