Uncritical Acceptance of Atheist Nonsense Breeds Killers

[alwight]

[Crusades]
Not evidence at all of murder but of war. So "nope." Your worldview is flawed, I have aced all my history classes and taught it. You really are going to lose this before you even get out of the gate. You are flat wrong simply to favor your atheist opinion. It literally makes you have to lie to yourself to maintain it. Atheism is untenable on many fronts.

This is nonsense Lon, war isn't simply a thing that just happens from time to time for no particular reason, it is symptomatic of man's personal endeavours and ambitions against those with their own.
The fact that you may have "aced" your history classes doesn't exactly make you an authority for others to fall at your feet.

The Crusades was called for by the Pope in order to protect the right of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Those who willingly left their home lands to do the Papal bidding in a strange place happily believed that if they were to die in a Holy war then the purpose of their life had been fulfilled, that their preferred place in the afterlife would have been secured risk-free and they wouldn't need to spend their life tilling the fields for someone else.

For similar reasons Muslims will strap on suicide bomb vests and why so many often blow themselves up regardless, even if they can't quite reach their optimum targets.
Both their objectives lie in the perceived next world, not this one.

Atheists however are people who deal with this world only, who see no rational reason to suppose a greater cause exists beyond it, who don't go on religious pilgrimages or Hajjs, and who don't feel compelled to go to war just because someone else is perceived to be blocking one of their routes to eternal salvation.

 

[brewmama]

This is nonsense Lon, war isn't simply a thing that just happens from time to time for no particular reason, it is symptomatic of man's personal endeavours and ambitions against those with their own.
The fact that you may have "aced" your history classes doesn't exactly make you an authority for others to fall at your feet.

The Crusades was called for by the Pope in order to protect the right of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Those who willingly left their home lands to do the Papal bidding in a strange place happily believed that if they were they to die in a Holy war then the purpose of their life had been fulfilled, that their preferred place in the afterlife would have been secured risk-free and they wouldn't need to spend their life tilling the fields for someone else.

For similar reasons Muslims will strap on suicide bomb vests and why so many often blow themselves up regardless, even if they can't quite reach their optimum targets.
Both their objectives lie in the perceived next world, not this one.

Atheists however are people who deal with this world only, who see no rational reason to suppose a greater cause exists beyond it, who don't go on religious pilgrimages or Hajjs, and who don't feel compelled to go to war just because someone else is perceived to be blocking one of their routes to eternal salvation.

There is still quote a difference that you are not recognizing. The Crusades were defensive, and a reaction to Islamic aggression and conquering. The Islamic aggression is NOT defensive, it's offensive. (In all senses of the word)

And if atheists feel so unattached that they find nothing worth dying for in this world, I find that pretty sad.

 

[Nazaroo]

...
Atheists however are people who deal with this world only, who see no rational reason to suppose a greater cause exists beyond it, who don't go on religious pilgrimages or Hajjs, and who don't feel compelled to go to war just because someone else is perceived to be blocking one of their routes to eternal salvation.

More nonsense.

The US army for instance is made up of mostly agnostic mercenaries,
ever since the Draft was withdrawn.

Common reasons for joining are employment needs, educational offers,
or the desire to kill people.

Thus the main participants in warfare all over the world,
are usually ambitious immoral atheists.

Analogies to 12th century "Christian" knights is a waste of time.

Current warfare is usually over resources and ideologies having nothing to do with religion.

We wish it were a religious war, because Christians need to
completely stamp out Islam and any other primitive 8th century system,
leaving the world with modern Western values of democracy and
post-Reformation Christianity.
But that is unlikely to happen.

Instead the "West", meaning banksters and uber-rich corporation owners
will just defend their monetary and interests and commandeer resources.

 

[rexlunae]

Not evidence at all of murder but of war.

Even if we exempt war from moral consideration, which we shouldn't, that would strike most or all of the laundry list that I was responding to. And we weren't talking about murder per se, but respect for the lives of others in general. I think it's quite fair to suggest that the Crusades placed human life at a fairly low value.

So "nope." Your worldview is flawed,

After misunderstanding one point in a much larger discussion, that's quite a conclusion to reach.

I have aced all my history classes and taught it.

Ok. Did you get a gold star?

You really are going to lose this before you even get out of the gate. You are flat wrong simply to favor your atheist opinion. It literally makes you have to lie to yourself to maintain it. Atheism is untenable on many fronts.

Why don't you make your case before you come to your conclusion?

