Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

I touched on this in my last post, but I'd like to reiterate because I think it's the most important thing I've learned from this thread. (I had presumed it prior, but this thread has stimulated my critical thinking and led me to the conclusion of this as a near-set-in-stone facet of my philosophy.)

The evil is not religion, it is faith. As I mentioned, faith in your own beliefs being superior to that of others is the real evil. You do not need to believe in God to have faith in something. Atheists can have faith in their own beliefs being superior to that of others, and that is when it gets dangerous. But it has nothing to do with them being Atheists, (even in Mao's or Stalin's cases, unless you can answer my ongoing plea for evidence to support that theory); it has everything to do with them having faith in their beliefs being superior to others'. Their atrocities weren't committed in the name of Atheism, they were committed in the name of their own faith and their own agendas based on that faith.

I think Dawkins' theory that faith is the root of all evil is correct, but I disagree with him that religion is the only culprit, unless you want to expand the definition of "religion" to include Atheism, and Science, (which I think would be perfectly justified and logical). I think Dawkins has faith in his own beliefs being superior, and seems to be nearing the point of being dangerous to others' freedom to have faith in whatever they want to. Religion is an easy target because they don't deny they have faith, and are in fact proud of it. But faith is as evil coming from an Atheist or even an agnostic as it is from a Catholic or Muslim.

Tolerance is the key, we need to learn to all tolerate everyone else's beliefs. It will be hard though, because some believe it is their God-given right, or natural right or whatever, to convert or spread their "wisdom" and save people either from their heresy, or from their false faith. All faith is false, in my opinion, and that's about as far as my philosophy parallels Dawkins. I agree with much of what he says, but he is coming as close to being a hypocrite as I've seen without making it blatantly obvious. Or perhaps I'm just seeing him through rose colored lenses because we have many logic-driven ideas in common.

The point is I think faith is evil, but no one belief structure is to blame. (Though it's worth pointing out that the Inquisition and the Crusades were actually done semi-officially in the name of their respective organization.) But it's not their beliefs that are to blame, it's their faith. (My opinion anyway...)

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Astyanax

Nor did I say there was. Its presence or absence is not the issue here, however, but its perceived desirability.

You said

"if you think lobbying for rigorous separation of church and state amounts to a conspiracy against religion, then you definitely have a conspiracy here." - Astyanax

To do that, you would have to disconnect the foundations of the government as they were originally perceived and rebuild them. They were perceived on the ideal that all men/women have free will to choose what they will believe, this includes whether they believe in one god or another. It was meant as a form of protection for peoples all over the world, who were punished, murdered, tortured, harrassed, mangled, mutilated, disenfranchised of their material possessions, denied work and restitution, because of their faith. It took awhile for the rest of the related issues to follow suite, such as the race, gender, and so on.

Anyway, to lobby against something that forms the foundations of the government, is asking the government to remove your protections as agnostic or atheist. If the plug is pulled on free will in worship and thought,
no one will be immune.

You left out one thing. The founding fathers not only wanted us to have free will and choice in our chosen religion, but stated that all men are created equal with equal rights. I think the substance of the thread is presenting the thought that Christians' worship rights are trying to be taken way by a certain fringe group of athiests who would prefer those rights be taken away from us and replaced with a more secular form of government. I could be wrong here, but that's what I got out of the OP.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy Christians are repeatedly having the Spanish inquisition and the Salem witch trials thrown in our faces.

Don't forget the Crusades and the fact that Hitler made a pact with the Vatican... you cannot speak of 'airbrushing' history without looking at the whole picture

Wars are not created by believers or non believers... they are created by fanatics with a purpose... It always astounded me how many are killed between Muslms, Jews and Christians throughout history when in effect the only difference they have is an interpretation of the same God...

It is widely accepted that Darwin started out as a theist until the latter part of his life when he openly doubted God. However, it now looks like Darwin’s public theism may have been more for show. Upon studying his recently discovered private writings it looks as if Darwin’s theism may have ended shortly before Origin of the Species was released.

