atheists
Awww Teddy
about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
suspect thinking for what it is.
I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory. What
does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical" conclusion?
Some people in this century who are smarter than you, more ambitious than you
and more "logical" than you in the age of "reason" have taken this concept to
it's "logical" conclusion.
People who have justified their policies with "science will demolish religion"
are:
Hitler, (one of your favorites used to dismiss Christianity) who killed
millions without a conscience and who was an atheist. God would have cramped
his style;
Stalin, who believed in the "state" could justify his mass murder who made
Hitler look like an amateur. He starved tens of millions in the Ukraine and
killed many more in other ways. He also promoted the notion of "science will
destroy religion" as the way to utopia (in a sea of blood);
Mao, who fits in here also makes Hitler look like an amateur considering the
number he killed and his proteges are still at it in Tibet and in their own
country with mass executions of many for merely be an individual. Communists
believe that "science will demolish religion" in the name of the Party, that is
Communists. Atheists all;
Castro, keeping his people murderous enslaved in the name of the atheist C.
party. He believes that "science will demolish religion."
There are many more luminaries like these.
Atheism is a tool of evil people who justify anything (above) in the name of
"reason" and "logic."
More people died at the hands of Stalin alone (science will...) then died in
all the "religious" wars in the history of the world.
Beware (be aware) of the company you keep, it's not flattering.
Two and two can be put together to illuminate some uncomfortable facts about
the rest of the story.
Frank Wustner
> Sometimes a few simple inquiries can reveal more truth than you care to know
> about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
> suspect thinking for what it is.
On the other hand, unsupported assertions, like the rest of your
post, reveal more about the speaker than about the people being
spoken to.
> I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory.
You believe wrongly.
(snip remainder of garbage)
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, dusting it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than it | above and email me from there. |
|was worth." Baz Lehrman |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Prof. James E. Kalan
>millions without a conscience and who was an atheist. God would have
cramped
>his style;
Hitler was a Christian. God killed everybody who needed killing.
>
>Stalin, who believed in the "state" could justify his mass murder who made
>Hitler look like an amateur. He starved tens of millions in the Ukraine
and
>killed many more in other ways. He also promoted the notion of "science
will
>destroy religion" as the way to utopia (in a sea of blood);
Stalin was also a theist.
Theists, e.g., God Believers, donkeys, body parts, are not content to be
left alone. We are at our peace.
>Mao, who fits in here also makes Hitler look like an amateur considering
the
>number he killed and his proteges are still at it in Tibet and in their own
>country with mass executions of many for merely be an individual.
Communists
>believe that "science will demolish religion" in the name of the Party,
that is
>Communists. Atheists all;
Atheists don't struggle with anything. We don't raise banners,
>
>Castro, keeping his people murderous enslaved in the name of the atheist C.
>party. He believes that "science will demolish religion."
>
>There are many more luminaries like these.
>
>Atheism is a tool of evil people who justify anything (above) in the name
of
>"reason" and "logic."
>
>More people died at the hands of Stalin alone (science will...) then died
in
>all the "religious" wars in the history of the world.
>
>Beware (be aware) of the company you keep, it's not flattering.
>
>Two and two can be put together to illuminate some uncomfortable facts
about
>the rest of the story.
Christ was an athiest.
jim
Frank L.
awww...@aol.com123 (Awww Teddy) wrote:
> Sometimes a few simple inquiries can reveal more truth than you care to know
> about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
> suspect thinking for what it is.
>
> I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory. What
> does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical"
conclusion?
> Some people in this century who are smarter than you, more ambitious than you
> and more "logical" than you in the age of "reason" have taken this concept to
> it's "logical" conclusion.
>
> People who have justified their policies with "science will demolish religion"
> are:
>
> Hitler, (one of your favorites used to dismiss Christianity) who killed
> millions without a conscience and who was an atheist. God would have cramped
> his style;
...
Now, here is an example of a very efficient post. Rather than taking a
chance on wasting time and bandwidth with a tiresome dialogue, which would
end in the inevitable comparison to Hitler, the poster just _starts_ by
comparing you with Hitler. Right to the point. :-)
--
Frank
Electro821
>about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
>suspect thinking for what it is.
