Quote:Where did "kill them all and let god sort it out" come from?

A.  Arnaud Amalric, Abbot of Citeaux, at the massacre of Beziers....  you know, one of those non-crimes that catholic fucktards think was inspired by atheists!

(January 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm)AceBoogie Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 12:29 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I agree with all of this but am always dumbfounded by the sense of entitlement the part I bolded represents.  It is as if there was some general agreement that everything in the world should be comprehensible to our species.  The universe owes us answers so where attempts to actually discover what they are fall short assuming whatever you like becomes reasonable.  Well, it isn't reasonable to reasonable people.

That's the interesting thing... That's religion.... isn't it? Humans, and the human experience, is above all else except for god, of course... right? I mean god created us... We are his children, so we are clearly very important, are we not?

To then find out that the universe is indifferent to us is more than likely earth shattering for many theists.

Apparently we're His special, His precious.  We should be, the brains of believers is the only place He exists.

(January 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Pulse Wrote: Well if we want to look at the moral argument, when people blame religion for bombings and wars in general, they seem to ignore the tragic history of the 20th century, which saw more deaths from acts of violence and oppression than all previous centuries put together. These were systematically inflicted on millions of people by their own governments. Names like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have become infamous, all atheists. So to say that atheism is this harmless belief system, is very flawed indeed.

No one wants to ignore the tragic history of the 20th century, don't be absurd.

But  - just limiting it to Christianity - can you excuse the horrors of the first nineteen centuries?  Leaving aside violence, Christianity is first and foremost responsible for inculcating feelings of guilt and despondency in people who 'sin'.  The adolescent boy who rubs one out and is told Jesus hates him for it.  The newly pubescent girl who is told that her menstrual cycle - something over which she has absolutely no control - makes her 'unclean', not fit to be around other people.  The woman who is married to an absolute beast of a man, and is told that it is her 'Christian duty' to meekly accept his beatings and a baby a year until she dies.  'Sin' made thought instead of action.  Gay men and women who are told that they'll never get to Heaven for behaving in a manner God created for them to behave.

How many lives have been ruined or self-ended by the horrific guilt Christianity piles on people - no matter how good they are, they are never quite good enough.  Raise a happy healthy and loving family?  Doesn't matter, you're still a sinner.  Give of your time and money to a soup kitchen, or take a foster child into your home?  Who cares?  You're still a sinner.

True story: In Belfast, I used to volunteer at a children's burn ward.  A couple of days every week, for several years, I'd come in to sing and play for the kids, tell them jokes and funny stories - just to take their minds off of what they were going through and the pain they were in.  At one point, the hospital chaplain (a Presbyterian) tried to have me barred from the ward because he didn't want a hell-bound sinner 'corrupting' the children. The hospital admin and the parents made a great show of support for me and the minister backed down.  Not a worry, I'm a big boy and could have dealt with him on my own.  But the worst part was that the kiddies got wind of it.  On one of my visits during the dust-up, one of the little 'uns kept saying over and over to me, 'Promise you won't leave, promise you won't leave.' Needless pain inflicted on a little boy - who was already dealing with more than his share -, all because of a cloth headed minister who would rather have left children in unrelenting misery than have them exposed to someone who wasn't a Christian.

How many more like that, Pulse?  How many people have been subjected to that kind of emotional trauma to satisfy the bigoted, narrow-minded despotism of the Christian faith?  50 millions?  500 millions?

You people have a lot of goddamed gall blaming atheists for human misery.

Boru

It's utterly absurd that Christians try to point to a few decades under communism to excuse centuries of Christian sanctioned bloodshed. The Spanish Conquistador. The Inquisition. The Crusades. Slavery. Witch hunts from the 15th to the 18th century, Martin Luther's international campaign against the Jews that made the Nazis look like a rerun.

If you are going to point to the 20th century then you must include the Church sanctioned Nazis all the women who died needlessly because the Church had the power to make abortion against the law. priest raping young boys.

This, of course, is beside the point. If every atheist on this planet went out and started killing and robbing and raping, that still would not prove the existence of god. So pointing to Stalin is a moot point.

(January 18, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Pulse Wrote: Anyway, back to my original post, why do so many of you who are atheists, disbelieve R. Dawkins who said good and evil 

don't even exist, are you dissenting from this "great" atheist thinker??? Why is killing wrong for an atheist in view of the 

teaching of the "greatest apostle of Atheism" in our time??? If you just say "Good and evil are constructs in our minds we choose to follow, even though they don't objectively

exist"; isn't that living a delusion???

I don't care what Dawkins says about atheism. I agree with some things he says, and not with others.

There is no such thing as an 'atheist apostle'. And certainly, Dawkins would not be it, if there were such a thing.

People act in 'good' and/or 'evil' ways, but evil or good do not exist as a force. If people did not exist, evil and good would not exist.



We all live in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws, with the same (more or less) physical bodies.

My well being is extremely important to me. I prefer: life over death, health over disease, freedom over slavery, comfort over torture, etc.

From that, I can easily extrapolate that the vast majority of my fellow humans want the same for their own lives.

Since I don't want to live in a society were my well being is threatened or compromised, I will not threaten of compromise other's well being. And I want laws in place that will assist in this outcome.

There, the basis for a moral system, no gods required.

(January 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Nice cherry pick, one nut job.

Ok, tit for tat, Jim Jones. Not a war, just mad with christian religious power. Think he had a higher body count. 

Or Marshall Applewhite. The next messiah, jesus 2.0.

Let's face it, more twisted deaths can be attributed to religious followings (not acting against, using) than atheist. Where did "kill them all and let god sort it out" come from? 