Well that may be... but Darwin was wrong too

I believe it is indeed fair, to infer a strong connection between Atheism and Darwinism.

Nope... a belief in the Almighty Darwin would be no different than a belief in any other of the myriad of Gods humans worship around the globe... but I will grant that Humankind is not yet ready to face the Universe without needing a crutch of a belief in something...

Perhaps in another 2000 years we might wake up... if we make it that far... good thing we breed like rabbits

Russian communists such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. They all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Yikes so because these fellows believed in Darwinism, Darwinism is Communism?

Faith is not the root of all evil.

Quite true... but BLIND FAITH is... and organized religion...

That be the root of all evil

Napoleon Bonaparte had a strong belief in God, but he voiced many criticisms of organized religion.

Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist as the Christians would like everyone to believe. Hitler did later believe that the Sumerian white gods were the ticket and thus his push for the Aryan race.. but he did have an 'understanding' with the Vatican

German carried "Gott Mit Uns" into battle as the Americans carried "In God We Trust" and the Brits "God Save The Queen"

So which "team" was God on? Seems they all thought he was on their side

Genghis Khan's religion is widely speculated to be Shamanism or Tengrism, which was very likely among nomadic Mongol-Turkic tribes of Central Asia. Later, Genghis Khan is said to have developed interest in Buddhist and Taoist teachings from China

Idi Amin was a Muslim, so is Saddam Hussien and all of Al Quida and the Taliban

I am sure there are some evil doers in history who had no belief in ANY god... but all the big baddies were certainly not Atheists...

Whether they followed the teachings of their respective religions faithful, I can not say...

reply to post by biggie smalls


TheWalkingFox. asked, no demaned the numbers. So I gave them.
Again, since 1900-1987, 250 million killed, of just their own citizens. Doesn't even include all the wars against their neighbors.

reply to post by Howie47

Sorry, none of that proves anything. It's funny how people will just take the words of other people as truth. Anyone can find something that somebody else said that supports what they want supported.

If you are so bent on blaming atheism for things that should obviously be blamed on the weakness of humanity, then you are no better than the atheists that wnat to blame religion for the weakness of humanity.

Stop being so blinded by your prejudice, and realize it's not religion or the lack therof thats to blame for the ills of the world, it's the greed, ignorance, and fear of men who have power.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Well Ducky I disagree. They are "ducking" the responsibility of their world view. I directed the OP specifically at the Richard Dawkins crowd. I disagree that it is bogus. I was inspired to do this by Dr John Lennox a colleague of Dr Dawkins at Oxford. Look over his credentials because you are calling him bogus too.

You are a Spiritual Person Yes? Perhaps in the teachings of our Lord?

I will direct your thoughts to this phrase:

SOURCE

Trust 1 in the Lord with all your heart, 2 and do not rely 3 on your own understanding. 4

~Ducky~

Originally posted by Howie47

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Post numbers. Figures. Prove your initial claim before making a second one like "I do not contend atheism is the sole cause of the murders of communism, but it is a strong influencing factor" - which is again, stated without any backup.

All you are doing is trying to where are poor brother out. You could of easly googled your answer. Here, fetch.

www.conservapedia.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.conservapedia.com...

www.traditionalvalues.org...

There are many more. Just google. "atheism and mass murder".

Why should I? It's up to Bigwhammy to support his own claims.

And did you really just toss out not one but two links from conservapedia? Maybe if either of them provided the figures I'm seeking...

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Bigwhammy Christians are repeatedly having the Spanish inquisition and the Salem witch trials thrown in our faces.

Wars are not created by believers or non believers... they are created by fanatics with a purpose... It always astounded me how many are killed between Muslms, Jews and Christians throughout history when in effect the only difference they have is an interpretation of the same God...