Not Christian so really doesn't touch Christianity or Atheism. It is rather about a religion that devalues humans that are not Muslim as disposable infidels.

Well, if you'd bothered to figure out what we were talking about before you barged into the conversation, you'd realize that the comparison was between secular and religious morality, not atheism and Christianity. So, yeah.

:nono: Exactly the opposite of what you think/suppose. Rather, it is the evolution mindset that allows anything-goes mentality and stops treating fellow human beings as brothers/sisters and starts treating them as objects for personal gain and satisfaction. Exactly the opposite.
You mistake "this is not right for a brother to do to another brother in the human race" with persecution. Nope, it isn't. Police don't 'persecute' criminals. This is bad, prevalent uncritical thinking in society today. Today's citizen must stop being duped by uncritical thinking and actually start/begin to think of what is better for society, not just what it 'wants to do.' That's hedonism and it is fueled by Darwinism to the extent that man is seen as an over-glorified ape rather than a brother/sister. That has to change. The next generations will reap a low-view of humanity by more violence and demoralizing behavior.

I would say, given that little diatribe, that you've got some religiously-motivated hang-ups valuing the lives of other people. But that's not the topic right now.

The difference is the 'reason' war and killing happened. We are seeing more and more 'meaningless' killings because we are being told more and more by secularization, that we are merely animals. In fact, if you were 'not created in God's image' there is no moral problem with you and I killing each other off. None of it matters. I'm dust, you are dust and it is a pie-in-the-sky reach to say that 'cooperation' is beneficial. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Nothing can matter but our own inflated senses and desires and being as the conflict between mine and yours stops each of us from getting all we want, there would be nothing wrong with one superimposing over the other, even to death. Death would be meaningless and so not wrong as well.

This schtick is getting a little old. Religious people keep killing people, and for some reason you blame secularism. In the last week, we've had two mass shootings committed by two Muslims and a Christian, but somehow it's all chalked up to secularism.

It is only a recognition of value, brotherliness, and these indelible values that 'can' impart a societal value, and they necessarily must reach well beyond Darwinian thought and observation. If it does not, we are well headed backwards, not forwards.

You don't need religion to recognize brotherhood and sisterhood, and secular morality isn't based on "Darwinism".

 

[alwight]

There is still quote a difference that you are not recognizing. The Crusades were defensive, and a reaction to Islamic aggression and conquering. The Islamic aggression is NOT defensive, it's offensive. (In all senses of the word)

Maybe then you don't disagree with what I said that much, but what specifically is meant by "defensive"?
A Christian perceived ownership of the right of way to a Christian pilgrimage doesn't mean that non-Christians are obliged to respect that. The only right to ownership of land or pathways is to have them in constant use by possession, but making a distant claim from Christianity is hardly likely to impress any Muslims who are in possession.

And if atheists feel so unattached that they find nothing worth dying for in this world, I find that pretty sad.

Shouldn't we be looking for things to live for?

 

[rexlunae]

Since I believe in a morality based on God's word, I agree.

Well, that's a fascinating confession. I would say that you don't believe in any morality. To you, morality is merely obedience, and as long as you are obeying your chosen moral authority, you can do no wrong, whether he tells you to save a life or take it.

Since there is really no way of knowing whether I (or you) would agree if religion had never occurred, it's a moot point.

If humans are as morally helpless and hopeless as you assume, why do you suppose the question holds any import?

And yet they do kill infants and babies in the womb to a horrific degree, to the point of having an extremely lopsided difference in sexes. Not to mention how they kill religious practitioners and dissidents. It's very typical of Communist countries to kill any religious voice, since that us what they fear most as a threat to their hegemony.

That's not quite accurate. The Russian Orthodox Church miraculously survived generations of Soviet rule. How? Because, Communism being a totalitarian system, the Soviet government insisted on controlling, but not destroying, the church. Likewise, China hasn't shut down all the churches, but it has sought to control them. Cuba has never abolished churches or religious practice, and it hasn't tried all that hard.

Of course, totalitarianism isn't exclusively secular. The Fascists were Catholic, and also very totalitarian. The Saudi and Iranian governments have strong totalitarian tendencies, and are both explicitly religious.

Within their own tribe, as liberals like to say. Not so much with others. Unless religion changes it.

Based on what?

 

[alwight]

More nonsense.

Eminently...

The US army for instance is made up of mostly agnostic mercenaries,
ever since the Draft was withdrawn.

