Bhaisn
9 years ago
Select your set...
anonymous
gilgamesh161
3000 d
This argument can also take the form of saying that atheism is not valid because of the actions of these few. The same people who will tell you that of course not all Roman Catholics are Genocidal1 Rapists2 Who love AIDS3 and Islam is a religion of peace while a select few kill a non-select many with suicide bombings and other forms of Jihad will often use this argument. It is not only wrong in its non-existent logic but usually uses examples of religious people claiming them to have been atheists. The argument is commonly spearheaded by Adolf Hitler, followed closely by Stalin and usually accompanied by Mao. Some debaters may offer a select variety including Poll pot, Kim Il Sung, his descendants and others. Although these people are clearly evil and deserve nothing but contempt and disgust, they are usually either not even atheists or had very clear other motives for spreading atheism than personal belief. Starting with Hitler, we have our finest example of the lack of fact-checking done by creationists using this argument. Adolf Hitler was a man working together with the Roman Catholic Church in order to exterminate the Jews. He was loved by the church for their shared anti-Semitism and was known to use God as a ready excuse for committing any atrocity. He referenced God, Jesus and indeed the Bible in his speeches and his book. He wanted to fight against atheists and spread Christianity to everyone in the lands he would conquer. Indeed the only leading Nazi ever excommunicated by the church, at the time or retrospectively was Joseph Goebbels, not because he lied to the masses and glorified industrial genocide and the war, but because he DARED to marry a divorced protestant woman, Magda Goebbels. This is a great example of the high standards of the Catholic Church. Stalin and Mao both clearly spread atheism for only one reason: they did not want anybody to be seen as above the leader. This is most definitely also the case with Poll Pot and the North Korean dilators. With the supernatural God out of the way, there would only be praise to the leader. This is most visible today in North Korea: it is a close resemblance of the totalitarian ideas of Christianity, now boasting a full trinity, North Koreans are forced to praise not only the current leader, Kim Jung Un but also his father, Kim Jug Il and his father, Kim Il Sung. The difference between Christianity and North Korea is two-fold: North Koreas authority is more superficial as they can, unlike God not identify thought-crime, although they are capable of punishing it. Secondly, as Christopher Hitchens said ”at least you can fuck die and leave North Korea” as with Christianity, dying is only the beginning, that’s where the fun really begins.
gilgamesh161
3000 d
Another difference between these people and the 9/11 Bombers is that nobody who I know of has ever claimed to kill “in the name of atheism” which would set it equal to killing “in the name of (say) Islam” which is usually warranted within the holy texts and simultaneously denied and condemned by the masses who claim belief in this religion. All holy books of Abrahamic religions deal with brutality, not because they examine all of human nature but because they are based on bronze-aged legends made by a tribe of goat-herders. This argument would be worthless if it was true that these people were doing what they were in the name of Atheism as Atheism is not a Religion. I personally find the comparison of saying that if Atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color and “off” is a TV Chanel. The latter of these is actually a good basis for expansion to prove the point: every channel has some sort of message and some sort of bias that it conveys, except for off; it the TV is off, you could be reading a book or writing a letter, you could be checking your E-Mails or playing sports. These are all other forms of entertainment that do not require a TV. This is a great way of simplifying the argument: as you could be doing a lot of things while the TV is off, you could be a Communist, Humanist, Materialist or Fascist while being an Atheist (although the latter is unlikely). Atheism is simply the answer to one question: “Do you believe in gods?”, even something as similar as Deism or Agnosticism answer different questions: “Do you think that God (Gods?) Intervene?” and “is there a God?”. Other that Theism, Atheism is the only answer to this question and as with Theism, atheism is not a world view as Christianity is. Atheism has no authorities or rules and can therefore not be blamed for what some alleged Atheists have done because it simply does not encompass the field in which atrocities such as Stalin’s mass killings and Hitler’s Genocide were committed. Still one can go further and say that even if Atheism could be blamed for the atrocities (which is impossible), it could not be said that it is invalid. Many evil and discomforting ideas are valid or indeed true. I will next tackle the argument that something is valid because it is great or comforting.