I would mostly agree with you zorgon. Only now those despots find
the atheistic philosophy a much more usefully tool. Too justify and carry out
their slaughters.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Sorry you’re wrong about my motive and technique. Here is the entire definition:

I admit I left out the strong definition. I was actually trying to be generous. It doesn’t change anything. Dawkins goes way further than strong Atheism, he doesn’t just “explicitly deny the existence of any gods”. That surprises me not. The reason I am calling him a Radical Atheist is he calls for the abolition of faith. That’s radical and that’s extreme.

It was a quote-mine, and you are still doing it. The statement was that being a weak atheist does not involve claims or denials about the existence of god/godesses/pink unicorns. It says nothing about making claims that belief in god is delusional.

I'm not sure I have heard him call for the abolition of faith. He thinks it's delusional, I can see in his idealistic utopia, such a thing wouldn't exist. But I'm sure he's more pragmatic than that.

Oh I see I must have misunderstood! The God Delusion is a children’s book, make more sense now. So “The Root of All Evil” is more akin to “Horton Hears A Hoo”. While you have me inserting things in my bodily orifices, why not corral and shoot to kill those fear mongering missionaries who are feeding AIDS babies in Africa. After all, they are child abusers too, right?

Yes, people of faith can also do good stuff. No-one said they couldn't. Not really a justifiable reason to take an innocent mind and use fear and punishment to mould a mini-me. If you are so sure of your faith, leave the kids alone. Let them develop a free open mind without placing the fear of hell.

Some are even creationists-gasp! Oh that’s impossible… arg. Maybe it doesn’t but it is the dominant influence on world morality. Say Dawkins get his way, what will be the replacement source of morality?

You'd have to ask those who don't accept evolutionary theory what they accept/believe.

No it's not. It's not the dominant source of morality. It's a book with some rules in, such as don't covet oxes and stuff. Tells us little about many of the ethical issues in the real world.

He blames faith for terrorism.

He says that faith can be a cause of terrorism. But I see the goalposts have shifted.

He says faith is a delusion. He says all faith is blind faith. Is all faith blind? You’re a science guy, so tell when John Dalton came to the conclusion that matter had to have a fundamental particle. He was postulating the atom, but he couldn’t see it or measure it. Then Thompson and other scientists spent a lot of time trying to prove it. Weren’t they employing faith?

Depends on the meaning of faith you use. If you use the notion in the bible - belief in things unseen, then yes. If you mean trust, then it need not be.

Dalton in that case presented a hypothesis, he had an idea that could explain something. Later scientists used observational evidence to confirm it. Not the same thing.

I do hold atheism accountable for Stalin and Mao. Apples and Oranges… Stalin and Mao were not really at war. They were “naturally selecting” to engineer a society.

And therefore I blame jesus for Hitler.

They were atheists. They were also men. In fact, all three had penises, therefore I blame penises for Stalin and Mao.

The major link between Stalin and Mao was communism. Atheism is not the same thing. They were atheists. Sometimes atheists do bad things. Amazingly, so do some theists.

I stated Darwin is known as a theist. I am suggesting he had social reasons to put up a front. It doesn’t hurt my argument a bit it he was an agnostic or a weak theist.

So he wasn't an atheist. You would just like him to be one.

He had serious doubts. And his theory has undeniably fueled Atheism and Marxism.

So what?

Nothing in darwin's theory suggests marxism. Nothing in atheism suggests marxism. Indeed, Darwin said that it was silly to link socialism to his theory (see below).

Well Karl Marx would beg to differ with you.

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

emporium.turnpike.net...

That is a myth. A lie continuously circulated around the creationist echo chamber.

