If atheism is so enlightened...

What's really funny is how willing so many people are to support the atheist and help him achieve his goals. He could be stopped at anytime by simply killing him. All it takes is just one person with some guts. But no one ever does anything until much later. By then millions are dead. They wouldn't even save themselves. Everyone cowers in fear.

A good story that illustrates this is the story about Judith in the Bible. She used deceit to gain access to the Assyrian general Holofernes and then cut off his head.
Everyone else was shaking in their sandals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Beheading_Holofernes_(Caravaggio)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=judith&version=CEB
The book has 16 short chapters. They are well worth reading from a historical pov.

 

North Korea is officially atheist. Where is the official atheist outcry denouncing his crimes? Right, you are too busy accusing people of people of being slave owners who are not slave owners to attempt to fix the injustices of an atheistic paradise. Gotcha.

Most people classify atheism as self worship, andStalin most definitely loved himself like no other. He deliberately oppressed the church, and cultivated an atheistic moral code, that ... was remarkably silent and conducive to his purges. Stalin by the way, killed in the name of the Revolution. I suggest you read some of the literature that was written by Russian who were victimized by the process. You wopuld know instantly just how wrong you were.

Now, why once again are we ignoring Christians like Saint Francis, who spoke very much against the Crusades?

Because we are back to comparative morality. If only we make a silly excuse to turn a blind eye to the murder of literally millions (more than died in ALL the Crusades), then we can pretend that our precious atheism is immune to exploitation from unscrupulous. Its exactly such antics that make it so vulnerable to said exploitation.

The idea that anyone would want to use someone faith, rather than actions, as the basis of accusations of genocide is highly illogical. For some reason, only atheists seem to do it? Odd.

Now, take a step back from your excuses, and remember that there were political reasons behind the Crusades. The Byzantine Empire provided a nice buffer between Islam and the West, and as that buffer failed ... well, it could, and indeed did after it failed, mean that Islamic forces would soon be battering the gates of Vienna. There were also excesses of young men, banded into loose malitias, at exactly the same time that states really began to develop in Europe, and what better use for such young men then to turn them loose on an actual enemy, given states in the infancy time to develop? Religion just made their job that much easier - just like atheism made Stalin's job far easier.

Here's a hint, Stalin would have attempted to manipulate the church as he did atheism. Only, had the period not been revolutionary, the Tzar and his minions would likely have crushed the young upstart before he ever got a chance to be a murderous cretin.

 

Ummm ... just so you know, to be a member of the communist party in NK, you have to be atheist. That would include the three Kims.

 

The "official atheist outcry"? What exactly are you referring to? It isn't like we all get together to make "official atheist statements" about things we don't like. And once again, I have not called you a slave owner, simply that your Bible supports such practices and that you defend these passages.

Was there a poll done or are you just applying your views on what atheism is onto other people?

I said that Stalin did what he did in the name of Communism. You are claiming that he did it in the name of atheism or that is what you seem to be suggesting.

I wasn't even talking about the Crusades.

Nobody is turning a blind eye. I have said and will repeatedly say that atheism is not a system of belief and therefore cannot produce a coherent set of codes that people follow. Thus, nobody can claim they did or did not do a certain act in the "name of atheism", just as I will say that nobody can claim they did or did not do a certain act in the "name of theism".

Your Bible promotes terrible things like slavery and genocide. Atheism does not have a holy book that commands such things.

I agree, there were political reasons behind most of the evil things that the Church did. BUT, they could also use their religion to justify terrible things. Atheism, once again, cannot point to anything to justify actions.

 

There are plenty of atheist leaders, like Dawkins et.al., and plenty of atheist organizations - most of whom spend there time whining about slavery and oppression in religion, none of whom whine similarly about their own failings.

You have indeed repeatedly implied that my religion supports slave ownerships, ignored the context that advocacy of slave revolt in period context equated to asking people to commit mass suicide, and then ignored history as the genesis of the anti-slavery movement was in Christian groups. You further fail to notice of comment on the fact that many of your prominent peers on the forum want to take actions that are proven to increase sexual bondage - while lecturing us about how our faith SUPPORTS slevery, even as our doctrine pretty clearly states that all men are created equal and are the children of God.

