Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ASH, you are correct....I was reading through posts and lost focus on who the OP was...my bad, late at night after a long day....

No worries! When you ask a member of the borg, we consider it asking the entire borg.

BW, or Ash...a question. You are both very, very well-respected (?) experts in this subject --- can you provide a few numbers, from polls or statistics or whatever metric you care to cite....how many 'christians' exist on the planet? THEN, how many 'atheists'....THEN, please break down, by population numbers, the other FAITHS, if you can.

What a coincidence. BW did this earlier today on another thread. See: HERE. If you have any questions, just scroll down to see if others had already asked. We discussed it for a little while.

My only intent is to keep one question afloat --- HOW can this thread continue to purport that Atheists are 'Air Brushing' (better to say 're-writing) History when it's obvious that Atheists have NO majority, NO real say, and tend to be SHOUTED DOWN!!! by theists?!?!?

In the cases of conspiracies, the majority does not always rule. Conspiracies are not a democracy.

reply to post by AshleyD


Yes Ash, thanks for your reply...

I would invite all that mosey through this latest page of the thread to read my entire post, and I invite all responses.

I'd also entertain the notion that this thread is done....of course, it's my right to say, any takers?

WW

ps...I have had my say....well, I kicked the soap box away, and this is it. I will not be baited any more.....

[sorry for the edit, painted myself into a corner...]

I said I'd invite responses, but doesn't mean I will respond. I'll just enjoy the dwindling show........

[edit on 30-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker





It really does not matter how many Atheists there are but estimates are 8-13%. The charge was "More people have been killed in the name of religion" That charge has been debunked.

It only takes 2 people to make a conspiracy weedwhacker. When Dawkins publishes a book and sells 2 miilion copies he is conspiring to convince people. And when that book infers that faith is responsible for the wars and killing in the world. It is in effect a conspiracy to rewrite history. it is not true. The facts show more deaths due to communism than for religion.




[edit on 3/30/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy
I have come to a profound realization.

Atheists are airbrushing history.

Ok maybe that wasn't so profound.

Maybe it was just a common sense realization that people like to pervert information to fit their agenda.

Atheists,Theists,Politicians,Lawyers,Philosophers....well come to think of it.....just about anybody who has a skeleton in their closet will airbrush history. Ditto with people who want to their pedigree to look a little cleaner. Oh yeah, and people that want to prove someone else wrong too.

Maybe it would've been easier just to say that just about everybody has glossed over something at some point. It's human nature.

Now that we've established that(probably not for the first time either):

What are we all gonna do about it?

POint the finger at each other?

Endlessly and pointlessly try to argue that we don't do it?

Endlessly and pointlessly try to assert someone else is?

If you guys want to start commitees and join websites and actively try to combat your percieved idea of injustice, be my guest. I commend your initiative and dedication to your beliefs.(This goes to anyone) Me, I got enough on my plate with bills, health,work,family. I got just enough to care for my close friends,family,and myself. i'm sure there a re a lot fo folks in similar positions. Let's all share our experiences, our dismay at the detiorating world around us, and the shared hope that someday we'll find peace and understanding for all beliefs.

Let us all be a source of light, by demonstrating our tolerance,our intelligence, and our respect. We all possess these qualities, be an ambassador for your beliefs.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

So what you're trying to say is that Atheist have done more damage to the World than religions? I don't remember a time in history where Atheist did anything, little lone bad things, worse than the Holocaust or Dark Ages. I'm sure there are some bad Atheist seeds as in all other types of people but you're not going to convince anyone they are the problem with the World. If anything it's people like you, pushing blame to the other side. No matter what side it is you will never understand until you have seen that there is more than two sides to everything.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


debunked?

you've yet to show that anyone was killed in the name of atheism...


here's something i'd like to point out, religion leads to divisions that cause conflict

example, the holocaust (not a godwin, i swear)

see, the jews were defined by their culture which is entirely linked to their religion. even their culinary tradition is religious. this led them to be divided and segregated from the population and easily vilified.
not to mention that there is a popular attitude among many christians that the jews killed jesus

many things that tied directly to religion helped the holocaust happen, yet i'm not saying religion caused it
just like you can't say atheism caused any atrocities committed by atheists just because they were atheists.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

debunked?

you've yet to show that anyone was killed in the name of atheism...