If so then that might simply be because it reflects the greater agnosticism of younger people these days.?

Common reasons for joining are employment needs, educational offers,
or the desire to kill people.

A innate desire to kill people is an easily dismiss-able bald assertion.

Thus the main participants in warfare all over the world,
are usually ambitious immoral atheists.

Has anyone ever told you Naz that your thinking is not entirely joined up?lain:

Analogies to 12th century "Christian" knights is a waste of time.

That's good since I didn't make any references to Knights.

Current warfare is usually over resources and ideologies having nothing to do with religion.

Perhaps you haven't seen the news recently?

We wish it were a religious war, because Christians need to
completely stamp out Islam and any other primitive 8th century system,
leaving the world with modern Western values of democracy and
post-Reformation Christianity.
But that is unlikely to happen.

No doubt you would be an active Christian soldier if you could?
Could I point out here that Islam is a younger religion than Christianity?

Instead the "West", meaning banksters and uber-rich corporation owners
will just defend their monetary and interests and commandeer resources.

Capitalism typically is a secular activity, although some religions and cults may act with a similar competitive zeal to pull in the punters perhaps.
There is no similar marketing power in disbelief except that it may have helped Richard Dawkins earn a few shekels perhaps?:think:

 

[Nazaroo]

There is no similar marketing power in disbelief except that it may have helped Richard Dawkins earn a few shekels perhaps?:think:

 

[brewmama]

Maybe then you don't disagree with what I said that much, but what specifically is meant by "defensive"?
A Christian perceived ownership of the right of way to a Christian pilgrimage doesn't mean that non-Christians are obliged to respect that. The only right to ownership of land or pathways is to have them in constant use by possession, but making a distant claim from Christianity is hardly likely to impress any Muslims who are in possession.

Shouldn't we be looking for things to live for?

It means that Islam took over much of Christendom by conquest, including much of north Africa and all of the Middle East (except Persia), and Turkey. The Byzantines in Constantinople had been pleading for help for years against the marauding Muslims. So it was defensive.

Looking for things to live for is admirable and in no way takes away from believing in something so deeply that you are willing to be killed for it. It's what Christ did for us, it's the least we can do.

 

[Ktoyou]

There are all kinds of cuckoos, people

 

[brewmama]

Well, that's a fascinating confession. I would say that you don't believe in any morality. To you, morality is merely obedience, and as long as you are obeying your chosen moral authority, you can do no wrong, whether he tells you to save a life or take it.

You would be wrong of course, since I believe in something bigger than myself making the rules, whereas you merely believe in whatever you want to believe in at the moment.

If humans are as morally helpless and hopeless as you assume, why do you suppose the question holds any import?

You were the one making the claim. It's unprovable and a moot point. You are the one giving it import.

That's not quite accurate. The Russian Orthodox Church miraculously survived generations of Soviet rule. How? Because, Communism being a totalitarian system, the Soviet government insisted on controlling, but not destroying, the church. Likewise, China hasn't shut down all the churches, but it has sought to control them. Cuba has never abolished churches or religious practice, and it hasn't tried all that hard.

That's not quite accurate.

The state was committed to the destruction of religion, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.
It's true that some Orthodox leaders capitulated and played up to the party line, but they have been scorned and anathematized, and it has caused divisions in the Russian Church.

China persecutes churches they don't control, which rather defies the whole idea of what a church is.

Of course, totalitarianism isn't exclusively secular. The Fascists were Catholic, and also very totalitarian. The Saudi and Iranian governments have strong totalitarian tendencies, and are both explicitly religious.

I never said otherwise. I am quite aware that this is a fallen world. I am arguing against your contention that religious morality is based on an original secular morality.

Based on what?

Pretty much any history you want to examine. You're the one lacking in proof for the opposite.

 

[rexlunae]

You would be wrong of course, since I believe in something bigger than myself making the rules, whereas you merely believe in whatever you want to believe in at the moment.

If God told you to kill someone, would you?

You were the one making the claim. It's unprovable and a moot point. You are the one giving it import.

You sound a little bit defensive. Just a tad. I'm not giving it import, although it is an important question. You gave it import with your initial assertion that you began with.

I started this discussion directly attacking your assertion that atheists have no basis for morality. Remember? I believe that I've comprehensively turned that back, and cast doubt on your alleged basis for morality.

That's not quite accurate.

The state was committed to the destruction of religion, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.

I think we're getting a little in the weeds here. Yes, Soviet ideology was opposed to religion, but it also used it as a tool to advance their purposes. At times of convenience, the downright promoted Russian Orthodoxy.