In short, you are deliberately ignoring context to make a false accusation, deliberately implying slavery in Christianity. So yes, as a Christian, you are indeed telling me exactly that I support slavery - like my Bible tells me? Only I do not own slaves, nor do any of my Christian peers, and we do not support slavery.

In short, the entire premise of the atheist line of reasoning is crappy, and IMHO, nothing more than flame bait.

Maybe, instead of spending all your time blandly critcizing others, you should take a good look at what theologians claim about atheism. Its not a poll, its a teaching point - one referrenced in an academic examination of atheism, and one that, the more I intereact with atheists and their ever changing standards, I am inclined to agree with.

He did it in the name of the Revolution, which was in large part atheism. Communism is an economic and political code, the moral code to justify that bit of machination ... was atheism.

Only a very biased atheist would attempt to deny what is obviously part of the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Tell me, why is another position of yours, like the Jesus Myth, so at odds with the historical record? You think I am simply being cruel when I state that I think most atheists have just signed up for the propoganda?

Well then, feel free to clarify what you were talking about.

And yet its a superior moral code to every religion out there. This is what I call th eever changing standards of atheism. Atheism spends all its time crapping on other faith choices, but when cornered its not actually saying anything at all? Thus, in direct contrast to your moral relativism, entire states have been based upon exactly what you preached, and the result in every case was mass death.

As opposed to your oppression and purges? Revolutions and the smashing of dissent?

For the last time flame baiter, no Christrian is commanded to enslave anyone nor does it advocate genocide. You are just being a dick, and at this point, I believe its deliberate.

And you strated out your post stating that you never called me a slave owner? Now you state the my Bible 'commands' me to enslave people?

Paranoia, that is what atheist propoganda is - the stupid belief that you are better than others for not owning slaves when no one around you does either - bit you see it everywhere?

Well, how does that jive with the fact that no Christians own slaves, even though we are apparently commanded by God to do so? It doesn't, does it?

Such claims are simply from people looking to bait and insult people - simply and utterly athtarded.

No, you being deliberately dishonest won't. The ever changing standards of atheism can allow you to rationalize anything - including the historical record that yoru analysis is unerringly on the wrong side of.

Feel free to call for my banning again because I don't just sign up to call people genocidal maniacs with you, and indeed find such antics to be extremely childish and dishonest.

Anyone who thinks they need to hurl such deliberately inflammatory claims about to defend atheism is utterly disreptuable.

Why is atheism good? Because YOU are genocidal?

Well, now we know why atheism is the least repsected of all faith choices.

 

Lol, yeah, they are the "atheist leaders". Are Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Kurt Cameron your Christian leaders as well?

Yeah, first off, the Old Testament is very clear in declaring that Israelites could buy foreigners, take the women and children of towns that God ordered them to attack for being pagan as slaves, and sell their daughters as sex slaves. In NO context is sexual slavery, the taking of women and children of pagan societies, and/or buying foreigners justified. Please, Neutral, in what context is sexual slavery moral? Would you sell your daughter into sexual slavery? Oh, not to mention the Bible routinely declares slaves property of the Israelites and allows for the beatings of them as well. And you want to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rally around and defend that? That is absolutely disgusting.

And no, absolution absolutely was not started within Christian groups. In America? Maybe. The rest of the world? No. Not to mention there were Christians, especially in the South, that also supported slavery by referencing the Bible.

...Yeah, except for homos, pagans, rape victims because they were routinely put to death by decree from your God in the Old Testament.

If you don't support it, then denounce the verses supporting it in the Bible. Either slavery is ALWAYS morally wrong, or you think that it is acceptable under certain conditions. Do you believe that it is morally right to be able to own slaves in any circumstance?

Oh really, what academic class is teaching that atheism is self-worship? What school. Name it.

Uh, no, the entire point of Communism is to provide a society without classes, money, and state; a society where the common people control the means of production. That IS a moral code. What code does atheism provide? The reason why religions were persecuted is because they were viewed as a means of control by the bourgeoisie to control the masses. That is a COMMUNIST viewpoint, not an atheist one. You are ignorant about atheism AND Communism.