Thoroughly debunked.

I thought reality was awesome?

To debunk the assertion that religion is the root of all evil. All I have to do is show that entities with no religion like the communists have a worse record.

It does not require specific "atheism". Just lack of religious faith.

Although the Peoples Republic of China does officially declare "Atheism" as the state religion, if that makes you happy, then there you go.





[edit on 3/31/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


BW, just because the Gov't of China declares an official 'religion', do you expect every Billion of their citizens complies??

It's as if the US Gov't 'declared' that the official religion of the United States is now Judaism...besides being illegal, and raising all kinds of heck, it is not a fiat that would be follow by every individual lilving un the country.

Please step back and consider how some arguments appear silly, when viewed from another perspective....

reply to post by weedwhacker


But it doesn't matter was my point WW. All I have to do is demonstrate that Religious faith is not the leading cause of the killing.

I did.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Thoroughly debunked.

I thought reality was awesome?

To debunk the assertion that religion is the root of all evil. All I have to do is show that entities with no religion like the communists have a worse record.

...nobody actually said that religion is the root of all evil
it's a provocative title for a tv series... i don't even think dawkins had a say in that.

and the only reason communist states have more casualties is the modern technology and numbers game
more people and easier ways to kill them

i'm quite sure the crusades would've ended with a mushroom cloud over both mecca and the vatican had the technology been available.

assessing it in terms of raw numbers means nothing...

and it could be argued that communism is a form of state-worshiping religion...

It does not require specific "atheism". Just lack of religious faith.

Although the Peoples Republic of China does officially declare "Atheism" as the state religion, if that makes you happy, then there you go.

...yet they've never claimed to commit a specific act in the name of their state "religion"

[edit on 3/31/08 by madnessinmysoul]

i'm quite sure the crusades would've

The vatican does not represent christianity. JESUS does.
The vatican thinks it represents christianity but it doesn't.
Only JESUS CHRIST can represent christianity.
christians are people. they don't represent christianity either.
JESUS does. without JESUS, christianity is no different than
atheism.

Originally posted by undo
The vatican does not represent christianity. JESUS does.
The vatican thinks it represents christianity but it doesn't.
Only JESUS CHRIST can represent christianity.
christians are people. they don't represent christianity either.
JESUS does. without JESUS, christianity is no different than
atheism.

Stalin does not represent atheism. NOBODY does.
You guys seem to think Stalin represents atheism but he doesn't.
Only NOBODY can represent atheism.
Atheists are people. they don't represent atheism either.
NOBODY does. without NOBODY, atheism is no different than christianity.



(The last line makes sense, too if you think about it...)

Earlier in this thread some of the so-called "tag-team" were trying to say that Atheism was a religion. Communism may also be labeled as such if you think about it. If you look at it that way, religious faith can be blamed for all genocides. But it is not faith alone, it's the faith in your beliefs being superior to that of others. Intolerance is the evil here, and both sides are actually innocent. It's the individuals in question who are guilty.

And as for the "airbrushing" conspiracy...well, not much to say for that. Haven't seen it "exposed" yet. I didn't see Dawkins actually denying the fact that atheists have killed. I'm sure if you asked Dawkins he would be perfectly willing to admit that atheists have killed before. Perhaps you could try that?

[edit on 31/3/08 by an3rkist]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


If you guys want to play "in the name of" then you will lose.

The whole "in the name of" game is stupid. Who decides what "the name" is?

The crusades were done against the teachings of Jesus by Christians.

Mao killed for whatever reason and he was an atheist.

If you are going to claim it was "in the name of Christ" because the crusaders were supposed to be Christians then I can claim because Mao Tse Tung was atheist he killed in the name of atheism.

The whole "in the name of" cuts both ways...

Truth is closer to that it was imperialism in both cases really.

reply to post by an3rkist


What about conferences, like the 'Crystal Clear Atheism' meetings
Or many others, where Dawkins and Sam Harris attended?
Nobody represents atheism?