>
>I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory. What
>does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical"
>conclusion?
> Some people in this century who are smarter than you, more ambitious than
>you
>and more "logical" than you in the age of "reason" have taken this concept to
>it's "logical" conclusion.
>
>People who have justified their policies with "science will demolish
>religion"
>are:
>
>Hitler, (one of your favorites used to dismiss Christianity) who killed
>millions without a conscience and who was an atheist. God would have cramped
>his style;
>
>Hitler look like an amateur. He starved tens of millions in the Ukraine and
>killed many more in other ways. He also promoted the notion of "science will
>destroy religion" as the way to utopia (in a sea of blood);
>
>number he killed and his proteges are still at it in Tibet and in their own
>country with mass executions of many for merely be an individual. Communists
>believe that "science will demolish religion" in the name of the Party, that
>is
>Communists. Atheists all;
>
>party. He believes that "science will demolish religion."
>
>There are many more luminaries like these.
>
>Atheism is a tool of evil people who justify anything (above) in the name of
>"reason" and "logic."
>
>More people died at the hands of Stalin alone (science will...) then died in
>all the "religious" wars in the history of the world.
>
>Beware (be aware) of the company you keep, it's not flattering.
>
>Two and two can be put together to illuminate some uncomfortable facts about
>the rest of the story.
Theist here (Zen). You are attempting to make demons (of straw) to knock down.
We're not going to get anywhere comparing body counts. One could just as easily
count the slaughters of the various "convert or die" (or in the case of
extremely pious Spanish missionaries to Native American converts, convert AND
die so we can have your land while you're in "heaven") campaigns of various
religions of the world. We could go back and forth, back and forth and never,
ever raise a valid point.
Also, we could look at your "science will demolish religion" and see that the
nations of our world that tolerate religious expression are the same nations
with the highest level of scientific and technological achievement.
You should be careful in hunting strawmen, that you do not become one.
-Electro-
"If 2% of the world's population refused to fight, there could be no more war"
- A. Einstein
George Ricker
awww...@aol.com123 (Awww Teddy) apparently forget to take his medication
and began babbling incoherently:
> Sometimes a few simple inquiries can reveal more truth than you care to know
> about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
> suspect thinking for what it is.
Well ... we certainly won't have to worry about that here. There is
absolutely no evidence of "suspect" thinking ... or any other kind for
that matter.
> I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory. What
> does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical"
conclusion?
You believe wrongly. Just what in the pluperfect hell is the "science will
demolish religion" theory, anyway? Who developed it? Upon what does it
rest?
Science isn't concerned with demolishing religion. In fact, science isn't
concerned with religion at all. Science is concerned with attempting to
learn the true nature of the cosmos we inhabit. The impact those inquiries
may or may not have on a particular religion is relevant only to those who
follow that religion.
I won't even comment on your use of the word *logical* in this context.
It's such a beautiful parody in itself, there's really no need to say
more.
<SNIP> more babbling
Do you have any idea how many times this drivel ... or drivel very much
like it ... has been posted to these newsgroups? Do you have any idea how
many times and how thoroughly it has been refuted? Do you care at all
about honesty or intellectual integrity?
Never mind ... the post itself answers the last question.
--
George Ricker
"Theology is not what we know about God,
but what we do not know about Nature."
Robert G. Ingersoll - "Some Mistakes of Moses"
Roger Burks
potential for doing good. I am against extremists, however, who think
everyone should agree with them.
Roger Burks
roger...@usa.net
Awww Teddy wrote in message
<19990423185000...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>Sometimes a few simple inquiries can reveal more truth than you care to
know
>about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
>suspect thinking for what it is.
>
>I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory.
What
>does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical"
conclusion?
John Wheeler
>
> I agree that it is an error to be absolutely against a system that has
> potential for doing good. I am against extremists, however, who think
> everyone should agree with them.
>
> Roger Burks
> roger...@usa.net
Are you against extremists -- or just those extremists who think
everyone should agree with them?
B.T.W., the "mainstream" considers "atheists" "extremists."
Roger Burks
to violate the rights of others.
Roger Burks
roger...@usa.net
John Wheeler wrote in message <37237D17...@aol.com>...