The problem for the leftists in the late 19th century and early 20th century was that the rise of Darwinism apparently proved scientifically that the Malthusian doctrine of ‘survival of the fittest’, and hence the laissez faire idea that the leftists detested, was the norm in Nature. Since man was merely an intelligent animal according to their own arguments and the theory of ‘Natural Selection’, they became seriously concerned about the possibility that it also was the norm in society, which would undermine their own ambitions. A more positive side (from the leftist point of view) of Darwinism, however, proved useful in challenging the traditional authorities. Thus, leftists ‘… needed Darwinism for both positive and negative reasons: positively, as an alternative to the traditional forms of authority they were busy disavowing; negatively, as a way of disarming those erecting biological barriers to socialism by lifting the Darwinian mantle for the socialist cause’ (according to [8]). What was needed was a link between Darwin and Marx.

Then, the leftists created the myth that Marx offered to dedicate some volume or edition of Das Kapital to Darwin. The myth was based on nothing more than a letter from Darwin to Edward Avelling—the partner of Marx’s daughter Eleanor—that got mixed in with letters from Marx to Eleanor sometime in the 1890s. In the letter, Darwin politely declines Avelling’s offer to dedicate an atheistic pamphlet to Darwin. Yet, somehow this little incident is turned into the aforementioned myth, and there is still ‘… a profusion of scholarly articles since the mid-1970s [that] have failed to shift [this myth] from popular perceptions’ (see Ref. [8]). Nevertheless, ‘Engels explicitly encouraged socialists to regard Marx and Darwin as complementary’ (see Ref. [8]). For Marx and particularly Engels, it also became important to steal Darwinism from competing brands of socialism in addition to preventing Darwinism from being used against socialism altogether (see for example [6]). All this, and more, took place despite Darwin himself earlier on described the ‘connection between Socialism and Evolution though Natural Selection ‘s a foolish idea”’.. 1 I doubt that Marx and Engels were unaware of Darwin’s own opinions, since they were well informed about many other matters. Thus, it seems clear to me that the Darwinian Left is not derived from an honest analysis of Darwinism but is rather a cynical exploitation of Darwinism both in an internal power struggle among leftists and to provide legitimacy.

The Darwinian Left—from myth to intellectual hijacking, Jan Emblemsvåg, Futures, Vol 36, 10, December 2004, Pages 1117-1121

Your scholarship obviously involves trawling creationista sites, which are taken at face value.

You’re airbrushing! Marx loved Darwinian evolution. Darwin to Marx. Marx to Stalin and Mao. The connection is Marx. The similarity between dialectical conflict and natural selection is not an accident.

But marx is not Stalin or Mao.

Jesus to bible. Bible to Luther. Luther to Hitler. Hitler to -----------> Dead jews!!!

and tell me, what is your reason for not killing the fellow?

Because I don't like to physically hurt other people. It's a value statement. I could make an attempt at a logical statement, but that's not really the point here. No need for rules, I have this internal moral compass. If you depend on written instructions to ensure you don't kill others, cool. Please use them.

What type of people? The site Evolution Quotes seems kind of generic to me. (bevets.com...)

Because they are all from the same source. Creationism is full of canards lies, and myths. Telling fact from fiction can sometimes be an issue.

See this is the sort of side stepping I am talking about. Of course Atheism doesn’t equal communism. However they are forever linked in that Karl Marx was a Darwinian Atheist who used those beliefs to create the idea for communism. They’re like a big happy inbred family. (banjo music drifts through the mountain air) Squeal like a pig!

Umm, yeah, OK. Squee!

So what? And the Nazis are forever linked with the bible because de Gobineau used it to justify his idea of divine Aryan supremacy, which Hitler then used.

Ok you’re an Atheist right? There’s no Atheist ten commandments are there? Is there an Atheist Bible? The inspired word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, perhaps?
So what is evil? Who sets the standard for what is evil?

I do. We do. You might think someone having an abortion is evil. I don't. I might think scaring kids with concepts like hell is evil, you don't.

If faith is BS and Faith is blind, then why does a man trust his wife? Isn’t that a form of faith based on evidence of faithfulness? Of course it is. Faith is not BS and it is not blind.