Only a very biased atheist would attempt to deny what is obviously part of the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Yes, all of those states were Communist/Socialist and totalitarian in nature as well. Just because the state promotes atheism doesn't mean that atheism is the root problem that is somehow morally commanding people to persecute and kill the religious.

When? I never brought up the Crusades, some other poster did and now you brought it into our discussion. I have no interest in the subject, it is boring.

No, atheism doesn't spend its time crapping on faith choices, ATHEISTS do. You somehow aren't able to distinguish people and a non-belief about a deity. Most of the atheists spend time crapping on faith choices because they are ALSO anti-theists, in ADDITION to being atheists. Atheism has never "said" anything other than its definition: the lack of belief in a God.

Your God commanded slavery, thus it must be moral. Even though God could also have simply given people their freedom and own land because he is supposedly omnipotent. Thus, God ordered slavery either because he was too incompetent (not omnipotent), slavery is morally okay with God, God likes to watch suffering, God simply doesn't care, or God doesn't exist and some ancient people wrote it in their holy book to justify slavery.

It certainly does. Do I think you own slaves? No. That is prohibited because we fought a war against crazy (*)(*)(*)(*)ing religious nuts who wanted it. Do I think you are supporting slavery by trying to justify it with context as if the context fixes the moral dilemma of owning a man as property? Yes.

 

Yep Kirk Cameron, no other Christian ever talks about Jesus ... just him. In fact, now that you mention it, none of us talk about Jesus? Odd?

So, does that seem honest to you? Why should the reverse sound honest to us?

We've been through this multiple times, and the resolution and conduct of wars is not the same thing as everyday life, which I am sure you junior Clausewitz kit should have taught you. Why keep pointing out context and history, when all you are going to do is stcik your head in the sand and scream?

Remember, you choice leads to the death of thousands upon thousands in continued warfare. Yet you accuse others of supporting murder? And no doubt, had the Jew elected that course, you'd be using that example of how violent we are.

Its the deliberate non-contextual quote, the deliberate ignoring of history, all designed to simply flame people.

Yet we are supposed to treat it like scholarship rather than blind propogandistic drivel?

Well, if it makes you think better of yourself to consider a bunch of non-slave owners to be slave owners, enjoy the paranoia and pariah status that such breaches with reality entail.

As for sexual slavery, I suggest you ask your peers about it, they are the one advocating it.

So did the atheists in the South. So did atheists in what is now Sudan. Its funny how atheists have been there since before Christ, yet geographically, you are never around when something bad is happening? Well, I am sure you will find some lazy excuse to blame Christians. Prejudice, that's what most people call it.

Atheists call is scholarship ... without conducting any scholarship. If you did, why then you'd have to acknowledge thet atheists are merely human, and prone to the same failure as everyone else.

As opposed to the thousands of priests killed by your hero for merely disagreeing. No one claims that the ancient world was pretty - except atheists, who turn a blind eye to everything but Jews and then totally ignore the NT - and the fact that modern Jews, even without the benefit of the NT, not slave owners? I mean, besides authoring the problem of evil un between bouts of their own war and bloody sieges which somehow reflects on everyone but atheists?

Funny, are against war when you can (*)(*)(*)(*) on someone ... but:

http://militaryatheists.org/news.html

In another context, you are all war heros? In short, I strongly suspect that your line of illogical reasoning, so clearly and starkly at odds with the militay historical/poliutical record, is nothing but blind adherence to dogma (of a faith that doesn't claim anything, even though you all make the same arguements with the same fallacious inaccuracues) and desire to flame boat or otherwise put someone down based solely on a faith choice you deliberately choose to misunderstand and misinterpret.

In short, such antics reflect more on the short comings of you and your faith than mine. Reality is that we do not own slaves. Yet you see them everywhere?

I believe I have stated what the dorrect context is in the Bible - I do not advocate mass suicide like you do. Call me silly.

"Heh boy, go fight those ROman legions with a twig!"

Nice atheist, very compassionate and undouvtedly what ended slavery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Servile_Wars

I am sure that Jesus and his contemporaries, especially in a place that had been brutally and repeatedly crushed by Rome, were as deliberately ignorant of what was hapening as you are?