Dawkins is a poster boy.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


And those have what to do with what I said? I don't know of these conferences, but what does that have to do with what I wrote?

EDIT TO ADD:

I apparently responded before you finished adding the last two lines of your post.

You're trying to suggest Dawkins *represents* atheism? Is that a joke? I don't know a single atheist who would say that, and I highly doubt even Dawkins would say that. He wrote a book that a bunch of people read, that doesn't make him the atheist Messiah!

And if you're going to use that logic, then it would be perfectly logical to say the Vatican does represent Christianity. You see, I was agreeing with undo, that they don't, and saying that it goes for atheists, too.

[edit on 31/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by an3rkist


NOBODY does.
You guys seem to think Stalin represents atheism but he doesn't.
Only NOBODY can represent atheism.
Atheists are people. they don't represent atheism either.
NOBODY does. without NOBODY, atheism is no different than christianity.

Wrong, When a person is in court does an attorney not "represent" his client? When a person doesn't want the help of legal council, does he then not represent himself? Of course he does.

Everyone of you defending Atheism from any allegations are in fact Representing Atheism. As much as I see Atheists attempt to escape any culpability about anything, they continue to make assertions to denigrate without taking any action or at least not any they would ever admit to.

Earlier in this thread some of the so-called "tag-team" were trying to say that Atheism was a religion.

Atheism IS a religion and has been proven as such in a court of law.
As much as Atheists like to escape any attachment to that fact of case law, the fact still remains that it is in fact,, a religion

Case Closed:

I'm sure if you asked Dawkins he would be perfectly willing to admit that atheists have killed before. Perhaps you could try that?

I believe whammy already proved that beyond any doubt, so asking an avowed religious Atheist like Dawkins isn't necessary regardless of his opinions either way

- Con




[edit on 31-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Everyone of you defending Atheism from any allegations are in fact Representing Atheism. As much as I see Atheists attempt to escape any culpability about anything, they continue to make assertions to denigrate without taking any action or at least not any they would ever admit to.

You know, I don't get you guys. I agree with undo on something, and then say the logic applies to atheists also, and you all say I'm wrong! In other words, you're admitting that the Vatican represents Christianity. I don't think it does. I think undo was right. But I think you're all wrong for suggesting that I'm wrong based on the opposite logic that undo used. Then again, apparently "right" and "wrong" are relative terms. Do I represent atheism? NO! I represent me and nobody else! Do you represent Christianity? NO! You represent yourself. I agree with undo, Christ represents Christianity for you guys, and nobody represents atheism as a whole.

Atheism IS a religion and has been proven as such in a court of law.
As much as Atheists like to escape any attachment to that fact of case law, the fact still remains that it is in fact,, a religion

Case Closed:

Wow, some court makes a ruling and you decide it's fact. Great logic. The Supreme Court once ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional, but look how that turned out. If you think courts are the end all be all and what they say is written in stone, well...I'll bite my tongue. And anyway, did you even read that case? The court made that decision to make sure that a prisoner was allowed the same rights as others, not so that the whole world would say, "Oh, Atheism's a religion!"

And most importantly, I don't know why you're arguing it, I agree it's become a religion, (to some extent.) Read my previous posts somewhere in these seventy pages to see that I was one of the people who agreed with that idea...

I believe whammy already proved that beyond any doubt, so asking an avowed religious Atheist like Dawkins isn't necessary regardless of his opinions either way

Have you completely forgotten the point in this thread? Whammy proved that atheists have killed before: wow. I haven't seen anyone denying that, not even Dawkins. That's why asking him could be considered relevant to his THEORY. You can't prove a conspiracy exists without...proving the conspiracy exists. So whammy proved that atheists have killed, but he has yet to prove that Dawkins has tried to deny that.

[edit on 31/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

If you guys want to play "in the name of" then you will lose.

The whole "in the name of" game is stupid. Who decides what "the name" is?

The crusades were done against the teachings of Jesus by Christians.

Mao killed for whatever reason and he was an atheist.

If you are going to claim it was "in the name of Christ" because the crusaders were supposed to be Christians, then I can claim because Mao Tse Tung was atheist he killed in the name of atheism.