STEPHEN HOFMEISTER
Awww Teddy wrote in message
<19990423185000...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>Sometimes a few simple inquiries can reveal more truth than you care to
know
>about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
>suspect thinking for what it is.
>
>I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory.
What
>does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical"
conclusion?
> Some people in this century who are smarter than you, more ambitious than
you
>and more "logical" than you in the age of "reason" have taken this concept
to
>it's "logical" conclusion.
Science itself has nothing against religion, religion has something against
it. Religion, in that respect, might end up destroying itself. Science's
purpose is not to disprove religion, it's to find out how our universe
works. Religion, on the other hand, deals more with the purpose of mankind,
it's future, it's past, and stuff like that. Sometimes completely ludicrous
theories get worked into religion, stuff like the Earth being flat. Science
has proven the Earth is round, yet some people still believe it is flat!
Religion has a problem with science, and declares itself absolute since it's
backed by some type of god. Now really, is that logical?
>
>People who have justified their policies with "science will demolish
religion"
>are:
>
>Hitler, (one of your favorites used to dismiss Christianity) who killed
>millions without a conscience and who was an atheist. God would have
cramped
>his style;
Here's a passage from Hitler's book "Mein Kampf":
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his
own denomination, of making people stop just
superficially talking of God's will, and actually fulfill God's
will, and not let God's word be desecrated.
"For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their abilities.
Anyone who destroyes His work is declaring war on the Lord's
creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be
active, each in his own denomination if you please, in his activity
by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religiuos community
and tries to butt into the other."
Here we can see Hitler did believe in God. Now, it's also possible that
Hitler was lying when he claimed to believe in God. We certainly can't
conclude that he's an atheist, though.
>Stalin, who believed in the "state" could justify his mass murder who made
>Hitler look like an amateur. He starved tens of millions in the Ukraine
and
>killed many more in other ways. He also promoted the notion of "science
will
>destroy religion" as the way to utopia (in a sea of blood);
If Stalin knew anything he would know that Utopia, as described by the Greek
philosopher Plato (correct me if I'm wrong on this), is impossible to
obtain. Since all people are different, we all can't be completely
satisfied with a government.
>
>Mao, who fits in here also makes Hitler look like an amateur considering
the
>number he killed and his proteges are still at it in Tibet and in their own
>country with mass executions of many for merely be an individual.
Communists
>believe that "science will demolish religion" in the name of the Party,
that is
>Communists. Atheists all;
Communism was invented by Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto he states
"religion is the opiate of the masses." Marx was an atheist, therefore many
people see fit that you must be an atheist to be a Communist, but this is
simply not true. I have actually met Christian Communists. It shouldn't be
all that surprising.
>
>Castro, keeping his people murderous enslaved in the name of the atheist C.
>party. He believes that "science will demolish religion."
Not likely, or else he probably wouldn't have greeted the Pope and legalized
religion (I heard on some news program when the Pope visited Cuba that
Castro repealed the religion laws. Again, correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>There are many more luminaries like these.
>
>Atheism is a tool of evil people who justify anything (above) in the name
of
>"reason" and "logic."
I could just as easily say Judaism/Christianity/Islam are tools of evil.
The Crusades, the Inquisition (the Inquisitors killed more Jews than Hitler.
About 14 million), all the wars and so-called "god-ordered" massacres of
many (assuming those Bible stories are even true). Religion justifies
things in the name of faith and God. Reason and logic can be misused, and
people are quick to call them misused whenever the logic disagrees with
their beliefs.
>
>More people died at the hands of Stalin alone (science will...) then died
in
>all the "religious" wars in the history of the world.
Sources?
>
>Beware (be aware) of the company you keep, it's not flattering.
>
>Two and two can be put together to illuminate some uncomfortable facts
about
>the rest of the story.
Just because Christianity has a bad history, it doesn't necessarly prove nor
disprove it's validity. The same goes for atheism. You bash atheists for
using Hitler as a bad Christian example, but you're quick to do the same to
us.