But heh, now we know that atheism and Jim Jones are the same thing? Everyone drink the cool aid.

Look up any good seminary.

In otherwords you did not read the source, or any source, you simply deliberately misinterpreted the historical record, which you have not read, as you do the Bible, and ecclesatical history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

That is just one group listed in the article you did not read.

In short, I am using actual history, and you are using creative writing - hence the statement that modern atheism is just silly people blindly following dogma. Try reading history, for actual accredited sources, rather than your atheist web sites.

But Christianigty is the root problem of every war that its ever been anywhere remotely near? Well, thanks for the double standards.

Your thesis just switched from, "We would never," to, "Well, that may be, but its just not the root cause!"

Your atheism, when dominant, did nothing to prevent mass murder and actively supported it. It was corrupted as thoroughly as any religion ever was or will be. And remember, more people died in the Russian purges than ALL the Crusades combined. Yet you focus on war thousands of years in the past, falsely present them as commands, and then ignore something that happened in living memory and whose taint still lingers in our world?

In the mean time, hundreds of years ago, Christians, not atheists, recognized their own excesses and stopped making excuses like modern atheists - viola - we have secularism. Which is somehow ... actually atheist? Blind adherence to dogma does that.

Well, that clarifies what the hell you ar etalking about.

More double standards. Atheists are atheism. Christians sure as hell aren't atheism.

See above, please stop th deliberate, mind numbing obstinate, adherence to flame bait and dickish smear campaigns.

Too bad no one is doing that - except in your imagination.

SOImple fact, you claim Christianity COMMANDS slavery, and yet no Christians own slaves.

In short, you flame baiting claim is at odds with reality - and atheists claim its the truth they are after? Or just an excuse to (*)(*)(*)(*) on people, which in no way effects atheism ... just atheists. And all the atheistic organization, entities, and clearing houses ... which are also not atheism ... they are ... magic floating tea pots in outer space?

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with me criticizing North Korea. Are you of the opinion that atheists can't criticise other atheists?

 

Do you have any children, SpaceCricket?

 

Somebody check the tv guide. I will bet y'all anything that episode of Big Bang Theory where Leonard stands up to Penny's ex boyfriend by suggesting that the ex is not as evolved as he and Sheldon was on the night or a couple nights before SpaceCricket posted this thread.

Great show, huh, SpaceCricket?

 

What's "Big Bang Theory"?

Actually I learned this from a self-development coach who's books and courses I'm a fan of, and just on studying evolution in general. So you missed the mark again.

 

Do you have any children?

 

No I'm a bachelor - I don't want to have children unless I'm wealthy enough to give them a life free from trouble.

 

What if your boys can't swim? Where does that leave you on the evolutionary ladder?

 

Is this like a Coach Sandusky type of thing? What did he make you do to work your way up his evolutionary ladder?

 

Wow, what a funny post.

Complete and utter logical fail based on nothing but your own imaginations of how things are, good job.

 

Why are you so fascinated with what Jerry Sandusky does in his bedroom?

 

Money doesn't negate trouble. Tell that to Michael Douglas' son.

 

The bedroom, huh? You're lucky he didn't get ahold of you in the shower.

 

Do you use condoms on your many conquests, SpaceCricket?

 

You stated that Dawkins was an "atheist leader". No he isn't. He is an anti-theist spokesman, just like Hitchens was.

No (*)(*)(*)(*) the conduct of war was different, because according to your Bible God told that Israelites not to engage in practices that we engage in today to reduce casualties, but to actively genocide the Canaanites.

Lol, how, Neutral? How does prohibiting sexual slavery or the buying of foreign slaves lead to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people? The Bible allows for the PEACETIME selling of daughters and the PEACETIME buying of foreign slaves. So, what warfare exists that is killing sexual slaves and foreign slaves?

And YOU are the one supporting it by not coming out against the verses that condone it in your Bible, just like you are doing with the buying of foreign slaves and the treatment of slaves.

I'm sure that some atheists engaged in slavery, I'm positive about that. But were they able to justify it by pointing to their holy book?