The whole "in the name of" cuts both ways...

Truth is closer to that it was imperialism in both cases really.

The convoluted logic used by madd and so many others regarding anything done in the name of is one of the common uses of typical Atheists doublespeak, but it is one that once they set that kind of standard of defense in motion, they are condemned by it also.

That means they must take the good with the bad making themselves fairgame for not taking responsibilty for their statements and / or actions.

If they insist a thing must be done in Atheism's name before anyone can attribute an action to the obvious common denominator that distinguishes them from others, they inturn can not take credit for anything either.

To give an example any good charitable actions done by Religious people can be given in whole as a group on account of the combined efforts a said group all having the same distinction a religion they all share. Conversely, Atheists cannot claim they have done a one good deed the same way. As a people, they contribute NOTHING because they won't risk being tagged as responsible for anything in there name. Charity? Nope Atheists like Bill Gates can only give in his name if we are to agree with the above poster because he condemns himself by saying NO ONE represents Atheists. Therefore, NOTHING good comes from Atheism.

They said it, I didn't.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


The logic you used to deduce your above observation could be used against Christianity so obviously it makes my head hurt. Tell me, if the logic you used is sound, what would stop anyone from saying that the bad things done by Christians as a group cannot be then blamed on Christianity? I merely deduced this using your above logic.

I agree with you that atheism has done nothing good for the world, but that logic applies to Christianity, also. Christianity has done no good for the world, only individual Christians have. And likewise, individual atheists have also. (Though I personally think Bill Gates is a horrible example.)

[edit on 31/3/08 by an3rkist]

Originally posted by an3rkist



Wow, some court makes a ruling and you decide it's fact. Great logic. The Supreme Court once ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional, but look how that turned out.

The same way I have to oblige separation of church and state, I have to observe the laws whether I agree with them or not. So your argument isn't with me,,

It's with the courts

If you think courts are the end all be all and what they say is written in stone, well...I'll bite my tongue. And anyway, did you even read that case? The court made that decision to make sure that a prisoner was allowed the same rights as others, not so that the whole world would say, "Oh, Atheism's a religion!"

Please,, I only deal in US law what they say about it in other parts of the world doesn't concern us here in the U.S. The case WAS brought by a prisoner but was decided on earlier case law by the Supreme Court. His being a prisoner was his own doing but taking the law from the where it applies outside of prison ie; regarding religion, had to be argued the same way religion is defined inside prison. Once decided Atheism is a religion makes no distinction between Atheism religion inside prison or outside prison. It is a religion no different than Catholicism is religion inside prison and outside Prison.

Have you completely forgotten the point in this thread? Whammy proved that atheists have killed before: wow. I haven't seen anyone denying that, not even Dawkins. That's why asking him could be considered relevant to his THEORY.

I believe you are misunderstanding Whammy's argument or misrepresenting it, posing the question on an individual basis. Personally, I believe that is how one can look at it but the fact is Groups who commit a good or bad have a common good (at least they all think so) . Having said that Christians are quite candid that we are a very flawed people and don't deny a common belief attached to a name. Atheist are hiding behind a name they make no attachments with as a group yet all have that same name. They all seem to have strong opinions about a particular people (religious) yet we are either to believe they only go as far as writing blistering books about why they must be stopped OR they actually do something about them.

It isn't JUST a coincidence Hitler burned all the churches or Stalin killed every religious thing, he could get his hands on. Of course he didn't do it all by himself but those that did are complicit in his actions AND motives.

In that case you would be right but it has been said in books

You can't prove a conspiracy exists without...proving the conspiracy exists. So whammy proved that atheists have killed, but he has yet to prove that Dawkins has tried to deny that.

He doesn't have to prove he denied it on a case by case basis because Dawkins Uses Generalisations to convict he also is to be judged by the same standard he judges others. He has published the same logical comparisons that now can be used against him. He simply can't have it both ways. Don't think for a second the book he published wouldn't be used against him because if the scenario were to come up, Dawkins would wish he never wrote that book.


- Con





[edit on 31-3-2008 by Conspiriology]