It's true that some Orthodox leaders capitulated and played up to the party line, but they have been scorned and anathematized, and it has caused divisions in the Russian Church.

Certainly true.

China persecutes churches they don't control, which rather defies the whole idea of what a church is.

Does it? State religions are quite common, and they tend to come with a fair amount of control.

I never said otherwise. I am quite aware that this is a fallen world. I am arguing against your contention that religious morality is based on an original secular morality.

I guess I don't see how this line of thought advances that argument. But to be clear, I'm not saying that if you peel off enough layers of history you'll find an explicitly secular morality that religion corrupted. I am saying that morality is larger than religion, and transcends it in many cases, and that it is the human desire for a moral world that injects morality into all of our religions.

Pretty much any history you want to examine. You're the one lacking in proof for the opposite.

I have no idea what you're referring to. "Any history"? How about pick one and discuss it?

 

[Lon]

This is nonsense Lon, war isn't simply a thing that just happens from time to time for no particular reason, it is symptomatic of man's personal endeavours and ambitions against those with their own.

You said 'no particular reason' and then immediately gave a reason, which was 'my' point. :doh: Please leave 'nonsense' out of your qualifications, they say more about you and your logic than anything about me. Try to really look at those three fingers pointing back. I am not doing this interjection in thread to argue our clashing views. I'm doing so that perhaps 'you are wrong' might cause a moment of pause and you can see your own worldview as wrong. People need God. You need God.

The fact that you may have "aced" your history classes doesn't exactly make you an authority for others to fall at your feet.

Um, yes, it does. Sad when kids who don't ace their class try to assert. It really doesn't work. Relative truth is thoughtless, and grades say "wrong." "Facts of life" don't work for relativism, but it is none-the-less 'fact' verses made-up philosophizing.

The Crusades was called for by the Pope in order to protect the right of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Those who willingly left their home lands to do the Papal bidding in a strange place happily believed that if they were to die in a Holy war then the purpose of their life had been fulfilled, that their preferred place in the afterlife would have been secured risk-free and they wouldn't need to spend their life tilling the fields for someone else.

This answers the historical question: "What motivated some or many crusaders to join?" It does not answer the question "Were the Crusades substantiated by Christ?" Even an atheist should understand historically why there are Protestants today and how this question affects our separation from Rome. Luther was to soon be born and would post 95 problems with Roman Catholicism, mostly against the contrasts between what was happening, and comparing it to the biblical question "Is this substantiated by Christ and the Bible?"

For similar reasons Muslims will strap on suicide bomb vests and why so many often blow themselves up regardless, even if they can't quite reach their optimum targets.
Both their objectives lie in the perceived next world, not this one.

Which is why I am Christian, not Muslim.

Atheists however are people who deal with this world only, who see no rational reason to suppose a greater cause exists beyond it, who don't go on religious pilgrimages or Hajjs, and who don't feel compelled to go to war just because someone else is perceived to be blocking one of their routes to eternal salvation.

Very true. That is why I said you must leave that ideology behind. It dehumanizes man and gives little reason other than utilitarian for mutually beneficial behavior. Such, however, isn't 'moral.' You are borrowing and thus inconsistent in your world-view. Atheism will always be logically and practically inconsistent. It is impossible that it could sustain without your borrowing values and meaning from godliness. Scripture says it is impossible for the unbeliever to comprehend imago deo (spiritual) principles, and you, yourself ▲ give the reason why. My only goal here is to point out that it is absolutely true. You reject every logical truth I take for granted as well as use effectively in life. Christianity, isn't just a faith, it is the foundation for logic itself because it is the only place relative truth cannot reside. Once your truth is relative, you are no longer capable of asserting logic, truth, and/or reason.

I realize there will be "nuh uh" as the response. That isn't my point. My point is that the contrast is true or we wouldn't be arguing it. One of us is wrong and the point is, because of our worldview, it 'must' be the other guy. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Even if we exempt war from moral consideration, which we shouldn't, that would strike most or all of the laundry list that I was responding to. And we weren't talking about murder per se, but respect for the lives of others in general. I think it's quite fair to suggest that the Crusades placed human life at a fairly low value.

:nono: That is historically inaccurate and false. Look to our own short history for going to Baghdad. It wasn't a disrespect for Muslims that sent us to war and you shouldn't be blaming Bush's religion for the US engagement.