It has nothing to do with what time period this was in. Your God condoned the death of homosexuals, pagans (because he was literally too lazy to create a new land for the Israelites), "witches", and rape victims. Either that is morally right always, or it isn't. God is supposed to be the moral light of the Christian world, and yet apparently the time periods alter God's morality?

Yeah, apparently YOU can't read your own sources your provide.

" Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников Union of the Godless (Союз безбожнико&#1074), was an antireligious organization of workers and others[who?] that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Communist Party in 1925–1947."

Nope, never said that. I said it is easy to justify terrible things with your Bible. Nowhere did I claim religion causes every war.

My atheism didn't do anything to prevent mass murder and it DID NOT ACTIVELY SUPPORT IT. Communists supported the eradication of religion, not atheism you sod. Tell me, how does the non-belief in God become tangible and actively support mass murder?

So... atheists atheism, but Christians aren't Christianity? Yes, you're right, more double standards by you. And no, atheists aren't atheism, that's an asinine statement. No person represents a pure basis of an idea or belief.

It isn't flame-bait, those are the only options if you belief that God truly commanded slavery.

No, I am saying that your Bible and your God command slavery. And once again, the reason that no Christians own slaves is because we fought a war against the extremists in the South that believed the Bible justifies their keeping of slaves (which it does in the OT and can be interpreted to condone it in the NT).

 

No, but it certainly mnakes it easier to ficus on things like parenting rather than holding down three jobs ...

 

Yes, they are, though one is dead, they are best selling atheist authors, whose arguements have heavily influenced the atheist community. We routinely see their arguements on this forum, and atheists routinely site them in attempting to explain their ideas.

Not sure what definition of leadership you are grasping at, but I suggest you look up referrent leader.

Nobody followed modern rules of warfare back then. No one. Those who attempted to do so were invaribaly seen as weak and conqured without mercy. I notice you don;t seem to care much about the Assyrian or Mesopotamian conquest of Jerusalem? But you do seem to care about the Christian Crusade that sacked Jerusalem, all were equally violent.

Now, instead of implying guilt and judgement, you actually come out of your shell, and tell me what you have to do to make a nation and people survive in that time? Use rules of warfare that are not going to be ratified unil several millenia later, and then just hope your enemies do to?

Once again, you are advocating suicide.

Additionally, you may want to take a good hard look at the economics of the period. What kept Empires afloat was conquest, the deliberate exploitation of their neighbors. There was no United Nations, there was no permenant embassy system, there were few if any treaties, mostly tribute. And acknowledgement that one side was stronger than the other, and a payment made equal to the slaughter avoided.

Yet none of these make it into your analysis? Odd. Espcially for such a self declared scholar?

You are quick to judge and condemn, but you offer no nation sage or wise advice for the time period. Again, what you advocate is suicide on a massive level.

I am not the one that supports sexual slavery - its your peers that do. Its your petty peers that support it in this day and age.

Slavery was rampant during the period, and, before you can eliminate slavery, you must inculcate a system of values that finds it intolerable. Guess what begins with Moses and the first restrictions on slavery EVER? It takes time. It takes patience. It takes action. Preaching. It takes consensus.

I suggest you look up WIlliam Wilberforce or study the American Civil War to see what it takes to end slavery. Then, study the Roman Servile Wars (another link you did not read) and see what happens when people in th eperiod do as you suggest - the are killed without mercy for attacks on the state.

Once again, by studious ignoring context, you violate the Bible call to seek wisdom, and the guidance you give once again equates to suicide.

But then, I highly doubt this common bit of atheist flame is in any way shape or form aimed at anything other than baiting people based on the deliberate twisting of their faith.

I believe I have explained it several times. I am not giong to sign up for an ignorant smear of my own faith.

Once again, if you are walking around deliberately misinterpreting something to make non-slave owners into slave owners, you are arguementation doesn't even raise to the level of arguement but is simple flame bait.

In short, I condemn, and indeed have several times, slavery - as has almost every living Christian on the planet. However, unlike my atheist ... peers ... I do not look at the conduct of ancient atheists, whose dabbling in slavery was legion, and make a grotesque leap in logic to claim that atheists are slave owners in the modern period. I don't just blank out thousands of years of history and pretend that nothing evolved or changed and demand that atheists admit to slavery in their midst.

