Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by bobafett1972


"Agnostic" is a bit more civilized imo, because it is OPEN rather than fxied to the "I am right, they are wrong" game...which is the very deception of this planet.

In any case...the hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis game is played everywhere.

Airbrushing history is to be told we come from apes or were created by "God" in seven days.

Neither is truly known and its a crime towards humanity to promote both as if the are the last word.

We know absolutely nothing but behave as if we know everything.

reply to post by an3rkist

Atheistic ideology? What atheistic ideology?

Stalins communism is a prime example of an Atheist ideology. Richard Dawkins world view that faith is the root of all evil is an example of Atheist ideology.

And as for the definition "shifting blame"...wow: All I can say is "wow". Responsibility for what? For the actions of some guy who lived before I was born and didn't have even remotely the same beliefs as me, (except that there's no God)? My world view carries baggage, huh? What baggage is that? The sins of another man?

We are talking about world views. You're doing it right now. I don't accept responsibility for the Inquisition. So there! That's what I mean... your world view has baggage too.

The problem not being atheists or christians themselves, but those who to point out again and again how OTHERS are "WRONG" instead of cleaning up their own act.

Christians are generally fine people and so are atheists. They both have a lot of valid and interesting points.

And, contrary to the nonsense promoted here...you can easily MIX them.

A GOD could have easily initiated evolution. No contradiction there.

Excuse my harshness, but this must be the tenthousandth thread I see here on the very same "atheists do this" and "christians do this" kindergarden stuff.

Ever heard any of the two sides say "Im wrong"?

No of course night.

Thats how mind-control works.

Someone who is brainwashed will never consider, much less admit that everything he is taught or believes may be completely wrong.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Are you insane?
There would be mass panic in the streets. People's minds would melt, like when the Nazi's opened the Ark of the Covenant and our eyes would ooze out of our skulls!!!

~~

Of course I completely agree with you sky, I just felt like injecting some funny in. Well, I made myself laugh at least.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"Agnostic" is a bit more civilized imo, because it is OPEN rather than fxied to the "I am right, they are wrong" game...which is the very deception of this planet.

Except even the 'radical' atheist Dickie Dawkins accepts a degree of uncertainty:

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

linky

So, it's more a case of an atheist saying 'I'm probably right, and you are probably wrong'. Whereas I could easily run and get a quote showing a theist stating 100% certainty - a number 1. An agnostic would be at around a 4, and most atheists fall between 5 and 7. I know very few 7s, and I would think they were barmy if I ever met one. Guess it depends on the version of god though.

I suppose we're all almost 7s for Zeus and Odin, no?

I had planned on abandoning this thread because I don't want to get involved in yet another forty page thread that solves nothing. The whole idea of arguing belief in God vs. non-belief in God is a Catch 22 argument. No one can prove either side. As I've mentioned, I'm not actually an atheist, but use that stigma to separate myself from the stereotypes of theists, including deists. However, this thread has made me realize that I cannot stigmatize myself as an atheist without bringing on the stereotypes of Atheism. (The religion of Atheism, not the actual definition of it, which is why I capitalize it and use it as a pronoun instead.)

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Stalins communism is a prime example of an Atheist ideology. Richard Dawkins world view that faith is the root of all evil is an example of Atheist ideology.

How in the world is Stalin's communism even a remotely decent example of atheist ideology? Where in Atheism, (even the pronoun religious form), does it suggest that communism or genocide or any kind of totalitarian or narrow-minded or bigoted actions are okay? There is no justification for his actions or anyone else's based on atheistic ideology, because the only ideology of atheism is that there is no supreme being. Period. Just because a person does not believe in a supreme being does not mean they believe it's okay to murder millions of people. Stalin does not represent any atheist ideology, only the ideology of a crazed lunatic who probably had faith in his ideas. Faith is the real evil, but it does not have to be faith in a supreme being, it can simply be faith in your own ideology. I think anyone who makes any action to hinder the individual rights of others to believe whatever they want is "evil", if you will, and is doing so in arrogant faith. I agree with Richard Dawkins that faith may be root of all evil, (though you should note that he has a question mark after that phrase...), but I do not necessarily believe it is faith in God. Even Atheists, (pronoun, as in the religion), have faith: faith that there is no God.

Stalin is a prime example of atheist ideologies?

We are talking about world views. You're doing it right now. I don't accept responsibility for the Inquisition. So there!

That's what I mean... your world view has baggage too.

