Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by Howie47
The original latin word religio. meant to: "to bind again" or "to relink."
Even in older dictionaries. It defined religionn as : "a methodology for making oneself righteous." It didn't necessarily have any thing to do
with belief in God.

If we take the word right down to it's roots then, yeah, probably. I think the 'bind' might give some clues as to how it became 'bound' to religious beliefs. If you want to take the bind meaning, then I'm irreligo - not bound

I'm free as a bird, a lark maybe.

Religio

Number 1.

Christians don't have to practice religion. God came to us and made us righteous. We just have to keep ourselves separate from the unbelieving world.

Well done. I think god made a good choice.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Hitler was a "self-proclaimed" Christian of the worst sort and used this to contain the masses. While he claimed Christianity, he almost destroyed the whole Jewish people. I doubt seriously he was a true Christian...He only espoused the religion to further his own personal gain.

It is easy to say he was not a Christian based on the fact that his actions are not in keeping with another Christian's beliefs of what a Christian should believe, but that doesn't prove anything. I'm not denying Stalin was an atheist, because history tells us he was. History tells us Hitler was a Christian, so I say he was. Is history always correct? No, but if we don't take history's word for it, we are only going to make up whatever we want to. I don't really know why people try to deny Hitler's Christianity, because his actions should not reflect on the whole of Christianity.

It could be argued that he was just modeling his regime after God from the Old Testament. God killed all the people who were "unclean", including a mass genocide of nearly the whole human race with the Great Flood. (Unless that was just a parable???) If Christians want to be God-like, why would they be wrong to kill the people they thought were unclean, too?

Alright, I know the obvious Ten Commandment and "judge not lest ye be judged" arguments, but I'm just saying that Hitler said he was a Christian, so where is the evidentiary basis that he was not? It cannot be based on anyone's gut feelings or on the fact that he did things that your own personal Christian beliefs say are a sin...

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Well, I get your sarcasm, but ignoring hate-mongers is exactly why history keeps repeating itself. Forgive me for trying my best to prevent that from happening again. And as far as not having anything to worry about with him - he's gaining a lot of followers, so I wouldn't be too quick to brush him off. He might even recruit you if you're lucky! How's that for sarcasm?

Not so good?? Don't worry - I've had a lifetime of practice- and you know what they say about practice right? heheh.

Hate Monger? Come on, isn't that just a bit of an exaggeration now? Besides, it could be elequently argued that organised religion, just like slavery, witch-hunting, or reading tea leaves no longer has any real relevancy in a modern 21st century civilisation, and has outlived it's use. If anything, I'd have to say in my opinion, religion is an anachronsim. That is also essentially Dawkins' argument too. Hate mongering? Nah....just brutally frank really.

This is gonna make me popular - I just KNOW it But that's ok.... fence-sitting is so damn boring anyhow, don't you agree?

J.

J.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by TheDuckster
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~

Ducky- I wish we could "all just get along" too. It ain't going to happen. We are called to use our minds and make judgments. I will direct your thoughts to the words of the apostle Paul.

"2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! "
(1 Corinthians 6:2)

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Well, I get your sarcasm, but ignoring hate-mongers is exactly why history keeps repeating itself. Forgive me for trying my best to prevent that from happening again. And as far as not having anything to worry about with him - he's gaining a lot of followers, so I wouldn't be too quick to brush him off. He might even recruit you if you're lucky! How's that for sarcasm?

Not so good??

Don't worry - I've had a lifetime of practice- and you know what they say about practice right?

heheh.

Hate Monger? Come on, isn't that just a bit of an exaggeration now? Besides, it could be elequently argued that organised religion, just like slavery, witch-hunting, or reading tea leaves no longer has an real relevancy in a modern 21st century civilisation, and has outlived it's use. If anything, I'd have to say in my opinion, religion is an anachronsim. That is also essentially Dawkins' argument too. Hate mongering? Nah....just brutally frank really.

This is gonna make me popular - I just KNOW it

But that's ok.... fence-sitting is so damn boring anyhow, don't you agree?

J.

J.

If you say so...I mean, then it must be true

This line added to make two lines.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


...the crusades were actively carried out in the name of god
that may have not been the core premise (and i've admitted that) but the rallying cry was killing the infidels and reclaiming god's holy land (for both sides)

stop trying to paint it like i'm spinning, if stalin, mao, or any of the other communist butchers had said they had done something in the name of atheism and used atheism as the rallying cry, i would say that it is a similar situation to the crusades. politically/economically motivated, but in the name of something.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You don't believe in God so you don't believe in the evidence., you don't believe in the evidence because you don't believe in God

i also don't believe in circular logic

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Except atheistic religious beliefs you mean.