And Dawkins, where/when did he say that? Are you taking things out of context (again) from River out of Eden, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." He was not speaking about humans or human society. But I'm willing to let you take another swing at it and tell me where your Dawkins reference comes from. 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

BTW, Dawkins, not an apostle to me. But even if he was considered one, I as an atheist, am allowed to disagree. Something tells me that you are not allowed to disagree with the "true" apostles for fear of ever lasting punishment.

You make it sound like humans and human society are not part of the Universe.

And from my research on Jones, I couldn't find any religious affiliation for him accept that he saw himself as a communist, which has been the antithesis of any religion; "Jones purported to establish Jonestown as a benevolent model communist community stating, "I believe we're the purest communists there are." In that regard, like the restrictive emigration policies of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and other communist states, Jones did not permit members to leave Jonestown.

So now that everyone has finished dispelling your latest batch of straw men, are you ready to have a real discussion? Or should we ready ourselves for more straw men?

(January 18, 2017 at 9:01 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Pulse Wrote: Anyway, back to my original post, why do so many of you who are atheists, disbelieve R. Dawkins who said good and evil 

don't even exist, are you dissenting from this "great" atheist thinker??? Why is killing wrong for an atheist in view of the 

teaching of the "greatest apostle of Atheism" in our time??? If you just say "Good and evil are constructs in our minds we choose to follow, even though they don't objectively

exist"; isn't that living a delusion???

I don't care what Dawkins says about atheism. I agree with some things he says, and not with others.

There is no such thing as an 'atheist apostle'. And certainly, Dawkins would not be it, if there were such a thing.

People act in 'good' and/or 'evil' ways, but evil or good do not exist as a force. If people did not exist, evil and good would not exist.



We all live in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws, with the same (more or less) physical bodies.

My well being is extremely important to me. I prefer: life over death, health over disease, freedom over slavery, comfort over torture, etc.

From that, I can easily extrapolate that the vast majority of my fellow humans want the same for their own lives.

Since I don't want to live in a society were my well being is threatened or compromised, I will not threaten of compromise other's well being. And I want laws in place that will assist in this outcome.

There, the basis for a moral system, no gods required.

That's because we have laws in this world that are mostly based on the Ten Commandments which are reflected in most religions and we thus no longer act like barbarians.

"There, the basis for a moral system, no gods required."  I would think Mao would beg to differ with your moral system, if you lived under his rule. I don't think your logic would convince him to spare you from his policies;

Why would he be wrong and you right? All just a matter of opinion manufactured by our brains which are the result of random meaningless processes in a random meaningless Universe?

Maybe in the course of throwing out every apologist argument we've heard umpteen times before he'll break down and have an awakening of faith in mankind and doubt the malarky the bible pitches.


Hey, I said maybe. If an algorithm can figure out how to win in checkers maybe even someone who has been wired to see and promote god will learn.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm)Pulse Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Nice cherry pick, one nut job.

Ok, tit for tat, Jim Jones. Not a war, just mad with christian religious power. Think he had a higher body count. 

Or Marshall Applewhite. The next messiah, jesus 2.0.

Let's face it, more twisted deaths can be attributed to religious followings (not acting against, using) than atheist. Where did "kill them all and let god sort it out" come from? 

And Dawkins, where/when did he say that? Are you taking things out of context (again) from River out of Eden, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." He was not speaking about humans or human society. But I'm willing to let you take another swing at it and tell me where your Dawkins reference comes from. 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

BTW, Dawkins, not an apostle to me. But even if he was considered one, I as an atheist, am allowed to disagree. Something tells me that you are not allowed to disagree with the "true" apostles for fear of ever lasting punishment.

You make it sound like humans and human society are not part of the Universe.

And from my research on Jones, I couldn't find any religious affiliation for him accept that he saw himself as a communist, which has been the antithesis of any religion; "Jones purported to establish Jonestown as a benevolent model communist community stating, "I believe we're the purest communists there are." In that regard, like the restrictive emigration policies of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and other communist states, Jones did not permit members to leave Jonestown.

Straight from wiki, good job. But let's read the whole thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones#..._operation

Yep, no religion there.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:13 pm)Pulse Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:01 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I don't care what Dawkins says about atheism. I agree with some things he says, and not with others.

There is no such thing as an 'atheist apostle'. And certainly, Dawkins would not be it, if there were such a thing.

People act in 'good' and/or 'evil' ways, but evil or good do not exist as a force. If people did not exist, evil and good would not exist.



We all live in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws, with the same (more or less) physical bodies.

My well being is extremely important to me. I prefer: life over death, health over disease, freedom over slavery, comfort over torture, etc.

From that, I can easily extrapolate that the vast majority of my fellow humans want the same for their own lives.

Since I don't want to live in a society were my well being is threatened or compromised, I will not threaten of compromise other's well being. And I want laws in place that will assist in this outcome.

There, the basis for a moral system, no gods required.

That's because we have laws in this world that are mostly based on the Ten Commandments which are reflected in most religions and we thus no longer act like barbarians.

"There, the basis for a moral system, no gods required."  I would think Mao would beg to differ with your moral system, if you lived under his rule. I don't think your logic would convince him to spare you from his policies;

Why would he be wrong and you right? All just a matter of opinion manufactured by our brains which are the result of random meaningless processes in a random meaningless Universe?

Sorry to inform you, but laws against murder, theft, a perjury far predate the 10 Commandments.

But then, Mao's totalitarian rule was not based on the secular moral system that I outlined. So his rule was not moral.

He was wrong because his system was not optimised for the well being of his people.

You know how you can tell his rule was immoral? Ask the people under his repressive rule.