My world view has only the baggage that I myself have given it, because my world view takes no credence or logic from anybody else's. I base it on my own philosophies, logic, reason, and experience. Perhaps I'm not justified in participating in this conversation at all, since I'm not actually Atheist, but by your definition I am. I would agree that many Atheists today have a narrow-minded world view, however, it is no more or less narrow-minded than that of many theists. I fail to see any conspiracy here, though. Airbrushing history? Richard Dawkins said "I think" and "I believe" a whole lot. He proposed a theory, and I saw no airbrushing of history going on.

Edit for grammar.

[edit on 21/3/08 by an3rkist]

I am an atheists and i don't do anything to promote history is wrong I just live as anybody else and don't try to push my beliefes on anybody.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Buddyweiser]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Buddyweiser]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Atheism is barbarian because it does not recognize the soul and a supreme being.

...i just have to object to this

they are things that are entirely unproven..it doesn't so much reject them as it refuses to acknowledge concepts that are entirely unsubstantiated.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ever heard any of the two sides say "Im wrong"?

Heck no.

Still, it does seem to me (and yes I am absolutely biased- never denied it) that when there is a thread addressing Christianity, the insults and condescending remarks fly. When a thread addresses atheism (or Islam, or evolution, or...) we start hearing, 'Can't we all just get along?' Or finger pointing in a million different directions. Or topical redirects. Or the 'prove it brigade.'

So, I'm enjoying BW's thread and appreciate his work he has done. I know he spent many, many days researching it. I don't have that kind of patience in making threads so that alone is impressive to me.

There will always be staunch believers/a-believers who refuse to budge and those who will.

reply to post by melatonin

Quote-mine. The context here is making claims about the existence of gods/godesses/pink unicorns.

Quote mine from whom mel? Did you follow the link for that definition? It was from an Atheist Blogger, Austine Cline, who writes for About.com. He wrote a cute little piece of atheistic apologetics about how atheism never hurt a fly. I studied his avoidance tactics. I noticed how carefully he defined Atheism to avoid taking responsibility for what that view entails. That is just the "airbrushing" in advance...

There are implications to what you believe and what you don't believe.

He talks about the abuse of childhood innocence, predominately related to scaring kids with things like the hell concept. A form of mental abuse, filling kids with fear.

And that is his business how? To tell people how to raise their children?
Mel.... "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom." If Stalin had feared the Lord he wouldn't have treated people that way.

Still relying on the quote-mine. Of course 'true' atheists make claims. If I said that the sky was blue, would that make me a radical atheist because I should make no claims or denials?

Well sorry I was using the very conservative Atheist definition. Let's definitely switch over to yours. Atheism implies belief in something even if it's nothing! Since the color of the sky doesn't involve the dismantling of the entire moral framework of society, then no it doesn't qualify you. But Dawkins does want to do that hence RADICAL.

prove it.

I did-watch the pretty movie Dicky made. Ok maybe not all but look what he named his damn movie. He blames 911 on religious faith. Well the turn about is fair play and I blame Atheism (lack of religious faith) for Stalin and Mao. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

And to do this you show some rubbish quote? He was an agnostic. He stated that he was not an atheist even in the 'most extreme fluctuation' of his position.

Well I admit it is questionable. I think you can make a case either way.
I don't pay for the Google scholar service. But these papers address his more private disbelief.

Silvan Schweber, The Origin of the Origin Revisited,"Journal of the History of Biology 10, 2 (1977): 23334.

Ernst Mayr, "Darwin and Natural Selection", American Naturalist (MayJune 1977): 323.

Michael Ghiselin, The Individual in the Darwinian Revolution, New Literary History 3, 1 (1971): 122.

If you say so. Pity that most people in the US who accept evolutionary theory is a valid explanation of the origin of species are actually non-atheists.

Do you know any Atheist Creationists?

See it's one thing as a theory and another as world view. There's a huge difference. You can believe in evolution without embracing it as your world view.

No they didn't. I can't even be bothered showing Stalin's own words on this issue again. He had his own scientists with their own version of evolution which was non-darwinian - Lysenckoism. Mao also depended on it.

Using such pseudoscientific approaches in agriculture directly led to massive crop failures, and the famines that caused many of the deaths you are using in your sophistry.

You are an expert on evolutionists and the science Mel. I respect that. I am not talking about the intricacies of evolutionary theory but the ideas. If Stalin made his own version of evolution- it really does not affect the connection. When you take a creator out of the equation there is no basis for morality other than natural selection. Stalin then proceeded to naturally select some 20 million people to die.
wiki.answers.com...