Different things. Belief without evidence? Not really.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
This thread is poorly shrouded bigotry and hatred towards those without a belief in religion.

As usual, atheism is the one that's evil.

To be honest, I don't like Dawkins at all. I think he's the non-religious version of a religious believer (that doesn't really make sense). He follows a dogmatic version of reality and does not wish to ever change his viewpoint.

I'd call that ignorance...

How about we talk about how religions worldwide (I'm not singling out Christianity here) have "airbrushed history?"

I am technically an atheist as I don't believe in religion. I do however believe in a higher power, but that religion is inherently flawed as it was created by man and man is flawed.

I am spiritual, not religious. Sue me.

[edit on 3/22/2008 by biggie smalls]

This is an interesting post,, and biggie,, I got to say I feel a LOT just like you do. Only I can't say I am an atheist, I believe their is a something someone who is above us in a higher authority or intelligence and it is a spiritual way. I feel just like you do when I say books like those Dawkins makes are "poorly shrouded in bigotry". The only thing that worries me is I see so many using what he says as an affirmation to be mocking people who have religion or believe in God.

As always you speak your mind and as usual make points that are thought provoking in nature without necessarily being to insult anyone. I know you get mis-taken that way sometimes in the politics threads. I see the word bigotry being used so loosely anymore that it is losing its meaning and fast becoming the word to replace "different point of view" .

it is like many for instance dbates had made some very interesting points about gay marriage rights that had absolutley nothing to do with religion yet thier are many that just have to use the word homophobic or gay bashing. I am like you in that way where,, If have a position on something I am going to say it like it is and in now am I afraid of labels.

Honestly if this is bigotry, then I think it is just the kind I have been seeing at most radical atheist websites. It doesn't surprise me at all that many Atheists would find it distasteful either.

That's usually what happens when one gets a taste,,

of their own medicine


- Con

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Howie47

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Post numbers. Figures. Prove your initial claim before making a second one like "I do not contend atheism is the sole cause of the murders of communism, but it is a strong influencing factor" - which is again, stated without any backup.

All you are doing is trying to where are poor brother out. You could of easly googled your answer. Here, fetch.

www.conservapedia.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.conservapedia.com...

www.traditionalvalues.org...

There are many more. Just google. "atheism and mass murder".

Why should I? It's up to Bigwhammy to support his own claims.

And did you really just toss out not one but two links from conservapedia? Maybe if either of them provided the figures I'm seeking...

Why did I know you would just attack the source. If your so bigoted why be in any discussion? Your mind is obviously made up, and you don't want to be confussed with the facts. That's why you wouldn't check it out, on your own! You know the old saying . If you don't like the message. Shoot the messager!

reply to post by Howie47

Wars are not created by believers or non believers... they are created by fanatics with a purpose..

Exactly!!! Fantastic point Fox...

I applaud you!!!

~Ducky~

reply to post by Bigwhammy


ok, for the last time

were Stalin and Mao killing in the name of atheism?
no
no they weren't
they were killing because of power and politics
they killed to consolidate their power
...or through incompetence, like with Mao's great leap forward starving all those people to death (unless it was intentional, then it was just mean)
none of this was in the name of atheism
would stalin have killed the clergy if they had supported the communist regime?
hell no, he would have used them to manipulate the masses further

the Inquisition was purely, inherently, intrinsically religious.

atheists did something bad
but that doesn't mean they did it because they were atheists or that they did it in the name of atheism
just like whenever a christian does something bad it isn't because they're a christian
i didn't see anyone using ted haggard as an example of how all christians are hypocritical gay-bashing, meth using homosexuals. they just called the one guy a hypocrite.

reply to post by an3rkist


pantheist, atheist, agnostic, spiritual anarchists...

sadly, they're all the same to some people

For me atheism is conclusion of reason. Faith is abandonning that reason to understand world with scientific method.