After misunderstanding one point in a much larger discussion, that's quite a conclusion to reach.

Yep, I obviously think I'm more educated than you, and you think you are 'smarter' than me, but without the education to back it up. You prove the point:

Ok. Did you get a gold star?

A's and occasional B's, you? It really does separate the men from the boys and you are wrong. That's the end of this part of the discussion. If you want to learn from your betters, great. If not, it is a great contrasting point between my accolades and your random and inane assertions. You are wrong, I'm right, that's the end on this particular history discussion.

Why don't you make your case before you come to your conclusion?

How? Simply post my superior grades? :think: This redress may not be a lot of links to historical data, but then again, you were the one just erroneously throwing them out there, and as I teacher, I hit it with a graded stamp and not the gold star this time.

Well, if you'd bothered to figure out what we were talking about before you barged into the conversation, you'd realize that the comparison was between secular and religious morality, not atheism and Christianity. So, yeah.

And my point? Yours was irrelevant and shoddy, so yeah.

I would say, given that little diatribe, that you've got some religiously-motivated hang-ups valuing the lives of other people. But that's not the topic right now.

Yeah it is. The topic, not that you'd become a murderer, but that atheism devalues life, is spot on. Our worldview, thus logic, genuinely are opposed. Grades like A's are more concrete than relative random philosophizing for substantiating what is in its essence, unsustainable, by the very relativity it espouses. It is inherently illogical, then, because it is left to the individual rather than society, it becomes utilitarian and thus doesn't serve the greater good but rather hedonism. So whatever you choose to slap a label on, at least get 'facts' straight: I say they exist and are not relative. We really can't have a meeting of the ways on this but I can demonstrate logically, that facts do in fact, exist and are not relative. Our communication of them certainly has to be, but my point is that we are not entitled to our own relative facts. Perhaps your agenda will do away with the grading system, but right now that's you in the minority, so facts, in fact, do matter, and you don't get to abuse history for your own purposes.

This schtick is getting a little old. Religious people keep killing people, and for some reason you blame secularism. In the last week, we've had two mass shootings committed by two Muslims and a Christian, but somehow it's all chalked up to secularism.

The ten commandments used to hang on the wall in schools. Guess what? You take away the command, attacking religion, you then have a message that is blocked from being completed. There is no other reason for removing Christian icons from state property btw, there is NOTHNG wrong with "Thou shalt not kill" and a verse, it does not violate state/church separation, and doing just the opposite and demanding all sentiment of religion be removed is a 'religious' attack, hiding behind 'no religion.' Secularization devalues life. The guy who attacked PP might have been thinking about 'saving' lives at the time. Again, your uncritical mudslinging, is what is not appreciated and is that schtick is what is getting old. It is unreasoned vitriol rather than sensible and logical, but then again, that is my agenda, I'm against relative truth and hedonistic self-serving sentiment and attack. Rather, and do believe this: I'm concerned about society and you. It would not be caring or logical for me to have come into the middle of the conversation if it didn't matter.

You don't need religion to recognize brotherhood and sisterhood

As far as I am aware, Christianity is the only religion/philosophy that says to love one's enemy and do good to them. That doesn't mean agreeing with them in forum however, but it is the only one that would truly recognize a universal brotherhood, if I am correct on this point. Bombing Planned Parenthood would REALLY have to be heavily weighed between saving many lives and taking a few. I understand the brotherhood love sentiment that would send that man to the clinic. I'd hope you'd be able to empathize but I'm not really seeing that from the atheist community. They don't care about facts, just statistics. "He was a zealot!" is all you folk can seem to muster. It may very well be true, but that man had the same scripture I have that says to love one's enemy, to take care of the orphan, and try to balance the two. Those who live by the sword will die by it, Jesus said. I don't think bombing clinics is the answer but I won't compare it to Columbine or any other killing that was done in complete selfishness. The two do not, in fact, compare, and it is plain shoddy to try to do so, and most often for hasty uncritical selfish reason, rather than academic prowess and understanding. For that, I'd have to grade-down.

and secular morality isn't based on "Darwinism".

It is a slave to it, as well as any other secularization of philosophy. You are what you eat and I as well.

 

[rexlunae]

How? Simply post my superior grades?

Yes, Lon, I think you should do that, since you seem to be so proud of it. If you got a good report card, I'll put it on my refrigerator.

Yep, I obviously think I'm more educated than you, and you think you are 'smarter' than me, but without the education to back it up.

