You're losing it. Tell that to the ghost of Giordano Bruno. You seem to respect Russell. From An Outline Of Intellectual Rubbish: Throughout the last 400 years, during which the growth of science had gradually shown men how to acquire knowledge of the ways of nature and mastery over natural forces, the clergy have fought a losing battle against science, in astronomy and geology, in anatomy and physiology, in biology and psychology and sociology. Ousted from one position, they have taken up another. After being worsted in astronomy, they did their best to prevent the rise of geology; they fought against Darwin in biology, and at the present time they fight against scientific theories of psychology and education. At each stage, they try to make the public forget their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present obscurantism may not be recognized for what it is. Let us note a few instances of irrationality among the clergy since the rise of science, and then inquire whether the rest of mankind are any better.
What's this gibberish? Absolutely. Let's go back to their method of dating all historical artifacts from 4000 bc, chopping the top off someones head to release the demon that was giving them the headache, and establishing that someone was a witch by seeing if they'd [not] drown. :bugeye:
Like I said, athiests are just a bunch of existential baggage looking for purposeful lives. :yawn: Which is why Russel picks on a few clergy (who, if you believe Dawkins thesis on "intelligent" priests and politicians, were most probably athiests manipulating their power base) and ignores the vast library of science contributed by theists. If it were not for thiests wondering at creation, there would be no science.
There IS evidence that theism creates violent societies. There IS evidence religious morality is immoral. There IS evidence theist societies are intolerant. With none forthcoming. You are a liar.
Lies are not facts. Knowledge is learning and reasoning. Religion is blind faith in the supernatural.
All outliers. The vast majority are neither violent nor immoral nor intolerant. The absence of sustenance of any atheist society is clear evidence that its a vestigeal organ of the universe. Like the appendix, its only a problem when it gets inflamed, then it must be excised. Otherwise, you can pretend it does not exist.
No, I'm saying that them being atheists does not tar all atheists with the same brush, because there is not central credo to atheism, no common thought nor goal. Also, I dealt with the fact that Marx saw religion as the symptom of a sick society, not the cause of the sickness, but you conveniently keep forgetting that, because you are incapable of debating honestly. I'm not, because I can't, because atheism is not a belief system, and again you are being dishonest and lying and twisting words to suit your warped perpective.
That is a lie, biased in the extreme from the position of a cult promoting violence, immorality and intolerance. The cult member has no concept of any alternatives beyond the cult and can only make assumptions of what may be, which even by itself is a concept incomprehensible to the cult member. The theist lives in a world without gods, but has been indoctrinated to deny such a world.
So its your position that the vast majority of theists are violent immoral and intolerant while athiests are fluffy bunnies?
If the magnitude of silliness in your responses ever increases beyond the ratio of words you choose to elect as mine, I might begin to find humor in them. As it is, theists can do little but accept the violence, the immorality and the intolerance of those doctrines they've been insensitively brainwashed to the point of desensitization. "Atheists" don't accept it.
No they don't. They just shoot the religious buggers or ban religion when they get the reins in their hands. Other times, they apparently just fester with hate.
Sam, read page 58 of that link. If Pol Pot was acting in the name of atheism, why would he destroy the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Social Issues, the Ministry of Information, Press and Culture and the Ministry of Economy and Welfare? What does atheism have to do with these institutions and the need for their destruction? If anything, atheism would promote those institutions.
If you'd read carefully, you'd know they wanted to re-educate the people in their own belief systems. The existing institutions were corrupted by Buddhism I suppose.
That's the same thing religious people do to people of other religions when they get the reins. Even if your assertion is true, the best you've done is provide evidence that atheists are no better than anyone else, not that we're worse. Again, this is identical to the behavior of the religious when they don't get the reins.