..atheistic religious beliefs?
if you're referring to something like spiritual anarchism or atheistic buddhism, that's one thing, but if you're saying that atheism is inherently a religious belief, i'm going to have to poo-poo that, as it isn't.



...honestly, i keep seeing the same stuff rehashed over and over. stuff that i've refuted through argument on here being repeated by the same people
...where's the denial of ignorance here?

Someone asked me for a source for my quotes;
Marx and Engels Archive
lenin
Here's another quote from Lenin;

Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.[1]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Me a 'christian hater'?? No, not at all To be honest, hating is just a waste of energy - why bother? I do however dislike ignorance and intollerance, yes.

Doesn't everyone?

Did you ever consider enrolling into a seminary? I think you may have missed your calling there There's no use preaching at me I'm afraid - I'm '666' - the Beast remember? heheh!

You used to party? Seriously BW, you ought to try kicking back with some buddies and a few beers again - it could do you the world of good Heck, it's always worked for me. There are more important things in life than religion you know - living for instance...

No - I don't think the Big JC is going to be making any imminent visits just yet, as much as you may like that to be so. Christians believed the second coming was upon them in 100 AD too. Then in 500 AD. Again in 1000 AD - and I'm sure you are more than well aware of the outcome then. Why should the next 'prediction' be any different exactly??

Regards,

J.

J.

reply to post by idle_rocker


Hell no! My moto is 'Don't chew on anything you find you may have difficulty swallowing'

This is my second line too...

J.

Christians don't have to practice religion. God came to us and made us righteous. We just have to keep ourselves separate from the unbelieving world.

This is a concept I find highly suspect. Sounds too much like a self-indulgent human idea. We don't have to do anything, just keep our distance from the non-believers (as if unbelief was contagious)We come ready-made righteous! More self-serving self-important thinking under the guise of faith.

Originally posted by Spoodily
"God" and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.

Religions use their respective deity and rituals surrounding said deity to turn people away from knowing "God" for themselves.

That is probably the smartest comment I have seen in a religious thread for a long time

I think I will frame this post... Mind if I quote it?

Originally posted by an3rkist
but I'm just saying that Hitler said he was a Christian, so where is the evidentiary basis that he was not? It cannot be based on anyone's gut feelings or on the fact that he did things that your own personal Christian beliefs say are a sin...

So a person born into a Christian family, brought up as a Christian... now goes insane and tries to rule the World... does not mean he is no longer a Christian... but has lost certain values along the way..

I bet I could find a few thousand 'devote' Christians on the street of any town who do not follow their 'righteousness faith'

Many of the Muslim extremist do what they do in the name of their interpretation of their religion... even against others of the same religion...

Its not so easy to dismiss simply because someone has done foul deeds he is no longer a Christian.... besides isn't "forgive and forget' and turn the other cheek what its all about?

Most organized religion in my opinion is just hypocracy... its okay to believe in the God of your choice... so long as you pick the right God... or by god, we will teach YOU and eliminate all those 'unclean' ideas...

By that logic the Jews should have the right to wipe out everyone else... after all THEY are the "chosen ones"

So... Who Shall Strike the first blow?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i also don't believe in circular logic

ha ha that’s all we ever hear though,, what Atheist’s DON’T believe and just what they are against.

The thing is if Atheist keep saying they didn't do something IN the name of something,, people like Stalin who killed millions of Christians DID and did in the name of Religion,, OURS

The very word atheist acknowledges God. You can't NOT believe in something you haven't at some level, already admitted exists. You can try saying God exists like the Easter bunny exists and I would say they both exist, just like laws exist and rules exist. When we get to HOW they exist we have another argument where the rules by Atheists monopoly on science use a measure of examination that if I were to use it to substantiate the existence of "rules", in the same way using the scientific method, THEIR WOULD BE NO RULES. So no one would have to obey them. I am sure you can wrangle a way to argue that point which I will in turn use to pull the easterbunny strawman down proving that the easter bunny exists with your own argument.

The Bible is quite clear about proving God exists and it is explicit about attempting to do it using the very scientific method he created to keep us from giving up our free will in lieu of a metaphysical metaphorical shot gun marriage.

It is no different then an employer who doesn't allow anyone to know who owns the business he runs. While working with employees, he can train them, teach them and while he hopes they might appreciate it he has a much better chance of finding out who is genuine and who is not.

It is no different then when a MOD comes in a thread to join the discussion. We soften our words and give our best behaviour but it can be disingenuous as many wipe off their noses.

The whole spiritual gamble going on here is REAL but I no more expect you to believe that then you can ever expect me to deny it moreover my belief is more real to me then your un-belief is to you.