Probably a crank quote you picked up from a crank website. You can read through Mao's work if you can find it, reference it:

Wow you act offended. Is Mao a friend of yours? He's a really nice guy I hear Mel. He naturally selected 49,000,000 - 78,000,000 people to die.
This is attrinbuted to Mao in more than one place:
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)
bevets.com...

Going big on the canards tonight, whammy. Should take it easy. Can rot the brain. Easily deniable.

The leading communist states relied on a neo-lamarckian theory. Many theists accept evolution. Atheist =/= communist. But communist sometimes = atheist.

Oh but Marx was certainly an atheist. I think I did a fine job of connecting communism and atheism. They're two peas in a pod.

ABE: oh, and evolution doesn't say that life is the product of blind chance. It does say it was non-directed by things like gods. The 'blind' watchmaker is the proposal.

Right and Stalin didn't believe morality was defined by God but was "non directed" by the state. The 'blind' God.

However, there are other forms of communism, even christian communism.

Right so I shouldn't drag all communist down. I was talking about Stalin and Atheistic communism.

But it's funny how Dawkins does try to condemn all faith. And you defend it.

No it doesn't. Even if the theory of evolution was wrong, it is self-evident that violence and conflict are characteristic of nature.

And Religion explains why that is so. The world is temporarily in the hands of Satan- Evil - yeah evil -mel. That's what entropy is. That's why it's so tough. Without God fearing folks around Stalin would have taken over the whole damn world. An the heroes of the cold war were mostly Americans like Senator Jesse Helms. I know you have to hate him. But he's a big part of the reason we aren't speaking Russian.

All a major part of evolutionary theory says is that those who reproduce most successfully will come to dominate populations.

And Jesus says "He who is first will be last and he who was last will be first"
See there is going to be a day of reckoning. Remember science can't even answer the questions of a small child. "Why am I here?" "What is my purpose?" Be careful you might saw off the branch you're sitting on.

I think you are wrong by suggesting he said this was the case.

This is hilarious to me. He titled the movie "The Root of All Evil" How can I possibly be wrong?

Pity they make little headway to stop it. You had almost 1800 years to show that the philosophy of non-conflict will dominate society.

Well Historically America is largely a Christian nation with traditional values and we have stopped Stalin and Hitler. We have taken a stand. Based on values. Based on the value of human life. Not just the ones most likely to reproduce. Values that came from faith in God.

And what was the inquisition about might I ask? Wasn't anything to do with heresy was it? When you can show that Mao or Stalin killed for atheism, the comparison might hold. Communism =/= atheism not matter how much you try the logical contortions.

Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. As the founder of the Soviet state V. I. Lenin put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[9]

Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Atheism was propagated through schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media. Though Lenin originally introduced the Gregorian calendar to the Soviets subsequent efforts to re-organise the week for the purposes of improving worker productivity with the introduction of the Soviet revolutionary calendar had a side-effect that a "holiday will seldom fall on Sunday" [10]

linky

He burned Churches and killed enumerable Christians, it's a fact. Mao was probably worse. I am too tired; so more wiki

Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden and could sometimes result in imprisonment.
The Soviet Union was the first state to have the elimination of religion as an ideological objective. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

linky



[edit on 3/22/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I am an atheist. I do not hate religion, or those who subscribe to one of its MANY variations. I do not blame Christians or their faith for the Inquisition, rather the fools who carried it out. Men commited horrible atrocities, even if they did it in the name of a their chosen God, it does not make the God responsible. Same goes with Atheist men who committed horrible atrocities. Don't blame the idea, blame the man who actually did stuff. Why is this so hard to understand?

I can see what's coming next. If people weren't so brainwashed by religion maybe bad stuff wouldn't happen. Maybe if more people believed in God, bad stuff wouldn't happen. How about: People do bad stuff for all kinds or reasons. Let's just blame ignorance,greed, and fear for all the bad stuff that happens, because isn't that really the root cause? Isn't it weird that people who believe in a god and those who don't commit the same kind of horrors? Could it be that religion and a lack therof really doesn't have as much to do with it as some of us would like to assert?

In everyone's rush to be right, they take the worst example, be it an extremist Muslim, extremist Atheist, extremist whatever, and make it the poster-child for their cause. There's is an extremist for everything, somebody will always take something and stretch it out to fit their own agenda.

If you don't like Atheism being slandered and blamed for millions of deaths because of a few idiots, don't slander Christianity/Judaism/Muslims for the actions of a few idiots.

If you don't like your chosen religion being slandered and blamed for millions of deaths because of a few idiots, don't slander Atheism for the actions of a few idiots.