Just so you know I am using the new Secular Freedom of Expression to Offend by Focusing on the Misdeeds of the Few and Ignoring the Contributions of the Many Act [sup]©[/sup]
SAM: You conveniently skip over what these people, regardless of background, were radicalised into. They were radicalised into holding extreme fundamentalist religious views. It's like you have a blind spot. I can't understand your point here. We've already established, I think, that science is the study of nature. Therefore, scientists' jobs require them to look for naturalistic explanations of nature. That does not, however, prevent them from having religious beliefs as well - Francis Collins is an example of that. Religion isn't being discussed in the science journals; science is. But maybe you have some kind of point that I'm missing? Look what you just said! "...an atheist has used anti-religious propaganda to get fame or power." And what you didn't say: "... an atheist has used anti-religious propaganda to advance the cause of atheism." Now, think. Try to stay on topic. Specifically, we were talking about suicide bombings. Here, you are drifting into a discussion of warfare in general. These tribal societies aren't atheistic. You haven't read the book, so you're hardly qualified to give a correct summary. Briefly, he does regard indoctrination of children as a form of child abuse. I am surprised that you appear to think that indoctrination of children is not an abuse. Perhaps you would like to comment further on your views on that matter. He says that certain particular notions of God are scientifically testable. His talk of Spinoza's god is not a disclaimer, but a deliberate and careful discrimination between fuzzy, non-specific concepts of God as an allegory of nature, as distinct from the traditional man with the beard who lives in the sky and answers your prayers and intervenes in the physical world. The God who makes the statues weep and who causes images of the Virgin Mary to appear in hot cross buns is scientifically testable. The God who supposedly heals people at Lourdes is scientifically testable. I suggest you think about the difference between Stalin's propaganda and his death squads. Apparently, you're struggling to tell the difference. The fact is, so far you've made no link between atheist propaganda under Stalin and all those deaths you've talked about. No? What, in particular, are you saying "no" to in my statement. Which of my statements in the quoted paragraph, if any, is incorrect? This deliberate diversion away from points you don't like is tiresome. You need to be honest, and look at things that are presented to you, rather than trying to divert onto a tangent every time somebody says something you can't refute. Dawkins doesn't advocate getting rid of anybody. Really, I find your comparison immensely distasteful and dishonest. You must be able to see that yourself, too, which makes it all the worse. This is pure hyperbole without foundation. You have made no link between atheist propaganda and deaths of millions. Saying it is so does not make it so. Were the priests killed in the name of atheism? I think you will find they were not. You claim that people killed for atheism, do you? Then find me a quote that says "These people had to die, because they weren't atheists", from the killers. None of this touches on atheism. The authors are not referring to atheism as the "doctrine that was completely at odds with reality", and you're smart enough to know that. This is just another attempt to make a connection that isn't there, and a dishonest one at that. But there's plenty of examples of theists failing to create compassionate societies. How do you propose to disentangle the sources of morality? There's plenty of evidence that theists can create intolerant societies. Religion has a long history of suppressing scientific knowledge. Atheism has no code defining creation, because atheism has no code defining anything. Atheism is not a belief system. Science was born in spite of religion; religion never helped the progress of science. Theists are just so much baggage along for the ride. (See how useless this kind of rhetoric is?) That is totally at odds with the reality that many self-declared atheists are also self-declared secular humanists. You can close your eyes to reality if you like, but it just makes you look stupid. Correct. Secular humanism, on the other hand, is a moral philosophy.
What "religious" views? Surely educated people from secular households should know better? Except for their lack of knowledge about religion, that is. Are you certain? I did. I see dead priests, destroyed statues and places of worship and massacre of theists. Pretty similar to the Inquisition under Isabella who also got fame and power under similar conditions. The fallout of increase in atheism or Catholicism was what the ultimate society desired was, a society that agrees with your beliefs. You mean there are suicide bombers in places without war or conflict? Where? Because they worshipped the skulls of the people they ate? Does this mean that even the neanderthals who were bashing in skulls and collecting mass graves were theistic? So my parents were abusing me. I see. Does he distinguish between theism and religion? Because his deliberate and careful discrimination between fuzzy and nonspecific concepts seems to keep overlapping the nonfuzzy parts. As an aside, do you know ANY Christian who believes there is a bearded man in the sky? Because I don't. Does it matter? Not to Dawkins apparently. The same between the Bible and their death squads. Or is killing 1000 people a day under one kind of propaganda less relevant? Except that in all places that athiests "decided" to create this athiest utopia, they achieved exactly the same results: ban religion, kill theists, destroy all religious literature, worship and icons or statues. All of it. He is not doing anything EXCEPT misrepresenting theism and thiests; if you watched the link from BBC I gave you earlier, you can see him admit it himself. (Yes most theists are not like that, yes I don't emphasize that enough, because it does not help my polemic, etc) Why? Because he does not advocate violence? He advocates intolerance and intolerance invariably leads to violence. Except when its theists, apparently. I see anti-theist propaganda directly leading to mass murder of theists, which apparently is insufficient association for you. Can you claim that without the anti-theist propaganda, there would still have been such massacres, such destruction of books, statues, the re-reducation of priests, the ban on religion? Without an athiest at the helm would any of the societies under the communist black book have led to such destruction? They were killed for being theists. I assume being theists is sufficient? Since people being killed as "infidels" are assumed as being killed for being atheists? North Korea: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200203\FOR20020304i.html Cambodia: http://books.google.com/books?id=lu...Td8Qp4E&sig=q5W22NdyB0MwgD_c6mwJTcYqTtw&hl=en Have you read any Leninist ideology? Its ALL atheism.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course Stalin, unlike Lenin did not worry about hurting the feelings of believers: ^^^ that I believe is the "doctrine that was completely at odds with reality" Except for all the ones that do exist. There is no need to. Athiesm, by definition has no moral code. Religion, by definition does. Sure and plenty of evidence otherwise, else not all societies would have survived as religious. Too bad that a cursory glance at the history of shamanism proves otherwise. Witch doctors were the first healers, did you know? Only when its baseless. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Like (Q)? Clearly reality means the one defined by athiests. The kind that says religion is like sucking a dummy and the religious are delusional child abusers who need to be re-educated out of their stupidity?