Scientist sees things from a natural physical plane and I see them from a spiritual and physical plane, that you may have entertained in life but never fully accessed. It is also a task for a Christian to die before giving up what they truly know is real. Now consider that for a moment,, try at least and then understand madd that I am sincere when say what I am about to tell you..

That to us, after what I just said, we have just as much reason to "bother people about what we know to be true,, as you do for knowing it is not. It is something we have died for believing and as much as I like life, the experience I have in contrast to when I didn't believe is worth dying for. You might see Martyrs who are Christian, but you won't find any of us asking to be suicide bombers. Those that are, don't necessarily do it for any other reason then sheer despertation to fight off an enemy that has such a technological advantage. It is their religion that makes something so desperate that they feel the need of God. That is a God of Coercion and is contrary to the very shot gun marriage I just spoke of but it can and often has been a tool of Governments to use as a method of indoctrination copied and taken as an idea from those who have died as martyrs in Gods name

If Atheists don't do anything in the name of religion then they do it BECAUSE of religion, OURS

If Atheists who seem to think they have to do things in the name of something, do it opposing those who live their lives in the name of Religion then that religion many times was OURS.

The same kind dialogue for justifying the genocide of Christians by Stalin was very similar to what we see today. If you aren't here taking a stand for atheism then what in the name of God are you doing here?

You and I have had many many arguments on this and albeit true, I do it in the name of a Religion, it is only because I AM a Christian, that is something I can not do anything about, so to say I do anything in the name of Religion is like saying you hunt for food in the name of hunger. So the only thing I am guilty of is BEING WHAT I AM.

So either you DO something about it OR you keep whining about, keep ridiculing them for being who they are, write best selling books about how silly it is. In the end I AM STILL A CHRISTIAN and Dawkins is still talking out of his colon. It is NO different to US then it was when people persecuted the Blacks and saw them as less human less intelligent. If only they could find a way to NOT be black they might think.

If only they could find a way for them to not believe.

It is Dawkins and his gargantuan self image saying,, "Oh what a wonderful world it would be,, if everyone just didn't believe, reading my book and believing in me."

It's not going to happen, not ever.

So here we are.

Now what

- Con










[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology

The very word atheist acknowledges God

Now you've perked my interest

What's going on here?

~Ducky~

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Nice attempt at squirmage. Notice I said ATTEMPT.

...the crusades were actively carried out in the name of god
that may have not been the core premise (and i've admitted that) but the rallying cry was killing the infidels and reclaiming god's holy land (for both sides)

Ah but you see the crux of your argument is simple and wrong.
You apply to such things as the Crusades (and even go as far as to claim other wars that included Christianity is a holy war) are Holy wars. I tend to define what a war is about NOT on the propaganda. Rather on what the core reason for the war was. Which as you admit the core reason WAS NOT religion.
Yet you call it a religious war. Because looking at it such is complimentary to your belief structure. Regardless what other nagging little truths jump out to slap you.

stop trying to paint it like i'm spinning, if stalin, mao, or any of the other communist butchers had said they had done something in the name of atheism and used atheism as the rallying cry, i would say that it is a similar situation to the crusades. politically/economically motivated, but in the name of something.

Stop trying to spin it and I will stop pointing out that you are.
As I covered above.
You claim something is true by only looking at certain complimentary factors and ignoring the negative ones to your stance.
Rather illogical when you look at the big picture.
Not to mention obvious spin doctoring at work.
And actions that are inherently antithesis to true science as you yourself state it.

..atheistic religious beliefs?
if you're referring to something like spiritual anarchism or atheistic buddhism, that's one thing, but if you're saying that atheism is inherently a religious belief, i'm going to have to poo-poo that, as it isn't.

And I feel inclined to quote myself here.......

A great many will mince words with you and attempt to tell you that atheism is NOT a religion.
But I tend to find that nothing more than smoke screen.

But they answer the spiritual question thusly they are a religion.
It's as simple as that.

Not to mention they are VERY much a collective.

It's ALSO painfully obvious to claim not to be a religion plays into your particular belief set's hand. Seeing as to how you maintain all religion is inherently bad.

...honestly, i keep seeing the same stuff rehashed over and over. stuff that i've refuted through argument on here being repeated by the same people
...where's the denial of ignorance here?

I could ask the same question of you.
Considering you have yet to really (short of semantic acrobatics used to confuse the issue) to refute successfully a thing I have to say.

And its worth noting that when you consider anyone not agreeing with your stance as ignorant it is showing right there how highly and above certain groups you consider yourself. Which is what? Ego.
Never seen much good come from excess ego myself.