To get back on topic here: Ideas don't airbrush history, people with agendas do. Both sides of this God/No-God debate could be accused of airbrushing. The funny thing is, the airbrushing has less to do with Atheists and Theists, and more to do with people who are bent on proving someone else wrong for their own satisfaction, or more classically, with fulfilling some greedy, ignorant,fearful agenda. That's why the rhetoric sounds so hilariously similar.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Thank you. I respect you because you respect me. My rantings are aimed at the Dawkins crowd who perpetrate that movie I posted "The Root of All Evil".

You are a voice of reason from the non believing side.

BW...do you even know what an air-brush is? I do, I own three of them.

Skyfloating had good things to say, but seems to have been ignored.

Back to the air-brush...you are mixing metaphors, I am very sorry to point out, but it's true. One cannot 'air-brush' history!!! It is a silly concept, and disingenuous to the extreme.

Oh, I get your point, with the air-brush attempt at explaining what most intelligent people would recognize as something called 'revisionist' history. This is done with words, and dogma, and 'education' that is totally inaccurate, but conveyed as 'truth'....no paint involved here, it's all in the mind.

So, please delete the stupid 'air-brush' metaphor, it is old, over-used and hackneyed.

I'll answer this now, and worry about the rest manana. Sorry it was draft when I caught it, point out any major changes...

Quotemine from whom mel? Did you follow the link for that definition? It was from an Atheist Blogger, Austine Cline, who writes for About.com. He wrote a cute little piece of atheistic apologetics about how atheism never hurt a fly. I studied his avoidance tactics. I noticed how carefully he defined Atheism to avoid taking responsibility for what that view entails. That is just the "airbrushing" in advance...

Nope, it's a quote-mine of a defintion of one form of atheism. The 'weak' form of atheism makes no claims or denial of the existence of god. It is just the non-belief.

You used this out of context to suggest this means someone like Dawkins is radical for making claims like telling kiddies about how people burn in hell is a form of mental abuse. Totally out of context.

And that is his business how? To tell people how to raise their children? Mel.... "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom." If Stalin had feared the Lord he wouldn't have treated people that way.

Because he might care about the mental abuse of children.

Whammy, with all due respect, stick your fearmongering where the sun don't shine.

Well sorry I was using the very conservative Atheist definition. Let's definitely switch over to yours. Atheism implies belief in something even if it's nothing! Since the color of the sky doesn't involve the dismantling of the entire moral framework of society, then no it doesn't qualify you. But Dawkins does want to do that hence RADICAL.

Uhm, all atheists have beliefs on top of those pertaining to atheism. Some are even communists - gasp! Some are even humanists - gasp!

Religion doesn't form the 'entire moral framework' of society. You just like to think it does.

I did-watch the pretty movie Dicky made. Ok maybe not all but look what he named his damn movie. He blames 911 on religious faith. Well the turn about is fair play and I blame Atheism (lack of religious faith) for Stalin and Mao. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

So the claim was wrong then.

He didn't name it. OK, he blames 9-11 on faith. Cool, as they flew into the building I have good reason to visualise them screaming 'god is great'.

You can blame atheism for Stalin and Mao all you like. But it doesn't make the claim sustainable, any more than me blaming christianity for thousands of deaths in Iraq, or the deaths of those in Hiroshima.

Sometimes they do it in the name of theism, sometimes they do it in the name of communism and state, sometimes they do it in the name of democracy. Stalin thought the people he was causing the deaths of was justifiable, and Bush thought the people he was leading to non-existence was justifiable.

Well I admit it is questionable. I think you can make a case either way. I don't pay for the Google scholar service. But these papers address his more private disbelief.

More than questionable. His own words show you are wrong. I can try to get the articles tomorrow. Probably a bit old for online access though.

Do you know any Atheist Creationists?

I know of at least one atheist who doesn't accept evolutionary theory, he stated so earlier in this thread. I'm sure he's not the only one.

See it's one thing as a theory and another as world view. There's a huge difference. You can believe in evolution without embracing it as your world view.

Evolution is a scientific theory. That would be like taking on atomic theory as a worldview. A silly comment. Communism is nothing like what a social form of evolutionary theory would be anyway.

You are an expert on evolutionists and the science Mel. I respect that. I am not talking about the intricacies of evolutionary theory but the ideas. If Stalin made his own version of evolution- it really does not affect the connection. When you take a creator out of the equation there is no basis for morality other than natural selection. Stalin then proceeded to naturally select some 20 million people to die.
wiki.answers.com...