gilgamesh161
3000 d
This argument can also take the form of saying that atheism is not valid because of the actions of these few. The same people who will tell you that of course not all Roman Catholics are Genocidal1 Rapists2 Who love AIDS3 and Islam is a religion of peace while a select few kill a non-select many with suicide bombings and other forms of Jihad will often use this argument. It is not only wrong in its non-existent logic but usually uses examples of religious people claiming them to have been atheists. The argument is commonly spearheaded by Adolf Hitler, followed closely by Stalin and usually accompanied by Mao. Some debaters may offer a select variety including Poll pot, Kim Il Sung, his descendants and others. Although these people are clearly evil and deserve nothing but contempt and disgust, they are usually either not even atheists or had very clear other motives for spreading atheism than personal belief. Starting with Hitler, we have our finest example of the lack of fact-checking done by creationists using this argument. Adolf Hitler was a man working together with the Roman Catholic Church in order to exterminate the Jews. He was loved by the church for their shared anti-Semitism and was known to use God as a ready excuse for committing any atrocity. He referenced God, Jesus and indeed the Bible in his speeches and his book. He wanted to fight against atheists and spread Christianity to everyone in the lands he would conquer. Indeed the only leading Nazi ever excommunicated by the church, at the time or retrospectively was Joseph Goebbels, not because he lied to the masses and glorified industrial genocide and the war, but because he DARED to marry a divorced protestant woman, Magda Goebbels. This is a great example of the high standards of the Catholic Church. Stalin and Mao both clearly spread atheism for only one reason: they did not want anybody to be seen as above the leader. This is most definitely also the case with Poll Pot and the North Korean dilators. With the supernatural God out of the way, there would only be praise to the leader. This is most visible today in North Korea: it is a close resemblance of the totalitarian ideas of Christianity, now boasting a full trinity, North Koreans are forced to praise not only the current leader, Kim Jung Un but also his father, Kim Jug Il and his father, Kim Il Sung. The difference between Christianity and North Korea is two-fold: North Koreas authority is more superficial as they can, unlike God not identify thought-crime, although they are capable of punishing it. Secondly, as Christopher Hitchens said ”at least you can fuck die and leave North Korea” as with Christianity, dying is only the beginning, that’s where the fun really begins.
gilgamesh161
3000 d
Another difference between these people and the 9/11 Bombers is that nobody who I know of has ever claimed to kill “in the name of atheism” which would set it equal to killing “in the name of (say) Islam” which is usually warranted within the holy texts and simultaneously denied and condemned by the masses who claim belief in this religion. All holy books of Abrahamic religions deal with brutality, not because they examine all of human nature but because they are based on bronze-aged legends made by a tribe of goat-herders. This argument would be worthless if it was true that these people were doing what they were in the name of Atheism as Atheism is not a Religion. I personally find the comparison of saying that if Atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color and “off” is a TV Chanel. The latter of these is actually a good basis for expansion to prove the point: every channel has some sort of message and some sort of bias that it conveys, except for off; it the TV is off, you could be reading a book or writing a letter, you could be checking your E-Mails or playing sports. These are all other forms of entertainment that do not require a TV. This is a great way of simplifying the argument: as you could be doing a lot of things while the TV is off, you could be a Communist, Humanist, Materialist or Fascist while being an Atheist (although the latter is unlikely). Atheism is simply the answer to one question: “Do you believe in gods?”, even something as similar as Deism or Agnosticism answer different questions: “Do you think that God (Gods?) Intervene?” and “is there a God?”. Other that Theism, Atheism is the only answer to this question and as with Theism, atheism is not a world view as Christianity is. Atheism has no authorities or rules and can therefore not be blamed for what some alleged Atheists have done because it simply does not encompass the field in which atrocities such as Stalin’s mass killings and Hitler’s Genocide were committed. Still one can go further and say that even if Atheism could be blamed for the atrocities (which is impossible), it could not be said that it is invalid. Many evil and discomforting ideas are valid or indeed true. I will next tackle the argument that something is valid because it is great or comforting.