Well, that's funny, because I don't think you've ever asked about my level of education, my grades, or my area of study. Nor have you been especially specific about yours, despite the fact that you seem to think it's your trump card in any debate. Put up or shut up.

 

[Lon]

Yes, Lon, I think you should do that, since you seem to be so proud of it. If you got a good report card, I'll put it on my refrigerator.

That's all anyone can ask for.

Well, that's funny, because I don't think you've ever asked about my level of education, my grades, or my area of study. Nor have you been especially specific about yours, despite the fact that you seem to think it's your trump card in any debate.

It is a trump card. Anyone telling otherwise is just somebody that had to be quiet during school, over asserting atf.

Put up or shut up.

I graduated with a 3.87 Master's so yeah, we can do that all day. The 'shut up' part makes your own grades suspect. I don't really have to ask. My Master's is in teaching, which is assessment-base so I don't need to ask what another's grades are. I'd suspect you've a few good grades, but hold suspect your Civics and World Problems with a few poor uses of history reflecting on those grades as well.

It may hurt your pride, but to pare down my post to simply that which bothers you is anti-intellectual. Calling your historical perspective into academic question was the problem, specifically because examples of support for the OP were being used and your counter was ill-used history.

Atheism does, in fact, both in logic and history, prove out to be less humanitarian far and away because for the most part, they are egocentric, individualistic, and prideful as is a basic necessity of the atheistic worldview and premise. In that sense, the OP over-reaches with 'killer' but not when you think of it in terms of what atheists actually do to help others in the world. They are interested in ensuring individual freedom that mostly amounts to hedonism without a lot of thought or concern for the rest of humanity. That's not a blanket statement, it is based on facts of who is spending money and who is not, who is 'showing' concern for fellow human beings, and who is not. $ and time indeed must follow to be where the mouth is, so it must necessarily follow that 'good intentions' alone aren't paving any roads, nor sentiment painting the lines. Somebody's worldview proves out and the other does not. If any part of the OP is true, it is certainly that.

I WILL be inconvenienced for another to live and have been inconvenienced to do so. Well, for the egocentrist it would be 'inconvenienced' as they don't do it. For me, it is a desirable trait to love other humans, even ones with whom I adamantly disagree. I have a friend right now who needs open-heart surgery, so don't ask for money unless your need right now exceeds that need. If not, I'll give you the Go-fund-me addy and you can try to learn from another's worldview that probably greatly exceeds your own, this not to brag, but to get you to stop wrong-headed selfish thinking. There IS some truth to the OP. Simply being reactionary and misusing history to point the finger back, isn't dealing with reality and real statistics. When you follow the $ and efforts poured forth, the OP does prove out to be true. We can't lie against legitimate observed consequence.

 

[rexlunae]

That's all anyone can ask for.

It is a trump card. Anyone telling otherwise is just somebody that had to be quiet during school, over asserting atf.


I graduated with a 3.87 Master's so yeah, we can do that all day. The 'shut up' part makes your own grades suspect. I don't really have to ask. My Master's is in teaching, which is assessment based so I don't need to ask what another teacher gave you. I'd suspect you've a few good grades, but hold suspect your Civics and World Problems and a few of your other poor uses of history reflecting those grades as well.

I'd give you a gold star, but it might go to your head. How about a hearty "'attaboy"?

Did you ever take any classes that taught anything about constructing a valid arguments? What kind of grades did you get in those classes? Because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have taught you that you should barge into a conversation already in progress and declare that you're just smarter than everyone else and therefore right, and then try to prove it with your report card.

It may hurt your pride, but to pare down my post to simply that which bothers you 'is' anti-intellectual. Calling 'your' historical perspective into academic question was the problem, specifically because examples of support for the OP were being used.

What's with the scare-quotes?

Atheism does, in fact, both in logic and history, prove out to be less humanitarian far and away because for the most part, they are egocentric, individualistic, and prideful as is a basic necessity of the atheistic worldview and premise. In that sense, the OP over-reaches with 'killer' but not when you think of it in terms of what atheists actually do to help others in the world.

Oh, I'd say the OP does more than overreach. The first person in the video apparently wrote "God forgive me, because I cannot forgive myself" on the walls of his house. I'm pretty sure that's not something an atheist would say, but apparently in someone's twisted mind, we're responsible for that guy. The second one, Anthony Powell made videos against atheists and black women. The third may have been an atheist, but was also a self-described "social darwinist", which I've never really heard an atheist actually embrace. The fourth guy was the nut who shot Gabby Giffords, no clear religious position, but a lot of conspiracy theories and general craziness. And the final one was Eliot Rogers.