Also you say you don't believe in circular logic yet use it sooo often.
My what fools we mortals be.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Christians don't have to practice religion. God came to us and made us righteous. We just have to keep ourselves separate from the unbelieving world.

This is a concept I find highly suspect. Sounds too much like a self-indulgent human idea. We don't have to do anything, just keep our distance from the non-believers (as if unbelief was contagious)We come ready-made righteous! More self-serving self-important thinking under the guise of faith.

Hi Gig! umm I don't think that is what he means, at least I hope not lol.

The bible says be in the world but not of it.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology
"The very word atheist acknowledges God. You can't NOT believe in something you haven't at some level, already admitted exists."

Now THIS is interesting.

I can believe something doesn't exist, all I am aknowledging is the concept. Same as the Eastern Bunny, I acknowledge that there is this idea, concept,notion, of something called the easter bunny, factor in the available information about it, weigh it against my assessment of reality, and come to the individual conclusion that it doesn't exist. Even if on some sub-conscious level, I admit to myself that the Easter Bunny exists, my conscious self still doesn't believe in it. And even if my sub-conscious or conscious level admits that it exists, it doesn't mean that it actually does exist, I just think it does.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...the crusades were actively carried out in the name of god
that may have not been the core premise

It wasn't the core of the premise. God was not the inspiration behind the crusades.

Money and politics made the crusades happen. God had nothing to do with it. Likewise, money and politics are responsible for any war started by an atheist....

The difference is, people blame Christianity and religion which are actual philosophies for wars started over false ideologies . Political spin and the promise of Gold to crusaders. That's what carried out the Crusade. Not religion.

Again, atheists are constantly regurgitating distorted and false history to justify their hatred of religion. Tiresome. And predictable.

Click here for more information.

Apologies if you do not want somebody else replying to your conversation, but I seem to have been ignored or forgotten by the people I was conversing with, and I have some input for you...

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The thing is if Atheist keep saying they didn't do something IN the name of something,, people like Stalin who killed millions of Christians DID and did in the name of Religion,, OURS

Isn't it possible they did it in the name of something not "religious", i.e. just for political power? I think faith is still the evil here, but it's not faith in God necessarily, it faith in the belief that your ideals are better than someone else's. That's the danger. Faith, religious or otherwise, which gets way out of hand...

The very word atheist acknowledges God. You can't NOT believe in something you haven't at some level, already admitted exists. You can try saying God exists like the Easter bunny exists and I would say they both exist, just like laws exist and rules exist. When we get to HOW they exist we have another argument where the rules by Atheists monopoly on science use a measure of examination that if I were to use it to substantiate the existence of "rules", in the same way using the scientific method, THEIR WOULD BE NO RULES. So no one would have to obey them. I am sure you can wrangle a way to argue that point which I will in turn use to pull the easterbunny strawman down proving that the easter bunny exists with your own argument.

The first line of the above quote made me wanna say, "so you admit that there's fairies and unicorns and leprachuans and a teapot orbiting the sun?" (The teapot thing is from the Dawkins movie Bigwhammy linked to...) Then you went off on the Easter Bunny thing and pre-empted my would-be attack! Confound you!

Anyway, is what you're saying something along the lines of whatever we believe IS real? Because I don't really see how...wait I don't even see what this has to do with the topic. I'm interested in an elaboration though...

The Bible is quite clear about proving God exists and it is explicit about attempting to do it using the very scientific method he created to keep us from giving up our free will in lieu of a metaphysical metaphorical shot gun marriage.

The Bible you speak of is not the Bible many Christians here believe in, though. (Perhaps I'm being presumptuous?) I've been told that faith is what it's all about, and faith may not be contradictory to science in that what a person has faith in cannot be disproved by science, but it is contrary to the scientific method. (The Bible in particular.) Taking something as truth, and then finding all evidence to support that truth while ignoring other possibilities and the evidence supporting them, not to mention the evidence against the original theory, is anti-scientific.

It is NO different to US then it was when people persecuted the Blacks and saw them as less human less intelligent. If only they could find a way to NOT be black they might think.

If only they could find a way for them to not believe.

I empathize with your viewpoint, and completely understand why a theist of any kind would be offended by Dawkins. However, I think comparing it to people persecuting blacks is somewhat rash. Dawkins isn't proposing we kill anybody, and the whole idea of his theory is that if we get rid of faith we could get rid of a lot of killing. He doesn't see the faithful as less human, he sees them as misled. I think your comparison is a bit skewed, but that's just my opinion.

(Not that I'm a Dawkins follower much anyway. Never even seen his work until this thread came along. He does seem a bit radical, but not any evidence for airbrushing history. I think some theists have just taken offense by his opposing viewpoints.)

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]