In contemporary evolution theory there is room for altruism. Strong altruism makes groups stronger than others and this is very strong evolutionary advance. This is also source of war.

So I dont have any problems with my morals, thought I'm atheist. I understand why I co-operate with my neighbours and why I am little bit conserned about immigrants and neighbour countries. And this understanding frees me to behave civilized way.

I think that Dawking's main target is blind faith and to free people from that faith to use their brains. Faith makes people easy to manipulate, and this faith is same for christians, muslims, communists, nazies or whatever...

Originally posted by Howie47
Why did I know you would just attack the source. If your so bigoted why be in any discussion? Your mind is obviously made up, and you don't want to be confussed with the facts. That's why you wouldn't check it out, on your own! You know the old saying . If you don't like the message. Shoot the messager!

Because it's a crappy source. I asked for numbers comparing deaths from the religions vs. deaths from the atheist. Do you see these figures on the conservapedia site? Do you? Look carefully. I see a pair of quote mines with no supporting evidence even for those quotes.

I don't see how asking for figures is bigoted, nor do I understand how not accepting an utterly uninformative site is bigoted, either.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
So that’s what you would tell a child? Wow, I am almost speechless. Let the church lady scream “Isn’t that freakin’ special”?
You just demonstrated a text book example of a Darwinian world view. That song “Ain’t Nothing But Mammals” is the result of your beloved “science” on society. (I will spare the reader the highly offensive verses; use the link if you want to see them)

We give our own lives meaning. If you think that science can provide such answers, you're pretty hopeful.

This is the morality of the Darwinist world view on full display. Mel you could not have done any better. Thank you from the bottom of my intolerant little heart. This is a prime example of why we have new terms for parents like “my Baby’s Daddy”. This is why kids grow up in broken homes and become disenchanted. This why they shoot up their high schools. After all...

No, you're just taking something I said (which is actually true, if mammy and daddy didn't go jiggy, they wouldn't be here) and running with it to your wildly illogical conclusions.

Darwinism doesn't provide any morals. It is a scientific theory. Please stop it whammy, you're being silly. People can be 'darwinist' and think life is about worshipping invisible sky-fairies. Maybe they teach their kids the same, hopefully they don't use threats and fear. Others don't.

You are wrong. I am openly critical of my country at times. If I was in China. I’d be in prison for it. We’re struggling as a nation but there’s still a HUGE difference. Keep in mind that “Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”

Let’s take a look…

Whammy, I wouldn't consider China one of the countries I'm actually talking about. Try Sweden. Maybe Switzerland. Many of the advanced western societies are easily on the level of the US morally and ethically.

People in the US were still stringing Blacks from trees a few decades back. Don't take the high ground, you don't deserve it.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Why should BW be the only one to respond? I find that quite odd since this is an open forum and you obviously already had your answer. Is that just a subtle form of attack on someone that opened a thread you don't like?

reply to post by idle_rocker


Where did I say he's the only one who should respond? I said that it's up to him to support his claims; it's not my job, as the audience, to do his research for him, basically.

If someone else has the numbers I'm looking for, that's cool, too. Howie didn't provide this, and instead gave me links to, let's just say, not totally unbiased sites proclaiming atheists as the root of all death in the modern day.

Though I must say it was rather refreshing so see a source like the Christian Science Monitor to acknowledge that the Israel - Palestine conflict is about land, not religion... even if the only reason it says this is to make atheism stand alone.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Yes just as you lump Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Mormon, Church of God, and every other form of Christianity into the "Organized Religion" category. We all have small differences in our religions. But let's call religion what it is...because any form of faith is religion in and of itself. You may not worship a higher being, but if you see God in yourself, your faith is in yourself, so that is self-worship and is a religion. Or if you don't worship anything, you still have faith in your own belief, whatever it is. If you don't have faith in it, you don't believe it and are a non-believer in anything.