So, you've got maybe one out of five who may have been atheists, but we're supposed to feel guilty in his behalf, and ignore the seemingly religious examples.

The only thing they are interested in, is ensuring individual freedom that amounts to hedonism without a lot of thought or concern for the rest of humanity.

Good thing we've got Christians to tell us what atheists care about. Otherwise, how would we know?

That's not a blanket statement,

Yes it is. You just tried to tell me what all atheists value. Of course it is.

... it is based on facts of who is spending money and who is not, who is 'showing' concern for fellow human beings, and who is not. $ and time seem to be where the mouth is, so it must necessarily follow that 'good intentions' aren't paving any roads, nor sentiment painting the lines.

Specifically?

Somebody's worldview proves out and the other does not. If any part of the OP is true, it is certainly that. I WILL be inconvenienced for another to live and have been inconvenienced to do so. Well, for the egocentrist it would be 'inconvenienced' as they don't do it. For me, it is a desirable trait to love other humans, even ones with whom I adamantly disagree. I have a friend right now who needs open-heart surgery, so don't ask for money unless your need right now exceeds that need.

That's a convenient preemptive excuse to refuse a request I wasn't going to make while also covering your keister.

If not, I'll give you the Go-fund-me addy and you can try to learn from another's worldview that probably greatly exceeds your own, this not to brag, but to get you to stop wrong-headed selfish thinking. There IS some truth to the OP. -Lon

I'm a little unclear what exactly you're suggesting. Are you saying that if I was going to ask you for money, you'll give me the address of gofundme.com so that I can set up a campaign of my own? Or you'll point me to your friend's gofundme page so that I can somehow be shamed by the generosity of other people? And in what way is this relevant to the topic?

 

[alwight]

It means that Islam took over much of Christendom by conquest, including much of north Africa and all of the Middle East (except Persia), and Turkey. The Byzantines in Constantinople had been pleading for help for years against the marauding Muslims. So it was defensive.

That may be how it seems to you but the culture and control of any region is complex beyond religion. If Christians choose to feel defensive about a line they drew in the sand then the term "defensive" is only a subjective matter of opinion.

Looking for things to live for is admirable and in no way takes away from believing in something so deeply that you are willing to be killed for it. It's what Christ did for us, it's the least we can do.

That is something that I could equally conclude to being a baseless delusion and not much of a leap from wanting to be killed for it.

 

[oatmeal]

This is absolutely ludicrous ! It's based on false premises . Atheists tend to be the LEAST violent and fanatical people . The notion that you can only be moral if you believe in a God is ludicrous .
Stalin and Mao Zedong were not murderous , ruthless tyrants because they were atheists but because they were ruthless , power-hungry psychopaths who just happened to be atheists, and there have been plenty of these in organized religion .
You don't need to believe in a God to be a good person at all, and believing in one is no guarantee whatsoever of being a good person .
I'm an agnostic , not a dogmatic atheist . I don't fall;ow any particular religion but come from a nominally Jewish family which was never really observant .
Nobody had to tell me it's wrong to use violence against people . This has always been self-evident .
Both Christians and Muslims have slaughtered countless people over the centuries in the name of a deity .

Communists/atheists are responsible for the murder of about 100 million people in the last 100 years.

The only reason for those murders was that the victims disagreed with the communists/atheists

 

[Lon]

I'd give you a gold star, but it might go to your head. How about a hearty "'attaboy"?

Well, this again is a comparison between education vs feeling mentally superior. I have a high IQ as well. I was calling into question your 'academic' prowess with the problematic usage of history, probably not the whole thread, I actually agree with a number of your points. I admit to overtly attacking the point, perhaps giving the impression that I was approaching the whole premise of the thread. But what prompted this wasn't so much you as the liberal news in my area. They interviewed a Muslim about the San Bern attacks and the guy said something similar to your quote, so it was more about the inaccuracy and repainting of history. Such is really the liberal and relativist revamping of history, you just happened to do about the same thing. Such is an understood defense mechanism when atheist don't want blamed for all things either. As a representative from your group, those statistics are your associates so while I understand not wanting to be associated with attrocity, perhaps the OP is aiming at the liberal dismantling and attacking of Christianity and religion in general. We are not supposed to be a secular society. We never have been but are approaching that threshold. It will continue to produce a moral dilemma as well as create more tribalism. We cannot sustain a society that isn't a melting pot. Christianity cannot be the one that melts. We make up the entire history of the United States. A change in that will produce something completely else. There is very little in the way of comparison between current atrocity and historical war and persecution. One was done for a purpose, but now it is being done because of the lack of one. Muslims are different from that, but their philosophy is survival of the fittest, especially among extremists. However, some of your dialogue here actually redresses the OP much better and so I both applaud that and appreciate the meaningful from it.