"I don't have a thing against fantasy, but to chase it down just don't make
sense to me."--Greg Graffin, lead singer of Bad Religion
Dei...@worldnet.att.net123
(remove the 123 for my real e-mail address)
Bateau
lubucrate:
<snip>
>Atheism is a tool of evil people who justify anything (above) in the name of
>"reason" and "logic."
>
>More people died at the hands of Stalin alone (science will...) then died in
>all the "religious" wars in the history of the world.
umm according to _Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem_
(H.Wollschläger, 1973) around 20 million people were killed in the crusades
up until the fall of Akkon in 1291
or how about the 30 years war? wasn't about 40% of Western Europe killed?
something like that.
"The island's population of about eight million people at the time of
Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before
the year 1496 was out." ""the Caribbean's millions of native people were
thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century" (_American
Holocaust_ D.Stannard)
but I doubt any of these events would have been stopped if there was no
christianity.
--
__(\___ _____ ___ __ _/) _ ' http://bateau.cjb.net '
|__)| o |_ _|/ -_)/ _` |~| | .' http://frv2.cjb.net '
|__)|_|_| |_| \___|\__,_|___|/ \
\ / /_ _\
ICQ UIN:11367619 \ \__/ |
Email:cdc at start.com.au`-.____/
"Give me a kid who knows nothing about sex, and you've given
me my next victim." - Child Molester.
"Almost without exception, every child I molested was lonely
and longing for attention." - Another one.
Peregrine
for example women being burned as "witches". The world would have also been
more scientifically advanced if Christianity hadn't set back scientific
exploration and advancement by about 1000 years or more. Religion is one
thing but Christianity is a destructive cult (although not so much today)
that covers its atrocities with lies about following the will of God.
Bateau <too...@u.aint.getting.it> wrote in message
news:37279c60...@news.iinet.net.au...
Roger Burks
that others must agree in order for one to feel good is a neurotic way of
thinking. Also, taking great effort to make others agree when they don't
want to an antisocial act, IMO. It implies a lack of respect for the
opinions of others.
Roger Burks
roger...@usa.net
Frank Wustner wrote in message ...
>Roger Burks wrote:
>
>> I am against those who want everyone to agree with them, and those who
want
>> to violate the rights of others.
>
>I can understand the bit about rights, but what's wrong with
>wanting everyone to agree with you, exactly?
>
>--
>The Deadly Nightshade
>http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
>
>|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
>|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
>|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
>|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
>|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
>|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
>|it's worth." Baz Lehrman |-----------------------------------|
>|-----------------------------------|
Roger Burks
>Roger Burks wrote:
>>
>> I am against those who want everyone to agree with them, and those who
want
>> to violate the rights of others.
>>
>> roger...@usa.net
>>
>
>So, Roger ... you want everyone to agree with you and be against those
>who want everyone to agree with them?
Oh, this is so typical of the intelligence I get in this group. Always on
the attack, huh? I don't care what you believe, so why do you care what I
believe?
>Isn't wanting others to be
>against those who want everyone to agree with them the same as wanting
>everyone to agree with you and be against those who want everyone to
>agree with them?
OK. Exactly when did I want others to be against anything? Never. That's
right.
>Sounds kind of contradictory.
Only because you put words in my mouth that I never said.
>Also sounds like
>violating the rights of others who would exercise their right to not
>agree with you.
Oh really? I don't think so. I have a right to an opinion. Let me know when
I violate someone's rights. Also, let me know when I require someone else to
agree with me. I think you don't know me, and you don't know what you are
talking about.
Roger Burks
roger...@usa.net
Frank Wustner
> Wanting everyone to agree with you is not in itself wrong, but a requirement
> that others must agree in order for one to feel good is a neurotic way of
> thinking. Also, taking great effort to make others agree when they don't
> want to an antisocial act, IMO. It implies a lack of respect for the
> opinions of others.
I suppose so. Maybe I hopped in to this discussion a bit late.
What's the context? What were you talking about before that
lead to the assertion?
Frank Wustner
> Jeremy Dexter wrote:
(snip)
> >Also sounds like
> >violating the rights of others who would exercise their right to not
> >agree with you.
> Oh really? I don't think so. I have a right to an opinion. Let me know when
> I violate someone's rights. Also, let me know when I require someone else to
> agree with me. I think you don't know me, and you don't know what you are
> talking about.