Rather, I look at the fact that modern atheists turn a blind eye to modern slavery, and indeed support the expansion of policies that proveably make the problem of modern exual bondage MUCH worse. That such atheists are stuck in the dark ages? Unable to use logic? That they condem others for supporting slavery?

Well, perhaps you can see the hypocrisy as clearly as I can.

Now, let me be clear here, atheism does not require one to run around calling innocent people criminals of the worst sort. Those that do, the only term that I can think of that adaquately explains that deliberate flame is ass hat. Now to clarify for our thin skinned atheists, I am not calling a specific atheist an ass hat, I am calling the arguementation of latent criminality in innocent people abolsutely and so utterly without merit, so stooped in irrational prejudice, that it must be condemned in the strongest terms possible. In short, such antics and arguementation is absolutely ass hatted.

Now, feel free to run off to the mod team because someone dismissed your prejudice in the strongest terms possible and it offended you.

Nope, they are self worshippers, they just used whatever rationalization was handy - as you do now.

Agh, yeah it does. See above Jim Jones.

The fact that you utterly ignore context and make vaccusous judgemental claims belies the emotional nature of your propogandistic arguementation. Its about (*)(*)(*)(*)ting on other people, not understanding why certain tactics and policies are necessary for a small nation to survive among much larger and more powerful nation states. But heh, I am glad that the concept of a man defending his home is rape and genocide to atheists who are now utterly pacifistic.

Well, I will be sure to tell all the atheists at work that they have to leave the military because service complicates their pacifist tendancies.

Volume and emotion does not equate to logical arguementation.

Yeah, now maybe you should read what they taught ... in the next couple of sentences. Or, like thousands of years of historical development, are we supposed to pretend that what happened and what was taught, the priests and believers persecuted and murdered didn't happen - because it offends accusatory atheists that they are guilty of the same crimes as the people they need to feel utterly superior too?

Why do you need to call people, who are clearly against slavery and genocide, genocidal slave owners? Because you blindly signed up for a cult, that is why - a cult based on compartive morality - and, rather than do actual comparative morality - like I lied less today that guy, but I lied more than that guy, perhaps I should work on that - you have instead, irrationally dehumanized almost everyone around you into genocidal slave owners, adopted moral paranoia, so you can feel superior to the non-slave owners around you because you don't support slavery?

Well, call me so unimpressed that I dismiss such antics as utterly without merit.

 

What do you think genocide is kiddo? Institutionalized rape? The ever changing standards of atheism strike again ...

In the military we have a little saying, "If you walk by a standards violation, you just made a new standard."

Now, who do you think did the killing? The fiercest supporters of the revolution, or did Papa Stalin strangle millions on his own? They ACTIVELY supported the murder. You emotional denial of it is utterly ignorant.

Considering you are condmening Christians for what Jews had to do thousnds of years ago - your double standard is noted. As usual - par for the atheist course - one standard to judge and deride YOU, a completely different standard for me.

Wel, that is what the unthinking propoganda tells you, you who advocates Jim Jones as a sage and wise leader, so it must be true. No way that calling innocent people slavers could just be flame bait. No way at all.

What is the point of disagreeing with a zealot? Our Bible does not command slavery. Jews and Christians universally denounce slavery, yet somehow, your precious need to crap on people MUST be right?

Well, enjoy the deliberate dehumanizing and prejudicial smear campaign - now perhaps you understand why atheism is the least respected of all faith choices - a slot that antics just such as this have solidly earned - in last place with full marks. Should be there for some time to come, as most people realize rather quickly that running around denouncing innocent people as criminals is highly inflammatory and rather jerkish.

But heh , such deliberate smearing is a staple of modern atheism. Enjoy last place.

 

I don't want my kids having to go through the day-to-day worry of whether or not their parents will be able to feed them next week - nor do I want my kids to have to deal with bitter parents who are constantly stressed from working ad nauseum and having nothing left over because of bills.

Unless I'm financially well off-enough that I know my kids will never have to worry about basic necessities such as food, clothes, hell, even money or college and a fairly nice car - I'd rather not kids until I'm that financially independent - I don't feel like punishing them that way.