Did you ever take any classes that taught anything about constructing a valid arguments? What kind of grades did you get in those classes?

Yep, debate, philosophy. All A's but one B+ which was from an atheist philosopher. I did the math, I had all A's in his class but for one B test. That shouldn't have dropped my grade but I was lousy at confrontation back then. My next Philosophy class in a Christian college produced an A. He seemed to be better at math, thus imo, logic than the former.

Because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have taught you that you should barge into a conversation already in progress and declare that you're just smarter than everyone else and therefore right, and then try to prove it with your report card.

I didn't. I realize you 'think' I did, and that it rankled you, but I rather declared your education was not on par with historical fact. That was it. I said rather, on history, I believe I'm better educated than you but history is but one subject. If you recall, I said you'd think you were smarter, and I just think I'm better educated. Philosophy did teach logic, and I believe I've a handle on it and said as much before you even redressed to confirm those were likely valid observations of mine :think:

What's with the scare-quotes?

You don't like them? Emphasis, simply because italics nor bold work as well in forum and I'm on a laptop lately. I like the mobility but I don't type nearly as well. The computing power just isn't there. The laptop messes with my regular formatting.

Oh, I'd say the OP does more than overreach. The first person in the video apparently wrote "God forgive me, because I cannot forgive myself" on the walls of his house. I'm pretty sure that's not something an atheist would say, but apparently in someone's twisted mind, we're responsible for that guy. The second one, Anthony Powell made videos against atheists and black women. The third may have been an atheist, but was also a self-described "social darwinist", which I've never really heard an atheist actually embrace. The fourth guy was the nut who shot Gabby Giffords, no clear religious position,but a lot of conspiracy theories and general craziness. And the final one was Eliot Rogers.

So, you've got maybe one out of five who may have been atheists, but we're supposed to feel guilty in his behalf, and ignore the seemingly religious examples.

I 'think' just poor example video to his premise but a couple of other things too, I'd probably agree with a number of your points, I was more agendizing, but not meaning to, from that ABC interview with the Muslim also trying to rewrite history and current events (really my only contention and I didn't mean to make you shoulder the world on that faulty line of historical inaccuracy too, just do something pronounced to affect the perception problem so apology if too overt-over the top).

Good thing we've got Christians to tell us what atheists care about. Otherwise, how would we know?

It is the basis for that thought. Would you say Atheism is 'other-centered?' :think:

Yes it is. You just tried to tell me what all atheists value. Of course it is.

Let me rephrase then: "It is not just a blanket statement, as in a platitude, but something data overwhelmingly supports."

Specifically?

A plethora. Compilations of data show that Christians out-give all others 7 X's over and exponentially beyond atheists who give the least of any group. Use this to go back to 'what atheists think' (and do). You don't need to take facts as attacks, but rather own them as 'facts.' (sorry for the scare-quoting again, means nothing but emphasis).

That's a convenient preemptive excuse to refuse a request I wasn't going to make while also covering your keister.

Well, understand at that point I was asking myself if I really care about you, and I do. I was just thinking what I 'can' do with my funds and you are correct it is a bit out of line with the OP, but if you really think about it a bit longer, it actually runs along the undercurrents of its concern: How we value and treat other human beings. I think "first do no harm, then do as you will" doesn't live up to the golden rule.

I'm a little unclear what exactly you're suggesting. Are you saying that if I was going to ask you for money, you'll give me the address of gofundme.com so that I can set up a campaign of my own? Or you'll point me to your friend's gofundme page so that I can somehow be shamed by the generosity of other people? And in what way is this relevant to the topic?

It is more about a friend with a sincere need and my own desire/need to do whatever I can to help.
Recent events, current events have community and genuine concern on my mind. I think yet, one of the more sincere expressions of Christianity that convinces any that God exists, is a genuine love. In that, and after seeing to Steve among other great needs, I'm sincere in giving resources. So yeah, if you have a need, let me know. I'm trying to be that kind of guy, love is the answer to almost all of the mess in the world. -Lon