gilgamesh161
3000 d
This argument can also take the form of saying that atheism is not valid because of the actions of these few. The same people who will tell you that of course not all Roman Catholics are Genocidal1 Rapists2 Who love AIDS3 and Islam is a religion of peace while a select few kill a non-select many with suicide bombings and other forms of Jihad will often use this argument. It is not only wrong in its non-existent logic but usually uses examples of religious people claiming them to have been atheists. The argument is commonly spearheaded by Adolf Hitler, followed closely by Stalin and usually accompanied by Mao. Some debaters may offer a select variety including Poll pot, Kim Il Sung, his descendants and others. Although these people are clearly evil and deserve nothing but contempt and disgust, they are usually either not even atheists or had very clear other motives for spreading atheism than personal belief. Starting with Hitler, we have our finest example of the lack of fact-checking done by creationists using this argument. Adolf Hitler was a man working together with the Roman Catholic Church in order to exterminate the Jews. He was loved by the church for their shared anti-Semitism and was known to use God as a ready excuse for committing any atrocity. He referenced God, Jesus and indeed the Bible in his speeches and his book. He wanted to fight against atheists and spread Christianity to everyone in the lands he would conquer. Indeed the only leading Nazi ever excommunicated by the church, at the time or retrospectively was Joseph Goebbels, not because he lied to the masses and glorified industrial genocide and the war, but because he DARED to marry a divorced protestant woman, Magda Goebbels. This is a great example of the high standards of the Catholic Church. Stalin and Mao both clearly spread atheism for only one reason: they did not want anybody to be seen as above the leader. This is most definitely also the case with Poll Pot and the North Korean dilators. With the supernatural God out of the way, there would only be praise to the leader. This is most visible today in North Korea: it is a close resemblance of the totalitarian ideas of Christianity, now boasting a full trinity, North Koreans are forced to praise not only the current leader, Kim Jung Un but also his father, Kim Jug Il and his father, Kim Il Sung. The difference between Christianity and North Korea is two-fold: North Koreas authority is more superficial as they can, unlike God not identify thought-crime, although they are capable of punishing it. Secondly, as Christopher Hitchens said ”at least you can fuck die and leave North Korea” as with Christianity, dying is only the beginning, that’s where the fun really begins.
gilgamesh161
3000 d
Another difference between these people and the 9/11 Bombers is that nobody who I know of has ever claimed to kill “in the name of atheism” which would set it equal to killing “in the name of (say) Islam” which is usually warranted within the holy texts and simultaneously denied and condemned by the masses who claim belief in this religion. All holy books of Abrahamic religions deal with brutality, not because they examine all of human nature but because they are based on bronze-aged legends made by a tribe of goat-herders. This argument would be worthless if it was true that these people were doing what they were in the name of Atheism as Atheism is not a Religion. I personally find the comparison of saying that if Atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color and “off” is a TV Chanel. The latter of these is actually a good basis for expansion to prove the point: every channel has some sort of message and some sort of bias that it conveys, except for off; it the TV is off, you could be reading a book or writing a letter, you could be checking your E-Mails or playing sports. These are all other forms of entertainment that do not require a TV. This is a great way of simplifying the argument: as you could be doing a lot of things while the TV is off, you could be a Communist, Humanist, Materialist or Fascist while being an Atheist (although the latter is unlikely). Atheism is simply the answer to one question: “Do you believe in gods?”, even something as similar as Deism or Agnosticism answer different questions: “Do you think that God (Gods?) Intervene?” and “is there a God?”. Other that Theism, Atheism is the only answer to this question and as with Theism, atheism is not a world view as Christianity is. Atheism has no authorities or rules and can therefore not be blamed for what some alleged Atheists have done because it simply does not encompass the field in which atrocities such as Stalin’s mass killings and Hitler’s Genocide were committed. Still one can go further and say that even if Atheism could be blamed for the atrocities (which is impossible), it could not be said that it is invalid. Many evil and discomforting ideas are valid or indeed true. I will next tackle the argument that something is valid because it is great or comforting.
atheism, atheism is wrong and atheists are wrong
285.63 Kb
432 x 538 px.
report
All images remain property of their original owners.