I wouldn't ever claim expert status for evolutionary biology.

It does affect the connection. It shows he never held to 'Darwinian' evolution. Which was your original claim. You might as well blame gravity for the deaths his actions caused.

And there is a basis for morals apart from religion. Don't be silly. We form them by social agreement, they are part of the social milieu. And underneath that, we have the capacity to act with empathy an sympathy - that's where evolution played a part.

Wow you act offended. Is Mao a friend of yours? He's a really nice guy I hear Mel. He naturally selected 49,000,000 - 78,000,000 people to die.
This is attrinbuted to Mao in more than one place:
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)
bevets.com...

Not really. By all accounts he was a pig. I just don't like BS.

Yes, the same quote is used over and over, all probably from the same source - Harun. Creationistas are not known for their honesty, so excuse me if I don't take it as reliable, especially when sourced from some obscure german book. Numerous quotes have been found to be completely false from these type of people.

If it had any degree of reliability, I would have expected to see people like Dembski spouting it repeatedly.

Oh but Marx was certainly an atheist. I think I did a fine job of connecting communism and atheism. They're two peas in a pod.

Of course you think you did. Most secular communists were atheists. But not at all atheists are communists (indeed, very few are). Moreover, if you read the 'christian communist' wiki, you'll see that not all communists were actually atheists. Some based it on the bible.

Therefore atheism =/= communism.


[edit on 21-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by weedwhacker





You know what you're right!! I had to go look it up. Too late to edit the title now. But thanks for the tip!

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You know what you're right!! I had to go look it up. Too late to edit the title now. But thanks for the tip!

Well, I don't own that one, but it looks nice, I'd like to buy one. I have a Badger, an Aztec and a Paasche. THAT one, in the pic looks like a double-action...very similar to my Badger or Paasche...

What is the brand? I'll look it up and buy one....thanks.

Right and Stalin didn't believe morality was defined by God but was "non directed" by the state. The 'blind' God.

And people who have killed numerous people did. It makes no difference, evil people do evil things.

Right so I shouldn't drag all communist down. I was talking about Stalin and Atheistic communism.

But it's funny how Dawkins does try to condemn all faith. And you defend it.

Have you ever seen his discussion with Bishop (ex now) Harries?

Condemn is a strong word. He just thinks it's BS. That's his perogative. So do I.

And Religion explains why that is so. The world is temporarily in the hands of Satan- Evil - yeah evil -mel. That's what entropy is. That's why it's so tough. Without God fearing folks around Stalin would have taken over the whole damn world. An the heroes of the cold war were mostly Americans like Senator Jesse Helms. I know you have to hate him. But he's a big part of the reason we aren't speaking Russian.

Yeah, the commies are coming!!!

Religion can make any old poop up. Of course it can pretend to explain it. Before the fall all the animals lived in some fairy-land eating manna from heaven. Dino's were used for donkey rides and snakes talked etc etc

See there is going to be a day of reckoning. Remember science can't even answer the questions of a small child. "Why am I here?" "What is my purpose?" Be careful you might saw off the branch you're sitting on.

And it doesn't pretend to. It can answer some though - 'why am I here?' Because mammy and daddy did it like they do on the discovery channel

Well Historically America is largely a Christian nation with traditional values and we have stopped Stalin and Hitler. We have taken a stand. Based on values. Based on the value of human life. Not just the ones most likely to reproduce. Values that came from faith in God.

And you are no more moral than the other advanced western societies. In fact, you a quite high on the league for capital punishment. Only a few years back when the vulnerable were protecting from these actions, and only a few dozen since blacks could ride on buses with whites.

Stalin's victims remembered at site of church used for killing field

President Vladimir Putin has attended a memorial service conducted by Patriarch Aleksei II, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, at a church built near a Soviet police secret killing field, where at least 20 000 people were executed at the peak of dictator Joseph Stalin's bloody purges - writes Sophia Kishkovsky from Moscow.

The visit to the site, known as "Butovsky poligon", or "shooting range, on 30 October 2007 was for Putin, a former lieutenant colonel in the KGB secret security services, his first. The newly built Church of the Resurrection and the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia honours the 355 "new martyrs" who the Russian Orthodox Church has so far canonised after they were executed at Butovsky poligon.

About 1000 people are known to have died for their Orthodox faith at the shooting range. The church on the site was consecrated in May 2007 as part of ceremonies marking the reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The latter is an émigré group that for decades called for proper acknowledgement of the new martyrs.

source


[edit on 3/21/2008 by Bigwhammy]