Ah. Jeremy again. Don't worry too much about him, Roger. I
recently walked logical circles around him over in a different
thread and the gist of his response was, "WAHHHHH!! You aren't
playing fair!!!" I think he killfiled me after that.
His modus operandi is to insult people and then justify it by
claiming that they started it, even though they didn't. Just
ignore him. Or better yet, killfile him like I have. He isn't
worth your time.
Roger Burks
>
>> Wanting everyone to agree with you is not in itself wrong, but a
requirement
>> that others must agree in order for one to feel good is a neurotic way of
>> thinking. Also, taking great effort to make others agree when they don't
>> want to an antisocial act, IMO. It implies a lack of respect for the
>> opinions of others.
>
>I suppose so. Maybe I hopped in to this discussion a bit late.
>What's the context? What were you talking about before that
>lead to the assertion?
>
>The Deadly Nightshade
>http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
>
>|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
>|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
>|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
>|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
>|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
>|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
>|it's worth." Baz Lehrman |-----------------------------------|
>|-----------------------------------|
This was my reply to the original message (with that message marked by the
>'s). My response must have angered the wacko section, because it started
all this stuff about me being bad for being against extremists:
I agree that it is an error to be absolutely against a system that has
potential for doing good. I am against extremists, however, who think
everyone should agree with them.
Roger Burks
roger...@usa.net
Awww Teddy wrote in message
<19990423185000...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>Sometimes a few simple inquiries can reveal more truth than you care to
know
>about because it puts you in some uncomfortable company and might reveal
>suspect thinking for what it is.
>
>I believe you subscribe to the "science will demolish religion" theory.
What
>does that kind of thinking lead to if it is taken to it's "logical"
conclusion?
> Some people in this century who are smarter than you, more ambitious than
you
>and more "logical" than you in the age of "reason" have taken this concept
to
>it's "logical" conclusion.
>
>People who have justified their policies with "science will demolish
religion"
>are:
>
>Hitler, (one of your favorites used to dismiss Christianity) who killed
>millions without a conscience and who was an atheist. God would have
cramped
>his style;
>
>Stalin, who believed in the "state" could justify his mass murder who made
>Hitler look like an amateur. He starved tens of millions in the Ukraine
and
>killed many more in other ways. He also promoted the notion of "science
will
>destroy religion" as the way to utopia (in a sea of blood);
>
>Mao, who fits in here also makes Hitler look like an amateur considering
the
>number he killed and his proteges are still at it in Tibet and in their own
>country with mass executions of many for merely be an individual.
Communists
>believe that "science will demolish religion" in the name of the Party,
that is
>Communists. Atheists all;
>
>Castro, keeping his people murderous enslaved in the name of the atheist C.
>party. He believes that "science will demolish religion."
>
>There are many more luminaries like these.
>
>Atheism is a tool of evil people who justify anything (above) in the name
of
>"reason" and "logic."
>
>More people died at the hands of Stalin alone (science will...) then died
in
>all the "religious" wars in the history of the world.
>
Frank Wustner
> This was my reply to the original message (with that message marked by the
> >'s). My response must have angered the wacko section, because it started
> all this stuff about me being bad for being against extremists:
> I agree that it is an error to be absolutely against a system that has
> potential for doing good. I am against extremists, however, who think
> everyone should agree with them.
(snip message)
Ah yes, that little gem. I remember it. It started by
blatantly misrepresenting atheism and went on its merrily
fallacious way from there.
In general, xians are perfectly decent people. But it is
sometimes difficult to remember that in light of the freaks
and wierdos that pop out of the wood work here on usenet.
Steven Wright
<pere...@attcanada.net> writes
>I think many things would never have happened if there was no Christianity,
>for example women being burned as "witches". The world would have also been
>more scientifically advanced if Christianity hadn't set back scientific
>exploration and advancement by about 1000 years or more. Religion is one
>thing but Christianity is a destructive cult (although not so much today)
>that covers its atrocities with lies about following the will of God.
>
>
The problem is that if it were not Xianity, it would surely have been something
else (not of course that that makes what happened any better or more
justified)
--
Steven Wright
"Attitudes are contagious"
#492